No, training a legionary, housing and feeding him for 25 years, and equipping him with everything else he needed was very expensive. Making his sword a few inches longer would be an utterly trivial part of his cost.
+John Undefined The pilum is a javelin , in that it was meant for throwing. The Hasta was the spear meant for melee combat. ..And my Roman fanboy is showing again.
clothar23 I guess my joke fell flat with some people. _Gladius_ literally means sword and _pilum_ literally means javelin. And I am atually aware of this. (It would be a remarkable coincidence, if I were not.)
+John Undefined As opposed to a thrusting spear, yes. He says "this is a sword" to distinguish it from the nebulous category of "short swords". Because it's really not all that short, certainly not in the context of the other swords of its day.
Definitely both a cut and thrust sword. Livy in his History of Rome, Book 31talks about the horrified reaction of the Macedonian troops to the wounds inflicted by the Roman swords (the greeks fought primarily with spear / sarissa and regarded the sword as a side arm, not a primary weapon): "The very thing which was expected to make them keener to face any conflict only inspired them with hesitancy and fear. Philip's men had been accustomed to fighting with Greeks and Illyrians and had only seen wounds inflicted by javelins and arrows and in rare instances by lances. But when they saw bodies dismembered with the Spanish sword, arms cut off from the shoulder, heads struck off from the trunk, bowels exposed and other horrible wounds, they recognised the style of weapon and the kind of man against whom they had to fight, and a shudder of horror ran through the ranks".
I have a recreation of Sting, the sword carried by Bilbo/Frodo. It is the same length as that gladius and has a similar blade shape, although it is much wider at the business end and tapers much more towards the handle. I was just outdoors playing around with it and swung it at a sapling, perhaps an inch in diameter. It is very sharp and weighted perfectly. It cut through so cleanly and so effortlessly that I was taken aback. I took another swing a foot lower and got the same result. I was so impressed with it that is has now become my work machete! It works so well and is so well made that it is a very serviceable tool. And it glows blue when orcs are near! (well, it is supposed to. I have yet to find an orc)
Actually, Sting more represents the Greek Xiphos. Look one up its very similar. Also, what are you some sort of trog-hater? It's spelled Ork you fragging dunce (I jest it's a reference)
I used to have the same sword on my wall, my brother once decided to play around with it and gave it a few swings, he went back to his room and sat on his bed before realising there was a dull ache in his leg. Looking down he realised he'd taken a chunk out! Poor sod.
The way in which the ancients called this weapon is unknown, since falcata is not the original Iberian name or an appellation used in classical sources, but a term invented by Fernando Fulgosio in the middle of the 19th century in reference to the shape of its blade . The term itself derives from falcatus, -a, -um, Latin voice that means falconada, that is, in the form of a falcon or provided with a sickle
@@shawndickson5809 for me falcata sounds more aggresive because i'm romanian and there our word for "jaw" is "falcă or falca" and falcata makes me think of something whit jaws.
For what it is worth, at least some Romans knew of China. Some of them have written about it and you can find it in the maps of the era (but lol at what is missing compared to today)... Farther than those annoying Sassanids/Persians... Most people of the day probably didn't care about such a distant people.
Standardised equipment - standardised training - compatible tactics - economy of scale - fearsomeness of uniformity - the military machine. The legionary was a professional, in for the long-term. The kit was part of the uniform, and he owed everything to the army. The state showed its power through the army.
side note: back when I was watching The Walking Dead, I would often think how the gladius in combination with some kind of riot shield would be the ideal anti-zombie melee weapon, being short enough to stab, but also long enough to hack... maybe add a handguard or something to prevent cuts and infection with the virus
To use that, he's have to drop his sword and swap weapons, which means delay. If he has a sword short enough to work where he is, he'd use it. But yes, they all carried daggers too, so he had the option.
In actual battle, I'm pretty sure the Gladius is one of the 'most successful' weapons in history - it's the sword that carved out the Roman Empire and well, there was a lot of carving involved in that business. Of course legionaries used other weapons as well, but if they found out these things weren't killing people effectively enough I'm sure they'd changed them at some point.
It also has (in the lack of one) two edges. It also has a hilt that fits the average human hand, so you wouldn't be able to use it two-handedly, which supports the evidence that it is, in fact, a short sword. Working against this conjecture, it does not contain a guard or a pommel on the hilt, so one would assume it might be a battle-axe. One would be wrong, however, because this is quite clearly a short sword.
Imperator the age of the term is irrelevant, short sword is a English definition and a category of weaponry. Yes they are new terms, however people argue over what category it falls into now, not what it was categorised or called during its time.
This is a problem for archaeologists trying to classify things. It is particularly so with bronze age weapons, where no apparent change in design appears with different sizes, and all lengths exist. I'd say that the change would come when the main fighting technique changed, which might be affected by the size of the wielder, and his personal fighting style.
Actually, they did -- once. An expeditionary force of Legio VI Ferrata encountered Han troops at Sogdiana in 36 BC. The battle was "inconclusive," but the Chinese won on points, since they took some Roman prisoners. Technology played a major role as the Chinese crossbows outranged the Roman pila.
Seeing that gladius being held and the close quarter effectiveness of it, for some reason, even though I've seen them lots of times, somehow this time looked completely threatening and eerie. So cool.
Falcata, Makhaira, Kopis, Khopesh, Xiphos... So many confusing sword names, but at least they sound more original than Shortsword, Broadsword, Longsword, Greatsword, etc.
We can lay the blame at the feet of two guys from the middle of the US who just wanted to make some money off of some game rules they wrote up. It's a lot easier to introduce new players to short sword, longsword, broadsword, great sword, etc. than the real historical names in the early 1970's. And as the players mature and learn, they can choose to add in the historical stuff into their games.
Perhaps I should have said "AK". This is an example of the problem. How many weapons are the gladius? Archaeologists generally put them into four or five types.
I would have to agree with the spear. The bow is actually difficult to master and takes a life time of training. The most common weapon used was the spear. It was the easiest and cheapest to make. Bows take skill to make, and take a lot of training. Bows did kill many people, especially when taking into account the Huns or the Mongols who specialized in horse archery, but so did the Japanese. It is important to know, however, that many armies that had horse archers had more men with spears. when the Huns came into the Roman empire under Atilla the elite force consisted of horse archers, but the bulk of their armies were infantry, primarily from the conquered Germanic tribes who were forced to give them troops. Bows may have killed many people, but spears are still well in the lead in my opinion. Samurai were horse archers, but their next most important weapon was not the sword, it was the spear (Yari). But samurai were like the knight of Europe in one very important case, there were few of them. During the Sengoku Jidai most armies consisted of Ashigaru, primarily spear wielding peasants.
Picking up on the grip of the sword with the blade in a lateral position. I'm with you Lindy. It's not needed to initially hold he blade that way for a rib thrust. As with sabre duelling, the blade can be almost instantly set to that position mid thrust with a turn of the wrist.
Oh.... I thought the sword had that name because it was usually used by Gladiators. Until this video, I though Gladiator referred only to those slaves that fight for entertainment of the crowd. But now, judging from this video, I understand that " Gladiator" simply means " Swordman" in Latin, correct?
That is correct. "gladiator" does literally translate to "swordsman", even though there were many types of arena gladiators that didn't actually use swords. Such as the retiarius-type fighters that used a trident, a dagger and a net.
Timo Schmid Nope, gladii is just a plural of gladius. Kind of like this: Gladius = Sword Gladii = Swords Filius = Son Filii = Sons Vulturius = Vulture Vulturii = Vultures
As a historian i.e. a bloody know-it-all theorist I find the term 'short sword' to be not very helpful to talk about swords. There are very few historical weapons that can actually be called 'short swords'. Also the length of the blade is just one of many factors that determine the characteristics of a sword. I also offer a different take on the quote: "Until the development of the AK-47 more people were killed with other weapons." ;-)
On the point of spears: Variations on the pointed stick have been around since prehistoric times. It is pretty easy to make, all you need is a long bit of wood and a tip which could be simple carved wood (fire hardened at your option) or a bit of sharp stone, bone, or metal depending on available resources and technology). Being able to kill something without getting close to it was always useful as well.
but not all that many people were actually killed with bows they might wound someone and allow one of your mates to kill them or make people put there head down but it isn't all that lethal it doesn't make a very big wound like a sword or spear and not the huge messy tempral cavitys like bullet
Killing someone with a bow is pretty darn difficult. You'd have to like choke them with the string or something.. Using an arrow generally works better.
Depending on the shape of the bow, you could probably whack someone with it. Alternatively, you could try and break it (good luck with that) and then stab them in the jugular with the point of a broken part.
Guy Windsor once suggested the sideways grip thing, not for the gladius, but for the viking swords. They had a groove running along the middle of the blade, and the hypothesis was that this would have helped anchor/position your thumb, and the grip might have been better for stabbing around a round shield, as opposed to Roman legionnaires, who would have been stabbing around a rectangular shield.
SkyClap yeah i totally agreee with that,,,,,,because the romance language take its roots in the later empire....and the sword was the spatha ...espada spanish...épée french etc
For anyone interested in "playing" with a Gladius, Cold Steel makes a Polycarbonate trainer, and their modern Gladius machete. It's sort of a "tacticool version of the Roman Legionaries sword. Wicked point, sharp edge. I've had a lot of fun doing cutting drills with it.
The Latin for sword is Ensis. The Gladius is a copy of the celtic Klaidimos -> Klaidi -> Gladi (the scottish Claymore has the same etymology). In the republic Gladius generally referred to a short, broad, double edged sword with a tapered point. It was only during the early empire that Gladius came to mean any sword. In the later empire the Gladius was replaced by the Spatha - a longer sword that was developed into the viking sword and medieval arming sword. Spatha is a greek loanword and eventually it also came to mean any sword, hence the spanish for sword is Espada.
It seems to be similar to the word "rifle". Essentially any gun with a rifled barrel could be called a rifle and yet the word is only used to mean a specific type of long arm. It could be used generally to refer to a bunch of different weapons of similar type, or the one very specific weapon itself.
Gotterdammerung05 I believe that came about as a means of distinguishing them from the earlier, and more common, musket and in some militaries early rifles were issued only to special units and were distinguished from regular infantrymen by a different colored uniform. Now a days, rifle is still used to refer to any long arm with a rifled barrel but at the same time all modern rifles have some sort of name to distinguish it from other rifles lime M16, AK74, G36, Gewehr98, etc.
The commonly used Spanish gladius of the Republic is listed as being between 22 and 26 inches long. Not all that short. At the end of the Republic the gladius preferred for the Roman infantry got shorter and stayed that way for a couple of hundred yrs then grew again.
Given the sheer amount of Roman weapons that could be acquired through trade, treaty and pillage it's safe to say that they probably were to some extent. Still, available does not mean cheap - swords, even mass produced Gladii, were probably not accessible to the average levy and thus not central to their tactics.
The certainly did not train roman soldiers to stab through the ribcage because steel was very poor back then and striking bone could easily break or damage the blade. I'm pretty sure that they were trained to hold their shield to the upper body of the enemy and stab him in the belly while he's blinded. With a wide blade like the gladius this would always result in a quick death.
The scuta (legionary shields) were about 10kgs/24lbs, yes. Later designs were smaller and lighter, though they were never small things, they had to be thick enough to protect you from a sharp metal bar being swung with a lot of force.
You'd think it would be bow and arrow that had killed more people before the ak-47.. or arrow i guess. I like to imagine there was a lot of people saying bows dont kill people arrows do.
I never said it wasn't effective, I love the katana personally. I just recognise that it certainly wasn't the pinnacle of weapon engineering and that the gladius wasn't kept around because of tradition, but rather because it was the most effective weapon for it's particular period and purpose.
I could be wrong, but I believe there's one of these on display at the Roman villa in Fishbourne, UK. I'm pretty sure I remember seeing it last time I was there.
+DrSmile81 There is no such thing as a "best" weapon. Yes, with a large shield the gladius is very good... but without that shield, I'd take a longer sword without hesitation.
sure there is a best weapon. brainpower and strenght of mind. why do people always take everything so serious these days or just want to say "i know better then you - so stfu".....
When you don't have access to a firearm, sure. I'm not so certain that even the glory of Rome could stand up against an Armalite or Kalashnikov, though.
Yes it is purchased in a sense, but it is still given since the soldiers had no executive power over the initial acquisition. The word "give" is a very flexible verb. Something doesn't have to be free to be "given". In general, it simply refers to the transition of an entity from a possessor to a recipient. "Give" in this context means to deliver in an exchange.
I know this video is old and I know that this is a small thing but thank you for using inches even though you're English. :) It really helps me understand lengths and I know it's not normally what you guys would use first over there.
***** Yes, when they are talking to americans about sizes we sometimes use inches or feet. But that is all. I can't say for sure how it is in Japan, but people do not use any imperial units in Germany. Not in daily life, and not in science or engineering. The only exception I can think of is plumbing tube sizes, those are usualy in inches.
No idea, probably the historical British influence on steam pipes. BSP (british standard pipe) threads are even an ISO standard. I do believe some companies are switching to metric pipe sizes and threads, but it's still very rare.
I have had a go at slicing things (mostly dense root vegetables e.g. Turnips and butternut squashes) with a sharp Gladius. Hot knife and butter came to mind with virtually no effort. None of this full body weight stuff, just casual waving from about a foot away. Coleslaw!'
the most killing weapon is neither sword nor spear, and AK 47 even more prosperous. The most killing weapon is the howitzer family of artillery, then perhaps the bolt action rifle.
In that case, we must also distinguish which model of AK-47 pattern rifle. There are a plethora of variants, made in a multitude of locations with minor differences. So, if howitzers as a "family of weapons" don't count, neither should the entire "family" of AK-47 type rifles. I suppose we could just say high-explosive has caused the most deaths. But then again, it was mostly the shrapnel caused by the HE that killed. THAT'S IT!!! the weapon which has caused the most human deaths is! *dramatic pause......... small bits of metal flying at high speed.
Very true of course, buckler-type shields did a similar job and were comparatively light. It is more about the nature of fighting, Viking round shields commonly weighed around 10lbs because they were designed to be used for parrying as well as absorbing impact, a middle ground, bucklers weighed as little as 4-5lbs because they were designed to deflect blows from light weapons, Roman/Greek shields (20-25lbs) were used to push in a wall and were large enough to protect most of the man next to you.
From all manner of games, films and images (especially when connected to arena fights) I had always got the impression that the Gladius was almost the model "short sword" and were in fact pretty short (although longer and wider than anything that could be called a dagger). Thanks for putting me right!
Addition to point 1: Naming bow, spear and slings you use HUGE categories. For the Gladius it would be sword then. Exactly the point lindybeige stretched in his video. So if you divide spear and bow into their various types, the usage of most of them varies just as much as with the swords, depending on how the fights were layed out to happen.
A lot of longer swords of the period have 'points' like that. It may well have been to discourage thrusting, since they still hadn't quite figured out how to make swords of that length rigid and strong enough to not bend or break when used to stab.
I am unsure as to whether you're debating my estimate of Viking shield weight, I did not say they were particularly heavy as you seem to be implying. If you consult the Norweigian law of the time you see that they do not require them to be bound in iron. Additionally there are finds from the 10th century (the Gokstad ship) where their shields had no iron bands at all. It seems unlikely they were constructed with iron bands as a regular practice.
My understanding is the lorica segmentata was used predominately in the west and the eastern legions primarily used the old lorica hamata. It eventually fell out of service (3rd C?) and everyone went back to mail. Maybe creating plate armour was more expensive/harder than it was worth?
The length of that reproduction's blade is 19.5 inches and as he mentioned, most of the time they would be a bit longer at 22 inches. Usually a katana's blade is 23 inches or more. What may throw most people off is that the gladius' handle is short and only accommodates for one hand.
I've heard they where only used for underhand thrusting; and that the only overhead blow from a gladius was from a commander, flatside to the heads of soldiers who tried to use theirs overhead.
I have had an idea for a long time that much of the "design" were also influenced by the manufacturing aspects. They needed large quantaties of swords and the gladius was maybe not the best sword available but it was good "value for money".
They were made of wood with metal bits and pieces like other shields, but mostly wood. You don't need thick steel for shields, steel bosses for viking shields and bucklers were around 16 gauge or thinner. They obviously did work, but it's hard to see it work like that at that weight.
Any thoughts about an upcoming video discussing the spatha? I'd love to hear what you have to say about it and how it came to use and disuse. I've seen some widely varying spatha designs from various modern smiths - any thoughts on what style design would have been most commonly used in Roman-era Britain? Thanks!
Spatha had a rounded point as it was a slashing weapon. As I understand it, it was due to metallurgical issues. Until you had good steel and consistent hardening longer and thinner meant less rigid.
actually there WERE factories in the Roman Empire of a sort- at least the concept of division of labour and standardization were there, and this came into play particularly in arms manufacture. post-Marian legionaries did not supply their own equipment, the state gave it to them.
My personal differentiation between short swords (gladii) and daggers (pugio): A sword is long enough to easily thrust all the way thru someone, while a dagger is typically too short to do that...unless it's like a poniard or something. And then it kinda falls into that gray area of long dagger/short sword. Maybe a better comparison: Short sword-hefty enough for a chop and long enough for a thru and thru thrust. Dagger: not enough mass for chopping and too short for thru and thru thrust.
Axes and maces were also popular. There were all kinds of weapons, and medieval warfare was quite versatile on the personal level. Sure, maybe tactics at the macro level weren't as flexible, but whatever.
Well to be technical it is a sword based on construction. A sandwich style handle and it could be considered a dagger (in the same way a machete isn't considered a sword nowdays). Although the blade shape is not conducive of such. A later period and a different region we have the Langer Messer (I know I have butchered that name). Because of the handle it was considered to be a knife and so the peasantry could carry them.
To me, a gladius seems to be an optimized weapon to use with shield of any size, but especially with larger ones. - Short length provides balance, mobility and interferes less with a shield. - Lack of hand guard actually makes it even more mobile because there is nothing to restrict your wrist movement. Meanwhile, a shield protects your hand, like, 90-95% of the time anyway. - It's short, yet thick, and kinda stubby, and wider at the end, so it can cut and thrust pretty well, and probably even better in a hand of a less experienced fighter, then a longsword would. - And since it has some thick and wide blade mass behind the cutting edge at any time, it can also chop almost as good as a smaller machete, or a lighter axe. Another thing that a lonsword is not very good at. - It's also a LOT cheaper and easier to make or obtain, since it requires less material, lower quality of steel, and less skill from a blacksmith to make it into a useful and durable weapon. For a food longsword, you need a lot of high quality steel, and a very skilled and experienced blacksmith. And a lot of money. Otherwise, it either bends and loses sharpness quickly, or chips off and breaks...
No. It would depend a lot on other gear (what kind of shield you have, what kind of shield the other guy has, what kind of armor is in play, etc.) It's notable that as longer swords became popular in later centuries, shields tended to get smaller and much lighter.
My ancestry is Italian and oddly enough, I have never been drawn to the Roman style of sword. It just doesn't tickle my fancy. The kopis does though. I think the primary reason I do not find it appealing is the minimal hand guard. Is the point of this one accurate in terms of geometry? For some reason I thought they were not as pointy as all that, but I could be mistaken. I am more of knife guy than and sword guy.
I heard that they were held underhand, i.e. pointing downwards and used for stabbing oder the edge oft the scutum in formation combat. Do you think this could be true?
Spatha also means sword [nowadays they use the same word for sword in many languages: spada (Italian), espada (Spanish)]. Actually the same thing happens for most names we use nowadays to classify the different historical weapons (like claymore = great sword, langes messer = long knife, etc).
No, training a legionary, housing and feeding him for 25 years, and equipping him with everything else he needed was very expensive. Making his sword a few inches longer would be an utterly trivial part of his cost.
Oh, sure, next you'll be telling us that the pilum is a javelin or something.
+John Undefined The pilum is a javelin , in that it was meant for throwing. The Hasta was the spear meant for melee combat. ..And my Roman fanboy is showing again.
clothar23
I guess my joke fell flat with some people. _Gladius_ literally means sword and _pilum_ literally means javelin. And I am atually aware of this. (It would be a remarkable coincidence, if I were not.)
+John Undefined better sick burn than i expected XD
+John Undefined As opposed to a thrusting spear, yes. He says "this is a sword" to distinguish it from the nebulous category of "short swords". Because it's really not all that short, certainly not in the context of the other swords of its day.
Fun fact, pilum also means penis in Portuguese.
Definitely both a cut and thrust sword. Livy in his History of Rome, Book 31talks about the horrified reaction of the Macedonian troops to the wounds inflicted by the Roman swords (the greeks fought primarily with spear / sarissa and regarded the sword as a side arm, not a primary weapon):
"The very thing which was expected to make them keener to face any conflict only inspired them with hesitancy and fear. Philip's men had been accustomed to fighting with Greeks and Illyrians and had only seen wounds inflicted by javelins and arrows and in rare instances by lances. But when they saw bodies dismembered with the Spanish sword, arms cut off from the shoulder, heads struck off from the trunk, bowels exposed and other horrible wounds, they recognised the style of weapon and the kind of man against whom they had to fight, and a shudder of horror ran through the ranks".
Wow, that was a powerful reading! Thank you!
Romans OP pls nerf
Man. Imagine making the Macedonians scared of fighting you.
@@DCdabest its not hard. they were trained for drills not for skill of single combat
@Johnny Wise yes it can
I have a recreation of Sting, the sword carried by Bilbo/Frodo. It is the same length as that gladius and has a similar blade shape, although it is much wider at the business end and tapers much more towards the handle. I was just outdoors playing around with it and swung it at a sapling, perhaps an inch in diameter. It is very sharp and weighted perfectly. It cut through so cleanly and so effortlessly that I was taken aback. I took another swing a foot lower and got the same result. I was so impressed with it that is has now become my work machete! It works so well and is so well made that it is a very serviceable tool. And it glows blue when orcs are near! (well, it is supposed to. I have yet to find an orc)
:)
Actually, Sting more represents the Greek Xiphos. Look one up its very similar.
Also, what are you some sort of trog-hater? It's spelled Ork you fragging dunce (I jest it's a reference)
I used to have the same sword on my wall, my brother once decided to play around with it and gave it a few swings, he went back to his room and sat on his bed before realising there was a dull ache in his leg. Looking down he realised he'd taken a chunk out! Poor sod.
Hi, i am greek, xiphos, is synonimus with the word spathi, they both mean sword.
It's actually quite amazing how well even a half way decently made cheapy sword cuts, let alone even better built and more expensive blades.
The gladius is often described as a very separate weapon from swords. It is part, I suggest, of the continuum of swords. It is also not very short.
I don't use "Kopis" much. Falcata sounds cooler. There's my argument.
Falcata is elegant, too elegant for me. I like kopis because it seems aggressive.
The way in which the ancients called this weapon is unknown, since falcata is not the original Iberian name or an appellation used in classical sources, but a term invented by Fernando Fulgosio in the middle of the 19th century in reference to the shape of its blade . The term itself derives from falcatus, -a, -um, Latin voice that means falconada, that is, in the form of a falcon or provided with a sickle
KUKRI
@@shawndickson5809 for me falcata sounds more aggresive because i'm romanian and there our word for "jaw" is "falcă or falca" and falcata makes me think of something whit jaws.
@@mu0FFpu0FF I have the feeling that the kukri is a smaller copy of the kopis
2:44: You can apparently even start teamkilling the guys behind you if you want to.
it's a prank bro
It was satire bro, ironic.
I don’t know who to whoosh
2:55 I didn't realise the romans invaded China
+Dave Watt hahaha
I'm fucking dead X^D
This comment deserves more likes ^^
Oh you swashbuckling rake, you! xD
For what it is worth, at least some Romans knew of China. Some of them have written about it and you can find it in the maps of the era (but lol at what is missing compared to today)... Farther than those annoying Sassanids/Persians... Most people of the day probably didn't care about such a distant people.
With big shield its normal to have little sword.
kiba BG Is that a compensating joke?
No, its how they fought in Antiquity.
kiba BG I'm sure you could've squeezed a joke in there.
TotalBarbarian Thank you for enlighten me, but i never mentioned these words ...
MrRamran720 thought he saw a joke, so I enlightened him.
Good point about the spear.
+Morten Christensen what do you mean
+Vlad Tepes that more people were killed with a Spear than the gladius..
y tho?
I contend knives have done the most dirty work, if you count sharp rocks. Knives are the weapon that has never gone out of style.
they were never the primary weapon though the spear has been the primary weapon in every culture or almost every culture
That button on his shirt made it look like he had a hole through his chest.
I have never seen anyone claiming that the Gladius was not a sword.
But as you may know
There's always
"That guy "
Who the hell argues that a gladius isn't a sword?? lol
Whiterin bob
God damnit, Bob.
ikr bob
NOT SO PRO GAMING screw bob
kapoios. gr ikr fricking bob
Standardised equipment - standardised training - compatible tactics - economy of scale - fearsomeness of uniformity - the military machine. The legionary was a professional, in for the long-term. The kit was part of the uniform, and he owed everything to the army. The state showed its power through the army.
when people say shortsword, they do not mean dagger ffs. thepy say it to deliberately distinguish from a dagger.
I see little use in the first definition, since both could be fatal. The second, about chopping, however, seems good.
side note: back when I was watching The Walking Dead, I would often think how the gladius in combination with some kind of riot shield would be the ideal anti-zombie melee weapon, being short enough to stab, but also long enough to hack... maybe add a handguard or something to prevent cuts and infection with the virus
Yes, it's a home-made sword for re-enactment. Very blunt.
Who ever called that a dagger? Brings to mind Robin Hood Men in Tights.
"Here's your knife."
"Sword"
"Whatever"
That is still a great movie!
To use that, he's have to drop his sword and swap weapons, which means delay. If he has a sword short enough to work where he is, he'd use it. But yes, they all carried daggers too, so he had the option.
to me the gladius is a thing of beauty I just love the aesthetic of that sword
I always thought the gladius's parallel edges looked kinda functional-clunky in comparison to the Greek xiphos.
I don't know of the 'Drussus' as a weapon, but there was a 'Drusus' who was governor of Illyria.
I confess that I know little about them.
Hello
The Messer is a sword, perhaps a falchion. It was _legally_ a dagger, but in function it was a sword.
So what is a Koch Messer? 🍆🔪😂
In actual battle, I'm pretty sure the Gladius is one of the 'most successful' weapons in history - it's the sword that carved out the Roman Empire and well, there was a lot of carving involved in that business. Of course legionaries used other weapons as well, but if they found out these things weren't killing people effectively enough I'm sure they'd changed them at some point.
enjoythestruggle the underestimated sword that conquered most of the known world.
From what I remember they started off with a spear but that was usually quickly thrown at the enemy or thrown aside once close combat started.
Boy I really hope this channel sticks around! He could really have something here.
It is a sword in fact it is a short sword. It is far to large to be a dagger, so it is a short sword
It also has (in the lack of one) two edges. It also has a hilt that fits the average human hand, so you wouldn't be able to use it two-handedly, which supports the evidence that it is, in fact, a short sword.
Working against this conjecture, it does not contain a guard or a pommel on the hilt, so one would assume it might be a battle-axe.
One would be wrong, however, because this is quite clearly a short sword.
Imperator the age of the term is irrelevant, short sword is a English definition and a category of weaponry. Yes they are new terms, however people argue over what category it falls into now, not what it was categorised or called during its time.
This is a problem for archaeologists trying to classify things. It is particularly so with bronze age weapons, where no apparent change in design appears with different sizes, and all lengths exist. I'd say that the change would come when the main fighting technique changed, which might be affected by the size of the wielder, and his personal fighting style.
2:52 I didn't realize the Romans fought the Chinese.
Rofl
Actually, they did -- once. An expeditionary force of Legio VI Ferrata encountered Han troops at Sogdiana in 36 BC.
The battle was "inconclusive," but the Chinese won on points, since they took some Roman prisoners.
Technology played a major role as the Chinese crossbows outranged the Roman pila.
Seeing that gladius being held and the close quarter effectiveness of it, for some reason, even though I've seen them lots of times, somehow this time looked completely threatening and eerie. So cool.
Falcata, Makhaira, Kopis, Khopesh, Xiphos... So many confusing sword names, but at least they sound more original than Shortsword, Broadsword, Longsword, Greatsword, etc.
Because their from foreign languages.
Something tells me they mean- sword, sword, sword and sword.
@@amitabhakusari2304 actually not
We can lay the blame at the feet of two guys from the middle of the US who just wanted to make some money off of some game rules they wrote up. It's a lot easier to introduce new players to short sword, longsword, broadsword, great sword, etc. than the real historical names in the early 1970's. And as the players mature and learn, they can choose to add in the historical stuff into their games.
Perhaps I should have said "AK". This is an example of the problem. How many weapons are the gladius? Archaeologists generally put them into four or five types.
I would have said bow not spear but it hardly matters either way.
I would have to agree with the spear. The bow is actually difficult to master and takes a life time of training. The most common weapon used was the spear. It was the easiest and cheapest to make. Bows take skill to make, and take a lot of training. Bows did kill many people, especially when taking into account the Huns or the Mongols who specialized in horse archery, but so did the Japanese.
It is important to know, however, that many armies that had horse archers had more men with spears. when the Huns came into the Roman empire under Atilla the elite force consisted of horse archers, but the bulk of their armies were infantry, primarily from the conquered Germanic tribes who were forced to give them troops. Bows may have killed many people, but spears are still well in the lead in my opinion.
Samurai were horse archers, but their next most important weapon was not the sword, it was the spear (Yari). But samurai were like the knight of Europe in one very important case, there were few of them. During the Sengoku Jidai most armies consisted of Ashigaru, primarily spear wielding peasants.
Bow is a good competitor, but I believe spear because spears have been around since the earliest man.
Picking up on the grip of the sword with the blade in a lateral position. I'm with you Lindy. It's not needed to initially hold he blade that way for a rib thrust. As with sabre duelling, the blade can be almost instantly set to that position mid thrust with a turn of the wrist.
Oh.... I thought the sword had that name because it was usually used by Gladiators.
Until this video, I though Gladiator referred only to those slaves that fight for entertainment of the crowd. But now, judging from this video, I understand that " Gladiator" simply means " Swordman" in Latin, correct?
Yes, if I do recall, the word "gladiator' does translate to swordsman.
That is correct. "gladiator" does literally translate to "swordsman", even though there were many types of arena gladiators that didn't actually use swords.
Such as the retiarius-type fighters that used a trident, a dagger and a net.
Mestis Yeah I assume "warrior" is a more fair translation.
Fun fact: its galdius (one sword) gladii (two sowrds)
Timo Schmid Nope, gladii is just a plural of gladius.
Kind of like this:
Gladius = Sword
Gladii = Swords
Filius = Son
Filii = Sons
Vulturius = Vulture
Vulturii = Vultures
The gladius was not a weapon apart. It was just a style of sword.
As a historian i.e. a bloody know-it-all theorist I find the term 'short sword' to be not very helpful to talk about swords. There are very few historical weapons that can actually be called 'short swords'. Also the length of the blade is just one of many factors that determine the characteristics of a sword.
I also offer a different take on the quote: "Until the development of the AK-47 more people were killed with other weapons." ;-)
On the point of spears: Variations on the pointed stick have been around since prehistoric times. It is pretty easy to make, all you need is a long bit of wood and a tip which could be simple carved wood (fire hardened at your option) or a bit of sharp stone, bone, or metal depending on available resources and technology). Being able to kill something without getting close to it was always useful as well.
wait what bows shoot arrows what in the name of fuck!?
but not all that many people were actually killed with bows they might wound someone and allow one of your mates to kill them or make people put there head down but it isn't all that lethal it doesn't make a very big wound like a sword or spear and not the huge messy tempral cavitys like bullet
Paul Lytle whats a sword?
Killing someone with a bow is pretty darn difficult. You'd have to like choke them with the string or something.. Using an arrow generally works better.
haha very funny
Depending on the shape of the bow, you could probably whack someone with it. Alternatively, you could try and break it (good luck with that) and then stab them in the jugular with the point of a broken part.
Guy Windsor once suggested the sideways grip thing, not for the gladius, but for the viking swords. They had a groove running along the middle of the blade, and the hypothesis was that this would have helped anchor/position your thumb, and the grip might have been better for stabbing around a round shield, as opposed to Roman legionnaires, who would have been stabbing around a rectangular shield.
Just like a Katana simply means sword :D
And in Swedish, the word for sword is svärd - both in singular and plural. ^^
Gaps? It is one of most gapless of armours. Do you mean that it usually didn't cover the lower arms?
Just like how Katana just means sword in Japanese.
Isn't that common knowledge? I heard it in my first year of latin class.
Only amongst Latin speakers.
Malagar
or romance laguages speaker or non brain washed anglo-saxons
Malagar
And folks interested in classical era or weaponry.
Ragimund VonWallat
Hmm? Well, in spanish the word "gladius" doesnt really means anything... the word sword is "espada" in spanish.
SkyClap
yeah i totally agreee with that,,,,,,because the romance language take its roots in the later empire....and the sword was the spatha ...espada spanish...épée french etc
Well done that man! Thank you. Just ordered my first Gladius. (Windless). Home defense goes back to basics...
Don't forget the most "AK-47"s out there are actually AKMs, Type 56s, and other AK derivatives.
That's pedantry at that point. The AK47 system is the same. Different dimensions and receiver types do not change that.
For anyone interested in "playing" with a Gladius, Cold Steel makes a Polycarbonate trainer, and their modern Gladius machete. It's sort of a "tacticool version of the Roman Legionaries sword. Wicked point, sharp edge. I've had a lot of fun doing cutting drills with it.
The Latin for sword is Ensis. The Gladius is a copy of the celtic Klaidimos -> Klaidi -> Gladi (the scottish Claymore has the same etymology).
In the republic Gladius generally referred to a short, broad, double edged sword with a tapered point. It was only during the early empire that Gladius came to mean any sword.
In the later empire the Gladius was replaced by the Spatha - a longer sword that was developed into the viking sword and medieval arming sword. Spatha is a greek loanword and eventually it also came to mean any sword, hence the spanish for sword is Espada.
It seems to be similar to the word "rifle". Essentially any gun with a rifled barrel could be called a rifle and yet the word is only used to mean a specific type of long arm. It could be used generally to refer to a bunch of different weapons of similar type, or the one very specific weapon itself.
Gotterdammerung05 I believe that came about as a means of distinguishing them from the earlier, and more common, musket and in some militaries early rifles were issued only to special units and were distinguished from regular infantrymen by a different colored uniform. Now a days, rifle is still used to refer to any long arm with a rifled barrel but at the same time all modern rifles have some sort of name to distinguish it from other rifles lime M16, AK74, G36, Gewehr98, etc.
The commonly used Spanish gladius of the Republic is listed as being between 22 and 26 inches long. Not all that short. At the end of the Republic the gladius preferred for the Roman infantry got shorter and stayed that way for a couple of hundred yrs then grew again.
Yes, it does support that theory.
I would definitely say that the mongol bow is a contender for most people killed when it comes to a single weapon
Might as well say the Bubonic Plague counts, considering they used it as a weapon at one point.
Yeah the siege of Caffa was the first documented use of biological warfare. My people knew how to fight wars back then
***** Not so. 6th century BCE, the Assyrian's would use fungi to poison the wells of the enemy to make them delirious while in battle.
I'd contend that fire has killed a great deal more people than swords and spear. Only disease would likely outrank it in numbers.
Fire bad. Fire bad!
Given the sheer amount of Roman weapons that could be acquired through trade, treaty and pillage it's safe to say that they probably were to some extent.
Still, available does not mean cheap - swords, even mass produced Gladii, were probably not accessible to the average levy and thus not central to their tactics.
The certainly did not train roman soldiers to stab through the ribcage because steel was very poor back then and striking bone could easily break or damage the blade. I'm pretty sure that they were trained to hold their shield to the upper body of the enemy and stab him in the belly while he's blinded. With a wide blade like the gladius this would always result in a quick death.
Exactly and you only need to stick someone with about 3inches and they're out of the battle, if not killed immediately.
2 inches of point is worth any length of edge
@@aaronstory9780 That's not what she said...
Not often greaves.
this is my all time favorite "sword"
The scuta (legionary shields) were about 10kgs/24lbs, yes. Later designs were smaller and lighter, though they were never small things, they had to be thick enough to protect you from a sharp metal bar being swung with a lot of force.
You'd think it would be bow and arrow that had killed more people before the ak-47.. or arrow i guess. I like to imagine there was a lot of people saying bows dont kill people arrows do.
Captain Cokecan i dunno, during the battle of cannae ALOT of people died to swords..
By the same logic it wasnt ak-47 that killed people, it was the bullet.
I never said it wasn't effective, I love the katana personally. I just recognise that it certainly wasn't the pinnacle of weapon engineering and that the gladius wasn't kept around because of tradition, but rather because it was the most effective weapon for it's particular period and purpose.
The Gladius is the best sword ever made based on its use and function.
Well its only really preforms well with a shield
I could be wrong, but I believe there's one of these on display at the Roman villa in Fishbourne, UK. I'm pretty sure I remember seeing it last time I was there.
best weapon ever created
+DrSmile81 There is no such thing as a "best" weapon.
Yes, with a large shield the gladius is very good... but without that shield, I'd take a longer sword without hesitation.
sure there is a best weapon. brainpower and strenght of mind. why do people always take everything so serious these days or just want to say "i know better then you - so stfu".....
When you don't have access to a firearm, sure.
I'm not so certain that even the glory of Rome could stand up against an Armalite or Kalashnikov, though.
Yes it is purchased in a sense, but it is still given since the soldiers had no executive power over the initial acquisition. The word "give" is a very flexible verb. Something doesn't have to be free to be "given". In general, it simply refers to the transition of an entity from a possessor to a recipient. "Give" in this context means to deliver in an exchange.
I know this video is old and I know that this is a small thing but thank you for using inches even though you're English. :) It really helps me understand lengths and I know it's not normally what you guys would use first over there.
Ant the Gord The Brits still use inches, pounds, feet and so forth. They're still holdouts against the metric system.
john roberts
I could have sworn they used the metric system already. Anyways it's a nice gesture :)
*****
I never knew that, thanks for the info.
***** Yes, when they are talking to americans about sizes we sometimes use inches or feet. But that is all. I can't say for sure how it is in Japan, but people do not use any imperial units in Germany. Not in daily life, and not in science or engineering. The only exception I can think of is plumbing tube sizes, those are usualy in inches.
No idea, probably the historical British influence on steam pipes. BSP (british standard pipe) threads are even an ISO standard. I do believe some companies are switching to metric pipe sizes and threads, but it's still very rare.
I have had a go at slicing things (mostly dense root vegetables e.g. Turnips and butternut squashes) with a sharp Gladius. Hot knife and butter came to mind with virtually no effort. None of this full body weight stuff, just casual waving from about a foot away. Coleslaw!'
the most killing weapon is neither sword nor spear, and AK 47 even more prosperous. The most killing weapon is the howitzer family of artillery, then perhaps the bolt action rifle.
+Stive Lars Oh.. That's actually a grimly good point.
+MrLilgwen Indeed. World Wars tend to create awfully lot of deadly weapons.
I'm pretty sure it's referring to specific weapon, not general classes of weapons
In that case, we must also distinguish which model of AK-47 pattern rifle. There are a plethora of variants, made in a multitude of locations with minor differences. So, if howitzers as a "family of weapons" don't count, neither should the entire "family" of AK-47 type rifles.
I suppose we could just say high-explosive has caused the most deaths. But then again, it was mostly the shrapnel caused by the HE that killed. THAT'S IT!!! the weapon which has caused the most human deaths is! *dramatic pause......... small bits of metal flying at high speed.
Very true of course, buckler-type shields did a similar job and were comparatively light. It is more about the nature of fighting, Viking round shields commonly weighed around 10lbs because they were designed to be used for parrying as well as absorbing impact, a middle ground, bucklers weighed as little as 4-5lbs because they were designed to deflect blows from light weapons, Roman/Greek shields (20-25lbs) were used to push in a wall and were large enough to protect most of the man next to you.
i love how he started stabbing at his back when he said you could stab in all sorts of directions XD is he turncoat legionnaire or something? :P
From all manner of games, films and images (especially when connected to arena fights) I had always got the impression that the Gladius was almost the model "short sword" and were in fact pretty short (although longer and wider than anything that could be called a dagger). Thanks for putting me right!
Exactly, thank you. I feel that the original point needed to be clarified. You said it better than I have.
Please, do tell us more about your thoughts and knowledge of the Gladius and Spatha!
I've never been a big fan of the gladius but I have to admit the one in this video is quite beautiful.
And some are shaped as such. They taper in before flaring out near the tip then back in again for the point.
Currently doing a story and needed this to learn how to make the fighting choreography believable. Hope this helps!
Addition to point 1:
Naming bow, spear and slings you use HUGE categories. For the Gladius it would be sword then. Exactly the point lindybeige stretched in his video. So if you divide spear and bow into their various types, the usage of most of them varies just as much as with the swords, depending on how the fights were layed out to happen.
A lot of longer swords of the period have 'points' like that. It may well have been to discourage thrusting, since they still hadn't quite figured out how to make swords of that length rigid and strong enough to not bend or break when used to stab.
I am unsure as to whether you're debating my estimate of Viking shield weight, I did not say they were particularly heavy as you seem to be implying. If you consult the Norweigian law of the time you see that they do not require them to be bound in iron. Additionally there are finds from the 10th century (the Gokstad ship) where their shields had no iron bands at all. It seems unlikely they were constructed with iron bands as a regular practice.
My understanding is the lorica segmentata was used predominately in the west and the eastern legions primarily used the old lorica hamata. It eventually fell out of service (3rd C?) and everyone went back to mail. Maybe creating plate armour was more expensive/harder than it was worth?
The length of that reproduction's blade is 19.5 inches and as he mentioned, most of the time they would be a bit longer at 22 inches. Usually a katana's blade is 23 inches or more.
What may throw most people off is that the gladius' handle is short and only accommodates for one hand.
I've heard they where only used for underhand thrusting; and that the only overhead blow from a gladius was from a commander, flatside to the heads of soldiers who tried to use theirs overhead.
I would like you to do a video on Roman Armour (helmets in particular), perhaps including a juxtaposition with later armour.
I have had an idea for a long time that much of the "design" were also influenced by the manufacturing aspects. They needed large quantaties of swords and the gladius was maybe not the best sword available but it was good "value for money".
I will admit, when Lloyd showed us the kopis/falcata, the word that came into my head to describe it was "sica".
I dont know about that Ak-47 quote, do they mean all Kalashnikov style weapons? Because theres the Ak-47, the AKM, the AK-74, the Chinese type 56 etc.
They were made of wood with metal bits and pieces like other shields, but mostly wood. You don't need thick steel for shields, steel bosses for viking shields and bucklers were around 16 gauge or thinner. They obviously did work, but it's hard to see it work like that at that weight.
Haven't shot it yet.
Any thoughts about an upcoming video discussing the spatha? I'd love to hear what you have to say about it and how it came to use and disuse. I've seen some widely varying spatha designs from various modern smiths - any thoughts on what style design would have been most commonly used in Roman-era Britain? Thanks!
Mate your videos are awesome! fantastically descriptive and informative, i look forward to more.
Spatha had a rounded point as it was a slashing weapon. As I understand it, it was due to metallurgical issues. Until you had good steel and consistent hardening longer and thinner meant less rigid.
Hmm I hear you, maybe not held sideways but most likely thrust with the blade flat when going for the ribs. Nice videos Lindy.
actually there WERE factories in the Roman Empire of a sort- at least the concept of division of labour and standardization were there, and this came into play particularly in arms manufacture. post-Marian legionaries did not supply their own equipment, the state gave it to them.
My personal differentiation between short swords (gladii) and daggers (pugio):
A sword is long enough to easily thrust all the way thru someone, while a dagger is typically too short to do that...unless it's like a poniard or something. And then it kinda falls into that gray area of long dagger/short sword.
Maybe a better comparison: Short sword-hefty enough for a chop and long enough for a thru and thru thrust. Dagger: not enough mass for chopping and too short for thru and thru thrust.
Some people also reffer to "scutum" specifically as a certain roman shield, but it evolved to "escudo" in spanish wich simply means shield.
scutum also simply means shield. pilum javelin
Axes and maces were also popular. There were all kinds of weapons, and medieval warfare was quite versatile on the personal level.
Sure, maybe tactics at the macro level weren't as flexible, but whatever.
Well to be technical it is a sword based on construction. A sandwich style handle and it could be considered a dagger (in the same way a machete isn't considered a sword nowdays). Although the blade shape is not conducive of such.
A later period and a different region we have the Langer Messer (I know I have butchered that name). Because of the handle it was considered to be a knife and so the peasantry could carry them.
To me, a gladius seems to be an optimized weapon to use with shield of any size, but especially with larger ones.
- Short length provides balance, mobility and interferes less with a shield.
- Lack of hand guard actually makes it even more mobile because there is nothing to restrict your wrist movement. Meanwhile, a shield protects your hand, like, 90-95% of the time anyway.
- It's short, yet thick, and kinda stubby, and wider at the end, so it can cut and thrust pretty well, and probably even better in a hand of a less experienced fighter, then a longsword would.
- And since it has some thick and wide blade mass behind the cutting edge at any time, it can also chop almost as good as a smaller machete, or a lighter axe. Another thing that a lonsword is not very good at.
- It's also a LOT cheaper and easier to make or obtain, since it requires less material, lower quality of steel, and less skill from a blacksmith to make it into a useful and durable weapon. For a food longsword, you need a lot of high quality steel, and a very skilled and experienced blacksmith. And a lot of money. Otherwise, it either bends and loses sharpness quickly, or chips off and breaks...
thank you for finding the right words and better english to explain it.
No. It would depend a lot on other gear (what kind of shield you have, what kind of shield the other guy has, what kind of armor is in play, etc.) It's notable that as longer swords became popular in later centuries, shields tended to get smaller and much lighter.
My ancestry is Italian and oddly enough, I have never been drawn to the Roman style of sword. It just doesn't tickle my fancy. The kopis does though. I think the primary reason I do not find it appealing is the minimal hand guard. Is the point of this one accurate in terms of geometry? For some reason I thought they were not as pointy as all that, but I could be mistaken. I am more of knife guy than and sword guy.
Didn't they find a kind of folding utensil a while ago? I seem to recall it had a fork and a spoon at either end.
The thumbnail is just pure art. Intimidating, yet sexually arousing.
I heard that they were held underhand, i.e. pointing downwards and used for stabbing oder the edge oft the scutum in formation combat. Do you think this could be true?
Spatha also means sword [nowadays they use the same word for sword in many languages: spada (Italian), espada (Spanish)]. Actually the same thing happens for most names we use nowadays to classify the different historical weapons (like claymore = great sword, langes messer = long knife, etc).