Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Was The Roman Gladius (Sword) Really That Good? Response to Schola Gladiatoria" video.

  1. In classic time they said they adopted it from the Samnites (Polybius). Infact the "Samnite" gladiator fought with short sword and rectangular shield.
    3
  2. To me the change shown in the first episode of "Rome" is pretty much accurate, except for the fact that it shows a continuous "chain" of men retreating. In reality it takes only few seconds to reach the last line, so , if the legionary in first line fought for even just two minutes. You would not see that "chain". If a maniple fought in battle in a 5X32 formation (so pretty stretched), and every legionary fought for 2 minutes, he could then rest for 8 minutes (14 minutes in a 8X20 formation). That way a trained soldier could fight in the best conditions for hours.
    3
  3. In 1 vs. 1. Not that much in formation fights.
    3
  4. Wars were typically fought in summer, so some protection had to be sacrified in exchange of the possibility to fight for more time. IE some historian stated that, at Azincourt, many French knights had been put out of combat by the heat way before being hit by a weapon.
    3
  5. Probably because the triarii were usually kept in the back of the formation, where their primary task was to resist to an eventual cavalry charge, if the enemy calvalry managed to outflank the legion. It's much easier for a not-so-deep formation to resist to cavalry charges with spears than with swords.
    2
  6. The Romans took the mail armor from them. A hig-class celtic warrior was better armed than a legionary, especially for 1 vs. 1 fights (see for example the particular celtic scabbard suspension system, that allowed to run with the sword not "swinging" and hitting the flank), but high-class warriors were rare. Most of the enemies had not a complete panoply.
    1