How different would the Roman army have been with Long Swords

[Vibius Tiberius Costa]

What If instead of the gladii the Romans had long swords.

I suppose their reach would have increased and slash attack would have been added to their different array of attacks. The weight of a longer sword would have it's downpoints but if a soldier was brought up with such a heavy weapon I'm sure they wouuld get on with it.

Would it have completely changed their tactics or would it have enhanced their abilties?

Any thoughts.

 

vtc

[caldrail]

The use of a lonsword would have meant that the large rectangular scutum (shield) was too big and inhibiting for roman-style combat. Training would have declined because a longer sword requires less expertise, since you're relying on reach and swing. It would have required a less compact fighting order to make room for sword swinging, both reasons leaving the infantry more vulnerable to cavalry action, aside perhaps for the fact that a longer sword could tackle riders easier - and thats possibly another reason why the cavalry spatha was adopted wholesale in the later, more cavalry dominated, declining empire. All in all, the longer sword would have made the legions less capable, and indeed, the use of the spatha by infantry is often quoted as the sign of legionary decline.

[DecimusCaesar]

The Later Roman soldiers used the semi-spatha, a type of sword similar to those used by cavalrymen. these swords were much longer than the traditional gladius which would would make them good for slashing, but less so far stabbing.

Ammianus Marcellinus, when discussing the battle of Adrianople in AD 378 mentions that the Roman soldiers were so tightly packed together that they could not draw their spatha swords in defense and were killed where they stood.

 

Despite these shortcomings, Ian Stephenson, author of many books on the subject of Roman arms, armour and equipment; says that these Spatha swords were the equals if not the betters of the gladius in quality. They lacked none of the weight or penetrative power of the gladius hispaniensis.

Ammianus Marcellinus also says that "While in open, or skirmish, order the extra blade length of the spatha gave it an edge over its predecessor." This type of sword was therefore much better suited to the type of warfare that was prevalent in later Roman Europe.

[caldrail]

Longer swords have disadvantages. By the late empire, the advantages were that you didn't have train your soldiers to stab without question, and by then the close order drill of older times was giving way to looser formations of less protected troops. There's no getting away from it, the longer sword is far better suited to slashing attacks and that requires more room. The whole point (pun not intended) of using a short stabbing sword is because during the roman armies golden years the legions were packed shoulder to shoulder with large shields. There was only a small gap to use a weapon in and the gladius was a perfect answer. The disadvantage is that the trsining needed to be better in order to install certain instincts into their soldiers (what we call 'muscle-memory' these days)

 

Semi-Spatha? I've read some very enlightened texts on roman weaponry and no-one mentions anything of the sort. Could you give me a source on that?

 

The weit#ght of a spatha was greater than a gladius because of the similar construction and longer reach. The center of gravity for this blade is further out and therefore less suited to thrusting. Marcellinus backs what I said, although I notice he hasn't mentioned that a spatha is awkward in close formation. Its the open order that would make late emperial infantry so vulnerable to cavalry whatever sword they used.

 

This type of sword was therefore much better suited to the type of warfare that was prevalent in later Roman Europe

 

The warfare in the late empire was developing toward the medieval style and in that sense, yes, you're right. However, bear in mind that the type of warfare was partly dependent on the tactics adopted by legions less well equipped, and armed with a sword they found easier and more natural to use than a gladius, which as I mentioned, required practise and drill to use with the deadly effect we see in earlier periods.

[DecimusCaesar]

Semi-Spathae are mentioned in P. Southern and K. Dixon's book 'The Late Roman Army' -

 

They say:

"Vegetius writing in the fourth century, states that both spathae and smaller swords called semispathae were employed..."

(It should be noted that these semi spathae were not similar to the Pugio daggers, as they remained the same from the early to late empires.)

 

I.P Stephenson also devotes a section of his book, Romano-Byzantine Infantry Equipment to the semispatha. The Semispatha might have been a little larger than the gladius but smaller in size than the spatha.

They might have been used as secondary weapons.

[Primus Pilus]

If the Romans used long swords instead of gladii from the earliest development of the non phalanx legion, it would have meant that they developed completely different military tactics. Had that been the case the Roman armies likely would've been no more capable than other European forces. My guess is that western civilization might have developed quite differently.

[caldrail]

Semi-Spathae are mentioned in P. Southern and K. Dixon's book 'The Late Roman Army' -

 

They say:

"Vegetius writing in the fourth century, states that both spathae and smaller swords called semispathae were employed..."

(It should be noted that these semi spathae were not similar to the Pugio daggers, as they remained the same from the early to late empires.)

 

I.P Stephenson also devotes a section of his book, Romano-Byzantine Infantry Equipment to the semispatha. The Semispatha might have been a little larger than the gladius but smaller in size than the spatha.

They might have been used as secondary weapons.

 

Thanks

[Diocles]

As mentioned previously a longsword would not have been useful for the Roman military due to the large army and tightly packed troops. It is because of their training and the use of the gladii and scutum that the Romans were effective. It was the adoption of the gladius and scutum, veering away from the phalanx, that gave them the mobility and adaptability that gave the Romans an edge against more conventional opponents.

 

The Phalanx had the staying power, but lacked mobility; a looser formation (needed to successfully wield longswords) lacked the stopping power as a shield wall does. For it's time, when armies were much larger than the later, skirmish oriented operations, the galdii was the best suited weapon for their tactics. As mentioned previously, if the Romans had started off using a longsword/semi-spathae in pitched battles the tactics and even conquests of the Roman military might be drastically different.

Edited June 5, 2007 by Diocles

[Nikephoros Phokas]

The adoption of the spatha did not necessarily alter Roman sword techniques.

 

The longer sword was used by both cavalry and auxiliary units. The latter may have had different weapons (spatha, lancea and oval shield) from the legions, but there are no significant reports that their training for hand to hand fighting differed greatly.

 

The spatha can be used in the same way as the gladius. The most important distinction being the longer reach of the spatha. This may have been one of the reasons that it was eventually adopted by the legions. A longer blade may have been an advantage when fighting cavalry. Its adoption by the legions coincides roughly with the emergence of the Sasanian Persians as a major military threat to the empire.

 

The most important aspect of Roman sword fighting was the thrust. The design of the blade indicated that the point of both gladius and spatha was more important than the edge. Thrusting minimized the exposure of the sword arm and it is also a very economical motion.

 

Modern police use their shields and batons in much the same way as Roman infantry. Thrusting or pushing with the baton is better suited for the tight defensive formations usually adopted by the police.

[caldrail]

The use of thrusting attacks by roman soldiers is dictated by close order drill. There's only a narrow gapbetween shields - a vertical slot if you like - and thusting is therefore the most sensible way to attack without losing formations - or friends. If they used slashing attacks as a rule, then a wider formation is necessary to prevent whacking the guy next to you and the legion loses its shock value in advance. With that in mind, a shorter sword of some sort was bound to be used, and also remember that the curved shield made drawing a sword from the left hip awkward and prone to getting snagged behind the shield. It made more sense to pull from the right hip and that also dictated a shorter sword.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Semi-Spathae are mentioned in P. Southern and K. Dixon's book 'The Late Roman Army' -

 

They say:

"Vegetius writing in the fourth century, states that both spathae and smaller swords called semispathae were employed..."

(It should be noted that these semi spathae were not similar to the Pugio daggers, as they remained the same from the early to late empires.)

 

I.P Stephenson also devotes a section of his book, Romano-Byzantine Infantry Equipment to the semispatha. The Semispatha might have been a little larger than the gladius but smaller in size than the spatha.

They might have been used as secondary weapons.

 

In Vegetius' De Re Militeri book he mocks the use of slashing weapons and says that the Romans looked down on those that used them and saw them as an easy conquest.

 

 

NOT TO CUT, BUT TO THRUST WITH THE SWORD

 

They were likewise taught not to cut but to thrust with their swords. For the Romans not only made a jest of those who fought with the edge of that weapon, but always found them an easy conquest. A stroke with the edges, though made with ever so much force, seldom kills, as the vital parts of the body are defended both by the bones and armor. On the contrary, a stab, though it penetrates but two inches, is generally fatal. Besides in the attitude of striking, it is impossible to avoid exposing the right arm and side; but on the other hand, the body is covered while a thrust is given, and the adversary receives the point before he sees the sword. This was the method of fighting principally used by the Romans, and their reason for exercising recruits with arms of such a weight at first was, that when they came to carry the common ones so much lighter, the greater difference might enable them to act with greater security and alacrity in time of action.