Why the Spatha?

Simple question: Why did the Late Roman infantry adopt the spatha over the gladius? I understand that the infantry transitioned to using the spear as their primary weapon but it seems to me that that would be a case for keeping the gladius as a secondary weapon, not adopting the spatha instead. Since the spear is a longer weapon it seems like the better backup to it would be a short sword since if the enemy has gotten past the reach of a spear they'll be in close, where a shorter weapon will have an advantage over a longer one. Similarly, the spear could be used in dense formations, to poke between gaps in shield. A longer sword like a spatha could still be used to stab in a formation like that, but it was too long to swing, while a short sword could do both.

So, what am I missing? Why did the Late Roman army use the spatha?

The increasing importance of Cavalry and mounted combat.

While Gladius and other short swords are ideal on mano o mano combat by and against infantry on foot, the longer reach of Spatha means that they could be used by and against cavalrymen on horse due to extended reach.

In fact, longer reach on swords are the trend in ages, even up to 17th century, especially when Knights and Heavy cavalry dominates the field.

Yuelang said:

The increasing importance of Cavalry and mounted combat.

While Gladius and other short swords are ideal on mano o mano combat by and against infantry on foot, the longer reach of Spatha means that they could be used by and against cavalrymen on horse due to extended reach.

In fact, longer reach on swords are the trend in ages, even up to 17th century, especially when Knights and Heavy cavalry dominates the field.

Click to expand...

Question:Why didn't they just use pikes or spears to fight cavalry instead of using a sword to do it?

darthfanta said:

Question:Why didn't they just use pikes or spears to fight cavalry instead of using a sword to do it?

Click to expand...

Far easier to have one all around good weapon than giving each soldier multiple weapons on top of the throwing spear and sword.

Yuelang said:

The increasing importance of Cavalry and mounted combat.

While Gladius and other short swords are ideal on mano o mano combat by and against infantry on foot, the longer reach of Spatha means that they could be used by and against cavalrymen on horse due to extended reach.

In fact, longer reach on swords are the trend in ages, even up to 17th century, especially when Knights and Heavy cavalry dominates the field.

Click to expand...

That does make sense. After all the spatha started out as a cavalry sword before the infantry picked it up. Same with the clipeus that replaced the scutum. Although the counter to that argument would be that the infantry spear is an even better weapon against cavalry than a Spatha, so why sacrifice a good weapon against infantry for one against cavalry when you already have an even better one?

It occurs to me that the the Late Roman infantry seem to be equiped quite a lot like the auxiliaries used to be. They adopted the spear and shield used by them. Did the auxiliaries use the Spatha as well? I've seen that said, but never anywhere I would trust very much. If so, then it's interesting to note that the entire infantry essentially adopted the model of the auxiliaries.

darthfanta said:

Question:Why didn't they just use pikes or spears to fight cavalry instead of using a sword to do it?

Click to expand...

Exactly.

SlyDessertFox said:

Far easier to have one all around good weapon than giving each soldier multiple weapons on top of the throwing spear and sword.

Click to expand...

Except that's not what they did. They didn't just give the soldiers a single all-around weapon. They replaced the gladius with the spatha and added a fighting spear into the mix. And tradded the pilum for a handful of darts. So the soldiers didn't just have a decent all around weapon they had in addition to the multiple other weapons. More than a Principate legionnaire would have had!

Captain Jack said:

That does make sense. After all the spatha started out as a cavalry sword before the infantry picked it up. Same with the clipeus that replaced the scutum. Although the counter to that argument would be that the infantry spear is an even better weapon against cavalry than a Spatha, so why sacrifice a good weapon against infantry for one against cavalry when you already have an even better one?

It occurs to me that the the Late Roman infantry seem to be equiped quite a lot like the auxiliaries used to be. They adopted the spear and shield used by them. Did the auxiliaries use the Spatha as well? I've seen that said, but never anywhere I would trust very much. If so, then it's interesting to note that the entire infantry essentially adopted the model of the auxiliaries.

Click to expand...

They adopted pants from the Auxilia as well. Barbarian invention.

The reason is, spear and shield is unwieldly against infantry at close range... and the Pike formations are already things of the past and must wait until high medieval to be re-invented.

So rather than invest in spearmen who's vulnerable to infantry, the better choice without going pikes *who only reemergent in high medieval age* is arming the infantry in all round weapon, that is spatha or longer sword.

Of course, late Roman comitatenses did armed themselves with spear, but this was for bracing against early cavalry charge, and still customarily thrown against enemy infantry formations when the infantry battle commenced. And the Huns/Nomads are like to tie enemy infantry first with their own infantry before flanking from the sides with cavalry. Using spears will result in more vulerable flanks...

Captain Jack said:

Except that's not what they did. They didn't just give the soldiers a single all-around weapon. They replaced the gladius with the spatha and added a fighting spear into the mix. And tradded the pilum for a handful of darts. So the soldiers didn't just have a decent all around weapon they had in addition to the multiple other weapons. More than a Principate legionnaire would have had!

Click to expand...

The spear was still mostly used as a throwing spear. For most cases, the spatha was the preferred weapon precisely because of its versatility.

Yuelang said:

The reason is, spear and shield is unwieldly against infantry at close range... and the Pike formations are already things of the past and must wait until high medieval to be re-invented.

Click to expand...

The thing is, so is a spatha or similar longsword. In a dense formation the infantryman won't have enough room to swing the sword very effectively so he'll be relegated primarily to stabbing motions. To be sure, the spatha is far more wieldy in close quarters than a spear, but a shortsword is wieldier than either. And the Roman's spears would have been most effective in dense formations of exactly the sort that limited the spatha.

Yuelang said:

So rather than invest in spearmen who's vulnerable to infantry, the better choice without going pikes *who only reemergent in high medieval age* is arming the infantry in all round weapon, that is spatha or longer sword.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree, arming their infantry with long swords like the spatha is more flexible than spearmen. But the Romans did invest in spearmen, they just also armed them with spathas. So it's not a question of it being a choice between arming troops with spathas or spears; soldiers had both.

Yuelang said:

Of course, late Roman comitatenses did armed themselves with spear, but this was for bracing against early cavalry charge, and still customarily thrown against enemy infantry formations when the infantry battle commenced. And the Huns/Nomads are like to tie enemy infantry first with their own infantry before flanking from the sides with cavalry. Using spears will result in more vulerable flanks...

Click to expand...

Really? My understanding was that the soldiers had a thrusting spear, the hasta, which was distinct from the throwing spear. Further, the throwing spear was far from universal equipment, Roman troops could also have been armed with a couple shorter javelins and/or a handful of darts. It seems that the darts were the most common and might have been carried in addition to the other throwing weapons.

I don't see how opposing infantry pinning the front of the Roman infantry is a case for the spatha. If anything it's a case against it, as the gladius would be more effective in that type of combat and the spear would be suited to fending off enemy cavalry.

SlyDessertFox said:

The spear was still mostly used as a throwing spear. For most cases, the spatha was the preferred weapon precisely because of its versatility.

Click to expand...

That leads to the same question as above; if the spear was primarily a thrown weapon why does everything I read make a distinction between different types of spears carried? Everything I've seen that talks about the Roman equipment of the period makes a distinction between a thrusting spear and a throwing spear. To be clear, I'm not saying you're wrong I just want to know why there would be a spear referred to as a "thrusting spear" if it was thrown.

Captain Jack said:

The thing is, so is a spatha or similar longsword. In a dense formation the infantryman won't have enough room to swing the sword very effectively so he'll be relegated primarily to stabbing motions. To be sure, the spatha is far more wieldy in close quarters than a spear, but a shortsword is wieldier than either. And the Roman's spears would have been most effective in dense formations of exactly the sort that limited the spatha.

Click to expand...

A longsword, to avoid confusion, is a two-handed weapon much longer than a spatha and much later in timescale.

What you call a longsword is more properly an arming sword, or, simply, sword.

Really? My understanding was that the soldiers had a thrusting spear, the hasta, which was distinct from the throwing spear.

Click to expand...

The hasta is a spear of any kind, just like a scutum is a shield of any kind. It is sometimes used to mean very specific things and sometimes, well, we just don't know. Plus the deliberate archaisms in style of late Classical and early medieval Romans introduce all sorts of confusion into weapon nomenclature. The Rhompaia of 1093 is definitely not the same weapon as the Rhompaia of 43 BCE, and that's just one example.


And now - speculation follows.

First, at what range do you think fighting happens when shieldwalls meet? Not nearly as close as you might think, even if simply to retain cohesion. The spatha is perfect for that range, when thrusting, and you can even fit some cuts into the mix if you measure the cut by your shield edge (similar to how a side-sword works with a buckler).

Secondly, the real point: the spatha was paired with a large round shield, the gladius was paired with a scutum. That's what I would imagine is the reason behind the change.

A spatha matches the round (or oval) shield in size and reach when the shield is held by the grip under the umbon and is so free to rotate around the wrist (so it's used edge-on rather than flat-on to attack the opponent's shield in the shieldwall).

You can put your spatha on either side of a shield that size and still be able to reach the opponent. You may have a real problem doing that with a gladius - your opponent would mechanically reach you first every time even if you had a long enough arm to be threatening.

A large, rectangular, curved shield was not used in the same way. It was there to physically block the enemy's advance and the legionnaires are described as cautiously poking and stabbing with the gladius above the rim or beside the edge.

So the bigger question is why did they change the shield type. Yes, using a round shield edge-on is fairly strong mechanically and maybe stronger than holding the scutum in front of you by one arm, but it also exposes you to other soldiers standing beside the one whose shield you are attacking. The Romans famously had success through teamwork. So why change shields?

I don't see how opposing infantry pinning the front of the Roman infantry is a case for the spatha. If anything it's a case against it, as the gladius would be more effective in that type of combat and the spear would be suited to fending off enemy cavalry.

Click to expand...

The gladius isn't more effective at the spatha's range. The spatha's range is guaranteed by the shield that goes with the spatha. The sword works around the shield.

The gladius is more effective at the gladius' range, which is in turn provided by the scutum forming a strong enough barrier to prevent the fighter with the round shield/spatha combination from pushing the scutum out of the way and using the opening.

So the answer (and the question) is literally a matter of a few inches, really. Why did people stop fighting at a certain range and started fighting at a range that's a few inches longer instead? I don't know. There's interesting stuff being done on the biomechanics of shield fighting these days, and unfortunately the written sources have nothing new to tell us, so we'll probably need reconstructors to figure it out.

As already mentioned, the hasta or heavier lancea is better against cavalry. On the other hand it also works against infantry. Just remember greek hoplites (not macedonian phalangites). Same is true for the spatha. And it is not that long. So it is still usable in close melee combat.

But the spatha is also better in a more open formation, like smaller units had to use while patrolling and such. Remember, that already in the early principate the auxilia, distributed along the border, used the spatha. Later also vexillationes of legions were more distributed along the border and not longer hold back in double legion camps. And the romans started to use ex-gladiators as trainers (magistri). Why did they do that, if there was no need for fighting in a more open formation?

Now you could argue, that the spatha was the perfect weapon for the limitanei, but not for comitatenses. Well, a lot of the comitatenses were former auxilia and vexillationes and used to fight with the spatha. And do not expect, that the business of the comitatenses was sitting in a city all year long and just sometimes fighting as a big army. The daily business was rather to fight medium sized barbarian hordes with smaller armies. Of course ancient historians just wrote reports about the few big battles. Actually already Vespasian partially splitted his army into vexillationes of about 2000 men (heavy- and light infantry plus cavalry) in order to pacify Palaestina. Same is true for other provinces, if you have a closer look at the real military command structure.

The question is, what is better: a legionary trained to close melee combat in a close formation, who often failed in a more open combat style. Or a legionary who is able to perform in both styles. The spatha wasn't that bad in a shieldwall and could also be used like a gladius, even if not that perfectly specialized.

Same with the lancea. There are several types. One replaced the heavy pilum, which could be used against cavalry, as Arrian describes in the 2nd century. And the lighter lancea often used with a "throwing rope" had a longer range than the light pilum. In addition they used plumbata (also longer range) and still a modified pilum.

So the change from gladius to spatha and from pilum to multiple throwing weapons happenend due to the need for more versatility. Versatility in combat itself and versatility in the use of smaller armies, which had to apply different combat styles.

Also remember that the role of the infantry changed. In the early principate it was the main force, striking the enemy with a brutal infantry shock attack, while the cavalry had at least to hold the flanks. In the late empire the cavalry was often the main attacking force, while the infantry had just to hold the lines and provide cavalry units with a point of retreat.

Looking to all these changes the romans were obviously convinced, that the gladius was too short for a more versatile use. Fact is, they replaced it.

Despite the image of Roman troops using the gladius merely as a thrusting weapon they were also taught to slash with it as well.

A spatha is less wieldy than a gladius but it does have the advantage of reach. It's thrust is essentially as powerful as any that a gladius can produce but has the added benefit of keeping your opponent at a greater distance.

We really do not know I think. From what I know there is not a single surviving source for actual training done with these weapons.

Spatha handle and blade looks to resemble Viking era sword(for which we also have no sources of use..). From experimental archeology that enthusiasts do we know some interesting aspects of what exactly can be done with sword like that.

It is a very different sword to Gladius obviously. Being a primarily cutting weapon it was probably held with pinky and nameless fingers touching the bottom of the I grip. This allows for pivoting when striking with true edge but also allows reverse cuts with the opposite edge. This is useful when fighting with shield. As shield go lighter and more maneuverable advantage of this increased probably. We don't really know.

Cutting swords also have some other interesting characteristics, they can bind with spears. Sharp cutting sword can bite into spear shaft giving that swordsman control of the spear and allowing many follow up technics. Binding with Gladius would be very hard I think.

takerma said:

We really do not know I think. From what I know there is not a single surviving source for actual training done with these weapons.

Spatha handle and blade looks to resemble Viking era sword(for which we also have no sources of use..). From experimental archeology that enthusiasts do we know some interesting aspects of what exactly can be done with sword like that.

Click to expand...

I basically described Viking-era reconstruction techniques when speculating about the spatha and the flat shield, actually. They are really very very similar weapons.

Of course then there's the added complication of spatha not being a very precise term. Some of the spathae are basically barely longer than a gladius, some are as long as later arming swords. There is a lot of variation. By the early middle ages, a spatha is any sword whatsoever if encountered in text.

Potentially the spears influenced the shield change which in turn influenced the sword change. The Germanic peoples also used a two-spear combination, the long heavy throwing spear that could double up as a defensive spear just like the pilum, and the shorter spear.

The two spears later combined into one, and Roman spears soon followed (lancea in the 4th c. are basically a combination spear that can do both functions, rather than the javelins they were back in the Republic era). So armed with a spear as your primary formation weapon perhaps the clipea makes a lot more sense than its rectangular predecessor, and once you have a flat oval shield or a flat round shield, you'll need a sword that can work around it.

Speculative but about as good as any other suggestions I've seen so far.

RGB said:

I basically described Viking-era reconstruction techniques when speculating about the spatha and the flat shield, actually. They are really very very similar weapons.

Of course then there's the added complication of spatha not being a very precise term. Some of the spathae are basically barely longer than a gladius, some are as long as later arming swords. There is a lot of variation. By the early middle ages, a spatha is any sword whatsoever if encountered in text.

Potentially the spears influenced the shield change which in turn influenced the sword change. The Germanic peoples also used a two-spear combination, the long heavy throwing spear that could double up as a defensive spear just like the pilum, and the shorter spear.

The two spears later combined into one, and Roman spears soon followed (lancea in the 4th c. are basically a combination spear that can do both functions, rather than the javelins they were back in the Republic era). So armed with a spear as your primary formation weapon perhaps the clipea makes a lot more sense than its rectangular predecessor, and once you have a flat oval shield or a flat round shield, you'll need a sword that can work around it.

Speculative but about as good as any other suggestions I've seen so far.

Click to expand...

Somehow I missed your post, what you say makes a ton of sense. I am guessing we need people to do a lot more testing with formation fighting using Scutum/Gladius to understand mechanics of it better, maybe we can then get why it disappeared eventually.

As I understand it Roman armour was changing at about the same time, so did this have anything to do with the adoption of the spatha?