Why didn't they make the gladius longer? It's a sword for babies

>Roman
>medieval warfare

Read the wiki on maniple for this answer

By the way, when MMA artists will get one? Essentially, they are the same as gladiators.

They did. Apparently they'd gone back to using spears as their primary weapon by the time of Caracalla.

spear auxiliary was very common not to mention the triarii would often use spears. pikes werent around for most of the history of rome.

Swords are for stabbing with, user.

That's literally the entire point and training behind the Gladius

Yep, stabbing up into the belly specifically, to do damage to the vitals.

I feel like it would have probably been smarter for the Romans to use short spears desu senpai.

It didn't really matter what weapon they used barbecues they were VASTLY dominant due to their discipline and training more so than their tactics (though the pila were smart af). I mean they fought every culture in the Mediterranean, I'm sure somebody had more cleverly designed pointy metal sticks.

It's the short sword that makes it effective.
Long sword? In packed meele, you're fucked.
Short sword? WOrks wonders with the shied.
Block, smash the base into their face, stab, pull back. Repeat

What you're describing is something like a Zulu iklwa, but I don't think it would've suited the Romans' needs. A sword is much more manouverable than a spear just through virtue of how it's made.

Plus they did go back to primarily using spears during the 3rd century, possibly because they were easier to mass produce in the new state-owned factories, different troop types could use them, and there was a much greater emphasis on cavalry in warfare generally.

It's a carbine

>It didn't really matter what weapon they used barbecues they were VASTLY dominant due to their discipline and training more so than their tactics (though the pila were smart af).

They used the sword precisely because it fit a disciplined, mobile, versatile army more. The spear keeps the enemy away, lets you attack from a safer distance, lets you present a very dangerous front to the enemy with a forest of spear tips constantly jabbing forward, but a formation with spears has to have the numbers to do that, and they all have to have their spears pointed down, locked among the men around to reach out in front, and like that, they can't turn easily and engage to the sides or turn to face an enemy that isn't dead on, or even rearrange the formation quickly without disengaging and bringing their spears up, and if the situation requires thinner and more spread out formations their effectiveness plummets exponentially. Swordmen are capable of sparring by themselves within and outside the formation, the spear can't spar for shit when it's held on a single arm, in a very tight and packed space. It can only poke up and poke down.

The original sword they lifted it from the Celts was already short. It was a shanker used in close formation in contrast to their longswords.

'the baby stabber'

Why didn't they make the gladius longer? It's a sword for babies - snowmonkey that got stabbed by a gladius.

famous last words.

>add more steel to symbolic dick
wow so conscious

Romans mostly lifted their early warfare methods and gear from Greeks. The Gladius would have almost equal influence from the Xiphos than from anything Celt.

...

Longer swords were better for the later empire since more cav + wider spaced formations

OP, you're basically asking "why are service pistols so small? Infantry should carry rifles!"

The gladius was a backup weapon, for after you were done with the spear.

The gladius hispaniensis was adapted from swords used by iberians

The gladius was the primary weapon, the pila were a secondary weapon

Pilla aren't spears, user

You're sure that's not the spear?

Which were mostly celtic.

You don't need a long sword.
The purpose of the gladius (and the personal dagger-length sword whose name I'm forgetting) was to stab, not to hack or cut.
Stabbing is infinitely more lethal and takes two men off the field (one to tend to his wound).
Same policy still existed until recently in the British Army. Inflict severe wounds instead of kills.

Daily reminder that the Irish had an advanced metal working culture from as early as 2500BC, they also enter the Iron Age early, with finds from the 8th century BC of Iron weapons.

cont-
Iron Spear from 8th century BC, luckily buried in a bog which preserved it, most Iron weapons erode after a couple of 100 years, pic related was found in near perfect condition due to bog preservation properties.

DAT'S ROITE LADDIE, BHÍOMAR CLAIMHTEOIRÍ AGUS CAAAAAAAAC

Scotland too.

Yeah, during the Kingdom period and the early republic. But not post-Celtic invasion of the early Republic.

Furthermore the Gladius is Celtic as fuck. The name itself for starters: Greek swords like the Xiphos (or swords in general) were known in Latin as Ensis. The Gladius however came from the Celtdom, where the word for sword is "Kladibbos."

In addition the Xiphos lacks the tapered point of Gladii considering the fact that Celts invented chainmail and fought amongst themselves, thereby encountering other cunts who had chainmail, ergo giving the gladius (and damn near every weapon they had) a tapered point.

Finally, the Romans adopted the Celtic practice of wearing your sword on the sword-arm side of your body (pic related). Celts deployed in tight formations like shield walls where drawing a sword from the other side of your body would probably slash your shield arm up, especially considering the way the Celts held their oval/elongated shields.
Not every Gladius is a gladius hispaniensis. Also the Celts and their Celtiberi have a great amount of influence on Iberian weapons.

British Celts are backward as fuck.

Created their own road networks though, cobbled them too. They were even trying to invent the train that early also, funny that they would eventually become masters of intercity trade, besides all the turmoil that occurred between the Iron Age and Industrial Age.

>Still used fucking Chariots.
Nah.
>Still did that naked warrior woad bullshit 300 years after that shit died among continental Celts.
Nah.

British Celts are backward as fuck.

How many academic history books have you read about the ancient Britons?

>Not every Gladius is a gladius hispaniensis
No, but the ones OP is talking about are

>Short swords have the 2nd largest killing record in history. Only the machine gun would eclipse it.
>More people throughout history fought with spears as could not afford swords so spears probably have more kills
>Machine guns have more kills than artillery but 70% of all deaths in ww1 were due to artillery
Yea nah m8.
Tbqh spears (if you include pikes) would definitely have most kills throughout history as they are such a timeless and abundant weapon.

Well OP didn't say "Why didn't they make the gladius hispaniensis longer?" He just said gladius.

Again: not every gladius is a gladius hispaniensis. But all of them are short and stubby. Here is a non-spic gladius.

Doesn't matter really, the gladius swords Iberi used also descended from the Celtic design.

what about sticks and stones.

Why didn't Romans use curved swords if they were gonna fight half naked against other half naked people?
Straight swords are only good against heavy armour. Curved swords are far superior against flesh and light armour.

Metallurgy was not that developed yet. Long blades require quality steel, something rare and precious at the time, much easier to make a short stout blade with less high quality ferro alloys.
Spatha type blades came up later and only after the Romans secured certain Iron resources from the Celts and when changing warfare called for longer blades.

Probably not because the human population was so low before we invented the spear.

Yea but that was like back in the day before agriculture and large populations knomsayin.

What is that?

The composite bow is high on that list, Genghis killed an estimated 40mio alone, Timur another 30.

A little windmill. Cute.

haha

Roman infantry when in it's close formations (Most of the time) needed a blade to hold without it being clumsily hitting your comrades, and since it was a tight formation most of the time stabbing was the main attack.

Spathas were used though, cavalry used spatha-esque sword and during the late empire so did infantry.

Not just any windmill. It's the windmill of tolerance and friendship.

Id say that the top 3 weapons with most kills in history on the list are:
>Spears (Including Pikes and spear style lances for cavalry)
>Arrows (Not separating different forms of bows but also not including crossbow bolts)
>Shields
I reckon throughout the ages a fuck ton of people have been beaten to death with shields in combat, just because usually its always in your hand and like spears its a pretty timeless weapon spanning from the 15th century BC to like just before Gun powder took off.
Just my guess though.
Machine guns probably don't make top 10 as they haven't been around for too long and artillery probably only scrapes the top 5 as it is a bit older and very destructive now.

Arrows are just mini-spears if you think about it

What you just said is stupid but it is also true. Thank you for freeing me from my blindness.

It's shortness allowed for more units to fight more closely, and made it more structurally harder to break. Steel metallurgy wasn't that developed at Rome's time; the tensile strength of metal in swords was low compared to modern standards, and more closer to Iron. The crucial difference between Iron and Steel blades and objects is that steel has better structural integrity; slam a steel rod / rebar against the ground and you notice that it vibrates pretty well but is harder to bend--that's because of it's higher carbon content in it allows it to take on stress while being more able to balance back than iron (which will just more prone to bend to the force) or bronze (which is more prone to shattering to the force). Seeing how the gladius was a legionaires' primary weapon, making sure it didn't break or had to be replace would be crucial.

So they could instead carry javelins that they could throw in a volley to overwhelm their enemy.

Spears don't work well with the scutum in close formations, it's rectangular shape compared to the round shields like the aspis restrains a legionaries' field of sight and aim--he would either have to aim his spear above the top border and look above, and make him more vulnerable, or aim from the side that restricts his aim horizontally so long as he's in a tight formation.

pikes are fucked if your ranks are compromised, and are far more reliant on auxiliary forces to protect them than legionaries.

>stabbing
Longer swords can stab from further away

You don't want longer blades for stabbing, you want longer blades for slashing. It's the physics behind it. To stab someone with a longer blade would mean having to bring your arm back even further, then thrust it in them with a high chance of losing your sword due to the added weight and length put into the enemy making it harder to pull back out.

>this makes the HEMA guys giggle

they still mainly used the gladius for like 300years tho

They just took one step forward, like the Spartans.

Babies? Are you retarded?

The gladius killed untold thousands of Rome's foes, and fellow Romans!

Remember Mongolians used swords to decapitate entire towns. Each Mongo was required to kill a set number of people, like 20 each.

>Remember Mongolians used swords to decapitate entire towns. Each Mongo was required to kill a set number of people, like 20 each.
fucking kpi's

They were fighting more than barbarians

probably an etruscan swastika

Yeah but they stab from really up close as well

You just threw a javeline and have a giant shield, you're not worried about "further away"

The Gladius' shortness has nothing to do with combat in formation. Celtic longswords were considered better, but they were expensive, pattern-welded stuff. (The bending thing is a myth)
As metallurgy made it feasible to make longer swords in greater numbers, the Spatha (supposedly modeled after the swords used by wealthy Gallic cavalry auxiliaries) was adopted en masse.

they actually spent most of their history using spears. They started out with all hoplite-styled spear infantry, which evolved into the hastati/princepe/triarii system and all 3 groups still used spears. They didn't switch to swords as a primary until after contact with the spanish, and then they went back to spears in the late era when cavalry became more dominant.

Nigger barbarians didn't look like this. They had armor.

Because Romans were too short to ever match their enemies in reach, so the sword was made to max out it's attack speed and maneuverability. The idea was to get under and inside the enemy and frantically hack away at their limbs

Actually a lot fought butt naked or in clothes

I think it had to do with being able to move the sword between your left and right side while having your husk of a shield in front of you.

>Butt naked.
After the Battle of Telamon, there weren't really Butt naked Celts running around in the continent anymore. The practice died out among them though the idiots in Britain continued to do so.

It does have to do with formation you dollop.

Long swords are great for more tribal warfare. For massed armies, at the front line, packed against each other? They're shit. You need short swords.

The Spatha was used a lot by German mercs. It either came from their influence, Celtic influence, or native evolution of the gladius to better fit mounted warriors.

>pikes weren't around
they absolutely were, they were just used differently and not by the romans

have fun marching around with pila AND a spear
in combat you would look like that guy who can't hold his limes

Why don't infantry carry a rifle instead of a service pistol?

>have fun marching around with pila AND a spear
Celts did that a lot.

You even have the Iberians and the Celtiberi lugging both Spears and heavy-as-fuck Soliferrum around.

Artillery 100 cent has the highest kill count you fucking moron. Lol final argument of kings up in yo mommas box bitch

Decent armor and a big shield allow you to bring a fight to extreme close range, where a short, stabby sword is ideal. If longer swords were more suitable for Roman military campaigning, they'd have used them. They didn't.

Why does NATO uses 5.56? It's a caliber for babies

Shitty iron made that the ideal length and width

Blade shape and cross-section are what determine a sword's suitability for cutting or thrusting, not its overall size. Two of the longest used in historical combat were the rapier and the estoc, both of which were designed for stabbing. Blades that are broad and/or curved are good for cutting, while blades that are straight and narrow are good for thrusting.

>They didn't switch to swords as a primary until after contact with the spanish
I don't think that's accurate. Source?

>If longer swords were more suitable for Roman military campaigning, they'd have used them. They didn't.
But they did.

Are you including nepolionic cannons as artillery? When most people say artillery they think of artillery which provide indirect fire.

Yeah but the Romans could throw TWO pilum and then still have a sword

Yeah but that was after it counts dude. Those late empire guys weren't even Romans anymore

Yeah, Iberians and Celt-Iberians did that too. A noble Iberian warrior fighting in foot would use a soli-ferra (an all iron javelin about 1.5m-2m), one or more javelins/pila/falarica and still could reserve a spear, with a falcata/short sword/long poignard as an ultimate weapon.

>A noble Iberian warrior
>noble
Probably had people carrying his shit before and after.

>ultimate weapon
You're a fucking nerd

>On Veeky Forums.
>In the HIS board.
>Not being a nerd.
Also I mean it more like a last resource weapon. The last weapon you would use, the ultimate weapon. Also nobles fought in formations, around they Devotios protecting them.