Roman soldiers weren't one on one fighters. Even when outnumbered, they were heavy infantry, shoulder to shoulder, heavily armored, large interlocking shields they hacked at exposed limbs and stabbed to the body, AFTER depriving their foes (generally speaking) of their shields by sticking spears in them that bent and tangled their feet. It was an equipment and training system exquisitely designed for Roman discipline and mobility.
@@EldarKinSlayer At the end of the day, they won because of their superior logistics, which in turn allowed them to capitalize fully on their superior manpower. Plenty of people managed to defeat the Romans on the field, but the Romans would just keep sending more armies until their enemies gave up*. *were dead/sold into slavery
super close, face to face formation fighting, pushing your enemy while you get pushed from behind by your allies. Must feel like rush hour trains in Tokyo. Stabbing makes more sense since swinging the sword in a tight formation is hard and dangerous for your team, and also easier to parry by enemies. A stab coming from behind a shield is hard to predict and block.
@@MrAranton I wasn't aware we Italians had the reputation of being a bunch of midgets. Then again, Romans were supposedly far shorter than modern Italian on average.
@elijah mikle the sword was for direct close courters combat where spears would not work. The Romans mainly used spears until the enemy got too close then they switched to their sword. Other empires did the same thing.
You're right. The Gladius was part of a package and should be viewed as a component of the Roman battle kit. The Romans entered a world of phalanxes with their legions. They needed to get past the forest of spears and close in. They didn't want to play the phalanx game with a phalanx of their own. They wanted an anti-phalanx. Before the initial contact, a volley of javelins could have created the set up by thinning the forest of spears. They needed a large curved shield to deflect the spear heads along with the hefty hacking power of the gladius to knock the next spear head away as they worked their way in. An open faced helmet gave them the visibility to see where the spearheads were and counter them. Heavy armor helped them survive their mistakes. Once they got in, the tapering point of the gladius could have been used to punch through eye holes and other gaps in the armor. An exposed spear arm could have been hacked or slashed. The shield could have been used for body slamming to create killing stroke opportunities for the legionnaire or the one behind him. Once within the phalanx, Roman legionnaires with their gladii could spread like cancer cells.
@Legio XXI Rapax Nice description of gladius and scutum tactics but you don't explain why a checkerboard formation counters a solid phalanx. You just say it does. I guess we are supposed to assume that the portion of the phalanx line that does not come into contact with a maniple will continue forward into the gap - like idiots! Macedonians, at least, were way more disciplined than this and it isn't that hard to keep the shields lined up and push the forward maniples back. The purpose of the checkerboard formation was to provide maximum tactical and maneuver flexibility on hilly terrain. I doubt very much that they would normally confront a phalanx with the checkerboard. They would seek to break up the phalanx with a javelin volley, try to work their way to the flanks, or try to work their way past the spears as I described. It wasn't easy.
Context: the gladius is a design optimized for fighting in a shield wall formation. The gladius is short because it was meant to be drawn behind the shield, from a sheath carried on the right side, without wounding your neighbor in the formation - and it was carried on the right for that same reason. Being short, it was also way easier to control from behind the shield. Outside the formation, Not optimal, but doable, as the opponent would need to work around the shield. Without a shield. Better than nothing, but you would most likely be better off wielding something with a longer reach.
Well no not really yes ou are right it was developed for the triplex acises formations and given to the veterans and not the histari or vistari it wasn't until he Marian reforms all legionaries were all given the Gladius yes you paid for your weaponry however it was based on the class system of both the roman military and society it was up to the comander or legatus to provide the arms as crassus and marius were noted on record stating if all Romans had the same privilege the army would be unstoppable if that makes any sense to you
Which weapon is best in a one on one sword fight? This has been thoroughly settled and convincingly demonstrated by Indiana Jones. A revolver, hands down.
@@davidtuttle7556 Not exactly what I was on about. If someone has a knife and is close enough to grabble a man with a revolver the man with the knife often has the advantage. Nothing to do with caliber.
@@davidtuttle7556 not any distance, if "close enough" the guy with the gun will go down too. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ckz7EmDxhtU.html
The Gladius would have been useful within indoor settings: given that the Romans were all about conquest there would have been a lot of house-to-house clearing, so the sword would have been useful for that.
Not really organizational skills, just a different view of citizenship than the rest of the ancient world; to the Romans, it was something they extended to Italian peoples to bring them into the fold, while the Greeks saw citizenship as something to exclude as many people as possible from, so individual citizens would have the proportionally strongest voice in politics.
@@dandannoodles7070 Well that developed with the latin war but before that they excluded everything that was not citizen of the city of rome that was until the late republic.
@@EloNaj Not really. From the very beginning of the city, there were what were called Latin rights extended to neighboring communities. Someone could become a citizen of Rome by moving into the city's territory; to inherit citizenship, only your father needed to be a citizen (in Greece, it was often both parents); citizens of different cities could make binding contracts enforceable by the city in whose territory it was made. The famous aristocratic clan of the Claudii originated with a Sabine chief who relocated into Roman territory, for instance.
@@Mrdest211 No, lots of Italian cities came over to Rome willingly, and in any case, 'helping win the war that comes after' is literally synonymous with conquering people.
The roman gladius is great at something: fast production. Once the blade is done you just have to affix a wooden handle and presumably a few pieces of cast bronze. If you have to crank out 100 swords for a battalion, a wooden handle with cast bronze gaurd on a simple blade shape is a really good option.
@@jjw5165 for sure, even today. i'd be willing to make a comparison to the popularity of the gladius to the popularity of ak pattern rifles. they're reliable, relatively cheap to produce, and effective on the battlefield
Every military person I know can tell you: it's not about the individual weapon so much (though it matters a bit), it's the whole package: logistics, support, discipline, strategy, tactics, and weapons/equipment. Roughly in that order.
One issue is drawing the sword. The longer a sword is, the more difficult it is to draw one handed. Roman tactics usually involved entering combat with the sword sheathed, javelins at the ready. First you threw your javelins, then you drew your sword. With one hand occupied holding up the heavy scutum, there was no free hand to steady the scabbard for the draw, and you only had a few seconds to get the sword out. I suspect another issue is cost. Longer swords would take a bit longer to make and might require better steel. When you'r equipping thousands of soldiers, keeping costs down helps. This also speaks to the simple handguards.
@@luisromanlegionaire Later on most Romans legionaries carried a Spatha and Romes economy was weaker, so I doubt this is actually the case. Remember also that Rome didn't pay to equip legionaries the way a modern military does. A Roman Soldier was paid his wage, and he was expected to buy his own armour and weapons from that wage. Go on a spending spree and get the latest and bestest gear, or save it and put it aside for that retirement fund in 25 years? Difficult decision.
I'd love to hear your take on the sword/shield combo! It might be particularly interesting if you pick an ideal shield for each sword rather than always using the same.
Great video, mate! Sure, I'd love to see another video like "Which sword is best in a one-on-one duel?..... Historical fencing". It was the first video I watched from your channel and it still one of my favourites. A sword-shield video comparison is not a bad idea. However, I've got another contest-like video suggestion: the best warrior of all time in one-on-one combat (eg.: Japanese Samurai vs Medival Knight or Roman Centurion vs Viking). What do you think? Cheers!
I was surprised he didn't mention that. Now while many formations did use the spear, the design of the scutum along with the armor basically meant the spears were useless. That's why the Greeks lost eventually. The Romans were able to press the attack, and when it was too close for spears the Greeks' swords were too short to do anything since the Gladius was longer.
@@matthewcooper4248 The Greeks eventually lost not because of their use spears, but because they preferred the phalanx which was a fairly rigid formation. The Romans, on the other, tended to be much more flexible in their formations and didn't need to fight on flat, open ground like you would (ideally) with a phalanx.
Matt, as someone working on assembling stories of fantasy fiction in various medieval (and even earlier) periods, I have often wondered about and researched the advantages and disadvantages of certain weapons, and therefore weapon sets. I for one, would indeed dearly love to see a video talking about ideal swords in 1v1 duels when shields are involved. For that matter, I wouldn't mind seeing other lists of this nature discussing how the list might change when types of armour (e.g. mail, plate, brigandine, or even non Eurocentric armour types) are involved in a similar context. Cheers from Canada! Love this channel.
Another point : Romans often carried a Pilum, then drew their swords. Marching with a longer sword even in scabbard would be cumbersome as well as slower to draw in armor..
drawing their swords was never a problem, they had their swords in hand long before they engaged in combat. Unless you snuck up and attacked a soldier, then him drawing his weapon would be a factor.
That is correct, the gladius was part of a weapon *system* and not designed to be used by itself. The system consists of the gladius, scutum shield, lorica armor, and two Pila javelins (one light and one heavy).
Absolutely correct, and to amplify, the pilum had a soft iron shaft on purpose. It was thrust and if blocked by the opponents shield, the barbed point lodged there and rendered that shield useless because of the weight. Also scutums were designed so that they could interlock. There was also a buddy system. You watched your buddy's weak side knowing the guy on your weak side was watching yours. The Romans didn't conquer the world by accident!
All of that, plus the identically armed soldiers in the line, all of whom have been trained to fight with in formation with those weapons and appropriate tactics. If it didn't work, Rome would never have held the territory that it did.
@@johngant3553 The AR-15 is only used OFF the battlefield as it is a semi-automatic civilian version of the M-16, the AR does NOT stand for Assault Rifle a common and deliberate 'mistake' by the anti-gun crowd. It stands for ARmalite, Or Armalite rifle, the manufacturer of the rifle that became the M-16. Even the cartridge it uses, the .223, is different than the military 5.56mm NATO round.
Certainly in their tactics as they are shock troops and not meant to fight in a static line. They were also better armored than most of their adversaries. The closer you are, the more of an advantage that becomes.
@@mattlentzner7141 Please explain your point about a static line as the Romans often fought armies that did not maintain cohesive formations and thus by comparison the Roman lines could be considered static. (your point about them being better armored was made throughout the video?)
@@Dadecorban Who specifically are you thinking of that didn't fight in cohesive formations? When I say, "static" I mean the Germanic style of fighting from a shield wall which is immobile. A phalanx isn't strictly immobile but moves very slowly. Romans were IMO much more dynamic.
In a tight formation you can get alot of leverage with a gladius just by rotating your hips like a boxer without needing much room for a powerful thrust, the scutum would also conceal the blade making it very hard to react in time, a very simple but effective 1-2 combo for a formation to fight in sync.
Hi from France, I often watch your videos, especially about short swords . I am not in historical point of view but in modern point of view and defense while facing aggressors with knives indoor and the gladius is then more interesting . I bought the Honshu Gladiator Sword D2 option and it's very effective inside in the context of defense . I don't imagine aggressors with rapiers or something else but more with knives, clubs and machetes . Then the gladius is long enough but not too much, fast and easy to use for cutting .
Would not be surprised if the gladius got used AS a machete when a legionnaire had to move through some brush - it's on hand, it's got the edge, the trooper isn't likely carrying something in addition that's any more appropriate. He may be wishing someone else had cut this stuff down ahead of him with something even more apt for it, but eh, the soldier ends up being the man for "go do that random simple necessary thing" all the time.
@@gatocles99 Yea, but there are prettier swords out there. Even simply designed ones, like messers, I find more aesthetically pleasing. The gladius just... doesn't look good to me.
@@secutorprimus Yes, I agree, the gladius is ugly in comparison to many swords. Especially swords owned by wealthy noblemen. But name one thing in our modern militaries that looks good... aside from dress uniforms and dress words... it is all ugly, but very functional... the Romans were mass producing ugly weapons and armor for even uglier business... Pretty, does not mean useful.
Yup Gladius was a part of a weapons system and it’s hard to look at it alone. The short sword was used by the Romans who came at you in formation with interlocked shields, like a wall coming at you, and they could take the Gladius and thrust under the shield and disembowel the enemy.
"Interlocked shields" might have been a too dense of a formation for the Romans to effectively fight in combat. The Romans were supposed to have adopted a looser formation compared to the Greek hoplites, and Plutarch said that at the Battle of Carrhae, the Romans who interlocked their shields in close formations such as testudo were attacked in melee by the Parthians because they were packed too tightly to use their weapons effectively.
@@Intranetusa Indeed but pilums broke enemy density/formation so it didn't matter if they're a bit loose in formation they probably loved opponents who fought in slow tight shield walls they get to shoot them with pilum to death. Technically the reason also why medieval warfare isn't big about pike formations because it sucked against missile fire but any other thing sucked against cavalry charge its why medieval armies are heavily archer based because they compliment heavy cavalry which in late Roman era was already a phenomenon. Pikes only made a return because of muskets requiring protection on open field but muskets really changed everything because it didn't require amazing fitness allowing Technically more ranged units to be fielded and as a bonus it's amazing in sieges both for attacking and defending.
@@datuputi777 The interesting thing about European Rennisance era pike and shot warfare of pikes and muskets is that it resembled earlier ancient to medieval East Asian/Chinese warfare where the role of the musket taken by the role of crossbows used in mass. Crossbowmen, archers, pikemen, halberdiers, and swordsmen were commonly used in mixed unit, combined arms formations and were supplemented by cavalry on the wings.
Romans didn’t interlock their shields. They fought with about a meter between each man. The scutum isn’t even wide enough to interlock with if you try. The only way it interlocks is top to bottom such as for the anti-cavalry formation or testudo, but these are special purpose formations and not normal maneuver/fighting formation. An example of a shield that did interlock was the aspis, which was a huge round shield and mounted such that the left edge stuck out past the wearer’s left side by 1-2 feet. The scutum in contrast was designed to hug the body of the wearer, not to extend past him to cover the body of the next man.
@@datuputi777 With the exception of the English and horse archer cultures, Medieval armies were not archer based. Nor were archer based armies particularly effective. The English had a couple of highly publicized victories against the French, but at the end of the day they lost the Hundred Years’ War. If anything, Medieval armies were spearman based. When plate armor gained prominence, they became polearm based.
In a modern context the gladius would be viable in a home invasion scenario. Given your in a country where firearms are not common, the United Kingdom being a good example. Due to the process of obtaining even a section 1 licence and the required storing of said firearm in a vault separate from ammunition. In conjunction to routine checks by authorities storing a firearm in a state of easy access is too much risk of loosing your firearms and licence.
Surely the point of the Gladius was one of formation and discipline. If you have comrades on either hand, you cannot swing some great big beast of a sword, you need something compact and manageable in an enclosed environment.
Yeah, the Gladius was a sword for close quarters formation combat... it’s a sword for the shield wall, not a loose skirmish the open field. It’s the same reason that the Norse and Anglo Saxons generally carried (if they could afford to), a long sword and a short sword (Seax) - because they regularly fought in both environments
Do the video Matt! Also, wouldn't a gladius be mildly useful in a similar context to Filipino weapons? If true, it's just to point out that some weapons can work outside of their intended context.
Yess! do that video! please! ^^ if you ask me - do an entire series about which weapon/armor/siege engine/siege defence/battle strategy/warrior (class/type/period) is best for different contexts and why - i'd love that! definitely sounds like a job for 'Captain Context' haha
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis! Fantastic breakdown, and I agree on all points. Your discussion of the sword (1) as part of a weapon system (sword & shield), and (2) the presence of advanced armor as defining characteristics of essential context are spot on. To more robustly complete the gladius' evaluation, however, I think we must also (and just as importantly) consider (3) the individual soldier's role and position in a formation, and (4) the battlefield maneuvers/tactics of the formation itself. Who doesn't think of the shield walls and tortoise formations when thinking of Romans fighting? The maneuverability of the one-handed gladius inside those tightly packed formations, and its relative light weight and accompanying speed go a long way to making each soldier (and, therefore, the formation) more mobile, increases their fighting endurance through less weight encumbrance, and reduces the chances of fratricide in the melee.
I like the idea of a video that "quickly" goes through and talks about various contexts and which swords are better or worse in those contexts - more than just armor, you could also talk about formation fighting, cavalry battles, etc.
hanks for this! I was actually looking for something entirely different when I noticed this and decided to check it out. Glad I did; interesting and informative. lol you proved that, very occasionally, size DOES matter!
In what context would the M16 NOT be a good rifle? The only example I can think of is if you just don't get ammo for it when it's just a poor substitute for a club.
ACR Bushmaster? Lol junk. Remington crap. I'll take my Tavor x95 over that anyday. Even my Bren 805. Oh, but keep pretending to know anything about guns 😂
Lot of answers here from keyboard warriors who have probably never held an M16, much less it’s different variations. In a lot of ways it’s a fantastic weapon. Extremely ergonomic, modular and with fantastic accuracy and optics mounting options. Reliability can be good if it’s clean, lubed and relatively new. The old, worn M16A1’s I first had to qualify on convinced me they were hopelessly unreliable. Later when we got M16A2’s the difference was night and day.
But would you though? At very short range, which you would expect within the confines of an apartment or house, would a gun provide any advantage over a sword? And how about a guns disadvantages? A sword is extremely unlikely to go through a wall and stab your neighbor.
@@GR-cf4qh this has been studied and there is in fact no convincing evidence that a gun is superior to a knife or baseball bat for home defense, swords have not been studied specifically but since it essentially combines the cutting and thrusting action of a knife with the reach of a bat and has a kinetic force somewhere in between the 2 i would assume it would also work.
@@yamiyomizuki Swords are a horrible choice for home defense, as are knives and baseball bats. Granted, if you are unfortunate enough to live in an area where you do need to worry about home invasions, and yet where your government doesn't trust mere plebians with anything more deadly than butter knives, then yes, anything is better than nothing. However, you'd also want to consider that your government would probably prosecute you just as harshly for running a man through with a rapier as they would if you gave him a facefull of #4 buckshot. But if you have the choice of a firearm for home defense, there is absolutely *no* reason why you should ever choose a knife or a baseball bat--if you do, you are a fool who will only get yourself and possibly those you live with killed.
Never mind looking at the sword, you just have to read Roman sources which specifically talk about how good gladii are at cutting, by the accounts of butchering limbs from their opponents. That's the one thing people need to do more before they start talking about anything. READ THE SOURCES! Almost every important military text from the Roman period has been translated into English and you can find them online easily and for free. There is no excuse.
People read pop-history books that are badly researched or read wiki articles because.... primary source material is uncool? Don't know. At any rate, those books make mistakes, mistakes get popularised, and you get some idiot on the internet arguing with an Archaeology graduate because "This book says so so it must be right, wasted your degree there." Urch.
Perhaps there should be two parts to the "best sword with a shield" video, one with something small like a buckler and one with a larger shield. A gladius and buckler wouldn't work as well as a gladius and scutum, but a scutum wouldn't be a good pairing for something like a tulwar.
Sarp Kosutan If you face an enemy that throws itself at you with no regard for its own safety, a melee weapon in a gunfight will always be useful. Also, if you get cut off and have no chance of resupply, knowing melee guerrilla tactics would be incredibly beneficial
I mean, the 1911 is a great pistol, except for it's use of .45 cal ammunition (overpowered, low capacity). Other than that, it's reliable, easy to maintain, and easily pointable. To me, it seems that it easily fit it's role as a military sidearm of the time (especially because most common automatic pistols of the time had a magazine capacity not exceeding 10 rounds). Though I wouldn't carry it nowadays, I think I'd rather carry something like a .40 SW Sig Sauer.
Would you make a video about the dacian falx maybe? I think it's quite an unique weapon and was so effective against the Romans that they modified their helmets for it. But maybe a bit hard to come by as a replica...
I certainly want to hear more on your thoughts about which sword/shield pairing is best. Perhaps you've done it by now, but at a glance I don't see it. So, YES!
The gladius was impressive, but it was only 1/3 of a weapon system consisting of scutum, helmet and gladius. Those three in combination allowed the Roman soldier to hold their ground against much larger and stronger opponents and most projectiles of the time. The scutum was the most remarkable piece of equipment of the three. It covers more of the body than any other shield and its plywood-like construction makes it relatively light for its size while retaining strength. The long rectangular shape combined with a center grip allows you to deliver a devastating long-range "punch" with the bottom of the shield. It is the perfect shield for closing the distance prior to the popularization of the sinew-composite bow. As for single combat, when the Romans were hard pressed during their conquest of Gaul, Caesar repeatedly told his men to "spread out" so that they had "room to fight," indicating that the Roman fighting style was likely capable of fighting one-on-one.
For formation fighting, with big shields, wielded by disciplined and aggressive soldiers - it’s excellent. Once you get close into the enemy ranks, you basically become near unstoppable. They can’t wield their long spears and long swords, but you can use your short sword very effectively.
this was a great video. I wish there were visuals of the mentioned weaponry included through minimal editing. etc. Would've helped out a noob like me lol
Matt, I'm reading the swordsmen of the British empire. Several accounts claim the tulwar(or lightsabre according the British) actually can cut through the barrel of a musket. Given you yourself couldn't cut through a rapier with various swords. This claim doesn't pass the sniff test.
The tyrant Agathocles stymied all threat of rebellion from the citizens of Syracuse by tricking them and taking away their shields, not their armour or weapons. I think that Matt's point is very good that you need to see the gladius in context with a shield but to take it further: the scutum-gladius pairing (to take it further the pila and lorica hamata) shouldn't ever be considered separately. Together they form a weapons system that is effective, take away the scutum and you have something much less and 50% effective than the original pairing. Same could be said for removing Viking/Migration era shields away from Hearthweru or the hoplon/aspis from Greek citizens
Gladius was great for the Roman style of warfare. For some other style it may not be the best. For example, a baseball helmet is good when you are playing baseball, but it is not good for playing football. By the way that is a magnificent sword you are holding.
Charles Dexter Ward The essential Saltes of Animals may be so prepared and preserved, that an ingenious Man may have the whole Ark of Noah in his own Studie, and raise the fine Shape of an Animal out of its Ashes at his Pleasure; and by the lyke Method from the essential Saltes of humane Dust, a Philosopher may, without any criminal Necromancy, call up the Shape of any dead Ancestour from the Dust whereinto his Bodie has been incinerated
I thought your gig was deeper, darker stuff. How’s the old squid these days, by the way? With the current ceasefire between our order (ordo malleus) and your dark brethren, it’s been quite... unsettling...
Oh yes, please do that video you mentioned. Answer the question: "What is the best sword when used with a shield?" You could even pick best combinations of sword and shield! Tons of material here. You could make several videos on this theme and we (the people) would appreciate all of them. Keep up the good work mate. You're the best!
This video reminds me of a fascinating talk given by a Scottish firearms expert in the 1980s, after which he took questions from the audience of gun owners. The question “What is or was the best military firearm” and his carefully considered answer was the Brown Bess musket. This silenced to packed room, then he explained that as a musket, it was average at best, however combined with the logistics and tactics of the time, it was the most effective gun ever.
Please do that video about which is the best sword IF shields are included. Please include axes and other alternative weapons to "swords" if time permits.
"Patres! Three weeks from now, I will be harvesting my crops. Imagine where you will be, and it will be so. Hold the line! Stay with me! If you find yourself alone, riding in the green fields with the sun on your face, do not be troubled. For you are in Elysium, and you're already dead! Brothers, what we do in life... echoes in eternity."
Both the gladius and the spatha were solid swords and did their respective jobs well. I personally prefer the spatha but both have defenders. You make a solid point that a sword made to be used by itself ( without scutum) excels when used by itself. The combination of gladius and shield was a formidable combination. Great video as always.
Points to ponder, no hand guard means it was not a dueling sword. It was not to long and not hard on the wrist. Easier to carry than a very long sword over land on foot. Easier to use than a long sword. Easier to draw than a long sword.The gladius could cut very well but had a long sharp point for stabbing. One deep stab with that point would put a man down and out of a fight. Also you video was excellent about it.
I have a replica gladius. It is the perfect length for thrusting: short enough to be stiff and handy while still long enough to keep from stabbing oneself when drawn fully back for a thrust. It was a backup weapon. The primary arms of Roman troops were the large shield and the spear. The gladius was more like a pistol than a rifle in its use.
