Roman Gladius

[Minicol]

hey folks !

Five pages of this thread, and no-one has mentioned that the Roman weapons were adapted by Paradigm for their D20 3.5 Arcanis line ?

In this line, the Gladii is an exotic weapon, doing piercing damage, with the stats of a longsword. However, if you take the Legionary background feat, it comes free as a martial weapon doing Piercing and Slashing. (Legionary carries other advantages).

Cheers !

 

[Necronomicus]

Wow. My memory has failed me. There's only the Drusus/Gladius as far as Gladiator swords go. Well, guess that will have to work.

 

[pawsplay]

Thats not copletely true, there are several mentions of Gladiators weapons being custon made. This would suggest they they were of a higher quality that those produced for the Legions. After all Gladiators were valuable property it would make sense to equip them as well as possible and if you were a freeman or citizen the wouldn't you want the best you could afford?

In the late era, gladiator weapons were forbidden to be made of steel, because they made the fights too deadly. I would not assume a custom gladius was anything spectacular as a weapon, although undoubtedly they were made sturdy, as a broken gladius in the arena would be an embarrassment.

The historical legionairy weapon, the gladius, was just a shortsword. The gladius was originally the generic term for sword. As the gladius gained a distinct cultural identity, the word spatha, meaning blade, shifted from meaning a type of broadsword to swords in general, and the soldier's gladius became known as the semispatha.

Early Roman gladii were an elegant leaf shape that provided excellent cutting and thrusting power. Later gladii, including those in use for much of the Imperial era, were less efficient and elegant, more triangular in shape. A late era gladius would qualify, if I were to come up with a descriptor, as a cheap shortsword.

 

[Rel]

Early Roman gladii were an elegant leaf shape that provided excellent cutting and thrusting power. Later gladii, including those in use for much of the Imperial era, were less efficient and elegant, more triangular in shape. A late era gladius would qualify, if I were to come up with a descriptor, as a cheap shortsword.

I find this aspect of the transition of the gladius (similar to the point made by Krieg five years ago) to be really interesting. One normally thinks of weapons as evolving toward being more efficient to use but it looks like the gladius moved toward being more efficient to make.

I suppose that it is somewhat similar to civil-war era firearms. The rifled barrel existed at the time but the smooth bore was easier to mass produce and so was the common weapon for most troops.

 

[S'mon]

It's just a short sword.

It was good for the Romans because it was cheap and reliable, and most importantly you can pack a lot of close order infantry wielding it into a narrow frontage - roughly 2 Roman gladius men for every 1 Dacian 2-handed falx wielder, say.

But it's still just a short sword. Great for mass battles, but if everyone has their own 5' square, not so much. if you want to emulate its effectiveness in 3e-4e I'd suggest allowing the front 2 ranks of a shortsword wielding formation to attack, emulating a 2'6" frontage which is fairly accurate.

 

[mmadsen]

It was good for the Romans because it was cheap and reliable, and most importantly you can pack a lot of close order infantry wielding it into a narrow frontage - roughly 2 Roman gladius men for every 1 Dacian 2-handed falx wielder, say.

This is the exact point I was about to make. The gladius doesn't have to be special, and the legionary doesn't have to be special either, for the legion to be special.

That said, another strength of the gladius is its effectiveness up close, which only shows up in 3E in a grappling situation. Packed troops with large shields should probably end up in a quasi-grapple, but 3E's bull rush and grapple don't mesh well and don't model an armed scrum really.

 

[Storm Raven]

I suppose that it is somewhat similar to civil-war era firearms. The rifled barrel existed at the time but the smooth bore was easier to mass produce and so was the common weapon for most troops.

This is incorrect. The most common firearm used by troops in the U.S. Civil War was the 1861 Springfield, a rifled musket. The second most common was the Pattern 1853 Enfield, also a rifled musket, followed by the 1863 Springfield, another rifled musket.

While smoothbore 1842 Springfields and even 1816/1822 Springfields were used fairly frequently in the first year of the war (the rifled 1855 Springfield being in short supply), they were phased out quickly, because of their innaccuracy, short range, and use of a flintlock firing mechanism as opposed to a percussion cap. No smoothbore small arms were mass produced for military use during the U.S. Civil War.

 

[Rel]

This is incorrect. The most common firearm used by troops in the U.S. Civil War was the 1861 Springfield, a rifled musket. The second most common was the Pattern 1853 Enfield, also a rifled musket, followed by the 1863 Springfield, another rifled musket.

While smoothbore 1842 Springfields and even 1816/1842 Springfields were used fairly frequently in the first year of the war (the rifled 1855 Springfield being in short supply), they were phased out quickly, because of their innaccuracy, short range, and use of a flintlock firing mechanism as opposed to a percussion cap. No smoothbore small arms were mass produced for military use during the U.S. Civil War.

I stand corrected.

 

[S'mon]

That said, another strength of the gladius is its effectiveness up close

Yes, the superiority of the shortsword (in trained hands) over the more common spear was that (a) you could easily turn to fight in any direction, and more importantly (b) in the press of battle you could still stabbity-stab-stab-stab when enemy pike/spear troops were too constrained to fight.

I've seen the leading edge of a Roman formation compared to a buzz saw, and that seems reasonable. The soldiers were trained to butcher enemy troops like cattle, stab-forward-stab-forward, men behind finishing off the wounded. A shortsword is easily maneuverable and so easy to use for maximum lethality, which is what the Romans specialised in - killing everyone. This emphasis on killing is actually historically quite rare, the Mongols being another well known practitioner of (different) maximum-fatality tactics.

 

[Pbartender]

This is the exact point I was about to make. The gladius doesn't have to be special, and the legionary doesn't have to be special either, for the legion to be special.

That said, another strength of the gladius is its effectiveness up close, which only shows up in 3E in a grappling situation. Packed troops with large shields should probably end up in a quasi-grapple, but 3E's bull rush and grapple don't mesh well and don't model an armed scrum really.

The 4e equivalent would be to have a group of troops purposefully squeezing to fit more people into a tighter formation.

In 4E, I would perhaps create a series of multiclass feats called "Gladius Training" similar to the other weapon training feats already available. Allow the initial feat to grant proficiency in the gladius and negate some of the penaties for squeezing when using a gladius only.

Later feats could give substitute powers based on fighting in formation with a gladius.