How did the Romans manage to arm most of their soldiers with swords?

Submitted by Horror_in_Vacuum t3_zsqlpc in history

Ok, I'm not a historian, just a history enthusiast, and not a pretty knowledgeable one at that, so correct me if I say anything wrong. Anyway, I always heard that one of the reasons why swords are so iconic in pop culture is the fact that they were really expensive to produce and tended to be more useful as backup weapons, specially in the middle ages. That's probably one of the reasons the weapon became so associated with the archetype of the noble knight, which helped it become so iconic.

I understand that, in the time of the Roman Empire, swords would be much more useful as a main weapon, because armor wasn't so advanced, but that doesn't explain how did they manage to outfit most of their soldiers with gladii. I mean, they're still swords, they still require a lot of material and a lot more work to be made than, say, a spear, which is already an amazing weapon.

219

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

its_raining_scotch t1_j19muos wrote

There’s a lot of articles about ancient Roman pollution due to large scale resource extraction and industrial output. Ice cores from glaciers are able to show the signature of the Romans due to how much wood they burned in order to run their empire’s production of goods.

There’s a story told by a Roman writer, I can’t remember who, about what it was like seeing a town in Spain that was set up to produce iron goods on a mass scale. They said you could see a haze in the distance as you approached and that there weren’t any trees left. When you got closer it became a sort of hell scape with everything covered in soot or ash and the sky was a dark orange. This was all from how many blacksmiths were working their fires and producing iron goods, so you can imagine the scale.

The Romans took their production to this level and had many towns like that one, so that’s how they were able to outfit their armies with swords and everything else.

333

Horror_in_Vacuum OP t1_j19n7dc wrote

Oh yeah. You can also correlate the concentration of lead in the atmosphere to the rise of the greek and roman empires because the melting of iron ore releases trace amounts of lead to the atmosphere. It's really cool. Thanks for the answer.

108

vurjin_oce t1_j1cwzyn wrote

Also take into account they weren't as pure or as advanced as medieval swords, but they were designed to be mass produced as they were simple design. So things like the handle and guard could be made quickly and efficiently.

33

KGBFriedChicken02 t1_j1dqrgq wrote

Roman swords were also smaller than medieval swords, and meant for quick, close quarters, shove and stab combat. Even in movies and shows, they like to show roman legionnaires dueling, slashing with their swords, parrying and cutting.

The reality is the roman heavy infantry was a machine. The line moved forward. The enemy were presented with a wall of wood and iron and leather as the Legionnaires shoved forward with their shields, moving in to press up against their enemies. This restricted the space, making it difficult for the enemy to wield swords or axes or spears in the tight quarters. The small gaps in the shield wall were used to strike the enemy, the gladius' design was perfect for close up thrusting attacks. They'd simply shove and stab until the enemy were wiped out or broke and ran, advancing slowly all the while. Anyone who was simply woulded or knocked over would be trampled by the advancing shield wall, or dispatched by the men in the back ranks.

41

Hyphenated_Gorilla t1_j1dtdm2 wrote

Excellent and accurate description!

12

vurjin_oce t1_j1fy1t6 wrote

There is an old Roman proverb that was said when Greeks were making fun of the length of their swords. Romans replied it only needed to be long enough to reach your heart.

7

Hyphenated_Gorilla t1_j1gptx7 wrote

I believe that was in Vegetius “Epitome of Military science”

Good book on the Roman strategy if you’ve not read it

4

Intranetusa t1_j1k9xlh wrote

Note that the claim that Roman formations are too tight to use spears/axes/longer weapons/etc is a myth. A typical or common Roman infantry formation during the Republic or early Empire is described as having around 3 feet of space between each man. This is a rather spacious formation that gives each soldier plenty of room to deploy spear or sword, and is a more spacious formation than the classical Greek phalanxes that used heavy thrusting spears.

3 feet of space is also comparable to or greater than the spacing used by many pike formations, as many Rennisance European pikemen also had around 3 feet of space between each man and sometimes had as little as only 1.5 feet of space. Even the more loose formation of Ming Dynasty pikemen was still only 3.5 feet between each man according to the Ming military blog.

Thus, contrary to some belief that Roman combat was too cramped for spears, there would be no issue in using a long heavy thrusting spear or a 7 foot pila/throwing spear in melee combat when there was 3 feet of space between each man.

Of course, there could have been and probably were cases when the Romans switched to a much tighter formation where a shorter sword was more manuverable and easier to use than a long thrusting spears or pila in melee.

5

Hyphenated_Gorilla t1_j1kbf0v wrote

Javalyn was also very common as a initial weapon.

Again, another good post.

Looking forward to the brawl

2

ArkyBeagle t1_j1gwjzd wrote

> The reality is the roman heavy infantry was a machine.

The beginning of the 1999 film "Titus" ( an Anthony Hopkins starring adaptation of Shakespeare's "Titus Andronicus" ) has a Roman square in maneuvers in a ... soundstage? not an exterior sequence anyway.

It's one thing to read it and another to actually see it.

3

Intranetusa t1_j1k9tcx wrote

> This restricted the space, making it difficult for the enemy to wield swords or axes or spears in the tight quarters. The small gaps in the shield wall were used to strike the enemy, the gladius' design was perfect for close up thrusting attacks.

The Roman formations were often even more loosely spaced than typical spear and pike formations. A typical or common Roman infantry formation during the Republic or early Empire is described as having around 3 feet of space between each man. This is a rather spacious formation that gives each soldier plenty of room to deploy spear or sword, and is a more spacious formation than the classical Greek phalanxes that used heavy thrusting spears.

3 feet of space is also comparable to or greater than the spacing used by many pike formations, as many Rennisance European pikemen also had around 3 feet of space between each man and sometimes had as little as only 1.5 feet of space. Even the more loose formation of Ming Dynasty pikemen was still only 3.5 feet between each man according to the Ming military blog.

Thus, contrary to some belief that Roman combat was too cramped for spears, there would be no issue in using a long heavy thrusting spear or a 7 foot pila/throwing spear in melee combat when there was 3 feet of space between each man.

Of course, there could have been and probably were cases when the Romans switched to a much tighter formation where a shorter sword was more manuverable and easier to use than a long thrusting spears or pila in melee.

3

ferdebest t1_j1d731y wrote

That is not correctamente. Is ok the ice of the poles forma where is extracted the traces of the Rome's metal extracting, mostly, silver on spain.

1

HyperbolicSoup t1_j1bb9ey wrote

Yeah… they actually caused smog. Wouldn’t see that again until industrial revolution

58

[deleted] t1_j1amcz3 wrote

[removed]

19

PhasmaFelis t1_j1chmwc wrote

> The land was previously covered in tiny iron meteorites

Interesting. Source for that?

3

series_hybrid t1_j1dl0j9 wrote

Meteorite iron has a specific percentage of nickel, and iron from the earth has almost none, among other distinctions (sometimes iridium).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun%27s_meteoric_iron_dagger

As far as the Earth being covered by them, if we didn't have a water cycle and weather, the surface of the Earth would look like the moon. Civilization has only been experimenting with melting nuggets such as copper and tin for a few thousand years.

I wish I had a good source for that but, I don't.

When copper became useful, surface copper was taken first before deep mining was used. Same with tin and iron. If Iron weapons were made before and iron mine was operated, they used surface iron.

0

Lost4name t1_j1a5fj9 wrote

If you can remember link it, it sounds like interesting reading.

5

its_raining_scotch t1_j1ajbc1 wrote

I tried to find it again but couldn’t after a 3 min search. It’s out there somewhere though.

5

DryDrunkImperor t1_j1d8cwp wrote

It’s mentioned in Dan Carlins “Death Throes of the Republic” if you want to do some digging, I can’t remember exactly the episode though.

5

Othrerir t1_j1cyx61 wrote

That sounds really cool and horrifying at the same time, kind of like a fantasy setting. I can google this sort of stuff, but are there any articles you found particularly good about the subject that you'd recommend?

5

ramkitty t1_j1djzlw wrote

Las medulas is a great example of roman industrial scale. A gold mine sluced the entire mountain away. It is now a unesco heritage park.

5

-introuble2 t1_j1fjd9j wrote

The closest I could find is in Strabo 3.2.8 about silver in Spain, where a little loosely: "and they are making the silver furnaces tall, so that the fiery smoke from the lumps to be lifted up in the air; cause it's heavy and destructive"

5

its_raining_scotch t1_j1g6hv8 wrote

Hmm interesting. That’s not the one I saw but that’s interesting nonetheless.

2

Simonbargiora t1_j1dn40b wrote

Which Roman writer wrote this?

1

Sgt_Colon t1_j1gokol wrote

Turns out it was a Greek writing about Elba:

Off the city of Tyrrhenia known as Poplonium there is an island which men call Aethaleia.​ It is about one hundred stades* distant from the coast and received the name it bears from the smoke (aithalos) which lies so thick about it. For the island possesses a great amount of iron-rock, which they quarry in order to melt and cast and thus to secure the iron, and they possess a great abundance of this ore. For those who are engaged in the working of this ore crush the rock and burn the lumps which have thus been broken in certain ingenious furnaces; and in these they smelt the lumps by means of a great fire and form them into pieces of moderate size which are in their appearance like large sponges.

1 stade = 150–210 metres

6

Apocalypso-YouTube t1_j1b34ku wrote

Now I don't feel so bad that pollution seems especially severe nowadays. It appears there's always been at least one society throughout history that contributed significantly to pollution.

−20

boredsittingonthebus t1_j1ba8n3 wrote

I have a feeling today's pollution is far, far worse.

25

Apocalypso-YouTube t1_j1bagpo wrote

That's very likely, but we also don't know exactly what extent it went to in past years.

−17

Horror_in_Vacuum OP t1_j1bpuxe wrote

You can be pretty sure it never reached the levels we have today. It's a matter of population.

15

Horror_in_Vacuum OP t1_j1bpnza wrote

Believe me, you should feel bad. The worst thing is that it's not even just the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There's acid rain, plastic pollution, agrotoxics and a probably a hundred other negative ways in which our lifestyle impacts the environment that we haven't even discovered yet.

12

notabiologist t1_j1conkt wrote

Totally agree, though the one thing I’d note is that acid rain has been a solved problem (in the west) and I believe isn’t the same magnitude of a problem elsewhere as it was in the west in the past. That’s the one bright thing, we are able to legislate our way out of an environmental problem. This gives some hope to legislation in order to curb climate change, although both the problem and solution to climate change is way more complex than acid rain.

4

Horror_in_Vacuum OP t1_j1cx9x6 wrote

We were also able to legislate our way out of the CFC and leaded gasoline crises. Though with the oil industry is gonna be much more difficult. It's not only a matter of technology. And even after we manage to solve that, plastic's probably going to be the next big problem.

4

its_raining_scotch t1_j1bkcyp wrote

The Romans were a special breed. Almost like a modern society in ancient times. It’s interesting how similar we are to them and also interesting to imagine what they could have done if they had discovered gun powder, or germ theory, or electricity.

8

Apocalypso-YouTube t1_j1bo2v0 wrote

The Romans did have indoor plumbing which wasn't too dissimilar from our own, so you definitely have a point.

8

Horror_in_Vacuum OP t1_j1cxix0 wrote

I mean, if the Western empire lasted as long as the Byzantines they'd probably bring about some sort of Industrial Revolution in the Middle Ages.

4

Welshhoppo t1_j19bshz wrote

So firstly. Roman swords were very short, at least in the republican era. Your average sword was only about 2 foot long and weighed about a pound. Which isn't really a large amount of metal.

Secondly, the Roman army was a massive financial juggernaut that was basically the most expensive part of the Roman government. They could afford to spend the money on swords. In the late empire, the Romans had a series of military factories in frontier provinces dedicated to producing Roman weaponry.

I can't speak for Medieval warfare, but I imagine the amount of money they were able to spend was a lot less than the Romans could.

131

Horror_in_Vacuum OP t1_j19c49i wrote

Interesting, thanks for the answer.

15

bluelion70 t1_j1a0hmn wrote

That’s pretty much what it comes down to. Roman soldiers effectively had their gear subsidized or provided by the state, whereas in the Middle Ages a knight had to equip himself with weapons, armor, and horses, and as you pointed out, good longswords were very expensive because they take much more metal than a Gladius, and require more artisanship to make. Even peasant levies had to provide their own gear, which was why most of them showed up to war with various pieces of farm equipment as weapons.

This is not dissimilar to the Roman system prior to the Marian reforms. After Marius, Rome’s army was state funded, or at least funded by the general/politician who was in charge of it, whereas pre-Marius Roman soldiers had to equip themselves and were actually distinguished by their types of gear, (hastati, principes, triarii) which was based effectively on what the individual could afford to equip himself with.

46

Welshhoppo t1_j1acwwp wrote

So I might have to go check. But I'm pretty sure the Roman state was providing gear to the army prior to the reforms around the time of Marius. Or at least paying them expenses towards getting their gear in. We have records for orders of supplies from Publicani merchants I think.

Don't quote me yet, I'll come back when I double check.

10

bluelion70 t1_j1af6m6 wrote

From my understanding, it was the generals who were mostly paying before Marius and in the early years afterward. When Crassus went to hunt Spartacus, wasn’t it because he was the only one willing to pay to raise new legions after Spartacus destroyed the Consular army at Picenum?

9

Welshhoppo t1_j1ahbcq wrote

I've had a quick read of the Companion to the Roman Army and doubled checked. The legions did receive a stipendium for their service in the army, but a lot of expenses for equipment were taken out of it. Which is how the war in Hispania raged on as long as it did. There were slim pickings for soldiers to make extra cash on the side by looting things.

But yes, eventually the Roman armies got to a point where the Generals paid them. Or the generals negotiated with the state to get their soldiers the best deal for when they reached the end of their service. But it wasn't a guarantee of loyalty, just look at Lucullus for an example where the army dumped him to go home. Even though they were 'full of gold as used to luxury.'

9

Heyyoguy123 t1_j1mthdn wrote

If I remember correctly, even peasant levies were able to afford or make their own spears, they wouldn’t necessarily bring farming equipment because a spear would be much more effective while being feasible to obtain

2

Intranetusa t1_j1kagdg wrote

Correction to the post above - Roman swords were longer in the mid Republican era. The gladius actually got shorter (eg. 6 inches shorter) by the time of the early Empire compared to med Republican era swords. They only got longer by the mid to late Empire with the adoption of the spatha for infantry.

2

r2k-in-the-vortex t1_j1cn0sl wrote

The reason the swords were rather short was because the steel was rather shit. To make longer swords you need more sophisticated methods which they didn't have, or you need to put in a lot more elbow grease to work impurities out of the steel making the sword much more expensive. Over centuries the sword making economy shifted to longer and more expensive blades

2

WeHaveSixFeet t1_j1d6jwu wrote

I thought the reason the gladius was short was that it allowed the legionaries to get up close and personal with the enemy. The Gauls used longswords. That gets you a couple of good pokes at the Roman's shield before the Roman is in your face. You don't have room to use your longsword, while he's getting stabby. Same goes for spears: very effective until the enemy is up close, then useless.

3

wegqg t1_j1d8bpx wrote

This ^ celtic longswords were used as slashing weapons and became a hindrance in the press - gladii were able to thrust out between the shield wall and were used, sensibly, as thrusting weapons.

3

r2k-in-the-vortex t1_j1dk7ni wrote

All else being equal, more reach means more likely to come out the winner, you only need one poke. But all is not equal, longer blade is also heavier and harder to maneuver where it needs to go. That's why length of blade depends on quality of steel, with better quality you can make it longer without compromising weight and strength too much. But if you don't have the quality you end up with a slow club that just isn't that good to use. Romans couldn't have made something like a rapier if they wanted to, their metallurgy wasn't up to snuff.

1

Thraling t1_j1j7doq wrote

Besides what has already being said (the Celtic sword was used for slashing, not poking), they were typically in bronze, not iron

1

AnaphoricReference t1_j1pkmwb wrote

Yes. They had no almost no control over how hard the iron would turn out. The real cost would be in fuel and skilled labour. If the weapon turned out too brittle or soft for its purpose, you had to start all over again.

If you compare the standard types of side arms armies used in those days:

- The small hand axe (Franciska, Tomahawk) needs one hard edge, but is otherwise not prone to bending or breaking.

- The long knife (Seax) needs one hard edge and a stiff back.

- The short short (Gladius) needs two hard edges and a stiff centerline. This is an order of magnitude more difficult to achieve. Needs to be stiff enough not to bend or break when stabbing a shield or armour.

- The long sword (Spatha) needs two hard edges and a long stiff centerline, that is stiff enough not to break or bend when blocked halfway with another weapon. Again an order of magnitude more difficult than a short sword.

The small axe was a weaponized common tool that was within reach of any household. Owning a seax was fairly common as well, but would have been more expensive. A functioning long sword was really something else. Not because of the amount of material, but the amount of trying (and fuel) that went into it.

The main advantage the Romans had, was centralization and industrialization of weapon making. More fuel and labour dedicated to it.

Edit: To gain some insight into how involved weaponsmithing would be in those times: Try to build a fire of 1500 degrees celsius using just wood. It is impossible.

2

AuntieDawnsKitchen t1_j19hxe1 wrote

And weren’t a lot of them equipped with spears, which take much less metal?

1

Trevor_Culley t1_j19zvzk wrote

Not at the height of the Empire. They had two javelins for throwing and the gladius. The late-Republic/early-Empire legions were a weird ancient army in that way. They set aside about 2000 years of pike warfare supremacy for more maneuverable short swords. By the later Empire, they had incorporated more pike-based auxiliaries and shifted back to longer swords and pikes as cavalry became a bigger component on all sides of their battlefields.

16

terrendos t1_j1ans90 wrote

2000 years of pikes? I assume you mean 200 years. Alexander the Great died in 323 BC, Marian reforms were 107 BC. Pikes weren't really a thing before Phillip II of Macedon.

Unless you're intending to argue that the First Intermediate Period Egyptians were using them, which would be a surprise to me.

5

ThoDanII t1_j1bftoj wrote

one pilum

Javelins were used by the velites the skirnishers

show me please the roman unit which used pikes

4

Welshhoppo t1_j1cefbc wrote

No it was two Pila, one was lighter and the other was heavier. So they threw the lighter one first, then followed up with the heavier one at close range.

As for the pike question. Well maybe. There are references to Roman Army units called Phalangarii and Lanciarii, which may have used longer spears. But the evidence for them is sketchy at best. Cassius Dio flat out says that the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antonius (Caracalla) had a 15,000 man Macedonian Phalanx in imitation of Alexander the Great. But take it with a pitch of salt. Although there is the possibility it was true, considering how useful a long spear would be against Persian horsemen.

6

ThoDanII t1_j1clk9q wrote

>No it was two Pila, one was lighter and the other was heavier.

But AFAIK history marched on and discarded that the legionary used 2 Pila in battle

1

Welshhoppo t1_j1cmar6 wrote

The Romans always used some form of missile weapons in the legions. Pila were used until at least the 3rd century as we see them on graves and other pieces of art work. Then in the late empire they seem to have used javelins similar to the German Angron or small weapons like the plumbata which was like a very large dart of which the legionnaires carried 5 of strapped to their shields.

3

Intranetusa t1_j1kaqlu wrote

I've read it was both. Some sources say they often carried two pila, but in some contexts and some time periods, they carried only 1 pila.

1

Welshhoppo t1_j19i7t9 wrote

The Romans? At least two javelins with a long metal tip. But when you compare it to the amount of armour that your Roman legionnaire wore. It's not a lot.

Plus you could pick them up after the battle and get someone to reforge them back into shape.

7

Devil-sAdvocate t1_j1is0wg wrote

> Plus you could pick them up after the battle and get someone to reforge them back into shape.

Swords from dead or retired soldiers could be reused as well, meaning they didn't need to make a new sword for every new soldier that ever joined.

2

AnaphoricReference t1_j1po9k0 wrote

The pilum takes less metal but cannot effectively be used for thrusting. A blade for a thrusting spear takes a similar amount. The short sword is a kind of very short thrusting spear. Compare the Zulu Iklwa: spear or shortsword with a long hilt?

1

Intranetusa t1_j1kad42 wrote

Roman swords were longer in the mid Republican era. The gladius actually got shorter (eg. 6 inches shorter) by the time of the early Empire compared to med Republican era swords. They only got longer by the mid to late Empire with the adoption of the spatha for infantry.

1

Acrobatic_Safety2930 t1_j1aaswj wrote

>2 foot long

how long was it in normal units?

−7

Jarlentium t1_j19gida wrote

Until the Catholic Church took their place

−10

RagingLeonard t1_j19cmtj wrote

It costs around $17,400 to equip an average US Army infantryman. Empire is expensive.

37

Thedmfw t1_j19og7t wrote

That's just equipment. The cost to train a soldier to the point that they get issued that equipment is in the 40ks by now.

20

RagingLeonard t1_j19pnl0 wrote

Correct, but my comment was in relation to OP's question regarding the costs of Roman swords. Training and food/healthcare/shelter are huge expenses for a military for sure.

10

r2k-in-the-vortex t1_j1cn8yd wrote

That's dirt cheap compared to what it takes to get from embryo to grown-up. It's hard to overpay for equipment that keeps you alive.

11

marijne t1_j1edp7r wrote

Indeed dirt cheap, when I started as a management trainee in my company they spend about 70k on me in half a year in training

3

Vitruviansquid1 t1_j1avmh8 wrote

Not a professional, so correct me if I'm wrong, anyone out there, but...

  1. Swords were not particularly expensive nor difficult to create. High end swords could be extremely expensive and difficult to create, but if you wanted every foot soldier to have a sword, that was pretty easy. But actually, asking how every Roman Legionnaire had a sword belies the more important and interesting question, which was how every Roman Legionnaire had a suit of armor. Compared to swords, armor, like the mail armor that legionnaires commonly wore, were extremely expensive and labor intensive to make.
  2. The Roman Legionnaires were well equipped because of the unique way the Legions were raised. In ancient and medieval warfare, in almost all armies, the soldier brought his own gear. The quality of this gear depended on the soldier's personal wealth and the poorest of the poor usually had no stakes in the wars and so did not show up at the muster at all. Obviously, a slave (or slave-like poor rural farmer or poor urban worker) is still a slave whether he's slaving under one government or another. If your army gets wiped out, you generally have to surrender because your society no longer has enough men of wealth who can and will fight. On the other hand, the Roman Legionnaires were recruited from the poor and then armed at the expense of the wealthy patron who raised the legion. These patrons were massively wealthy and could buy a lot of excellent gear for their men and, further, had a great motivation to, because success in war could determine their advancement or even survival. If a Roman army got wiped out, another army could simply be raised from the wealth of another patron.
  3. The Roman Empire was also extremely wealthy from its conquests and expansion, which made goods like swords and armor easier to obtain and in greater number.
22

DefenestrationPraha t1_j1d0dcm wrote

>because success in war could determine their advancement or even survival

It was also prestigious to have a well-equipped unit, much like it is prestigious to have a Mercedes today. So there was a kind of competition between the wealthy in this regard.

(Not only in this regard. House slaves from rich households often wore so lavish garments that there were legal attempts to get this under control; the nominally poor, but free Roman citizens resented meeting well-dressed slaves in the streets.)

3

ThoDanII t1_j1bhcn8 wrote

2 that happened at the end of the republic , the marian reforms before the legionaries had been recruited from the farmers and craftsmenthe plebeians not the proletariat - the poor

1

pheisenberg t1_j1i8uvw wrote

That’s my understanding too. I think metal infantry armor must have been more expensive than a sword. And I read somewhere that around 1000 a basic sword was a typical item a peasant might own. I figure then it must have been affordable enough for a big empire.

1

reddogg81 t1_j19bb40 wrote

Romans mined areas they occupied and exploited local resources aswell as having a vast trading network

21

Kargathia t1_j19yt85 wrote

Your assumptions make a questionable shortcut. The spear was the weapon of choice not solely because it was cheaper to produce - it was also flat-out better in a wide variety of circumstances.

The cost difference between a spear and a short sword do not have to be very significant for the spear to become the de facto primary weapon.

13

DaFuMiquel t1_j1dhslj wrote

Also a spear requires little to no training to use effectively. A long stick is kinda intuitive.

A sword however is trickier, fighting effectively with one requires a lot more training so for people that can't rely on a big military industrial complex it is a less useful weapon

2

msnplanner t1_j1e4d5r wrote

"a long stick is kinda intuitive". People train for years to master spears in traditional martial arts. Skill levels equal, a man with a spear will eat alive a man with a sword.

If you are talking about massed spears then you might be right that it doesn't take as much training. I've never been in a massed spear formation, so i can't really say. I imagine a good deal of training is needed to have a maneuverable formation with them.

If we are comparing apples to apples, an army equipped primarily with swords is using them in a packed formation close to the enemy. They are stabbing utilities. How is that "trickier" than stabbing with a spear? If anything, I would imagine executing maneuvers would be less tricky. Which is probably a big reasons Romans favored swords. They sacrificed range, for better maneuverability.

1

Dragev_ t1_j1hpqqh wrote

I have been in small spear formations for sparring bouts (viking era skirmishing but a spear is a spear) and they are indeed very efficient even with little to no training. The same goes for one-on-one btw, a spearman with little experience can still beat a seasoned swordsman quite often.

Edit; to clarify, I mean a swordsman with a longsword or a viking-type sword and round shield. I presume the big roman shield that covers almost the entire body would be much more advantageous.

2

ptahonas t1_j1ajlaq wrote

So there's a couple of things to break down.

>Anyway, I always heard that one of the reasons why swords are so iconic in pop culture is the fact that they were really expensive to produce

This one is simplistic and not particularly good critical thinking. Swords are iconic in certain cultures because those certain cultures have a fixation or interest in them. Remember, basically all cultures with decent metalworking good and did make swords (and even some without...) but it's only really the Japanese and central/western Europeans who really get into their swords. . . Despite the fact that neither sword is definitively the hardest to make nor the best.

As for them being expensive, also not really true. It's what sword and when.

Yes, Henry VIII could have swords that were worth the price of a ship or a castle... but that is because it's an item of jewellery or a status symbol just like a crown or sceptre at that point. Annnd at the same time, and earlier, we know an archer or spearman could buy a sword for the equivalent of a handful of pocket change.

Particularly the Romans though did utilise huge amounts of proto-industry, and there have been people who said resource utilisation in Europe didn't reach the same heights until the industrial revolution. That is to say, they mined and processed iron on mass and among other things made weapons out of it too.

>and tended to be more useful as backup weapons, specially in the middle ages

This is true, swords were rarely the chief weapon of the soldier. Pikes (or at least spears) and bows are often the old faithful options because they're generally better.

>That's probably one of the reasons the weapon became so associated with the archetype of the noble knight, which helped it become so iconic.

Ehhhhh.

There were plenty of cheap long blades like German (not that it was Germany at the time...) messers and such that were often used.

Again, I'd be less inclined to look for economic explanations for social trends like this.

To be clear, I'm not saying swords weren't and couldn't be expensive - they could be, but by the time of chivalric style knights in full harness they certainly weren't inaccessible.

> I understand that, in the time of the Roman Empire, swords would be much more useful as a main weapon, because armor wasn't so advanced,

Extremely debatable reasoning here.

In a fight whether, is one-on-one, or 100 on 100, pole arms are generally better... to say nothing of you know, being able to shoot people if they're unarmoured. Which makes sense and the Roman's knew that, thus their love of the javelin and darts.

>because armor wasn't so advanced

This is, itself, also debatable. There's several swords of functional armour in the period and the Romans fought them all.

>but that doesn't explain how did they manage to outfit most of their soldiers with gladii. I mean, they're still swords, they still require a lot of material and a lot more work to be made than, say, a spear, which is already an amazing weapon.

To the core of your question - they mass produced them because it was an important goal of their culture. It would be like asking how relatively uncivilised people like the Mongols and other Turkic people managed to maintain such large herds of expensive horses, or bows. Or Age of Sail empires could field such huge numbers of huge and extensive ships.

Of course we do also come back to the immense capacity of the Romans to organise and use resources as well.... but that is more a side point really.

9

ThoDanII t1_j1bgz4v wrote

>There were plenty of cheap long blades like German (not that it was Germany at the time...) messers and such that were often used.

messers were made by knifesmiths not swordsmiths

​

>In a fight whether, is one-on-one, or 100 on 100, pole arms are generally better... to say nothing of you know, being able to shoot people if they're unarmoured. Which makes sense and the Roman's knew that, thus their love of the javelin and darts.

the romans won at pydna and other battles against polearm wielders

2

Intranetusa t1_j1kbaxg wrote

I'd say it was less of a weapons advantage and more due to a tactical advantage of better army composition and more flexible troops. The Roman pila could double as a 7 foot thrusting spear, and many of the Macedonian or Successor State troops also had short swords as backup weapons.

At Pydna and other battles, the Macedonian or Successor state armies had their formations fall apart due to poor tactics and/or inflexible formations that broke apart chasing after the enemy or broke apart due to rough terrain. They also had an overreliance on pike infantry and neglected their supporting troops and cavalry wing that were crucial to a successful mixed unit formation. Alexander's army was less than 1/3 pikemen iirc and was mostly non pikemen.

1

ThoDanII t1_j1lnx36 wrote

Exactly Weapons are less important than their use, skill, Organisation, tacticst and operations

1

Horror_in_Vacuum OP t1_j1aq0ii wrote

Cool, thanks. I kinda feel a little bit ashamed of making so many assumptions now hehe

1

impulsekash t1_j19d3p6 wrote

How does modern armies equip their soldiers with guns? They have an entire industry built around supply their armies.

5

Seismech t1_j19y17a wrote

I'm not a historian.

Rome had standing armies. The very large number (the majority) of the participants in much of Medieval warfare were militia. It's much more economically feasible to buy expensive equipment for a recruit you expect to still be around 5, 10 or 20 years from now, versus a recruit you expect to go back to his farm in a few months.

3

ThoDanII t1_j1bheqh wrote

only after the republic endet

1

Seismech t1_j1bm23w wrote

Began during the mid-republic.

>After the Second Punic War (218–201 BC), the Romans acquired an overseas empire, which necessitated standing forces to fight lengthy wars of conquest and to garrison the newly gained provinces.

Prior to that

>The army consisted of 3,000 infantrymen and 300 cavalrymen, all of which were Equites. The Latins, Sabines, and Etruscans under the Roman state would each provide an extra 1,000 soldiers and 100 cavalrymen.

King Servius of Rome would institute the Servian reforms. These would divide the population into five classes. Each of which would have different roles in the military. The first class could afford to have a cuirass, greaves, a shield, a sword, and a spear. The second class had greaves, a shield, a sword, and a spear. The third class could only afford to have the shield, a sword, and a spear. The fourth class had a shield and a spear. The fifth class would only be a screening force. Any poorer citizen, called capite censi would have no weapons. They would not serve in the army unless it was an emergency

I interpret that as meaning that during the first few centuries the troops were required to provide their own equipment - that it was not supplied by the Roman state.

1

ThoDanII t1_j1bo0zs wrote

those "standing" forces were citicen called to the eagles with their own kit

1

Seismech t1_j1dfc02 wrote

>those "standing" forces were citicen called to the eagles with their own kit

Exactly why I hi-lighted "could afford to have."

Did you read anything OP wrote beyond the title sentence?

>Ok, I'm not a historian, just a history enthusiast, and not a pretty knowledgeable one at that, so correct me if I say anything wrong. Anyway, I always heard that one of the reasons why swords are so iconic in pop culture is the fact that they were really expensive to produce and tended to be more useful as backup weapons, specially in the middle ages. That's probably one of the reasons the weapon became so associated with the archetype of the noble knight, which helped it become so iconic.

I understand that, in the time of the Roman Empire, swords would be much more useful as a main weapon, because armor wasn't so advanced, but that doesn't explain how did they manage to outfit most of their soldiers with gladii. I mean, they're still swords, they still require a lot of material and a lot more work to be made than, say, a spear, which is already an amazing weapon.

1

ThoDanII t1_j1dgx4m wrote

Yes, i did but in context with medieval militia i wanted to make sure that was clear

1

Mech-Monkey t1_j1aj4qz wrote

Another thing that people don't seem to be mentioning is the difference between iron and steel weapons. Making a steel sword of the middle ages was a very different process from making an iron (or even bronze) sword of the roman era. They would definitely not have been able to equip their armies with steel weapons on quite the same level, despite the immense funds and manpower the roman empire had.

3

Horror_in_Vacuum OP t1_j1aqbch wrote

But iron swords were already considerably more difficult to make than bronze swords, weren't they? Because of the whole thing that bronze can be molded and iron needs to be forged. Not to mention the higher melting point of iron ore.

2

Welshhoppo t1_j1atm6g wrote

Not really. To make Bronze you need both copper and tin. So you require a more complex economic network to bring the raw materials to the same place.

Sure Iron is harder to forge, but you can slap an iron forge right by an iron mine and your job is done.

2

flowering_sun_star t1_j1e4k4m wrote

There's a rather good six-part series of blog posts that Bret Devereaux did about how iron and steel manufacture worked in the pre-modern world that can be found here: https://acoup.blog/2020/09/18/collections-iron-how-did-they-make-it-part-i-mining/

As part of it he notes that the investment the romans made into their legions was really quite incredible. Towards the end of part two he notes that the armaments of a legion of 5000 might amount to nearly 50 tons of iron, representing eighty thousand days of labour to make the charcoal alone. They completely deforested vast swathes of land to fuel their empire.

If we take a gladius to be 700g of iron, 3.5 of those tons would be in the swords. But a spear head isn't actually that much lighter. I've seen estimates of medieval spearheads at about half that. Let's say it's 300g, and you can save 2 tons of iron by going to spears. That's just 2 tons out of about fifty! Not really a huge saving in the grand scheme of things.

3

greenslope t1_j1dgxfv wrote

I'm no pro, but reading about Roman history they had gigantic mines where they used slaves to extract resources. I think I remember reading that large portions of Spain were mines. In the book SPQR it states that they generated so much pollution from this that the ice in Greenland shows a noticeable increase in pollution around that time (100 BC-ish onwards).

They also conquered so much territory that I'm presuming they took swords/minerals from those regions. Those people would have had their own mines and the Romans now had access to them too.

2

DeadFyre t1_j1dwn3c wrote

It's not that a sword was prohibitively expensive, it's that peasants don't have disposable income. Even today, it's estimated that 56% of Americans can't cover a $1,000 expense with savings, and they didn't have credit cards in the classical and medieval period.

2

caviarleft t1_j1bb42p wrote

The Romans made use of advanced manufacturing techniques to produce swords, including forging, casting, and grinding. They also had a well-organized supply chain in place for distributing weapons to their soldiers. Production of weapons, including swords, was typically centralized in specialized workshops that were located in urban centers throughout the Roman Empire. These weapons were then stored in warehouses or armories until they were needed by the military. They also had a well-developed transportation network that allowed them to transport weapons to their soldiers wherever they were stationed.

Overall, the combination of advanced manufacturing techniques, a well-organized supply chain, and a well-developed transportation network allowed the Romans to efficiently arm their soldiers with swords and other weapons.

1

ThoDanII t1_j1bhn3g wrote

you do not cast swords, less iron or steal swords they will shatter to easily then.

2

ThoDanII t1_j1bfeo5 wrote

this was the migration period - early middle ages

1

War_Hymn t1_j1bzk8i wrote

The Roman Empire was the pinnacle military and economic power of its day. By the 1st-2nd century CE, the Roman Empire were producing an estimated 50,000 tonnes of iron a year - a rate that won't be seen again by a single nation state until Great Britain in the 1700s. If they could afford to outfit a large portion of their force with metal armour, swords are a pretty trivial matter.

A sword can be expensive, but it can be cheap to produce as well. It just depends on the quality you wanted. The short Roman gladii as others have mentioned required less metal to make and process - it being short also means it could be made with lesser quality iron/steel, as a longer sword experiences more stress in use. From metal analysis, we know Roman gladius varied a lot in iron/steel composition, they were probably mass produced with somewhat minimum quality standards (not much different from milspec items today).

1

Intranetusa t1_j1kbsrt wrote

>. By the 1st-2nd century CE, the Roman Empire were producing an estimated 50,000 tonnes of iron a year

I've read that the estimates of those Roman iron production figures aren't really reliable. This is because those numbers are based on estimates of per capita production from a single Roman province (Roman Britain) that incidentally was a high iron production region, had a lot of iron ore, and had a relatively large military garrison. And that estimate of a disproportionately high iron rich & producing region was then extrapolated to the rest of the empire based the Empire's population.

Edit: You are correct. The unreliable Romano-Britain iron production extrapolation estimates are the estimates for 80k tons, and not estimates for up to 50k tons.

2

War_Hymn t1_j1mcv5m wrote

The estimates you're referring to I believe go up to 80,000 tonnes.

It's hard to extrapolate the exact number since a lot iron production in the Empire at the time were done by small-scale private operations that was spread all over. I think 50,000 tonnes is probably close to what was actually produced for an economically strong state like the RE with a population of 50 million. We know Roman iron smelters were especially good at their craft, running bloomery furnaces that had nominal yields of 20 kg of processed bar iron per furnace run at the upper end.

Assuming 8 men worth of labour needed for smelting/processing 15 kg of bar iron per furnace run, 100 furnace runs per year with spare days in between for processing the bloom, repairing furnaces, restocking, and rest - to produce 50,000 tonnes of iron a year will require an estimated manpower of ~270,000 men. Which will account for ~0.54 percent of a population of 50 million (or 1 worker per 185 people). A bit high but not an impractical ratio given how important of a commodity iron was. At 30,000 tonnes of iron per year, that ratio goes down to 0.32%, or 1 worker per 312 people. My guess is the actual production at peak was 20,000-50,000 tonnes per annum.

2

Intranetusa t1_j1n3i7r wrote

Ah, you are correct. The unreliable Romano-Britain iron production extrapolation estimates are indeed 80k tons, and not 50k tons. Yeh, your explanation of a range of 20k-50k iron production makes sense and that range seems more reasonable.

2

PDV87 t1_j1c5fsp wrote

Swords were particularly rare and expensive in the early middle ages. There were only certain parts of Europe known for their swordsmithing, and they were all controlled by different feudal powers; Frankish swords were high quality and prized by the Norse, for instance. It was also more difficult to learn to use a sword effectively as compared to a spear or an axe.

This kind of specialized training, along with mounted combat, the use of the lance and horsemanship in general, gradually became the province of the knightly and noble classes. Swords became a status symbol and, in some cultures of the medieval period, only knights and noblemen were allowed to carry them (especially during peacetime).

As the middle ages progressed, swords become more and more commonplace, just as the province of warfare begins to expand from the nobility to include professional men-at-arms of lower social rank.

Comparatively, the Roman Republic/Principate/Dominate is a completely different beast. Not only is it a massive polity stretching over the entire Mediterranean basin, it is also a military juggernaut that relies on its legions to continuously conquer new territories. Prior to the Nerva-Antonine dynasty, the idea of 'fixed borders' would have been not only ridiculous but sacreligious as well; the Romans believed they had been granted infinite imperium by the gods. Each victory brings more land, more minerals, more slaves; these resources are exploited and become fuel for the furnace of conquest.

Rome had centralized administration, tax collection, heavy industry, vast natural resources, a state-subsidized, professional standing army and labor that was extremely cost-effective (to put it mildly). States with all of that, on the level of efficiency that the Romans had achieved, would not be seen again in Western Europe until the early modern period. Those are all contributing factors to why Rome was able and willing to equip their legions as they did.

1

PckMan t1_j1dbyol wrote

Well, basically, they made a bunch of swords. It's a testament to Rome's administrative and economic power at the time that they were able to do that. They didn't always do it and the number of equipment produced as well as its quality fluctuated throughout the years but basically they were in a position few other empires, kingdoms and states were where they could produce so much equipment for their army. They still had soldiers who were equipped less well than the rest, most soldiers did not have armor, and for most of Rome's history, soldiers had to pay for their gear out of their own salary rather than being issued from the state, though that did happen for a period.

That being said despite most soldiers having a sword the spear always was the main infantry weapon for pretty much all armies, or if not a spear, some sort of pike or other polearm, pretty much all the way until firearms were widely adopted.

1

nomokatsa t1_j1h860t wrote

How are swords "expensive to produce" and "required much material"? They are basically glorified metal bars, that were sharpened.

And armor not advanced? You know what can stop a metal sword? A sheet of metal (formed into any kind of armor or a shield)

They were not used before because it took some while to get the iron / steel process right (and bronze swords dont really work, bronze is too malleable, you can stab with it - like with a spear - but not slash with it, or it bends)

They were not used afterwards because swords against armor are next to useless, and are just suicide against shot&pike.

1

Ojjuiceman2772 t1_j1jkomv wrote

Truth is most soldiers used spears which was a lot cheaper and much more effective. Those with swords useally brought their own or had a specialized reason on why they needed a sword and not a spear but if you were just a random Roman soldier you almost always got a spear as your main weapon.

1

wanderingpeddlar t1_j1s8o8y wrote

In what era? Or did that not matter? My understainding (Not a pro) was even before the end of the republican times the legions had standardised on sword and shield. Again this is for the legions. If that is wrong when did they start?

1

ThatGIRLkimT t1_j1oon0o wrote

This post caught my attention, because I am curious about it

1

akodo1 t1_j20fcbw wrote

Lot to unpack here.

Swords were more expensive/difficult to make than a spear, but there were cheap and poorly made vs very well made using the best iron/steel, best hardening technology, etc. And they tended to last. Hence they were very prolific.

Also, what was actually associated with knights and knighthood? Golden spurs is what people from medieval to late rennisance most associated with knights, second the horse, third the lance (especially look at the terms used for knights and those non-knights that were similarly armed. It's literally Lancer in many cases, horseman in others)

The sword gets a boost in relevance because a big part of knighthood was supposed to be vows, keeping your word, etc. The sword was a great stand-in for a crucifix

It's only modern pop culture that associates sword with knighthood. And that's because it makes a much better movie prop than a horse or a lance

1

bsonk t1_j1ah92i wrote

Early Rome didn't and it was a whole deal to arm plebes and include them in the armed forces

0

Mountain_Jello7747 t1_j1c2g9y wrote

Slave labor helped fun most of their infrastructure, including their military

0

KnudsonRegime t1_j1c41jp wrote

The swords also sucked. Their effectiveness came from the training of the soldiers and allowed them to make what are, essentially, the original Pakistani steel. Because they did have a military industrial complex they were big into recycling broken weapons, further reducing the need for high quality products. The standard issue Chinese Jian style sword was the same kind of thing. All about volume production.There were weapons for the wealthy and powerful of much high quality than the Legionaries (and Chinese) infantry used, but they were not the standard.

Popular history gets things kind of muddled because the price of steel weapons skyrocketed as the Western Roman Empire crumbled. During the Middle Ages steel weapons were quite uncommon and served as a mark of wealth that often passed through multiple generations of a family, sometimes reaching near legendary status. That concept was retroactively, and incorrectly, applied to Roman weapons.

0

Astrosociologist t1_j1cfxjt wrote

It's simple. They had as many soldiers as they had swords. Or man. Whichever is less.

0

TheCryptokenKeeper t1_j19bun0 wrote

Why do you think the Roman Empire kept expanding? Resources. The empire was a machine so they had the manpower and money to buy and/ or make weapons

−1

19seventyfour t1_j1a1s8a wrote

Loot and plunder went a long way through the bronze age

−1

2Mike2022 t1_j19qm90 wrote

I also am not a historian I work construction. The Romans always fortified the camps they made and a short sword could be used to aid in digging cutting post even firewood if needed. So I see it more as a multi purpose tool. Also metal was not just left after a battle it would have been collected and reused.

−4

J_G_E t1_j19rrz2 wrote

>The Romans always fortified the camps they made and a short sword could be used to aid in digging cutting post even firewood if needed.

I know this may be a shock, but the romans has invented the axe, and the shovel.

what you're saying is roughly on par with saying that an F1 racecar can also be used for towing a caravan,

7

ThoDanII t1_j1bhsng wrote

and they had sophisticated entrenching tools

2

Grossadmiral t1_j19u81v wrote

Swords lose their edge really easily. Using it to cut a tree is a good way to destroy the blade.

5

Horror_in_Vacuum OP t1_j19qxat wrote

I know, but swords are rather fragile and demand a lot of maintenance. Using it to chop wood would be a terrible idea. And I know metal was reused, but in that time, it was much more valuable than it is today.

4

2Mike2022 t1_j19vcfs wrote

Of course they wouldn't cut logs or post with it but saplings to weave in between the post that's likely.

1

ThoDanII t1_j1bhuy9 wrote

for that spade and dolabra were used

2