Why didn't they make the gladius longer? It's

From my little understanding on Roman warfare, Roman swords did get longer by the Late Empire era, when they had to deal with Gothic and Sassanian cavalry.

>>2697504
It's called the Spatha

Which do you guys think was better.

>>2697504
Short swords have the 2nd largest killing record in history. Only the machine gun would eclipse it.

The whole point of Roman tactics was quick decisive stabs while having cover with shields. Germanics and Celtics would usually hack away with longer blades, which was wasteful and inefficient against disciplined legions. The Dacian falx was one of the few exceptions because it was a terrifying slicing weapon and the Romans had to adapt to its cutting power.

File: 4110652.jpg (266KB, 569x871px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 569x871px

They did, it's called a Spatha

The gladius is better at some things, the spatha is better at others, but the switch to a longer sword was very conscious and shows how adaptable the Romans were

>>2697504
They used it for stabbing, you dumb fool

>>2697520
>The gladius is better at some things, the spatha is better at others, but the switch to a longer sword was very conscious and shows how adaptable the Romans were
The gladius itself was adapted from their experiences with the Celtiberians who utilized similar swords.

>>2697516
>Short swords have the 2nd largest killing record in history. Only the machine gun would eclipse it.

Citation needed

it needed to be that thick because the iron was poor quality, the celts had long swords but their swords were less battleworthy and prone to bend

>>2697523
they could be used for slashing, it is were purely for stabbing why not just use a spear
>you dumb fool
why do people take discussions on medieval warfare so seriously

File: 1484701144267.png (76KB, 982x1274px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 982x1274px

I'm a real dumbass when it comes to this stuff, but why did they not use spears or pikes?

File: 1466229191945.jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

>>2697556
>Roman
>medieval warfare

>>2697563
Read the wiki on maniple for this answer

>>2697504
By the way, when MMA artists will get one? Essentially, they are the same as gladiators.

File: 3rdcenturyromansoldiers.jpg (122KB, 700x943px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 700x943px

>>2697563
They did. Apparently they'd gone back to using spears as their primary weapon by the time of Caracalla.

>>2697563
spear auxiliary was very common not to mention the triarii would often use spears. pikes werent around for most of the history of rome.

>>2697556
Swords are for stabbing with, anon.

That's literally the entire point and training behind the Gladius

>>2697757
Yep, stabbing up into the belly specifically, to do damage to the vitals.

>>2697504
I feel like it would have probably been smarter for the Romans to use short spears desu senpai.

It didn't really matter what weapon they used barbecues they were VASTLY dominant due to their discipline and training more so than their tactics (though the pila were smart af). I mean they fought every culture in the Mediterranean, I'm sure somebody had more cleverly designed pointy metal sticks.

>>2698022
It's the short sword that makes it effective.
Long sword? In packed meele, you're fucked.
Short sword? WOrks wonders with the shied.
Block, smash the base into their face, stab, pull back. Repeat

File: INFANT~1.jpg (537KB, 1321x900px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 1321x900px

>>2698022
What you're describing is something like a Zulu iklwa, but I don't think it would've suited the Romans' needs. A sword is much more manouverable than a spear just through virtue of how it's made.

Plus they did go back to primarily using spears during the 3rd century, possibly because they were easier to mass produce in the new state-owned factories, different troop types could use them, and there was a much greater emphasis on cavalry in warfare generally.

It's a carbine

File: 1490320267838.jpg (648KB, 1580x994px) Image search: [Google]

648KB, 1580x994px

>>2698022
>It didn't really matter what weapon they used barbecues they were VASTLY dominant due to their discipline and training more so than their tactics (though the pila were smart af).

They used the sword precisely because it fit a disciplined, mobile, versatile army more. The spear keeps the enemy away, lets you attack from a safer distance, lets you present a very dangerous front to the enemy with a forest of spear tips constantly jabbing forward, but a formation with spears has to have the numbers to do that, and they all have to have their spears pointed down, locked among the men around to reach out in front, and like that, they can't turn easily and engage to the sides or turn to face an enemy that isn't dead on, or even rearrange the formation quickly without disengaging and bringing their spears up, and if the situation requires thinner and more spread out formations their effectiveness plummets exponentially. Swordmen are capable of sparring by themselves within and outside the formation, the spear can't spar for shit when it's held on a single arm, in a very tight and packed space. It can only poke up and poke down.

File: celtic longsword.jpg (1MB, 4000x807px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4000x807px

>>2697504
The original sword they lifted it from the Celts was already short. It was a shanker used in close formation in contrast to their longswords.

'the baby stabber'

>>2697504
Why didn't they make the gladius longer? It's a sword for babies - snowmonkey that got stabbed by a gladius.


famous last words.

>>2697520
>add more steel to symbolic dick
wow so conscious

>>2698078

Romans mostly lifted their early warfare methods and gear from Greeks. The Gladius would have almost equal influence from the Xiphos than from anything Celt.

>>2697520
Longer swords were better for the later empire since more cav + wider spaced formations

OP, you're basically asking "why are service pistols so small? Infantry should carry rifles!"

The gladius was a backup weapon, for after you were done with the spear.

>>2698175
The gladius hispaniensis was adapted from swords used by iberians

>>2698222
The gladius was the primary weapon, the pila were a secondary weapon

>>2698222
Pilla aren't spears, anon

>>2697516
You're sure that's not the spear?

>>2698237

Which were mostly celtic.

>>2697504
You don't need a long sword.
The purpose of the gladius (and the personal dagger-length sword whose name I'm forgetting) was to stab, not to hack or cut.
Stabbing is infinitely more lethal and takes two men off the field (one to tend to his wound).
Same policy still existed until recently in the British Army. Inflict severe wounds instead of kills.

File: lissan-rapier.jpg (510KB, 1167x1563px) Image search: [Google]

510KB, 1167x1563px

>>2698175

Daily reminder that the Irish had an advanced metal working culture from as early as 2500BC, they also enter the Iron Age early, with finds from the 8th century BC of Iron weapons.

File: Iron-Spear-Head.jpg (124KB, 687x1024px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 687x1024px

>>2698518
cont-
Iron Spear from 8th century BC, luckily buried in a bog which preserved it, most Iron weapons erode after a couple of 100 years, pic related was found in near perfect condition due to bog preservation properties.

>>2698518
DAT'S ROITE LADDIE, BHÍOMAR CLAIMHTEOIRÍ AGUS CAAAAAAAAC

File: Grosvenor Crescent Edinburgh.jpg (60KB, 800x528px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 800x528px

>>2698526
Scotland too.

File: Romes Enemies (2) Gallic and British Celts-26.jpg (335KB, 1200x1563px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 1200x1563px

>>2698175
Yeah, during the Kingdom period and the early republic. But not post-Celtic invasion of the early Republic.

Furthermore the Gladius is Celtic as fuck. The name itself for starters: Greek swords like the Xiphos (or swords in general) were known in Latin as Ensis. The Gladius however came from the Celtdom, where the word for sword is "Kladibbos."

In addition the Xiphos lacks the tapered point of Gladii considering the fact that Celts invented chainmail and fought amongst themselves, thereby encountering other cunts who had chainmail, ergo giving the gladius (and damn near every weapon they had) a tapered point.

Finally, the Romans adopted the Celtic practice of wearing your sword on the sword-arm side of your body (pic related). Celts deployed in tight formations like shield walls where drawing a sword from the other side of your body would probably slash your shield arm up, especially considering the way the Celts held their oval/elongated shields.
>>2698237
Not every Gladius is a gladius hispaniensis. Also the Celts and their Celtiberi have a great amount of influence on Iberian weapons.

>>2698518
>>2698524
British Celts are backward as fuck.

File: CobbledRoads.jpg (71KB, 634x460px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 634x460px

>>2698546
Created their own road networks though, cobbled them too. They were even trying to invent the train that early also, funny that they would eventually become masters of intercity trade, besides all the turmoil that occurred between the Iron Age and Industrial Age.

>>2698552
>Still used fucking Chariots.
Nah.
>Still did that naked warrior woad bullshit 300 years after that shit died among continental Celts.
Nah.

British Celts are backward as fuck.

>>2698772
How many academic history books have you read about the ancient Britons?

>>2698542
>Not every Gladius is a gladius hispaniensis
No, but the ones OP is talking about are

File: No.gif (2MB, 245x180px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 245x180px

>>2697516
>Short swords have the 2nd largest killing record in history. Only the machine gun would eclipse it.
>More people throughout history fought with spears as could not afford swords so spears probably have more kills
>Machine guns have more kills than artillery but 70% of all deaths in ww1 were due to artillery
Yea nah m8.
Tbqh spears (if you include pikes) would definitely have most kills throughout history as they are such a timeless and abundant weapon.

File: 300px-Uncrossed_gladius.jpg (5KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 300x300px

>>2698828
Well OP didn't say "Why didn't they make the gladius hispaniensis longer?" He just said gladius.

Again: not every gladius is a gladius hispaniensis. But all of them are short and stubby. Here is a non-spic gladius.

Doesn't matter really, the gladius swords Iberi used also descended from the Celtic design.

>>2698844
what about sticks and stones.

File: 1492475790692.png (15KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 420x420px

Why didn't Romans use curved swords if they were gonna fight half naked against other half naked people?
Straight swords are only good against heavy armour. Curved swords are far superior against flesh and light armour.

>>2697504
Metallurgy was not that developed yet. Long blades require quality steel, something rare and precious at the time, much easier to make a short stout blade with less high quality ferro alloys.
Spatha type blades came up later and only after the Romans secured certain Iron resources from the Celts and when changing warfare called for longer blades.

>>2698882
Probably not because the human population was so low before we invented the spear.

>>2698882
Yea but that was like back in the day before agriculture and large populations knomsayin.

File: Screenshot_1.png (58KB, 141x130px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 141x130px

>>2697664
What is that?

>>2698844
The composite bow is high on that list, Genghis killed an estimated 40mio alone, Timur another 30.

>>2699016
A little windmill. Cute.

>>2699025
haha

Roman infantry when in it's close formations (Most of the time) needed a blade to hold without it being clumsily hitting your comrades, and since it was a tight formation most of the time stabbing was the main attack.

Spathas were used though, cavalry used spatha-esque sword and during the late empire so did infantry.

>>2699025
Not just any windmill. It's the windmill of tolerance and friendship.

File: Wait what.png (20KB, 262x250px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 262x250px

>>2699018
Id say that the top 3 weapons with most kills in history on the list are:
>Spears (Including Pikes and spear style lances for cavalry)
>Arrows (Not separating different forms of bows but also not including crossbow bolts)
>Shields
I reckon throughout the ages a fuck ton of people have been beaten to death with shields in combat, just because usually its always in your hand and like spears its a pretty timeless weapon spanning from the 15th century BC to like just before Gun powder took off.
Just my guess though.
Machine guns probably don't make top 10 as they haven't been around for too long and artillery probably only scrapes the top 5 as it is a bit older and very destructive now.

>>2699018
Arrows are just mini-spears if you think about it

File: staywoke.jpg (80KB, 2000x900px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 2000x900px

>>2699430
What you just said is stupid but it is also true. Thank you for freeing me from my blindness.

It's shortness allowed for more units to fight more closely, and made it more structurally harder to break. Steel metallurgy wasn't that developed at Rome's time; the tensile strength of metal in swords was low compared to modern standards, and more closer to Iron. The crucial difference between Iron and Steel blades and objects is that steel has better structural integrity; slam a steel rod / rebar against the ground and you notice that it vibrates pretty well but is harder to bend--that's because of it's higher carbon content in it allows it to take on stress while being more able to balance back than iron (which will just more prone to bend to the force) or bronze (which is more prone to shattering to the force). Seeing how the gladius was a legionaires' primary weapon, making sure it didn't break or had to be replace would be crucial.

>>2697563
So they could instead carry javelins that they could throw in a volley to overwhelm their enemy.

Spears don't work well with the scutum in close formations, it's rectangular shape compared to the round shields like the aspis restrains a legionaries' field of sight and aim--he would either have to aim his spear above the top border and look above, and make him more vulnerable, or aim from the side that restricts his aim horizontally so long as he's in a tight formation.

pikes are fucked if your ranks are compromised, and are far more reliant on auxiliary forces to protect them than legionaries.

>>2698497
>>2697516
>>2697523
>>2697757
>>2697896
>stabbing
Longer swords can stab from further away

>>2702529
>this makes the HEMA guys giggle

>>2697512
they still mainly used the gladius for like 300years tho

>>2697504
They just took one step forward, like the Spartans.

>>2697504
Babies? Are you retarded?

The gladius killed untold thousands of Rome's foes, and fellow Romans!

>>2699424
Remember Mongolians used swords to decapitate entire towns. Each Mongo was required to kill a set number of people, like 20 each.

>>2703034
>Remember Mongolians used swords to decapitate entire towns. Each Mongo was required to kill a set number of people, like 20 each.
fucking kpi's

>>2698949
They were fighting more than barbarians

>>2699016
probably an etruscan swastika

>>2702396

Yeah but they stab from really up close as well

You just threw a javeline and have a giant shield, you're not worried about "further away"

File: 9121f17cc9e51550e85b7190f39b21bb.jpg (36KB, 409x550px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 409x550px

The Gladius' shortness has nothing to do with combat in formation. Celtic longswords were considered better, but they were expensive, pattern-welded stuff. (The bending thing is a myth)
As metallurgy made it feasible to make longer swords in greater numbers, the Spatha (supposedly modeled after the swords used by wealthy Gallic cavalry auxiliaries) was adopted en masse.

>>2697563
they actually spent most of their history using spears. They started out with all hoplite-styled spear infantry, which evolved into the hastati/princepe/triarii system and all 3 groups still used spears. They didn't switch to swords as a primary until after contact with the spanish, and then they went back to spears in the late era when cavalry became more dominant.

File: Barbarian_Warrior_J___13_by_mjranum_stock.jpg (85KB, 726x1101px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 726x1101px

>>2698949
Nigger barbarians didn't look like this. They had armor.

>>2697504

Because Romans were too short to ever match their enemies in reach, so the sword was made to max out it's attack speed and maneuverability. The idea was to get under and inside the enemy and frantically hack away at their limbs

>>2706205

Actually a lot fought butt naked or in clothes

>>2697504
I think it had to do with being able to move the sword between your left and right side while having your husk of a shield in front of you.

File: Romes Enemies (2) Gallic and British Celts-31.jpg (412KB, 1200x1563px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 1200x1563px

>>2706543
>Butt naked.
After the Battle of Telamon, there weren't really Butt naked Celts running around in the continent anymore. The practice died out among them though the idiots in Britain continued to do so.

>>2704964
It does have to do with formation you dollop.

Long swords are great for more tribal warfare. For massed armies, at the front line, packed against each other? They're shit. You need short swords.

The Spatha was used a lot by German mercs. It either came from their influence, Celtic influence, or native evolution of the gladius to better fit mounted warriors.

>>2697704
>pikes weren't around
they absolutely were, they were just used differently and not by the romans

>>2698022
have fun marching around with pila AND a spear
in combat you would look like that guy who can't hold his limes

>>2698222
Why don't infantry carry a rifle instead of a service pistol?

File: Romes Enemies (2) Gallic and British Celts-28.jpg (349KB, 1563x1200px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 1563x1200px

>>2706590
>have fun marching around with pila AND a spear
Celts did that a lot.

You even have the Iberians and the Celtiberi lugging both Spears and heavy-as-fuck Soliferrum around.

>>2697540
Artillery 100 cent has the highest kill count you fucking moron. Lol final argument of kings up in yo mommas box bitch

>>2702396
Decent armor and a big shield allow you to bring a fight to extreme close range, where a short, stabby sword is ideal. If longer swords were more suitable for Roman military campaigning, they'd have used them. They didn't.

>>2697504
Why does NATO uses 5.56? It's a caliber for babies

>>2697504
Shitty iron made that the ideal length and width

>>2702529
Blade shape and cross-section are what determine a sword's suitability for cutting or thrusting, not its overall size. Two of the longest used in historical combat were the rapier and the estoc, both of which were designed for stabbing. Blades that are broad and/or curved are good for cutting, while blades that are straight and narrow are good for thrusting.

>>2705002
>They didn't switch to swords as a primary until after contact with the spanish
I don't think that's accurate. Source?

>>2707809
>If longer swords were more suitable for Roman military campaigning, they'd have used them. They didn't.
But they did.

File: 305mm-belagerungsmorser-schlanke-emma-heavy-artillery.jpg (135KB, 517x555px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 517x555px

>>2707785
Are you including nepolionic cannons as artillery? When most people say artillery they think of artillery which provide indirect fire.

>>2706607
Yeah but the Romans could throw TWO pilum and then still have a sword

>>2707860
Yeah but that was after it counts dude. Those late empire guys weren't even Romans anymore

File: 798e7467c37e7c92f6cbb52a1bdcfd98.jpg (71KB, 679x960px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 679x960px

>>2707945
Yeah, Iberians and Celt-Iberians did that too. A noble Iberian warrior fighting in foot would use a soli-ferra (an all iron javelin about 1.5m-2m), one or more javelins/pila/falarica and still could reserve a spear, with a falcata/short sword/long poignard as an ultimate weapon.

>>2707979
>A noble Iberian warrior
>noble
Probably had people carrying his shit before and after.

>ultimate weapon
You're a fucking nerd

File: formacioninfanteriag.jpg (144KB, 848x643px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 848x643px

>>2708007
>On 4chan.
>In the HIS board.
>Not being a nerd.
Also I mean it more like a last resource weapon. The last weapon you would use, the ultimate weapon. Also nobles fought in formations, around they Devotios protecting them.

>>2708019
Still its a noble. You're comparing him to the rank and file roman

>>2707957
The spatha was first introduced in the middle of the second centruy

>>2708024
A rank and File roman was better equiped than a lot of barbarians nobles around the known world bro. And nobles were the backbones of the armies because, along with they retinues, were the only ones than could afford the gear to fight.

>>2708031
I get that. But the legionary had to carry all his own shit everywhere. He wasn't a nobleman with servants and retinues. So having two pilum a sword makes a big difference to him. It's much better than all that and then a spear too.

I'm more interested in the darts they used in late Roman empire replacing pila, think mainly in the eastern part. I've never seen pictures of them on /his/ or how they were thrown.

>>2706580
Almost all European swords post-gladius were markedly longer. It didn't stop people from using them in formation, be it a 'viking' sword, arming sword, backsword or whatever. Longer swords don't take up more space when used as thrusting weapons and huge horizontal swings aren't really done IRL. Cutting attacks done right don't take up all too much space either.
Legionaries didn't even fight in a particularly tight formation when compared to most of their adversaries. One of the key advantages of their fighting style is that they were spaced and flexible enough to outmaneuver the enemy and break the integrity of their formation.

Germans were known for fighting in tight formations. So were the Gauls.

>>2702845
No.

It makes us mad.

>>2705002
>>2707842
The Romans did use swords before they came into contact with the Spanish. What I think this anon meant was that they didn't adopt the familiar Roman gladius until this time; which was a design based off of a type of sword the Spanish used. Up until this point the sort of swords the Romans used would have been the leaf shaped blades familiar to the Greeks.

>>2700271
You got that last bit backwards brah, iron is brittle, not bronze. Bronze is softer

>>2706205
Looking at this picture, I wonder how many of what we actually consider to be historically accurate representations of weapons/clothing/armour would look as ridiculous as this does to the people they're supposed to represent.

>>2698497
The dagger was called a pugio

>>2699430
Spears are rigid, arrows are not.

>>2698949
Didn't the sabre find it's use in europe through turks/mongols? Considering that, the invention came too late for the romans to use

>>2697504
I use to think that they use spears mainly and their short swords is equivalent to handgun today

>>2709957
>I wonder how many of what we actually consider to be historically accurate representations of weapons/clothing/armour would look as ridiculous as this does to the people they're supposed to represent.

they routinely depicted heroes fighting butt naked against entire armies, i don't think an oversized axe would be too much for them.