THE ROMAN SWORD IN THE REPUBLICAN PERIOD AND AFTER

The sword was a mainstay of the Roman military throughout its history. It is my intention to describe the manufacture of swords, as well as the use of steel for sword blades. I will then describe the evolution of the sword within the Roman world in the Republican period and afterwards. Although the length and width of the sword did not change much, some dramatic changes occurred in the types of swords made. In interpreting the available evidence we will see how the style of fighting changed, as well.

FORGING A SWORD

Assuming that the iron ore has already been mined, the first priority was to get the ore as clean as possible, removing the physical dirt. In a process called hushing, water was brought to the refining area and allowed to wash across the ore. This washed away most of the physical impurities on the surface. Unfortunately, the ore was still far from being ready for the forge. Iron is often chemically combined with oxygen and hydrogen, especially in the form of water. The ore was crushed into little pieces in an iron mill. Beds of charcoal were laid down and the ore was put on them, in alternating layers of ore and charcoal. By burning the charcoal, the water was driven out of the ore. There was still oxygen in the iron, however. To get rid of the oxygen the ore was packed into a bloomery (or small furnace) with charcoal. Once a good fire was going, the bloomery was sealed to keep oxygen in the air from getting into the mix. The fire needed oxygen to burn, so it pulled it out of the ore. The other impurities melted and could be allowed to flow out in the form of slag. The good iron collected in a softened mass in the bottom of the bloomery. This mass of iron is called the bloom, and it was the building block from which sword blades were made.

Once the bloom was taken to a blacksmith it was heated in his hearth. The hearth was a charcoal-fueled oven used by the blacksmith to heat his metal. The hearth was usually raised on a stone or brick platform as shown in scenes from the Catacomb of Domatilla and in a relief from Aquileia (Manning 143). The bloom was heated in the hearth and hammered into a workable condition, which helped remove the final impurities. The metal was now ready for the anvil. The smith used a hammer to pound the metal into blade shape as he held it in place with tongs. As it cooled, he would reheat it to keep it workable. The rest of the process of making a blade brings up a very important question: did the Romans use iron or steel for their blades?

IRON OR STEEL?

It is controversial whether the Romans used steel. According to Manning, “there is no evidence for widespread, regular, intentional production of steel in the Roman Empire,” (Manning 148). The problem is that the only essential difference between iron and steel is the amount of carbon in the metal. Regular wrought iron has a carbon content of about 0.5 percent and steel has a carbon content of 1.5 percent. It is possible that this much carbon was imparted to the blade by the charcoal used to heat the metal as the smith forger the blade. This contact between the metal and charcoal created a sort of outer layer of steel (Manning 148) in a process called carburization. It is doubtful that the Romans were aware that this process was taking place. They probably just observed that blades which were heated and reheated were stronger than those that were not (Healy 232). As the iron is reheated and hammered repeatedly, a strange thing takes place in the blade: it becomes an iron blade with thin strips of steel throughout. This works out very well because it gives the blade the strength of steel, with the “resilience of iron” (Manning 148). Once the blade meets the specifications of the blacksmith, it is quenched. This involves bringing the blade to white heat and then plunging it into a bucket of water. Quenching gives the blade its initial strength, and makes the metal quite hard. The problem with quenching is that it makes the blade quite brittle, so it must then be tempered. To temper a blade, it is reheated a final time to a very specific temperature. The temperature it is raised to determines the hardness of the blade, and how well it will keep its edge. The only way a Roman smith could determine the heat of the blade was through its color and his own experience. This is where the skill of the smith really came into play. According to Williams, however, the Romans preferred blades that were allowed to air cool after being tempered to those that were quenched (Williams 77-87).

Steel was also probably produced in the bloomery, where the ore was smelted with charcoal as the fuel. Aristotle noticed:

“Wrought iron indeed will melt and grow soft, and then solidify again.

And this is the way in which ‘steel’ is made. For the dross sinks to the

bottom and is removed from below, and by repeated subjection to this

treatment the metal is purified and ‘steel’ is produced.” (Healy 232)

So the question of iron versus steel is really a matter of perspective. The blades had steel in them because of their exposure to charcoal, but they were not made entirely of steel. Thus, it appears that the Romans did have steel and appreciated its qualities, and that a typical sword had many bands of steel in it, whether the steel was intentionally created or not.

EVOLUTION OF THE SWORD

In the Republican period, the dominant style of sword was the gladius Hispaniensis. It is widely believed that this style of sword was adopted by the Romans after they encountered it in Spain (Bishop 53). The blade of the sword was approximately 30 inches in length and 2 inches wide (Bishop 53). The blade tapered down to a point. Only one of these swords has ever been recovered. It was found off the island of Delos , in the remains of a Roman ship that had been sunk by pirates (Bishop 53). When found, the recovered sword was still in its sheath, with a wooden hilt. It is believed that this was the popular style of sword for a long time, until the first century AD. One must remember, however, that since only one example of this sword was ever found, this assessment was arrived at with very little evidence.

 

 

Gladius Hispaniensis from Delos

from Bishop by James Hurst

<Picture: gladius Hispaniensis by James Hurst>

 

In the first century AD, a lot changed about the sword. The new style of sword, referred to as the “Pompeii” type, was shorter and had a double-edged blade with a sharp point (Bishop 69). The dimensions of the new blade were approximately 16 inches by 2 inches. This type of sword is found on one of the most famous Roman structures, Trajan’s Column. It is suspected that this style of sword was very popular, since almost all of the swords depicted on the column are Pompeii style (Oakeshott 90). Four of these swords were found at an excavation in Pompeii, hence the name (Bishop 71). These four swords must have been made before AD 79, when Pompeii was buried, and they have been dated to around 64 AD. The sheaths for these Pompeii swords were odd in that they did not have guttering, which was the “U-shaped copper alloy binding along the edges to prevent damage from the sword blade during sheathing or unsheathing” (Bishop 71). Instead of guttering, the sheaths were highly ornamented with decorative metal plates. Cavalry swords during this period were much longer, of course. This blade was called the spatha. The spatha was a long, straight single-edged sword of iron or steel with an average blade size of 27 inches (Evangelista 507). The spatha has been found in a couple of places. Pieces of these swords have been discovered in Rottweil and Newstead. The Rottweil piece (34 in, 1 � in) is much longer than the Newstead piece (24 in, 1 in) (Bishop 74). A whole spatha blade was found in the Vimose bog in Denmark. It is almost 40 inches in length, with a bronze guard (Oakeshott 98).<Picture: the Newstead piece by James Hurst><Picture: the Rottweil piece by James Hurst>

The Newstead and Rottweil pieces

from Bishop by James Hurst

 

 

<Picture: calvary sword from Vimose by James Hurst>

cavalry sword from Vimose

from Oakeshott by James Hurst

 

 

 

The next innovation in swords occurred in the second century AD. It was actually a rather minor change, compared to the difference between the gladius Hispaniensis and the Roman "Pompeii" blade. The new blade did not change in dimension, but a new element was introduced to the pommel, a ring. A ring-pommel just means that instead of the classic weighted ball at the end of the hilt, there was now a hollow ring. In Aquincum, there is a second -century gravestone that shows a soldier wearing a ring-pommelled sword (Bishop 111).

By the end of the second century, the ring-pommel was no longer used to suspend the sword. This had been replaced by scabbards once again. The disappearance of the ring-pommel is not nearly as interesting as the next innovation in blades. The "Pompeii" sword receded into history as the spatha once again became prevalent. The new sword was basically a modified spatha, with a double edge. The blade length now varied a lot more, between 22 and 32 inches (Evangelista 508). These spatha swords have been found in many places. In Germany, burial sites have been excavated to reveal spatha which have been heavily decorated with figures on the blade for obvious religious reasons.

While the "Pompeii" sword was no longer in use, there were other short swords. A truly triangular blade made its appearance for the first time since iron had become the metal of choice for weapons. In an ironwork hoard in Kunzing, many short swords of this period were discovered, a triangular bladed short sword among them. Vegetius also mentions the use of something called ‘semispatha’, which is presumably a shorter spatha (Bishop 130).

From this point on, the double-bladed long sword was the dominant bladed weapon. Very few changes occurred after the spatha was created. Most of the changes were stylistic in nature, rather than functional. What is thought of as the “classic Roman sword” was now the norm. The “classic Roman sword” means that the blade was between 25 and 30 inches long, the guard was very narrow, and the hilt was topped with a rounded ball. A spatha from a burial site at Koln fits this description perfectly (Bishop 162). Almost all depictions of swords from the fourth century onward fit this description. These depictions include the porphyry of the Venice Tetrarchs and other fourth century porphyry statues at Berlin and Ravenna (Bishop 164). These depictions also show that a scabbard at the waist was the style of sword suspension that was the most popular. One of the few variations on the “classic Roman sword” that existed was the use of an eagle head instead of a weighted ball on some pommels. These are also shown on the porphyry of the Venice Tetrarchs which leads one to believe that they were for ceremonial use rather than functional (Bishop 164).

the "classic Roman sword" from Koln

from Bishop by James Hurst

<Picture: the >

STYLES OF FIGHTING

The size and style of a sword is a reflection of how it is used, so that we can draw some inferences concerning use from the nature of these blades. The gladius Hispaniensis was single-edged and always pointed. It was still a long blade, however. From this it can be deduced that the gladius Hispaniensis was almost exclusively used for stabbing the enemy, rather than hacking at him. This reflects the skill of the professional Roman soldier over most of his enemies. There is much evidence that this was the popular way of fighting against the longer Celtic swords. The Roman Livy tells of a duel he heard of between a barbarian and a Roman. The Roman was armed with a shield and a sword, as was the barbarian. The Roman caught the bottom of the barbarian’s shield with his own, and lifted the barbarian’s shield out of the way. He then stabbed him in the stomach and groin, killing him (Evangelista 507). The spatha was also used by cavalry, as stated above. The mounted cavalry needed the extra reach that the spatha afforded to reach the infantry from the top of a horse.

The double edge of the "Pompeii" sword also gives evidence to the fact that the Romans valued the ability to cut at an enemy, rather than just thrust at him. The semispatha was also in use at the same time for another reason. A short blade is much better suited for fighting against a long sword, when in the hands of a skilled soldier. The quick delivery of a stab to the face or stomach was still a favored method of executing the enemy. The warrior just had to step inside of the enemy’s guard and kill him. Short swords are also less tiring when used in conjunction with a shield.

CONCLUSIONS

Forging a sword is a surprisingly complex process. From purifying the ore, to tempering the blade it was a talent that took no small amount of skill. The iron versus steel question is moot, since steel definitely was used, though not by design. The evolution of the sword was another facet of the history of the Roman sword. The Roman sword went through many changes, which were reflected in the manner in which the swords was employed.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bishop, M.C. and J.C.N. Coulston. Roman Military Equipment. 1st ed. London: B.T. Batsford Ltd, 1993.

 

Evangelista, Nick. The Encyclopedia of the Sword. 1st ed. London: Greenwood Press, 1995.

 

Healy, John F. Mining and Metallurgy in the Greek and Roman World. London: Thames and Hudson, 1978.

 

Manning, W.H. "Blacksmithing. " Roman Crafts. Eds. D. Strong and David Brown. New York: Duckworth, 1976.

 

Oakeshott, Ewart R. The Archaeology of Weapons. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Publisher, 1963.

 

Williams, A.R. "Roman Arms and Armour. A Technical Note. " Journal of Archaeological Science 4 (1977): 77-87.