Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Why longer swords in late Roman time? Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2 
Author Message
Sean Flynt




Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Likes: 10 pages
Reading list: 13 books

Spotlight topics: 7
Posts: 5,981

PostPosted: Thu 19 Jan, 2006 9:14 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Remember that Armenius (Hermann), of Teutoburg Forest fame, had been raised in Rome and served in the Roman army before leading his people against Rome. That may be a partial answer to this question. As more Romanized folks from the provinces joined the army, their martial values and equipment may have seeped into "official" Roman military culture. The adoption of the longer sword may be due to Romans going native and to natives going Roman.
-Sean

Author of the Little Hammer novel

https://www.amazon.com/Little-Hammer-Sean-Flynt/dp/B08XN7HZ82/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=little+hammer+book&qid=1627482034&sr=8-1
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Wolfgang Armbruster





Joined: 03 Apr 2005

Posts: 322

PostPosted: Thu 19 Jan, 2006 10:07 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sean Flynt wrote:
Remember that Armenius (Hermann), of Teutoburg Forest fame, had been raised in Rome and served in the Roman army before leading his people against Rome. That may be a partial answer to this question. As more Romanized folks from the provinces joined the army, their martial values and equipment may have seeped into "official" Roman military culture. The adoption of the longer sword may be due to Romans going native and to natives going Roman.


That's very possible. Guess who kept watch at the Limes? German tribesman in Roman service.
During the migration era a huge amount of barbarians flooded the empire. In most cases they were absorbed by the local populations but they probably left some marks.

Here's a lorica segmentata fragment found at Kalkriese, which is assumed to be the site of the Varus battle


Concerning Arminius: We don't know his real name, but it was certainly not Hermann. Arminius is his Roman name, which means hammer. His father's name was Segimer and if he followed the tradition, then Arminius' real name probably started with "Sig/Seg". It has been suggested that his real name was probably Sigurd/Siegfried (or an earlier version of that name).
There's another interesting theory: Although the people forgot what actually happened back then (It wasn't until the 16th century that the works of Cassius Dio and Tacitus were rediscovered) the story about this great battle lived on in the legends. One theory says that the lindworm Fafner in the Nibelungenlied is actually the Varus-treck. The hoard he was protecting is the huge amount of gold and silver the Romans had with them (including all the shiny armor and swords as well). The people back then went totally nuts over everything made of metal since they had so few (not even enough to make enough swords if we believe Tacitus).
According to this theory Siegfried is Arminius who slays Fafner / the Varus-treck. The stealth-cap given to Siegfried by Ahlerich is a memory of the incident where Arminius covered his face with blood in order not to be recognized by the Romans. However that's just a theory, but a nice one nevertheless *g*

Ehm, sorry for the long off-topic post *g*
View user's profile Send private message
Edward G.





Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Posts: 1

PostPosted: Thu 19 Jan, 2006 9:46 pm    Post subject: Plubata         Reply with quote

Here is an (incomplete) example of a late Roman plumbata, one of the weapons that replaced the traditional pilum. This example is missing the rearward section that would have been fletched like and arrow. The missing section would have been about as long as the forward portion or a bit longer. This example still has the lead weight attached. I have seen references to a plumbata being up to 60cm long. According to Vegetius they could outrange all other hand thrown missles.


 Attachment: 56.7 KB
[ Download ]

Why worry? Be a coward and be happy.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Hisham Gaballa





Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 508

PostPosted: Fri 20 Jan, 2006 3:34 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I have also recently found out that an even older fragment of segmentata found in Dagstaten has been dated to 9 BC.

Sorry to go off topic there.

Going back to the Spatha I still feel its adoption was due to a change in tactics by the Romans as a result of encountering enemies who made more extensive use of cavalry (if you try and hit a man on horseback, you've got a better chance of hitting him with a longer sword) and used looser formations rather than all being packed closely together.
View user's profile Send private message
Marcos Cantu





Joined: 28 May 2004
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 116

PostPosted: Fri 20 Jan, 2006 7:20 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hisham Gaballa wrote:
I have also recently found out that an even older fragment of segmentata found in Dagstaten has been dated to 9 BC.

Sorry to go off topic there.

Going back to the Spatha I still feel its adoption was due to a change in tactics by the Romans as a result of encountering enemies who made more extensive use of cavalry (if you try and hit a man on horseback, you've got a better chance of hitting him with a longer sword) and used looser formations rather than all being packed closely together.


The Romans has different formations to handle pretty much every battlefield threat. This is a formation for repelling cavalry...



This obviously shows only a small number of reenactors. There would normally be many more men
View user's profile Send private message
Nathan Bell





Joined: 21 Aug 2003

Posts: 329

PostPosted: Sun 22 Jan, 2006 3:32 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

A few thoughts in no particular order.

The hispaniensis is basically a North Iberian adaptation of the La Tene B celtic sword. I wonder exactly when this was adoptedby Rome?

My point being, I find it strange that the weapon is called the "Spanish" sword when it was prolific over a large portion of Italy through the Early to Middle Republic. In the later portion of the Early La Tene period, the celtic sword somewhat "standardized" to the hispaniensis size of somewhere around 26" or so, give or take, with somewhat slender blade and long point. Looking through the grave finds of the large celtic necropoli around Bologna, you see tons of these swords. These graves can date to at least the mid 4th century BC.

Another interesting note is that the Celtic sword most often has a raised midrib, at the very least being a rather stout diamond shape cross-section w/slight "hollow grind". The Romans do not seem to reproduce this feature, yet seem to take the time and extra labor to make the blade "waisted" from time to time. I wonder why?

From Early Republic on, the Romans fought both with (as mercenaries) and against the Gauls. So throughout much of the Roman history up until the Empire they had contact with Celtic weapons and the swords of the time.

From the first Punic War on the Celts are using relatively long swords. Toward the late Republic, the "typical" Celtic sword was likely to be 32 1/2" or so blade length as a basic length, and more often than not had a short, sharp point. By Caesar's time the blades could very often reach 35-37" in some specimens, again most often with a very effective point.
I don't know what this does to anyone's theories about Roman sword development, but there you have it, the Romans had substantial contact with swords like this from 140 BC (roughly) onwards.....

Also interesting to note: I had a book with finds dredged fromt he Saone river in France. Some Roman and Celtic finds deposited roughly the same time, late Caesar or later. Some gladii, and some Roman "long swords" or spathae. I find it interesting that at least in this find spot, the Roman "long" sword is pretty short, usually shy of 28" or so, while the more typical "celtic" sword is quite a bit longer, a couple right up around 35" blade, and again most with a nice sharp point.

Javelins/pila....again, no idea how this affects one's theories one way or the other, but in North Italy you see many Celtic grave finds with a socketed pila having a long iron shank. These are quite common in warrior graves from looks to be as early as 375 BC?

These socketed pila type throwing spears have as many of 10 variants in point shank, etc. All of them have the long iron "neck" and a short, very stout penetrating head. Also, there are 2-3 quite common variants where the short sharp point is barbed. It may not have been called an angon, but it appears in the record, as early as 4th century BC in celtic graves. Maybe they simply did not have a name for it then?

No conclusions from me one way or the other, but interestingt o note what appears in the archaeological record, and when it appears relative to Rome.

Nate
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Peter Johnsson
Industry Professional



Location: Storvreta, Sweden
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 1,757

PostPosted: Mon 23 Jan, 2006 2:43 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Nate,
Thank you for a detailed and thoughtful post.

Just thought to add some observations on the roman blades. Spathae blades can be simple lenticular or diamond shaped in cross section, but many roman blades in the Danish bog material are much more advanced with multiple fullers and octagonal sections, as well as very advanced patternwelding.

On the republican gladius, the "hispaniensis", aren´t there a few found with hollowground blades?
I attach two examples where you can see a rounded midrib and hollow edge bevels


Nathan Bell wrote:


....Another interesting note is that the Celtic sword most often has a raised midrib, at the very least being a rather stout diamond shape cross-section w/slight "hollow grind". The Romans do not seem to reproduce this feature, yet seem to take the time and extra labor to make the blade "waisted" from time to time. I wonder why?
....

Nate


I have personally seen a Gladius of Mainz type with a narrow raised midrib: almost like a giant pugio. (How I regret I could not document that one! It was in my grasp, but I had to choose only one sword among several hundred other of high interest!)
Another thing one might keep in mind that shallow hollowgrinding might not remain in rusted specimen today. If the diameter of the hollows are large, it is possible that the corrosion eates away the shape down to a blurred diamond shape or a lentcular section. It all depends on how well preserved the original is, but as many roman blades have suffered badly from the gnawing of father time, what we see today might not always be representative of original shape.



 Attachment: 88.41 KB
GladiusIvoryEgyptJz.jpg
note the longish blade. I would think this is of the same dimensions as the Hispaniensis type.

 Attachment: 65.54 KB
GladiusMatrixEB.jpg
Pictures of both these swords was generously shaperd to my by Kirk.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Martin Wallgren




Location: Bjästa, Sweden
Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 620

PostPosted: Mon 23 Jan, 2006 4:58 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Fantastic pics!

This Roman thing is growing on me! I have made a couple of Gladus waisters (Rudius) and me and a few from our group are testing them out for possible fightingprinsiples with them. I have based them on the size of Albions NG Mains model. Right now I´m just waiting for the Spec. on the Spathae to make spatha waisters. I will give you all a report on the result of our studies as soon as we feel we trained enough.

Martin

Swordsman, Archer and Dad
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Nathan Bell





Joined: 21 Aug 2003

Posts: 329

PostPosted: Mon 23 Jan, 2006 10:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi Peter,
Long time no type! How are you and your family?

A few more comments from me...As far as metallurgy, it is hard to take Caesar's quote about the Gallic swords at face value---he is citing word for word the earlier work of Polybius, who likely is also quoting earlier sources. A number of the Roman passages about the Gauls simply recycle up to a centuries-old preconceptions about the Gauls.

Work done by modern archaeologists (especially on the Swiss finds) tends to refute the theories about poor quality Gallis swords. Almost all the Port swords exhibit steel edges with composite structure center and cores. In addition, they often sport very crip multiple fullers. These date from at as early as the late second century BC---this quality is then showing up close to 500 years prior to the Danish bog finds Peter is referencing.

Another interesting note is that a large number of the Port swords exhibit stamped maker's marks---something we talked about many months ago at Albion, Peter Happy

I added a couple of example pictures and information of these to the "Celtic swords" post some time back. Unfortunately, the pics lost a lot of quality when I got them small enough to attach. Anyway, these swords are very well executed, crisp, clean, and more often than not, quite pointy!

As to the hispaniensis, I am not as familiar with the Roman blades, have seen only a dozen or so articles and reports in passing, but I am sure there are a few with some raised midribs and slight hollowgrinding. I do not doubt in the slightest that the Romans were well capable of producing the work, and in fact take the extra time and attention to make many of the blades waisted or leaf-shaped, a more technically difficult form to acheive. What puzzles me is the proportion of midribbed blades. Some perhaps 75% or so of the celtic blades exhibit a very crisp highly raised midrib, whereas it seems that maybe the opposite is true for the Roman blades? I wonder why.

It may be that some of these were slightly hollowground and obscured by corrosion. However, the raised midrib cross-section is noted again and again in the Celtic literature, even in corroded specimens. That may be the celtic archaeology professors are being more meticulous? I don't know but I do find that corroded iron artefacts in the "celtic" literature are often subjected to radiograph to determine former shape and then the archaeological drawing reflects the original shapes and cross-sections.

On another side note, re: corrosion, I have recently come across a picture of an Imperial "Fullham" type gladius from Wederath where it is quite clear that the blade has been tinned, as has the shield boss in that grave. Neat to see that early rust-proofing even on weapons.



Peter Johnsson wrote:
Nate,
Thank you for a detailed and thoughtful post.

Just thought to add some observations on the roman blades. Spathae blades can be simple lenticular or diamond shaped in cross section, but many roman blades in the Danish bog material are much more advanced with multiple fullers and octagonal sections, as well as very advanced patternwelding.

On the republican gladius, the "hispaniensis", aren´t there a few found with hollowground blades?
I attach two examples where you can see a rounded midrib and hollow edge bevels


Nathan Bell wrote:


....Another interesting note is that the Celtic sword most often has a raised midrib, at the very least being a rather stout diamond shape cross-section w/slight "hollow grind". The Romans do not seem to reproduce this feature, yet seem to take the time and extra labor to make the blade "waisted" from time to time. I wonder why?
....

Nate


I have personally seen a Gladius of Mainz type with a narrow raised midrib: almost like a giant pugio. (How I regret I could not document that one! It was in my grasp, but I had to choose only one sword among several hundred other of high interest!)
Another thing one might keep in mind that shallow hollowgrinding might not remain in rusted specimen today. If the diameter of the hollows are large, it is possible that the corrosion eates away the shape down to a blurred diamond shape or a lentcular section. It all depends on how well preserved the original is, but as many roman blades have suffered badly from the gnawing of father time, what we see today might not always be representative of original shape.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Why longer swords in late Roman time?
Page 2 of 2 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2 All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum