Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Amal Shukup" data-source="post: 1304540" data-attributes="member: 6291">Roman effectivenessI'm definitely in agreement with most posters here - the Gladius was nothing more than a straight up short sword. I'd even object to its characterization as 'fancy' - compared with the beautiful, leaf shaped (originally bronze)shortsword of the Iberian penninsula that the Gladius evolved from, it was an inflexible and unaesthetic weapon... No good for defence, no mechanical augmentation to cutting power (which the leaf shape provided), horrible characteristics with respect to maintaining a good edge etc... BUT. Very easy to mass produce (of vital importance). It was also perfectly adapted for the Roman style of 'swordplay' (or vice versa...) - which is basically a straight, powerful thrust that resembles a Karate punch...   1. Sword held palm up at side at about short-rib height, pointing forwards  2. Thrust forward low, rotate wrist for power   3. Return to start position  4. Rinse. Repeat...  Sword isn't used for defence - that's what the honking huge shield is for. And why wound 'em with the edge when you can kill or disable 'em with the point? Also, unlike swinging some huge bar of steel, this economical little stab can be done all day every day... The infantry's answer to the food processor... Anyway, swordplay and sword technology (except mass production) wasn't what made these guys stunningly effective. It was their training in group tactics, conditioning, discipline, infrastructure (weapons/armor manufacture, those roads!), medicine, engineering, and logistics (not glamorous but what actually wins wars). Also, each and every Roman soldier was SERIOUSLY well equipped with armor - enough to bankrupt your average barbarian chieftains, never mind the poor iron age rabble following them. Not neccesarily as pretty or as uniform as movies tend to show, but serious ironmongery...  I've read an analysis of battlefield wounds conducted at an archaelogical site in Japan - everyone went in assuming that the famed Katana was going to be the butcher o' choice, but arrow wounds apparently outnumbered sword/spear etc wounds by a massive factor. The ancient world wasn't huge on archery (except Persia), but the Gladius is a really 'up close and personal' weapon for it to be responsible for much wholesale slaughter. I'd be thinking spears as a likely culprit, but I have no source to back that opinion.. Amal</blockquote>

Verification