A little experiment for you:

You have a torch and a mirror.  You place the mirror on one wall of a room which is, say 10 ft sq.  You place the torch, facing the mirror, at the opposite side of the room.  You and a friend stand, one to the left and one to the right of the mirror, looking towards it so that, when you look in, you can see the reflection of the torch beam shining in there.

Gonna digress a little to explain that a more refined version of this experiment (and several variations thereof) have been performed with lasers in black rooms with near as dammit optically perfect reflectors, photon emittors, sensors and heaven knows what.  For this, though, you really don't need 'em.

Right, so now you're looking in the mirror and you see the reflection, ok?  To you, it's in a relatively different place from your friend, due to the fact he/she is standing at the opposite side.  That's perfectly normal and straightforward because that's what you expect.  All is as it should be.

We were all taught that there's such a thing as a "virtual image", which accounts for the position of a reflected image, as if it was an object in true 3D space.  Sad thing is, that's not the case.  It's a convenient fiction - and it's become quite recently demonstrably so - that skips over what's really happening when we see a reflection.

You see, there is no "virtual image" because there's no 3D space inside the mirror.  The reflections are all happening on a plane surface with absolutely no depth.  Which means, amongst other things, you are getting two reflections for the price of one.  You can only see one at a time but they are there.  Your friend will confirm the presence of the other one.  Change positions to check if you like but it'll be there.   Which is impossible, since there is only one light source and there's nothing else to reflect off.  Oh dear, a fundamental part of our understanding just rolled over and died.  

Now, someone is going to come back and say something like "quantum" or "Heisenberg" and I'm going to say "nope" because quantum stuff and the uncertainty principle aren't supposed to apply to the macro universe and if they do, the theories themselves are in need of some serious revision.  Don't even bother to mention superposition because that's a hotly disputed and largely anecdotal hypothesis and string/superstring is pretty much discredited and/or disregarded.

Anyone who posts a like to the Superscience show will be tarred, feathered, laughed at and generally become the object of scorn and ridicule for the rest of their lives.

I bet BB has a shader for it, though.  

WTF are you talking about, Sam?

I don't know where you got this idea of a 'virtual image' or where you think it is 'debunked' by whatever physics you think applies here. I do see some serious fundamental flaws in your premise and so-called experiment, however.

What you see in a reflection doesn't occur at the flat plane of the mirror (assuming a hypothetical perfect mirror, of course). Think of the mirror in the same way you think of a piece of optically-perfect glass between you and what you're looking at. If the glass is 10' in front of you and what you see is 10' beyond it, your focus is at 20' as your eyes both mechanically fix on the subject and your brain assembles what they see into a single, coherent image; you're not looking at the image as it 'projects' onto the piece of glass. The same situation occurs with the mirror, but instead of sitting physically between your eyes and the subject, with a straight line of sight between both, the mirror sits at a point which is virtually 10' between your eyes and a subject 10' beyond it in a straight line; all the mirror does is reflect every photon at the opposite angle of incidence from which it strikes. You're not seeing any 'virtual image'; you're seeing an image just as real as if you were looking through a piece of invisible glass, but instead of seeing it directly, the line of sight is bent by the mirror; with the hypothetical perfect mirror, you never see anything at the plane of the mirror.

There is no quantum physics necessary here; good ol' normal physics blows the wind out of this sail :).

I (may/may not) blame Schrödinger

yeah, not only that, but they aren't front-surface mirrors in most domiclles.  they've got the back silvered or aluminised so it don't get scratched when one polishes the front, which is a piece of clear glass of finite thickness.  in case anybody asks.

Sam, I think you need to lay off the extra glass of Port after dinner!
-or soon you'll be as maudlin as I am!
dph

I love a discussion.  Even if everyone thinks I'm wrong I still love it.  :biggrin: 

Anyhow, I'm talking about a mirror with the reflective surface right at the front, such as a highly polished piece of metal or a sheet of silver plastic stretched over a frame.  Or even - if we want to get daft - mercury suspended in an antigravity field.

ptrope - you are absolutely right.  And wrong.  I assure you that's true at the quantum level.  My experiment (actually it's not mine but there you go) is a gross simplification of the laser/black room experiment.  Both show surprisingly similar results.  The refined experiment is extremely disturbing because it pokes a big hole in everything we believed about reality.  It can be shown - every time without fail - for every photon emitted, you get two or more back, depending on the number of observers.  Which is absolutely impossible.

What makes it worse is, it appears to be more or less reproducible on a gross level.

I think I will continue to juggle *Schrödingers Cat -  Occam's Razor  and  a running chainsaw..

When I finish amusing Myself in this manner I will put everything away inside Pandora's Box..

Quote - Sam, I think you need to lay off the extra glass of Port after dinner!
-or soon you'll be as maudlin as I am!
dph

Port, David?

Dear me, no.  Only with Stilton and walnuts, if you please.  Right now it's strictly a glass of single malt and a pot of strong tea.

And yes, I can take my drink; I'm a Sheffield Lad.

I see what you're saying, Sam, and assuming what you're calling a "torch" I call a "flashlight," I don't see any contradiction to common sense or common (or even quantum!) physics. Same goes for if one were to use a tightly-focused laser and even a hypothetical perfect mirror. The observer sees a beam of light that is reflected exactly opposite the incident beam. If the observer sees the light, no matter where in the room he stands, it's because the source emitted that beam at an angle where such a view was possible, and if one removed the mirror and placed the observer along the incidental line, at the same distance beyond where the mirror was that he stood before it, he would see exactly the same thing, only reversed. It's not a matter of the mirror giving back a two-fer - the light existed before it ever struck the mirror or else it would not - could not - be observed (neither in a plane nor on a train :-)). If one had a perfectly-focused laser, and a perfect mirror, an observer not in the line of sight would not see the laser, period. If, however, he sees the torch/flashlight, it's because the light source created stray beams of light that followed the incidental path to his eye that was intercepted by the mirror.

The big problem is that we really can't do this experiment because "near as dammit perfect" isn't good enough to prevent either stray reflections or stray emissions from the source.

The offshoot of this concept, though, is that if you have a 'perfectly' mirrored sphere with a light source inside it, the reflections of the light should continue after the light source is removed. I wonder if you could create a solid ball of light this way? :-)

Yup.  Torch/flashlight.  Primitive, us Brits.  :)

Hmm, that's not too far removed from the concept of creating a laser, really.  Bouncing an in phase signal inside a reflective medium then releasing it when it reaches a certain level.

Your idea would still need an origin light source, though.  Something to get the ball rolling, as it were.  After that, however.  Nah, too good to be true.  BTW, read Gene Wolfe's "Shadow of the Torturer" series for more on that idea.

Quote - > Quote - Sam, I think you need to lay off the extra glass of Port after dinner!

-or soon you'll be as maudlin as I am!
dph

Port, David?

Dear me, no.  Only with Stilton and walnuts, if you please.  Right now it's strictly a glass of single malt and a pot of strong tea.

And yes, I can take my drink; I'm a Sheffield Lad.

I was raised as a teetotalling Christian Scientist, before converting to Judaism, so I never really got into the habit of serious drinking.  I did learn to swig Arak from my Father-in Law though, who grew up in Aleppo Syria, before being deported to Turkey 1956 for Zionist activity.
dph

Quote - I (may/may not) blame Schrödinger

The cat escaped when Schrodinger wasn't looking. ;)

Not to put a damper on things, but who the heck is Schrödinger?!?!?!?!
dph

a notorious cat-murderer

Quote - a notorious cat-murderer

Is it really possible to murder a cat?  (-as opposed to simply killing it?)
dph

The cat is dead. No, wait! - it's alive. It's both???!!

My brain hurts Mr. Schrödinger. But please don't hurt the kitty ;o).

dph - the above mentioned was a scientist and you can read about him and the cat here if you're interested ;o).

Physics and Quantum Physics especially intrigue me. Even if I don't understand a damn thing...lol.

Laurie

I don't think you need a mirror to do this experiment? Just take some object, like a monitor [or anything, maybe a book would've been clearer], have you and a friend stand in different places viewing it at different angles. You can both see it right?

Quote - The cat is dead. No, wait! - it's alive. It's both???!!

My brain hurts Mr. Schrödinger. But please don't hurt the kitty ;o).

dph - the above mentioned was a scientist and you can read about him and the cat here if you're interested ;o).

Physics and Quantum Physics especially intrigue me. Even if I don't understand a damn thing...lol.

Laurie

Read the article in part, and then became dizzy!  Holy Moses!  Some people really DO think waaaaaaaaaaay toooooooooooooooooo much!
dph

First at all beams or rays doesn't exist, it only are abstract geometric constructions that allow you in an easy way how and where images are formed in mirros (planar or curved) and lenses (virtual or real images).
In geometric optics any point emitis infineite rays in all infinite directions. If you know the path of two particular rays the point where it intersects all other rays will intersect too forming the image point, real or virtual and virtual is also an abstraction.
Rays are only tools, real light is much more complicated because light can be a particle (photon) or a wave and you have to apply Newton's or Huyghens theory of light depending on the case and it doen't matter if you use a laser or a torch, you must use both theories. With lasers the wave nature of light becomes more evident.
The Huyghens principle states that any point of the wavefront that hits a point of an object turns into a wave emiter.
It is more easier to uses photons than try to reconstruct wavefronts, but in many cases is not possible.
People that speaks about Quantics speak on photons, but forget or ignore that Qunatics itself is a wave theory, photons only apply when you deal with particles, real or an abstraction to make our lives easier.
Einstein's Relativity theory is an particle theory where all wave and electromagnetic theory is ignored.

I'm seeing Butterflies!!
dph

all I know is the inverse square law affects light emission, and the albedo of the mirror affects reflection....;)

Not so easy, the inverse square law only applies to spherical waves (omnidirectional lights).
For spot lights doesn't work and for ideal directional lights (plane waves) ignoring dispersion, have no attenuation at all.

Quote - The cat is dead. No, wait! - it's alive. It's both???!!

My brain hurts Mr. Schrödinger. But please don't hurt the kitty ;o).

dph - the above mentioned was a scientist and you can read about him and the cat here if you're interested ;o).

Physics and Quantum Physics especially intrigue me. Even if I don't understand a damn thing...lol.

Laurie

no no
the cat in the box is in 3 states during the experiment.

Alive
Dead
Bloody Furious

Quote - I don't think you need a mirror to do this experiment? Just take some object, like a monitor [or anything, maybe a book would've been clearer], have you and a friend stand in different places viewing it at different angles. You can both see it right?

Yes, you can.

Here's where the whole thing breaks down, though...

Refine the experiment, as I hinted at earlier.  Replace the flashlight/torch with a laser set to emit a single photon.  Now, according to Relativity, there is only one photon, which will hit the mirror and bounce back toward somewhere or other.  Let's assume there's a random direction it would bounce to (there are several complex reasons why it isn't random but they don't matter for the moment)  In which case, being a single photon and not necessarily bouncing in the direction of either viewer, they have a less than 50% chance of seeing it, right?  Wrong.  Both viewers (or as many as you want) will see the photon, no matter what you do.

Now, remember, you're not seeing an image of a photon, you are seeing a real, genuine photon.  Added together, that's more than you put into the system in the first place, by at least double.

Now, that's what I mean about weird.  :)

Now I'm seeing triple Butterflies! 
The Butterflies that are there,
The Butterflies that are not there,
& the Butterflies that I only imagine that are there!
Someone pour me a glass of Arak, PLEEEEEEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
dph

Quote - set to emit a single photon.  Now, according to Relativity, there is only one photon,

You said Relativity and here is the problem. Relativity ignores Quantics, Electromagnetism and the wave nature of light.
A single "photon" can pass through two holes at the same time and worst!.... an electron also can do it!
Relativity is a limited theory with a limited scope of application. A simple phenomena as difraction of light is impossible to happen for Relativity.

And Yes, God do play dice and Devil can do even worst things...

Quote - > Quote - set to emit a single photon.  Now, according to Relativity, there is only one photon,

You said Relativity and here is the problem. Relativity ignores Quantics, Electromagnetism and the wave nature of light.
A single "photon" can pass through two holes at the same time and worst!.... an electron also can do it!
Relativity is a limited theory with a limited scope of application. A simple phenomena as difraction of light is impossible to happen for Relativity.

And Yes, God do play dice and Devil can do even worst things...

And there, young sir, you have it all.  

Attached Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8363930.stm

Here's an interesting thing regarding light photons and quantum mechanics. Well worth watching! :)

Quote - In which case, being a single photon and not necessarily bouncing in the direction of either viewer, they have a less than 50% chance of seeing it, right?  Wrong.  Both viewers (or as many as you want) will see the photon, no matter what you do.

This part I don't understand. It seems impossible to me that both people will see the photon.

If you think the photon as a particle it looks impossible, but if you think as a wave there is no problem, just look in water how behaves any wave, it goes everywhere.
A photon is not necessarly a particle, what is a photon?
1- A wave carry some amount of energy.
2- Was discovered by Plank, the begining of Quantics, that energy cannot have any arbitrary value.
3- Energy increases in discretes steps and not in a continuous way.
4- The total energy is an integer multiple of the step energy.
5- This minimum step is a quanta.
6- In light or any wave this minimun value of energy, step or quanta is called a photon.
7- So the total energy of a wave is an integer multiple of the energy of a photon.

What is defined is the energy of the photon and is E = h.f where h is the Plank's constant and f is the frequency
If you consider a photon as a particle you can assign it mass and momentun in a indirect way through the relationships E = mc2 and P = m.c

Nothing strange with photons, light is normally assumed to be a wave and in most cases with some few exceptions behaves as a wave.
Strange things happens with electrons that normally are assumed to be particles, but is some cases behaves as a wave.

Now hang on just a minute.

If you call a flashlight a torch, then what do you call those bright thingies the townfolk carry up to the castle when the good Doctor has let his creature out for a stroll in the village?

You know ... they look like rags wrapped around the ends of stout sticks, soaked in some flammable liquid and lit on fire so as to illuminate their immediate surroundings.

By what colloquialism do you refer to such appliances?

*"By what colloquialism do you refer to such appliances?"

Fire Brands?
dph

Quote - Now hang on just a minute.

If you call a flashlight a torch, then what do you call those bright thingies the townfolk carry up to the castle when the good Doctor has let his creature out for a stroll in the village?

You know ... they look like rags wrapped around the ends of stout sticks, soaked in some flammable liquid and lit on fire so as to illuminate their immediate surroundings.

By what colloquialism do you refer to such appliances?

a Torch.
same name.

Quote - > Quote - Now hang on just a minute.

If you call a flashlight a torch, then what do you call those bright thingies the townfolk carry up to the castle when the good Doctor has let his creature out for a stroll in the village?

You know ... they look like rags wrapped around the ends of stout sticks, soaked in some flammable liquid and lit on fire so as to illuminate their immediate surroundings.

By what colloquialism do you refer to such appliances?

a Torch.
same name.

Really?

What linguistic poverty ... to be forced to use the same name for entirely different things, with radically different fuel sources and shapes, not to mention heat and light outputs.  It's just a shame.

Why, that would be like using a verb as a noun to describe something ... when a perfectly good noun exists.  As if one said "lift" to mean elevator.  Imagine that!

I'll tell you what.  Inasmuch as you've quit taxing our tea, we'll henceforth allow you to use both flashlight and elevator.

Magnanimous, ain't we?

Klebnor (Corresponding from the north Atlantic colonies)

I'm not getting what needs explaining here. That two people can see the same light source? Lost here.

Nup.  Two people can see the reflection of the light source.  The standard explanation goes on about "virtual images" and so forth, which is, in fact, total bollocks. 

It may not seem so odd if you think about a standard source of illumination such as a torch/flashlight but when you substitute that for a pulsing lazer emitting a single photon, then yes, it is quite odd.

Kawecki's post regarding photons as probably being waves is the best explanation science has come up with yet but it's not entirely satisfactory since the brightest minds in physics aren't sure exactly what a photon is.  Sometimes it's a particle, sometimes it's a wave.

Quote - Nup.  Two people can see the reflection of the light source.  The standard explanation goes on about "virtual images" and so forth, which is, in fact, total bollocks. 

It may not seem so odd if you think about a standard source of illumination such as a torch/flashlight but when you substitute that for a pulsing lazer emitting a single photon, then yes, it is quite odd.

Kawecki's post regarding photons as probably being waves is the best explanation science has come up with yet but it's not entirely satisfactory since the brightest minds in physics aren't sure exactly what a photon is.  Sometimes it's a particle, sometimes it's a wave.

And just HOW many angles CAN dance on the head of a pin??????

Quote -  

And just HOW many angles CAN dance on the head of a pin??????

Angles?

Well, assuming we're using integers here and assuming the pin head is a hemisphere, you can get 180 * 360, last time I looked.

If, however, you mean angels, well, the answer is as many as you believe.  So, it could be infinite, which is problematic, since infinity cannot exist in the physical universe.  In my case, I'd say none at all 'cause I don't believe they exist.

However, they are big lads, far as I remember.  Giant sized guys with flaming swords and all that.  So perhaps it would have to be a bloody big pin.

Actually, that was supposed to Angles (as opposed to Saxons), not angles, dancing on the head of that virtual pin.  And if two people are observing the pin from two different angles, how many Angles would the actually see?  And would the results by any chance be dependant on either the past or present population of Anglesey, Anglesea, Anglesea Island, or East Anglia?
And would there by any chance be a doppelgänger effect consisting of pins dancing on the heads of Angles?
Just some thoughts on the matter.  And finally, is there really such a thing as Matter?
dph

Something wrong with "angels with flaming swords", someone did a mistake in the translation, it should has been "angels with flaming clubs".
In Bible times there were no swords, swords only appeared during Middle Age.

From the above article in Wikipedia: Bronze Age collapse

"Changes in warfare
Robert Drews argues[12]that the appearance of massed infantry, using newly developed weapons and armor, such as cast rather than forged spearheads and long swords, a revolutionizing cut-and-thrust weapon,[13]and javelins, and the appearance of bronze foundries, suggest "that mass production of bronze artifacts was suddenly important in the Aegean". (For example, Homer uses "spears" as a virtual synonym for "warrior", suggesting the continued importance of the spear in combat.) Such new weaponry, furnished to a proto-hoplite model of infantry which was able to withstand attacks of massed chariotry, would destabilize states that were based upon the use of chariots by the ruling class and precipitate an abrupt social collapse as raiders and/or infantry mercenaries began to conquer, loot, and burn the cities.[14][1][2]"

Attached Link: Hoplite

*"Hoplites also carried a short sword called a* *[*xiphos*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiphos "Xiphos")**. The short sword was a secondary weapon, used if and when their spears were broken or lost, or if the phalanx broke rank. When the enemy retreated, hoplites might drop their shield and spear, and pursue the enemy with their swords. The xiphos usually has a blade around 2 feet long, however those used by the Spartans were often only 12-18 inches long. This very short xiphos would be very advantageous in the press that occurred when two lines of hoplites met, capable of being thrust through gaps in the shieldwall into an enemy's unprotected groin or throat, while there was no room to swing a longer sword. Such a small weapon would be particularly useful after many hoplites had started to abandon body armor during the* [*Pelopponesian War*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelopponesian_War "Pelopponesian War")*. Hoplites could also alternatively carry the curved* [*kopis*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kopis "Kopis")*, a particularly vicious hacking weapon, and Spartan hoplites were often depicted using this instead of the xiphos in Athenian art, the kopis being a quintessential "bad guys" weapon in Greek eyes.**By contrast with hoplites, other contemporary infantry (e.g.* [*Persian*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire "Achaemenid Empire")*) tended to wear relatively light armour, use wicker shields, and were armed with shorter spears,* [*javelins*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javelin "Javelin")*, and* [*bows*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_%28weapon%29 "Bow (weapon)")*.*

Hoplite warfare has been portrayed (with varying accuracy) in several films including Troy, The 300 Spartans and 300. Several strategy games, such as Rise of Nations, Rome: Total War, Spartan Total Warrior, Civilization (series), Ancient Wars: Sparta, Age of Empires and Age of Mythology, feature infantry units called 'Hoplites' or Phalanx."

Quote - Something wrong with "angels with flaming swords", someone did a mistake in the translation, it should has been "angels with flaming clubs".
In Bible times there were no swords, swords only appeared during Middle Age.

so what were the Romans using? harsh language?

the Gladius is a sword for example. infact Gladius is a Latin word for sword.

Romans didn't have swords, the gladius is not a sword, is a long knife used as secondary weapon. The primary weapon was the pillum ( a pike).
The Roman or Latin name for sword is spatia and not gladius.
The spatia even knwon and taken from the Iberians had no practical use as a weapon, because a sword without steel is useless and easily breaks in the first combat.
The sword as a weapon only appeared with the Saracens and were improved by the Spanish, the first swords were from Damasco and later from Toledo.
Even so, in the begining were very rare and legendary, (excalibur, the sword of the Cid, etc). It was very dificult to find or make a sword that had a primitive steel, were very expensive, so only a grand grand lord could afford it, it were useless and broke easily, so the weapons used by the soldiers remained to be the classical pikes, clubs, hammers, axes.
Only in the 16th century swords become the main weapon for Spanish soldiers together with ballistas and primitive guns.

Question: When does a knife cease to be a knife and become a sword?

Answer: When certain Rendo' Forum members agree & say it does!

gladius (genitive gladiī); m, second declension

1. sword Mitte gladium in vaginam. Put the sword into its sheath. Gladium vagina proripere. To draw a sword hastily from its sheath. Gladio incumbere. To fall on one's sword. In gladium incumbere. To fall on one's sword.

[edit] Inflection

Number Singular Plural nominative gladius gladiī genitive gladiī gladiōrum dative gladiō gladiīs accusative gladium gladiōs ablative gladiō gladiīs vocative gladie gladiī#### [edit] Synonyms

• (sword): ēnsis, mūcrō, spatha

[edit] Derived terms

• gladiātor
• gladiolus

Pity, the Gladiators who fought each other with a Gladius**** had to be satisfied that their weapons were long knives rather than swords.  Does that mean that they were any less efficient at killing?
And maybe the Flaming Swords that the Cherubim כרובים at the Gates of Gan Eden held aloft were Flaming Long Knives rather than a Swords, but either way, the Hebrew word in Genesis 3, verse 24, חרב, refers to a Bladed Weapon rather than a Blunt One.
dph

all those history books, museums, archeologists that are wrong.... however did they make that mistake!

once again it's useless to argue the point..

going to do something more productive instead.

Quote - Romans didn't have swords, the gladius is not a sword, is a long knife used as secondary weapon. The primary weapon was the pillum ( a pike).
The Roman or Latin name for sword is spatia and not gladius.
The spatia even knwon and taken from the Iberians had no practical use as a weapon, because a sword without steel is useless and easily breaks in the first combat.
The sword as a weapon only appeared with the Saracens and were improved by the Spanish, the first swords were from Damasco and later from Toledo.
Even so, in the begining were very rare and legendary, (excalibur, the sword of the Cid, etc). It was very dificult to find or make a sword that had a primitive steel, were very expensive, so only a grand grand lord could afford it, it were useless and broke easily, so the weapons used by the soldiers remained to be the classical pikes, clubs, hammers, axes.
Only in the 16th century swords become the main weapon for Spanish soldiers together with ballistas and primitive guns.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong...

Well, you may call a Gladius a long knife, but I don't think the Gauls of 56 BC, who were gutted with them by Ceasar's legion, would have called them knives.  If the Gladius is not a sword, why is a Gladiolus  a small sword?  And if it's a knife, what is a Pugio?  (I know, a dagger - which is another word for knife).

It will come as some surprise to most scholars of ancient metallurgy that the Romans were unable to make steel.

And, by the way, what's all this about swords ... this thread is about torches !!!

Quote - And, by the way, what's all this about swords ... this thread is about torches !!!

From Flashlight to Torch to Flaming Sword to Long Bladed Knife!

If gladius is a sword what the Hell is spatia?!
The name gladiator derives from gladius and they were not spatiators.
Gladiators were a bloody version of modern box, it was a sport and entertainment, a body to body combat with close range weapons amd without or with very light armor.

Quote - Well, you may call a Gladius a long knife, but I don't think the Gauls of 56 BC, who were gutted with them by Ceasar's legion, would have called them knives.

David killed Goliath with a sling, so a sling is also a weapon that can kill you.
The Gauls were defeated not because that Roman had gladius, the Gauls were defeated because they had not the patience, politics and strategy that Caesar had.
The strenght of Romans was not because they had a long knife, it was due militar formations with shields and a strong defense with long pikes as attack weapon (not body to body combat) helped with long range weapons as bows and the temible catapults that were very effective.
Every American soldiers has a long knife in his equipment, you are not going to tell me that Marines are so poverful because they have gladius.