Roman short sword killed more humans in history than any other weapon

[Pisces Axxxxx]

Back on Monday when I was in US History class my professor was just going over World War 1. She made a comment that went like this:

 

"The Roman short sword killed more people in history than any other weapon.However that took centuries. In World War 1 the weapons introduced killed millions in just 4 years".

 

What do you think of this claim?

[Melvadius]

It sounds like one of those 'hang it off the wall' type statements that some people throw out to see if it sticks or at least what rises to the surface afterwards in general discussion.

 

A favourite trick of some teachers/ lecturers trying to make their class think for themselves or at least wake up.

 

Basically IF you take the view that the Roman's accurately reported the numbers killed in their various wars AND that all those who died were killed by the gladius rather than the spartha, pilum or various other available weaponry &/or disease/ famine then it COULD be true.

 

However in actual fact in my view there is no real way to prove or disprove it. Even for the Modern Era, let alone the Roman period, we do not have accurate 'tabulated' records of who was killed with precisely which weapon and when.

 

But it makes for a good starting point for a discussion

[DecimusCaesar]

It does seem questionable in the extreme. We can't know precisely how many people were killed by the Romans in wars across several centuries, and we can't even be sure how many were killed with spears, javelins, stones from slings and catapults, bolts, arrows or other weapons. Also when discussing Roman swords it's worth remembering the Romans had different types, for instance the Cavalry used the Spatha in Imperial times, while the short stabbing Gladius used by legionaries fell out of use by the Dominate period.

[caldrail]

I would have to say the casualties from arrows far exceed those from Roman short swords. Once you include firearms into the equation, the gladius vanishes off the graph, and explosive devices may well have killed more than that.

[Rob774]

It is possible that the Lee Enfield rifle fielded by the British Army and her allies has caused more carnage than the Gladius, based simply on the numbers of people who were around to be killed in the 20th Century compared to Roman era. The casualties suffered by the allies at the battle of the Somme really do put the figures for the battle of Cannae into perspective.

[caldrail]

Perhaps, but these things are relative given the different means of achieving the casualty rate. It takes a certain amount of time to approach, fight, and slay/overcome an opponent. Direct fire weapons are much faster in reaching their objective even with greater distances, and given the modern ability to compound the effect with mechanical repetition at a high rate, the conclusion is obvious. Therefore the result at Cannae has to be seen as the result of manual attrition as opposed to mechanical or automatic attrition.