Why did Romans and Greeks made such short swords? Did they fear

>>3194678
Longer swords are heavier, require more material (hence more expensive), and more room to use them.

You might fear a longswordsman one-on-one, but if you've got a buddy with another short sword and shields to boot, you probably wouldn't.

im guessing that

>relied on spears as the primary weapon during warfare as they valued the unit as a whole over the individual soldier
>sword was only a backup when spear wasn't available
>light, easy to carry with one hand while armed with a shield

t. person who doesn't really know a lot about history

>>3194678

Meds are manlets, only Germanics and Celts could handle long swords. Few know this!

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

335KB, 1200x1563px

>>3194678
On the contrary, they fought people with longswords and have came up top.

Though the Celts did have short swords for formation fighting. They *did* invent the Gladius after all.

File: gladius.jpg (40KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 1200x1200px

>>3194678
>"This is a sword that conquered the world and while your kinsmen waved their long sticks over their heads and barked in their dog language, our swords went from behind the shield wall and gutted them like pigs." - Eagles of Rome

>>3194678
For the romans its easier to stick that through a shield wall, and a longer sword is less wieldy with one arm when youre carrying a huge shield. When the roman spatha took over-which was basically a longer gladius-it was accompanied by a smaller shield.

For the greeks, it was their secondary, so having a long sword on your hip is a nusance.

spear here

swords are too damn small

>>3194787
lance here

busy fucking spear's bitch

>>3194678
Because they were societies that transitioned from a bronze to iron age technology in the lifetimes of their military cultures.

You can't make a bronze "long sword". Bronze doesn't have the tensile strength to make a weapon that long, the end will fall off if you try to swing it at something. Steel does, but when you made the transition from bronze to iron/steel, it took a while before you had changes to the fundametnal designs of swords to take into account the new material properties. It was very much a case of "Well, just make the old style sword in the new style material, it'll work."

Romans fought with spear and small sword -or spanish sword- and shield.

Think wall of shields marching, then jabalins were throw, and then at mellee they push the enemy with their shield then stab them with the short sword from the side. Repeat until battlefield is full of bodies.

>>3194678
you cant swing a longsword effectively during the shield press in battle

even the Zulu's knew this which is why they adopted a wicked short stabbing spear

>>3194678
Tight heavy infantry formations

File: Ancient Jian.jpg (678KB, 2325x3487px) Image search: [Google]

678KB, 2325x3487px

>>3194905
>You can't make a bronze "long sword"
China seemed to pull it off.

So did the Celts.

>>3194734
>Though the Celts did have short swords for formation fighting. They *did* invent the Gladius after all.

wasn't it an Iberian thing first and foremost?

>>3194985
China had blast furnaces in fucking BC

>>3195043
Gosh, China is so damn awesome.

>>3194985
Your average jian is 70 cm long, (or about 28 inches), that's not that much longer than a xiphos (average 60 cm), or gladius (60-65cm). And they're a hell of a lot shorter than something like most high medieval arming swords (91.4 cm) let alone a real two handed longsword (about 110 cm length)


http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Category:Arming_Sword

http://hroarr.com/how-long-should-a-longsword-be/

tl;dr: a jian is pretty short.

>>3194917
Actually half right. The Romans switched to the Spatha pretty much as soon as technology to make them strong and resilient existed. Turns out a few extra inches doesn't really make it hard to thrust.

File: Kladimos.jpg (61KB, 700x558px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 700x558px

>>3194993
Gladius came from the Celtic word "Kladdibos." It simply means "sword." in the Celt language. Along with the chainmail, the lozenge shaped scutum, the Coolus helmet, and the idea of heavy infantrymen hurling spears, the Celtic short sword is one of the things thr Romans got from the Celts.

The Iberian bit is when the Romans adopted the Gladius Hispaniensis, which had a longer blade and a tapered bit in the middle. Even then the Celts are involved in it because the Iberian sword was from the shit carried by the Celtiberi.

>>3194993
Iberians were celts

>>3194678
inferior metal-working skills. a longsword has to be made of stronger stuff than bronze.

plus if you want a long stabby weapon, it's easier to just make a spear.

>>3195081
they used smaller shields with the spatha though, it would be unwieldy with an earlier era scutum

File: 5f577e7be580a54e43909c0f6cb4fb3e.jpg (217KB, 800x586px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 800x586px

But anon, the Romans did use long swords

>>3195081
that was on the down swing of their empire , they were influenced by auxiliary

>>3194678
>>3194905
/thread

What's more interesting than this question, honestly, is how few actual historians understand the answer. Like, I remember as a kid watching so many History Channel and online vids on the Gladius and none of them confidently asserted any of these points.

Maybe that was ~10 yr.s ago only, but I find it baffling it has been such a hard thing to understand.
>short =
>easier to make,
>easier to handle, especially with shield,
>somewhat necessary if still stuck in Bronze Age

>>3195093
Not really no.

>>3195100
great argument

>>3195107
Well it wouldn't be unwieldy, wtf do you want?

>>3195096
The gladius and the spatha were used alongside each other for about 200 years before the gladius was relegated to poorer limitanei troops and then phased out entirely. It wasn't an overnight switch and it's not really fair to say that they did it because of auxiliaries.

Something that often gets overlooked in these discussions that I find interesting is thst late Roman cavalry were often depicted with two swords, a spatha and another sword slightly shorter than it but longer than a gladius.

File: Goujian sword handled.jpg (26KB, 450x300px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 450x300px

>>3194985
The average ancient Bronze Jian was still around gladius tier length though.

Its probably not evident in your picture, but here's the famous Goujian Sword relative to the person handling it.

>>3195147
>average tier though

That sword belonged to royalty.

>>3195113
it would, its much harder to stick a longer object through a shield wall, it was one of the main reasons they used a short sword instead of a spear, and its common knowledge they used smaller shields with the spatha.

So I repeat, great argument

>>3195277
The spear comment is wrong considering how much the Romans (and others) did in fact use spears, and that typical Roman formation was not in fact a shield wall but a loose formation meant to give each soldier his own space.
The Gladius was in fact meant for stabbing over or around the shield though, so the idea behind your point still stands. A longer slashing sword is not conducive to how the Romans fought, even moreso when you're holding a massive shield. Short swords just make more sense.

File: 1493473418746.jpg (40KB, 1024x672px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 1024x672px

>>3194678
Because they're sweaty little hairy Mediterranean men.

>>3194724
This is mostly true for the greeks, but not the romans, the gladius was their main weapon and pila aren't really spears.

>>3194794
Lmao swerve, lance cuck.

Pike coming through.

>>3195094
True. The cavalry generally used longer swords, but the Roman infantrymen started using them more and more since the late 2nd century AD. The gladius became phased out around or soon after that time period, as it did not work as well with modern tactics of the time. The Romans' move from gladius to spatha swords was not a regression to barbarism, but a progression in order to keep up with their enemies, and hopefully get steps ahead.

>>3195383
when they used spears they used them differently than they would swords, more like a greek phalanx meant more to ward off cavalry than decisively cut through infantry, they kept sword infantry around for that purpose. They didnt need these specialized cohorts in the early empire because they didnt face as great of a cavalry threat. By the late empire, people were fielding a lot more cavalry than they used to, and with more armor. Before the adoption of the gladius they were a greek phalanx, and they switched to the gladius for the advantages I stated but also because sword units are more mobile than spear units, and theyre better at killing other infantry, which is what they needed to do at the time more than anything.

>>3195094
spathas own

>>3194678
Less weight

>>3195798
There is in fact a period of about a hundred years between the adoption of the maniple (non-phalanx) system of Roman military and the adoption of the Gladius. During this time the spear would have been used as the main infantry weapon, a time in which the phalanx was a thing of the past.
Dont forget as well that even after the gladius was first adopted, the middle line (depending on the time period) sometimes used spears while the triarii back line were always spearmen.
This is all Republic and pre-Marian reforms of course by the way.

>>3194678
Metallurgical reasons, every other answer is plain wrong.

>>3194734
>On the contrary, they fought people with longswords and have came up top.

Top?

Being slaughtered and subjugated by Romans is "top" now?

>>3195089
Not really, much of Souther and Eastern Spain was PRE IE Aka Iberian before the Roman conquest and Aquitaine remained PRE IE until the middle ages, Basque are still alive tot his day

>>3197282
Wanna try to read that post again?

>>3194678
Because the quality of metals they used was not good enough to make their swords too long, otherwise they would easily break, but this is just at beginning, latter it became their custom or tactical preference to use short swords to fight.

>>3197276
i guess every roman soldier dropped his gladius and picked up a longsword every time they found a dead gaul.

Oh wait, they didnt, because the gladius worked better in the formations they were using at the time. Because believe it or not there are different tactical advantages involved in long and short swords, and the particular tactical advantages of short swords shined in roman formations. A longer sword means less shield, which was a tradeoff they were willing to make in the late era considering their armor was better and they didnt need as big of a shield anymore.

Long swords were unwieldy as fuck for war. When they were used, it was mainly whipped over the owners head and then bashed someone like a little bitch sending them to the ground.

>>3197472
Romans and greeks where simply not able to make longer swords during the republic era , see here >>3197433
They did make longer swords and used them once their metallurgy caught up.
Thats at least what all current research and sources point to.

>>3197472
>source: my ass

>>3197479
>Long swords were unwieldy as fuck for war.
Long swords, at least in this thread, signifies a blade length of over 70cm. Thats not exactly the double handed bidenhänder you had in mind, which actually weren't that unwieldy themselves.

>>3195611
The Romans started out with spears/hoplites as their main type of soldier with daggers/short swords as a fallback too.

The reason the short sword was popular was because it allowed for closer and denser formations with easy overlap between soldiers. A longer sword makes it harder to fight in a dense formation because of the distance needed to wield it effectively, and spears are much better for reach if that's what you need.

File: Qing bronze jian.jpg (339KB, 2616x1368px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 2616x1368px

>>3195075
The longest bronze jian is over 90 cm.
Pic here is a Qing dynasty long bronze sword found in terracotta army pits which is nearly 94 cm and it even has the earliest chrome plating rustproof technology in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_swords
https://www.ai-journal.com/articles/10.5334/ai.1316/

>>3197472
It's not that they had much of choice, they only where able to make short blades, around 40-50cm max during the late republic. As soon as the Romans have Norricum and other major iron working provinces their blades got longer.
Hard to understand at first, but iron is not just iron and it takes quite a bit of ferro metallurgy to make steel good enough for a long blade sword.

>>3197264
This is true, but it doesnt change the fact that sword units are more mobile than spear units and this the main reason why they switched. Despite not being a traditional phalanx in that they werent a solid, inflexible line but in fact a series of cohorts. On the individual level this means fighting very similarly to a phalanx anyway in most cases. They would form a full battle line before engaging so its not like there were gaps or anything, only real difference is the romans could detatch a cohort and move independently, but when they actually ended up clashing it was in a phalanx style anyway because thats how you use spears in a formation. The triarii are specifically described as using a sort of "charging phalanx" almost like the greeks at marathon, meaning they would lock shields and push forward en masse, still a unique sort of style when compared to traditional phalanxes but a phalanx nonetheless.

The sword made everything the cobort was good at even better, so my points stand since it wasnt an immediate shift as you say, took them about 100 years to realize their hastati and princepes should have swords but they did eventually realize the advantages. A spear wound is easier to treat and does less internal damage than a gladius, and when youre smashed up against another shield wall its easier to attack with it, in the same situation a longer sword would literally be harder to shove through the gaps, and in this sense the romans preferred when this happened because they had an advantage against spears when the fighting got intense and close.

File: Mycenaean_sword_and_Wietenberg_culture_axes_at_National_Museum_of_Transylvanian_History_2007.jpg (209KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 1280x960px

>>3194905
>You can't make a bronze "long sword"
rapiers count

>>3197525

It was a celtish tactic actually for those that could afford the longer blades. There are some accounts that these warriors were used to break the roman line in battle by utilizing this tactic. I am not an expert on this topic, but I do think I read somewhere about the force of the sword being balanced at the point for just this purpose. Essentially, those with big swords could bully their way through the battlefield since it offered a variety of functions. Of course, the romans would have just made those guys into pincushions with their Pila. It was a way of fighting developed in those inter-tribal conflicts and petty wars between the celts.

>>3197607
wew, difficult question, useful max blade length is around 70cm fro bronze, but thats only for optimal alloys and workmanship. practical useful length is much less. It makes much more sense to make spear/lance heads, daggers and short swords with bronze.

>>3197634
Never heard of this and seriously doubt it. Got any source?

>>3197534
*Qin dynasty

They had nothing to compensate for.

>>3197653

Fucking system thought the post was spam. But here's a posting. Apparently it could be used if the blade dulled making it still a very viable weapon to whip around. I can't find the account from a first-hand source that said this method was used to "break shields" which sounds a little to poetic so I read it as breaking formations of shields rather than literally striking so hard as to break a roman shield.

celticcultureblog.tk

>>3197728
Sorry mate, but thats not really a source. Also historic finds and experimental archeology yielded some different results.

>>3197767

Dionysius of Halicarnassus isn't a source? K m8.

File: evolution of swords.jpg (113KB, 530x710px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 530x710px

>>3194678
Longer swords are a function of economic and technological growth. high/late medieval Europe was more advanced in this respect, especially after the invention of the blast furnace in the 1300s.

>>3197820
Then quote the fucker you stupid shit.

File: urn-cambridge.org-id-binary-alt-20160714150423-99726-smallThumb-S0003581514000213_fig6t.jpg (16KB, 215x277px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 215x277px

>>3197607
Not just rapiers take irish/British-Iberian-Sardinian swords like these ones

File: 2Naue2e.jpg (12KB, 750x210px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 750x210px

>>3197852
>>3197607
Then even older Central European/Italic Naue II swords such as these

>>3197848
It's inside the blog, a long with a litany of other sources :^)
Don't have the database to quote an exact text, and like I said. Not my field of study.

>>3197820
>Dionysius of Halicarnassus isn't a source? K m8.
Not it isn't, not unless you post an url, a quote and explain why it is relevant to your case.
Also, you might wanna mention why you get from celticcultureblog.tk (Powerful Witchcraft Spells Revealed) to Dionysius of Halicarnassus
>yes, you are a retard

>>3197859
Yes, and thats why it is not a source, if you are to dumb to copy paste the text in question or find real source then this might be not the right thread for you.

>>3197860
Couldn't post the jump to their Celtic equipment section. It's actually quite well done. I already paraphrased, have it context and even went so far as to actually quote a well known source on the topic.

>>3197882
You didn't quote shit, you posted a name and a website that doesn't work.

>>3197852
>>3197856
maybe someone will find this interesting
http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/weapons1.htm

>>3197896
Specifically stated link was being flagged as spam no matter what way I chopped it. Now phone posting. I could post some more silly shit the Celts did, such as their warriors rolling up to the Roman line under their shields and cutting them down at the heels.

>>3197905
>I could post some more silly shit
Yes, or you could finally post a primary source instead of pulling shit out your ass.

>>3197905
>Specifically stated link was being flagged as spam
Maybe you should try a serious website next time then?

File: Sant'Iroxi.jpg (34KB, 652x306px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 652x306px

>>3197897
Woah I knew about them but I didn't remember some were up to 105 cm

Also I forgot about Iberian and Sard swords from 1650 bc made of arsenical copper

Aegean swords seem to have a really old tradition, they were far from peaceful, I wonder how it was possible for Myceneans to conquer the Minoans

>>3195118
ive read sources that make references to late empire auxiliaries using a "a demi-spatha" would that just be a shortened spatha? or a continuation of the gladius hispaniensis?

>>3197544
Im in agreement with your main point, just filling in the historical gaps.
Not the guy who was disputing your original comment.

>>3197952
I would wonder whether it is a translation error. You'd have to find the exact wording, but my guess is that they are trying to say they used swords that were similar to Spathas, such as the gallic long swords.

File: 04B6E436-EF33-4519-8A16-60A4534DAC30-7122-000004E9CCD113BD.jpg (90KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1200x675px

>>3194678
S-Size doesn't matter, Anonius! It's all about how broad it is!

Longer swords dont kill any more effectively than short swords!! Your enemies can't feel anything deeper than two inches!

>>3198023
the implication was that they were shorter like gladii though.

>>3197897
Nice site!

I kinda doubt that 105 cm bronze swords were really combat weapons, maybe they're ceremonial swords?

I think most people here vastly underestimate the technical difficulties making a long blade (70cm+) It takes centuries of metallurgical progress to get there, and even then it was left to a handful of specialized towns. I mean even in medieval and early modern times long blade making was reserved to those towns and whole regions and even countries did import their blades.
Supplying an entire army with long steel blade swords would likely have been impossible during roman ages.

>>3197607
>>3197607

Its bent

File: bronze_hardness.gif (15KB, 486x642px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 486x642px

>>3198079
indeed, likely to brittle, but then, if they used it rapier style maybe the didn't mind. Unless we find a bog guy with one true the sternum it is only speculation.

>>3198079
they were still useful as thrusting weapons and are usually associated with war chariots.
both ere clearly used by a wealthy elite

>>3198103
A spear would be an easier thrusting weapon with better range and using up less metal.

>>3198113
No one ever said wealthy smart elite.

>>3198113
thats a good point.
they could have been used similar to medieval great swords.anti spear but also has the range of spear

>>3198113
it looks more impresive
also it might be easier to handle it than the spear.
It's a lot more compact so you can use it in tighter places and it's heaviest part is near the hilt, as opposed to the spears tip so you can aim it more accurately (maybe i'm wrong)
>>3198084
it's also 3500 years old. It was a far more delicate that most bronze age weapons but one also needs to take into account that a lot weapons found are broken. Such an intact artifact is rare

>>3198123
>>3198133
>>3198147
Any idea how fucked you are when your sword just breaks in full combat?
I doubt those "rapiers" where weapons of war. Bronze is not well suited for long thin blades, thats why you see so many stout blade types, shorter and more cross section.
Maybe they where strictly ceremonial dick enhancers, maybe they had some sick dueling rules going on back or maybe something else.
There is tons of sword types that don't make sense until you know the social context of them. Like an executioner sword doesn't make much sense until you know about capital punishment at the time and a English dueling rapier doesn't make sense unless you know the society and dueling laws of the 17th century.

>>3198195
a rapier is still useful in war, it began as a war weapon meant for bypassing plate armor. Youre probably thinking of those dainty dueling versions that are super thin, but war estocs/rapiers were heavy and surprisingly thick and sturdy, the bending actually prevents the sword from breaking by distributing force. It was used by sailors in boarding or defensive situations, only requires one hand, and keeps your opponent at a distance, the latter two benefits lending themselves to use with a pistol. A heavier sword is unwieldy and not as useful for a sailor in a storm getting attacked by not only other men but nature itself.

>>3198213
*i just wanted to say they were also used in land battles, especially by musketeers, so they werent exclusively naval but thats where they lingered for longer.

>>3198195
i doubt they only carried one weapon
early types of swords also lacked a tang so the hilt breaking off was clearly a constant danger
axe shaft also surprisingly small in diameter if you consider the axes weight so they to must have been prone to breaking
when it comes to mycenian ceremonial weapons the double axes fit the bill. rapier might have been a status symbol, they are found even outside the aegean i doubt they weren't used as weapons, without being able to guess the circumstances

>>3198252
you could just google it, they were definitely war weapons. There are different kinds of rapiers, some of them specialized for duels and some for war.

>>3198213
>a rapier is still useful in war,
First, there is not one style of rapier but dozens, some where weapons of war, some where civilian fashion item.
Second we talk about a bronze weapon, there is a maximum usable length/cross section for weapons, otherwise the blade becomes to brittle or soft for the stress and breaks or bends.
Now until you find a body with one in it or a description of some kind (highly unlikely for bronze age) we only have speculations. Could well be that they used it for war, thrusting from behind shields and all that, maybe not.
Anyone know if they made a reproduction of those long bronze swords?

>>3198195
i think you'd be a very foolish warrior if you didn't expect or make preparations for equipment failure and your right bronze is not well suited for long swords but in comparison to what in the bronze age? steel? doesn't exist yet.
I agree they could be a ceremonial blade but it could also be a specialized battlefield weapon not used for slashing we just dont know.

>>3194678
because short sword and a big shield + spear as man weapon was a way better idea.

>>3198377
Where was it found? The info might help.
Also equipment failure is a thing but youre probably not carrying a second sword with you into battle. More than likely the sword is the backup already, or the backup is a dagger or something.

For the Romans, it was simply more practical for them to use a short sword as it better suited their formation and fighting technique.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLUWQfUuisA

>>3198465
It's not like they had a choice, early iron swords are not meant to be long. So it is likely that the tactic followed the technical possibilities, as it always does.

Because its..
>Cheap
>Easy to make
>Easy to carry
>Used a secondary weapon
>Easier to use in a shield wall/other formation
>One hand is already occupied with a shield

>>3195160
>what is reading comprehension

>>3194678
BECAUSE SHIELDS YOU RETARD!!!

>>3198659
quality post

>>3197534
>bronze
>chrome playing
>bronze
>rustproof
wanna try again?

>>3198284
>First, there is not one style of rapier but dozens, some where weapons of war, some where civilian fashion item.

I already said this

the rest of your post is irrelevant to me because I wasnt talking about bronze age longswords, I was talking about early modern-victorian rapiers

>>3198726
then you missed the topic.

>>3198768
he mentioned rapiers, I was responding to that. Try to keep up

>>3198133
>they could have been used similar to medieval great swords.anti spear but also has the range of spear

that's not what they were used for and great swords were not even a medieval thing, they were a rennaisance thing

>>3198195
>Any idea how fucked you are when your sword just breaks in full combat?

swords were historically always the backup weapon.

hell even legionaries, scutiarii, celtic warriors and so on used swords after spending their ranged weapons, no doubt this wasn't a new thing by then.

File: irishSwords.jpg (67KB, 613x418px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 613x418px

>>3194678
>Why did Romans and Greeks made such short swords?
The Brits
>>3194993

Irish swords from 1500BC

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

510KB, 1167x1563px

>>3198980
pic related was dated to 1500BC, after this the short broad sword became the dominant weapon of the isles.

>>3198987
cont-
The Irish were always early adapters of metallurgy and weapons. Take for instance this Iron spear head found in a bog (bizarre conserving powers) is dated to the 8th century BC.

>>3198987
Thats one talented blacksmith

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

124KB, 687x1024px

>>3198999

whoops, forgot the image.

>>3199000
I know, I'm amazed by it, wonder how they used such a long weapon, did they have some kind of chivalry or fencing ethic?

>>3199000
>blacksmith
actually a bronze caster

>>3198965
>that's not what they were used for
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oxsol6J1HLU

>>3199019
How the fuck do you cast something like that? Surely it would have been cold forged from something shorter?

>>3194678
I don't read comments but OP
Gladius main function is stabing.
later from 2nd to the 3rd century they started using Spatha (aka longer version of gladius)

>>3199036
there are cold working techniques for bronze, but afaik swords where cast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGqPnzkRZp4

>>3194985
Problem with that is density
Bronze is denser and thus you need to make sword shorter, otherwise it gets unwieldy
You can't make it thinner, because bronze is already softer than steel

>>3194985
So did Minoans and other Bronze age Europeans

>>3195743
>The gladius became phased out around or soon after that time period, as it did not work as well with modern tactics of the time. The Romans' move from gladius to spatha swords was not a regression to barbarism, but a progression in order to keep up with their enemies, and hopefully get steps ahead.
>>3195743
I'd love an elaboration on this topic.

>>3199377
Well, times changed, like Rome curbstomped everybody, so large field battles where not the norm anymore, and longer blades are far better suited for cavalry use and small scale border skirmishes?