Introduction
The study of Roman military equipment has always been a hallmark of both archaeological and historical scholarship on the Roman army. Naturally, because of the archaeological and literary record, the bulk of this analysis has focused on the later Republic and especially the Principate. Yet it was the fourth and third centuries bce that witnessed the evolution of the Roman heavy infantry solider from a phalangite into the quintessential legionary.Footnote 1 Polybius famously stated that the Romans were adept at adopting equipment that was better, and it was the adoption of foreign equipment that slowly changed the panoply of Roman soldiers (Polyb. 6.25.11). The scutum (‘shield’) and pilum (‘javelin’) were adopted during the fourth or early-third centuries as the manipular legion was born, whilst in the late-third century the Romans adopted the lorica hamata (‘chainmail’) and the gladius hispaniensis (‘Spanish sword’).Footnote 2 The former has been analysed in detail by Devereaux who suggested that it was first adopted by the Romans during the war with the Gauls in the 220s.Footnote 3 The latter too has been the subject of significant debate, being regarded by one historian as ‘the most famous example of Roman adoption and adaptation of enemy military technology’.Footnote 4 However, no firm consensus has been established as to when it was adopted or from where. In this article, I will run through the various positions and agree firmly with a model which postulates that it was adopted from Spain during the Second Punic War. I will then suggest that a weakness of this argument is that no consideration has been given to the mechanism and speed of proliferation throughout the Roman army and will fill this gap with an analysis of the routes of spread of these Spanish swords into Italy during the Second Punic War. This will consolidate the argument of its Spanish origins in the Second Punic War.
1. Roman swords in the fourth and third centuries
Prior to the gladius hispaniensis the Romans had probably used a xiphos-style sword modelled on that of the Greeks – a sword with a short c. 45 cm leaf-shaped blade.Footnote 5 These swords are extremely common in Italian tomb-paintings from the fifth and fourth centuries, such as those in the François Tomb dated to the late-fourth century.Footnote 6 Although the archaeological evidence significantly lessens during the third century, the pictorial representation of a xiphos on a Roman aes signatum (stamped bronze bar) from the mid-third century confirms its continued prevalence amongst the Roman armament (RRC 8/1). It is also possible that Gallic swords (La Tène I) were used by the Romans: numerous La Tène swords have been found in Latium.Footnote 7 Critical for this argument is the La Tène I sword found near San Vittore del Lazio where it had been ritually deposited with an inscription on the blade: Tr(ebios) Pomponio(s) C(ai) [f(ilios)]/[m]e fecet Roma[i] (‘Trebios Pomponios, son of Caius, made me in Rome’). The sword is dated to the late-fourth century and is clear evidence that there were smiths in Rome producing La Tène I swords, though the smith himself is Oscan judging by the name.Footnote 8 Yet was this a sword for a Roman? The simplest explanation is that it was, but there has been some pushback against this. Lejars and Bernadet postulate that the specification of the smith that the sword was made in Rome suggests that it was intended to circulate outside of Roman circles.Footnote 9 Furthermore, the sword had been ritually bent before it was deposited, a behaviour practised by the Celts but not the Romans.Footnote 10 Indeed, during the fourth century the Gauls were present in central Italy and the Romans fought numerous conflicts with them; it is also possible that many were enlisted as mercenaries by Italian peoples, if not by the Romans. Therefore, the La Tène swords found in Latium might have been ones used by these Gauls and ritually buried with them or captured spolia (spoils) dedicated as votives by those who defeated them.Footnote 11 Livy records that the Romans sent Gallic and Illyrian weapons as a gift to Hieron, king of Syracuse, and that the Romans equipped 6,000 hastily raised soldiers in the Hannibalic War with Gallic arms and armour taken by Caius Flaminius in 223.Footnote 12 Perhaps in the specific case of the Lazio sword, it had been manufactured specifically for a religious act which saw its ritual bending and dedication. Overall, it is possible that some Roman soldiers had decided that these Gallic swords with their additional length were better than the xiphos and decided to use them instead. Here we would have an earlier example of the Romans seeking a better weapon than they currently had. However, with the available evidence, whilst it cannot be doubted that some Romans will have used La Tène I swords, it is impossible to know if this was widespread.Footnote 13
It is important to acknowledge, as Armstrong has, that until the adoption of the gladius hispaniensis the sword probably remained ‘an additional, secondary weapon utilized by those wealthy enough to afford one’.Footnote 14 The spear, both throwing and thrusting, probably remained a key weapon for the Roman legionary of the fourth and early-third centuries.Footnote 15 On the basis of their name, the hastati probably carried hastae (‘spears’) in their early iteration, though whether these were thrusting or throwing spears is unclear given that Ennius uses the term hasta to refer to spears thrown by the hastati (Enn. Ann. 8.10). In fact, in his description of the hastati in Book 8 Livy wrote that within each maniple there were twenty light-armed men with only spears and javelins (Livy 8.8.5). Certainly, the thrusting hasta also continued to be the primary weapon of the triarii (veterans composing the third line of the Roman battleline) even in Polybius’ day (Polyb. 6.23.16). Therefore, the adoption of the gladius hispaniensis possibly marked a change in how the Roman legionaries fought or at least made them much better equipped for sword combat.Footnote 16 Together with the lorica hamata, the legionary now became a true heavy infantryman who fought primarily at close quarters with sword and shield, rather than relying on missiles and spears, and using the sword as a secondary weapon. This adoption of the gladius hispaniensis was further significant because, as I have discussed at length in another article, it helps explain Roman successes against the Macedonian phalanx in the second century.Footnote 17 Indeed, it became greatly feared by the Macedonians and helped establish a contemporary belief that the Romans had better weapons than their enemies. Understanding the process of its adoption is, therefore, important and has to be established to properly assess the impact of the new gladius on Roman warfare in the Middle Republic.
2. Dating the adoption of the gladius hispaniensis
Dating the Roman adoption of the gladius hispaniensis was, until recently, a difficult task because before the late-twentieth century there were few archaeological finds of gladii that could be dated to the late-first century or earlier. This left us with short testimonies in the literary sources which many archaeologists think confuse the issue.Footnote 18 However, subsequent archaeological examination of Republican gladii from Alfaro, Es Soumaa, Mouriès, Boyer, Berry-Bouy, Delos, Šmihel, Giubiasco, Vrhnika, Caminreal, Osuna, and Alesia suggest that the gladius hispaniensis was a straight sword, often having a slight waist (a narrowing in the middle portion of the blade before flaring towards the tip, giving a curve profile to an otherwise straight sword) in the blade and with blade lengths varying between 60–69 cm (see Figure 1).Footnote 19 They are quite distinct from the xiphos, which was much shorter, the blade normally being c. 45 cm long, more heavily waisted, and with a completely different handle construction.Footnote 20 The square or narrowed tang on the gladius hispaniensis represents a different craft tradition than the flat tang of the xiphos. They are more similar in size to La Tène I swords, but the waisting in the blade makes them distinct from the Gallic sword which normally had parallel edges.Footnote 21
Image © M. C. Bishop. Republican swords from 1. Alfaro, 2. Šmihel, 3. Delos, 4. Šmihel, 5. Giubiasco. They illustrate that the gladius hispaniensis was a straight blade with slight waisting and long tapering points. Blade lengths vary between 600–690 mm.
The key literary passage in establishing both the date of adoption and the origins of the gladius hispaniensis is from the Suda (a Byzantine encyclopaedia from the tenth century using ancient materials), probably quoting Polybius who was a contemporary of the second century:Footnote 22
οἱ Κϵλτίβηρϵς τῇ κατασκϵυῇ τῶν μαχαιρῶν πολὺ διαφέρουσι τῶν ἄλλων· καὶ γὰρ κέντημα πρακτικὸν καὶ καταφορὰν ἔχϵι δυναμένην ἐξ ἀμφοῖν τοῖν μϵροῖν. ᾗ καὶ Ῥωμαῖοι τὰς πατρίους ἀποθέμϵνοι μαχαίρας ἐκ τῶν κατ᾿ Ἀννίβαν μϵτέλαβον τὰς τῶν Ἰβήρων.Footnote 23
The Celtiberians’ swords are designed very differently from those of other people; for the weapon has both an effective tip and a usable cutting edge on both sides. The Romans accordingly gave up their traditional swords and from the time of Hannibal on adopted the Iberian type.Footnote 24
According to this, the Romans adopted the gladius hispaniensis, which as its name suggests came from Spain, during the Hannibalic War. This finds some support in the archaeological record. The oldest gladii found, with blades of 62.2 and 66 cm, were the two from Šmihel which were probably buried c. 175.Footnote 25 These swords would have been used in the conflicts between the Romans and locals of western Slovenia in the first quarter of the second century which involved the founding of the colony of Aquileia in 181.Footnote 26 Therefore, the current archaeological record provides a terminus ante quem of the early-second century for the adoption of the Spanish sword.
Yet although the passage from the Suda is unambiguous in fixing a point for the adoption of the gladius hispaniensis, there has still been substantial debate. Walbank argued that it was adopted from Spanish mercenaries who served in the Carthaginian army during the First Punic War because the cutting-and-thrusting sword described at Polyb. 2.30.8 and 2.33.5 refers to the same weapon.Footnote 27 Whilst it is possible that the Romans encountered Spanish swords during the First Punic War, it is unlikely because there were relatively few Iberian mercenaries serving in the Punic armies at this time and the Romans were not present in Iberia itself. Furthermore, the xiphos was also a cut-and-thrust sword, even if inferior to the gladius hispaniensis, meaning that Polybius could have been describing this in comparison to the Gallic sword which he deemed only effective for slashing.Footnote 28 Or he was simply using the opportunity to contrast the Gallic sword with the gladius hispaniensis even if the chronology did not line up (see below). Another school of thought poses that we cannot fix the point of the adoption of the gladius hispaniensis because it took place over a longer period of time. Devereaux suggests ‘that the adoption of, at least, a Spanish-style sword might have been a gradual process, well underway before the arrival of Hannibal and his mercenaries spurred its universal adoption’.Footnote 29 For Cadiou the spread was even slower. He argues that there was not a sudden adoption of a new sword but rather a slow evolution across the late-third to first centuries.Footnote 30
An even more extreme trend argues that the gladius hispaniensis was actually of Greek origin and developed from the xiphos and that it was the superior method of manufacture taken from Iberia which gave it its Hispanic element.Footnote 31 Not only does this argument speak directly against the passage of the Suda quoted above, but it is undermined by the key differences between the gladius hispaniensis and the xiphos, as noted above. Furthermore, in light of the in-depth exploration of a Spanish prototype for the gladius hispaniensis undertaken by Quesada Sanz, this view is untenable. Quesada Sanz demonstrated that ‘the prototype of the gladius hispaniensis is a Celtiberian sword whose remote origin is … in the Celtic La Tène I sword substantially modified in accordance with local tastes from the late-fourth century in the Meseta and the Southeast’.Footnote 32
Quesada Sanz also follows the Suda in arguing that the gladius hispaniensis was adopted during the Hannibalic War, either between the Battle of Cannae in 216 and the Siege of New Carthage in 209 or straight after the war.Footnote 33 Certainly, Polybius, and Livy following him, commented on the distinctive swords of the Iberians in Hannibal’s army during the Battle of Cannae.Footnote 34 But it is unlikely to have been much noticed by contemporaries during Rome’s colossal defeat. The fall of New Carthage to Publius Cornelius Scipio in 209, however, seems much more appropriate. Indeed, Carter has argued strongly and persuasively for this. Scipio captured a large supply of arms and enslaved craftsmen who were set to work making weapons for fighting and training: ‘given this influx of new weapons and the intensive training program connected with them, it is tempting to see this as the time of the adoption of the gladius hispaniensis’.Footnote 35 It is very likely that these craftsmen continued to produce weapons for the Roman army under the promise of manumission if they contributed to the Roman war effort (Livy 26.47.2–3).
It is common, both in ancient and modern historians, to attribute equipment change to a famous commander. Plutarch, for example, credited the origins of the metal rim around the scutum to the dictator Camillus who had the shields of his men rimmed with bronze to better defend against the slashing blows of Gallic swords (Plut. Cam. 40.4). Marius is often credited with the introduction of a new type of pilum.Footnote 36 Thomas even credits the emperor Claudius with the transition from the Mainz to the Pompeii-style gladius in the first century ce.Footnote 37 Of course, it is unlikely that these individuals were solely responsible for such innovations but it is very possible that military equipment reforms could be concentrated in the army of a particular commander before proliferating.
Furthermore, in the case of Scipio, as Taylor has pointed out, ‘the adoption of the sword may owe less to Scipio’s prowess as a military innovator, and more to the pre-existing popularity of the sword within the ranks after nine years of campaigning’.Footnote 38 If Scipio, and the Romans in his army – many of whom had been serving in Spain since 218 – had found the sword more effective than their own, then it is easy to see how it would become widely adopted given the opportunity. Therefore, Carter provides a persuasive moment for the initial adoption of the gladius hispaniensis in the Roman army. Yet Scipio’s forces in Spain were only one force of soldiers within the Roman army, with other legions in Sicily and Italy, and serving with the Roman fleet around Greece. The key question which has remained hitherto unaddressed is how quickly and through what mechanisms this new Spanish sword spread through the Roman military to become the standard and primary weapon of the legionary. This is critical, for the importance of the gladius hispaniensis to the Roman military and its victories across the Mediterranean in the early-second century depends on how quickly it saw widespread adoption.
3. Proliferation of the gladius hispaniensis in the Roman army
That the gladius hispaniensis spread rapidly through the Roman army is suggested by a number of points. First, it has already been shown that it was being used by Romans fighting in modern-day Slovenia during the early-second century. Second, the fact that such a change entered the literary record and the Spanish origins of the sword were central to its identification suggests, amongst other things (see below), that its adoption was quite rapid and quickly widespread.Footnote 39 Third, it seems that the new Spanish sword was in use by Roman cavalry in the eastern Mediterranean as early as 200 when Livy infamously described the shock of the Macedonians at the wounds that had been inflicted by the gladius hispaniensis.Footnote 40 Even before this, Polybius explained that Roman victory at the Battle of Zama in 202 was partly because of τὴν τῆς μαχαίρας ὑπομονὴν τῶν πληγῶν (‘the strength of their sword which can endure many blows’, Polyb. 15.15.8.). Although he did not mention the gladius hispaniensis specifically, the strength of the sword is a common feature of Polybius’ view of the gladius.Footnote 41 When describing Roman military equipment in Book 6 he wrote that the μάχαιρα … καλοῦσι δ᾿ αὐτὴν Ἰβηρικήν (sword … which was called Spanish) … ἔχɛι δ᾿ αὕτη κέντημα διάφορον καὶ καταφορὰν ἐξ ἀμφοῖν τοῖν μɛροῖν βίαιον διὰ τὸ τὸν ὀβɛλίσκον αὐτῆς ἰσχυρὸν καὶ μόνιμον ɛἶναι (‘is excellent for thrusting, and both of its edges cut effectually, as the blade is very strong and firm’).Footnote 42 In his account of the Roman conflict with the Gauls in the 220s, Polybius contrasted the Gallic longsword, which bent like a strigil on its first blow, with the sword of the Romans, which could thrust without bending.Footnote 43 Indeed, it was commonly believed that the quality of Spanish steel was excellent (Plin. HN 34.144). Diodorus Siculus praised Spanish steel: according to him, the Spaniards would bury iron in the ground and let the weaker metal rust away leaving only sounder iron from which to forge their swords. These swords would be able to cut through shields, armour, helmets, and bone (Diod. Sic. 5.33.4–5). Ennius also wrote deducunt habiles gladios filo gracilento (‘they forge swift swords thin like a thread’, Enn. Ann. 7.23 [l. 239]). Skutsch argues that ‘the fine and well-tempered swords mentioned here must be Spanish swords’.Footnote 44 It is notable that Livy uses habiles when discussing the gladius hispaniensis on numerous occasions.Footnote 45 So, it seems that the gladius hispaniensis was used by Roman armies in both Africa and Greece/Macedonia only a few years after its initial adoption by Roman legions in Spain.
How did the gladius hispaniensis proliferate? It is this question that historians who believe in the rapid uptake of the gladius hispaniensis have failed to address. Of course, as Juhel argued, ‘military history has repeatedly shown that the introduction of an obviously more effective type of armament, and particularly of innovations that appear to guarantee victory, tend to be imitated rapidly’.Footnote 46 Yet what were the mechanisms of this spread? I will now argue that there were four distinct routes that the gladius hispaniensis took to become prominent in Roman armies during the late-third and early-second centuries.
First, through certain Roman legionaries and Spanish auxiliaries that were sent by Scipio back to Italy to serve in the army of Marcus Livius Salinator, the consul of 207. Livy wrote:
magni roboris auxilia ex Hispania quoque a P. Scipione M. Livio missa quidam ad id bellum auctores sunt, octo milia Hispanorum Gallorumque, ad duo milia de legione militum, equitum mille octingentos mixtos Numidas Hispanosque (Livy 27.38.11).
authors write that auxiliaries of great robustness were also sent by Publius Scipio from Spain to Marcus Livius for that war: 8,000 Spaniards and Gauls, 2,000 legionaries and 1,800 Numidian and Spanish cavalry.
These were part of the army that defeated Hasdrubal at the Battle of the Metaurus, returned to Rome in Salinator’s triumph, and were disbanded (Livy 28.9.2–20). It is possible that many in the armies of Salinator, Gaius Claudius Nero, and Lucius Porcius Licinus, who had joined together at the Battle of Metaurus, had seen the new gladii of the legionaries from Spain and their use by their Spanish auxiliaries, judged them to be better weapons than the xiphos which they currently had, and wished to acquire these new Spanish swords.Footnote 47 And there was an immediate opportunity provided in the aftermath of the battle. Hasdrubal had Spanish forces in his army familiar with Roman fighting and they were slaughtered during the battle.Footnote 48 Livy noted that by its end quinquaginta septem milia hostium occisa, capta quinque milia et quadringenti, magna praeda alia cum omnis generis (‘57,000 of the enemy were slaughtered and 5,400 captured and there was a great amount of booty of every kind’, Livy 27.49.6). It is likely that this included many of the weapons of the various troops, including the Spanish. Therefore, through both the Roman legionaries with the gladius hispaniensis serving in the Roman army and the Spanish serving in Hasdrubal’s army, knowledge of, desire for, and some access to the gladius hispaniensis was provided in Italy.Footnote 49
Second, when Scipio returned from Spain in 206/205 he brought with him to Rome a large amount of booty taken from Spain which probably included the gladius hispaniensis. According to Appian, Scipio returned to Rome and brought with him ships full of αἰχμαλώτων ὁμοῦ καὶ χρημάτων καὶ ὅπλων καὶ λαφύρων ποικίλων (‘war-captives, money, weapons, and various other spoils’).Footnote 50 Livy does not describe the booty, but does write that Scipio returned with ten ships and that he subsequently walked through the city and argentique prae se in aerarium tulit quattuordecim milia pondo trecenta quadraginta duo, et signati argenti magnum numerum (‘bore 14,342 pounds of silver before himself to the treasury and a great amount of silver coinage’, Livy 28.38.5). Scipio had clearly brought booty back from Spain and, therefore, Appian is probably right that this included weapons. Given that Scipio had systematically armed his forces in Spain with the gladius hispaniensis after the capture of New Carthage in 209, perhaps he brought many of these swords back to Rome also to arm the forces he would be given as consul.
Third, as suggested above by Polybius, it is also possible that Scipio equipped his African army with the gladius hispaniensis during the African campaign. If he had brought gladii back from Spain then he could have used these to arm his new troops, including the older men from the Cannae legions which were now in Sicily and the 7,000 volunteers that he had enlisted in Italy. Furthermore, Livy writes:
itaque non ex Sardinia tantum, sicut ante dictum est sed ex Sicilia quoque et Hispania vestimenta frumentumque et arma etiam ex Sicilia et omne genus commeatus eo portabantur (Livy 30.3.2–3).
and so a large amount was brought bought to him [Scipio] not only from Sardinia, as mentioned before, but also Sicily and clothes, food, arms and all kinds of supplies from Spain and also from Sicily.
It is implied here that Scipio was also able to import from Spain various supplies including arms. Again, if Scipio had been the driving force behind the adoption of the gladius hispaniensis and had set up manufacture in New Carthage then it would make sense that he would then utilize his connections to bring more such swords to equip his army about to face Hannibal in Africa.
Fourth, a major importation of the gladius hispaniensis into Italy came through the Spanish veterans when they eventually returned to Rome in 200 under Lucius Cornelius Lentulus (cos. 199) and Lucius Manlius Acidinus (pr. 210) who had succeeded Scipio in Spain. Of these veterans one legion and fifteen cohorts of Latins were left in Spain and the rest were brought back. These men were subsequently settled on ager publicus (public land) in Samnium and Apulia along with Scipio’s African veterans with two iugera (jugers) given for every year of service in Spain or Africa.Footnote 51 It is likely that many might have kept their new swords, especially if they intended to serve again. But equally, many might have given their swords to sons, other family members, or sold them. This would especially be the case if individuals were able to bring back multiple swords with them as booty. This would have led to another period of proliferation in Italy and Rome.
Now, it is likely that a number of the soldiers who served in the east during the 190s would have acquired a gladius hispaniensis in Rome, either from family members or by purchasing those that were being sold. This is especially the case for the equestrians who formed the Roman cavalry; they came from many of the richest families in Rome so would be able to pay handsomely for the new sword from Spain. This would explain their use by Roman cavalry in Livy 31.34.4–5. Furthermore, many of Scipio’s African and Spanish veterans served in the eastern armies throughout the 190s. As I have documented in a recent paper, c. 2,000 served in the army of Publius Sulpicius Galba (cos. 200) and Publius Villius Tappulus (cos. 199), an additional 3,000 volunteered under Titus Quinctius Flamininus in 198, and 5,000 enlisted in the army of Lucius Cornelius Scipio (cos. 190).Footnote 52 They would have had their gladii which they acquired whilst serving under Scipio.
After these initial injections of the gladius hispaniensis into Rome, a more steady supply would have been secured with the establishment of the permanent provinciae Hispania Citerior and Hispania Ulterior in 197. If Biglino is right in arguing that it was during the Hannibalic War that the Roman state undertook ‘state-sponsored mass production of military equipment in Rome’, then this would explain why an almost total re-outfitting of soldiers with the gladius hispaniensis could then occur in the early-second century, though there is little current evidence for such state-sponsored production at this point.Footnote 53 Rather, with the new popularity of the gladius hispaniensis amongst Roman soldiers, it is likely that Roman smiths began copying the form of the sword and produced equivalent gladii in Italy. In fact, this helps solve a seeming contradiction between Polybius’ admiration for the material quality of the gladius hispaniensis (presumably because it was made of Spanish steel) and a phrase in the passage of the Suda that we suppose comes from him: καὶ τὴν μὲν κατασκɛυὴν μɛτέλαβον, αὐτὴν δὲ τὴν χρηστότητα τοῦ σιδήρου καὶ τὴν ἄλλην ἐπιμέλɛιαν οὐδαμῶς δύνανται μιμɛῖσθαι (‘they adopted, I say, the construction of the swords, but they can by no means imitate the excellence of the steel or the other points in which they are so elaborately finished’).Footnote 54 It might be true that when the Romans eventually began producing the gladius hispaniensis at Rome they could not replicate the quality. But the gladii which the Romans were using in the Hannibalic War and in the eastern wars from 200 had been produced in Spain.
4. Conclusion
To conclude, it has been shown that after Scipio’s adoption of the gladius hispaniensis for his army in Spain in 209 there were at least four major routes for its subsequent proliferation amongst the Romans and significant presence in the armies serving in the east in the 190s before Rome’s permanent and institutionalized presence in Spain would have created an established supply chain. The combination of the high regard for Spanish steel and blade quality, the devastating impact the gladius hispaniensis had on the Macedonians, and its rather rapid adoption and proliferation meant that the Spanish sword was part of Roman social memory and was preserved in the literary record. It became an important symbol of Roman power. Having now demonstrated the mechanisms through which the gladius hispaniensis quickly proliferated throughout the Roman military at the end of the third century from Spain, the case as established in the literary tradition that the sword was adopted from Spain in the Hannibalic War has been consolidated. This should go a long way to settle the debate in current historiography about the sword’s origins and its place in the Roman army of the Middle Republic.
Open access
