@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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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.
A better question is this: Were the Roman Legions hampered by a deficiency in the standard sword used by its legionaries? or was it a net asset? The Roman military did indeed have weaknesses and deficiencies (as have every military organization that ever existed btw). Was the Gladius more of an asset as part of Rome's notable strengths OR more of a detriment as part of a notable weakness? These related questions cannot be answered outside the context of the physical makeup of the average legionary, the cultures and discipline levels of the legions and the organization, leadership and tactics employed. Last but not least is the consideration of the opposition that the sword (sheathed as well as unsheathed) would be used against. For example, it would not be relevent to criticize the Gladius as a substandard cavalry sword since the legions consisted primarily of infantry.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Note that the Gladius was part of a Shield and Sword system. While it could of course be used on it's own, the Legions used them in company with the Scutum and in the Legion formation. LOL and then 3/4 of the way through he mentions shields!
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
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...
Very much like how you gave context about using the Gladius or "short sword" with a shield. Given this, I'd also add that, in ancient time, the short sword and shield were not the primary weapon set. That, on many occasions, the spear was the favored starter weapon; having longer reach and would be used in conjunction with the shield. The spear would only be given up if it were rendered unusable, dropped, or in a forced close combat situation; at which point the short sword would be implemented for obvious reasons. Not to criticize your well thought out and researched presentation, which made many well reasoned points.
"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."
I wish to advise for what I use a gladius - a replica of course! As a passionate boar hunter I use 2 appropriate side arms in adddition to my beloved rifle, a German triplet (Drilling) with 1rst rifled barrel in .30-06 and 2 shot gun barrels for slugs. 1rst side arm is a heavy revolver in .44 magnum and short 3"-barrel. That one is for use on short distance if a boar is eventually still alive for quickly releasing it from suffering from preceding rifle bullets. That does not often happen so, but is also not completely ruled out. BUT: It can also happen on such occasion that boar hounds start challenging an already wounded boar, thus forming a large lump of aggressively fighting animals. Not a good idea to use whatever kind of a gun under such circumstances! Ideal would be a massive spear, but same would be way too clumsy to carry around in hunting. Second best choice is then the GLADIUS! With a quick stab into the chest the boar will be quickly released from suffering. That works way better than with any kind of "boar dagger" or "Saufänger" that can be seen at times. Regards
Listen, dude. I thought a 15 minute monologue on a sword would run out of steam and get boring. NOT EVEN. Way to go dude. I was totally into that. You are excellent...that was excellent. Right on. I'm not a sword nut or anything, but I am now a fan of yours.
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.
When considering the efficacy of a weapon it is important to consider what it was being used against. As armor improved swords in general became less and less effective in battle. Of course gunpowder changed everything and brought the sword back onto the battlefield once heavy armor was nullified. But the point is the Gladius was the right tool for the job against light to medium armor which is what classical armies used. As the battlefield techs evolved it was no longer the right tool for the job.
Not sure it was ever the right tool for the job. Many Roman armies lost to foreign forces while using the Gladius. What prevailed for the Romans was their numbers, their organization and their discipline. Those short swords were literally a bare minimum in combat. It is almost a miracle that they conquered so much with that as their tool of choice, considering how many battles they lost using it.
Part of weapon system, had archers, slingers, thrown spears and javalins. You were effed up in most battles if you did not have large shield. Also weight of one of many weapons crittical in long marches. Many defeats coused by poor leadership not smaller swords
@@LovingTinha they had the right tactics for the right tools. Longer/ larger swords weren't very effective in their style of fighting. If they had been they would have adopted them. After all, I seem to recall they adopted the gladius from Iberian tribes that they fought.
What I lack, in many of these discussions, is the question about mass-production and quality. Say, a "longsword" would be "better": Could the Roman Empire have been able to produce 1 million longswords that would not break upon first impact? Metallurgy and the ability to produce (high quality) steel is often neglected in the historical context.
that is a very good point, it is likely this is the most sturdy construction they could manage which was indeed limited by their technology at that time and who knows how much was indeed limited by costs also. And superior armor and weaponry was not always the most effective in war and combat. As the english proved against the french and as halberds proved against full armored knights being used by unarmored men for much cheaper use, yet highly effective.
I agree. There were quality steel products around, depending on the skills of the blacksmith, but right through history, steel qualities varied widely. I imagine it depended on how much you had to spend.
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
Makes sense, especially when you take into account that the Gladius wasn't the first weapon that a Roman soldier would use... probably the pilum (javelin) or hasta (spear) would be used for longer range... once they closed with the enemies, and there was a lot of pushing and shoving with walls of shields, the gladius would be very effective for thrusting in gaps between the shields or down over the top of the shield.
Im surprised you didn't talk about timeframe very much. The romans used the gladius from like 200BC to 700AD..... waaaay before most of the swords you named were able to be invented.
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!
It's not about the length, it's about what you do with it.
And always wear protection!
Funny, Ive never had to say that. 😬👏
@@kenanacampora sorry, did I steal your joke? :o
No crossing swords!
@@jamesdelatorre6424 Hey, there is nothing wrong with a little sword-on-sword action!
@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.
Q: Is the gladius a great sword?
A: No, it's a gladius. Greatswords are greatswords.
The gladius IS a greatsword - if you're a five year old boy or slightly below avarage height for an adult Italian.
@@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.
@@TucoBenedicto Most people are shorter than their modern counterpart. People have simply gotten taller over time on average.
Gladius is a great sword, not a greatsword. xD
Bethesda has joined the chat
Prediction: It’s good in its proper context with a scutum, and ideally in formation
also, prediction: good against unskilled fighters and untrained armies
@@moonasha Unskilled and untrained like the Carthaginian army, Macedonian phalanx, Spartan soldiers or the Gauls warriors...?
There is sputum on my scutum
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
"Shank, shank, shank"
That is truly the sound of chivalry
OG cleavage
cibalrius, smibalrius.
I chuckled a little while he said that
Don't you mean shiv-alry
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.
It was also excellent in tight quarters, which is the style of combat the Roman's preferred.
A good weapon for the streets of the UK today 😂
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.
Only during a bout with dysentery!!! 😁
Depends how far away the man with a knife is from the man with a revolver.
@@dernwine if the revolver in question is a Colt Double action .45 or a Borchardt, the man with the knive is going down hard at any distance.
@@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. th-cam.com/video/ckz7EmDxhtU/w-d-xo.html
Yes do a video about what is the best Sword/Shield set.
I would like to see this as well, especially with curved v. straighter swords
Please do that video Matt.
Yes please. This would be quite an interesting topic.
That would be interesting
Dew it!
No, the organisational skills of the romans gave them an empire. Not the sword. But I like the sword :)
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.
They had beaten the Italians in wars before making them citizens. Extending citizenship doesn't conquer people, it helps win the war that comes after.
@@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.
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
@@nicoletingey3325 But the army was basically unstoppable anyway.
@Richard Davis ?
But then why did the gladius/short sword-shield combo fall out of use?
@@aotoda486 Battlefield tactics changed to the point where something with a longer reach made more sense
I also have a hole in my wall from swinging around a Dane axe in my living room
Some Roman general I forget the name of: "If you find your sword is too short, take a step forward."
Lol. Sounds a lot like my first Platoon Leader. Different eras, same attitude.
I presume his name was "Biggus Swordis".
@@maximthemagnificent Largus Gladius more likely
That would have been Russel Crowe darling.
It was a spartan retort,because their xhipos were shorter than those of other poleis.
Obviously is not a great sword. It is a short sword, just 1d6+STR of damage
hahahaha nice.
Lol...funny !....dont forget the enchantment and or a soul stone !....
D6+DEX. It's a finesse weapon.
Gaming geek alert!!!!!LOL!
@@mikekennedy5879 finesse means you can use either str or dex, so generally it's better
Shields and tight spaces change the dynamics of blade length being more usable.
Tight spaces definitely have an impact on how deeply you can thrust your sword
@@TeroHal It was also worn on the right by the common soldiers so they didn't have to break the shield wall to draw, which limits the length.
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.
I would love to add a few things to this info in regards of metallurgy if you ever want to
Like?
@@Seth9809 lol exactly
A "best sword with a shield video" would definitely be neat.
short spear by itself beats all swords.
short spear with shield does even better. just take a guess... its the rapier (again) duh
Arming sword surely
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.
The sinews of war are endless money.
- Marcus Tullius Cicero
Don't forget that you do far better with the weapon you are trained with and the Romans were trained with that sword.
Sounds like .....
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.
What about the spatha tho?
@@yungsouichi2317 I think he made his point, not every legionaire had a spatha they mostly had the gladius.
@@yungsouichi2317 the spatha was used when rome was decadent, by that time the superb disciplined armies of rome were no longer a thing
@@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.
@@kyomademon453 nonsense, the legions were still a force to be reckoned with, even during the time of Aurelian, Diocletian and Constantine.
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.
Paired mine with a 12" steel fist gripped buckler for a fast, flowing whirlwind of steel. It would be really effective indoors. Good point.
Good Job stretching a 30 second answer out to 15 minutes :)
Jeezus!!..I know right!!...lmao
Talk about beating around the bush, this video was brutal.
@@SteveTheFazeman lmao!...Thank you!!
Where did he tell the answer?
@@frankovera7553 It begins at 11:44
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.
"The more length you've got, the better it is" - Matt Easton, July 2019
It had to be made. :P
And I thought girth was more important, but I guess he is taking about thrusting action.
@@philvalz Its sort of a tradition now.
I actually think this sentence has been the whole point of this video ;)
Please, grow up.
I Absolutely Love The Basic Beauty Of The Roman Gladius.
Raymond Karl Veasey basic and extremely effective.
I find it somewhat... inelegant in design. Effective, but rather brutish and ugly.
@@secutorprimus Its elegance of design lies in its brutish effectiveness. War ain't pretty.
@@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.
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.
Never underestimate the effects of finances on a army of thousands.
@@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
This sword was part of a weapon set consisting of sword, shied, armor and group training. By itself it was a big knife.
Yeah no shit
Any sword is just a long knife
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!
The first AR-15 it also was used off the battlefield . In smaller spaces in a room this weapon was the because it was lighter....
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.
@@kronckew all that have nothing to do with swords. Except if you put a bayonet in front of it!!! Get a bayonet knife instead and talk about it!!
Did anyone else try to wipe the mark on Matts wall off of your screen?
The only way my screen would have gotten that dirty is if a fly had committed suicide
I thought about it.
Yes. Twice before I realized it wasn't on my screen...
Yes. 😐
yes
Besides armour and shields, fighting in tight formations does also change the preferability of a longer sword versus a shorter one.
A fair amount of formation fighting was with the longest weapons of all.
@@darkalystar Yep, the spear.
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.
Roman formations were very open, often with six feet per man, specifically so that the swords could be used more easily.
@@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.
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.
"the sword that conquered an empire" has the exact same vibe as "two world wars" coming from 1911 fanboys
B-b-but my fohty five is for REAL men hurr durr
Both great weapons
John Moses Browning created possibly the best handgun of all time. When he made the Browning Hi Power. Also the 1911 exists.
pistols werent really used in combat though, whereas the gladius definitely was. not saying its the best tho
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.
Also a Roman infantry formation should be considered "close quarters".
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.
@@mattlentzner7141 don't forget that the Germans and Norse were known for their throwing axes which tend to bounce unpredictably
@@davidcarson7855 Not as effective as one might think. A psychological factor not decisive by itself.
A weapon to carry with all your well-disciplined buddies, walk slowly forward together behind your locked large shields, and get the point across.
Get your point across, he he
@@craftpaint1644 I'm glad someone got a chuckle out of that!
una bola de boliche les arrancaria las piernas y adios testudo
You really pushed that point haha.
Make sure it doesn't go over their jead
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.
Wow similar to a khyber
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.
I've no idea why TH-cam has randomly recommended this video to me but I found it very interesting all the same. Liked and subbed. 👍
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.
As a practitioner of Kali and escrima, I will tell you absolutely that the gladius crosses over well!
I'm still waiting for the promised video of the French 1822 vs U.S.1840, 1860. Maybe I missed that one, but I don't think so.
Fearsome Choppas! - Orkz
When you mentioned the Gladius was part of a "system" I knew the video was going to be correct.
"Armor drastically changes the context"
Lawbringer: YAY!
UBI: nope
"The more length you've got, the better it is." -Matt Easton (2019)
0:40 "On my channel I'm well known for" Matt my mind screamed: CONTEXT! but you didn't say that, I'm sligtly dissapointed.
Also for wanting to use his butt agressively.
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.
Exactly.
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
Would love to see a "Best Sword" video, but with the contexts of both medium to heavy armour, and small to large shields
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.
The Roman method of war was a whole system. Sword, shield, skirmishes, and formations
“Basically the more length you’ve got, the better it is” - Matt Easton 2019
That settles it, boys
Is that why the Romans defeated the Greeks and Macedonians?
RAIDERIUS when you got strategy you don’t need fancy weapons.
so... your saying the Greeks and Macedonians didn't have strategy?
Length dosnt mean shit. Those who think length does are idiots who are over complicating for something.
es claro que ese matts nunca peleo en un lugar cerrado
That's a beautiful looking sword. looking forward to the review.
Its like asking if an M16 is a good rifle. In what context? Thats the key.
for killing rice pickers it is a great weapon.
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.
@Lord Azreal Lais All right, I did not realize M16 was THAT different from M4.
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.
A better question is this: Were the Roman Legions hampered by a deficiency in the standard sword used by its legionaries? or was it a net asset?
The Roman military did indeed have weaknesses and deficiencies (as have every military organization that ever existed btw).
Was the Gladius more of an asset as part of Rome's notable strengths OR more of a detriment as part of a notable weakness?
These related questions cannot be answered outside the context of the physical makeup of the average legionary, the cultures and discipline levels of the legions and the organization, leadership and tactics employed. Last but not least is the consideration of the opposition that the sword (sheathed as well as unsheathed) would be used against.
For example, it would not be relevent to criticize the Gladius as a substandard cavalry sword since the legions consisted primarily of infantry.
Cavery used longer swards most of the time in roman army
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.
tl;dr: The gladius did not make Rome great; the way the Romans used the sword made the gladius great.
So it is not about the length, it is about how you swing it ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Greek influence in education and profession guilds, are still exclusively institutional in the west. The Romans became strangers in their own country.
I would prefer to have a short barrel weapon in close combat,therefore making the Gladius perfect for the way the Roman fought✌️
ballistic shield and pistol
meet the roman
Unless you need to be quiet… the sword might be more advantageous.
Will you ever cover the falcata? And is it related to the gladius?
It looks different, but it comes from Iberia too, if I'm not mistaken.
Roman's did get their gladius design from iberia...
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.
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.
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
74 Centurion mains disliked this video.
Also, came here from skallagrim. Glad I did. It's great how in depth your talks are
Friend: "If you were in a swordfight to death what sword would you bring?"
Me: "Obviously a Gun-sword my good man"
Him: 😑
...because saying 'rapier' (which is basically a one handed spear) is so much better
Corrupted Archangel ...looked up historical Gun-Swords did ya?
👍
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.
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.
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!
Imagine clicking on a 15 minute video then complaining about it being 15 minutes long. Respect the context my dudes.
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.
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.
My grandad cut a American aircraft carrier in half with his katana at pearl harbor
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.
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!
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.
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.
What I’ve learned about swords is that it’s best to avoid getting in fights with them.
smartest comment award goes to you my dear sir/madame
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.
PLEASE DO THAT VIDEO ABOUT FIGHTING WITH SHIELDS! THE WORLD NEEDS IT!
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.
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.
The Galdias is a good sword to use with shields - saved you 15 minutes
Thank you!
Thank you!
You mean it's a good sword to use with shields while fighting in formation.
I actually love to hear everything he has to say about ancient weapons..... every single little thing..... no matter how much time it takes.
Thankyou
i like how you always handle your swords during your videos ..we can see its your comfort zone
Note that the Gladius was part of a Shield and Sword system. While it could of course be used on it's own, the Legions used them in company with the Scutum and in the Legion formation. LOL and then 3/4 of the way through he mentions shields!
😂😂 “If you use a gladius don’t use it without a shiel” just Incase Carthage tries to invade again mkay
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
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...
Not just helmets but added bracers and reinforced their greaves
The plural is "gladii", and, is pronounced, "glad-ee-eye". 4 years of high school Latin finally served a purpose...
Ty :)
Cludd-eeh! Actually 😉
glaw-dee-ee
@@biuuuwulf6975 gludd-ee-ee!
Technically, it's glad ee yee, according to the Romans.
Very much like how you gave context about using the Gladius or "short sword" with a shield. Given this, I'd also add that, in ancient time, the short sword and shield were not the primary weapon set. That, on many occasions, the spear was the favored starter weapon; having longer reach and would be used in conjunction with the shield. The spear would only be given up if it were rendered unusable, dropped, or in a forced close combat situation; at which point the short sword would be implemented for obvious reasons. Not to criticize your well thought out and researched presentation, which made many well reasoned points.
A video on what is the "best" sword to pair with a shield would be awesome!
The best sword for a 1v1 sword fight is the one you are the most familiar with and have the most practice with.
"The bestest sword is a freak'n Shark Sword with freak'n lasers on their freak'n heads."
-Dr Evil
"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."
Strength and Honor.
um go be nice respect and manors !key to life
I wish to advise for what I use a gladius - a replica of course! As a passionate boar hunter I use 2 appropriate side arms in adddition to my beloved rifle, a German triplet (Drilling) with 1rst rifled barrel in .30-06 and 2 shot gun barrels for slugs. 1rst side arm is a heavy revolver in .44 magnum and short 3"-barrel. That one is for use on short distance if a boar is eventually still alive for quickly releasing it from suffering from preceding rifle bullets. That does not often happen so, but is also not completely ruled out. BUT: It can also happen on such occasion that boar hounds start challenging an already wounded boar, thus forming a large lump of aggressively fighting animals. Not a good idea to use whatever kind of a gun under such circumstances! Ideal would be a massive spear, but same would be way too clumsy to carry around in hunting. Second best choice is then the GLADIUS! With a quick stab into the chest the boar will be quickly released from suffering. That works way better than with any kind of "boar dagger" or "Saufänger" that can be seen at times. Regards
Listen, dude. I thought a 15 minute monologue on a sword would run out of steam and get boring. NOT EVEN. Way to go dude. I was totally into that. You are excellent...that was excellent. Right on. I'm not a sword nut or anything, but I am now a fan of yours.
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.
The best duelling sword used in conjuction with a shield does sound cool!
When considering the efficacy of a weapon it is important to consider what it was being used against. As armor improved swords in general became less and less effective in battle. Of course gunpowder changed everything and brought the sword back onto the battlefield once heavy armor was nullified. But the point is the Gladius was the right tool for the job against light to medium armor which is what classical armies used. As the battlefield techs evolved it was no longer the right tool for the job.
Not sure it was ever the right tool for the job. Many Roman armies lost to foreign forces while using the Gladius. What prevailed for the Romans was their numbers, their organization and their discipline. Those short swords were literally a bare minimum in combat. It is almost a miracle that they conquered so much with that as their tool of choice, considering how many battles they lost using it.
Part of weapon system, had archers, slingers, thrown spears and javalins. You were effed up in most battles if you did not have large shield. Also weight of one of many weapons crittical in long marches. Many defeats coused by poor leadership not smaller swords
@@LovingTinha they had the right tactics for the right tools. Longer/ larger swords weren't very effective in their style of fighting. If they had been they would have adopted them. After all, I seem to recall they adopted the gladius from Iberian tribes that they fought.
This was very informative. Thank you.
Would love to see a best sword and shield video. Thanks for all you do
I get the feeling that long vs short is the sword worlds version of the gun world 5.56 vs 7.62
Or 9mm vs .45.......
@@dvldog_ I prefer .44
What I lack, in many of these discussions, is the question about mass-production and quality.
Say, a "longsword" would be "better": Could the Roman Empire have been able to produce 1 million longswords that would not break upon first impact?
Metallurgy and the ability to produce (high quality) steel is often neglected in the historical context.
that is a very good point, it is likely this is the most sturdy construction they could manage which was indeed limited by their technology at that time and who knows how much was indeed limited by costs also. And superior armor and weaponry was not always the most effective in war and combat. As the english proved against the french and as halberds proved against full armored knights being used by unarmored men for much cheaper use, yet highly effective.
I agree. There were quality steel products around, depending on the skills of the blacksmith, but right through history, steel qualities varied widely. I imagine it depended on how much you had to spend.
Have some trouble hanging something on that back wall, Matt?
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
Makes sense, especially when you take into account that the Gladius wasn't the first weapon that a Roman soldier would use... probably the pilum (javelin) or hasta (spear) would be used for longer range... once they closed with the enemies, and there was a lot of pushing and shoving with walls of shields, the gladius would be very effective for thrusting in gaps between the shields or down over the top of the shield.
All I could think about the entire video - that wall really needs polyfiller...
Thumbnail: Is the gladius a great sword?
Me: No, it's a short-sword.
Im surprised you didn't talk about timeframe very much. The romans used the gladius from like 200BC to 700AD..... waaaay before most of the swords you named were able to be invented.
Till 700 AD? What? By the 3rd AD it was replaced with spatha and side weapon, semi-spatha.
Actually the chinese were already making n handed swords as early as 200bc
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!
Congrats on the new house!