I think that the switch from Gladius to Spatha was because of

File: 9913ffd22a6ed0ac246345d80e9cc9e3.jpg (188KB, 900x761px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 900x761px

Also post late antiquity.

Obviously the barbarisation theory is a load of horse manure, but I'm not totally convinced that it was simply down to technological advancement.

The way a force conducts warfare definitely does have an effect on the weapons they use. I think you're underestimating just how much cavalry was coming into play in Late Antiquity. In previous centuries there had been something like 1 cavalry troop for every 70 infantry troops in a Roman Legion, but by the 4th century it was more like 1 cavalry troop for every 3 infantry troops. A spatha is definitely far more effective against cavalry than a gladius, although it's important to remember that most Late Roman troops used spears as their primary weapons.

As well as this, skirmishes were becoming more common and larger battles less common, so it's handier for soldiers to be equipped with a weapon they can defend themselves with in a one on one situation, which the spatha is obviously much better for. Martial arts training seems to have been more sophisticated in the later Empire, or at least that's the impression we get from the increase in the number of instructorial ranks in the army, so maybe this was a bigger incentive for more of a personal defence weapon.

Though the technological advancement argument does have some merit I think. By the 4th century Roman arms manufacturing was almost industrial in scale.

Stabbing with a longsword
Not even once

>>2988157
You can stab with it if you need to, that's why it's got a point

The earlier cavalry spathas didn't have a point, interestingly

>>2988178
Cavalry spathas didn't have a point because imagine riding and holding it at your side. That thing's gonna bounce up and down, and eventually turn your leg into a scabbard.

>>2988178
>The earlier cavalry spathas didn't have a point, interestingly
source please,

File: evolution of swords.jpg (113KB, 530x710px)

113KB, 530x710px

>>2987670
I'm inclined to agree, because as technology got better, swords tended to get longer.

Pic sort of related for our purposes.

>>2987670
I'm not so sure that idea holds up, given that you see almost the opposite trend with other pieces of Roman equipment. Helmets moved away from the more complicated ones we see on 1st Century legionnaires, where the majority of the helmet was a large single piece, and instead with the late Roman armies we see multi-piece helmets - often two halves joined together at the ridge with a strip of metal.

I'm more inclined to believe it's due to the change of tactics that came with the Late Roman army.

>>2987670
Ever try to use a long blade with a shield the size of the classic scutum?

>>2990849
It's both.

>>2990856
>It's both
What do you mean by that?

>>2990884
Tactics and technology both changed in a way that brought the spatha into common use.

>>2990849
The imperial Gallic helmets were full of reinforcements and oftentimes weren't even made of iron - you could assume that a simpler helmet with better materials would be both cheaper and more effective.

>>2987670
It wasn't about technology at all, it was about formation.

Roman soldiers of the 1st century AD were still fighting in outdated modes of fighting with heavy infantry with large shields and short swords.

By the 4th century the Roman army had overhauled itself to fight a more low intensity smaller scale war with barbarian guerillas, ergo they needed arms more suitable for one on one fighting.

>>2988178
Try it in formation, with a body shield, in close combat situations.
The longer the sword, the worse you perform.

>>2992892
source please