The Roman gladius: Was it really a sword for thrusting only?

** Sources **
Dionysius of Halicarnassus
archive.org/stream/romanantiq...
Titus Livius
www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/t...
Flavius Vegetius Renatus
www.digitalattic.org/home/war/...
Types of gladii:
www.uam.es/proyectosinv/equus...
www.knife-depot.com/blog/hist...
Intro by Heidaz
/ heidaz
********************************************************************************
My favorite online store for buying swords (worldwide shipping):
ww4.aitsafe.com/go.htm?go=kult...
Channel-related shirts and stuff:
skallagrim.spreadshirt.com/cus...
Some recommended knife makers on Amazon:
www.amazon.com/s/?_encoding=UT...
Want to help fund future videos?
/ skallagrim
My Facebook page:
/ skallagrimyt

[@emperormarcusaureliusanton5995]

Yes. Believe me, I speak from experience.

[@jim4671]

Haha.

[@Toad_Man]

I...find this slightly suspicious...

[@Ms.Nightshade]

Nipples O' Tungsten ^ Coming from a user with a username such as yours, I to am suspicious

[@Toad_Man]

I just have a medical condition.

[@SeraphimRoad]

I will never forget what you did with the Parthian Empire. Never! Mark my words Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus. One day your empire will fall and I'll be there to end you rightly. #NotMyEmperor

[@atlehman69]

Gladius means sword... so Gladiators were Swordinators. Nice.

[@tai7599]

using your logic, glad is a plastic sandwich bag, then gladiators are people who use plastic sandwich bags

[@TonyG0317]

Hahahahaha

[@Ms.Nightshade]

TONIGHT WE FIGHT WITH PLASTIC

[@atlehman69]

Dio A Lmao, as I read your comment, I though you were serious and was extremely interested. You got me - super funny though.

[@dabob720]

You're actually kinda correct; "gladiator" directly translates to "man with a sword" or simply "swordsman."

[@MartoLun]

I imagine you're told to thrust with a gladius in the same way you're told to shoot a handgun with both hands.

[@texteel]

+MartoLun well, im told the same way...with words...

[@EnderGraff1]

+MartoLun Well put.

[@joshwalker8984]

+MartoLun In formation, you would use too much area to swing plus open yourself up. So generally, the gladius was only used to thrust. In 1 vs 1 combat, general sword techniques would apply... A roman soldier was suppose to be adapt at both forms...

[@InfernosReaper]

+Josh Walker Once your big shield is gone, your freedom of movement increases a good bit while protection decreases. That's when cutting would really start coming up more. Even assuming a more loose formation, the shield is the biggest factor in how you'd use the gladius.

[@habboaddict2]

+MartoLun Stop following me, Branded D:

[@CAP198462]

the way I understand it, Roman legionnaires would train by sparring with wooden swords and attacking a roughly 2.5m wooden post. Neither of these rule out a cut. Additionally, there are sources for gladiator training which say they were taught the six lethal cuts. It's probably safe to say they did cut with the gladius, if the opportunity presented itself.

[@DemothHymside]

The Gladius fell out of favor after the first user was ended rightly by a sword with a removable pommel.

[@Ms.Nightshade]

Etienne Jackson Please...just stop

[@DemothHymside]

Ms. Nightshade NEVER!

[@Ms.Nightshade]

...

[@matthewrobson1962]

Ms. Nightshade END THEM RIGHTLY

[@swbrown1995]

Hahahaha that was great

[@duje44]

it is thrusting for 99,9% of time Romans fought in tight formation, which means slashing around was not possible because you would ether decapitate your friend, or stuck on his armor or shield. Romans had a way of fighting, they would rush in as a formation within enemy ranks, which is why big shields that protect whole body, then they would stab enemy on the right in his flank, not the one in front. They were formation fighting machine, slashing in formation is not possible majority of time, and short thick and stiff sword is made exactly for stabbing from close up. Do not think Romans in Hollywood sense where they fight in choreography, slashing would only occur in isolated cases, romans fought cold, deliberate and simple, not fancy

[@aeneasmichalopoulos6328]

+divljak well said!

[@aeneasmichalopoulos6328]

obviously if the opportunity presented itself a slash would certainly be used, but the majority of time a thrust would be preferred

[@duje44]

+Sam “MrPercie” Percy i can imagine 100 different situations where slashing would be used preferably using my vivid imagination..., but thats just making exceptions, for the most time it was like "prison stabbing" motion into guts in formation, while pushing forwards

[@fenn6173]

+Sam “MrPercie” Percy hoplites wouldn't get that opportunity the shields only made enough space for a jab

[@BattlerEvil]

+divljak That is still incorrect.. There a lot of ways of cutting techniques that doesn't require much space, i hope you don't think that the only way to cut is swing Horizontally right? fast Overhead cuts will do just fine and quick feet cuts are aswell optional and won't "severe" your friends leg off, You can also draw cut your opponent and that is a form of a cut aswell. So you are wrong with the 99,9% of the time. Thrusting is primary purpose, but Cutting isn't out of the way completely, it is secondary but there is no reason not to cut in a different way without killing all of your friends around you... -_-

[@Xr0XL]

Your sources seem thrustworthy.

[@haijyvelho]

+Xroxl He he... ha HA HUE HE HE HA HA!!!!!!

[@khaorix2667]

+Xroxl I see what you did there.

[@maxrav1831]

+Xroxl yep you can't get much better than going to the original sources.

[@robbert-janmerk6783]

+Xroxl Your commentary cuts to the core of the issue.

[@zulwe]

+Xroxl I agree...but some of his ideas I thought to be a bit edgy....

[@tetsubo57]

I am reminded of an old saying, "Thrust with the edge, slash with the tip." In short, do what you have to do to win the day. I do love that Mainz of your's. :)

[@Zedlolmyster]

+tetsubo57 well said

[@Drownedinblood]

+tetsubo57 "every thrust a cut, every cut a thrust" keep it interesting.

[@TanitAkavirius]

+tetsubo57 It's "Thrust with the tip, slash with the edge." you dummy :P

[@playzor911]

+JuliusAkavirius You sure because that would just be stating the obvious instead of it meaning do whatever gotta be done.

[@TanitAkavirius]

playzor911 Zat's ze joke :)

[@MikeMafiaII]

More Roman period content would be great, maybe even things the average Joe doesn't know much about, like Roman cavalry or archers' tactics etc.

[@fenn6173]

+Mike dN roman archers were quality over quantity in the way that Persians and Europeans were quantity over quality

[@joshwalker8984]

+Brock Harris Eastern troops had WAYYY better archers because of the use of better bow making techniques...

[@fenn6173]

they had better bows not archers

[@VintageLJ]

+Brock Harris The English had longbow champions, who could hit you in the eye from a long distance, but not all were like that. It's not as black and white as you presume. Also, 'better bows' is not necessarily true. What makes a bow better? Ease of production, Ease of use, power, distance etc. The heavily re-curved bows of the east were specialized for use on horseback.

[@jakobschoning7355]

+Josh Walker Well the roman army used many eastern archers as auxilia, especially syrians, these did also use eastern bows.

[@ledari]

There s a reason why the army of Rome was so good. 1. Gladius = lightweight, great compact sword. 2. Pilum 3. Big shield protects you from arrows.

[@marcomendicino3997]

LeDari I think training, discipline, strategy, tactics and logistics had a bigger role than the weapons themselves

[@oscarmayer2517]

Marco Mendix Agreed

[@oscarmayer2517]

Marco Mendix I agree, the Romans' military tactics and formations led them to have many advantages in the battlefield

[@ShitBagSPC]

Weren't they also facing against peasant like enemies with "lower level" weapons, equipment, tactics etc???

[@amandatimoney1289]

Som Boi they went up against some fearsome soldiers Boi like the Spartan hoplites

[@ArsacesOfParthiaI]

Roman steel can't cut Carthaginian stone! 216 BC was an inside job!

[@edstar83]

*Hannibal entered the chat*

[@hasanhuseyincalskan]

Steel haa bronze or iron

[@Wookie120]

I have found your videos to be very interesting, and educational, well thought out and set up. Have definitely increased my knowledge of ancient weaponry.

[@MadnessOfMarmots]

If you ever find yourself thinking, "Why would they use such short swords for such a long time? Why not a longer sword sooner?" Just remember, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Obviously it worked for the Romans. They had (arguably) the greatest army in the world at the time, certainly the best in the Mediterranean.

[@Zedlolmyster]

+thinkpol a shorter sword is beneficial when you rely on a large shield like the romans did. it basically turns any fight into a close quarters one.

[@MadnessOfMarmots]

Zedlolmyster No shit, dude, that was the whole strategy. You think I don't know that? That's exactly why they wanted a thrusting sword. You literally are telling me the reason they wanted a primarily thrusting sword.

[@Zedlolmyster]

+thinkpol i never said anything about a thrusting sword. i simply said a short sword is beneficial with a big shield. also the gladius is not a primarily thrusting sword, just look at how broad that blade is. it's clearly a nasty cutter and if i were a soldier on the battlefield i definitely wouldn't limit myself to only thrusting.

[@MadnessOfMarmots]

Zedlolmyster Not a thrusting sword? Are you kidding me? THEIR STRATEGY WAS ONE OF THRUSTING, THAT'S HOW THEY FOUGHT. THE SWORD WAS PURPOSE BUILT FOR THRUSTING TO FUNCTION WITH SAID STRATEGY. These are historical and military facts, it's not up to debate. These are FACTS. Are you really that incredibly thick? Did you not watch the video? Are you completely ignorant about Roman military strategy? Obviously yes to all of those. How can you be so unabashedly ignorant?

[@Zedlolmyster]

thinkpol there is a difference between design and use. also, i did watch the video and skall was very distant about saying if it was one way or the other.

[@DISTurbedwaffle918]

One could be fooled that it was primarily for thrusting due to the nature of combat at the time. When your opponent and yourself both have massive shields and effective armor, the opportunities to slash are minimal, especially when fighting in formation. Thus, thrusting becomes the most situationally effective method of attack.

[@sage552]

looks like the world's deadliest pepper grinder

[@Ms.Nightshade]

DesertedOnion Not only does is grind pepper, but one can defend from invaders! THIS BE MY PEPPER!!!

[@chikenliken9897]

No it’s a salt grinder, for Carthage

[@NeighborhoodStreetrat]

I was going to like your comment but then it wouldn't have 69 likes and I don't feel like committing a crime today.

[@HOREO45]

I really like this historical rambling videos and the discussions they create. Cheers, Skall.

[@AFCAWorldBodybuildingArchive]

What I love about Roman armory is it's simplicity. Purely functional and therefore beautiful in it's own way.

[@gracetrimboli5769]

I am glad that you looked to the sources for your evidence. Having almost completed my MA in Classics (the study of Classical Greece and Rome), I prefer going directly to the sources. I dislike it when people make statements with little to no proof at all. Props to you for doing your research.

[@OrenRamoManuel]

Once again thank you for sharing! Historical information on ancient weapons has always been most intriguing.

[@salamandastron90]

I'm very impressed with just how much research you did to argue your point. That takes dedication, truly. Thoroughly enjoyable video!

[@CommissarWallace]

You have to be careful with these historical tracts - Roman histories are almost always written in a classical style that prides stylistic ideas over substance. Gladii Hispaniensis were feared, especially in the Macedonian wars, for inflicting grievous cutting injuries. They still primarily retain that ease of use for the stab however. Imperial legionary gladii such as the Mainz type, are mostly reflective of the 'thrust' mentality of Roman training in that period. They have edges, but the lethal bit is definitely the point. Later Roman gladii reverted back to the older types, capable more of both, before being replaced by the spatha almost altogether. They could cut, gradually got longer, and became more suited to individualised fighting.shields got smaller too, giving you greater room for a large weapon. But it is not just about the blade - Roman legionary training is also important to note. Republican legionaries, as they could only be called up by law for around a year, received on average less training, and a blade that was capable of both styles of attack was needed. However, after Marius's reforms, the legionary was professionalised, and could be relied on to form a greater part of a disciplined fighting unit - the thrust attack was a more efficient way to down most opponents, as both your formation and shield could be relied on to do the rest of the fighting. Once we move to late Imperial Rome, we need a more balanced weapon again due to the decline of large formation fighting and formalised training - skirmish battles were far more frequent. Rome's weapons, while you can always analyse them on their own, need to be seen in context to get a full picture. Roman armies were team-based, cooperative structures after all.

[@amandatimoney1289]

Woah it’s Aizen from Bleach

[@panzerbanz7296]

Yea but here we are looking just at the sword specifically.

[@SeraphimRoad]

The Arabs have curved swords...curved swords

[@MrComputerCoder]

SeraphimRoad Skyrim reference!

[@federicoallegretti3798]

Sabers have been used in Europe until 1920

[@amandatimoney1289]

You hear those warriors from Hammerfell they have curved swords. Curved swords

[@rollothewalker5535]

So do the dacians and thracians....

[@amandatimoney1289]

RolloTheWalker IT WAS A SKYRIM REFERENCE!!!

[@CosmicDuck494]

Hey Skall, I just want to take this opportunity to let you know that I really appreciate your videos. I think they are getting better and better, and even though the romans aren't in my center of interest, I think this one was really well researched and very interesting. Hope you never stop making them! Cheers, Mike

[@gunslinger11bravo]

great use of sources and delivery of factual information. Well done, thanks for the video.

[@AFCAWorldBodybuildingArchive]

Please more Roman related videos. Love this topic :)

[@nelsonr1467]

The late roman legions were still a very capable fighting force and won many victories. The fall of the western empire was more attributed to political and economic instability

[@madmechanic7976]

It was demographics. We keep repeating our history.

[@SeasickKhan]

Love your videos. I’ve been interested in swords and other Melee weapons ever since I watched Saturday morning cartoons in the early 80’s. Keep up the great work!!!

[@AndrewAttard78]

Hey Skallagrim, great videos. You fill a very specific niche. I like them a lot.

[@aryanson]

"Killing with the point lacks artistry, but don't let that stay your hand, when an opportunity presents itself" Gurney Halleck, Dune

[@nikemozack7269]

It says that the gladius hispaniensis, was sharp on both edges, where the Falcata is single edged and shaped like a Kopis.

[@rileyworks3793]

Your language is improving. You sound less familiar and more educational. I like it. Also, as always I appreciate your insights and observations, thank you.

[@StoicFC]

I just binged watched all of your videos this weekend

[@szedlacsektamas3959]

Centurions be like: INCREDIBILIS

[@JustGrowingUp84]

Well *my* sword is for thrusting only... ladies. (Plz don't kill me!)

[@MrTuohitorvi]

I'm just sitting here prolonging the awkward silence after your cringey pick-up line... :D

[@Aracnah]

+TheFilthyCasual Well, don´t throw your pommels then. that would end YOU rightly ;)

[@TheHarleyross]

thrusting is how you end HER rightly. different physiology

[@masonmead27]

+jerome96114 O_O

[@Woosle]

+jerome96114 Aaand you ruined it. Good job, sir.

[@YCCCm7]

I love that look you did with your beard. Very suiting for the channel's aura, and relatively fashionable to begin with, in my humble opinion.

[@coldsteel.and.courage]

Good video, always interesting to see the practicality and technology of the different ancient weapons.

[@roberttauzer7042]

Don't forget one important thing Skall, our culture focuses on blade while I would say that roman shield wasn't only integral part of their weapon system, but perhaps even more important.

[@WalrusJones185]

+Robert Tauzer Ceasar had on a few instances ordered his troops to use Pila as spears to fight cavalry. Javelins that were designed to break after one use. It worked. Every legionary carried a sling that they knew how to use as well. Really, it goes to show how shield-oriented ancient warfare was. Really, the greeks naming troops after the type of shields they used was pretty smart. The Dacians and the Thracians developing a series of swords specifically designed for cutting at the shield arm was just as smart.

[@SherlockHolmes000]

+WalrusJones Rhomphaia and Falx, known to split the Scutum down the middle, until they developed some thicker shields.

[@ihategoogleplus5308]

+Sherlock Holmes It's also why the Romans started using manica in those campaigns.

[@phoenixjz4782]

+Robert Tauzer Ancient & classical era warfare was a lot more based on discipline and formation than medieval warfare. Medieval combat was built around well equipped lords and their knights, and then peasant infantry. The fights were not usually(stress on usually, as there are always exceptions) the same kind of maneuvers and disciplinary formations. The fights tended to dissolve into 1 on 1s within battles, unlike ancient warfare, where it really was more like one unit or formulation against another. It really wasn't until the Italian wars and the resurrections of classical ideas(when it came to warfare) by writers like Machiavelli in his "The Art of War" that this would change, and you'd start to see more disciplined types of warfare take hold, even before gunpowder weapons came to full dominance on the battlefield.

[@MichalBreslau]

+Phoenix jz You're wrong. In Medieval formations were important too, those people didn't wanted to die in some chaotic battle like that showed in Braveheart.

[@ShivaX51]

I imagine against guys in armor, you'd want to thrust, but if you can hit someplace unarmored or face an armorless opponent, the sword would easily cut. I suspect it gets the "thrusting only" moniker because its primarily a battlefield weapon and most things will refer to that role.

[@thebluefrog951]

This video was awesome! These history videos are sooo good!

[@patrickdankan4937]

Ahh, my thirst for historical weaponry and warfare has been quenched for now... Thanks Skall, keep up the great work. Stay sharp, stay smart, Patrick

[@ChainsawGutsFuck]

Hey guys, ex-legionarius here. I can confirm the Roman gladius was a devastating thrusting weapon - the men of my time had trouble ignoring a ~30 inch blade in the gut - though each man used their head and there were situations where a hack or pommel strike would have definitely occured. We were trained to take advantage of any situation, whether that be a slash to an exposed knee or hand, or an old-fashioned (lol!) ram with the shield. That said, I cannot deny the speed and precision of a stab into the softer parts of a man's body was always the more attractive option. Now if only we'd had trousers for Hadrian and his wall...

[@jln6701]

I would agree with those who made reference to the importance of the formations in which the Romans fought. They fought in close formation with large shields that covered their neighbor. Could the glades cut? Sure, but larger system seems to have called for more thrusting tactics. You're looking more at the blade alone. The larger system needs to be taken into account.

[@Evil040]

As a student of classical philology, I approve the well researched way, you are explainig antiquites, keeping the original source in mind.

[@lebarosky]

Your research is brilliant! Well done, sir!

[@jeremyandrews3292]

I can't imagine why they would have made a sword that could only thrust. Wouldn't a spear be better in that case? The Greeks had already mastered the Phalanx formation with shields for defense and spears poking between the cracks. Surely the Romans would have tried to save metal and increase the length of the weapon by simply making it a spear if they knew they were only going to be thrusting and not cutting. It seems like the main reason to have a sword is to have a weapon that can do both, although it may favor one method over the other with the design.

[@namishusband818]

I believe that the Romans did use phalanxes in their early history, so their infantry were mainly equipped with spears. My hypothesis about why they favoured the gladius over the spear is that the sword is a lot more compact. The gladius being short and one-handed would make it easier for Roman infantry to rotate their formations

[@tai7599]

shield walls and spears have a glaring weakness in flanks and were hard to shift direction. I believe Hannibal used this weakness at cannae to decimate Romans. also Romans did use spears, although I don't think it was their main weapon.

[@migkillerphantom]

Romans seem to have gone for versatility. Sword and javelin armed infantry with large shields can fight pike phalanxes and shieldwalls just as they can engage skirmishers on broken terrain. Basically, a philosophy emphasizing adaptibility and flexibility over specialization and reliance on certain types of environments.

[@user-oo8oj1hl8k]

Because the Gladius is not simply for thrusting. It has more mass near the tip, so that you get more power in swings and cuts. People always think it's simply for thrusting, when in fact it's designed so that you can use it in different ways.

[@johnhouchin9345]

Jeremy Andrews the Romans used a short sword for mobility. the Greeks had trouble protecting their flanks because the long spears were hard to maneuver when in tight formation. with a short sword the Romans could easily protect all sides of their formation.

[@hdplaypc9471]

As a spaniard I am proud that we have the earliest record of bows, created the gladius and were described by the Romans to be the best fighters and hardest people to conquer. :D

[@abyssalknight4081]

Cheers

[@tai7599]

Spain was Napoleon s Vietnam

[@FrikInCasualMode]

Except the people they COULDN'T conquer of course :) Like Picts and German tribes.

[@kapitainnemoder5]

Expect "they" are not "we". The antic spaniards are not very close related to the people living there now. There is no continuity. Moden spaniards are a mixture of northern africans, goths, franks, vandals and so on...

[@cauasouza2392]

Lusitanians(ancestors of portugueses) was the most advanced celts in all history and the hardest spaniards peoples to conquer.

[@pepperspray7386]

The research alone would have got me to subscribe. I appreciate the lesson along with the showcase. ^^

[@anderwmarcell9503]

very informative presentation.. I was unaware of the variations of the Gladius

[@Fr.Savage_McKiligan]

I was under the impression that historically the Iberians primarily used the "Iberian Saber", now commonly called the Falcata, which is very similar to the Greek Kopis.

[@Gormathius]

I didn't even know people believe this. Really, who made that conclusion that its main use is its only intended use? I can tell you one thing: If it's *only* intended for thrusting, there should be good evidence that the part of the blade closest to the hilt is blunt.

[@julians.2597]

Nop, need that as a butter knife

[@beju0506]

Good video, I found it very interesting. I like the Roman era swords, especially the gladius, so it's nice to see some coverage of it. :)

[@randompanda876]

After watching your videos for a while i decided to give it a try, or the next best thing, so i tried the fencing club in my school and its a lot of fun

[@Scout887]

For me, all types of gladius looks like an allrounder, a short cut&thrust sword. And the thrusting "habit" of the romans may come from their tight formations with not enough space to swing.

[@BarskiPatzow]

You are a historian more than you realize :)

[@sunaJH]

Thank you for a very professional lecture on this under-appreciated doubled bladed short sword, this general design has been used in China for many centuries and with the appropriate edge grind and sharpening I believe (as you clearly show) it is a formidable cutting weapon toward non-armored opponents

[@waldgurke]

I live in Moguntia (Mainz) and love the fact that this type of gladius is named after its provenance. You should really do some more Videos on weapons from antiquity, I would definitely enjoy them!

[@izonker]

Would I be wrong in saying then, that this is similar in principle to how law enforcement and (If I remember right) infantry are taught to aim for center-mass when shooting at a human-sized target, yet, it seems like the infamous "head-shot kill" seems to be the shot that gets all of the attention? In the same way, while the thrust of a point of a gladius is much more efficient for a kill, it is the wildly arcing decapitating or dismembering cut that gets all the press....

[@Drownedinblood]

+izonker Center mass is taught for practical reasons, it's where most of your important bits are and they are stuffed tightly, so hard to miss and not do damage. Headshots and loss of limb disfigures the body, making it more psychologically effective as it seems to be more brutal and violent.

[@izonker]

Ulfbert thank you, that was the point I was rather clumsily trying to make. The Roman army, may most certainly have had a standardized training policy when it came to new recruits, I think it would also be safe to assume that , at some point in the battle, the battle stops being a mere shield shoving and stabbing match and more into an outright brawl where I am sure more than one technique was employed to kill their foes.

[@mikeg5616]

+Ulfbert ulfert like the sword?

[@Drownedinblood]

Michal Gaik Like the inscription written on the sword. Though admittedly I kinda fucked the spelling.

[@tekdev]

I'm pretty sure that what Livy calls gladius Hispaniensis is what we now call a falcata. It would explain the wounds described in the source text - falcata (machaera Hispana) being a powerful cutting weapon.

[@Skallagrim]

+Łukasz Krupiński What makes you think that?

[@tekdev]

+Skallagrim It mirrors the reaction Romans had to Celtiber swords during Punic wars as described by Polybius. Although it might just be a reaction to superior Iberian iron and forging techniques. There is also this passage in Polybius or Diodorus in which he says that while Carthaginian soldiers took armor from fallen Roman soldiers, Romans took swords from Punic warriors they killed. Although there is no archaeological evidence of widespread use of Iberian weaponry among Roman legionnaires. Also - why would Macedonians be shocked by cutting power of a gladius, while they themselves used far better slashing weapons in form of a kopis or even makhaira?

[@Skallagrim]

+Łukasz Krupiński The Macedonians relied on their pikes, javelins and arrows, so sword wounds would be less common to them.

[@tekdev]

+Skallagrim I don't buy it. Kopis was a popular weapon among Macedonians, they had to be familiar with the kind of wounds it inflicts. It was certainly present in the art of that time: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Macedonian_army#/media/File:Lion_hunt_mosaic_from_Pella.jpg upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Astyanax_vs_Kalendio_mosaic.jpg www.historyofmacedonia.org/Macedoniansymbols/images/lyson.jpg Also there are numerous mentions of kopis/makhaira use, though almost exclusively among cavalry, in texts describing Alexander's battles, for example Diodorus, Arrian or Plutarch.

[@WalrusJones185]

+Łukasz Krupiński Not to mention, the Thracian tribes also were available as mercenaries in the area, and the Macedonians had brought such mercenaries along with them all the way back in the era of Alexander the Great. The Thracian Rhomphaias were something you could potentially be expected to encounter in wars in the region. Of course, men being freaked out by maimed corpses in a region where low casualty, formation warfare between levvies is one of the more common forms of warfare isn't too surprising. You throw a bunch of corpses of people a person knows in front of them them, and odds are, a months worth of militia training isn't going to have prepared them for such trauma. Regardless of whether they are going to have ever killed a man with a slashing weapon.

[@grimmreapo655]

you made my day. roman weapons, and battle tactics are my favorite things to research and emulate. I want a set of Roman Centurion armor so bad, but my apt isin't big enough for ANOTHER stand with a display lol

[@MrBracey100]

As always both a fascinating and informative video.

[@sim.frischh9781]

While i know the gladius has a long and respectable history, i am struggling to feel much respect for the one you are holding. The reason is that the grip looks exactly like my grandmother´s pepper mill. Pleasse don´t get mad at me, it really is so, i can´t help it. As far as i understood roman army practices, they might have been going so far as choosing a certain weapon against a certain enemy. I know they did that with armor, so extending this to their weapons absolutely makes sense.

[@edmundsdemonds8309]

Yep I really think it looks to clean and the handle...

[@sim.frischh9781]

Totally. On the other hand, a legionnaire would probably be really proud owning such a nice looking weapon.

[@mordirit8727]

And just think of all the pepper you could ground down with that thing!

[@Ms.Nightshade]

Thiago Freitas **sneezes violently**

[@jimbutcher5712]

Yeah, the Roman psyche, at its most basic level, heavily favored function over form. That handle is simple, symmetrical, functional and attached to the sword that conquered and kept a big chunk of the Ancient world for a long, long time. To the Romans, that made it beautiful. Besides. If it was one of the pros legionaries holding grandmas pepper mill, he'd kill you with it before you could get done making fun of it. Those guys were not to be taken lightly.

[@user-mx6cr7wt5d]

If only a soul of a warrior lived inside this sword, it could cut and thrust equally good.

[@richardsonthony]

Thank you for the education. I found this very interesting, over my head much, but still interesting.

[@chrisf247]

Great video, this is the kind of stuff I love to see on here. On the gladius, I do think all the references to a "strong" blade which "does not bend" are important. For the longer swords, even with late period spathas, there seem to be many mentions of long cutting swords bending with use, which is not surprising considering the technology to make and harden steel is not what it was in the later periods. Going with a short, stout sword would allow you to punch through the armor of the day as well as cutting without risk of significantly bending the sword during use.

[@Falunchies]

I love how opinionated everyone becomes when they have the illusion of anonymity in the internet.

[@thcseppuku1418]

Yo I actually have a gladius cut injury if you wanna see??

[@fizikshizik]

I for some time began to see Vegetius idea about "only thrusting" as sort of weapon fanboy dogma you may hear a lot. It's obvious that it's not the description of actual practices but of the impression he had from reading historical books. So while roman accent on thrusting was most probably very real I suspect that cutting was appreciated too.

[@morrengrim5315]

if you study the formations of Roman legions the stabbing technique is much more effective in a large battle.

[@fizikshizik]

Morren Grim And you definetely haven't understood what I wrote.

[@fizikshizik]

Morren Grim I'll repeat in different words. You can't consider Vegetius as absolute source in this matters because he lived much later and base his opinion on the reading of historical books. And he could easily convert what was simply considered desirable into dogma. So real training with gladius could involve both thrusts and cuts with thrusts simply being more preferred for the reasons you wrote.

[@sidetracker3496]

I belive it's more capable as a hacking sword then a slashing one... obviously it's first and for most a stabbing sword but those edges could definitely be used to hack limbs of and chopp threw bone like an axe... legionaires where tought to maintain formation and brutalise their enemies be it in a quick shock attack or a slow grind threw bodies...

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

Vegetius was an armchair historian who never served in the armed forces.

[@Anelikital]

Thank you Skallagrim a very interesting video, i enjoyed it very much :)

[@0num4]

Thanks for sharing +Skallagrim This was nice, to the point (no pun intended), and included references where possible to argue a topic from an academic and practical view, without going overboard or on tangents.

[@FellVoice]

I could have sworn that the Iberian/Spanish sword was a type of Falcata. I read somewhere that the Roman armor was redesigned to withstand the the cleaving power of the Iberian sword and I believe I read about this while researching the Falcata.

[@Teners5]

+FellVoice Yes and no, the Iberians did use the Falcata, but that's just another name for the Greek Kopis. Many ancient nations used swords similar to it. I think it was xenophon but don't quote me on that said it was used primarily as a cavalry sword.

[@FellVoice]

FuriousGeorge Right, I knew that the kukri style sword blade had parallel evolution in many cultures. Here is an entry that seems to sum it up pretty well. "The falcata was derived from the sickle-shaped knives of the Iron Age; that too explains their ritual uses.[clarification needed] It is thought to have been introduced in the Iberian Peninsula by the Celts who introduced iron working there. There are several historians[who?] who believe that its origin is parallel to the Greek kopis and is not derived from it. Meanwhile, others believe the design was carried over from Greece via merchants and traders. It may also have been an Etruscan invention."

[@Teners5]

+FellVoice That's the problem with the ancient world, we don't have enough information, so it's difficult to make any assumptions, I will say that the Kopis/falcata do look somewhat similar to the makhaira knife, but, at the end of the day, they're both single edged choppers, a form of weapon that pretty much every culture has some form of. However I do think if the kopis was of etruscan origin I would have expected to see more use of it in Roman armies pre-marian reforms.

[@arkhaan7066]

+FellVoice i know the romans redid their armor to counter the Dacian Falx, that may be what you meant?

[@FellVoice]

George McCoy You are correct. I searched out my source and all it says is that the Hispanian saber (machaera Hispana) referring to the Falcata, excelled at splitting the Roman helmets and otherwise reeking havoc on their armor. It doesn't say that they redesigned the armor to resist it. Research into the Falx however does say that they redesigned the armor to fight that campaign and that it was the only time they ever did such a thing and once done reverted back to their former armor style. Thanks for the heads up otherwise I'd have gone on thinking it was the wrong weapon.

[@radioactivesmith8152]

That Gladius is a bit of a fail... Well, not really. I mean the blade is pretty accurate, but from what i've seen most Roman Gladius's (In museums) had metal pommels, and the reason why is because of the weight. If you think about it its kind of genius too. When you swing you have the momentum of your swing, but also the weight if the pommel applying maybe double that momentum, causing a devastating blow no matter how sharp the edge is the sheer impact from a blunt edge would do tons of damage. You can also see on the Gladius how it slightly gets heavier at the top of the blade, and quite ironically it kind of looks like a spear, and well, as it worked amazingly as a spear the little edge on the top also worked like an axe where it also distributed more momentum and more force while swinging and striking. In conclusion I completely agree with most of what you said but, there is a lot of things to take into consideration. As I was told by a wise man, Rome did have some of the greatest minds through out History.

[@yup...404]

Even if it's a 7 years old video this helped me somuch with my history presentation. A perfect video

[@dakotarogers8828]

+Skallagrim I think you made excellent points. While the gladius is great for the thrust it is also light enough and can be sharp enough to be used to slash and cut. Great video.

[@verysurvival]

Everyone loves a good Roman thrusting.

[@patjreed2]

The only thing I would dispute, is that you are an historian.

[@Skallagrim]

+Patrick Reed I said that I'm *not* a historian.

[@patjreed2]

***** I disagree, I believe you are scholar of history. You do very good research for a lot of your videos, and take care to site your sources. I mean this as a compliment.

[@Skallagrim]

Patrick Reed So you meant to say "The only thing I would dispute is that you are *not* an historian"? It sounded like you misheard and thought I said I was one. In any case, I don't study history, I'm just interested in the practical aspects of historical arms and armor as well as martial arts.

[@patjreed2]

Yes, and I apologize for my poor communication skills. Naturally, you are free to characterize your work as you see fit. I just think that scholarship takes many forms, and I really appreciate the time and study you take in understanding the historical context of armaments and martial arts.

[@Skallagrim]

Patrick Reed Either way, thank you. :)

[@Undeworld667]

Super high quality recording! Looks more than 60fps!

[@katter558]

Kudos for a well researched video!

[@chairde]

The Romans were spectacular engineers even compared to modern day skills. The Gladius was thoughtfully designed to be useful at all times and it was. It was also designed to be used with a shield with men in formation. That is how Rome conquered.

[@Kardia_of_Rhodes]

And then Teutobog Forest happened...

[@chairde]

MAXZONE47 , Yes a beautiful ambush which made Roman formations useless in the forest.

[@tai7599]

+Tom CMF thats true of any army from any era, even modern armies that have access to air power are in serious trouble if ambushed and or surrounded

[@Freyia935]

James James ? The Roman didnt have air power in the Teutobog forest nor did the germans.

[@tai7599]

+Tom CMF yes they did not maybe perchance, you see ingenue, back then before they built poorus readicus comprehensionus, the SS enterprise flew around the sun, landed in germania looking for humpbacks, but not finding anything other than Romans at which point, spock said to kirk, "admiral, you can't act." now fortunately right at this moment the milenium falcon swooped in from out of nowhere and blew ss enterprise into a gazillion pieces which allowed Luke fly in through the maintenance tunnel which allowed Luke to kill 2 birds with one stone. then Hans using smoke signal said, "luke, use the sporck..." luke was then able to eat his fruit cup and then everyone lived happily never forward. read it again inscitus.

[@snownoheakennedy9561]

Romans adapted to the times and the enemies they fought. It is true that the Romans trained more on the thrust then the slach because the thrust was more effective then slach. (At the time) The Gladus was used more as thrusting weapon then a slaching weapon. There's many reasons for this. one being the Gladus was a short blade meaning it was easier to move in thight locked down formations. two. It could be drawn back quickly and you pull back for a thrust without having to move the shield for more power. three. The Romans found the a thrust could penetrate armor much easier then then a slach. (Armor during the early and mid Roman ear) Only on open battle would Romans slach at an enemy. other then that Romans relided on thrust attacks 90% of the time. That's one reason why many Roman weapons are good if not great Thrusting weapons.

[@Jotora]

Hello Skallagrim, Wondering if you could recommend who/where to order a Roman gladius from. Would be shipped to Ontario Canada. Thanks a lot.

[@randsaw666]

skall, I'm interested in buying a stage sword for filming purposes, I've not been able to find out whether or not i need to oil it, and I'm wondering what is needed in terms of maintenance for that type of sword.

[@luukeksifrozenhillbillyeur3407]

That is a goddamn nice looking beard.

[@hardgay7537]

I like how you've got your Albions on your sweater. That's tits, man. \m/

[@Skallagrim]

+Char Aznable Albion swords as tits? o_o

[@lockthepope]

+Skallagrim Everything in the name of self defense.

[@Tgkjj]

+Manulel007 orchid from killer instinct agrees lol

[@hardgay7537]

***** My bad. "Tits" is American slang for "very good" or "excellent". Because every man thinks tits can be defined as such. It's also not exactly "modern" American slang, either. But yes, excellent design choice. That sweater design is tits, and I want to grip them firmly by the handles lol :)

[@Skallagrim]

+Char Aznable I know, just joking. :)

[@TheMiseriaCantare]

May I ask, how much did it cost? I cannot find any specific informations on Raven Armory site :(

[@HladgerdKissinger]

Loving that new beard style, dude!

[@ryan7864]

There has never been a more historically accurate portrayal of Roman Infantry tactics than this: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gGiwip-Ir7GkepI

[@Acesahn]

+Ryan Lege That was pretty good, however their shields werent actually invincible. They were made to be big but light enough to move around, so alot of those axe swings would have started splitting their shields.

[@ryan7864]

+Acesahn Possibly. Though upon rotating to the back I'd imagine there were a small resupply for each Century.

[@ihategoogleplus5308]

+Ryan Lege There were a few mistakes, and though the shields do seem tough here, in the second season they definitely seem weak the way arrows pierce them. Axes would certainly cause attrition and bang up the shields over time. But hey: destroying your props costs money!

[@breaden4381]

The Gauls on the other hand... not so much.

[@Acesahn]

Eh, I may be wrong, I mean Rome had a knack for upgrading, changing their equipment.

[@albertrayjonathan7094]

Vegetius was not a historian, nor was he a military commander. His actual purpose of writing the De Re Militari is to criticize the Late Roman Empire's military, particularly what he perceived to be its decadence, and to do that he wrote about what is practically a hollywood rendition of the Early Roman Empire. His writings are full of the Early Roman Empire are full of anachronisms, and generally I don't recommend him as an authentic source. Contemporary accounts of the Early Roman Empire, particularly Polybius, mentions the Gladius' cutting power as one that the Greeks feared during their wars with the Romans. Polybius and Plutarch, two of the most reliable historians of the era, seemed to both agree that the Romans fought in a looser formation, six roman feet per legionnaire, and that the Gladius was used for both cut and thrust in their accounts, which makes sense because why even have a loose formation when you're only using your weapon to thrust.

[@edgarvielma8044]

Good afternoon. Who manufactured your gladius? I am looking for buying some one and one option is an Albion Swords (for regular price) and thinking that it will be my first one, and another option (but I need to save much more money) is a Templ.net (I understand this are more luxury). Could you give me an advice? Thanks

[@eddieking2976]

On a somewhat different note, I use to ride a motorcycle called the Suzuki Gladius 650. Miss that bike. Cool review BTW.

[@drewyarbro1752]

I cringe every time I hear "CE" or "BCE". Lindybeige voiced my objections far better than I could but the crux of it is you're still using years which are based around the putative birth of Christ. The secular terminology is a disingenuous veneer of secularism, imo. If we can have days of the week based on Roman and Norse gods, I don't see why we should selectively remove Christian references in time keeping. Great video, btw, just had to get that off my chest.

[@TheLoyalOfficer]

Too bad you use BCE and CE. Drop that PC crap, bro. Use BC and AD like us real historians. Peace.

[@GulagPower]

+TheLoyalOfficer Real historians use BCE and CE. My specialty is European History and that's what we use. There's no need for PC here. The probability of error for Jesus' birth is -6 (BCE) to +6 (CE), 12 years. So to avoid that is better just to use Before Common Era and Common Era. PS: As a Christian I'm not offended by the changes. Religion should no play a part in Academia.

[@TheLoyalOfficer]

Milton Velez Hilarious! The people who developed that themselves declared that it's an attack on Christianity. Of course, they use some PC code word like "religion-neutral" or whatever. As for "real historians" there are still MANY, if not a majority, thank God, that still use the original BC/AD system. Also: your "point" about +6/-6 makes no sense because BCE and CE has the same problem. And finally. the letters sound too similar in a class setting. It can confuse students.

[@GulagPower]

First of all, religion have no place in Academia (as I told you, even though I'm Christian). Second, we follow the modern remnant of the Roman calendar/time keeping (along with their changes). It's the way the Western nations keep time. Third, although I have a BA (not yet a Master's or PhD) in European History I can still give my informed opinion; that means that I am a "real" historian. Also there are a lot of religious and non religious professors in my History Department (all PhDs, obviously) that follow the BCE/CE style, "thank God"! The -6/+6 that I pointed out is a problem when we say that Jesus was born in our first year of this era. But in the Common Era concept there is no need to believe in any religious thing and we can shove apart any problem concerning the lack of precision on the Jesus' birth question. We accept Year 1 as the first year of our Common Era without any fuss. Yes, they sound similar but students are not stupid and they can learn. Drop the obsolete one and take the academically correct one. Let's "thank God" together again for that!

[@TheLoyalOfficer]

Milton Velez How is it "academically correct"? More like politically correct. It's just one of many attacks by the PC left on Christianity. How can you not see that? Also, what you fail to see is that you are USING THE SAME RECKONING. Therefore, you do not solve any problems about the birth of Jesus that BC/AD supposedly has. We can, and have done, the exact same thing with the original reckoning re: accept the Year 1 as such. If you really wanted to change to "cleanse academia of religion" (which is a ridiculous mistake in the first place), then use a whole new reckoning. Your "Common Era" is STILL BASED ON THE BIRTH OF JESUS! LMAO!

[@GulagPower]

Of course it is based on the "birth of Jesus". But the Western world has used it for so long (because of religious influence). We were Christian nations but that is changing into a secular/non religious nations (or at least government). But it's clear what I suspected... you're here fighting this BCE/CE thing because you're religious and feel that they're plucking away bit by bit "Jesus place" in the world... isn't it? Well, I'm against religion in government (and for the 3rd time: I'm Christian 100%) and believe they should remove the "In God We Trust" from money and everything and to take it out of the oath. For your information, I also criticize Political Correctness, I hate it! But this time the BCE/CE concept is excellent and correct. PS: When you laugh (LMAO) make sure to grab your ass so it doesn't fall off, ok?

[@benromney9279]

Thank you for the video. it was interesting and informative.

[@test7er]

What's the advantage of having a sharp point on the edge over a curved leaf-blade style one which may be better for slashing cuts?

[@m.j.9439]

Excellent video, Skall.

[@bergonius]

Very informative, thank you. I believe, in the beginning of a fight when formation is still very tight mainly thrust and possibly some form of short top-down cuts/overheads were main type of strike. And if fight lasted for a while, formation naturally became more loose and fight more and more divided into individual combat, all sorts of attacks were used. There is no much sense in limiting your ways to attack, it makes you more predictable, and easy to adapt for opponent.

[@MoonlightBgWolfs]

I just realized how german or nordic you and your channel looks. It's a pretty cool style, but what i want to say is that i know another guy who makes videos about swords and armors, he is italian, so it's pretty cool to see both of you. xD

[@Varjoztaja]

I've been lately interested into Roman weaponry and just devouring all information that i can find. Really would like to see more content / thoughts related to this, maybe how spatha evolved or how is pugio supposed to be used ( It looks like you could slash quite well with it too ) .

[@demoncore5342]

If I may ask, do you have any personal experience with arms and armor mainz type gladius and if so, would you recommend it?

[@squintygreeneyes]

very very curious on this as i am wondering how sharp it should be kept and if it should maybe even be sharp towards the front and dull towards the back (so the back can be grabbed) or what not.

[@suckamehoff7371]

The inward curve on the main part of the bade makes for a weapon that really bites into the target as it travels through, especially for something like a rolled up mat. Instead of pushing away material it traps it in place.

[@fooltimer]

so, would a longer version work as well for better cutting and be still useful on solo fight? historical accuracy aside, i only saw leaf blade shapes and gladius as one-hand sword so im thinkin about some one'n'half-hand fan thing would be better than carryin two swords...