![]() The gladius was much shorter than the longer swords that Rome often faced, used by their many enemies. Reenactment of a classic gladius ready to stab, photo by Jori Avlis, via Flickr The short-sword gladius would not be the only war technology that Rome would “borrow” from the tribal Celts some of whom were master metalsmiths (Examine also the adoption of lorica hamata, or chain mail). Wherefore the Romans abandoned their ancestral swords after the Hannibalian war and adopted those of the Iberians.” “The Celtiberians excel the rest of the world in the construction of their swords for their point is strong and serviceable, and they can deliver a cut with both edges. The historian Polybius gives us the low-down: But not at all at odds with that most defining Roman trait of pragmatism. The ease with which the Romans adopted a “barbarian” technology from a Celtic people that they deemed “culturally inferior” is notable. In the tight melee of battle this was a breakthrough where longer swords, that relied on long slashing strokes were often nullified by the constricts of battle. At close quarters it was an effective stabbing weapon, as well as having a slashing capability. It was adopted from Rome’s Celtiberian tribal enemies in Iberia (modern day Spain).įacing highly effective Iberian warriors in the armies of their enemy Carthage, the Romans soon realized that the short, double-edged and pointed sword possessed many advantages. The most surprising thing about this weapon - as indicated by its designate “Hispaniensis” - was that it originated from Spain. Though swords existed both before and after its adoption, it was the gladius Hispaniensis that came to symbolize Roman warfare. The ubiquitous Roman short sword was an essential side arm of legionaries, generals, and emperors. If you had to pick one weapon of the Roman legionary, it would probably be the gladius Hispaniensis. The Gladius Hispaniensis: Spanish Short Sword Replica of Roman “Pompeii” type Gladius, via Wikimedia Commons Several periods of Roman history remain dimly lit. There are many gaps in our sources, with even archaeology struggling to shed light on many questions. Such was the level of transformation (largely Germanization) in men, weapons, and organization, that an early or Republican legion might not have recognized a late “Roman” army at all.Īcross these huge evolutions, significant changes in Roman arms occurred although we don’t have all the details. This was not just seen in auxiliary roles but increasingly among core “Roman” armies that were dominated by manpower from communal alliances and treaty obligations. As the later empire evolved, recruitment of non-Roman people from the fringes of the empire, and even beyond saw a degree of “barbarization” in the roman army that greatly influenced its weaponry. Later military reforms like those of Diocletian in the early 4th century CE also brought massive changes in military distribution, organization, and manpower. Legionary with gladius taken from columns-base relief, Mainz, by Mike Bishop, via Flickr The widescale adoption of auxilia as significant components of Rome’s military machine in turn influenced the Roman army, its equipment, and war fighting capabilities. The dawn of the imperial period saw even further professionalization and formalization.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |