Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI

[Galloglaich]

I think it is a big mistake to make emotional investments in one side or another of conflicts which took place more than a thousand years ago... you as a modern person have less in common with a Roman Leginnaire or a Frankish warrior than they had with each other. Like I said, I'm not an expert on Roman history but I do know a little bit of military history, this is what I have gleaned so far:

The Romans had three initial advantages against the Barbarians.

1) Like most good infantry armies, they had a disciplined, well organized citizen militia trained to fight together. Very simiilar to the Greek Hoplites and the Etruscans from whose orbit they 'graduated'. This discipline is valuable on a tactical (holding together under fire, moving purposefully around the battlefield) as well as a Strategic level (recovering from defeats). The discipline could be imposed from above, but the esprit de corps came from below. You had to have both for this type of army to work.

2) They had excellent equipment, including armor for all of their front-line soldiers. This was largely due to institutionalized slave labor, which also I think ultimately became their proverbial achilles heel.

3) They practiced war as an art, with careful planning, and fought for victory rather than glory. And increasingly, they practiced total war.

The barbarians had the esprit de corps in droves, but lacked the discipline, lacked the standardized equipment (especially armor, which was critical), and fought for glory and prestige rather than conquest and annihilation of their enemy.

As power concentrated in the Center of Roman society, equipment got better at least initially, but esprit de corps waned. The indepednent farmers and urban artisans from whom the Legions had been recruited were replaced by slaves and serfs. So the Romans increasingly recruited from the Barbarians, not just from the north mind you, but from Spain, Numidia, Sarmatia, Parthia and Thrace, among other places.

The principle engine for the social change which weakened Roman society was the latifundia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latifundium

The power elite of Rome, Patricians and the Senatorial class, bought up huge numbers of cheap slaves who were put to work on vast villa estates in the countryside. The small farmers could not compete with these operations, but it was on them who the tax burden was placed, because they had no political power. They were literally squeezed to death. Many fled to the cities to join the urban underclass, turning Rome into a gang infested ghetto so bad that the government of the Western Roman empire relocated to Mediolanum (Milan) in 286 AD to escape it. (Ravena later became the official capitol of the Roman Empire in the 5th Century)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediolanum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravenna

Eventually those remaining in the countryside were literally bound to the land, becomming land-slaves, or serfs by order of Emperor Constantine in 332 AD. This stabilized the situation in the short term but utlimately proved a mortal wound both to Roman economic and military efficiency, because half starved serfs proved even worse than slaves at both farming and fighting, and had zero loyalty to the Roman State, to the contrary.

All of this was justified in elegant dialectical Roman logic, still preserved in surviving documents. The rural 'pagani' were seen as less than human because they were still of the old 'heathan' religion wheras the Senatorial class by this time had become Christian. The term pagani, which meant peasant, came to refer to non-believers, who were seen literally as an inferior species, much as the slaves had been already for centuries.

It is significant that the Latifundia system was copied in (formerly Moorish) southern Spain after the Reconquista, and was later imported to South and (particulalry) Central America as the Hacienda where it caused much the same type of stagnation, and was founded on the same kind of racial / religious attitude, toward the indios (native americans). It is also believed to be the ultimate origin of the agribusiness systems of the Central Valley of California.

The Roman recruiting base for their militia had been so weakened, that they created armmies from the Barbarians, to borrow from their 'esprit de corps' and combine it with the Roman military culture of discipline and tactical acumen. This worked for a time, but eventually could not be held together in the West. In the East where the Greek version of the cultural glue was stronger, the Roman Empire continued on as Byzantium.

The Barbarian zones, whether run by Berbers or Visigoths or Moors or Franks, did tend to have lower taxes and less of a strict social hierarchy. This is why many populations and entire towns went over to allegience to Barbarian leaders (like Theodoric) because they were indeed less oppressive than the Roman administration at that point. The serfdom in the north came later as the Roman (Christian) church gained power and influence over the Barbarian kingdoms, and was never universally imposed in most of Europe before it began to unravel during the Middle Ages (the exception being Russia and some other Eastern European countries on the frontier, where serfdom was established quite late but laster longer).

G.

[fusilier]

Thanks Galloglaich for that thoughtful and well laid out explanation.

The Roman recruiting base for their militia had been so weakened, that they created armmies from the Barbarians, to borrow from their 'esprit de corps' and combine it with the Roman military culture of discipline and tactical acumen. This worked for a time, but eventually could not be held together in the West. In the East where the Greek version of the cultural glue was stronger, the Roman Empire continued on as Byzantium.

This is where my understanding varies, but only slightly. The difference is the claim that the Roman military culture of discipline and tactical acumen was already in decline by the time significant numbers of barbarians were allowed into the armies. That decline beginning with the Military Anarchy of 3rd century. Therefore the army was *starting* to resemble a barbarian army, before barbarians were actually introduced. Likewise their introduction would have reinforced or hasten the transformation. The switch to longer swords and more spears (in this theory) is viewed as evidence that the high-level of training that Roman soldiers had received was waning. The short gladius had been effective against longer swords, when properly wielded in conjunction with the shield. Furthermore, I believe the Roman infantry had actually been trained on how to fight in formation with swords -- which sounds like it would require quite a bit of dedication and practice. Not only do I accept that there could be valid alternate theories, it's also my recollection, and I easily could have mixed some things up.

It is significant that the Latifundia system was copied in (formerly Moorish) southern Spain after the Reconquista, and was later imported to South and (particulalry) Central America as the Hacienda where it caused much the same type of stagnation, and was founded on the same kind of racial / religious attitude, toward the indios (native americans). It is also believed to be the ultimate origin of the agribusiness systems of the Central Valley of California.

This is interesting, and I wish the wikipedia article supplied more detail. It's probably an outgrowth of the encomienda/repartimiento system. It evolved overtime, but it was not supposed to be slavery. The indios were to be paid for their labor and could only be forced to work for a portion of the year (giving them time to take care of themselves). It was still an exploitative system, but by paying them they could be taxed. That tax going to the crown. The encomendero's were noblemen, so while they got to exploit the labor directly, the crown couldn't tax them (classic problem of *not* taxing the people with the money). That was the theory anyhow. In practice, abuses of the system were probably routine. It could be further complicated in areas where the missions competed with secular land owners for the labor.

[lsfreak]

@Boci:
(all of my info is subject to correction by people who know more what they're talking about :p)

Ammunition for guns varies widely. For example, there's 'normal' FMJ 9mm rounds, +P rounds (overpressure), and +P+ rounds (double overpressure). All will have different recoil, because they all have different loads of gunpowder in them, even though the bullet itself will remain the same. Not all handguns will be able to safely fire all types of ammunition, as the chambers can only handle certain amounts of pressure.

Weight of the gun itself heavily influences recoil as well. Take a heavy gun with a good sound suppressor, and a subcompact gun of the same caliber, and the heavy gun will have much less recoil (but may be unwieldy, hard to draw and aim quickly, etc.).

You'd be hard-pressed to find APDS rounds in handgun chambers. Even in rifles, they're not often used until you get into at least .50cal machine guns (though they're pretty standard for aircraft, ship, or vehicle-mounted guns from 20mm up to 120mm).

The only rounds that should actually affect gun wear noticeably will be unjacketed lead rounds (due to fouling of the barrel), which are, as far as I'm aware, never used by military or police forces. They're basically restricted to for-fun shooting, or perhaps home defense/concealed carry revolvers.

@ .50cal handguns

Keep in mind with any 'handgun' (and I use that term loosely) chambered for .50BMG probably won't have a whole lot of stopping power, compared to a rifle, unless they also tinkered with the powder load and put in much faster-burning powder (which would also drastically increase recoil). Handgun-length barrels simply won't be long enough for the powder to burn like it can in a rifle.

In .50 handgun rounds though, you've got .50AE, plus revolvers chambered for .500 S&W (and of course there's probably .50cal wildcats).

[fusilier]

Quick correction to my last entry about the Roman army.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structu...253.C2.A0AD.29

It looks like "barbarians" were being introduced to the army before the military Anarchy of 235-285. Though these "barbarians" were coming from within the empire itself. The initial signs of decline in discipline seem to have started before the Anarchy. Although I still think the inevitable decline was sealed by the Anarchy. I'm not really of the opinion that the introduction of barbarians into the Roman army led to a decrease in discipline and effectiveness. However, that barbarians were being allowed into the army, probably demonstrated that the army was already slipping in those areas. Then increasing numbers of barbarians would have exacerbated the situation.

[fusilier]

You'd be hard-pressed to find APDS rounds in handgun chambers. Even in rifles, they're not often used until you get into at least .50cal machine guns (though they're pretty standard for aircraft, ship, or vehicle-mounted guns from 20mm up to 120mm).

I'm not that familiar with the term APDS (I had to check it up): Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot. I thought that sabots were usually only used on fairly big caliber rounds (like artillery-sized), and that just plain AP was typical in rifle calibers. Are there APDS rounds for rifle caliber weapons?

thanks!

[Zincorium]

You can get .308 sabots that hold a .223 caliber bullet fairly cheaply- I've never seen the chronograph results, but it seems like it would be very fast. And of course the military rounds for that already go through armor.

Sabot rounds for shotguns are also very common, and black powder rifles use them almost exclusively nowadays.

Like I said, if you're talking handguns (and really small arms in general) not all of those rounds will be commercially available, but all of them could be constructed. The principles are well understood and it's not complicated. Of course, the same goes for some of those and larger calibers- I've always wanted to see what a Glazer round (copper jacket with birdshot inside) would do in .50 BMG or similar.

[lsfreak]

I'm not that familiar with the term APDS (I had to check it up): Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot. I thought that sabots were usually only used on fairly big caliber rounds (like artillery-sized), and that just plain AP was typical in rifle calibers. Are there APDS rounds for rifle caliber weapons?

thanks!

I supposed I don't really know how common it is to use them, but they're at least one type of ammo used (or at least, able to be used) in Apache and Cobra chin guns, Bradley IFV chain guns, Phalanx CIWS, the nose guns of most fighter aircraft, and so on. And then they're the primary anti-tank round for for both self-propelled, direct-fire gun (Striker, for example) and main battle tanks. They're not used in indirect-fire roles as far as I know.

In terms of infantry use, I know they exist. See here. Unless I'm mistaken, the American/NATO version cannot be used in sniper rifles (or rather, I've always heard not to use them. I want to say I've heard the pressures are higher than are safe). I know the 7.62mm was developed, but personally I've never heard of them actually be used.

After looking closer, a number of guns (including several heavy machine guns) that I thought used saboted rounds don't, but rather house a DU or tungsten core within a normal round.

(And it's probably worth noting that most of what I know is from what I've read, rather than any kind of first-hand knowledge.)

[fusilier]

Thanks for the response Isfreak. That basically conforms to what I thought the situation was: sabots for bigger guns/cannons, and things like DU or other AP for heavy caliber machine guns/autocannon. I am aware that there are now smoothbore cannons on many tanks, to facilitate the firing of AP munitions.

I had not heard about the SLAP round before, that's interesting. Although I wonder if its performance isn't much better than standard AP, and maybe that's why it hasn't been adopted. It seems to be designed for lightly armored vehicle, and not personal armor. This might indicate that the bullet wouldn't do much damage to a person? I've heard that often rounds that are very good at penetrating, have a tendency to keep going and not do much damage to whatever/whoever was protected by the armor. (There are, of course, exceptions)

You can get .308 sabots that hold a .223 caliber bullet fairly cheaply- I've never seen the chronograph results, but it seems like it would be very fast. And of course the military rounds for that already go through armor.

Sabot rounds for shotguns are also very common, and black powder rifles use them almost exclusively nowadays.

Now that you mention it, I may have heard about the sabot for .308. And yes sabot rounds are fairly common for shotguns. As for muzzle-loader rifles, I've heard of sabots being used, but most people I know use either minie-balls or round-ball with a patch.

Thanks for the info.

[Galloglaich]

Some interesting Linothorax testing. Turns out ten layers of linen could save your life....

http://news.discovery.com/archaeolog...o...armor.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linotho...e...ax_Project

http://www.uwgb.edu/aldreteg/Linothorax.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ERSx1o8wwk

[Dervag]

About the term Anarchy. Anarchy means "without government." During the Roman "Anarchy" there were tons of competing "emperors", and many assassinations. I cannot imagine that at the top level of the government there was much effective governance during such upheaval. This doesn't mean that local government ceased. Anyway, it is called the "Anarchy" by enough authority that I'm going to continue to call it that.

OK. Totally fine. Could you name the authorities for me, so I can go look up what they have to say about this?

The most common name for it I've heard is "The Crisis of the Third Century," which is a lot longer than "the Anarchy," but also a bit less questionable as a description. One might disagree about how much government there was during this period, but not when it happened.

As for the idea that Roman tactical sophistication was in decline: I'm not sure that changes in weapons are evidence for decay of the training the soldiers had with the weapons. After all, the Romans always used a mix of infantry weapons; the famous front-liner with his heavy shield, his lorica, gladius, and pila was only one part of a mixed force. He just happens to have gotten all the publicity. Especially since spears in particular lend themselves to individualized, less disciplined tactics less well than swords, as a rule; spears are more effective in a tight phalanx.

It is significant that the Latifundia system was copied in (formerly Moorish) southern Spain after the Reconquista, and was later imported to South and (particulalry) Central America as the Hacienda where it caused much the same type of stagnation, and was founded on the same kind of racial / religious attitude, toward the indios (native americans). It is also believed to be the ultimate origin of the agribusiness systems of the Central Valley of California.

Also, I would argue, the plantation culture of the Caribbean and the American South... and it created cultures that were just as stagnant and trapped in a cash-crop economy as anything in Latin America.

[Crow]

Also, I would argue, the plantation culture of the Caribbean and the American South... and it created cultures that were just as stagnant and trapped in a cash-crop economy as anything in Latin America.

Yep. They don't call them "banana republics" for nothing!

[fusilier]

OK. Totally fine. Could you name the authorities for me, so I can go look up what they have to say about this?

Do you want the name of my tenured professor, who was a fixture in the history department for something like 30 years? Or will just quoting from a book do?

Historians often describe this period as one of "military anarchy," since few emperors reigned long enough to establish dynasties or even firm policies; most of these ephemeral rulers were rough soldiers without much in the way of education or preparation for ruling the empire.

A History of Byzantium
pg. 23-24

http://books.google.com/books?id=gXC...gbs_navlinks_s

Wikipedia also calls it the "military anarchy".

The important thing to realize is that it wasn't merely anarchy within the military, it was the military causing anarchy within the government. If you want to talk about at what level the anarchy occurred that's fine. Assuming you don't live in the capital city of your country, if the national government devolved into anarchy, you wouldn't expect local garbage collection to immediately cease. (I suppose that depends upon how centralized the government is).

When dealing with the Military Anarchy, anarchy refers to the top level of government. Not the government at local community levels (whatever government that may have been). The Anarchy would understandably effect those national level concerns -- like the military, and the infrastructure that supported the economy (roads). My professor typically referred to it as "the Anarchy", because there was really nothing else to confuse it with.

As for the idea that Roman tactical sophistication was in decline: I'm not sure that changes in weapons are evidence for decay of the training the soldiers had with the weapons. After all, the Romans always used a mix of infantry weapons; the famous front-liner with his heavy shield, his lorica, gladius, and pila was only one part of a mixed force. He just happens to have gotten all the publicity. Especially since spears in particular lend themselves to individualized, less disciplined tactics less well than swords, as a rule; spears are more effective in a tight phalanx.

Right. To effectively fight in formation with swords requires a lot of training. Especially the spacing. Even though they used a gladius, the formation can not be too tight. Recruits will naturally tend to crowd together, especially when closing with the enemy. Which is fine for pikes or spears, but not for swords. The fact that they were abandoning the gladius, and switching to longer swords and spears, might imply that the level of training needed to maintain disciplined sword based tactics was falling. So they were reverting to tactics and weapons that didn't require that high-level of training and discipline. That's the argument anyway.

[Dervag]

Do you want the name of my tenured professor, who was a fixture in the history department for something like 30 years? Or will just quoting from a book do?

A History of Byzantium
pg. 23-24...

All right, fine, but from the sources on the period between the Severans and Diocletian I know, I wouldn't call it "The Anarchy" as a primary name for the era.

Right. To effectively fight in formation with swords requires a lot of training. Especially the spacing. Even though they used a gladius, the formation can not be too tight. Recruits will naturally tend to crowd together, especially when closing with the enemy. Which is fine for pikes or spears, but not for swords. The fact that they were abandoning the gladius, and switching to longer swords and spears, might imply that the level of training needed to maintain disciplined sword based tactics was falling. So they were reverting to tactics and weapons that didn't require that high-level of training and discipline. That's the argument anyway.

I'm still a little dubious about whether that signifies anything, though; it just seems sort of... arbitrary. "X is a less disciplined weapon than Y, so switching from X to Y is a sign of decaying discipline."

[Galloglaich]

Also, I would argue, the plantation culture of the Caribbean and the American South... and it created cultures that were just as stagnant and trapped in a cash-crop economy as anything in Latin America.

Of course, and from the same (Roman) cultural source.. it's the Latifundia all over again.

G.

[fusilier]

I'm still a little dubious about whether that signifies anything, though; it just seems sort of... arbitrary. "X is a less disciplined weapon than Y, so switching from X to Y is a sign of decaying discipline."

I think the consensus is that to be proficient with a sword requires more training than with a weapon like a spear. To wield a sword in formation is considered to require even more training. And short swords, like a gladius, are better adapted to fighting in formation.

This is certainly open to debate. But, yeah, the basics of the argument are just as you described.

[Raum]

I have heard that 'consensus' many times also...and this seems a good place to ask - Is there any historical evidence that swords were more difficult to become proficient with than spears? (For a similar level of proficiency.)

[Crow]

I think the consensus is that to be proficient with a sword requires more training than with a weapon like a spear. To wield a sword in formation is considered to require even more training. And short swords, like a gladius, are better adapted to fighting in formation.

This is certainly open to debate. But, yeah, the basics of the argument are just as you described.

Maybe you are thinking along the lines of it being cheaper to equip troops with spears than with swords? "Lesser" troops could be equipped with spears at far less expense than with swords.

There is no evidence to support one weapon being more "professional" than another. I would say that with the empire's enemies more often employing large cavalry forces, the switch to the spear would make sense.

Also, the auxilia which traditional made up a huge portion of the roman war machine had been using the spear for decades. As the empire began to place more emphasis on the auxilia as opposed to the legions, it can be easy to perceive a "switch" from the gladius to the spear. In addition, the spatha was a common weapon for mounted auxilia, as opposed to the gladius. Again, with greater emphasis on the auxilia, one can see a perceived switch to the spatha.

[Crow]

I was recently reading a book by Bernard Cornwell, Excalibur. Now let me start by stating that this book is fiction, and takes place in Arthurian Briton.

But in this book, the main character fights the champion of one of the saxon antagonists, and it describes the champion using a slender blade, which he uses predominantly for thrusting, though at one point he makes a slashing cut which the main character strikes directly with his own more robust sword as hard as possible, breaking the champion's sword.

Now as I understand it, rapiers didn't come into use until much later than what would be Arthurian times. Is there some other sword type which this description could fit, which a far-travelled saxon could have gotten ahold of in those times? Or is this just the author injecting some flavor of his own?

[fusilier]

Maybe you are thinking along the lines of it being cheaper to equip troops with spears than with swords? "Lesser" troops could be equipped with spears at far less expense than with swords.

No, I wasn't really thinking along those lines, but it's a good point. If you're making money saving measures, training is one thing that's also going to suffer. So switching to weapons that can still be effective (maybe not as effective) with less training could make economical sense.

There is no evidence to support one weapon being more "professional" than another. I would say that with the empire's enemies more often employing large cavalry forces, the switch to the spear would make sense.

Also, the auxilia which traditional made up a huge portion of the roman war machine had been using the spear for decades. As the empire began to place more emphasis on the auxilia as opposed to the legions, it can be easy to perceive a "switch" from the gladius to the spear. In addition, the spatha was a common weapon for mounted auxilia, as opposed to the gladius. Again, with greater emphasis on the auxilia, one can see a perceived switch to the spatha.

Very good points. Although I thought that the Roman Legions had dealt with cavalry forces in Asia, prior to the changes? Also consider the implications of the Military Anarchy. The imperial governance was in ruins, and I find it difficult to believe that army training camps were immune to the disruption at that level. Fifty years could easily have wrecked the training traditions of the army. Honestly, though, I don't know, and Dervag certainly seems to disagree about the implications of the "Crisis of the Third century."

As for swords in the Arthurian age. When exactly is the book set? Arthur is sometimes attributed across different centuries, as far as I know. Anyway, I *think* that early Dark Age swords tended to be wider than later Medieval ones, but I'll wait to hear from the experts. :-)

[Galloglaich]

Well, there are two major branches of the discussion here, one is Roman military discipline and efficacy, and the other specifically with kit and swords in particular. I don't know that much about Roman history per se, but I've read a bit of the military history and understand the weapons and armor pretty well from research I recently did for a book. So here is my $.02:

I think swords got longer in the Dark Ages principally because metalurgy had improved, and this, like the swords themselves, came from the Barbarian zones.

Those Gladius which have been excavated in Mainz, Fullham, Pompeii etc. were almost all made from wrought iron, not steel. With an iron blade, 24" is about as long of a sword as you can make, any longer than that and it will bend or break every time you hit something.

Here is a little timeline of Roman military history which reflects how I see their weapon development, for whatever that is worth.

300 BC Rome begins the conquest of Hispania, and some soldiers immediately adopt Celtiberian and Iberian weapons, including metal javelins which would become the famous pilum, and the Spanish sword.

147 BC The Romans begin to suffer a series of defeats by the Celtibierian city state of Numantia and the Lusitani guerilla leader Viritathus in Spain. After annihilating three Roman Armies, Viriathus is finally defeated by bribing his own captains to assassinate him, (after which they were put to death by the Romans in a double-cross). During this campaign Roman legions systematically adopt the Celtiberian "Gladius Hispaniensis" (Spanish Sword) as standard kit, as well as the Iberian Falcata, a curved weapon similar to a Gurkha knife, which significantly, was one of the earliest swords to be found that contained some steel.

100 BC, the Roman Empire received a frightening shock with the arrival of a powerful coalition of Celtic and Germanic tribes, which the Romans called the Cimbri and the Teutons. These barbarians were armed with very good quality 'spatha' type swords which were harder and more strongly made than anything the Romans had. The shock of the defeats they suffered during the invasions by these Barbarians led to the complete reorganization of the Roman military under General Marius, the so-called Marian reform.

From this period, the longer "barbarian" style swords began to be adopted by Roman Cavalry, which was also increasingly made up of Auxiliaries from Gaul and Numidia and Spain.

9 AD the Germanic coalition led by the Cherucsi during the Battle of Teutoburg forest crush three Roman Legions, a catastrophic Roman defeat at the hands of Barbarians wielding Spatha type swords and spears.

16 BC the Romans conquer Noricum, the Celto-Illyrian center for creating what the Romans called "Norric steel", actually a pattern welded iron-steel composite.... but functionally the same thing, allowing the creation of strong blades as long as 3 feet.

100 AD the Roman Legions have switched from the Gladius to the Spatha, and Germanic infantry units are being recruited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viriathus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusitanian_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimbri
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teutones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_reforms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noricum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noric_steel

From as early as the 1st Century BC the Roman armies had also suffered severe defeats at in the east and catastrophic debacles, caused by the inability of the Legions to cope with Eastern horse-archers and heavy cavalry (Saromatian and Parthian Caraphracts, who were equipped essentially like 13th Century European knights). These defeats included the annihilation of entire Legions and the death of Roman Consul (Crassus) on the battlefield.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae

This catastrophe was echoed 4 centuries later in Central Europe at the hands of Visigothic heavy cavalry, leading to the death of Emperor Valens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Adrianople

Roman infantry alone was not capable of coping with heavy cavalry or horse archers, they had to adopt heavy cavalry and horse-archers of their own, which they did. This also meant adopting different weapons and armor and hiring foreign Axuliaries, which again... goes back to Republican times. The political and social turmoil in Rome at various points was another major factor, but from what I have read that seems to have waxed and waned, the army was reformed many times and competent Generals or militarily talented emperors (like Julian or Marcus Aurelius or Constantine) continued to arrive periodically.

This too was nothing new, effective Emperors were outnumbered by crazy or incompetent ones, which can be seen clearly enough in the first (Julio-Claudian) Dynasty. Julius Caesar was a brilliant general, killed early in his reign, Augustus was highly competent, replaced by Tiberius (competent but crazy) then Caligula (weak and completely crazy), then Claudius (weak) then Nero (crazy again) .... that's just how it goes when one guy has total control, there are periods of prosperity followed in short order by disaster and chaos. It was the same with Medieval monarchies. There were twenty "Charles the fat" "Charles the simple" or "Aethelred the unready" for every Alfred the Great or Charles Martel.

G

[Galloglaich]

I guess the bottom line is, Roman history is complicated and it's somewhat tricky to make generalizations... you can see a lot of ways to look at this particular elephant...

G.

[Matthew]

I guess the bottom line is, Roman history is complicated and it's somewhat tricky to make generalizations... you can see a lot of ways to look at this particular elephant...

Heh, heh; I have been thinking the same thing over the course of the last couple of pages of this thread. Anybody interested in the Roman military and not familiar, would be well advised to check out RomanArmyTalk, a really excellent community for this sort of discussion.

[Crow]

I was recently reading a book by Bernard Cornwell, Excalibur. Now let me start by stating that this book is fiction, and takes place in Arthurian Briton.

But in this book, the main character fights the champion of one of the saxon antagonists, and it describes the champion using a slender blade, which he uses predominantly for thrusting, though at one point he makes a slashing cut which the main character strikes directly with his own more robust sword as hard as possible, breaking the champion's sword.

Now as I understand it, rapiers didn't come into use until much later than what would be Arthurian times. Is there some other sword type which this description could fit, which a far-travelled saxon could have gotten ahold of in those times? Or is this just the author injecting some flavor of his own?

Fro what I have been able to work out from the book, it is supposed to take place shortly before the year 500. Hopefully that helps get an answer to this question.

[Matthew]

From what I have been able to work out from the book, it is supposed to take place shortly before the year 500. Hopefully that helps get an answer to this question.

There are rapier type swords extant from the iron age, I believe, though I would be hard pressed to find you an original reference. I think I read about them on the ARMA website in the article about cut versus thrust swords, or maybe "There is no best sword".

[fusilier]

100 AD the Roman Legions have switched from the Gladius to the Spatha, and Germanic infantry units are being recruited.

Hmmm. The wikipedia entry on the Late Roman army says that the gladius wasn't phased out until the 3rd century . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Roman_army

I guess the bottom line is, Roman history is complicated and it's somewhat tricky to make generalizations... you can see a lot of ways to look at this particular elephant...

Indubitably! :-) It really depends upon how you look at it. How you explain the debacles that the Roman army faced, etc.

Thanks Matthew for the link, it looks like there might be some good stuff there. Originally I was never that interested in Ancient/Classical history, until some friends convinced me to take a class with them. I enjoyed it so much that I took enough Ancient history classes that it ended up as my concentration for a minor in History. Anyway, this conversation has been good and rekindled my interest in the time period again.

One more thing. A fellow reenactor just asked about whether or not there are Roman reenactment groups circa 50AD (I'm certain there are). A couple of his friends are interested. Ideally in New Mexico. Thanks in advance for any help.

[Galloglaich]

Heh, heh; I have been thinking the same thing over the course of the last couple of pages of this thread. Anybody interested in the Roman military and not familiar, would be well advised to check out RomanArmyTalk, a really excellent community for this sort of discussion.

Agreed that is where I learned most of what little I know about it, that is a very well informed group of people on that forum. Definitely the top resource online, I wish there were forums that good on Medieval or Renaissance history.

Also a few good books like Hans Delbrucks classical warfare, John Warys Warfare in the Classical World, Jacob Burckhardts book on Classical civilization (can't remember the title off the top of my head and too hung over to look it up), and various Osprey books of course.

And anyone who is interested in Roman history should definitely pick up Julius Caesars conquest of gaul or gallic wars (different editions use different titles) it's an easy read and very entertaining... and you'll gain a lot of insight into the times. Also Tacitus Germania and Agricola, and Seutonious 12 Caesars for a really scandalous look at early Imperial history.

G>

[Galloglaich]

There are rapier type swords extant from the iron age, I believe, though I would be hard pressed to find you an original reference. I think I read about them on the ARMA website in the article about cut versus thrust swords, or maybe "There is no best sword".

There were "rapier-like" swords in the Bronze age, not so much in the Iron Age, though some of the earlier Iron Age "Spatha" types could certainly thrust as well as cut.

These Bronze 'rapiers' were made with the blade bolted on to the handle, . Most of them were not very long, though a few were. But the point was they were too fragile to cut with, which is why they started calling them 'rapiers'. Not much is known about how they would have been used though.

Here is an article on them:

http://www.templeresearch.eclipse.co...nze/rapier.htm

here is one of the really long ones, from some pictures of bronze age swords found in Ireland, upper left



Here are a couple more with the grips, from Bulgaria



During the transition from Bronze Age to Iron Age weapons got a lot shorter, in fact it was almost all daggers for a while until short swords slowly began to appear. The longer Spatha type wasn't widespread until the Third Century BC, and they didn't begin to get much longer than that until the 12th Century AD... all due to the level of the metalurgy and the level of sword making technology. As soon as they figured out how to make them longer, they did. Reach is useful in a fight. By the 16th Century at the pinnacle of steel-making technology, you began to get the true rapiers and giant two handed swords six feet long.

As for the particular anecdote, swords break, but one sword cutting through another has the ring of silly. Most King Arthur stuff falls under that category.

G.

[Crow]

As for the particular anecdote, swords break, but one sword cutting through another has the ring of silly. Most King Arthur stuff falls under that category.

G.

To the author's credit, he said that it broke the other sword. Not that he cut through it. I'm sure he got himself a hefty little chip in his edge from that one. =)

[Dervag]

Maybe the other guy made his sword too long, so it broke easily...

[Galloglaich]

or maybe it still had a rock stuck to it....