Swords and Shields

I'm doing research for weapons used at Chalon (451 CE) by Romans and barbarians. I'm under the impression that barbarian shields were mostly round, wooden, lined in leather or metal (silver or brass) with a metal shield boss. Also, I believe the Scutum were also wooden. I'm also a bit confused if the swords were steel or iron. Pictures of the swords in this period show some to be rough and jagged not smooth, but I've had a hard time finding references to the manufacture. In GERMANIC WARRIOR AD 236-568 Osprey-- there is a reference to 'pattern welded blades...made by iron twisted together, hammered, cut up, then recombined." Being stereotypically true to my gender, I'm not quite sure what the "recombined" process entails, but I'm asking if a true steel sword existed in the 5th century and in Domitian's time first century.

I've been reading a historical novel set in 81 CE under Domitian and the Roman soldiers have steel swords and shields that resonate a clang upon impact. I realize it's fiction but I pay attention to these details.

Are there any weapons experts available to comment?

The words steel and iron are often used for the same things and there is no clear distinction between the two, especial in context of Antiquity. Generally speaking roman swords are considered being made of steel.

The famous roman legionary shield 'scutum' was made of wood with a metal part in the center, but I doubt it was still used so late. At Chalons probably everybody had similar weapons.

Recombined means that the pieces of metal were heated and then hammered again into a single piece.

You can look here about pattern welded blades:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_welding

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katana_construction

Some nice saxon pattern welded swords were found in Britain.

This type of swords were always very expensive. Pattern welded swords belonged to the rich elite, not most soldiers.

Roman equipment is usually thopught of as being a standard pattern. That wasn't entirely true, since the arms and equipment were for much of the empire manufactured and supplied locally, often to the extent of being ordered by individual soldiers. The question of how similar Roman swords were is a difficult one because there's only a limited sample in the archaeological record, though in fairness there is indeed a broad continuity, although the shape did generally change over time, with the point becoming shorter, the blade straighter edged, and a gradual shortening followed by an almost abandonment in favour of either barbarian style swords or the cavalry spatha (Like a gladius, but longer, so better suited to fighting from horseback).

Iron weapons had been out of circulation in Roman hands for perhaps a thousand years before Chalons. Steel, which is iron with added carbon and a superior material for making swords, would vary in quality. To some extent, the quality depended on how much the owner was prepared to pay for it, but there must have been regional variations or swordsmiths with better reputations.

As Kosmo states, pattern welding is a matter for the wealthy. Such swords take a long time to make. instead of simply hammering out a long strip of steel to shape, this process involves that then folding it over and starting again. The idea is similar to rope or a piece of wood. The individual fibres aren't so strong, but entwined tightly, the whole thing is much stronger. The pattern results from the way the metal is folded and indicates a high level of expertise in mannufacture.

As to the description of swords making a resounding clang, that 's only true if the blade impacts another resilient metal surface. Since most barbarian shields were wooden and had no metal reinforcement around the edge, it's more likely a hollow thud is appropriate. There are descriptions of post-Roman british shields in welsh poetry of this period which mention the loud cracking noises made by poor quality shields breaking under impact of weapon thrusts.

Some shields - probably those of the poorer soldier/warrior were edged in Rawhide, which is the stuff 'dog-chews' are made of. Years ago when I was into re-enacrting and research, we found that edging in rawhide kept the planking at the edge of the shield straight and prevented individual planks bending. But most importantly we found that even a sharp sword had a job cutting through it, and it took a lot of effort to get through the rawhide and start damaging the shield proper. And we were using heavier, slightly longer swords than the late and immediate post Roman spatha.

The issue with 'steel' as far as ancient technology is concerned as has already been mentioned ther best swords were made out of a combination of iron and steel. In normal items there would often only be a small section of hardened iron with many of the qualities of modern steel. This small section provided a sharper edge but was more brittle consequently it usually was 'hammer' welded onto a larger section of iron which provided resilience to the weapon.

As Kosmo ahs indicated already the pattern welded weapons used more equal quantities of iron and steel which started as bars or long rods and were extensively worked together with the 'patterning' the result of the continual working and folding together of the metal until they formed a unified weapon with both resilience to impact and the ability to take and keep a sharp edge.

A 'combination of iron and steel'? Since steel is simply iron with added impurities like carbon, that's an odd thing to say, and really only describing steel with less impurities in it. In any event, our sources say the opposite. In particular, spanish steel is much admired and a good sword is described as being able to be bent over the head to reach the shoulders and still snap back into the correct flat shape - which in other words, describes 'spring steel'.

It is true that some swordmakers realised that a softer internal blade surrounded by a hard sheath to form a keen and persistent cutting edge was desirable. Film makers discovered the same problem. In recent years false swords made of harder material shattered easily, and required a softer core to absorb impact. The problem here of course is that sword manufacture in Roman times wasn't at the level of modern material science, nor for that matter, the extraordinary craftmanship of oriental masters. That was why they thought swords made from spring steel were better than their own cruder weapons which although superior to the bronze swords of their tribal past, were not capable holding a sharp edge for long, and being slightly pliant in order to prevent fractures in use, remained vulnerable to battle damage.

These considerations, plus the adoption of close order infantry tactics, brought the Romans to the decision that the short stabbing weapon was the best way to go. The length of the sword is also interesting. There seems to have been a cultural trend during imperial times toward shorter blades, evidenced both in the legions and the arena. Noticeably, the use of exotic gladiatorial blades almost coincides with the abandonment of the gladius as the primary infantry weapon.

A 'combination of iron and steel'? Since steel is simply iron with added impurities like carbon, that's an odd thing to say,

There is continuing debate amongst archaeologist about the extent to which ancient societies used what could be termed 'steel': some even argue that steel was not consistently or deliberately manufactured until the industrial period.

What is obvious from archaeological evidence is that the vast majority of prehistoric tools made use of relatively small amounts of iron and in the Roman period, although some tools made use of more iron, the amount of weaponary which could be considered to have any of the 'qualities' of steel seems to have been very small. A few metalsmiths in the period (but not all) seem to have spent some effort in combining different quantities and qualities of worked iron together to try and get the right balance between hardness/ brittleness and sharpness - thus the eventual development of 'pattern' welded swords.

There is [however] evidence for some pigs of 'refined' metal actually containing a lot of bloomery waste which would have made them useless for producing decent quality iron work let alone being worked into the fineness of 'steel'.

For which reason my explanatory sentence '...In normal items there would often only be a small section of hardened iron with many of the qualities of modern steel...'

There is [however] evidence for some pigs of 'refined' metal actually containing a lot of bloomery waste which would have made them useless for producing decent quality iron work let alone being worked into the fineness of 'steel'.

 

For which reason my explanatory sentence '...In normal items there would often only be a small section of hardened iron with many of the qualities of modern steel...'

Is that what made the Gladius superior to all of its contemporary swords?

No. The gladius wasn't actually a superior sword at all (it was abandioned by Roman soldiers wholesale in the 4th century) but rather it suited the tactical requirements of a legion, and it must be said, with a long sharp point used to thrust into peoples faces or limbs, it wasn't ineffective. Imagine standing shoulder to shoulder with your brothers in arms, bearing a large oblong shield. The only gap you have to attack is directly ahead, betweem shields, and that's what Roman soldiers were taught to do, though I accept in imperial times there was an increasing tendency to slash and cut in open order, a development brought about by the end of the formal large scale battle period - a reflection of Roman dominance.

Pattern welding is known to have to have been used by celtic swordsmiths, and since the modern legends of the 'magic sword' date from their real life religious connations of sword ownership, the importance of owning a good one was paramount. However, whilst Roman legionaries were expected to pay for their own weapons and therefore seek out the best value for money available, the finance available to common soldiers wasn't much. This was why they paid a portion of their wages to pay for weaponry provided by the legion. Swords in quantity are bound to be cheaper and there's little evidence that their swords were produced with anything like the skill or attention demanded by pattern welding, apart from individual blades ordered by wealthier officers perhaps.

The shape of the earliest Roman swords suggests slashing and cutting attacks, which is pretty much what you'd expect from unsophisticated raiders. However, the thick, stout, long pointed blade of the republican era is a different matter. Since the manner in which these swords were used minimised bending due to combat stress, we can see the design was intended to maximise on that aspect (besides the tactical necessities of close order troops with large oblong shields)

The bending of swords in combat is nothing new. Bronze weapons were prone to this. Since the design of the earliest iron swords were essentially the same, we can assume that similar problems were encountered albeit lessened by the superior material. The Romans were lucky enough to be in the mediterranean area and thus picked up the art of making steel relatively early. From there they developed the gladius after encountering spanish swords.

I'm under the impression that barbarian shields were mostly round, wooden, lined in leather or metal (silver or brass) with a metal shield boss. Also, I believe the Scutum were also wooden. ...

I've been reading a historical novel set in 81 CE under Domitian and the Roman soldiers have steel swords and shields that resonate a clang upon impact. I realize it's fiction but I pay attention to these details.

 

Are there any weapons experts available to comment?

I hope this helps:

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_shield.html

It seems to me that the scutum was heavy enough without adding too much metal to it. Note that the smaller hoplon which was covered in bronze was at least as heavy as the scutum. The hoplon was only effective in phalanx formation, as it weight made it necessary to hang it over the shoulder, providing unbalanced protection. The scutum could be used both in close order and open order fighting but it was not ideal for open order situations. The scutum was also very heavy, but its rectangular shape allowed the soldier to rest it upright on the ground.

Barbarian shields were round or oval, and I would think that they had to be somewhat lighter so that the warriors could wield their large swords. They could only have metal in certain critical spots like the boss.

Thank you all for sharing your knowledge and viewpoints. This is immensely helpful. If only I could hold a spatha and have a tactile understanding of this, but I had the same wish when I was researching the Hun composite bow! <g> At least I wont be afraid to use the word steel and I know my Frank shields are truly wooden and so "Thud" it is. No clangs for me, unless it's sword against sword or axe.

Cinzia

What might shock you is the weight and balance. Romans used heavier wooden dummy weapons to practice and build their strength. A gladius is in fact easier to use as a thrusting weapon than swinging it about, as indeed it was employed in history. Nonetheless, the spatha was longer, and more tiring on the forearm and wrist, but bear in mind that originally it was supposed to be used from horseback thus angled downward much of the time. The reason it was taken up as an infantry sword in later years was due to length. Despite the extra weight of the blade, the average legionary o the late empire had nothing like the training of his predecessors and the nerve to stay fighting almost eyeball to eyeball with very short swords was no longer developed in Roman soldiers.

I've done some digging through my reference books and below are a couple of general points which may be of interest:

Although a couple of metallurgists I have met have reservations about some of his interpretations of how Roman equipment was made; David Sim and Isabel Ridge's book Iron for the Eagles has a couple of relevant sections in it on the Roman's use of iron and steel.

Page 96:

Examination of a piece of lorica segmentata and a strip of sheet metal of secure Roman date (both from Vindolanda) has shown the practice of welding two pieces of ferrous metal, one soft, ductile wrought iron and the other of high carbon steel, was used in Roman times. In the case of the lorica segmentata the steel was on the outside, that is the side which would be facing the enemy. The technique of jointing a hard, stronger steel to a tougher iron body is often found in Roman tools such as knives and axes.

Page 117:

Steel is an alloy of iron (ferrite) and a relatively small amount of carbon. There is no precise defintition of the level of carbon required in iron for it to be termed steel , but in practice iron may be considered stell when it has a carbon content between 0.1 and 2% by weight)

If the interpretation by Sim of the amount of carbon required in iron to create steel is correct then the use of a relatively small amount of charcoal in the manufacturing process would have created at least some steel within any sword blade even if not the entire weapon. Sim also mentions on page 117 that:

Vegetius De Architectus IV.8 writing on preparing the defence notes that 'Iron of both tempers and charcoal are kept in the stores for making arms and armour'. So although we can say that the Romans appreciated the properties of steel and knew how to harden it , whether they actually thought of it as an alloyed material is impossible to say

[Edit (23/6/10) Sim is wrong here; he should have referred to Vegetius 'Epitoma rei militaris (Epitome of Military Science)]

Picking up on your comments about using a spatha, although I don't have anything on the construction of a gladius; Simon James Excavations at Dura-Europos 1928-1937 Final Report The Arms and Armour and other military equipment does have some references to spathae.

In the catalogue of military equipment on page 145 it describes an 'iron longsword with chape' found during the excavations which was 'whole except for the tip of the tang and possibly a small piece near the point' as being

Overall length 790mm. Blade length 645mm, width 5mm flaring to 58mm at the shoulders, thickness 10mm. Tang length 145mm, width 22mm tapering to 11mm.

Regarding the general dimensions of Spathae the swords description goes on to mention

...grooves running the length of the blade. These are probably fullers, but could be caused by differential corrosion of the alloys in a pattern-welded sword.

 

This is a longsword of a well-known Roman type identified as a spatha of literary sources, The shape of the blade is typical of second- and third-century weapons, especially in its lenticular cross-section (rather than the earlier diamond)...

 

Roman spathae varied considerably in length. Two earlier spathae from Newstead had blades 610mm and 635mm. One from Strauburg has a blade of 7907mm and a tang of 1432mm. Another from Wroxeter reaches 725mm, while an example from Caruntum has a blade as long as 840mm, 50-5mm wide. The late third or early fourth century spatha from Koln is 890mm.

I did put the reference to alloys in the above into bold to emphasise that in archaeological contexts such weapons are usually consedered 'alloys' rather than purely either 'iron' or 'steel'.

Swords are bound to vary somewhat. Differing quality and length are the most obvious, depending on who ordered the sword and who made it. It's an interesting point that highlights Roman standardiation. In general, we assume that equipment was pretty much identical in all cases and that is, I suspect, a result of our our modern mass-production mindset. Individual items were hand crafted in those days and so standardisation was harder to achieve - though I notice that despite the institution of fabricae (equipment factories) in the late empire they still didn't produce standard items.

In the light of nascent standardisation in Roman culture (building regulations post-Nero, or bronze and lead plumbing fitments in set sizes) it seems odd that swords were so variable. Then again, perhaps we assume a Roman need for that. If one man is taller than another, surely a longer sword is appropriate? In any case, since swords were often made to a customers order, the length would be his choice as much as the makers, and not something the officers could do much about.

I'm not sure that I would put differences down totally to individual 'customer' choice. Archaeological evidence has shown that the Roman view of 'standardisation' is totally different from our own. Repeatedly at military sites, such as Vindolanda, you find differences in the size and shape of the component elements of weapons; square or diamond shaped tangs on swords and lengths of blade are only one example others include differing ways in which spears or arrows were hafted onto wooden shafts. These differences do not always relate to particular time periods or occupation by particular type of unit whether mounted or foot infantry.

In my view having done a little metal work it could often be down to how easy a particular individual found it to make an object as well as or even how much metal they had to work with - if they had a smaller amount of workable metal available then one sword or spearhead may easily end up slightly shorter than others being made on a given day.