Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

WeHaveSixFeet t1_j1d6jwu wrote

Reply to comment by r2k-in-the-vortex in How did the Romans manage to arm most of their soldiers with swords? by Horror_in_Vacuum

I thought the reason the gladius was short was that it allowed the legionaries to get up close and personal with the enemy. The Gauls used longswords. That gets you a couple of good pokes at the Roman's shield before the Roman is in your face. You don't have room to use your longsword, while he's getting stabby. Same goes for spears: very effective until the enemy is up close, then useless.

3

wegqg t1_j1d8bpx wrote

This ^ celtic longswords were used as slashing weapons and became a hindrance in the press - gladii were able to thrust out between the shield wall and were used, sensibly, as thrusting weapons.

3

r2k-in-the-vortex t1_j1dk7ni wrote

All else being equal, more reach means more likely to come out the winner, you only need one poke. But all is not equal, longer blade is also heavier and harder to maneuver where it needs to go. That's why length of blade depends on quality of steel, with better quality you can make it longer without compromising weight and strength too much. But if you don't have the quality you end up with a slow club that just isn't that good to use. Romans couldn't have made something like a rapier if they wanted to, their metallurgy wasn't up to snuff.

1

Thraling t1_j1j7doq wrote

Besides what has already being said (the Celtic sword was used for slashing, not poking), they were typically in bronze, not iron

1