Gladius is shite!

>>31807748
This is the first post I've seen about a gladius

Are you feeling ok little man?

Does you haves a tummy ache?

Want some milk?

>>31807748
It is a side arm for the spearman.

I will nibble at this bait, but not catch the hook.

>>31807748

It's not designed for 1 v 1 fites with katana wielding faggots. It's designed to shiv the fuck out of the poor bastards that didn't realize they were being herded into the roman death machine. It performed that function exceptionally well.

File: roman_sword_x_section.gif (11KB, 490x363px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 490x363px

>>31807757
>This is the first post I've seen about a gladius
lurk more, newfag!

>>31807762
>>31807770
why can't they give them a decent side arm then, half of their blades would fall apart instantly when they hit something harder than thin air.

>>31807748

You're retarded and to top that you've never even held one youself

File: templ_huge_2.jpg (2MB, 2570x3600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2570x3600px

>>31807748
>>31807796
For comparison, this is what quality swords looked at the time!

>>31807820
>Gladiotard detected!

Keep screaming, maybe if you get loud enough it'll warp gladii out of existence. Get even louder and your waifu might even become real!

>>31807748
>no handguard
It's right there.

>no counterweight
It's not a fucking fencing foil, a counterweight fights against you when it comes to a fighting blade.

>made from wood and shitty iron, even the Celts laughed at that pot metal
It worked well enough.

>to short
Long enough to be practical, for more reach you use spears.

File: milit-gladii-Nim.jpg (23KB, 659x1024px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 659x1024px

>>31807838
>give a Roman a sword, and he makes a dagger out of it

>>31807865
>It's right there.
That no hand guard son, it will protect absolutely nothing. Hope you got gauntlets...

>>31807865
>a counterweight fights against you when it comes to a fighting blade.
Interesting theory, given that pretty much every fighting sword has a counterweight

>>31807865
>It worked well enough.
So do saturday night specials

>>31807865
>Long enough to be practical, for more reach you use spears.
Admit it, it was because roman iron was so shitty quality that they simply couldn't make any longer blades.

>>31807886
>pretty much every fighting sword has a counterweight
Pommels aren't counterweights, newfag.

>>31807838
>looked at the time!

the first (left) of those post-dates the Roman Empire by nearly 500 years - half a millennium of technological progress.

the 2nd, 3rd and 4th post-date the Roman Empire by 300 years.

the 5th post-dates the Roman Empire by at least 100 years.

and the 6th one, far right, is the only one that is contemporary to the very end of the roman empire.

>>31807886
>Interesting theory, given that pretty much every fighting sword has a counterweight

Plenty dont.

Messers often have no pommel. Gladii/Spatha have wooden pommels. bronze age swords didnt have any pommel weight at all. katanas, and some types of chinese Dao have no pommel.

>>31807893
>Pommels aren't counterweights, newfag.
But they are, ask any HEMA guy or swordsmith and educate yourself.

>>31807908
Yes, and each an every one of them is higher quality, more efficient and better looking than everything the Romans ever had!

File: csgladius.jpg (90KB, 1024x307px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1024x307px

>>31807748
It is because this piece of shit. this triggers /k/'s deepest mall ninja instincts, and I bet half the retards here have actually bough this because muh roman sword.

>>31807927
You really are retarded, aren't you. Of course weapons made hundreds of years after the gladius was made are going to be better, and as for the pommel being a counterweight, i used to work for a replica weapon shop, and at no point did our swordsmith ever say that pommels act as a counterbalance, so lurk more and get educated

File: 1395899640103.png (48KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 500x500px

>>31807748

>too short

You try swinging a 5 foot sword in tight formation and see how well that goes, then come back.

>>31807950
You put it there to move the point of gravity closer to your hand and allow for faster turns of the blade. Thats how swords work.
Seems like you didn't pay much attention in your job.

File: Schlacht bei Kappel.gif (170KB, 546x282px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 546x282px

>>31807968
like this?

>>31807980

Yes, but with the addition of huge shield

>>31807972
So basically what this boils down to is that the swordsmith from the shop knew shit all about swords and yet we allowed him to make them. Thank fuck i got out of that job before someone cut their hand off and tried to sue

File: R-38.jpg (118KB, 2002x1488px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 2002x1488px

Roman officers also had a better taste than using shitty gladii, they got a nice long blade from quality ferrum norricum.
>tfw Gladius is literally for plebs

>>31807980
There's a reason everyone who was in that battle is dead today.

>>31808011
Im assuming this is bait, because unless one of those fuckers found the fountain of youth, im pretty sure they would be dead even if they survived the battle

>>31808011
everyone dies one day anon,where's the argument?

>inb4 baited

File: 2.jpg (155KB, 2000x1515px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 2000x1515px

>>31808003
Biggest quality sword maker in the US
"Pommel -- A counter-weight at the end of a sword's hilt, used to balance the sword. Also may be used as a striking implement. "
http://albion-swords.com/swords/sword-terms.htm

"This gave the sword a point of balance not too far from the hilt allowing a more fluid fighting style. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilt#Pommel

So yes, you are an Idiot. Just out of interest, what company did you work for?

>>31808011

Yes. Poor nutrition is no laughing matter.

>>31807748
>why is a mass produced sword (let's not forget exactly how impressive that is) not completely perfect?
Why wasn't the Sherman perfect?
It was mass produced to supply soldiers with so that they could use the doctrine which they had been trained in. It literally got the job done and some.

File: plebians.jpg (53KB, 433x473px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 433x473px

>>31808010

>>31807748
The gladius built the Roman Empire as it was ideal for fighting within the maniple, learn how the weapon was employed. What you are doing is the equivalent to stating that a shotgun is inferior to a .50 bmg because of muh bigger round

File: 1477426248679.jpg (185KB, 1605x1056px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1605x1056px

>>31808029
its funny how fast this faggot >>31808003
shut his mouth up when proved how fucking dumb he is.

romans were shit.

File: 11028651_1.jpg (746KB, 1500x1178px) Image search: [Google]

746KB, 1500x1178px

>>31808046
Just the Gladius is not the Sherman of the antique world, it is the Liberator.

>>31807886
Why would you want a long sword in a maniple you muppet?

>>31808064
To be the boss of said manipel, see here >>31808010

>>31808011
your mom gave them all AIDS, that's why.

>>31808064
So you do not get bumrushed in the Teutoburg forrest?

>>31808055
Yes, but you are hyping a shitty sword that was only in production because it was cheap and it was the best Romans could make with their low quality metal and because you don't need much more in tight formation.

>>31807927
>Yes, and each an every one of them is higher quality, more efficient and better looking than everything the Romans ever had!

so, sort of like saying "the AR15 is better in every way than the muzzle-loading rifle. Those rebels in 1775 were all retards!"

You really have no fucking clue what you're talking about, do you?

You have no understanding of the fact that half a millennium of technological progress has happened between the gladius, and the sword on the left of your picture.

half a millennium. The romans were as far away, to the maker of that sword, as christopher columbus is to us. Try to let that slowly sink in. You might be a little surprised to learn that ships are a bit more advanced from then too.

>>31808061
0/10

>>31807748
You don't need handguards that much when you fight with a very large shield that already protects your hands. That's why most frankish and viking swords don't have big handguards as well, most if not all of them were paired with large shields.

Also, there is little need of a counterweight to something that short really.

The gladius alone is certainly shite, but it was never supposed to be used alone but with a scutum, and this is a very good pairing. You can't talk about it as if it wasn't accompanied by a large shield that was doing most of the actual combat work.

The main weapon of the romans was the scutum first, the pila second, the gladius third, it's the whole three that made the legionary an efficient soldier (this plus tactics obviously)

File: a19av.jpg (251KB, 946x2000px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 946x2000px

>>31808095
Far right is the same time as Romans, much more advanced, and made by by people who shat in the bush behind their mud hut.

>>31808114
>The gladius alone is certainly shite, but it was never supposed to be used alone but with a scutum, and this is a very good pairing.
Still doesn't explain why we so many gladius fags here, most of them don't even know what a scutum is.

>>31808057
So shit that they conquered Europe and all those amazing barbarians with their literally indestructible folded 1000000 times swords, right?

>>31808122
>Aesthetics = effectiveness

>>31808209
>long paternwelded steel blade > iron stumpy

>>31807886
>Admit it, it was because roman iron was so shitty quality that they simply couldn't make any longer blades.


You are now aware that the spatha was a thing

>>31808253
Yeah, a Celtic thing, for officers and elite troops who could afford better than the roman gladius.

>>31807748

location location location


The gladius was used in conjunction with a shield wall, they were mainly used for stabbing, thus no need for fancy hand guards or even tempering anything other than the tip.

Further more they used extensively spears.

There is a reason why that inferior blade dominated the meditarenia - the way it was used.

>>31808300
at least you admit it was inferior.

>>31808011
Whoa this guy is on to something. Every person from every time period before ours is dead. We are the greatest people to ever live!

Really makes you think.

>>31807748

>no handguard
It was neither designed nor ever used for fencing against other swords, thus no risk of hurting your hand.

>no counterweight
It was a weapon purely designed for stabbing, not for cutting, you didn't have to wield it through the air.

>made from wood and shitty iron, even the Celts laughed at that pot metal
It was actually made of rather good material for the time, and if it broke, it didn't matter. You would just get a new one, they were produced in masses after all.

>to short
It was never intended to be used in 1on1 fencing, but in close formation combat involving full protection tower shields, therefor reach wasn't really an issue. Actually, longer swords would be rather awkward fighting in close formation with buddies all around you.

>will lose in 1vs1 against pretty much every other sword there is
Again, the gladius was a sword designed for an exceptionally well trained army fighting exclusively in close and coordinated infantry formation, you can't compare it in a 1v1 situation. Even so, you always need to also consider the legionaires tower shield ('scutum'), which negates every reach advantage any enemy could have even in a 1v1, which makes a short sword feasible.

>Why so much love for this piece of junk?
Well, it couldn't have been that bad considering the Roman legions ran over and conquered about 3/4 of the then known world, and managed to hold that empire being the size of Europe with less than 300k soldiers.

Oh dear, I actually spent 5 minutes replying to this bait.

>>31807796
>why can't they give them a decent side arm then, half of their blades would fall apart instantly when they hit something harder than thin air.

the Roman army at it's peak fielded several dozen legions simultaneously each with 40,000 men in them, all using uniform, mass produced gear. Rome's largest battles involved up to 150,000 soldiers mobilized in a single day.

to put this into perspective, the biggest battles in the medieval age involved 30,000 people at most, counting both sides.

it doesn't need to be a work of art, it's a tool of war, a mere piece in a human evicerating machine.

File: yeahsure.gif (325KB, 300x228px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 300x228px

>>31808789
>legions simultaneously each with 40,000 men in them

>>31808763
Well, but you admit it was shoddy mass produced quality form mediocre metal and never meant to be used for fencing or 1vs1 combat. Kinda proves my point, it is a shit weapon.

instead of having an enjoyable satire thread we got a bunch of fedora tipping faggots sperging about swords.

gladius served one of the mightiest empires for centuries and you neckbeards are shitposting about katanas.

off yourselves.

>>31808840
Just because the roman empire wasn't bad doesn't imply the gladius is any good. As far as swords go, it is pretty bad, and without a scutum it is utter shit.

>>31807796
Because unlike the rest of the world, they gave every motherfucker one, shit needed to be cheap, all their equipment was basic and designed to work as a functional whole, in terms of one average roman soldier fighting one average (insert opposing force) soldier dropped into a ring and told to fight to the death, chances are he'd lose, he was there for pay and kitted out to work as part of a steamroller.

>>31808789
>the Roman army at it's peak fielded several dozen legions
49, to be exact.

>simultaneously each with 40,000 men in them
No. The ideal maximum size of a Roman legion, which almost never was achieved, was 4.800 legionaires and 1.200 high ranked officers, baggage train personnel, a small cavalry, pioneers and medical personnel, adding up to a total of 6.000 men per legion.

In total that meant the Roman army consisted of about 250k soldiers (including the Praetorian Guard and the navy) at its peak (about 100 AD), which makes it all the more remarkable that they managed to conquer and hold most of Europe for centuries.

The largest battles in Roman history with up to 150k soldiers (e.g. battle of Arausio) deployed all happened before the re-organization of the army, which resulted in the Roman military famous until today.

>>31808914
>which makes it all the more remarkable that they managed to conquer and hold most of Europe for centuries.

Their ability to occupy and engage other cultures was pretty special, they relied heavily on allied auxilia.

>>31808874
It apparently was good enough, and the Romans were wise enough to not spend unneccessary ressources on making a unneccessarily long sword just for you to endanger your comrades in tight formation.

>>31808879
>in terms of one average roman soldier fighting one average (insert opposing force) soldier dropped into a ring and told to fight to the death, chances are he'd lose

Roman legionaires served for 30 years and trained constantly, they were professional soldiers, not weekend warriors from a noble caste like the rest of the world's "elite" units, or skinny peasants pressed into service like the bulk of other civilizations' militaries.

now, if you'd throw an Auxilia that'd make more sense, Romans usually fought with an equal number of Auxilia units, foreign conscripts looking for citizenship, pay and various benefits, that fought in their own way(mostly spear walls), and were recruited locally in order to provide units fit for the different regions of the empire, which is why you'd see eastern legions have heavy horsemen, north african legions with skirmisher cavalry, etc.

>>31808914

legion originally just meant "levy" and has been used both for the unit of organization and the general "army" of Rome, the standard size of the forces deployed for a battle didn't have a name as far as i know but when you look at battles the number a general/consul usually moved with was 40,000.

File: roman-sword-types.jpg (11KB, 400x200px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 400x200px

>>31807942

that thing looks closer to a greek Xiphos than any Roman sword. The leaf shape at the end doesn't correspond with any gladius design.

>>31809017
>Roman legionaires served for 30 years and trained constantly
Aye, they trained to fight as a unit with gear designed to function as a unit with skills designed to make the most of the tools that every single man in the unit was issued. Outside of that their standard issue wasn't much chop, the shield is massively oversized to be stuck alone with and as OP said the sword has no reach, 2 shots with a pilum and that's him about done.

My point was, they were built to a purpose, they didn't need "good" swords when every man had an interchangeable sword every man was trained for, they put holes in people and it was enough.

>>31807886
why would you need a handguard when you have a fuckhueg shield?

>>31809017
The Romans often deployed the auxiliary units recruited in one area of Europe in a entirely different area (with a different language, culture, religion, ...) to prevent them from making bonds with the local people (which would have made them highly unreliable). That's why historical sources mention Germanic soldiers in Africa, Persian cavalry in Gaul or British celts in the middle east.

>>31809075
I guess even an isolated Roman legionaire trained not only in unit, but also individual combat for 30 years would nethertheless pose a deadly threat to any Germanic peasant recruited from the field and equipped with a spear

I read a source a while back, I can't remember it, which claimed that the legions weren't used all that much in imperial rome. That they prefered to use auxilia as the main fighting force with a legion or two held in reserve, and that legions as we know it were mainly a garrison army or brought up for sieges. The author points out lorica segmentata + gallic helmet is very effective protection from above like in sieges and that the auxilia were more useful mix of spearmen, archers, and cavalry.

>>31809116
So you're comparing an average legionaire to a germanic auxilia now? Why not just say the legionaire is now a peltast

File: and I fucked your mum.jpg (34KB, 426x426px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 426x426px

>>31807980
>almost everyone is wielding polearms except a couple of retards in the front that are about to get the shit impaled out of them

nice way to disprove your point, retard; the romans issued equipment suitable to their military doctrine, not for individual 1v1 televised ebin warrior shows. Yes, they were cheaply manufactured and thus low quality big ass stabbing daggers, but they worked well enough to last for whole campaigns, years on end, and help conquer wildly swinging celt niggers with pimped out gear that they didn't know how to use, with ease.

>>31809181
>and help conquer wildly swinging celt niggers with pimped out gear
Spears and wooden shields...

>>31809060
Tell that Cold Steel.

>>31807748
>even the Celts laughed at that pot metal

The celts were advanced metal workers. Them having better swords is expected.

>>31807748

Your autism is showing.

Learn about warfare at that time, and then offer an intelligent comment.

>>31809210
Yea, and when you'd live back then and you had the dosh, you'd spend it on a quality ferrum norricum spatha. Remember, celts where illiterate heathens living in mud huts, and even they had better steel than the Romans.

>>31809236
And yet they could tell the equinox/solstice to the day, centuries before Rome existed

>>31809251
indoor plumbing, ever heard of it? now go shit in a bush.

>>31809236
>Remember, celts where illiterate heathens living in mud huts

They had walled cities, you know.

>>31809092

eh, it's not clear cut either way. In the Republic and early/mid empire you'd see that but later auxilias would be citizens themselves upon recruitment. Also diminishing numbers and resources meant they had to stay and fill up the local garrisons.

>>31809161

the composition of the Roman army was highly situational. We know they mostly used mail rather than lorica laminata/segmentata, and the Galea only became widespread after the conquest of Gaul(duh), montefortinos, chalcidian or simple skull caps were not uncommon.

Since the very beginning Romans fought with allied troops, early to mid republic saw extensive use of units provided by Samnite, Etruscan and many other Italian tribes, they fought in the same numbers as the Romans did making the Roman army half Roman half allied. The auxilias worked in a similar way, they took the flanks and support duties. Romans were never into horse riding and prefered to leave all the scouting and pursuit to allied cavalry, for example.

>>31809194
>>31809181

don't forget the Roman maniples fought Macedonian phalanxes and Parthian heavy cavalry quite extensively, in these cases the legions were actually outmatched in combat but due to the excellent ability to adapt and the initiative of the individual units they countered and turned battles around, Cynoscephalae is the best example.

>>31809174
not to a Germanic auxilia, but a Germanic soldier, fighting against Rome, as it happened in the battle of the Teutoburg forest for example

>>31809259

However, the Celts had soap and the Romans did not.

>>31809251
They also ritually fucked horses. Your point?

>>31809259
Neither had the Romans, they had street sluices.

>>31809278

running clear water > butt oil soap

>>31809268
They wrecked 3 entire legions.

>>31809282
That literacy =/= capability, some of the most advanced historic cultures never moved past pictographs and even those were only written/read by the absolute elite.

File: autistic teenage boy.jpg (738KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

738KB, 1000x800px

>>31808057
Sounds like Gallic bait to me

>>31809268
A germanic spear levy is what the romans would call an auxilia, every germanic chieftan would have had retainers as core troops which would have and maintain their own arms/armour.

File: bfbe24d5-e206-4073-a1ea-b9d2dffa58c8-2060x1236.jpg (51KB, 620x372px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 620x372px

>>31809286
I N D O O R P L U M B I N G
N
D
O
O
R

P
L
U
M
B
I
N
G

>>31809335
No doors, no roof. Funny show though.

Ever fight with one? Awesome balance and fluidity. Paired with a buckler, pretty effective. In 1v1 at least. Don't exactly have a couple of armies to test any further.

We /his/ now.

>>31809353
>Paired with a buckler, pretty effective
Aye but what about with a Scutum, carrying that around sounds like fun.

>>31809366
>carrying that around sounds like fun.

Yeah, unless its on an actual campaign and you have to carry that damn thing from Italia to Germania.

>oh man, all that gear that Marines wear looks like fun to wear!

>>31809303
>>31809268

you can't call Teutoburg a battle, Romans were caught in a sea of mud and and a rain of projectiles. not only they couldn't form up, they could hardly fight well on their own.

>>31809366
>>31809353

contrary to popular belief Romans didn't fight in a shield wall like riot cops, they had a space of around 3 feet between them at the side, just enough for the line behind to move forward and continue fighting after the first one gets tired and falls back. Legionaries fought relatively independently and scutums were used with plenty of agility, they weren't held in a stationary position. Roman soldiers were fucking buff and could swing around and bash with that shit like nothing.

>>31809386
Apparently my sarcasm went amiss

>>31807748
>>31807796
>>31807927
>>31808029
>>31808057
>>31808061
>>31808153
>>31808359
>>31808829
>>31809181

OP is oh so very very very salty.

What did the Romans ever do to you?
Are you Persian. I bet you're Persian.
You so so very salty.

I would like everyone to take a moment of silence, to respect how OP must look in real life, and the challenges he must face every day; being so autistic and such.
*Bows head for moment of silence*

>>31809467

Persians hadn't existed for a long time by the time the Romans were in Syria and Asia.

>>31809519
>look mom i posted it again

File: formationbitch.webm (2MB, 720x405px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 720x405px

>>31807748
Because it's meant to be used in formations, not for neckbeards with no friends to fight with.

>>31809532
So so very very salty

>>31809553
quick m8, there are like 30 other threads you havent posted this in yet, better get on that!

>>31809481
The Persians were still in Persia, they were just being ruled by Persianized steppeniggers at the time. Later on a proper Persian dynasty took over and became Rome's greatest enemy until the Arabs.

>>31809575
So so very very salty.
You're at risk of Sodium poisoning.

Is it because the Romans conquered your shitty country? Are you jealous you're not as much of a man as the mighty Roman legionnaires were?

>>31809303
Their leader Arminius is believed to have undergone Roman military training, and he managed to involve half of the auxiliary units and even some of the cavalry in the conspiracy, they changed sides upon the first attacks.

He also proposed to lure the Romans off their marching path into a well set up trap, where the legions would be trapped between a hill fortified by a 400m long wall and a huge swamp on the other side. The Roman army was stretched out to about 15km in length, while only 4-6 men could march side by side. Together with the baggage train carts getting stuck in the mud, blocking the way, and the panicking civilians, this made the transfer of information, commands or reinforcements impossible.

Also the heavy rain made the terrain very slippery for the Roman sandals, and their weapons as well as their shields (which had to be put into bags to protect their leather covering from the rain) were stored on carts during the first attacks.

The Roman commander Varus violated dozens of Roman military safety regulations by not investigating the warnings of the allied tribal chief Segestes about a possible trap, involving Arminius in military planing despite his Germanic origins, leaving the marching route without proper scouting of the area, and taking the baggage train as well as civilians with him despite expecting combat (Arminius lured him off path with attacks on Roman guard towers to which Varus reacted).

File: 1476226160081.png (410KB, 500x740px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 500x740px

>>31809532
>>31809532
>>31809532

File: 11896236_10100311577198766_490764322412472164_n.jpg (46KB, 599x825px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 599x825px

>>31809575
>>31809575
>>31809575

>>31809639
>>31809676
kys samefag

>>31809686
Kys OP. You so salty.

Mods, maybe?
This thread from its start, mostly because of OP, is just global rule #6 all over the damn place.

>>31809402
see >>31809630
>you can't call Teutoburg a battle
It's likely that the Germanic army lost just as many, if not more, men as the Romans (who put up quite a fight - they even managed to break through the wall at some points). Problem is that we have absolutely none sources about the casualties on the Germanic side.

>>31809714
>worried about quality of content
>is a rampant shitposter

OP does not understand how the gladius was used.

In a 1v1 duel it was an inferior weapon due to its poor reach. But the Romans didn't give a shit about duels, they fought battles.

After throwing their pila, legionaries would advance in close formation leading with their scutum. They would then used their shields conceal their weapon arm and push through their opponent's guard. Then at very close range, such that a spear or long sword could not be used effectively, they would rapidly strike with their gladii. It was an efficient and prudent fighting style for which the gladius was perfectly suited for. A longer weapon would be harder to wield in such close quarters and be intrinsically slower. The combination of heavy body armor, a large shield, and thrown pilla allowed them to close the distance to their advantage. Shorter, stouter swords are also cheaper/easier to make and less likely to break; so that a legionnaire would never lack for a functional weapon.

>>31809754
That would be because OP is a rampant shitposter as well, and has done nothing but spew retarded salty bullshit the entire thread.
Tl;dr you so salty

>>31809736
Doubt it.

The Romans weren't good individual fighters like the Germanics were. Their key to military success was combined arms, and strategy, tactics and training.

>>31807980
That just proves his point, you realize? Look at the swordsmen compared to everyone else. The swordsmen existed purely to break up formations in the first place.

>>31808079
That wouldn't have prevented Teutoberg forest, anon.

>>31808114
I'd actually switch pila and gladius around. While the pilum would generally be thrown first, it wasn't as important to the soldier as the gladius was. If a battle got to hand to hand combat, the Romans went to their gladius. Look at Caesar's battle against Ariovistus at Vosges. The Germans charged so suddenly and were upon the Romans so fast that they couldn't throw their pilum, instead dropping them and switching immediately to their gladius.

>>31809942
Roman legionaires spent about 2 hours a day on individual combat. As you said, they weren't as tightly packed in their formation as, for example, greek hoplites were, so they actually had to learn some basic fighting skills. The hoplites in contrast didn't really need any individual training, you couldn't move anywhere the unit didn't want you to go anyways. You just had to hold your spear in the right direction. The only good Germanic fighters where the tribal aristocrat clan members, who posessed actual weapons and trained more or less regulary. They formed only a tiny elite however, the bulk of the army were peasants who most of the time only carried shield and spear or other agricultural tools, their only fighting practice probably came from previous campaings.

>>31809942
>>31810032
2 hours of training ofc

>>31809942
>The Romans weren't good individual fighters like the Germanics were.

complete bullshit. Romans had an absolutely martial highly competitive and glory-seeking society, they performed sports and trained at gymnasiums and baths, they had mandatory military service and training for all men, their main form of entertainment was gladiatorial fight for pete's sake. They were more Spartan than Spartans.

Germanics had a warrior culture but it was never such an unversal and tested way of life as the Romans.

>>31810020

at Pharsalus, Caesar ordered his men to use their pilas as spears to repel cavalry

>>31809017
>or skinny peasants pressed into service
I'm just going to interject here and say that while levies like this did happen, the people pressed into service didn't tend to be skinny. Doing manual labor for one's entire life, as would be common in the time period, leaves one pretty fit, especially if they live in a rougher area.

>>31810073

farmers worked only a few months a year and didn't eat a lot of proteins. They would have been physically inferior to a well fed, well trained warrior anyhow.

>>31810051
>at Pharsalus, Caesar ordered his men to use their pilas as spears to repel cavalry
The exception rather than the rule. Also at Pharsalus those men were specifically tasked with that role.

>>31810051
>Germanics had a warrior culture but it was never such an unversal and tested way of life as the Romans.
Tested way of life, so nothing like the unending inter tribal conflict the Gauls were so fond of.

>>31810083
>farmers worked only a few months a year and didn't eat a lot of proteins
They worked the fields a few months a year, they never stopped working.

>>31810083
>only a few months a year
Do you think work only happens when you plant and harvest? You've got another thing coming. And while they didn't have the protein heavy diets of today, protein was still in their diets. They were generally fairly fit, and the historians of the period noted that some peoples had notable strength or stamina, even if they weren't professional soldiers.

But yes, the Romans using professional soldiers would indeed be their advantage.

>>31807748
Gladius is sidearm of javelin thrower. So it is ok for its purpose. Glorification of course is excessive and because it is Roman.

>>31807927
But anon, the gladius has a pommel

>>31810100
>so nothing like the unending inter tribal conflict the Gauls were so fond of.

exactly, nothing as utterly vicious as the life Romans lived since they also fought tribal wars against Sabinians, Etruscans, Samnites and every other spear chucking bastard in the hills of Italy for centuries before celts did, and they also had continuous contact with the Hellenic world and absorbed a lot of their militaristic culture as well.

the background from which a Roman warrior would be trained is immensely larger than what a Celt would. Like every historian said, the advantages the northern people have were their ferocity and height, not skill or cunning.

>>31810181
More like the javelin was a weapon used to break up formations before contact was made using the gladius.

>>31810073
>Doing manual labor for one's entire life, as would be common in the time period, leaves one pretty fit, especially if they live in a rougher area.
Tell these to Vietnamese manlets in pajamas stuck in the underdeveloped child bodies.

>>31810226
>this is waht /k/ believe
Roman warfare was tribal ape shit slinging fest turned into science.

>>31810224
>exactly, nothing as utterly vicious as the life Romans lived since they also fought tribal wars against Sabinians, Etruscans, Samnites and every other spear chucking bastard in the hills of Italy for centuries before celts did, and they also had continuous contact with the Hellenic world and absorbed a lot of their militaristic culture as well.
But anon, that's exactly the same thing that happened inside Gaul. That's just normal tribal fighting. Now arguably, the Romans got into more fights than most during their tribal period and into the first part of the Republic, but at that point in time, Rome was not a professional military. In this era, they were just like everyone else except a bit more stubborn/insane.

>>31810224
A Roman legionaire wasn't trained in the Roman way of life anon, he was trained as a professional soldier. The vast bulk of Romans during the time of the Roman empire lived soft lives and the only time they ever saw combat was in mock games.

>Romans lived since they also fought tribal wars against Sabinians, Etruscans, Samnites and every other spear chucking bastard in the hills of Italy for centuries before celts did

What you talked about was pre professional army when Roman soldiers had to equip themselves just like any other tribal nation and the richer/more successful they were, the better equipped they were, also the Gauls and Celts were doing it as long as the Romans ever were and were doing it with steel long before the Romans.

>>31810228
The Vietnamese had neither anywhere near the amount of protein in their diets, were going through periods of famine due to a number of reasons (being at war for decades is a big one), and were somewhat genetically disadvantaged. Never mind the fact that the rations they ate were extremely minimal, oftentimes barely above starvation levels. So yeah, pretty different.

>>31809402
>they had a space of around 3 feet between them at the side
No, each man occupied three feet, almost the width of the scutum.

>>31810228

So literally most of everyone before the 20th century

>>31810291
>The vast bulk of Romans during the time of the Roman empire lived soft lives and the only time they ever saw combat was in mock games.

and the vast majority of Celt people didn't belong in the warrior castes that actually trained and knew the way of arms. Difference is Romans for the longest time actually were a more militarized society before the population became disenfranchised and unwilling to fight the emperors' wars and it became a second power that didn't include nor answer to the people of Rome or it's Senate.

>What you talked about was pre professional army when Roman soldiers had to equip themselves just like any other tribal nation and the richer/more successful they were, the better equipped they were, also the Gauls and Celts were doing it as long as the Romans ever were and were doing it with steel long before the Romans.

the Marian Roman Army directly inherited traditions developed and carried over by the previous iteration of it, the Polybian citizen-soldiers which in turn were an evolution of the Camillian legion. They didn't develop their strict discipline and advanced tactics overnight.

>>31810291
>Roman tribal warfare
Frankly I don't know why any of them even brought this up, that period ended hundreds of years before what happened in the forest. Hardly anything from it would have been retained, not when it went from being a fucking monarchy to a republic to a empire in the space of that time, as well as developing a professional army as you and others pointed out.

Shit, if the Romans were such hereditary badasses, you wouldn't think that Spartacus' slave rebellion would have spent so long kicking them in the nuts right in their home territory.

>>31810345
>you wouldn't think that Spartacus' slave rebellion would have spent so long kicking them in the nuts right in their home territory.

Spartacus' rebellion was mostly from slaves and gladiators that had been captured in the Cantabrian wars, in which the battle of Arausio took place, Rome's worst defeat in history. Those men were hard as fuck and really experienced and Rome had all it's best legions out in the provinces while only green, inexperienced garrisons were in Italy.

>>31810343
>and the vast majority of Celt people didn't belong in the warrior castes that actually trained and knew the way of arms
The vast majority of no nation in the history of the world was, my point was the average crofter in a Gallic settlement was far more cognizant of conflict than the average Roman citizen. You claim the Roman way of life was more vicious and or militaristic when what the Roman way of life actually did was distance it's military from the average Roman and employ poets and actors to bring the deeds home, while Gallic tribes raided each other on a yearly basis directly effecting the lives of even the lowliest person, year in, year out.

I made no claims this made them better soldiers, I was disagreeing with your claim that Roman life was somehow more warlike than a people who ritually practiced conflict on a very intimate level.

>>31810294
>No, each man occupied three feet, almost the width of the scutum.
There's an argument about that. The quote isn't quite clear, and could thusly be read as having that same distance between the soldiers. Honestly, I'd go with the spacing in between soldiers. There are accounts of soldiers being too close together to properly fight. If the Romans were only a single shield's width apart, the simple truth is that the scutum and gladius would be a terrible weapon if you were going to fight in something akin to a shield wall, with no room to really be able to reach anything with your gladius as in order to make up for its short reach, you would need to move forwards and sideways. You need room to maneuver. In a shield wall or something like it, you do not have that room. In fact, trying to do such a thing in a shield wall is going to break up the shield wall. Further still, the scutum is such a large shield that if you were really pressed tightly together like you suggest, you wouldn't be able to fight around it. It is the wrong shape for that entirely. And even if you could, doing so would be awkward as fuck, and thus inferior to other shield shapes. The Romans weren't stupid. They wouldn't have used the scutum unless it worked. Now, let's go later on, when the Romans actually started to get into that spacing you suggest. They adopt smaller, round/oval shields and longer swords. You know, things that are more adapted for fighting from a shield wall. This change was likely due to the barbarization of the legions- they now fought how the barbarians who made up the legions were used to fighting.

To give an example of roughly what that spacing would look like, take a look at the following video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5PYQXg5Ykc

Now, don't think that this is a 100% total accuracy sort of thing, but you get the idea. That room allows them to fight around their shields. Now, to make that 3' between shoulders they need to move closer, but still.

>>31809767
>Romans didn't give a shit about duels

Is this fucking effeminate Persian serious?
The Romans loved duels and one of the highest military decorations was winning a duel. One Roman consul even killed a Celtic king in single combat during the Second Punic War.

File: thracians_at_pydna_by_johnnyshumate-d6ey8dw.jpg (377KB, 506x720px)

377KB, 506x720px

Reminder that the Macedonians were the greatest warriors the world has ever seen!

File: main-qimg-20219e79fe511c1aae4290ac9c038424-c.jpg (80KB, 572x646px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 572x646px

>>31808153
>Still doesn't explain why we so many gladius fags here, most of them don't even know what a scutum is.
So much strawman. The scutum is like Babbys second piece of roman equipment thanks to pop culture.

>>31810567
The Macedonians were beaten by Roman flexibility.

>>31810660
Romans got lucky. Seriously.

>>31810481
Polybius in that very same tract talks about the amount of men each Roman would have to face in front - two. If it really was three feet between each men it would had been three men. Not o mention in reenactments its not awkward at all to strike with the gladius when the shields are are close. Three feet is a massive amount of space.

>>31810660
>roman
>flexibility

Rome had an incredibly advantage in manpower and money compared to the Macedonians who had to conscript youth and elderly. The Romans however were only motivated by greed and ignored an offer of surrender from Perseus after he defeated the Romans in one battle. Instead they overwhelmed Macedon with numbers and proceded to commit such acts of looting and rapine that the Macedonian region never recovered.

>>31808370
Taking that fucking bait

>>31807838
In the same smith's time and metallurgy and resources, the romans have made 100 swords for every one of those shiny swingers

>>31807886
>Admit it, it was because roman iron was so shitty quality that they simply couldn't make any longer blades.

what are spatha? you dumbass persian

>>31810433
>while Gallic tribes raided each other on a yearly basis directly effecting the lives of even the lowliest person, year in, year out.

throughout Roman history there was only one period in which the average Roman was safe from violence and warfare, it was called Pax Romana and there was plenty of combat during it anyway, it only happened to be out in the farthest frontiers. Just because they shat in toilets doesn't mean they weren't exposed to getting attacked all the time.

>I made no claims this made them better soldiers, I was disagreeing with your claim that Roman life was somehow more warlike than a people who ritually practiced conflict on a very intimate level.

the excellence in soldiery and the ubiquitous presence of military action in Roman society IS warlike to a deeper level than tribal skirmishing and raiding, the fact that Rome had such a refined political model and integrated military hierarchy into it, basically turning all Rome into a military force, the logistical might it displayed in times of crisis that required a degree of sacrifice from every member of society no matter what and the values pushed by tradition all point to a culture that as a whole is commited to fighting and winning. It was all or nothing for them, they engaged in war as a single being that gambled it's life, not as a ritual bloodshed which largely belonged to a social group only.

Romans practically defined what total war is this way, they were warlike in ways none of their contemporaries were.

>>31810799
>If it really was three feet between each men it would had been three men.
Not really. Even with the way I hypothesize, it's two people at once. What you forget is that there is a man on either side of him. Thus, let's line things up. The minimum frontage of each soldier is 3', simply due to the width of the human body. Thus, if there is a gap of 3', there is only a single man in this space. While you might think that this means that any individual soldier has to fight three men, remember that there is the man next to him. Each man takes two. If you match them up in a grid, each roman would take the man directly in front of him as well as the man diagonal right. His diagonal left is covered by the soldier to his left, as that is that soldier's diagonal right. That is of course assuming the enemy is packed together like sardines as well.
xxxxxx
x x x x
As for the 3' statement, there are three possible readings of the line in question.

1- Each soldier only gets 3' of frontage. This is what you're talking about. That's only roughly the width of a man's torso. They'd be fighting only one man at a time. This reading also means only a foot and a half between one man's head and the next's. One foot in front of the other.
2- There is 3' between one guy's head and the next guy's head. Twice the space as
#1.
3- There is 3' between one man's shoulders and the other's shoulders. Only slightly more than #2.

>>31807796
There is nothing wrong with any of these compositions, not even the sixth one which is obviously wrought iron. Roman swords were good quality swords for their time.

>>31810901
>the excellence in soldiery and the ubiquitous presence of military action in Roman society IS warlike to a deeper level than tribal skirmishing and raiding
That doesn't make them a warrior culture. Like the Azteks, Ghurkas, Sihks, or the Iroquois. They conquered to expand their empire because their economic model relied on a constant influx of outside resources and labor to survive.

They were a culture of engineers who approached war like another engineering problem. They made war machines, adopted new weapons from people they conquered (the pilum and gladiius), and created highly refined tactics.

Yes, as people have said, Roman soldiers were usually spaced widely apart, but unlike other armies they were trained to adapt their formation to the situation that benefited them most. When they -needed- to they could close ranks and hold up their big ass shields and become all but invulnerable to arrows and most other ranged attacks, and all that other fancy stuff they were famous for.

And while Gladiator wasn't 100% accurate, what we saw at the start where they'd often prepare the battlefield and pelt the enemy with fire before things closed to melee wasn't far from what they actually did.

And it's when they were pushed outside of that 'comfort zone', where they were able to control the battle, they got their shit pushed in like at the forest. Because it's hardly the first time they would have been ambushed by allies, but normally they would have been able to form up, or if making camp have fortifications set up.

>>31809736
>Problem is that we have absolutely none sources about the casualties on the Germanic side.
Yes, because 3 ROMAN LEGIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY WHIPED OUT WITH NO SURVIVORS, I'd call that a battle and a strategic victory for the Germans, they likely had half as many man but used their Blitzkrieg tactics on the romans in a beautifully coordinated series of attacks.

>>31810895
a sword type made by Celts from celtic made steel, later acquired by the Romans from the Celts.

>>31811228
>3' is the width of a man's torso.
No, it's not, not even if you are horrifically obese.

>2- There is 3' between one guy's head and the next guy's head. Twice the space as
#1.
No, it's almost the same as #1

I reckon as Romans were trained to stab 3 feet per man would be adequate. Also, describing formations by the amount of space occupied per man is much more natural and practical than describing it as the amount between each man. 3 feet between each man is also horrifically wide. That's three men if he's facing men standing shoulder to shoulder, and even being outnumbered 2-1 is awful.

The Gladius was effective because the whole point to their fighting style was to use the shield to push the enemy into cramped groups making it hard for them to use their longer weapons and then stab the shit out of them while pushing them back. It was even more effective if the enemy had first received a rain of javelins right before the charge

File: Untitled.jpg (272KB, 865x939px)

272KB, 865x939px

>>31810844
Except they didn't.

>>31808029
Heh look at this, as soon as you asked for proof the fag buggered off,

>>31808061
But the liberator is like the sherman too, what's your point then?

>>31808095
Are you for real? You must be misinterpreting what he meant, best guess as to what he means is that a weapon made 100's of years later when technology is going to be better, means better product, but that doesn't mean that the older weapon wasn't useful for its time

>>31808029
nibbling the bait
The gladius intentionally had a point of balance toward the tip since it helped with stabbing and chopping through the armor of the idiots dumb enough to try to get right up on the phalanx. since they didn't have a whole lot of room to wind up the heavier tip helped with penetration, a bit like how a slow, but heavy rifle round will fuck up your day.

File: 1455419551325.png (831KB, 1400x1000px) Image search: [Google]

831KB, 1400x1000px

Some grade A butthurt going on in this thread

>>31811390
Not blitzkrieg tactics, more like rush the mother fuckers and kill them tactics

>>31807748

>mass produced for highly disciplined legionnaires
>to be used exclusively to thrust and stab in formation behind scutum

You are uneducated.

File: 1468511298628.jpg (225KB, 946x704px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 946x704px

this was the main sword the gladius went against most of the time.

>>31808029
I'd like to point out this is inconsistent with the early and widespread use use of wood for pommels. Indeed, while this might be true for later medieval blades, the gladius pommel was likely not intended to be a counter-weight. It's likely that early pommels were used to help keep the hand on the grip, as well as to protect the hand from any potential shield bash.

>>31810864
What bait? He's right. I never looked at it that way.

>>31812414
A Swedish Army fascine knife?

>>31809431

Sarcasm on the internet is hard.

The gladius, a weapon the romans copied from the Iberians.

>>31807886
>Interesting theory, given that pretty much every fighting sword has a counterweight
>More shilling for pommel counterweight meme.

No, They have a distal taper. Do you get all your information from "The Deadliest Warrior". I also heard they were dull because they were designed to break bones not cut the enemy.

First, watch this all the way through:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkhpqAGdZPc

Now you understand that in sword and shield combat, the shield is the main character. The sword doesn't need to be well balanced or have good hand protection, because your hands will always be covered by your shield and all the sword needs to do is deliver damage after you create an opening with your shield.

Viking individual combat may have been somewhat more technical because it came later, but the fundamentals are probably common to the legionaries' use of scutum and gladius.

>>31816756

The handle of the scutum is completely horizontal, it is believed legionaries straight up left them sitting on the ground to cover their legs while they fought, only carrying them to cover against projectiles, charging or repelling a charge.

>>31819218
>it is believed legionaries straight up left them sitting on the ground to cover their legs while they fought
I never believed that. It's somewhat stupid and goes against all reason. Plus, it gives you less time to raise your shield above your head to block a Gaul's overhead stroke while you stab him in the gut.

>>31815122
>No, They have a distal taper.
They have that too, but they also have pommels as a counterweight. I think you are mistaken friend.

>>31819359
>to block a Gaul's overhead stroke while you stab him in the gut.
Gauls predominantly used the spear, even well off Gauls.

>>31811346
Romans were a culture of stubborn asses.
In the second Punic war against Hannibal, they lost legion after legion, only to raise more legions and try again.
The amount of wars that the early kingdom/republic fought makes them a warrior culture.
The idea of cursus honorum is typical for a warrior culture.