Recent comments in /f/history

terrendos t1_j1ans90 wrote

Reply to comment by Trevor_Culley in How did the Romans manage to arm most of their soldiers with swords? by Horror_in_Vacuum

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

Liamkeatingwasere t1_j1aliv7 wrote

Reply to Greek Hinduism - any surviving legacy? by Isabella1293

Although not an answer about Greek ideas permeating India, there is a group called the Kalash in Pakistan descended from Alexander's soldiers and local women. They have maintained their fused culture. There's a good essay about them in The Critic.

1

ptahonas t1_j1ajlaq wrote

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

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

Mech-Monkey t1_j1aj4qz wrote

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

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

Welshhoppo t1_j1ahbcq wrote

Reply to comment by bluelion70 in How did the Romans manage to arm most of their soldiers with swords? by Horror_in_Vacuum

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