Man I have been waiting for this video from you for *ages* and you didn't disappoint. Seriously like a year ago I left a comment asking about the spatha on your gladius video, back in the days when we were still getting to know one another. In fact it might have been the first comment I ever left on your videos. Ah, such innocent times, lol.
GStastny0 well I would agree in a cutting aspect plus in formation ya want your weapon shorter at least if it's a sword so you don't hit your companions but in a thrusting context I'd think that'd be less of a factor
Wrong, the gladius is formidable in both combat situation. The shield cover your intentions with a gladius, spatha is the Barbaric weapon and real Romans don't like it
Roman soldier: It's not working anymore. We're ditching the gladius in favour of this sword. Lower ranking Roman soldier: This is madness! Roman soldier: Madness? THIS. IS. SPATHAAA!!!
Rome started seeing the effect of having light cavalry on the flanks and when training cavalry it was found that the use of the gladius forced the legionnaire to overextend themselves while on horse back. The Spatha gave them the extra reach required and considering that cavalry formations tend to have a bit more room between ranks this gave them the additional room to effectively use the spatha.
thats the opposite of what i usually hear with carbon percentages. its usually high carbon at the edges for edge retention and low carbon at the core to absorb shock without breaking
@austin thekkanath He didn't make any mistake. Gladiuses are like that. Go read the wiki if you don't trust he's right. The main point here is that the percentages are like this because it is a relatively short weapon and the odds of shattering are lower, however the core MUST keep its shape and not bend easily because that way thrusting with it would impact more force. Edges are soft steel since they're easier to sharpen like that. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladius "A central core of the sword contained the highest: 0.15-0.25% carbon. On its edges were placed four strips of low-carbon steel, 0.05-0.07%, and the whole thing was welded together by forging on the pattern of hammer blows."
He did make a mistake. Low carbon steel cannot retain an edge, and that edge would not survive a single battle. Low carbon steel would get dents and deep gouges from simply hitting enemy shields. Do you think a professional soldier would want a sword that cannot cut after a few minutes of fighting, and that you are unable to bring back to working order? Plus the fact that he did not bother to address the many comments on the issue. If he were right he would have made sure everyone got it right. His silence says it all. "Edges are soft steel since they're easier to sharpen like that." Yeah, you have never worked with steel, i see. The properties that make it easier to sharpen also make it a piece of crap weapon. Any impact on the edge will leave a huge gouge that you then have to file out, eating away at the thickness of the blade with every resharpening. After a few battles you are left with a knife, not a sword! Come on, people, think!! He was wrong.
@@Biden_is_demented I think its worse to have a bent sword than an slightly un-sharp sword. Also look at the edge of the gladius in the video, it's filled with dents. High steel would shatter in the edge, soft steel just moves.
@@dr.zither No, he is not. And neither are you. If you knew anything about forging metal, you would know that. The reason why that article claims the core to have the most carbon is due to the forging process. The romans were very good at steel forging, but not even they could prevent carbon loss happening at the forging process. Read about it. Mild steel does not retain an edge, and the blade would bend on impact. Stop perpetuating a myth.
The gladius makes sense because they they fought in tight ranks with shields, they basically stabbed between the shields while the shields offered protection
@@majungasaurusaaaa Romans didn't use one single type of formation. In any era, they could lock their shields for protection, and in every era, the primary tactic was to thrust with their swords, whether longer or shorter.
@@histguy101 You can't lock a recurved scutum. This shield makes a tight shield wall impossible. There is no evidence of thrusting being the primary mode of attack over cutting either. Vegetius stressed that troops have to remember to thrust. You only do that with a weapon that is very well suited to cutting. No one needs reminding to thrust with a spear.
@@majungasaurusaaaa Creating a shield wall was done in all eras with all types of shields, both by the Romans and their enemies. Were they supposed to just stand there staring at the sky as missiles rained down them? Also, the primary weapon of heavy Roman infantry from the middle Republic until the fall of the west was the sword, and it's primary function was as a thrusting sword. This is what we see in all the artwork, sources like Ammianus, and the archeological record(such as all the pointed late Roman swords that have been found, in addition to the rounded cavalry swords). Other weapons like spears, throwing spears, and javelins were also used in all eras.
@@histguy101 Yes, standing next to each other is a shield wall. However, a tight overlapping shield phalanx is not something the shock troops armed with the recurved scutum could do. The shape offered great protection when one fought in a looser formation 3 feet apart, giving space to swing swords. That's why they were phased out later as the role of heavy infantry became more and more defensive instead of delivering shock. The primary weapon of the shock troop was the heavy javelin. Sword was something they could carry to follow up the javelin volley as the size and weight of the javelin made carrying a proper thrusting spear impossible. It was a forced sacrifice rather than a choice. Without the javelin breaking formations, the sword was just a weak sidearm. These weren't "swordsmen" but rather "heavy shock javelin throwers". If their swords were meant to thrust only they would have been built to. But they weren't. Roman swords were broad, not tapering but instead widening/parallel with a balance far forward excellent for cutting. The greeks, accustomed to puncture wounds from spears and javelins, were horrified at romans hacking off arms at the shoulder. disemboweling and decapitating. A thrust only weapon would have a tapering blade with the balance far closer to the handle and pyramidal cross section for increased stiffness. Just because a sword had a pointed blade doesn't mean it's a thrust only sword. Majority of swords were of cut and thrust design. Roman sword drills we know of involve plenty of cutting moves. There are no ancient sources stating that swords were meant to be thrust only weapons.
I assumed the change was down to the massive influx of barbarian troops into the roman army in the late period. I find flavius Aetius one of the last great "Romans" an excellent representation of late Rome as he was as much a barbarian as he was roman. I wonder what the republican Rome would have thought of the late empire. Thank you for the lesson and your excellent content.
Just didn't have enough Italians to recruit from, the western empire got lazy, it was a full on nanny state, so the military had no choice but to recruit from nations that had less integrity, brilliantly tho the eastern roman empire figured out how to recruit foreigners effectively without losing integrity in the forces. The norse axemen were crucial in the stability of the Byzantine empire and prolonged it's life, because of how loyal they were to the emperor. The west just did not have money and the citizens of Italy got weak, they refused to fight, infact there are sources that described Roman citizens maiming themselves to avoid conscription.
Yeah but it meant Jack shit when they faced German troops in heavily wooded terrain where they couldn't keep line formation and had a giant shield which was difficult to swing the sword around.
If the problem was increased use of cavalry, wouldn't it have been more cost effective as well as more effective in combat to outfit troops with spears rather than with longer swords?
I'm aware that the sword was the side arm, but this video is putting forward that the spatha was adopted across the empire for use against cavalry. It's been my understanding that spears were far more effective against them, which the Romans already had on hand and were proficient at making. I don't understand why it would be worth compromising a considerable amount of effectiveness in combat in tight, close quarters formations, where the sword is more likely to be used, for extra reach against an opponent when you already have a more appropriate weapon. I'd imagine the main value of the spatha would arise if the Roman's ranks had already been broken and there existed more room among soldiers. For that matter, I also don't fully understand why the scutum would be abandoned. To me, a spatha and round shield would be more effective offensively, owing to lighter weight allowing fast travel and greater reach, proving effective among an enemy’s broken, retreating ranks. Defense often requires holding a position and preventing the unchecked advance of a threat. The scutum covers more surface area and would certainly be better against archers. I feel there must have been more significant changes in tactics and strategy than just cavalry. A breakdown in Roman discipline for example, reducing the effectiveness of their previous, tightly packed formations.
SirSpamCollector Roman formations weren't all that tightly packed, there was a meter between each soldier and then two meters between every line. It's better to have a sidearm that's good against both cavalry and infantry instead of one that's really good against infantry but bad against cavalry. Roman ranks would break very, very rarely, but you're right in saying that a spatha and an oval shield is much better in a personal defence context than a gladius and a scutum. Don't think about "offense" and "defense" in the way of a single engagement, think about it in the context of the way you conduct warfare. Late Roman warfare had a greater emphasis on skirmishing, scouting and many smaller engagements, and the spatha is a better weapon for that than the gladius. Your infantry isn't going to have anything to do with "the enemy's broken, retreating ranks", that's what your cavalry is for, and they were equipped with spathas already. There was never any breakdown in Roman discipline, the Late Roman Army was arguably a more capable fighting force than the early imperial and late republican armies. It was certainly just as effective and its soldiers were just as well-trained.
SirSpamCollector As well as that, an oval shield offers you roughly the same amount of protection as a scutum, is much lighter and easier to defend yourself with, and remember economic considerations as well. Late Roman armaments were made in state-owned factories, unlike the privately manufactured arms of the early empire, and the Late Roman Army was many times larger than the early imperial army. An oval-shaped shield or round shield shield could be equipped by any type of soldier, whereas a scutum is really only suitable for heavy infantry, so it's a much better investment.
It’s notable watching an older video how Raph’s english has changed! It was already excellent and confident to begin with, with just a couple of pronunciations out - which he no longer makes. You don’t notice things so much day to day. Great content, a pleasure to watch.
I don't think it's any accident that late Roman swords and shields come to more closely resemble migration era Norse and Saxon swords and shields. I believe the longer swords are more vital when you go from close order to VERY close order, where rounder shields overlap, you can no longer thrust between them. You need to go over the top, so you need a longer blade for reach.
@@meekmeads I don't think I'd want a spear and shield for a dual unless I had no training. Only two or three options for using it, which can all easily be countered if the other guy knows his stuff.
Caver Ramos Spatha is good for formations, broken formations, cavalry, and even close quarters. It's not too long, just right. lmao that's what she did.
A few things to point out. Gladius is functionally indistinguishable from other common period swords. Gladius 45-60 cm long 5-7cm wide sword. With cutting edge and point to thrust. Xiphos 50-60 cm long 5-7 cm wide, cutting edge and point to thrust. Kopis 45-65 cm long 5-7 cm wide cutting edge and point to thrust. Makhaira 50-65 cm long 5-8cm wide mainly for cutting from horseback but with point to thurst as well. (Xenophon as most other cavalry general recommends makhaira for cavalry because cutting is more useful for cavalry than the thrust centric Xiphos. ) I am not sure whether they were capable of making longer swords that are light and strong enough or not. But it is clear that they didn't make those.. Then in the 1st century AD and onward spatha appears in the Celtic cavalry auxiliaries. Where the extra 15-20cm length offers advantage for cavalry. At this point Rome puts more focus on cavalry because their adversaries ( Parthians Sasanian Goths Germans Huns) are more cavalry oriented. They also started to use longer swords. A Sasanian German or Hun sword can have 85-90cm blade. Most importantly more and more Roman legions were in from the provinces and they used more and more auxiliary troops. I believe infantry tactics were more focused on the use of spears and shield walls than the use of gladius which might required more reach than the gladius could provide. .
As a person who has reenacted both 100 AD roman empire and late roman empire I would rather use a spatha, but that might be because i just like longer swords in general
Not to my understanding, Shurima. I thought the katana was essentially hand-forged, and not a welded laminate of 2 distinctly different types of steel, as is being described.
It occurred to me in reading the comments that the CORE AND EDGE (one piece) would logically be high-carbon, with the cheaper, softer, more forgiving veneer welded to it. So the whole outside is the soft stuff, except for the edge, itself. That would protect the core, somewhat, I would think, but you'd still have the high-carbon edge as the only part of the core that's showing. My dunno.
If I was kitted out like a Roman legionary with the scutum, helmet, lorica and perhaps a manica, I think I'd lean towards the gladius because that protection would make it a lot easier to get up close. Without that same protective gear involved, then I'd probably favour the longer blade for reach to keep me further back from my opponent.
Rome had never forgotten mounted forces. In the late western Roman Empire _the money ran out_. I'm not sure why so many people seem determined not to see this but even the most casual examination of the coinage makes this glaringly obvious. They debased their coins to the point that their silver coins weren't decent copper slugs. The went from robust silver coins about the size of a silver quarter to something about as thick as card stock and made of God knows what and the supply of that was completely inadequate. Many troops didn't want to wear heavy armour. They actually threatened to revolt and the Imperitor gave in. When the gold and sliver ran out you quickly got infantry equipped with simple spears, shields and barbarian swords and that degraded to the point that the spearmen may not have even had body armour. In fact they were no more than a skirmish line by previous standards. What money in the Western Roman Empire had was being spent on mounted forces who were fairly well equipped when possible. With what passed for money I'm not sure how often that was possible. _They didn't have anything to make money out of._
That is correct. Also the standard of training decreased dramatically so keeping close formations and coordonation under pressure was becoming very difficult.
actually the eveidence sugests the number of barbarrians in the army stayed the same, the 'barbarisation' of the roman army was a myth and has been disproved. also the idea of unarmoured legions in the late empire is another myth that actualy goes against the vast majority of the evidence.
What are the evidence that disproved this? Because there are plenty of evidence to support it. For instance, Vegetius' book ("De re militari") is based just on this premise: he tried to present the traditional roman military drills and strategies as opposed to what he claimed to be an abysmal fall in discipline and tactics. He makes remarks about soldiers no longer wanting to wear heavy gear etc. Also, there were plenty of barbarians in the Roman army of the late empire; many famous generals were in fact "barbarians", some of them even got to be emperors (such as Severus Alexander, Maximinus Thrax etc.).
Most imperial roman soldiers never saw an open field battle. They just patrolled the border for 25 years. They fought against brigand bands and smaller raids. Asynchronous warfare was the daily reality. Formation almost never happened and small battles, even with 1 vs 1 combat became the rule. One reason why gladiators became more and more popular as instructor (doctor, campidoctor, ...) in the army In such a situation I take a round shield with a spear and a spatha every day over a heavy scutum and a short gladius. Because it is the much more versatile, effective and efficient equipment for this kind of job with this type of combat. I am not surprised, that the romans dropped the gladius and the scutum. I just wonder, why it took that long. PS: Of course this is just one reason. More cavalry armies amongst the enemies were already mentioned; also the change in battle tactics. I just like to add, that the portfolio or tasks a soldier usually had to perform changed dramatically. And so did his equipment.
Because the gladius and scutum is meant for arid southern Europe environments where you could maintain tight knit linear warfare. But such tactics were useless in mountainous, humid, and heavily wooded terrains; like in Germany. Terrain dictates everything
@@dab0331 Heavy infantry with scutum and gladius conquered mountainous Switzerland, Greece, Dacia, Anatolia, and forested Gaul. The very invention of early Roman legionary tactics were created to deal with the mountainous regions of Italia which wouldn't allow Greek Phalanx techniques. The tactics even worked in forested Germania for several centuries. You've essentially dismissed the entire history of the Late Republic& Imperial Roman Legion..
@@dab0331 Thats untrue. Tight rank formation warfare was the norm from the danes to the moorish. The new paradigm came withthe steppe peoples. Huns, Parthians, Seljuks the like.
Was going to comment about the pronunciation of "capable" but then 4:47 happened and I decided it's high time I subscribed to you. :-) I enjoy your videos for the information, but the humor is also very much appreciated! :-D
A reason for finding a gladius with high carbon core and low carbon edges is that it was over heated by the smith and some of the carbon was cooked off the thinner parts of the sword which are the edges.
That stood out for me too. The more carbon, the harder and more brittle the steel. I would have thought, if anything, harder steel would be preferred for edges rather than spine? What you say makes more sense to me.
Edi why do you think that? I'm not saying you're wrong, my own theory is rather the opposite and I'd like to know what your thinking on this subject is for comparison purposes. For what it's worth my thoughts on the subject: An Archer if forced into close proximity is not going to fight in a packed, armoured and shielded formation which is what the Gladius excels at. He's going to be using his sword for self defensce and try to fight in a looser formation. To use his Gladius he'd have to get within the killing radius of practically every other weapon out there save a dagger or knife, which means if his opponent is carrying a Spatha or Arming Sword, Spear, Axe or baisically anything he has to get past that and right up in their face likely without the benefit of armour or a shield. Spearmen realistically would want a backup weapon they can use at Spearish ranges. This depends on what kind of spear you're using. If you're using a 9foot spear (like we used to) or a Sarrissa clearly whatever you carry wont do the job, but if you're using a Hasta for example: if you loose or break your spear having a Gladius means you can not attack anyone around you and are forced to simply defend yourself until everyone around you is willing to close with the enemy (which is horrendously frustrating). With a Spatha sized weapon you have a better ability to attack across that gap. Where I agree with you is on economics: Archers are usually Archers because they can not afford to be Heavy Infantry (usually! is the key word). Chances are if you can't afford armour, shield, etc you can't afford a big backup weapon so for economic reasons yeah you probably would be limited to a Pugio or Gladius rather than a more expensive but more useful spatha.
dernwine Before I give my own thoughts on this matter, please consider what spearmen and archers traditionally carried (no restriction to era): Many carried only a dagger. Those that could afford a true secondary weapon and armour obviously bought one. Archers and crossbowmen AFAIK favoured short blades such as Bauernwehr, Grossmesser, falchion, shortsword. Halbardiers split into two categories: those that carried longswords and those that carried shortswords such as Katzbalger. Now my own take on it: A backup weapon is not meant to be the most intimidating weapon, but comfortable to carry and fast to deploy. If you ever tried to carry a sword and be it something more compact like a Katana, you'll surely notice that it's a pain in the arse as it keeps flapping against your leg, hit objects or get entangled in obstacles. You could also compare it with pistols in modern times. On paper it might make sense to carry a scoped rifle and a mp, but hardly anyone ever does this. If you got a polearm/spear and your enemy grabs it with one hand and tries to close in, you don't have the time to draw a full-sized sword and parry. Moreover, if someone gets too close, you don't want to use a long blade that can't be properly deployed . If you have to fight indoors (e.g. archer hiding in a house), you're far better off with a weapon, that doesn't protrude more than 50-60cm from your hand. Otherwise you're more than likely to hit the ceiling or wall. If you're a crossbowman and are able to sneak up to an enemy, you hardly want to backstab him with a longsword. A dagger is much more convenient and allows to stab at angles the other can't. Moreover, the enemy can't use his sword properly at such close range. A shortsword is a compromise between a dagger and a full-sized sword. It is still short enough to slit someones throat, but long enough to be decent at parrying and heavy enough to chop off limbs. Of course, if you can afford it, you can carry a poleaxe, longsword and a dagger. I rather have one good backup weapon and a decent armour than an entire collection of arms dangling from my belt. I wouldn't choose a gladius, but something similar with a D-guard. PS: against a heavy armoured opponent all these backup weapons are pretty useless. You could carry a mace, but it's questionable, if you could draw it in time.
When you're talking about carbon steel at 5:10 you have the ideal blade backwards. You want rigid high carbon on the edges with a low carbon flexible spine. A rigid high carbon spine would shatter on a hard strike or parry and a low carbon edge would never hold sharpness.
I'm a blacksmith. you want a high carbon steel for any good blade, but having good carbon in the core and edge will be good overall. without carbon in the edge, the blade will never hold an edge and dull quickly. if the blade is too hard, It will shatter on impact.
God yeah, that combination is terrible. Poor edge retention and a core that can't absorb impact as well. I guess not everything about Rome's tech was superior, eh
InfernosReaper it was superior compared to the iron and bronze used by the rest of the world at the time. The more advanced Smithing techniques weren't known to the world until a few centuries after the romans
The Gladius Hispanisis ( hope I spelled it right ) was yet another implement of war the Romans adopted from the Celts , the Celt-Iberians in this case . And once again with the things they adopted from the Celts like the Lorica Hamata & large Scutum , the Romans issued them to ALL Legionaries unlike the Celts who only wore armor if they were Noble & all seemed to carry sheilds of different sizes & shapes . The Romans ability to adopt what they saw as usefull & insure it was issued en masse gave the greatest of advantages to each legionary as well as insuring that they preformed superbly as a disciplined unit .TY for another great video Metatron as you always bring up all the good & practicle nuansed detail that would've been experienced by the soldiers of the ancient & medieval periods . Keep up the great work .
It took centuries for mail to become universal in the legions. I'm also puzzled that you consider the Celtiberians to be Celts, and give them credit for the Iberian sword (a Celtic feature the Celtiberians retained from their mixed heritage was a long bladed, antenna-hilted sword).
Gladius Hispaniensis" It means "sword of the Spanish". It was also called the gladius "Hispanicus" which means "Spanish sword". Yes, they mean more or less the same thing, but grammatically they are different, hence the two different word endings. :)
You, my friend, you're a scientist. Facts, and facts only. I actually learned what i was trying to find out in this video. Very high quality lecture, have an upvote.
teddybeddy123 What's worse, people keep telling they were a completely different state from the classic Roman Empire instead of recognizing that the Empired survived until the late XV century.
Fulmen This is the main problem with people who don't study History in a deeper way but choose to remain with the textbooks: I mean, this empire remained with all the institutions as its western part as it was in the beginning an administrative division as the one Diocletian did before. However, the west fell with the dead of Julius Nepos (not in 476), and the eastern part continued. Also, you have to know that barbarians recognized the emperors in Constantinople as emperors of the romans and further studies can tell us that even arab muslims and turks called the "byzantines" romans. Finally, I try not to be so "smart" as this topic is still under study and further investigations and archeological studies are being made, the name 'Byzantine' was used for the first time until the XVI century by a german scholar, almost 100 years after the fall of Constantinople.
True, Byzantine Empire was a great empire, my favourite historical country btw. It is so sad that it started to decay and ceased to exist on the sad day, 29. may 1453. Of course, the Despotate of Morea and the Empire of Trebizond still remained (for a little time), but they lost their city and their emperor on 29th of May 1453. My favourite dynasty was the Komnenian dynasty.
He said "for personal use" and these equipment you mentioned are designed for fighting in formation. I don't think it would be helpful other than nostalgical reasons, and I would even argue how this actually contradicts Romantitus, roman way of living. I would say an oval shield, a spatha and Lorica Hamata would be my personal choice. Or Dacian falx since I assume that most of people I will fight will be trained in Roman shield wall formation. Other than this, a handgun would be my choice. I doubt Scutum could stop bullets.
Got a question for you Mr.Metatron. Why did the Romans go from their Classic Rectangular shield, back to the Oval shaped one later on? That rectangular Scutum seems like it would give better protection when fighting in a Formation.
Bird Monster Given the nature of warfare in the Late Empire you don't always necessarily want to fight in a close formation, there was an increased emphasis on skirmishing and scouting. It's also very hard to use a spatha or spear with one of the old rectangular shields, they're far too heavy. Also remember that 99% of the time you're not actually using your shield in a battle, so if you can afford to go smaller and lighter then you always do it, and in this case it was advantageous to do so.
Bird Monster After the army was reorganized into limitanei and comitatenses. there was a need to standardize equipment in order to facilitate easy replacement of equipment of soldiers from different parts of the empire. The oval shield was also lighter and cheaper than the rectangular shield. As the late roman army was more mobile lighter equipment was needed. Equipment was also cheaper due to the size of the late roman army. If I'm not wrong 500k strong compared to 200k during the early empire
BlacK40k I worded that quite poorly! I meant that 99% of the time you're not in battle and you're just lugging your shield around, so it's better to have it be lighter
the corners of the rectangular shields reduce visibility and can get caught on things. The late shield offered similar levels of protection without those disadvantages.
Man, you really had a thick British accent back in the day. Also, i like how every cut starts with you doing a little jumpscare. Bring back the jumpscares!
Nice! I would choose a spatha, because I believe the pro's of a gladius are more likely to take effect in A "closed formation" context, and I don't see an army standing beside me, do you? hahaha I'm still waiting for a video on "war standards" and their tactical/strategical purposes and disadvantages, though!
Dragon Dimosthenis I was referencing you saying the barbarians had axes thracian were just the first ones I could think of that I knew had swords. Also while they were relatively quickly defeated the thracians did stomp them at first until the Romans reinforced their armor
As a trained sword fighter ~Metatron~ just look at the length of your forearms to your upper arm - Of Course!~you're going to want to maximize your own bodies focal distance of leverage arm! Now i am built like Ip Man - where my forearm is longer than my upper arm (even worse, i have "treeclimber toe" so extended attachment point of tendon to shin of sprinter's). Where you will develop high amounts of torque in extremely tight arcs providing for shearing force - i can "whip" the tip of a longer sword on a longer spiral much easier than leveraging a tight arc!
Metatron, this video was superb! It's extremely thorough. That's why I love your videos! However, I was surprised that you did not mention that the "Gladius" was really a weapon of Celto-Iberian origin. The Romans adopted this sword after seeing how effective it was being used against them. You could do another video alone in how the Romans went to extremes in trying to figure out how these swords were being made because they could not duplicate the quality of the Spanish Gladius! They had to resort to treachery in order to learn how to fabricate these swords while maintaining the quality of the metal chemistry while mass producing these in quantity. Although, it was mainly a stabbing weapon; it was also extremely effective at slashing. It could slash Roman armor very effectively. There are many accounts of Roman helmets being split open. This sword was a great all around weapon!!!
Yep, Vikings and Saxons during the early middle ages used similar weapons like the gladious to fight in shield walls, the seax. (I know it looks different, but serves the same purpose: Stabbing in close quarters and formations)
Seax was a knife not a sword and were not used that way as it was both a utility tool and backup weapon. They used spears in shield formation. Seaxes were at most 15 inches long with most about a foot.
Considering that the Romans would throw pila shortly before contact, there was very little time and a lot of stress when drawing swords between pila throw and contact. To draw the sword from the opposite side while holding a scutum in front can result in accidentally cutting your own sheild-bearing arm. Longer swords, like the spatha, can only be effectively drawn from the opposite side. The short blade length of the gladius would make it easy to draw from the same side as the sword arm. At least, that's my best idea as to why the gladius would've been a better sword for infantry in tight formation.
I really enjoyed the content of this video, very informative and the organisation of the info was great. Your english is great and thoroughly enjoyed it. I'd just like to point out that some of your cuts are repetitive or very abrupt. Just found that slightly jarring in an otherwise excellent video. Thanks for the great content Metatron.
Okay this answered some questions I have had for ages! Thank you. You are an effective teacher. I will follow your site to see what else I might pick up.
I don't know if this is one of history's little mysteries or if anything is known about it but I've always wanted to know why they transitioned away from the iconic rectangular shield of the Republic/early Empire back to round/oval shields. P.S. If I had a shield - maybe Gladius. On its own - probably Spatha for the reach.
Blake Stone An oval shield is easier to use with a spatha and a spear which is what late Roman soldiers would have been equipped with. An increased emphasis on smaller engagements, skirmishes and cavalry means that you want a lighter shield, one that's better for personal protection, and one that's more cost effective, since skirmishers, light infantry, heavy infantry and cavalry could all use one.
As Metatron said the Empire went from Offensive to defensive and as Ryan has said here the battles were mostly skirmishes the troop sizes were also less in the Late Empire it was a big thing to have a army of about 30 Thousand men and the quality of the Roman Infantry also went down Drastically.
There is no evidence of infantry quality going down. The whole barbarization school of thought is pretty much outdated. Heavy infantry was the core of the late ancient romans and performed excellently.
Suyash Bhagwat We simply do not have any real evidence. Experts opinions remain opinions for now. We know that late roman infantry continued to fight well till the end of the western empire, winning most of their battles. The late roman military had a pretty good combat record.
You should also add some etymology in there. I'm curious to know what the word for sword is in the rest of the Romance languages. I know in Spanish it's: Espada coming from Spatha. What is it in Italian? :o
In spanish, a 'sable' is a curved sword. Similar to what you would call a sabre And 'espada' is kind of a general term for all swords. If your sword gets short enough at some point it becomes a 'daga' if its strait. I would guess that espada, espada, epee, and spada all come from spatha.
I love your old videos man, I wish you still had these view counts on all your new stuff. You're an amazing content creator. Also, Spatha, Burgh Caslte, Clipeus, Plumbata, and Lorica Hamata is my absolute favorite combo.
Beauty doesn't win fights though... A weapon is a tool and as such does not need to be beautiful. On the contrary, having it look ugly and menacing may have a desirable effect on your opponent as your weapon frightens him. Of course, if a weapon is decorated in a way that makes it appear menacing *and* beautiful, you have my support.
TheSchuetzeP If you have a beautiful sword it shows that you are rich. If you are rich then you are respected, powerful, and a lord who grew up training for battle(similar to knights). Consequently your enemies would fear you. It's also made with the best pattern welded blade available.
Thank you very much for that splendid history lesson, definitely not the kind of lesson i got in school about the romans, loved it keep up the good work. greeting from mexico.
Parthians and especially Huns made the Romans realize how deficient they were in cavalry. They never caught up, not even in Byzantine times (although they had the cataphract)
Scutum (even if smaller than the usual known one) and gladius would be the choice. Faster trust movements, more trust angles available, much much less telegraphed blows in comparison with a longer sword (ok, aside the skills, in big lines would be like fast karate punch vs haymaker-full swing punch), far more unpredictable...the possibility to hide the gladius point behind the shield etc. I believe the advantage or prefference of longer swords in middle age has as main reason the significant evolution of the armor, you could sacrifice a large amount of speed in favor of reach, because pretty much all surface of the body was well protected by armor. If i well remember, Titus Livius in History of Rome, book 10 describes an individual combat between a gaul, a very big guy, armed with oval shield and long sword, and a son of a tribune, armed with scutum and gladius. The fight last very short, and was just about blocking (or dodging, i don't remember exactly right now) the first blow of the gaul and closing the gap. Once that done, the young roman stabbed the gaul warrior at will. Another interresting episode in 14 AD, the first of Germanicus campaign beyond the Rhin, the germans tryed another ambush, but Germanicus prepared his army for it, they formed hollow squares and pinned the attackers in place, while the cavalry came from behind of the colunm split in 2 sides and struck. The germans routed and at that moment as nearly usual, the legionnaries stopped the attempt to chase them in the woods. Germanicus, on contrary, encouraged them and told that actually the conjonction scutum-gladius offer them a large advantage for individual combat in coffin space. While the germans have to handle long spears, swords or dh axes, difficult among tree-trunks and bushes, all the legionnaire has to do is to cover itself with the scutum, to close the gap and to stab in many different angles at will. On short....shield and sword combat....the gladius. Sword combat only....spatha. In absence of the shield, reach is deffinitively crucial.
Great info, i have always wondered about this as well. I would choose the Gladius. The reason is because the Spatha becomes unwieldy in close quarters.
Hi Metatron, Again thanks for the video, Regarding your view of the late Roman Army, especially it's strategy I would encourage to take a look at the wikipedia article: Late Roman Army. It's really well prepared and backed by many sources. Authors presents the views of some main scholars who worked on the subject and the main current theories on it. I must say I find the one that seemingly author represents to be most convincing: that the army still relied mostly on infantry, that there was no in-depth defense as a strategy and the large forces the late emperors kept at their side and deep in provinces were rather to deter usurpers. Why? Well.. read, after studying military history and especially late antiquity military for a while now (as a hobby) I find these arguments to be convincing and the article "won me over" especially from following "barbarisation theory". I'm still looking forward to read more about it though, especiallly about engagements of late Roman forces and how late Roman administration functioned under barbarian rule and the rule of popes, bishops in Italy and late 5th/6th century Gaul.
5:07 Are you sure you didn't get those mixed up ? Higher carbon % in the core and lower on the edges, would make the blade very stiff and less flexible, prone to breaking easily, while ensuring that edges chip very often. I believe the reverse is true, less carbon % in the core makes the steel more ductile, so sword is flexible and able to absorb blows and not snapping, while higher carbon on edge means a better edge retention. Or perhaps they really only wanted then to stab with the gladius, so then higher carbon in the core makes sense.
The Gladius would be a better defence weapon in close quarters. Also, it would most likely be more useful for defending in inclosed areas and in buildings.
This comment makes no sense... You do realize people are still killing as you read this right? Society has conditioned people to believe killing is bad but they condition soldiers to be efficient killing machines not unlike past civilizations; so you're probably blinded by the social construct that killing=savage. What's wrong with fighting with a sword anyways? That's like saying "Imagine fighting with a gun". Guns aren't any better then swords, some might argue it's worse. That and people back then didn't exactly have genocide inducing weapons. Humans have always been irrational and "savage". What is "savagery" anyways? If an enemy thinks somebodies "savage" does that mean their peers will think so? They might see it as bravery and honor... Besides that, in the early days of humanity you had to be "savage" to protect themselves from animals and "beasts" that could maul them to death... So again I don't see the point of that statement...
Depends if Im fighting alone or in a formation. If I'm alone, I see no choice but the spatha. If I'm in a formation with, say, 100 others, Id take the gladius.
@@liquidsonly I don't need to have been in any. I can analyze the pros and cons of each weapon in each scenario, then decide. Its simply my preference based on my own thoughts.
Very interesting info. Thanks for this. Personally, I think I would choose the Spatha, even though I like both. The reason being is that there was a version for cavalry, yes. However the Romans also made a version for ground warriors as well, with a pointed tip. This was in fact used for farther thrusting reach. A fun fact: The Spatha eventually evolved over the centuries in to the typical knightly sword used in the high middle ages in Europe.
The Romans always seemed to learn from their enemies. The xiphos became the gladius, from the Greeks. Lorica Hamatata was introduced by the Celts, who along with the Germanic tribes also used a longer sword. The pilum seems to have declined in popular use, and it appears that they began to use Western European style spears as well as adopting both the oblong shield of the Celts and the round shield of the Germanics. In one of the illustrations I noticed that the artist had depicted the grip side of the round shield. I found the dart rack to be a very interesting development.
I would have to say I would pick a Spatha, I'm used to using long blades in combat, I could adapt fairly quickly to the Gladius but I'd rather stay grounded.
@@KageNoTora74 that reminds me of that one Scholagladitoria video talking about how the low reach of the gladius made it a very poor choice of weapon, which fails to consider one key thing about reach: it comes with drawbacks too. *If* you can keep your distance, having greater reach is better, but if a strike misses, you may not get a second one before the gap is closed. When that happens, the advantage then goes to the person with the shorter weapon. While there are plenty of objectively bad sword designs, there truly is no ultimate one.
I believe a shift in focus was also a contributing factor. The early Roman army was an army of conquer, the soldiers and leaders and doctrine was always of attack. The Gladius is an offensive weapon, it is short so you must push forward to use it effectively and the entire force was trained in this method of warfare so the doctrine of constant attack created itself. The late Roman army was an almost purely defensive force and wanted the standoff distance offered by the spatha and this lent itself towards a doctrinal shift of defensiveness which I believe contributed much towards the downfall of the empire.
You're mixing different levels of thinking here. "how do I employ my weapons when I'm in the fight" has nothing to do with "should I choose to go fighting in that foreign country, or do I wait for my enemies"
It is true the Gladius has less reach than a Spatha, requiring you to get closer to the enemy, but they're still both swords and hence both close quarter melee weapons. It's not like a Spatha will keep an aggressive enemy at arm's length. Bear in mind that longer swords were used by the Gauls but this didn't stop the Romans either! You've also overlooked that the Gladius was used in conjunction with the Scutum "tower shield", which is clearly designed for defence over offence as it's large size covers most of the body but it's weight would make it difficult to charge/attack with or fight for an extended period of time. This rectangular shield was later replaced with an oval shape which was LESS protective but lighter, affording more mobility and which was also usable from horseback. This does appear to be a change motivated by a shift in focus, but not from offensive to defensive as you suggest. Also, if these changes were PRIMARILY motivated by a change in focus from offensive to defensive then we'd expect them to switch from using Pila (i.e. javelins) to pikes, because the former are thrown prior to charging while the latter are more effective at stabbing at an advancing enemy and also more useful versus cavalry. Interestingly, we don't see such a change in the later Roman army. Hence, rather than a single reason these changes were probably due to a combination of factors. There was a greater adoption of cavalry which meant issued equipment needed to be suitable for both foot soldiers and horsemen. Soldiers spent more time more time patrolling borders and skirmishing than they did invading and conquering, so there were fewer battles/campaigns which meant weapons needed to be more versatile (i.e. less specialised for battlefield usage and lengthy engagements) Also, the army was increasingly made up of auxiliaries (people from conquered nations absorbed into the empire) who weren't all raised and trained in the traditional Roman way of fighting but instead brought their own warrior culture and preferences with them.
The scutum is definitely an offensive weapon too, especially when you charge it is easy to give heavy check to your enemy. I totally agree with the original post.
And in the Late Empire you shouldn’t forget that the main weapons were mostly Spears and the Spatha was only a secondary weapon, which underlines the defensive character of the late Roman army.
Okay, I like the information in the video, you lay it all out in terms that are easy to understand. But I just wish you had some examples of the spatha you could show instead of just the gladius, and perhaps some info on why the rounded shield was adopted as well. In videos like these, props are good.
The gladius was perfect for fighting in close formations which gave the romans a numerical superiority in the actual battlefront over oponents who were not trained for close formation fighting. As they were used to sidesteps and swings they could not stand as close together as the romans. But fighting in such a formation needs lots of training and the citizen-legionairies of the early empire and the republic before had this amount of training. The spatha was also used in the republic by cavalry and auxiliaries who did not fight in tight formations. But in the late empire the citizen-legionairis got mostly replaced by barbarian mercenaries who were not fond of doing much training so formations could no longer be so tightly spaced and thats why the spatha became better suited for infantry. See Vegetius for seeing how much the legions had changed in the late empire.
Hi metatron. I'll take a leaf out of School of Gladitoria's book and cite "Context!" What shield do I get given with said sword? Round shield - spatha for sure. Scutum - Mainz gladius (I like a gladius with curves) ;-)
Wrong. The late imperial era saw the gradual proliferation of heavy armor amongst infantry, and the invention of heavy charge cavalry by the Parthians. Gladius and scutum infantry designrd specifically to defeat the macedonian style phalanx and light missile armies wereno longer adequate. Neither was the spatha really, but it was at least an attempt to solve a clear problem.
Now this is something I don't understand. Everything I know about knife fighting suggests that the pros always stab, not slash. Also should be considered that chain mail and such are very unlikely to be penetrated by a slash, the only chance you'd have would be a stab. So I don't get why in the later Roman period, when their enemies were becoming progressively better equipped (incl. armor), the Romans chose to switch to a slashing weapon. We're missing something in the historical record, I don't know what it is but the narrative doesn't make sense as it is now
This is why I have a gladius beside my bed for home defense purposes. It is the most effective weapon to have short of a firearm. It is perfect for the close quarters of my room and hallways and is superior to most home intruders weapons which predominately are daggers and blunt weapon objects and yes, I know how to use it properly. I also have a Roman shield beside my bed as well if need be. Thank you Metatron, you are awesome. I was waiting for you to say it and you did. CAVALRY. I think you along with Skallagrim are probably the most intelligent and informed guys on these subjects and I really love your videos. I too have done extensive studies on Rome and its military and finding another person who actually has done his homework and dispells alot of the nonsense out there is a wonderful thing. Love your work.
Metatron , you said in this video, that the core of sword is high carbon en the cutting edge low carbon , is it not the other way around. That the core is of low Corbon for the flexibility, and the cutting edge high percentage of carbon
It's all relative, in ancient times it would be common to forge weld edges of steel (which would have been high carbon crucible steel that was extremely expensive to produce) onto even higher carbon cast iron cores... not sure if that's the case here he didn't specify the carbon percentages we're talking about.
The gladius WORKED, the spatha did not. On that basis I lean towards the gladius. On the other hand, the gladius worked against poorly organized barbarian INFANTRY. By the middle Empire Rome was increasingly facing cavalry, so its traditional heavy infantry armies were obsolete. Rome needed cavalry, but was increasingly relying on BARBARIAN mercenary cavalry whose loyalties weren't to Rome, but to the generals who paid them. What Rome absolutely NEEDED to do was get back to the citizen-soldier concept, but with cavalry. Maybe have the State provide horses for the troops. But with cavalry you need the spatha to reach your opponent. Also, need to get with the Sarmatians or the Avars or whoever & figure out some stirrups.
I don't think they found it easy to switch from Infantry to Cavalry for cultural reasons. Rome was never a horse culture like say the Huns or Mongols who were "born on the saddle". Consequently, Romans didn't aspire to become Cavaliers, which is something that takes years of dedicated practice and is arguably more difficult, but also considerably more expensive, than training to become a foot soldier. Hence, lacking their own native horse culture, Rome instead opted to recruit Auxiliaries who already had the requisite skills and possibly even owned their own horse.
TheShreester well, the romans weren't a sea faring people either, and yet when in the punic wars they needed a navy they created one comparable to that of Carthage, wich at the time was probably the best in the Mediterranean.
ARX 351 There is a difference. Rome didn't have a naval tradition, but once they came into contact with Carthage, the creation of a navy clearly offered new opportunities and advantages. However, converting from an infantry based military to one that used a lot of cavalry would meet resistance from the established hierarchy. It required convincing a generation of Romans to switch from their traditional soldiering careers (with the respect and recognition associated with them) to train as cavaliers, in a role which was typically fulfilled by foreign auxiliaries. It's possible this wasn't a popular choice for native Romans until the late period of the Empire when the armies were made up mostly of auxiliaries.
it's way easier guys. horses need to eat a lot. In order to genetically modify them the oldfashioned way u'll need a lot of them. U'd ideally recruit them were their food is available in large quantities. And that'd be nowhere near italy. "However, converting from an Infantry based military to cavalry would meet resistance from the established hierarchy." Weren't the nobility fighting as equites? There is no evidence for bias against cavalry in the roman empire. They just didn't have the ressources to breed&maintain good enough horses. Instead of removing their weaknesses, they tried to enhance their strengths (high population, easy available ore nearby, generally very motivated citizens/soldiers with) and went for a good quality mass-army, mixing in the new trooptypes they had encountered in greece and gaul into an infantry army that would excell at nothing but be still good in every given situation and could be combined with anything without trouble (be it elephants, slingers, horsearchers, light-heavy cavalry, hoplites (...)), relying on numbers ( everyone's quite easy to replace) and their good morale.
Ok, lets try to explain a bit. 1. The Roman upper classes, similar to the Hellens preferred to go to war on horseback. The word to describe a part of the upper class was "equites" or knights. 2. The barbarization of the army is a bit over stated. The empire became non Romanized, the army was probably one of the part of the late Roman society that was competent. 3. There where two main considerations for the Roman army during this time a. German superconfederations and Parthians, b. Infighting and rebellions that plagued the Roman empire. All those things came thogether in what became the late Roman army.
I'd choose the gladius... assuming i had Imperial Roman armour and scutum, and a legion of legionaries around me in close formation. If i were in the middle of a more chaotic battlefield, wearing less armour, trying to keep the enemy at arm's length... i'd choose the spatha. I think the Romans had the same idea.
Eh, if you can keep people at that reach, sure, but if your opponent is aggressive and slips it, then the longer reach weapon will work against you. Pros and cons
Enjoyable video, I bought a Spatha to decorative purpose some years ago and often wondered I it was also used in both cavalry and infantry units. Thanks. Now I know
Great big problem right out of the gate. You are confusing the longer Spanish Gladius with the blade you had in your hand and they aren't the same thing. They also knew what the Spartans knew. A heavily armored infantryman can shove in against an opponent making it virtually impossible for a person with a longer weapon to weld their blade effectively. I own a spatha and if you are in my face my best option is to stab you in the foot and leg if they are exposed. They also had the nasty habit of stabbing the man fighting the guy to their right in the armpit when he lifted his arm to swing his sword. The metallurgy of found Roman swords has been checked. The Spanish Gladius was made of good steel. Most of the seriously short swords were actually pretty crappy. They'd still kill you. What replaced them was better made. He's missing the main point. Western Rome ran out of money. In the early days a day's pay for a solider was like a thick silver quarter. By the late Rome Empire it was a thin slug of who knows? Copper and something? Buying the best wasn't an option any more. The troops were ill trained, ill disciplined, and didn't even want to carry around all that heavy armor. They didn't want to close with the enemy. If you won't close with the enemy and you have a short sword it's just a matter of time until a barbarian with a long sword kills you so these skirmishers got long swords but they were nowhere near as combat effective as the heavy Roman legions of old. At best they were meat shields to delay the enemy while the mounted forces won or lost.
Later roman empire depended so much on levied people and they were not trained properly. It expanded so much that they couldnt go any further, so fully fledged professional legions were not needed anymore. They disbanded their elite infantry core and changed into Comitatenses, who were levied folk, ill trained and equipped. They used lower quality weapons because they were cheaper to produce and faster to make. And since the later infantry lacked professional legions training, they were not capable of fighting in closed up shield walls the way Caesar's Legions did. So they used something more advantageous in less trained hands, a longer sword. And lighter round shield.
Awesome but sad. I always hate thinking about the fall of such a great state and all the rapes that likely ensued when Rome was sacked then occupied by Barbarians.
Alaric and the Goths really didn't do much to the population and mostly just destroyed some public buildings and stole gold and valuables. There was some tortures, but it was a very tame sack by most standards. The Vandal sack has a story that pope Leo I convinced them to leave the people alone if they were aloud in, which the Vandals mostly honored, though there were stories of prisoners sold into slavery. Again, by comparison it was a tame sack.
TCC I don't know how much you know about this but while Rome did have some great achievements it committed horrible acts of its own since before it was even created and was already rotten to the core by the time it got finished off by the Germanic Tribes
Edgy Bastage Rome would have fallen even without Germanic tribes. It was Attila and the Slavs who finished the RE, which was already as you said rotten to the core: backstabbing generals, incompetent senators, too much auxiliaries troops... the Germanic Peoples won at the end of the party.
+Red Raven First off Atilla never actually won a pitched battle against the Romans with the only battle he ever fought he lost, the Huns mostly used scare tactics and mass pillaging of roman towns And to address edgy bastage the Romans are in a long list of civilizations that did horrible acts because what we think is horrible today was life back then
My theory of why Roman infantry changed to the longer spatha is because they were fighting babarians from what is now Germany. In the forests of Germany it was nearly impossible to fight in the old close formation. Roman troops fought in smaller units and often in single combat. If you fight in single combat you need reach. Hence the longer spatha is useful. In a tight formation, as you mentioned, there is danger that you may accidently stab your friends. So you need a shorter sword.
Man I have been waiting for this video from you for *ages* and you didn't disappoint. Seriously like a year ago I left a comment asking about the spatha on your gladius video, back in the days when we were still getting to know one another. In fact it might have been the first comment I ever left on your videos. Ah, such innocent times, lol.
Shadiversity why is it the shorter weapon is easier to stab with us it that you don't have to pull your arm back as far?
Shorter sword equals shorter movement equals more speed I guess.
Take off that goddamned blazer.
CarnalKid Why? Is it washing out the screen?
GStastny0 well I would agree in a cutting aspect plus in formation ya want your weapon shorter at least if it's a sword so you don't hit your companions but in a thrusting context I'd think that'd be less of a factor
Single combat : Spatha. no question!
Formation combat : Gladius. No question!
Wrong, the gladius is formidable in both combat situation. The shield cover your intentions with a gladius, spatha is the Barbaric weapon and real Romans don't like it
@@kakavdedatakavunuk8516 Late Roman Empire soldier mostly used Spatha there are no like or unlike for military technology it is adaptation.
*so you're saying Gladius*
It is most accurately decided by your enemy, their weaponry and tactics.
Gladius is better in both cases
I am gladius you made this video.
End my suffering.
Gladweus*
Brajany oh stop the PUNishment
I know how it is.I think of killing my self every day.
*stabs with a gladius*
Brajany *throws pummel*
Roman soldier: It's not working anymore. We're ditching the gladius in favour of this sword.
Lower ranking Roman soldier: This is madness!
Roman soldier: Madness? THIS. IS. SPATHAAA!!!
Calm down, Leonidus.
This is a funny joke, you should be proud of your creation
It was so good that at first I didn’t get it
That's very _clunny._
By which, I mean it's both clever and funny = clunny. Or should it be 'funver?'
This ain’t 300
The empire was on the defensive. The Gladius was the weapon of "I'm going to get you!" The long swords message was "Stay away from me!"
That is a really cool interpretation
No, just no.
You can not use a tactical situation to describe a strategical situation.
You just can’t, it’s comparing ants to elephants.
@@conangaming2156 Strategic doctrine determines tactics
@@bernieeod57 no, no it fucking doesn’t.
@@conangaming2156 When the strategy is defensive, tactical doctrine follows
Rome started seeing the effect of having light cavalry on the flanks and when training cavalry it was found that the use of the gladius forced the legionnaire to overextend themselves while on horse back. The Spatha gave them the extra reach required and considering that cavalry formations tend to have a bit more room between ranks this gave them the additional room to effectively use the spatha.
thats the opposite of what i usually hear with carbon percentages. its usually high carbon at the edges for edge retention and low carbon at the core to absorb shock without breaking
@austin thekkanath He didn't make any mistake. Gladiuses are like that. Go read the wiki if you don't trust he's right. The main point here is that the percentages are like this because it is a relatively short weapon and the odds of shattering are lower, however the core MUST keep its shape and not bend easily because that way thrusting with it would impact more force. Edges are soft steel since they're easier to sharpen like that.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladius
"A central core of the sword contained the highest: 0.15-0.25% carbon. On its edges were placed four strips of low-carbon steel, 0.05-0.07%, and the whole thing was welded together by forging on the pattern of hammer blows."
He did make a mistake. Low carbon steel cannot retain an edge, and that edge would not survive a single battle. Low carbon steel would get dents and deep gouges from simply hitting enemy shields. Do you think a professional soldier would want a sword that cannot cut after a few minutes of fighting, and that you are unable to bring back to working order? Plus the fact that he did not bother to address the many comments on the issue. If he were right he would have made sure everyone got it right. His silence says it all.
"Edges are soft steel since they're easier to sharpen like that."
Yeah, you have never worked with steel, i see. The properties that make it easier to sharpen also make it a piece of crap weapon. Any impact on the edge will leave a huge gouge that you then have to file out, eating away at the thickness of the blade with every resharpening. After a few battles you are left with a knife, not a sword! Come on, people, think!! He was wrong.
@@Biden_is_demented I think its worse to have a bent sword than an slightly un-sharp sword. Also look at the edge of the gladius in the video, it's filled with dents. High steel would shatter in the edge, soft steel just moves.
@@Biden_is_demented He's right: warfarehistorynetwork.com/2019/01/25/the-roman-gladius/
@@dr.zither No, he is not. And neither are you. If you knew anything about forging metal, you would know that. The reason why that article claims the core to have the most carbon is due to the forging process. The romans were very good at steel forging, but not even they could prevent carbon loss happening at the forging process. Read about it.
Mild steel does not retain an edge, and the blade would bend on impact. Stop perpetuating a myth.
The gladius makes sense because they they fought in tight ranks with shields, they basically stabbed between the shields while the shields offered protection
Except later on the romans fought in even tighter formations with overlapping shields. Their thrusting weapon of choice was the spear.
@@majungasaurusaaaa Romans didn't use one single type of formation. In any era, they could lock their shields for protection, and in every era, the primary tactic was to thrust with their swords, whether longer or shorter.
@@histguy101 You can't lock a recurved scutum. This shield makes a tight shield wall impossible. There is no evidence of thrusting being the primary mode of attack over cutting either. Vegetius stressed that troops have to remember to thrust. You only do that with a weapon that is very well suited to cutting. No one needs reminding to thrust with a spear.
@@majungasaurusaaaa Creating a shield wall was done in all eras with all types of shields, both by the Romans and their enemies. Were they supposed to just stand there staring at the sky as missiles rained down them?
Also, the primary weapon of heavy Roman infantry from the middle Republic until the fall of the west was the sword, and it's primary function was as a thrusting sword. This is what we see in all the artwork, sources like Ammianus, and the archeological record(such as all the pointed late Roman swords that have been found, in addition to the rounded cavalry swords).
Other weapons like spears, throwing spears, and javelins were also used in all eras.
@@histguy101 Yes, standing next to each other is a shield wall. However, a tight overlapping shield phalanx is not something the shock troops armed with the recurved scutum could do. The shape offered great protection when one fought in a looser formation 3 feet apart, giving space to swing swords. That's why they were phased out later as the role of heavy infantry became more and more defensive instead of delivering shock.
The primary weapon of the shock troop was the heavy javelin. Sword was something they could carry to follow up the javelin volley as the size and weight of the javelin made carrying a proper thrusting spear impossible. It was a forced sacrifice rather than a choice. Without the javelin breaking formations, the sword was just a weak sidearm. These weren't "swordsmen" but rather "heavy shock javelin throwers".
If their swords were meant to thrust only they would have been built to. But they weren't. Roman swords were broad, not tapering but instead widening/parallel with a balance far forward excellent for cutting. The greeks, accustomed to puncture wounds from spears and javelins, were horrified at romans hacking off arms at the shoulder. disemboweling and decapitating.
A thrust only weapon would have a tapering blade with the balance far closer to the handle and pyramidal cross section for increased stiffness. Just because a sword had a pointed blade doesn't mean it's a thrust only sword. Majority of swords were of cut and thrust design. Roman sword drills we know of involve plenty of cutting moves.
There are no ancient sources stating that swords were meant to be thrust only weapons.
I assumed the change was down to the massive influx of barbarian troops into the roman army in the late period. I find flavius Aetius one of the last great "Romans" an excellent representation of late Rome as he was as much a barbarian as he was roman.
I wonder what the republican Rome would have thought of the late empire.
Thank you for the lesson and your excellent content.
Probably the same thing 1980's Americans would have thought of 2200's America (upcoming).
Just didn't have enough Italians to recruit from, the western empire got lazy, it was a full on nanny state, so the military had no choice but to recruit from nations that had less integrity, brilliantly tho the eastern roman empire figured out how to recruit foreigners effectively without losing integrity in the forces. The norse axemen were crucial in the stability of the Byzantine empire and prolonged it's life, because of how loyal they were to the emperor.
The west just did not have money and the citizens of Italy got weak, they refused to fight, infact there are sources that described Roman citizens maiming themselves to avoid conscription.
As the Spartans said when asked why their swords were short. They responded that they were long enough to reach their enemies.
Nuff said.
Steve Hollahan *long enough to reach their hearts, that’s what they actually said to an Athenian soldier who asked why it was so small
Yeah but it meant Jack shit when they faced German troops in heavily wooded terrain where they couldn't keep line formation and had a giant shield which was difficult to swing the sword around.
As they say, "It may be small, madam, but it's big enough to fill a pram."
9600GTMAN they never lost, only evolve, and were extremily successful...
Spartans used spears primarily.
If the problem was increased use of cavalry, wouldn't it have been more cost effective as well as more effective in combat to outfit troops with spears rather than with longer swords?
SirSpamCollector Well, they were. Most late Roman troops has spears as well as their spatha and their darts.
SirSpamCollector your spear was your primary weapon sword second
I'm aware that the sword was the side arm, but this video is putting forward that the spatha was adopted across the empire for use against cavalry. It's been my understanding that spears were far more effective against them, which the Romans already had on hand and were proficient at making. I don't understand why it would be worth compromising a considerable amount of effectiveness in combat in tight, close quarters formations, where the sword is more likely to be used, for extra reach against an opponent when you already have a more appropriate weapon. I'd imagine the main value of the spatha would arise if the Roman's ranks had already been broken and there existed more room among soldiers.
For that matter, I also don't fully understand why the scutum would be abandoned. To me, a spatha and round shield would be more effective offensively, owing to lighter weight allowing fast travel and greater reach, proving effective among an enemy’s broken, retreating ranks. Defense often requires holding a position and preventing the unchecked advance of a threat. The scutum covers more surface area and would certainly be better against archers. I feel there must have been more significant changes in tactics and strategy than just cavalry. A breakdown in Roman discipline for example, reducing the effectiveness of their previous, tightly packed formations.
SirSpamCollector Roman formations weren't all that tightly packed, there was a meter between each soldier and then two meters between every line. It's better to have a sidearm that's good against both cavalry and infantry instead of one that's really good against infantry but bad against cavalry. Roman ranks would break very, very rarely, but you're right in saying that a spatha and an oval shield is much better in a personal defence context than a gladius and a scutum.
Don't think about "offense" and "defense" in the way of a single engagement, think about it in the context of the way you conduct warfare. Late Roman warfare had a greater emphasis on skirmishing, scouting and many smaller engagements, and the spatha is a better weapon for that than the gladius.
Your infantry isn't going to have anything to do with "the enemy's broken, retreating ranks", that's what your cavalry is for, and they were equipped with spathas already.
There was never any breakdown in Roman discipline, the Late Roman Army was arguably a more capable fighting force than the early imperial and late republican armies. It was certainly just as effective and its soldiers were just as well-trained.
SirSpamCollector As well as that, an oval shield offers you roughly the same amount of protection as a scutum, is much lighter and easier to defend yourself with, and remember economic considerations as well. Late Roman armaments were made in state-owned factories, unlike the privately manufactured arms of the early empire, and the Late Roman Army was many times larger than the early imperial army. An oval-shaped shield or round shield shield could be equipped by any type of soldier, whereas a scutum is really only suitable for heavy infantry, so it's a much better investment.
It’s notable watching an older video how Raph’s english has changed!
It was already excellent and confident to begin with, with just a couple of pronunciations out - which he no longer makes.
You don’t notice things so much day to day. Great content, a pleasure to watch.
I'd kill to see go pro footage from the helmet of a defending soldier as a whole century of legionnaires attacks!
If you haven't seen that, you haven't played "Rome Total War" !
Nuff said!
Calling all time travelers......
I don't think it's any accident that late Roman swords and shields come to more closely resemble migration era Norse and Saxon swords and shields. I believe the longer swords are more vital when you go from close order to VERY close order, where rounder shields overlap, you can no longer thrust between them. You need to go over the top, so you need a longer blade for reach.
I'd want a spatha if I was dealing with a 1 on 1 fight, gladius for formation battle.
I would want a spear as main, sword as side-arm and a dagger when the duel becomes extremely close-quarters.
@@meekmeads I don't think I'd want a spear and shield for a dual unless I had no training. Only two or three options for using it, which can all easily be countered if the other guy knows his stuff.
@@huntclanhunt9697 Why would you duel if, you don't know how to fight then? 😂🤣😂🤣
@@meekmeads stuck up noble challenges me.
@@huntclanhunt9697 According to Metatron, we all are, "Noble Ones"
0:51 I wouldn't want to mess with that Roman.
Cringus Maximus at his finest
I don't know he has no helmet, he has no shield, and he has no sword... seems like an easy target to me.
+你好 Don't be fooled. He's not wearing full gear because he doesn't need them. One finger of his equals a quarter of Roman Republic army.
Remember, you never see A roman. There's probably a few thousand more hiding the nearest bush.
+Janne Aalto
that's one hell of a bush
Its super hard, gladius if im in command of a unit that can fight in formation, spatha if i have to fight alone
Caver Ramos I'd go with the opposite
The Spatha isn't very good in formation.....
Caver Ramos I would agree, gladius for for foot soldiering, spatha if I'm on horseback.
Caver Ramos Spatha is good for formations, broken formations, cavalry, and even close quarters. It's not too long, just right. lmao that's what she did.
Tevo77777 Yeah it is, unless they don't have the pointed tip.
A few things to point out. Gladius is functionally indistinguishable from other common period swords.
Gladius 45-60 cm long 5-7cm wide sword. With cutting edge and point to thrust.
Xiphos 50-60 cm long 5-7 cm wide, cutting edge and point to thrust.
Kopis 45-65 cm long 5-7 cm wide cutting edge and point to thrust.
Makhaira 50-65 cm long 5-8cm wide mainly for cutting from horseback but with point to thurst as well. (Xenophon as most other cavalry general recommends makhaira for cavalry because cutting is more useful for cavalry than the thrust centric Xiphos. )
I am not sure whether they were capable of making longer swords that are light and strong enough or not. But it is clear that they didn't make those..
Then in the 1st century AD and onward spatha appears in the Celtic cavalry auxiliaries. Where the extra 15-20cm length offers advantage for cavalry. At this point Rome puts more focus on cavalry because their adversaries ( Parthians Sasanian Goths Germans Huns) are more cavalry oriented. They also started to use longer swords. A Sasanian German or Hun sword can have 85-90cm blade.
Most importantly more and more Roman legions were in from the provinces and they used more and more auxiliary troops. I believe infantry tactics were more focused on the use of spears and shield walls than the use of gladius which might required more reach than the gladius could provide. .
Adam Koncz vv. Mahaira,pronounsed mahera due to synairesis that happen during the Hellenistic period,earlymiddle ages
You summerized it much more efficiently to be honest
As a person who has reenacted both 100 AD roman empire and late roman empire I would rather use a spatha, but that might be because i just like longer swords in general
400 AD late Roman soldier
High carbon spine and low carbon edges? Are you sure you don't have that backwards?
Devin Stromgren ikr?btw it is a very similar procedures used to make japanese katana.
Not to my understanding, Shurima. I thought the katana was essentially hand-forged, and not a welded laminate of 2 distinctly different types of steel, as is being described.
It occurred to me in reading the comments that the CORE AND EDGE (one piece) would logically be high-carbon, with the cheaper, softer, more forgiving veneer welded to it. So the whole outside is the soft stuff, except for the edge, itself. That would protect the core, somewhat, I would think, but you'd still have the high-carbon edge as the only part of the core that's showing. My dunno.
@@harrymills2770 I was just comparing the technique of using core and the edge of the sword with different solidity.
Such technique is considered to be the essence of pattern-welding.
If I was kitted out like a Roman legionary with the scutum, helmet, lorica and perhaps a manica, I think I'd lean towards the gladius because that protection would make it a lot easier to get up close. Without that same protective gear involved, then I'd probably favour the longer blade for reach to keep me further back from my opponent.
Rome had never forgotten mounted forces. In the late western Roman Empire _the money ran out_. I'm not sure why so many people seem determined not to see this but even the most casual examination of the coinage makes this glaringly obvious. They debased their coins to the point that their silver coins weren't decent copper slugs. The went from robust silver coins about the size of a silver quarter to something about as thick as card stock and made of God knows what and the supply of that was completely inadequate.
Many troops didn't want to wear heavy armour. They actually threatened to revolt and the Imperitor gave in.
When the gold and sliver ran out you quickly got infantry equipped with simple spears, shields and barbarian swords and that degraded to the point that the spearmen may not have even had body armour. In fact they were no more than a skirmish line by previous standards.
What money in the Western Roman Empire had was being spent on mounted forces who were fairly well equipped when possible. With what passed for money I'm not sure how often that was possible. _They didn't have anything to make money out of._
In fact those whose served in the army were mostly barbarians.
That is correct. Also the standard of training decreased dramatically so keeping close formations and coordonation under pressure was becoming very difficult.
actually the eveidence sugests the number of barbarrians in the army stayed the same, the 'barbarisation' of the roman army was a myth and has been disproved. also the idea of unarmoured legions in the late empire is another myth that actualy goes against the vast majority of the evidence.
What are the evidence that disproved this? Because there are plenty of evidence to support it. For instance, Vegetius' book ("De re militari") is based just on this premise: he tried to present the traditional roman military drills and strategies as opposed to what he claimed to be an abysmal fall in discipline and tactics. He makes remarks about soldiers no longer wanting to wear heavy gear etc.
Also, there were plenty of barbarians in the Roman army of the late empire; many famous generals were in fact "barbarians", some of them even got to be emperors (such as Severus Alexander, Maximinus Thrax etc.).
They could of made money out of copper, bronze, iron, tin, etc. All those metals had and still have value
Most imperial roman soldiers never saw an open field battle. They just patrolled the border for 25 years. They fought against brigand bands and smaller raids. Asynchronous warfare was the daily reality. Formation almost never happened and small battles, even with 1 vs 1 combat became the rule. One reason why gladiators became more and more popular as instructor (doctor, campidoctor, ...) in the army
In such a situation I take a round shield with a spear and a spatha every day over a heavy scutum and a short gladius. Because it is the much more versatile, effective and efficient equipment for this kind of job with this type of combat. I am not surprised, that the romans dropped the gladius and the scutum. I just wonder, why it took that long.
PS: Of course this is just one reason. More cavalry armies amongst the enemies were already mentioned; also the change in battle tactics. I just like to add, that the portfolio or tasks a soldier usually had to perform changed dramatically. And so did his equipment.
Because the gladius and scutum is meant for arid southern Europe environments where you could maintain tight knit linear warfare. But such tactics were useless in mountainous, humid, and heavily wooded terrains; like in Germany.
Terrain dictates everything
@@dab0331 Heavy infantry with scutum and gladius conquered mountainous Switzerland, Greece, Dacia, Anatolia, and forested Gaul. The very invention of early Roman legionary tactics were created to deal with the mountainous regions of Italia which wouldn't allow Greek Phalanx techniques. The tactics even worked in forested Germania for several centuries. You've essentially dismissed the entire history of the Late Republic& Imperial Roman Legion..
@@dab0331 Thats untrue. Tight rank formation warfare was the norm from the danes to the moorish. The new paradigm came withthe steppe peoples. Huns, Parthians, Seljuks the like.
Was going to comment about the pronunciation of "capable" but then 4:47 happened and I decided it's high time I subscribed to you. :-)
I enjoy your videos for the information, but the humor is also very much appreciated! :-D
Thank you very much for subscribing :D
A reason for finding a gladius with high carbon core and low carbon edges is that it was over heated by the smith and some of the carbon was cooked off the thinner parts of the sword which are the edges.
That stood out for me too. The more carbon, the harder and more brittle the steel. I would have thought, if anything, harder steel would be preferred for edges rather than spine? What you say makes more sense to me.
The gladius would be a nice backup weapon for archers and spearmen.
edi true
Edi why do you think that? I'm not saying you're wrong, my own theory is rather the opposite and I'd like to know what your thinking on this subject is for comparison purposes.
For what it's worth my thoughts on the subject: An Archer if forced into close proximity is not going to fight in a packed, armoured and shielded formation which is what the Gladius excels at. He's going to be using his sword for self defensce and try to fight in a looser formation. To use his Gladius he'd have to get within the killing radius of practically every other weapon out there save a dagger or knife, which means if his opponent is carrying a Spatha or Arming Sword, Spear, Axe or baisically anything he has to get past that and right up in their face likely without the benefit of armour or a shield.
Spearmen realistically would want a backup weapon they can use at Spearish ranges. This depends on what kind of spear you're using. If you're using a 9foot spear (like we used to) or a Sarrissa clearly whatever you carry wont do the job, but if you're using a Hasta for example: if you loose or break your spear having a Gladius means you can not attack anyone around you and are forced to simply defend yourself until everyone around you is willing to close with the enemy (which is horrendously frustrating). With a Spatha sized weapon you have a better ability to attack across that gap.
Where I agree with you is on economics: Archers are usually Archers because they can not afford to be Heavy Infantry (usually! is the key word). Chances are if you can't afford armour, shield, etc you can't afford a big backup weapon so for economic reasons yeah you probably would be limited to a Pugio or Gladius rather than a more expensive but more useful spatha.
Hmm
dernwine I think that this is more logic too
dernwine
Before I give my own thoughts on this matter, please consider what spearmen and archers traditionally carried (no restriction to era):
Many carried only a dagger. Those that could afford a true secondary weapon and armour obviously bought one.
Archers and crossbowmen AFAIK favoured short blades such as Bauernwehr, Grossmesser, falchion, shortsword.
Halbardiers split into two categories: those that carried longswords and those that carried shortswords such as Katzbalger.
Now my own take on it:
A backup weapon is not meant to be the most intimidating weapon, but comfortable to carry and fast to deploy. If you ever tried to carry a sword and be it something more compact like a Katana, you'll surely notice that it's a pain in the arse as it keeps flapping against your leg, hit objects or get entangled in obstacles.
You could also compare it with pistols in modern times. On paper it might make sense to carry a scoped rifle and a mp, but hardly anyone ever does this.
If you got a polearm/spear and your enemy grabs it with one hand and tries to close in, you don't have the time to draw a full-sized sword and parry. Moreover, if someone gets too close, you don't want to use a long blade that can't be properly deployed .
If you have to fight indoors (e.g. archer hiding in a house), you're far better off with a weapon, that doesn't protrude more than 50-60cm from your hand. Otherwise you're more than likely to hit the ceiling or wall.
If you're a crossbowman and are able to sneak up to an enemy, you hardly want to backstab him with a longsword. A dagger is much more convenient and allows to stab at angles the other can't. Moreover, the enemy can't use his sword properly at such close range. A shortsword is a compromise between a dagger and a full-sized sword. It is still short enough to slit someones throat, but long enough to be decent at parrying and heavy enough to chop off limbs.
Of course, if you can afford it, you can carry a poleaxe, longsword and a dagger. I rather have one good backup weapon and a decent armour than an entire collection of arms dangling from my belt. I wouldn't choose a gladius, but something similar with a D-guard.
PS: against a heavy armoured opponent all these backup weapons are pretty useless. You could carry a mace, but it's questionable, if you could draw it in time.
When you're talking about carbon steel at 5:10 you have the ideal blade backwards. You want rigid high carbon on the edges with a low carbon flexible spine. A rigid high carbon spine would shatter on a hard strike or parry and a low carbon edge would never hold sharpness.
actually u r right. The Roman sword he talked about had high-carbon at the core with no tempering, so it actually had a brittle core.
Ideal blade is backwards. The sword he described Romans using just wasn't ideal. But it was cheaper.
I'm a blacksmith. you want a high carbon steel for any good blade, but having good carbon in the core and edge will be good overall. without carbon in the edge, the blade will never hold an edge and dull quickly. if the blade is too hard, It will shatter on impact.
God yeah, that combination is terrible. Poor edge retention and a core that can't absorb impact as well. I guess not everything about Rome's tech was superior, eh
InfernosReaper it was superior compared to the iron and bronze used by the rest of the world at the time. The more advanced Smithing techniques weren't known to the world until a few centuries after the romans
The Gladius Hispanisis ( hope I spelled it right ) was yet another implement of war the Romans adopted from the Celts , the Celt-Iberians in this case . And once again with the things they adopted from the Celts like the Lorica Hamata & large Scutum , the Romans issued them to ALL Legionaries unlike the Celts who only wore armor if they were Noble & all seemed to carry sheilds of different sizes & shapes . The Romans ability to adopt what they saw as usefull & insure it was issued en masse gave the greatest of advantages to each legionary as well as insuring that they preformed superbly as a disciplined unit .TY for another great video Metatron as you always bring up all the good & practicle nuansed detail that would've been experienced by the soldiers of the ancient & medieval periods . Keep up the great work .
It took centuries for mail to become universal in the legions. I'm also puzzled that you consider the Celtiberians to be Celts, and give them credit for the Iberian sword (a Celtic feature the Celtiberians retained from their mixed heritage was a long bladed, antenna-hilted sword).
No, celts use long spade without spike; gladius was used by iberians!
Gladius Hispaniensis" It means "sword of the Spanish". It was also called the gladius "Hispanicus" which means "Spanish sword". Yes, they mean more or less the same thing, but grammatically they are different, hence the two different word endings. :)
Wow... You make the ancestors proud. Never forget their glory! Gratitude for the informative videos. Keep them coming. Strength and Honor!
You, my friend, you're a scientist. Facts, and facts only. I actually learned what i was trying to find out in this video. Very high quality lecture, have an upvote.
You should do a video on Constantinople or the eastern Roman Empire
Fred Beer Eastern Roman Empire doesn't get 1% of the recognition it deserves, in the West
teddybeddy123, indeed. They call it "Dark Ages", while there was a flourishing Empire in the East.
teddybeddy123 What's worse, people keep telling they were a completely different state from the classic Roman Empire instead of recognizing that the Empired survived until the late XV century.
Fulmen This is the main problem with people who don't study History in a deeper way but choose to remain with the textbooks: I mean, this empire remained with all the institutions as its western part as it was in the beginning an administrative division as the one Diocletian did before. However, the west fell with the dead of Julius Nepos (not in 476), and the eastern part continued. Also, you have to know that barbarians recognized the emperors in Constantinople as emperors of the romans and further studies can tell us that even arab muslims and turks called the "byzantines" romans. Finally, I try not to be so "smart" as this topic is still under study and further investigations and archeological studies are being made, the name 'Byzantine' was used for the first time until the XVI century by a german scholar, almost 100 years after the fall of Constantinople.
True, Byzantine Empire was a great empire, my favourite historical country btw. It is so sad that it started to decay and ceased to exist on the sad day, 29. may 1453. Of course, the Despotate of Morea and the Empire of Trebizond still remained (for a little time), but they lost their city and their emperor on 29th of May 1453. My favourite dynasty was the Komnenian dynasty.
Gladius and scutum with lorica segmentata. Always.
30/30.
Just like how USMC Force Recon insists on using the 1911 pattern M45A1 as their pistol.
He said "for personal use" and these equipment you mentioned are designed for fighting in formation. I don't think it would be helpful other than nostalgical reasons, and I would even argue how this actually contradicts Romantitus, roman way of living.
I would say an oval shield, a spatha and Lorica Hamata would be my personal choice. Or Dacian falx since I assume that most of people I will fight will be trained in Roman shield wall formation.
Other than this, a handgun would be my choice. I doubt Scutum could stop bullets.
Pompeii gladius, scutum and lorica musculata for me. Better protection I've heard.
@@JinKee so would Caesar
Got a question for you Mr.Metatron. Why did the Romans go from their Classic Rectangular shield, back to the Oval shaped one later on? That rectangular Scutum seems like it would give better protection when fighting in a Formation.
Bird Monster Given the nature of warfare in the Late Empire you don't always necessarily want to fight in a close formation, there was an increased emphasis on skirmishing and scouting. It's also very hard to use a spatha or spear with one of the old rectangular shields, they're far too heavy. Also remember that 99% of the time you're not actually using your shield in a battle, so if you can afford to go smaller and lighter then you always do it, and in this case it was advantageous to do so.
Bird Monster After the army was reorganized into limitanei and comitatenses. there was a need to standardize equipment in order to facilitate easy replacement of equipment of soldiers from different parts of the empire. The oval shield was also lighter and cheaper than the rectangular shield. As the late roman army was more mobile lighter equipment was needed. Equipment was also cheaper due to the size of the late roman army. If I'm not wrong 500k strong compared to 200k during the early empire
CenturionRyan 99% of the time not using the shield? what exactly you mean? you have to block
BlacK40k I worded that quite poorly! I meant that 99% of the time you're not in battle and you're just lugging your shield around, so it's better to have it be lighter
the corners of the rectangular shields reduce visibility and can get caught on things. The late shield offered similar levels of protection without those disadvantages.
Man, you really had a thick British accent back in the day. Also, i like how every cut starts with you doing a little jumpscare. Bring back the jumpscares!
just trying to imagine this guy squatting down then standing back up for his intro lol, amazing vid btw!!!
Nice! I would choose a spatha, because I believe the pro's of a gladius are more likely to take effect in A "closed formation" context, and I don't see an army standing beside me, do you? hahaha I'm still waiting for a video on "war standards" and their tactical/strategical purposes and disadvantages, though!
Dragon Dimosthenis unless it's a thracian then they have a falx, also I'm pretty sure Celts had swords
Dragon Dimosthenis I was referencing you saying the barbarians had axes thracian were just the first ones I could think of that I knew had swords. Also while they were relatively quickly defeated the thracians did stomp them at first until the Romans reinforced their armor
As a trained sword fighter ~Metatron~ just look at the length of your forearms to your upper arm - Of Course!~you're going to want to maximize your own bodies focal distance of leverage arm! Now i am built like Ip Man - where my forearm is longer than my upper arm (even worse, i have "treeclimber toe" so extended attachment point of tendon to shin of sprinter's). Where you will develop high amounts of torque in extremely tight arcs providing for shearing force - i can "whip" the tip of a longer sword on a longer spiral much easier than leveraging a tight arc!
Tacitus pronounced with "k" THANK YOU SOOOOOO MUCH!!!!!
Unless I had legionaries at my left and right and were in a closed scotum formation, then the longer reach of the spatha every day.
A Gladius for me too! My favorite sword btw. GREAT video too, subscribed!!!
Metatron, this video was superb! It's extremely thorough. That's why I love your videos! However, I was surprised that you did not mention that the "Gladius" was really a weapon of Celto-Iberian origin. The Romans adopted this sword after seeing how effective it was being used against them. You could do another video alone in how the Romans went to extremes in trying to figure out how these swords were being made because they could not duplicate the quality of the Spanish Gladius! They had to resort to treachery in order to learn how to fabricate these swords while maintaining the quality of the metal chemistry while mass producing these in quantity. Although, it was mainly a stabbing weapon; it was also extremely effective at slashing. It could slash Roman armor very effectively. There are many accounts of Roman helmets being split open. This sword was a great all around weapon!!!
Yep, Vikings and Saxons during the early middle ages used similar weapons like the gladious to fight in shield walls, the seax. (I know it looks different, but serves the same purpose: Stabbing in close quarters and formations)
Seax was a knife not a sword and were not used that way as it was both a utility tool and backup weapon. They used spears in shield formation. Seaxes were at most 15 inches long with most about a foot.
@@joshuaroberts1287 The "Sax of Beagnoth / Thames scramasax", which comes in at about 50cm / almost 20inches, begs to differ.
Considering that the Romans would throw pila shortly before contact, there was very little time and a lot of stress when drawing swords between pila throw and contact. To draw the sword from the opposite side while holding a scutum in front can result in accidentally cutting your own sheild-bearing arm. Longer swords, like the spatha, can only be effectively drawn from the opposite side. The short blade length of the gladius would make it easy to draw from the same side as the sword arm. At least, that's my best idea as to why the gladius would've been a better sword for infantry in tight formation.
Gladius, it's probably my favorite all time sword.
So. how many actual battles have you been in to back this up?
@@liquidsonly why does he need to back up his opinion?
I really enjoyed the content of this video, very informative and the organisation of the info was great. Your english is great and thoroughly enjoyed it. I'd just like to point out that some of your cuts are repetitive or very abrupt. Just found that slightly jarring in an otherwise excellent video. Thanks for the great content Metatron.
Okay this answered some questions I have had for ages! Thank you. You are an effective teacher. I will follow your site to see what else I might pick up.
I don't know if this is one of history's little mysteries or if anything is known about it but I've always wanted to know why they transitioned away from the iconic rectangular shield of the Republic/early Empire back to round/oval shields.
P.S. If I had a shield - maybe Gladius. On its own - probably Spatha for the reach.
Blake Stone An oval shield is easier to use with a spatha and a spear which is what late Roman soldiers would have been equipped with. An increased emphasis on smaller engagements, skirmishes and cavalry means that you want a lighter shield, one that's better for personal protection, and one that's more cost effective, since skirmishers, light infantry, heavy infantry and cavalry could all use one.
As Metatron said the Empire went from Offensive to defensive and as Ryan has said here the battles were mostly skirmishes the troop sizes were also less in the Late Empire it was a big thing to have a army of about 30 Thousand men and the quality of the Roman Infantry also went down Drastically.
There is no evidence of infantry quality going down. The whole barbarization school of thought is pretty much outdated. Heavy infantry was the core of the late ancient romans and performed excellently.
majungasaurusaaaa Goldsworthy himselfs says that it did went down but it may have been in the Eastern Empire.
Suyash Bhagwat We simply do not have any real evidence. Experts opinions remain opinions for now. We know that late roman infantry continued to fight well till the end of the western empire, winning most of their battles. The late roman military had a pretty good combat record.
I guess this would also explain why the romance languages inherited the word ''spatha'' and not ''gladius'' in their respective vocabulary.
That is a very good observation.
Even in German, the Spaten(spade/e-tool)has the Spatha tip shape. Flat & wide. So it looks that general idea got there(and Britain) too?
You should also add some etymology in there. I'm curious to know what the word for sword is in the rest of the Romance languages. I know in Spanish it's: Espada coming from Spatha. What is it in Italian? :o
Spada :3
in portuguese it's also espada
In French it's épée.
In spanish, a 'sable' is a curved sword. Similar to what you would call a sabre And 'espada' is kind of a general term for all swords. If your sword gets short enough at some point it becomes a 'daga' if its strait. I would guess that espada, espada, epee, and spada all come from spatha.
Obviously in greek it's "Spathi" (σπαθί) or also "Ksifos" (ξίφος.)
I love your old videos man, I wish you still had these view counts on all your new stuff. You're an amazing content creator. Also, Spatha, Burgh Caslte, Clipeus, Plumbata, and Lorica Hamata is my absolute favorite combo.
This is one of your best videos. (it just came up on recommended for you on youtube so I watched it again.)
I would choose one of those celtic longswords with the jewels and other fancy stuff. So beautiful.
Beauty doesn't win fights though... A weapon is a tool and as such does not need to be beautiful. On the contrary, having it look ugly and menacing may have a desirable effect on your opponent as your weapon frightens him. Of course, if a weapon is decorated in a way that makes it appear menacing *and* beautiful, you have my support.
TheSchuetzeP If you have a beautiful sword it shows that you are rich. If you are rich then you are respected, powerful, and a lord who grew up training for battle(similar to knights). Consequently your enemies would fear you. It's also made with the best pattern welded blade available.
TheSchuetzeP On the other hand you could have a simple anthropomorphic hilt where the blade is literally a penis :)
Braden Vande Plasse and also if they think they can get ransom for you you are more likely to survive
and beautiful celtic shield with gems :3
I would choose the Spatha becaus a longer sword equals greater reach. In combination with a shield, this can be devistating to an opponent.
having the images on a green screen in the background would've been a nice touch to keep the talking flowing; video is still excellent tho
Ye I need to get a green screen, but to use one properly one needs also two dedicated lights :)
thanks for the response Metatron you're a cool dude
Thank you very much for that splendid history lesson, definitely not the kind of lesson i got in school about the romans, loved it keep up the good work. greeting from mexico.
Excellent video. Thank you for this.
Parthians and especially Huns made the Romans realize how deficient they were in cavalry.
They never caught up, not even in Byzantine times (although they had the cataphract)
Scutum (even if smaller than the usual known one) and gladius would be the choice. Faster trust movements, more trust angles available, much much less telegraphed blows in comparison with a longer sword (ok, aside the skills, in big lines would be like fast karate punch vs haymaker-full swing punch), far more unpredictable...the possibility to hide the gladius point behind the shield etc. I believe the advantage or prefference of longer swords in middle age has as main reason the significant evolution of the armor, you could sacrifice a large amount of speed in favor of reach, because pretty much all surface of the body was well protected by armor.
If i well remember, Titus Livius in History of Rome, book 10 describes an individual combat between a gaul, a very big guy, armed with oval shield and long sword, and a son of a tribune, armed with scutum and gladius. The fight last very short, and was just about blocking (or dodging, i don't remember exactly right now) the first blow of the gaul and closing the gap. Once that done, the young roman stabbed the gaul warrior at will.
Another interresting episode in 14 AD, the first of Germanicus campaign beyond the Rhin, the germans tryed another ambush, but Germanicus prepared his army for it, they formed hollow squares and pinned the attackers in place, while the cavalry came from behind of the colunm split in 2 sides and struck. The germans routed and at that moment as nearly usual, the legionnaries stopped the attempt to chase them in the woods. Germanicus, on contrary, encouraged them and told that actually the conjonction scutum-gladius offer them a large advantage for individual combat in coffin space. While the germans have to handle long spears, swords or dh axes, difficult among tree-trunks and bushes, all the legionnaire has to do is to cover itself with the scutum, to close the gap and to stab in many different angles at will.
On short....shield and sword combat....the gladius. Sword combat only....spatha. In absence of the shield, reach is deffinitively crucial.
Nigga stfu
Great info, i have always wondered about this as well. I would choose the Gladius. The reason is because the Spatha becomes unwieldy in close quarters.
only matters if its not a 1 on 1 fight. If its 1 on 1 spatha has a huge advantage
Hi Metatron, Again thanks for the video, Regarding your view of the late Roman Army, especially it's strategy I would encourage to take a look at the wikipedia article: Late Roman Army. It's really well prepared and backed by many sources. Authors presents the views of some main scholars who worked on the subject and the main current theories on it. I must say I find the one that seemingly author represents to be most convincing: that the army still relied mostly on infantry, that there was no in-depth defense as a strategy and the large forces the late emperors kept at their side and deep in provinces were rather to deter usurpers. Why? Well.. read, after studying military history and especially late antiquity military for a while now (as a hobby) I find these arguments to be convincing and the article "won me over" especially from following "barbarisation theory". I'm still looking forward to read more about it though, especiallly about engagements of late Roman forces and how late Roman administration functioned under barbarian rule and the rule of popes, bishops in Italy and late 5th/6th century Gaul.
5:07 Are you sure you didn't get those mixed up ? Higher carbon % in the core and lower on the edges, would make the blade very stiff and less flexible, prone to breaking easily, while ensuring that edges chip very often.
I believe the reverse is true, less carbon % in the core makes the steel more ductile, so sword is flexible and able to absorb blows and not snapping, while higher carbon on edge means a better edge retention.
Or perhaps they really only wanted then to stab with the gladius, so then higher carbon in the core makes sense.
The Gladius would be a better defence weapon in close quarters. Also, it would most likely be more useful for defending in inclosed areas and in buildings.
Can you imagine actually being in a sword fight,the human race have been savages since before time
So what does that make us?
This comment makes no sense... You do realize people are still killing as you read this right? Society has conditioned people to believe killing is bad but they condition soldiers to be efficient killing machines not unlike past civilizations; so you're probably blinded by the social construct that killing=savage. What's wrong with fighting with a sword anyways? That's like saying "Imagine fighting with a gun". Guns aren't any better then swords, some might argue it's worse. That and people back then didn't exactly have genocide inducing weapons. Humans have always been irrational and "savage". What is "savagery" anyways? If an enemy thinks somebodies "savage" does that mean their peers will think so? They might see it as bravery and honor... Besides that, in the early days of humanity you had to be "savage" to protect themselves from animals and "beasts" that could maul them to death... So again I don't see the point of that statement...
Pfft clearly you've never played For Honor!
Depends if Im fighting alone or in a formation. If I'm alone, I see no choice but the spatha. If I'm in a formation with, say, 100 others, Id take the gladius.
So. how many actual battles have you been in to back this up?
@@liquidsonly I don't need to have been in any. I can analyze the pros and cons of each weapon in each scenario, then decide. Its simply my preference based on my own thoughts.
Very interesting info. Thanks for this. Personally, I think I would choose the Spatha, even though I like both. The reason being is that there was a version for cavalry, yes. However the Romans also made a version for ground warriors as well, with a pointed tip. This was in fact used for farther thrusting reach. A fun fact: The Spatha eventually evolved over the centuries in to the typical knightly sword used in the high middle ages in Europe.
The Romans always seemed to learn from their enemies. The xiphos became the gladius, from the Greeks. Lorica Hamatata was introduced by the Celts, who along with the Germanic tribes also used a longer sword. The pilum seems to have declined in popular use, and it appears that they began to use Western European style spears as well as adopting both the oblong shield of the Celts and the round shield of the Germanics. In one of the illustrations I noticed that the artist had depicted the grip side of the round shield. I found the dart rack to be a very interesting development.
Hey where did you get your Gladius? (i.e., company) Thanks
I would have to say I would pick a Spatha, I'm used to using long blades in combat, I could adapt fairly quickly to the Gladius but I'd rather stay grounded.
It's a trade off. The spatha gives greater reach but the gladius is handier when you get toe to toe.
@@KageNoTora74 that reminds me of that one Scholagladitoria video talking about how the low reach of the gladius made it a very poor choice of weapon, which fails to consider one key thing about reach: it comes with drawbacks too.
*If* you can keep your distance, having greater reach is better, but if a strike misses, you may not get a second one before the gap is closed. When that happens, the advantage then goes to the person with the shorter weapon.
While there are plenty of objectively bad sword designs, there truly is no ultimate one.
I believe a shift in focus was also a contributing factor. The early Roman army was an army of conquer, the soldiers and leaders and doctrine was always of attack. The Gladius is an offensive weapon, it is short so you must push forward to use it effectively and the entire force was trained in this method of warfare so the doctrine of constant attack created itself. The late Roman army was an almost purely defensive force and wanted the standoff distance offered by the spatha and this lent itself towards a doctrinal shift of defensiveness which I believe contributed much towards the downfall of the empire.
You're mixing different levels of thinking here. "how do I employ my weapons when I'm in the fight" has nothing to do with "should I choose to go fighting in that foreign country, or do I wait for my enemies"
It is true the Gladius has less reach than a Spatha, requiring you to get closer to the enemy, but they're still both swords and hence both close quarter melee weapons. It's not like a Spatha will keep an aggressive enemy at arm's length. Bear in mind that longer swords were used by the Gauls but this didn't stop the Romans either!
You've also overlooked that the Gladius was used in conjunction with the Scutum "tower shield", which is clearly designed for defence over offence as it's large size covers most of the body but it's weight would make it difficult to charge/attack with or fight for an extended period of time.
This rectangular shield was later replaced with an oval shape which was LESS protective but lighter, affording more mobility and which was also usable from horseback. This does appear to be a change motivated by a shift in focus, but not from offensive to defensive as you suggest.
Also, if these changes were PRIMARILY motivated by a change in focus from offensive to defensive then we'd expect them to switch from using Pila (i.e. javelins) to pikes, because the former are thrown prior to charging while the latter are more effective at stabbing at an advancing enemy and also more useful versus cavalry. Interestingly, we don't see such a change in the later Roman army.
Hence, rather than a single reason these changes were probably due to a combination of factors.
There was a greater adoption of cavalry which meant issued equipment needed to be suitable for both foot soldiers and horsemen.
Soldiers spent more time more time patrolling borders and skirmishing than they did invading and conquering, so there were fewer battles/campaigns which meant weapons needed to be more versatile (i.e. less specialised for battlefield usage and lengthy engagements)
Also, the army was increasingly made up of auxiliaries (people from conquered nations absorbed into the empire) who weren't all raised and trained in the traditional Roman way of fighting but instead brought their own warrior culture and preferences with them.
The scutum is definitely an offensive weapon too, especially when you charge it is easy to give heavy check to your enemy. I totally agree with the original post.
And in the Late Empire you shouldn’t forget that the main weapons were mostly Spears and the Spatha was only a secondary weapon, which underlines the defensive character of the late Roman army.
Okay, I like the information in the video, you lay it all out in terms that are easy to understand. But I just wish you had some examples of the spatha you could show instead of just the gladius, and perhaps some info on why the rounded shield was adopted as well. In videos like these, props are good.
The gladius was perfect for fighting in close formations which gave the romans a numerical superiority in the actual battlefront over oponents who were not trained for close formation fighting. As they were used to sidesteps and swings they could not stand as close together as the romans. But fighting in such a formation needs lots of training and the citizen-legionairies of the early empire and the republic before had this amount of training. The spatha was also used in the republic by cavalry and auxiliaries who did not fight in tight formations. But in the late empire the citizen-legionairis got mostly replaced by barbarian mercenaries who were not fond of doing much training so formations could no longer be so tightly spaced and thats why the
spatha became better suited for infantry. See Vegetius for seeing how much the legions had changed in the late empire.
I would carry the Gladius.
It's lighter, easily concealed, and not as cumbersome.
So. how many actual battles have you been in to back this up?
Hi metatron. I'll take a leaf out of School of Gladitoria's book and cite "Context!" What shield do I get given with said sword?
Round shield - spatha for sure.
Scutum - Mainz gladius (I like a gladius with curves) ;-)
Make your profile picture pasta
Will Roth That's racist.
... it was a meme.
Will Roth I am pretty sure I can photoshop this star to make it look like its made of pasta.
It's always a pleasure, to listen to people who know their stuff.
A bit late but so glad I found you, instant like and subscribe! I highly recommend this video and author!!!!
Gladius all the way. It supports all the tactics that was taught through many generations of military geniuses
Wrong. The late imperial era saw the gradual proliferation of heavy armor amongst infantry, and the invention of heavy charge cavalry by the Parthians.
Gladius and scutum infantry designrd specifically to defeat the macedonian style phalanx and light missile armies wereno longer adequate.
Neither was the spatha really, but it was at least an attempt to solve a clear problem.
Could you also tell us how did they protect themselves from the hot metal armor in direct sunlight? It seems that would be a big problem.
They wore leather and cloth underneath. The red cloth helped with troop identification and the leather added cushioning.
"Histati! March!"
"Aye!"
"Aye..."
Now this is something I don't understand. Everything I know about knife fighting suggests that the pros always stab, not slash. Also should be considered that chain mail and such are very unlikely to be penetrated by a slash, the only chance you'd have would be a stab. So I don't get why in the later Roman period, when their enemies were becoming progressively better equipped (incl. armor), the Romans chose to switch to a slashing weapon. We're missing something in the historical record, I don't know what it is but the narrative doesn't make sense as it is now
This is why I have a gladius beside my bed for home defense purposes. It is the most effective weapon to have short of a firearm. It is perfect for the close quarters of my room and hallways and is superior to most home intruders weapons which predominately are daggers and blunt weapon objects and yes, I know how to use it properly. I also have a Roman shield beside my bed as well if need be. Thank you Metatron, you are awesome. I was waiting for you to say it and you did. CAVALRY. I think you along with Skallagrim are probably the most intelligent and informed guys on these subjects and I really love your videos. I too have done extensive studies on Rome and its military and finding another person who actually has done his homework and dispells alot of the nonsense out there is a wonderful thing. Love your work.
Metatron , you said in this video, that the core of sword is high carbon en the cutting edge low carbon , is it not the other way around.
That the core is of low Corbon for the flexibility, and the cutting edge high percentage of carbon
It's all relative, in ancient times it would be common to forge weld edges of steel (which would have been high carbon crucible steel that was extremely expensive to produce) onto even higher carbon cast iron cores... not sure if that's the case here he didn't specify the carbon percentages we're talking about.
The gladius WORKED, the spatha did not. On that basis I lean towards the gladius. On the other hand, the gladius worked against poorly organized barbarian INFANTRY. By the middle Empire Rome was increasingly facing cavalry, so its traditional heavy infantry armies were obsolete. Rome needed cavalry, but was increasingly relying on BARBARIAN mercenary cavalry whose loyalties weren't to Rome, but to the generals who paid them. What Rome absolutely NEEDED to do was get back to the citizen-soldier concept, but with cavalry. Maybe have the State provide horses for the troops. But with cavalry you need the spatha to reach your opponent. Also, need to get with the Sarmatians or the Avars or whoever & figure out some stirrups.
I don't think they found it easy to switch from Infantry to Cavalry for cultural reasons. Rome was never a horse culture like say the Huns or Mongols who were "born on the saddle". Consequently, Romans didn't aspire to become Cavaliers, which is something that takes years of dedicated practice and is arguably more difficult, but also considerably more expensive, than training to become a foot soldier. Hence, lacking their own native horse culture, Rome instead opted to recruit Auxiliaries who already had the requisite skills and possibly even owned their own horse.
TheShreester well, the romans weren't a sea faring people either, and yet when in the punic wars they needed a navy they created one comparable to that of Carthage, wich at the time was probably the best in the Mediterranean.
ARX 351 There is a difference. Rome didn't have a naval tradition, but once they came into contact with Carthage, the creation of a navy clearly offered new opportunities and advantages.
However, converting from an infantry based military to one that used a lot of cavalry would meet resistance from the established hierarchy. It required convincing a generation of Romans to switch from their traditional soldiering careers (with the respect and recognition associated with them) to train as cavaliers, in a role which was typically fulfilled by foreign auxiliaries. It's possible this wasn't a popular choice for native Romans until the late period of the Empire when the armies were made up mostly of auxiliaries.
it's way easier guys. horses need to eat a lot. In order to genetically modify them the oldfashioned way u'll need a lot of them.
U'd ideally recruit them were their food is available in large quantities.
And that'd be nowhere near italy.
"However, converting from an Infantry based military to cavalry would meet resistance from the established hierarchy."
Weren't the nobility fighting as equites?
There is no evidence for bias against cavalry in the roman empire.
They just didn't have the ressources to breed&maintain good enough horses.
Instead of removing their weaknesses, they tried to enhance their strengths (high population, easy available ore nearby, generally very motivated citizens/soldiers with) and went for a good quality mass-army, mixing in the new trooptypes they had encountered in greece and gaul into an infantry army that would excell at nothing but be still good in every given situation and could be combined with anything without trouble (be it elephants, slingers, horsearchers, light-heavy cavalry, hoplites (...)), relying on numbers ( everyone's quite easy to replace) and their good morale.
Ok, lets try to explain a bit.
1. The Roman upper classes, similar to the Hellens preferred to go to war on horseback. The word to describe a part of the upper class was "equites" or knights.
2. The barbarization of the army is a bit over stated. The empire became non Romanized, the army was probably one of the part of the late Roman society that was competent.
3. There where two main considerations for the Roman army during this time a. German superconfederations and Parthians, b. Infighting and rebellions that plagued the Roman empire.
All those things came thogether in what became the late Roman army.
I'd choose the gladius... assuming i had Imperial Roman armour and scutum, and a legion of legionaries around me in close formation.
If i were in the middle of a more chaotic battlefield, wearing less armour, trying to keep the enemy at arm's length... i'd choose the spatha. I think the Romans had the same idea.
Eh, if you can keep people at that reach, sure, but if your opponent is aggressive and slips it, then the longer reach weapon will work against you. Pros and cons
Enjoyable video, I bought a Spatha to decorative purpose some years ago and often wondered I it was also used in both cavalry and infantry units. Thanks. Now I know
I really appreciate your videos. thank you!
Great big problem right out of the gate. You are confusing the longer Spanish Gladius with the blade you had in your hand and they aren't the same thing.
They also knew what the Spartans knew. A heavily armored infantryman can shove in against an opponent making it virtually impossible for a person with a longer weapon to weld their blade effectively. I own a spatha and if you are in my face my best option is to stab you in the foot and leg if they are exposed. They also had the nasty habit of stabbing the man fighting the guy to their right in the armpit when he lifted his arm to swing his sword.
The metallurgy of found Roman swords has been checked. The Spanish Gladius was made of good steel. Most of the seriously short swords were actually pretty crappy. They'd still kill you. What replaced them was better made.
He's missing the main point. Western Rome ran out of money. In the early days a day's pay for a solider was like a thick silver quarter. By the late Rome Empire it was a thin slug of who knows? Copper and something? Buying the best wasn't an option any more. The troops were ill trained, ill disciplined, and didn't even want to carry around all that heavy armor. They didn't want to close with the enemy. If you won't close with the enemy and you have a short sword it's just a matter of time until a barbarian with a long sword kills you so these skirmishers got long swords but they were nowhere near as combat effective as the heavy Roman legions of old. At best they were meat shields to delay the enemy while the mounted forces won or lost.
Later roman empire depended so much on levied people and they were not trained properly. It expanded so much that they couldnt go any further, so fully fledged professional legions were not needed anymore. They disbanded their elite infantry core and changed into Comitatenses, who were levied folk, ill trained and equipped. They used lower quality weapons because they were cheaper to produce and faster to make. And since the later infantry lacked professional legions training, they were not capable of fighting in closed up shield walls the way Caesar's Legions did. So they used something more advantageous in less trained hands, a longer sword. And lighter round shield.
Gladius. Without a doubt.
I bet the late Roman Soldiers looked at the hoard of Barbarians, then they looked at their Gladius and was like “We need a bigger sword.”
Meta, It's a great video. It's very interesting and complete. You've got a new suscriber!
A Gladius every time probably. I will say that the gladius is the only sword I actually own.
Answer depends on the training and disposition of the unit I'm serving in.
Awesome but sad. I always hate thinking about the fall of such a great state and all the rapes that likely ensued when Rome was sacked then occupied by Barbarians.
Alaric and the Goths really didn't do much to the population and mostly just destroyed some public buildings and stole gold and valuables. There was some tortures, but it was a very tame sack by most standards. The Vandal sack has a story that pope Leo I convinced them to leave the people alone if they were aloud in, which the Vandals mostly honored, though there were stories of prisoners sold into slavery. Again, by comparison it was a tame sack.
TCC I don't know how much you know about this but while Rome did have some great achievements it committed horrible acts of its own since before it was even created and was already rotten to the core by the time it got finished off by the Germanic Tribes
Edgy Bastage Rome would have fallen even without Germanic tribes. It was Attila and the Slavs who finished the RE, which was already as you said rotten to the core: backstabbing generals, incompetent senators, too much auxiliaries troops... the Germanic Peoples won at the end of the party.
Yeah they basically commited a genocide in Gaul
+Red Raven
First off Atilla never actually won a pitched battle against the Romans with the only battle he ever fought he lost, the Huns mostly used scare tactics and mass pillaging of roman towns
And to address edgy bastage the Romans are in a long list of civilizations that did horrible acts because what we think is horrible today was life back then
Fighting video with Scutum and Spatha...
ua-cam.com/users/shortsVH2YUZkNJlM?si=i1m9i0yMuy2cCm-W
I was gonna ask this on another video haha Love your content man!
I would choose a Roman infantry spatha! Seems more versatile!
Thanks! I'm glad you like my content
Kappable
Saberhap kek.
Shadilay my brothers.
Is English not his native language or does he just have a thing about pronunciation haha.
jarv he is Italian. so no english is not his first.
haha fair enough
I'm a gladius fan boy
My theory of why Roman infantry changed to the longer spatha is because they were fighting babarians from what is now Germany. In the forests of Germany it was nearly impossible to fight in the old close formation. Roman troops fought in smaller units and often in single combat. If you fight in single combat you need reach. Hence the longer spatha is useful. In a tight formation, as you mentioned, there is danger that you may accidently stab your friends. So you need a shorter sword.
Far more important fighting took place in the middle east, you know. Don't take your history lessons from Los Angeles.
Just found your channel. Love your detail and respect for authenticity in how you present things
Thank you for educating me on this subject