Why Did The Romans Use The Gladius Instead Of Spears?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 фев 2025
- We have said many times that the sword is mostly a back up weapon and that spears were both cheaper to produce and more effective on the battlefield, and this is a constant both in the Medieval world and even in the classical world if we consider for example the Greeks and their sarissa. The Romans are however a big exception to this rule, and is it really an exception when we talk about one of the most successful war machine ever invented? In this video we will examine why it made sense for the Romans to choose the Gladius as their main weapon of war.
Gladius was one Latin word for sword, and is used to represent the primary sword of Ancient Roman foot soldiers.
A fully equipped Roman legionary after the reforms of Gaius Marius was armed with a shield (scutum), one or two javelins (pila), a sword (gladius), often a dagger (pugio), and, perhaps in the later Empire period, darts (plumbatae). Conventionally, soldiers threw javelins to disable the enemy's shields and disrupt enemy formations before engaging in close combat, for which they drew the gladius. A soldier generally led with the shield and thrust with the sword. All gladius types appear to have been suitable for cutting and chopping as well as thrusting.
Gladius is a Latin masculine second declension noun. Its (nominative and vocative) plural is gladiī. However, gladius in Latin refers to any sword, not specifically the modern definition of a gladius. The word appears in literature as early as the plays of Plautus (Casina, Rudens).
Modern English words derived from gladius include gladiator ("swordsman") and gladiolus ("little sword", from the diminutive form of gladius), a flowering plant with sword-shaped leaves.
Gladii were two-edged for cutting and had a tapered point for stabbing during thrusting. A solid grip was provided by a knobbed hilt added on, possibly with ridges for the fingers. Blade strength was achieved by welding together strips, in which case the sword had a channel down the center, or by fashioning a single piece of high-carbon steel, rhomboidal in cross-section. The owner's name was often engraved or punched on the blade.
Follow me on my social networks:
/ themetatron
/ metatron_youtube
www.facebook.c...
/ puremetatron
/ realmetatron
Royalty free music by Epidemic Sound:
intro ES_Knights Templar 1 - Johannes Bornlöf
intro 2 ES_Medieval Adventure 01 - Johannes Bornlöf
outro ES_Knights Templar 2 - Johannes Bornlöf
Check out the facebook page of the photographer who works with me, he has lots of fantastic pictures
www.facebook.c...
and his instagram
www.facebook.c...
Check out my friend Salvo's channel
/ @littlesalvo000
I also thoroughly enjoy sitting at my computer in armour.
GenericFakeName I play Rome total War like that, it’s for the immersion.
I tried it, but am getting on a bit. Six hours of For Honor left me a bit tired, and I needed coffee at 9am. My co-workers asked why I would need armour at work.
Who does not do that?
Haha haha. Thats what i thought too. Also this guy seems a bit soft for the weapons he describes. Too femenin
It's actually not that bad once you get used to it
"we Talk about Romans"
*Medieval music Starts playing
@Orlando Fonseca he is not pasand
@@assumjongkey1383 å
What music did romans play 🤔
@@jasonfarrell00, Ancient Roman music. :P
@@jasonfarrell00 Thats something I would love to know, I always think of the Caesar II and III Soundtracks when thinking about Romans, but they are based on movie Soundtracks from the 20th century. It would be cool though if the Romans did use Brass in that kind of way, I wished it would be like that :D
People making it seem like the Romans only fought unarmored tribes discredits how good of a job they did against well-equipped armored armies like those of the Greeks, Punics, Ptolemaic Egypt, Parthia, and the Seleucids.
Don't forget that well armed gauls were wearing maille by then which was so effective it was eventually adopted by the romans.
Rome was not very impressive in their campaign against Parthia. It's more of a win some lose some stalemate
Not to mention other Romans.
Brian that is incorrect mail is dreadful against thrusting weapons such as the gladius and pilum Also Romans were using mail and scale armor in addition to the laminata at that time.
@@pypy1986820 Rome was superior in their wars but could never finish them off due to internal struggle
Hannibal’a troops would take armor off Roman soldiers after battles because it was superior.
If Carthage had supported Hannibal like Rome did it’s armies history might be very different.
Pyrrhus of Epirus and Hannibal of Carthage both found early successes against Rome but neither had the ability to replenish and resupply their troops like Rome did.
I believe the fact that Hannibal's siege capabilities weren't exactly up to par either, and that made exerting his control quite difficult in the cities and forts.
@@rav9066 That is exactly what I meant by Carthage not supporting Hannibal.
He lacked the siege equipment to truly threaten Rome.
After he whooped their butts in several battles they wouldn’t engage him head on anymore.
Unable to truly claim victory they invaded Carthage and the rest is history.
When thinking of the logistics necessary to equip an entire army stocked with weapons and armor of considerable quality, without having industrial production, really speaks volumes to romes ability.
@@guyman9655 Yeah not only did Rome have incredibly well trained troops but they were able to supply them and replenish their ranks better than anyone else at the time.
It would have taken all of the Greek City states to unite to defeat Rome or Carthage throwing all the cards in the hat trying to overthrow Rome.
Carthage's war effort didn't hinge on support like a light switch that you can choose to flick on and off. They were outclassed in so many ways that supporting Hannibal simply wasn't an option for them to choose.
Hannibal did the Michael Jordan play of running behind the enemy lines to score a slam dunk all on his own. It looked really impressive, but it also meant that he was wildly overextended. When he couldn't make that slam dunk on his own, he was already screwed. He had committed himself to a solo warfare cut off from allied reinforcement and left no opportunity for Carthage to follow him up.
If anything, it's Hannibal's mistake for committing to this strategy in the first place. Without siege weapons, he would never go further than open field victories. Without sea dominance and a superior economy, Carthage would never be able to provide siege weapons to him. I'm not sure if his invasion was just desperate, for glory, or for nationalistic vengeance.
The close formations used by the Romans and the tactics they used contributed to the effectiveness of the gladius. Soldiers were trained to use the gladius to attack the enemy to their right when the enemy’s arm was raised to attack a neighboring soldier, exposing the chest and making the enemy vulnerable. This oblique attack could only work with a very disciplined formation.
During the last major Jacobite rebellion in Britain, after a period of initial defeats in 1745 I believe in 1746 the Hanoverian government's infantry successfully adopted a similar bayonet drill when fighting Highlanders who were unarmoured and armed with swords and shields.
The gladius was 'economical' - and afforded ranks of soldiers quick maneuverability without a bunch of broomsticks getting in the way.
Couple the gladius with the best, most uniform shields of the day, and disciplined troops in tight, cohesive formations - rest indeed is history
It should be morely about the purpose, not how economical it is ! It is better to make a bigger expense and get better , and more purposed equipment, rather than suffer huge looses from defeats for being too cheap.
@@lexlex44
Has to be economical as well, otherwise you end up with only a portion of your army with the best equipment, and the rest of your army has substandard weaponry
Modern military armies today function the same way they try to balance quality weapons with weapons that make economical sense because militaries want to arm all their soldiers with similar gear. For example the US military uses M9 beretta pistols as their side arm not because it is the best quality pistol out there but because its cheap and easy to mass produce. Unless your a rich nation with a very small army you cant afford to equip your troops with the best gear possible typically the best gear is only reserved for special forces units.
And how is it with Byzantine and western medieval armies mostly consisting of spearmen? Why didn't they stick to gladius-like infantry?
@@pheeku6996 Probably because spears are much easier to produce than a gladius and the nations at the time were a lot more limited in terms of their production of arms and armor than the romans were.
Another reason for the Gladius effectiveness is that it drains very little stamina from the soldier. It's lighter and easier to wield. And the battles was often fought for long hours.
Gladii were actually not really THAT light, while a spear may weight let's say 1.5 kg, a gladius which is lighter by about 600 grams is really not that game changing. Did it help? Probably, but it's not REALLY that noticeable
@@wr0ng569 If you're standing there for hours then 600 grams will make a noticeable difference.
@@dannygo500on top of that most people held spears overhand while the gladius was held underhand, which further exasperated the difference in energy usage.
If you've ever used one, the gladius is really more of a really short spear, not much of a sword at all
@@wr0ng569 Difference is the length, how far out you hold these from your body. Imagine recovering from a max length spear strike that your enemy parried. Now imagine doing it on and off for minutes at a time, for an hour. Little things like this and not shouting unnecessarily at enemies, adds up over a long battle, and the Romans were known to exhaust and outlast their enemies in many battles.
Another thing, probably fitting in with the “gladius in conjunction with shield” section, was the formations used by the romans. The gladius, while small, excels in doing that damage up close and personal. You can’t do what the gladius did, in those tight, close knit formations, with a broadsword, Schimo tar, axe, spear, etc.
Another Cracking Video . 👍
I can't remember where but some time ago I was reading an hypothesis considering that gladius was not the "main" weapon in fact. The hypothesis was that much of the combat was solved just before the contact by trowing weapons (pilum in this case). Hand to hand don't cause to much casualties until one side collapse. So the timing should be (in the reconstruction) a wave of trow and charge to test the enemy resistance until they broke. In this case the gladius could be an obvious choices being easy to use, much easier than a spear.
Considering that for infantry short swords (or basically anything smaller than a great sword) have always been a side weapon, as a non-expert I wager a guess that it was the exact same case with the Romans, too. What you lined out absolutely makes sense. The Romans would rather throw two spear volleys than one, and thus exchanged the thrusting spear for a second throwing spear. Also, let's consider that the Roman army went back to spears with the introduction of the plumbata, a small throwing dart that would do the work of a pilum at a fraction the size.
My friend Jackie would like to remind everyone that fighting with a shield as the primary weapon is a thing. ruclips.net/video/m0zCF8hMPTQ/видео.html
Well shit.... *gets back to Rome Total War for 1 week*
O steel play that game maybe ten more years.....
Ten years later on life.
oh wow time flies well another 20 years more.
Rome 2 is life!
Meh I prefer the first Rome Total War. :)
My record is 9 hours straight of Rome total war multiplayer with a friend of mine. Full night of LAN pvp. Good old university days :)
Two words: Europa Barbarorum. Conqured the entire map twice: once with Romans and once with Saka. It truly is what Rome TW should have been (remember the Egyptians in the first game? An appalling anachronism.
Gladius had a pommel , spears did not
LOL, the entire shaft of the spear alone was a virtual pommel...
Oh Lawd it's not spherical though
and you can't unscrew it and surprise throw it at your enemy to end them rightly.
The Crusading Slav spears had 8ft + reach. Gladius did not.
Spartan spears had a sharp pommel on the rear end and thats what they used to finish the enemy rightly as they stepped over the wounded in battle.
It all started with Anime getting introduced in the ancient times in Italy... They saw that Katana were able to cut through almost everything and saw the great potential of swords... They tried their best, but only managed to create the Gladius and since it wasn't as good as the swords they saw in the Manga they made it sharp on both sides and gave it a sharp tip... They got the name from Guradiusu from One Piece...
What?
Thats pretty accurate
Nice 👍
@@johnapple6646 : I'm pretty sure it was meant to be humorous. OTOH, there's the whole "It's obviously bullshit, but it's cool so I choose to believe it" thing.
@@helmsscotta I think it goes beyond "I'm pretty sure" lmao the only thing Im pretty sure of is John Apple being a brainlet
The pilum may well have outperformed the gladius as a melee weapon (and the fact that they occasionally used them instead would seem to support that), but one can only carry so many spears. It may simply be that they considered the advantage of throwing the pilum (or both pilums, if they carried two) to be greater than the disadvantage involved in using their sidearm in melee. Given the importance of maintaining formations in battle and a thrown pilum's ability to disrupt them, it makes perfect sense. So, it's not so much that the gladius was their primary weapon, but rather that their primary weapon was more useful thrown than held.
The pilum is not a melee weapon. The pilum was designed to be thrown and either skewer an opponent or to disable their shield. It had a soft shaft so it would bend and thus the enemy would be unable to throw it back. Thus the pilum is useless as a melee weapon. The hasta (heavy spear) was used as a melee weapon but once the lines smash into eachother its usefulness drops. The gladius being short is much more effective in a tight melee fight.
@@KingRat71 if it were useless in that context, it would never have been used in that context. Note also that the bending was not an intended function. Matt Easton has showed this in his videos.
@@KingRat71 pilums were used to stab british warriors laying on the battle field after battle, to make sure that they were dead.
@@KingRat71 Lol, in a 1-on-1 melee I chose the pilum over the gladius all day.
They used it against horsemen who were wealthy once in a civil war. It worked perfectly at scaring them away since they were worried about there pretty faces.
The Romans frequently fought enemies that were armored. Their campaigns in Greece, against Macedon, Pontus, Armenia, Parthia, the Ssasanids, in Egypt, not to mention countless civil wars. I'm sure I'm missing some. Point is the gladius was effective against armored opponents too. One does not simply run the Mediterranean without fighting armored foes.
and they performed perfectly well, head-on, against traditional armored heavy infantry (i.e. hoplites). as far as we know, the only kind of troops they had trouble beating in a head to head fight were makedonian-style pikemen. and traditional hoplites had the same trouble beating the sarissa (and none of the manipular flexibility to exploit its weaknesses).
But doesn't antique armor often leave many bodyparts exposed? A slash to the wrist or stab to the neck would quickly deal with an opponent whos armor mostly covers the torso and shoulders.
@@somedudeok1451 Well necks were protected by the shields and a thick rolled scarf, try hitting a wrist, a small target moving fast in and out stabbing with the gladius, the split second you look for it the point of the gladius would stab you.
I would generally agree....against the Samaratians in the 130"s they switched back to a kind of phalanx with heavy archer support.
@Movie Jose : My point was that the Gladius was effective because antique armor left much of the body exposed. If the romans had been fighting people in plate, the gladius would not have been used.
I think that enemy armor was not a negative factor for gladius use. After all, with a short "stabbing" sword you can hit the gaps and its piercing capability makes it better than spatha in armored fight. I think that the reason Romans had the gladius was there immense training. Like the Spartans (who also had shorter swords than the other Greeks) they just had "another step forward to close the gap" - not an easy thing to do considering that you have to take the first hit from your opponent. By doing this I think they created a "crowd" situation where spears and long swords were ineffective. I think it is not coincidence that gladius declined along with the fighting ability of the (not so roman anymore) army of the late period.
I'm sure the massive and devastating wounds that the broad blade of the gladius could create while stabbing certainly helped it maintain its popularity with the infantry.
I wonder if it might have something to do with training and discipline. The Romans were so well trained compared to many other armies of antiquity and perhaps that made a gladius more effective for them. I can imagine soldiers who aren't as well trained instinctively trying to keep their distance when two lines of soldiers engage - staying just at the periphery of the enemy's range where it is a bit safer. In that kind of engagement, I imagine the spear would be way better than a relatively short sword. Though if your soldiers are brave and disciplined enough to aggressively advance, while blocking spear thrusts with their shields, until they are close enough to basically press up against the enemy, then the nimbleness of a gladius compared to a one handed spear would make the Roman considerably more deadly.
We see early Rome, when perhaps the training system isn't as developed, where soldiers use spears and we also see more spears used towards the end of the Roman Empire and after it's fall by various infantry based European armies - also perhaps when training regimens weren't as good.
I'm no expert, but those are just some of my thoughts.
ShieldWife interesting point but why would the Romans complicate training just to give them swords? The spear was easier so the spear was easier to master, complicating it by adding swords seems like bad resource managing
LoneSomeRider The Roman battle doctrine revolved around rapid deployment and re-deployment depending on need. Kind of like an army of lego blocks, customised at will. Perhaps it's easier to do this when you aren't carrying a spear ?
Having said that, yes you do find it in the hands of many un-, or poorly- trained soldiers, but the amount of drill and discipline it takes to operate a pike square, or a hoplite band is tremendous! The Spartans were spearmen and the most highly trained and disciplined troops in the world!!! I think it comes to brute close combat force, it is the most effective weapon (to the Romans anyway) when engaged in their particular form of armoured and closed combat, and i cant help but agree......lol just like Enoch reborn here is explaining just said as im typing it in.....lol
I'm not sure if I buy that a spear is an easier weapon to master, or even to use, as though the sword as spear are similar except the sword takes x time to get to z level of lethality while the spear takes y time and x>y. I think it's more complicated than that. The sword and spear are different in a lot of ways and often less trained soldiers end up being given spears. That doesn't mean they are easier to master though. Also, gaining basic proficiency in a weapon and mastering it are different as well.
It may be the case that being effective with a sword requires some minimal level of discipline (getting in close like I mentioned) but once you get that degree of training, then the pros and cons of each weapon come into play more.
+Trajan Not really. Unless you've got a monstrously long spear (I'm talking pike length), it's fairly easy to just hold the spears vertical then reposition. Even with pikes, it's not that difficult with a bit of training.
Erm, wasn't Rome's primary enemy for the longest time Parthia and then Sassanid Persia?
Both described as having a ton of heavily armored troops?
Also, Pontus, Armenia, the Seleucids, Macedon, etc. all factions with strong armies that surely had loads of troops armored.
Neutral Fellow Armenians used armored troops including capharacts capharacts were popular with Persian armies too some of Rome's defeats in the East were caused by capharacts capharacts were armored heavy cavalry troops
Not to mention other Romans
Yeah and Rome didn't conquer either of them
Hello there. First off i love your channel and the fact that you are a well researched fellow when you make your videos and also tend to cite your sources is superb. I would like to add though what made the legion so effective is that it was one of the first combined arms approaches to warfare. The Romans made extensive use of archers and artillery to not only support but work in union with the heavy infantry. Artillery broke formations, pilum would be let loose to injure or deprive enemies of their shields and archers would then pelt them with arrows. People seem to think that the Romans used the gladius solely but they were supported by rows back with spears to give a layered defense.
Ah, from the thumbnail I see you're a man of culture as well
>2017
>playing byzantines
~~Arumba cries in the corner~~
>holy
>roman
>empire
@@htf5555 Holy Roman Failure, you mean
You can't form the Roman Empire without playing as Byzantium. Unless you want to form the Heretic German Failure
Rome fought many wars against the Hellenistic successor kingdoms, with enormous success. Something like four against the Macedonian kingdom, and a few against Seleucid Syria, all were equipped at least as well as the Carthaginians.
Aaron Paul
The success lied more in the flexibility of the roman legions rather than the weapons they used
Absolutely, without a doubt. Though he flat out says that if they encountered heavily amoured opponents they may have dumped the gladius. Since they fought well armoured enemies and did not drop the gladius, I think we can dismiss that point. Thats all I am saying. Far as I know there is little record to complaining about the gladius against the greeks.
Aaron Paul
Yes. That the gladius was faster to strike with and harder to block was also one point he adressed. You could grab a spear more near its point to "reduce the length" for close combat but I think shifting the balance of the spear in your hand reduces the speed of striking. I also dont realky get the "heavily armored" argument since overall body armor was introduced many centuries later and you could still hit vital points at the legs, cut the arms etc.
I know their success against the Macedonians lie in the mobility of their units. Look up how a Macedonian phalanx looks and then imagine how hard it would be to get that unit to turn. Romans had more of an advantage in uneven terrain too so they could be less picky about a battle field.
Not to mention Pompeius and Caesar. Who were equipped exactly as well as Romans.
Because if you play as the Roman empire in EU4 extended timeline mod you can't have spearmen units, just gladius.
Plus the gladius is more A E S T H E T I C C
I have always thought that the gladius is one of the most anti-aesthetic weapons ever made. It's probably because I was raised to like chinese polearms more.
Helias Antonius E X T R A A E S T H E I C C
Zhongda95 woah man that sounds like a personal thing...
Zhongda95 You were raised in a special way.
Zhonngda95: the gladius looks pretty chunky and awkward to me. Which is a bit surprising, because I love leaf-bladed bronze swords, though usually the longer, thinner ones.
So - So. The Greeks were armored , the Persians were armored, the dacians were armored(probably, despite roman propaganda ). And finally - the Romans were armored. And there were plenty of civil wars to go around.
@Crus Harold The fact they took heavy casualties is pretty irrelevant in this context. Of course they are going to take heavier casualties fighting professional armies compared to the "barbarian" armies. What matters is that they still won. The fact they took on the Macedonians with the Sarissa and armor and came out on top disproves Metatron's theory that fighting enemies with armor would have led to getting rid of the gladius. Sarissa vs Gladius should be the most lopsided matchup ever and yet they still won and didn't switch weapons.
From my non expert perspective, wouldn´t the Gladius be an excellent weapon to fight against armored opponents? While the scutum allows you to get close to the enemy. the gladius, due to its short length an maneuverability would allow you to attack gaps in the armor of the opponent (neck, legs, armpits, face, etc)
But the armored opponent would slam the scutum with the longer range weapon like poleaxe or hammer
Videos about Romans are life man! Please continue to make them often like you do lately!
I surely will!
It would also be great to hear a bit more about who the romans fought against. Most of the roman equipment was adapted from their allies and enemies, and most of their infantry-focused tactics were tailored to capture and hold ground, a necessity for an aspiring empire trying to expand.
Why do you never talk about the late Roman Empire? You've never talked about the fact they went from plate armor back to scale and mail armor.... and plate would never be used except for helmets until 1,000 years later. I think this would be an extremely fascinating topic for you to cover.
true
Well lorica segmentata was certainly more expensive than mail armors, but it was also more difficult to maintain. As the empire reached its height it wasn't long before economic problems began to cripple it over the course of a few hundred years. As economies worsen so too do the equipment that the soldiers would use. But there was also a cultural shift as well. In the late period Rome began creating permanent units from various places around the empire that didn't culturally indentify as Roman, they started to even fight more like "barbarians". This is actually when the Spatha began to surface as a primary weapon for heavy infantry. Why? Because the spatha fit the swinging and cutting style of combat that so many cultures were accustomed to, rather than the tight ranks and quick stabs of earlier Roman cohorts.
Check out my Late Roman Empire trailer I published it a couple of days ago mate.
Djlawson1000 I know I just want metatron to make a video about it
It's also worth noting that the late empire had ceased general use of the gladius and had fully transitioned to a spear and shield armament with the spatha being issued as a backup.
Appreciate your informative videos. You address the Romans with gladius against other nations. What of the civil wars with roman armies against each other? Gladius vs gladius. Roman strategies vs other Romans? Thank you.
bern1228 ja das interresting
The channel and videos are about armor and weapons not strategies between armies.
That's a very good point considering the Romans probably spent as much time fighting themselves as they did so called barbarian tribes.
MrBonners This channel is about whatever Metatron wants it to be. He's done many videos on different topics, INCLUDING TACTICS.
And he has chosen armor, not battlefield strategy and maneuvers .
I am Italian. After high school I graduated in Chemistry. Aside from your vast erudition and the interest your videos arouse, I am particularly struck by your accent which is not only natural but academic. I studied at Cambridge and my husband is an engineer officer in the Royal Navy. We listen to your videos not only to explore very interesting topics but also to allow my husband to enjoy a level of English that takes him back to his university days. We are very grateful to you.
Good job on this. I also thought that in the press of battle with the push of shields boss to boss, the short sword would offer multiple angles of attack being able to be withdrawn behind the scutum and thrust out again from a different angle in a manner that a spear couldn't. It would also make tightly packed formations more flexible not having to worry about poking your comrade in the eye with the butt, or pinning and knocking people over if you couldn't lift it up when shifting one way or another.
I believe the Romans stuck to the Gladius because they valued the tactical flexibility it gave them. On ancient battlefields soldiers moved in tightly packed formations large weapon and long spears reduce the maneuverability of these formations, because the spears get in the way. A roman soldier with a gladius and a scutum can turn on the spot. A greek hoplite with a long spear cannot do that unless he puts his spear in upright position first - which is not that easy, if the spear is a 6m long sarissa and renders the entire formation vulnerable during the maneuver. That's how the Romans defeated the Greeks: They outmaneuvered their phalanges.
As long as the soldiers have enough discipline and training make use of that flexibility, the tactical advantages thus provided, more than outweigh the shortcomings of the shorter weapon. If they don't, ditching spears in favour of short-swords is a bad idea.
I'm either missing how phalanges are used in an ancient battle or your auto correct is a jerk to you.
But I saw them turn on a dime in 300... *confused Pikachu face*
They also had a damn big shield to protect them from the tip of the spear until they closed the distance and in tight confines the gladius was like the teeth of a pirrhana
6m spear?! Thats a pike!
I have heard that the gladius is a good weapon for a shorter man going against a taller man.
Great video as always! I believe this valuable information is reinforced by the fact that the Triarii were the oldest and richest Roman soldiers in the early days of the Roman Republic and they indeed had spears along with a full body mail which must've been maddening expensive for the average Roman at the time.
My favorite weapon ever, considering every weapon we know of from any time or any place is still the halberd. Like swords are nice, but a pole arm that has a spear head (I would argue simple spears are one of the best and most effective weapons ever made in human history) and a axe head for chopping? It’s to perfect. Nasty combination of stab and chop all from a range advantage
See Bec de Corbin
I see your CK2 Roman Empire thumbnail and I raise you one like.
lazaros zissis it reads holy... FAKE ROME
Came over here from Shadaversity channel he recomended this channel and now I'm glad I did you got a new sub.
One thing to consider is that a gladius is much easier to carry than a spear. If they carried spears instead, they might have had to give up the pila to carry the spears. The advantages provided by the pilum could outweigh the disadvantages of the gladius's short reach, especially considering that long weapon length would be much less helpful and could even become a liability in close-quarters shield wall combat.
Maybe that was one of the reason they started using darts in the late roman period so they can carry a spear and sword with plenty of throwing weapons.
Hey metatron, great video as usual, just one thing. What about the Greek empires that were around at that time, such as the Macedonians, or Ptolemaic Egypt or the Seleucids in the east, they all had very effective armored heavy infantry like the Romans had, it wasn't just the Carthaginians that had armies with armored units, fun fact, Hannibal actually trained armies for the Seleucid empire.
Phalanxes weren't as practical and flexible as the roman maniple system combined with the long sarissa spears made them less effective against the equally highly organised roman armies who fought with the much more maneuverable gladius.
Stephen I was thinking the same thing. These armies were well equipped and armoured! Also think about the Punic wars... Hardly unarmoured opponents.
Equipment is not enough to win wars. Romans went from citizen-infantry to professional army precisely because they encountered such enemy. Phalanxes were destroyed by Romans mostly because they could not maintain cohesion on broken ground, thus the pike block that gave them both protection and offensive capability was broken - enough so manipules were able to go into those gaps and execute people within.
Then you have whole concept of unit training. In the end you had "weekend warriors" of city-states vs. Roman units , where each individual soldier got coordination, training, and got all the individual quirks literally beaten out of him (plus prospect of being decimated when not performing up to standard).
One of factors in decline of Roman empire is that this discipline was no more - and without discipline in using tools of war, the machine stops working, and you have a throwback to tribal weapons and tactics, not to mention that economic and industrial decline also means whole logistical backbone got lost so again you need to make do with what you get locally.
There was some flexibility to the Greek phalanx, but not nearly as much as the maniples. The fact that the Romans outmaneuvered the Greeks plays a large roll into them being defeated, but a couple other factors were that it was common for the Greeks to put everyone forward, they did not keep much of a reserve (if any) while the Romans, at the time, had two additional lines; the Greek general generally was in line with his men while the Roman general stayed behind the line giving him superior command and control and the Romans had much better lines of communication (riders, musicians and such) only adding to the command and control of their lines.
The Parthians and Sassanids too. I think that the Romans from the Principate until well into the Dominate never considered another foreign state or foreign people more dangerous to them than the Parthians and Sassanids.
I must admit. The roman legion is just so amazing. I keep loving it more and more
talking down the spear while "Shake Spear" is in the Background of the Picture :) love it.
Congratulations on your presentation. I have never seen a channel that creates so much discussion and most of it is civil.
How did the roman armor/weapons fare in the civil wars against other roman legions? I suppose they would be evenly matched, and the battles probably decisively ended the rebellions and schisms before they had a need to adapt to their own tactics. Side question, what kind of army did Mark Antony and Cleopatra have? Was Roman based, Greek/egyptian, or a combination of the two? I've never really thought about that before.
That is a very interesting question, I whish he explored them
"All other cases facing enemies without armor."
Like Carthage? And Epirus? And Syracuse? And the Suebii? And the Boii? And the Vandals? And the Goths? And the Huns and...
They continued to use the gladius until transition to the spatha around the 3rd century... when they continued to face armored opponents. Any military which could afford to armor its soldiers did; the hamata was a design cribbed from Gallic designs. Yes, popular conception by calling them barbarians is they weren't armored. They often were, including more than just the nobility / leadership. Diodorus Siculus notes that while some fought naked, many wore chain.
I love your videos, man. you do great, i have learned a lot with you. #FromBrazil
I'm happy to hear that
I watched this video already knowing the answer to the title's question - I clicked on it anyway because I also know that every time I view a 'Metatron' clip I learn something about history I did not already know.
Thanks 'Metatron' , for doing what you do !
You make such great videos. You answer questions I never thought to even ask!
Curved swords??....CURVED SWORDS?!!
The falx.
The dacian falx went around the shield, the Iberian falcata cut it in half.
Yep, one of the top "brown pants moments" of Roman military history. They had to massively upgrade their armor and shields to deal with those weapons, and those weapons would eventually inform the shape of the gladius as well as several interesting gladiator weapons. The falx could slice into a shield, and because of the curve, tear open the roman helmet and brain the guy inside. Nasty stuff; there are roman artifacts showing the kind of damage those weapons were capable of.
andrew macedo oh no it’s a Dark souls three all over again
@@SlyBlu7 Tear through a steel helmet?
I have to disagree.
The Romans fought the Greeks, Polemics, Persians, Carthaginians and many more.
And those used armor in many forms in many units, a cataphract unit would be armored more than a Roman unit, not to mention shields which I think is a bigger issue here. Or a Greek phalanx made of absolutely deadly and experienced soldiers.
Besides. Don't most tribes and power is Europe , Asia, and Africa at the time have some sort of armor like chainmail or even plates or such? And they certainly had shields as well. So that does not explain why they used the gladius.
As to the failures against other empires. I would argue that it was because of A) they were facing an empire with large armies, good logistical structure...etc B) Those empire did as well have some excellent generals, Hannibal for instance.
And lastly they still lost to "Barbarians" on many occasions as most know.
So I don't think that explains it.
Perhaps they saw the value in the legion and it's structure with it's advantages and disadvantages that suited the Roman state, whether a republic or an empire, which showed how if used properly it works.
Military history is just a series of practical stuff.
The Romans had a trick where they would move rows during combat to give the soldiers time to rest. I was always onder the impression that was the reason the used the gladius, i am prob wrong.
Anthony Veel there's actually no evidence as to know if that was really the case
Anthony Veel,
A couple of meters spear would be easy to move around even in tight formation. And they preferred tight formations because they had a system that excellent in it. But I'm no expert.
The_JoJo_Reference,
I'm pretty Metatron says they did "rotate" soldiers. meaning moving tired soldiers from the front to back.
And I read so as well. Besides this has little impact on the topic because they could still had spears with them whether or not they rotated.
The Romans generally outmaneuvered the Greeks.
The continental celts used armor a lot more than pop culture and roman propaganda would have use believe. They invented mail, gallic helmets, and had some of the best metallurgy on the continent. Many of those tribes were actually very rich for their small size, and able to actually pay for equipment and training. They did have a decent proportion of armored troops, both armored cavalry (mostly nobles) and armored infantry (from the richer merchant families).
Heck, the Wenetii even had the biggest ships of the ancient world, almost certainly capable of crossing the Atlantic if they had ever bothered trying, instead of continuing to get rich from the salt trade with northern Africa. They had plenty of money for armoring their troops.
Because Gladius sounds Latin, spear doesn't. 😉
Spearius
I think it was lancia. In the later empire at least.
Hasta was a thrusting spear used by triari (and I guess originally by hastati).
+seneca983 Correct, the Romans adapted the classic phalanx in stages. The second line got the name when the first line quit carrying them, then kept the name even after they, too, quit carrying the spear. I recall this being explained primarily by the more broken terrain of Italy where it was harder to hold formation, and it makes sense that would be part of it, but Metatron had a lot to add to that.
Phalanx vs Phalanx was done in Greece out of a sense of convention, formed amongst the city states, rather than the terrain suiting it. Hoplite on Hoplite in a phalanx was seen as a manly/virtuous form of warfare. Due to largely tactical and strategic blunders from the Persians, the formation also contributed to victory over the Persians which I think cemented it's use even if the Peloponessian war saw different tactics start to be used in a more complex war than what was formerly seen in ancient greece.
And it also started to see more use of peltasts and lighter skirmishers supporting the phalanx, and then cavalry too got a more important role. I think this was because reality, rather than honouring old conventions came to factor in more as time went on.
Your normal quick, informative and interesting job. Well done.
Good to know. Have been looking up stuff from about the same period. This helped.
In WWI, the Gladius would be a great trench weapon, right?
Anybody else like the idea of a tactical Gladius?
It probably would have been effective. Knives, daggers and clubs were a thing in the trenches, a Gladius would probably have had an advantage over them.
Gladius is heavier than knives, daggers and clubs so they would probably be ineffective
Also knives, daggers and clubs are easy to maintain by the soldiers but Gladius requires maintenance just like a normal sword so I think smaller melee weapons like knives, daggers and clubs are more effective
Proportionally and from an economic efficient perspective, smaller arms are more effective. But in certain duel situations, 1vs1 the gladius would win over a smaller blade and i think it could in some bizarre alternate history have made a good officers side arm, in the same way that longer swords were still used up to ww1, and up to ww2 in japans case.
In WW1, many bayonet models were essentially short swords. What soldiers actually did is cut them back down to knife-length, because that's what worked better.
So, no, a gladius would not have been better in a trench than, say a dedicated fighting knife like the Fairbairn-Sykes dagger. Or just a friggin shovel.
BVargas78 well I think not... to use a club no training is required, but for a swordsman to be more effective than someone running around and rampaging with his club training is required....
I read an interresting point in the book "on killing" which dived in the physcology of combat. In it the author noted that one of the biggest advantages the roman has was their training with gladius, specifically to stab with it. The noted that the barbarians often simply slashed with their swords (which is the natural instinct when encountering a human opponent) which was easy to block with the shiled while also giving a quick stab.
The training allowed them to actually overcome the instinkt to slash and stab instead, which inficts terrible wounds in the abdomen, instantly taking put the opponent of the fight.
Ironically the Hastati were the first to give up the Hasta, the Principes that fought Pyrrus may have fought with the Hasta.
Romans decided that something hasta go.
Zach Snyder directs a movie about the Late Roman army. Hun Officer: Surrender your Gladius, Roman General: Gladius? THIS IS A SPATHA!!!!!!
The _Principes_ are generally considered the prototype for the later Roman legionary: Tall shield, short sword, and a reasonable amount of armor. Medium-heavy infantry, as opposed to medium-light ( _hastati_ ) or heavy ( _Triarii_ ).
Your channel is awesome. Merry Christmas.
Nice!!! Covering not just the reason for the usage, but also the reality in real combat situations...
The Romans adopted the Scutum and Gladius sword from the celts of Spain and Gaul. Both weapons were effective together. The combination of Scutum and Gladius Hispaniesis, allowed Rome not to only conquer Celtic tribes of Italy, Gaul, Spain and Britain. But also conquer North Africa from Carthage, conquer much of the Greek world once dominated by Alexander the Great. The Romans were able to conquer the Greek world because the Greek world have been divided since the death of Alexander the Great. This period is known as the diadodachi. Romans used divide and conquer to conquer the Greeks. If Alexander the Great did not die so young, and had a firm family successor, the Romans with all of its might would have not been able to conquer the Greek world. Competing Greek states made it easy pickings for the Romans. Why twas the Gladius able to defeat the Greek long spear? It was woman tactics of the maniple system which allowed the Romans to flex and be more maneuverable while the Greek Phalanx was not so maneuverable. This is the reason why Greeks had hoplites and companion cavalry on its flanks, both hoplites and companion Calvary were armed with swords and round shields to protect the flanks of the phalanx. Rome's enemies was itself and therefore Rome never changed its weapon of the gladius. But when the Late Empire came around, and the wars with Persia started, Romans changed its main weapon Gladius for Spatha which is the Greek Long sword used by ancient Greek Hoplites like the Companions. These swords were used for defensive purposes and gave a long reach vs short reach and offensive gladius. Also the Gladius does not work in open field. Rome lost open field battles, and in open field battles the spear or phalanx work, but on uneven terrain the gladius works. This can be seen in battles again the Persians and battle of Adrianople. Longsword used by the Romans became a Western European staple as a choice of weapon for the next 1000 years. While in the Eastern Roman Empire which had numerous enemies like the Persians and Arabs, used spears instead of swords. Swords were only a side arm while the spear was the main weapon, especially since most of the Byzantine Empires wars agains the Persians and Arabs were on open fields.
Hey Metatron. I recently watched a movie called "Centurion" and I found it aggrevating to watch as it represents armour as a concept very wrong (Throwing axes penetrating the lorica segmentata, slashes go through etc.). I´d love if you could revise it. :3
Christovur he was going to do a review on it a great while ago.
I think he commented it in a video called "Armour Doesn't Exist".
Micharlus
He definitely did! He also covered braveheart too.
Thank you! I found it. :D
ruclips.net/video/aBihos4gzM8/видео.html
Then again, what'd the difference from any other hollywood movie?
Barbarian = long haired people. Metatron is a barbarian.
Barbarian was the word Greeks used to describe non Greek speakers from the languages that they perceived as a "bar - bar" sound. It had nothing to do with appearance back then. Some Greeks, Spartans were most famous for it, had long hair themselves.
Doesn't it mean beard
Proud2bGreek RACIS!!!
Barbarian = Red haired people with green and blue eyes. That is Celtic, Germanic and Slavic peoples.
Romans cut the long hair of the Gauls when they enslaved them. In the sixteenth century the English conquerors of Ireland made the "Wild Gaels" cut their hair. Referred to them as "croppies" for the shorn hair. Then same thing happened to when the U.S. government supressed the Native American tribes like the Sioux, Blackfoot and Comanche. Their long hair was cut off to signify empress upon them their status as "conquered" peoples.
Love your videos. About Rome's enemies during the late Republic, the Carthaginians were also armored as you pointed out, but so were the Greeks & Macedonians, their phalanx was a similar concept that the Romans improved on. The Romans were able to handle rocky terrain better where as rocky terrain would break up the unity of the phalanx, which was really only best on flat ground. Still, the Greek and Macedonian armies were worthy armored foes as like the Carthaginians they also combined Calvary and elephant units that the Romans had to deal with.
You are quite correct about the combination of the Scutum and Gladius but i will add a point. When using a large shield like a Scutum or Hoplon, a short sword is preferable as if one found himself with an enemy in contact with his shield, he needs a weapon that is short enough to be withdrawn behind the shield or to be used downwards over the top of the shield to engage. A longer sword or spear in this type of warfare would be unusable at contact distance and the user would likely be reliant on another man on his flank to attack in front of his shield.
The tv show Forged in Fire said that the gladius was originally a spanish weapon that was permanently adopted by the romans.
The greeks had a xiphos and that would have made itself known in italy before rome existed. Theyre similar weapons
There were different versions of the Gladius throughout the centuries. The Gladius Iberius was used in Spain, and introduced (rather pointedly) to the Romans by Hannibal's invasion. It's shape is slightly different than what is shown, having a shorter point, but was still a thrusting weapon. The metallurgy was also superior to the Roman's of that time.
I do think you are a bit off, or at least over simplifying, the armor issue. The Romans went against many armies with a lot of armor other than those under Hannibal. For example the wars against Macedon, the Aetolian league, Achaian league, Epirus, the Seleucids, etc. Most of these previously stated wars were before they had become the standardized professional armies of Marius, Pompeius, Caesar, Traianus, etc. For many they would've still had the hastati, triarii, etc type organization (though it became a bit muddied after Scipio and the second Punic war). The Greek armies were not a mob of unarmored and untrained militia, especially after Philip. This of course doesn't account for the countless civil wars where legionary fought legionary. Point being, it is more complicated than the gladius is good against unarmored opponents and they often lost in the Punic wars because they were facing a rare opponent, one in armor. They faced many armies with equal or better average armor than that of Carthage (at least at the start of the second Punic war) and won much easier than they did with Hannibal. Hannibal was a great tactician; shit overall general in my opinion, but a truly great tactician.
Yeah - the Greeks were very well trained and well equipped. Imagine if all the city states weren't into separate systems and they all formed together to take on the Romans at once - that would give the Romans a run for their money.
Pyhruss trumped the Romans in many battles, but he was fighting on Italian turf - and the Romans eventually won those wars because of their recruitment capacities and resources.
Love your lacorium-segamenta (English trans; places of the pieces, or pieces in [designed] places), even if it is as you say your lessor quality version, still cool looking! Can't wait to see your higher quality version. Love your vids bud! Please keep up the good work. To add with your excellent observation the Romans designed and used the Gladius because it was the best design for close (chin-to-chin) combat. Contrary to most movies (hate-to-say-it, one part [only] of '300'got it right), most face-to-face melees, especially in ancient times, were quite literally shoulder-to-shoulder & face-to-face. Movies and T.V.(streams)have for decades made the mistake of filming melees with too much swinging room for the sword. This did not happen-rarely. Movies are usually a demonstration of a good walk-through chorographical-rehearsal, usually to make directing the melee easier to filmed and subsequently audiences to see... Tens-of-thousands in close blocked formation, rarely if ever had some kind of 'swinging-for-the-fences', and-or 'haymaker-types' of room. Also, fighting from some kind of reinforced blocked-line formation was the goal for heavy inf., as the side who did so the least usually lost cohesion (another reason for the intense Roman training), and eventually lost the melee. Also, stabbing-blocks usually break through lines. Thus when two blocks met, melee were for the most part very up close; shoulder-to-shoulder, face-to-face, with little or no wide swinging room that Gandalf's sword required for maximum effect-fantasy. This is also why the gladius was a stabbing weapon more than a swinging saber style of sword, complete with a much thicker than usual blade to prevent snapping in two ... Bad thing to happen in the middle of Melee. Did not the Romans adopt this idea from the Samnites way back in the Samnite Wars (Samnite Wars:Cool topic to study btw)? I remember reading that is where the Romans adopted using the pila. When confronted with melee in open spaces, I agree with your excellent observation, in that the Legionnaire trained for years to learn how best to use their shields; primarily to learn 'NOT strike first', but to wait just after their enemy began their swing so as to quickly counter-stab when one of three openings of their enemy made themselves available. Thus they did use their shields until these openings were exposed, and learned to stab and-or slice very fast as a counter! Thanks for the vid! Really enjoyed how much historical 'fun-thought' they personally stimulate.
Sword > Spear > Horse > Sword. At least that's what the total war series taught me
You just created a "rock-paper-scissors" for historians.
Great video and I very much agree. One point though, technically the sarissa was from Macedonia not Greece. The sarissa was also a pike weapon while the doru (the hoplite spear) was an actual spear.
You are wrong, the gladious where made the penetrate mail chain because of its top part, no just leather clothes. It was made mainly to thrust rather than slash, and you could also mention it.
Crusader Kings 2
I wonder what happened in that screenshot. HRE is the color of the Byzantine Empire and Germany exists separately.
KethusNadroev someone changed the name of rome. It actually is the roman empire.
Overpusher Rome TW 2.
Just got it for free from Steam lul
Gladius is a perfect compromise. All around weapon=knife, dagger, sword.
It's a Medium Arming Sword. I have a Long Arming Sword....really anything shorter than medium is just called a Short Sword or a Long Knife.
As always, very interesting video. It sucks that you are showing up less frequently on my feed. Do you have more on the Dacians?
It is impressive to see a well informed video on RUclips
Make a video on persian or arabian armour.
LOL
That would be interesting how they went from simple mail with some lamellar to plated mail or char aina style strapped on plates on top of mail.
majungasaurusaaaa ye
Metatron is the main reason why I still respect Italy lol
The gladius was never the main weapon of the romans. It was the main sidearm of the romans. Why gladius over spear? Well if you have a shield in one hand and you are throwing a pilum with the other where exactly are you going to put your spear? Your gladius is easily stored on your hip like any other good SIDEARM. The main weapons of the romans were the scutom and the pilum.
The _pilum_ was a skirmishing weapon. Each soldier carried two, which he launched at the enemy formation at the beginning of combat. The idea was to get as many _pila_ stuck in the enemy shields as possible, which ruined their balance and made them ineffective when the hand-to-hand fighting commenced. So basically, the _pilum_ is less of a killing weapon and more a way to neutralize your enemy's shield and make him easier to stab to death. With your sword.
Not exactly. Yes the were good at ruining shields, but they also did a lot of killing. Have you ever seen the dammage a pilum can do. They go right through shields and can still go through the person holding the shield even if he is armoured. They go right through most mail. They are devistating and deadly weapons.
I agree the pilum was also used as a melee spear in some case , so they definitely put it over the gladius. Other wise they would have been told just to drop the pilum and use the gladius, but they respected it's ability and it was clearly not just considered a secondary throwing weapon
Thanks for another great bit of commentary
The key structure to the roman army is their flexibility and maneuverability in the battlefield and their ability to adapt which has made them so effective in combat as oppose to their greeks counterparts. The short sword offered them great versatility especially when closing the gap on their enemies, as the spear can only do so much when in range.
The design of the gladius makes it perfect for individual combat as oppose to fighting multiple opponents for obvious factors thus making it a great self defence weapon. A reason why legionnaires worked in a cohesive structure with a shield that covers the full part of their body and acts as a primary defence.
I love the background you are using at the moment, but I am missing your intro.
Please do not go back to using a greenscreen. It looks so awful.
Love the content on this video. Recommend turning down the volume of the music track a little bit.
You are the last regular dude on youtube that is still monetized
Perhaps another consideration to be taken into account is the tight formations in which legionaries fought with their gladii. Having a long spear can actually be a disadvantage if you consistently have a fellow standing behind you, bearing in mind that a spear needs to be held roughly in the centre if used one-handed. In that scenario you can see why it might be very disadvantageous to have the extra length.
The gladius is extremely adept for fighting against armor, by the way. Thick center combined with sharp diamond point makes it remarkably capable at penetration. Also being a relatively light and short weapon, it's very handy and maneuverable which provides you the opportunity to aim at weak points in an enemy's defense. You might make a nice jab into someone's shield arm if they try to shield push you and you do a half rotation for example: such a strike requires a quick jab to accomplish but with a gladius would leave the opponent's shield arm half vivisected from just that quick jab due to the design of the blade geometry.
For the same reason an opponent wearing mail armor is living on borrowed time for when you find yourself that one opening moment when you can jab your sword in and skewer him. Against a fellow Roman, as was like to happen upon occasion, a light and handy blade allows for you to jab the throat, the thigh or under the pauldron at the arm pit to disable the opponent. The gladius is an efficient weapon primarily designed for thrusting. By being light and short it provides maneuverability and speed of attack which a longer blade won't have and having a center cross section which is relatively thick with a diamond point allows for the blade to be quite durable even if made using iron which is partially steel and partially iron by accident of carbon migration rather than intentional manufacture.
People who underestimate the gladius are people who've never done formal training with knives or swords. The gladius is to a traditional long sword what the dagger is to a bowie knife. One focuses on slashing and chopping while the other is primarily designed for deep thrusts and with greater speed of attack the prior is usually going to win given two fighters of equal skill.
I think he did a great job with the vid. One of the most important reasons for the gladius are its ability to be screened behind a shield, a formation heavy enough to push enemy combatants, and the gladius + pila + maneuverability comp being good enough to dismantle heavy pike or spear phalanxes. Many weapons with optimum use can defeat even the most armored adversaries, as Miyamoto Musashi could defeat steel reinforced lamellar equipped samurai with wooden bokken. Training and experience in fighting are combat multipliers, and Rome’s near constant wars ensured the evolution of training and a plethora of experience to go around.
I enjoyed your video. Big fan of the Roman Short Sword. I appreciate that you pointed out that the shield is the counter part to the sword. Thank you for your dedication.
Excellent dissertation! Subscribed too btw..
The reason why the Legionnaires stuck with the Gladius was down to training.
Testudo was still the mainstay battle formation on the Roman battlefields and with such a tight confined spaces with your shields facing the enemy, it doesn't make sense for you to open that already closed gap and hack a sword towards an enemy. However with the Gladius, you could just hunker behind your Scutum and just thrust the weapon against an enemy and that's what the Gladius was good for, like you said. Besides when you're in a tight space like the Testudo, it made sense to abandon your spear in favor of a shorter sword and then just cover the gap while still being flexible enough to deal a killing blow with all your limbs being movable unlike the Greek Phalanx which is tied down with the long Sarrisa which impedes movement in which the Romans learnt from and thus, no hastas but simply, the Gladius. However, the Gladius has a drawback which saw many Legionnaires actually swapping it out for the falcata in the middle Roman Empire period or even as early as Octavian's period.
The Gladius, as good as it was, was a straight blade. It is great for stabbing and good for slashing but when you're in a brawl, you don't have the precision to land stab after stab and with a stabbing weapon, you're extending way more with a longer draw time away from you where your hand is totally extended which gives a huge time for the enemy to attack you and everyone knows that a straight blade like the Gladius might amputate enemies, it just doesn't do it regularly due to the weight being balanced and not at the blade end where it would directly cleave through. When the Romans met with Hannibal's army at Cannae, this was proven to be a bloodbath as the Carthegenians were armed mostly with the falcata when they're crossing the Iberian region and when it was a massive brawl, having a weapon that could stab and hack it's way through was way better than a short sword that is basically just better in stabbing. With that lesson in mind, from then on, many of the Legionnaires, especially those that had enough money to don their own kits prefer the falcata due to it's raw cleaving power if shit hits the fan which requires them to brawl it out and still retain the stabbing power of the Gladius in their hand.
That being said, the Gladius was still useful if it's being perfectly drilled into a well-trained late republican Roman Legionnaire or a early to mid Roman Empire Legionnaire. If it was late Roman ones where discipline is totally lacklusture then don't bother thinking that the Gladius would be a great weapon as it certainly doesn't if its not put into the hands of a well-trained, well-organized and well-disciplined Legionnaire.
I've read a few ASTERIX booklets. My research showed that Roman soldiers had spears with them when fighting the last three free villages in Gaul. Helmets could be stored on it. It was also used to block entrances to the tents of important Romans. And the battlefield could also be nicely decorated with it.
Ich habe einige ASTERIX-Hefte gelesen. Meine Recherche ergab: Römische Soldaten hatten Speere im Kampf gegen die drei letzten freien Dörfer Galliens dabei. Darauf konnte man Helme lagern. Damit konnte man auch Eingänge zu Zelten von wichtigen Römern versperren. Und auch das Schlachtfeld ließ sich gut damit dekorieren.
I actually like this guy. Metatron, i started watching your videos a few years ago. Today you have a lot of subscribers, congrats on that. I dont know, i guess i liked your vids a bit more when you were more critical of other videos on line that were about as truthfull as history channel is today. You critisized them and then gaflve the right answers and facts. I liked that. Well good luck. By the way, i liked it when back in the day you made your videos withoit sitting behind the microphone. You moved around amd it seemed more entertaining. Sorry about the soft part, didnt mean to hurt feelings. Good luck metatron
An excellent explanation of why romans used the gladius instead of maces.
Another great video. You should be a professor in this respective pinpoint field my man! I have referred to your videos for ammo in my pleb debates amongst friends.
I have never seen anyone else using that sort of mic set up. That mic has surprising great sound when used with an audio interface.
Scholagladiatoria got into this a bit also with a video in around 2019, "Is the Roman Gladius (Sword) Really That Good?"
He basically said the same thing. On its own, there were better, longer swords to use, but it was the gladius in conjunction with the scutum is what made it a formidable weapon.
Sup dude be fan of history glad that theres others that study history with passion
Excellent video! Thank you!
I bet this guy has always been fascinated by this stuff from his youth to now...
I did enjoy the video. You ,however, mentioned several weapons I know nothing about and can't visualize them in my head. It would have been better if you at least offered a picture of the other weapons so we could understand why the Romann chose the Gladius. I subscribed because of your knowledge. I love this period in history. I will continue to watch because I want to learn. Please remember I am a dummy about some things. I need pictures. I will continue to watch. Thanks
Nice...very informative video thank you.
Ur the man brother! Ur channel is all that & a bag of chips... & then some lol. But ya, love ur channel man & ur 1 of the best on utube on what u do. Much respect to u man & best of luck to u
* notices ck2 in thumbnain * * instantly clicks * (A long time fan of both this channel and the game)
Another thing is that once a formation of closely packed soldiers closed the range within the longer range of spears, and combatants were now pressed against each other with pressure from those behind them, the Gladius is now the only practical weapon to stab and slice between the shield wall, above, in between, and below to the massed enemy. In such close quarters even swinging weapons like maces and hammers would have been difficult to employ. The Norse tribes did however manage to fight effectively in close quarters with war axes that were small and maneuverable similar to North American tomahawks. Berserkers might even forgo using a shield and simply come swinging in furiously with an ax in each hand until they were felled when thus unprotected.
You have to also consider that they made Artillery warfare a lot more mobile. They build defensive line at far range which made spear a lot less useful. They waited for the enemy to retreat in their defensive structure and then used armored towers to overcome defenses. They basically built upon Greek discipline strategies and improve their technology. Their were by far the most advance civilization at the time. Another reason Spear were a preferred weapon in war is because of how cheap they to make, it would make it easier to arm soldiers that way and easier to train. Roads made the roman rich which also allowed the to equip much larger segment of their army with swords and very large shields and train them appropriately. They made war more about resource control then actual fights.
It seems to be the perfect weapon for close quarter combat. You can push with the scotum while hacking, stabbing, or clubbing with your gladius. You could use it to chop off a spear tip, pin a spear to the ground, or deflect a thrust that got past your scotum. A great weapon; relatively light and hugely effective. Fatigue is often a factor ill-considered when thinking about hand to hand combat. You could plant your scotum on the ground and wield your gladius all day.