Roman Longswords

[Guest Foedus.Segmentus]

Hi people, Im new here

 

Well anyway when I think of the Roman swordsman I imagine him with the typical (short)Gladius. But I'm trying to figure out how common the Longsword was in the Legio'. Seems like i remember seeing a "Gladius Longus" in the movie Gladiator(even though "Max" used a short sword), now i know movies aren't usually reliable history resources, but it would make sense to use a long sword agenst a long sword wielding opponent. Germanic and Celtic Warriors did use long swords .

[Northern Neil]

A mid third century carving of a standard bearer from Hadrian's Wall shows that the Gladius was still in use at this time, although there is little evidence of it thereafter. It is depicted as being worn on his left side. The long sword (spatha) was used by the cavalry very early on, and in the infantry it appears to have replaced the Gladius by degrees from about 180 to 250.

Edited July 4, 2006 by Northern Neil

[Primus Pilus]

You may also be thinking of the Spatha which was a longer cavalry sword.

 

As an aside, in doing some research on Commodus its interesting that he allowed the legions of northern Germania to wield axes in battle. (I believe it was in the JRS... an article by Speidel or perhaps Hekster's "Commodus An Emperor at the Crossroads" since I can't locate it again).

[Rameses the Great]

I believe that this a great question and welcome to UNRV. The thing about the Celtic and German longswords is that they needed a lot of room to wield it. They thought if they had a bigger sword than they would be more intimidating. The legion's large shield can stop the oncoming sword if need be, but by then the Roman dagger would have stabbed him.

[Pertinax]

The spatha had a particular role in cavalry warfare, (though it was one of a number of weapons used) namely having an appropriate reach to strike the head of an opponent on foot from horseback. A gladius was not long enough for this delicate operation.

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=mo...=si&img=751

 

see? easy and convenient for slicing dangerous vegetables.

[Guest Foedus.Segmentus]

Oh, ok now i see. So the Spatha was basically used for Mounted Ops until these customs were relaxed by Commodus in the late 2nd century, however Legio' infantry did not need Spatha to match the Germanic/Celtic longsword thanx to the defence offered by the mighty Roman shield.

Edited July 5, 2006 by Foedus.Segmentus

[Favonius Cornelius]

Hi people, Im new here

 

Well anyway when I think of the Roman swordsman I imagine him with the typical (short)Gladius. But I'm trying to figure out how common the Longsword was in the Legio'. Seems like i remember seeing a "Gladius Longus" in the movie Gladiator(even though "Max" used a short sword), now i know movies aren't usually reliable history resources, but it would make sense to use a long sword agenst a long sword wielding opponent. Germanic and Celtic Warriors did use long swords .

 

 

If you look closely, I do believe that ole Max used a spatha for the begining of his cavalry charge, the one which got lodged into the tree.

[phil25]

Perhaps the change, leaving aside the inaccuracies of films, related to changing tactics and even the discipline and training of the legions.

 

Auxiliaries often used their own native weapons, so celts might well have employed a longsword from an early date.

 

But as i understand it, the gladius is most effective when used in close combat as part of a solidly formed and coherent line, pressing forward behind a wall of shields. In those circumstances a longsword is less useful as it has no space to swing and becomes unwieldly to use.

 

But if the training and tactics of the legions evolved into a more open order of fighting, as the empire progressed, then maybe there were experiments in using other weapons and types of weapons.

 

Also the equipment and armour of the legions changed markedly from the lorica segmentata and imperial gallic helmet to other forms by the C3rd and later - so again, perhaps in some areas a more "medieval" weaponry emerged.

 

Only detailed archaeology would tell us, and some painstaking analysis of reliefs etc. But even then, could we ever have more than an impression of the situation?

 

Phil

[caldrail]

Apparently there's a problem with roman swords. Polybius describes a republican type but there's hardly any archaeological evidence for that period (perhaps only one or two against a great many for the principate onward).

 

Republican swords, the Gladius Hispaniensis, is a weapon purely intended to stab or thrust. The 'Mainz' type is straighter but retains the long tapered point. When we get to the 'Pompeii' type the blade is straight and the point shorter. Pliny tells us that it was used as much as a slashing blade as a thrusting weapon. Noteably, there's a tendency for swords to get shorter toward the 3rd century AD since republican times. From then the spatha is increasingly used which is the longer cavalry sword, essentially similar to a pompeii pattern gladius but longer.

 

These changes reflect the methods and standards taught in the legions. I generally don't mind film and tv showing romans slashing about because sometimes they did, and in any case its a lot safer for the actors and stuntmen to duel in that manner. However it does give a false impression. In close order drill with heavy infantry thrusting is the only practical method of attack. In open order, a more 'barbaric' style of swordplay is possible.

 

The use of longer swords in later centuries indicates that roman legionaries were no longer as courageous or skilled as they once were. Fighting up close with a gladius requires nerve and practice.