Comments by "Evan" (@MrEvanfriend) on "Why Did The Romans Use The Gladius Instead Of Spears?" video.

  1. I imagine that the gladius was better against armored opponents than a spear would for one simple reason - it can be aimed with more precision. Fighting an opponent in some form of mail armor, I'd rather be able to close with him behind the shield wall and aim at the gaps in his armor with a short sword than try to hit him with a spear from six feet (more or less two meters) out. With the gladius you can it an unarmored arm, leg, or neck far better than you could with a spear, for the simple fact that it's shorter. Therefore my conclusion is essentially the opposite of yours - that the gladius was more effective against armored opponents than a spear is, for the simple reason that you can use it more precisely. Against unarmored opponents, there is no need to use a short sword when any strike will kill/disable your enemy at a longer distance. Against an armored opponent, a spear may be deflected, whereas a thrust from a short sword at face-to-face distance can be stuck in an armpit or a thigh or a neck or some other uncovered body part.
    1