Gladius discussion (was: show your gladius off)

[brennivs - tony drake]

Jason I think you have mixed people up in your posting, I was answering Bryans "quote" on Philon and what he was referring too, I am the one who mentioned the Falcata :lol: All my references come from old fashioned books I am afraid, just too many to look through so I just used Ospreys Rome Enemies 4 Spanish Armies as I knew it was in there even if it is a bullet point. It is sometimes easier to use modern terms for swords so people know what you are refering too, I have even had a FORUM VIOLATION against me ( on another site ), for posting a question getting replys for the wrong type of sword, So posted pictures of swords I made to show what I was after, and then being accused of trying to sell swords :lol: :lol: :lol: Glad to say it doesnt happen on this one Also you are right about putting Iron in the ground to purifie it a few cultures do this, But I dont want to get too of topic :grin:
Regards Brennivs :grin:
DOH! I am the one confused you both posted while I was writting my piece :? :unsure: Sorry

[Sextus Saturninus]

Sorry if I was being confusing ad:

We should also get back to the topic of posting Roman weapons pics, and then discussing them.

[Bryan]

Jason I think you have mixed people up in your posting, I was answering Bryans "quote" on Philon and what he was referring too, I am the one who mentioned the Falcata :lol: All my references come from old fashioned books I am afraid, just too many to look through so I just used Ospreys Rome Enemies 4 Spanish Armies as I knew it was in there even if it is a bullet point. It is sometimes easier to use modern terms for swords so people know what you are refering too, I have even had a FORUM VIOLATION against me ( on another site ), for posting a question getting replys for the wrong type of sword, So posted pictures of swords I made to show what I was after, and then being accused of trying to sell swords :lol: :lol: :lol: Glad to say it doesnt happen on this one Also you are right about putting Iron in the ground to purifie it a few cultures do this, But I dont want to get too of topic :grin:
Regards Brennivs :grin:
DOH! I am the one confused you both posted while I was writting my piece :? :unsure: Sorry

Can you type out the appropriate portion of the Osprey Book which contains the mention of Philon and the falcata? Did the text use Greek phrases or did it actually call the sword bend being bent over the head a kopis, falcata, machaera, or gladius? My curiosity is piqued. Every other context I've read of that paragraph dealing with Philon has it referring to double bladed types of swords, specifically Celtic La Tene types, as a way of contrasting Polybius' statements about the excessive flexibility with lack of springiness of Celtic swords, which resulted in them bending and needing to be pounded straight with rock or foot.

[Dan D'Silva]

The Oberaden pugio is dated to 11-8 B.C. and it has a stacked hilt with metal as the top layer on both sides.

Jason, I may be using the wrong term here. What I mean is, do any pugiones from that period have a guard, grip and pommel construction "stacked" onto a rod tang, like a gladius? I'm mainly interested in clarification about that Morrow pugio.and Bryan's comment.

[brennivs - tony drake]

Bryan it is in the book mentioned under Falcata for both Philon and Diodorus. I have other references which describes the flexibility of the Falcata but which books?. I have not come across any reference to the Gladivs Hispaniensis being flexable, only that the point was prone to snapping But I agree with you, the Falcata shape how does it bend :? Sorry its Me I am the cofused one :lol:
Regards Brennivs :-D

Sorry Bryan posted before me so here goes Rafael Trevino has placed both references under Falcata, and does not mention anything under Hispanic swords. He mentions the origons of the Falcata from the Greek Machaera/ Kopis and then goes on to its quotes of manufacture from Philon or Filon as he spells it. If I dig up the other references I will PM you Regards Brennivs :grin:

[Sextus Saturninus]

Dan,

I when I posted about the Oberaden pugio, I meant to write that it had a layered handle, like on some early pugios, and on late ones too. Pugios have been found with a gladius like hilt on rod tang pugios, but they were not made originally like that; they were just replacement handles.

[Luka Borščak]

Well, since Celtiberians were the basic designers of both blades, it's not surprising that they are similar...

I think the Mainz style Gladius was purely a Roman design as it appears in the latter half of the 1st Cent BC, well after the Celtibernians were subdued, and continued on in used for quite some time, until gradually replaced by the Pompeii style. Are you referring to the original Gladius Hispaniensis in general? Because that blade style had little in common with the Mainz other than the tang and that they were both double bladed. Most Glad. Hispaniensis were straight bladed and had thinner blades, whereas nearly all pugio and Mainz Gladius are fat and are wasp-waisted.

I meant both earlier Gladius Hispaniensis and Mainz, but Mainz as a more romanized version... But look at this Celtiberian sword from 4th/3rd century BC (photo by Manuel Velasco) and tell me it couldn't be a prototype for a mainz/fulham type gladii:
http://www.pinterest.com/pin/142285669451717641/

[Bryan]

Well, since Celtiberians were the basic designers of both blades, it's not surprising that they are similar...

I think the Mainz style Gladius was purely a Roman design as it appears in the latter half of the 1st Cent BC, well after the Celtibernians were subdued, and continued on in used for quite some time, until gradually replaced by the Pompeii style. Are you referring to the original Gladius Hispaniensis in general? Because that blade style had little in common with the Mainz other than the tang and that they were both double bladed. Most Glad. Hispaniensis were straight bladed and had thinner blades, whereas nearly all pugio and Mainz Gladius are fat and are wasp-waisted.

I meant both earlier Gladius Hispaniensis and Mainz, but Mainz as a more romanized version... But look at this Celtiberian sword from 4th/3rd century BC (photo by Manuel Velasco) and tell me it couldn't be a prototype for a mainz/fulham type gladii:
http://www.pinterest.com/pin/142285669451717641/

Very interesting. But I looked at other versions of the Arcobriga type swords (couldn't find many) and not all were as wasp waisted as the one you linked to. Now compare that to a pugio, which in nearly every case was heavily wasted.

[XorX]

Bryan:
I didn`t say that they did not have the ability to and knowledge about hardening steel in these times. By fact, there are quite old pieces of intentionally hardenend steel as early as 5th century b.C. in central europe ( in: "Zur Schmiedetechnik im römischen Bayern" by Radomir Pleiner; he mentions a hardened chisel from Poland from late Hallstatt) But hardening alone doesn`t give flexibility to a sword or any other tool.
The archeological finds which are examined tell us that there were many different types of steel and combinations of them in varying forms in use. One can roughly speak of an "evolution" of blade-making. Every generation had the knowledge of the one before and did some experiments and improvements. It may very well be that in most of the timeframe there have been swords with the quality mentioned in your source, but most of the finds we have tell another story.
The story of the "springy" blades comes up even later in the 9th. century A.D. when a frankish chronist (I think it was Erhart) speaks about a test which his emperor did with a blade he received as a gift from the Danes: he bent it and it stayed so. Then one of the ashamed Danes offered him his own sword which was a springy one. So there were different qualities of blades even as late as the 9th and a springy blade was considered "special".

The mass of early imperial roman blades did not have these abilities. They are not necessary. When used in a correct way, a blade with a soft core and hard edges will work very well (see the tests Christian Koepfer and his LEG XIII did some years ago: Die römische Arnee im Experiment 2011, p. 73-82 "Die Effektivität römischer Waffen; der Gladius"). In case of inproper use and bending there is no problem to rebend such a blade (to some degree of course).

Jason:
normally steel with a higher carbon content is corroded faster than low-carbon steel when buried in the earth. That effect can be seen on many archeological finds of blades.

[Renatus]

Pugios have been found with a gladius like hilt on rod tang pugios, but they were not made originally like that; they were just replacement handles.

How do you know that?

[Dan D'Silva]

I really don't think the atrophied antenna swords could have much to do with the gladius; they were different in most aspects of construction. I've also heard that the atrophied antenna swords went out of use long before the 1st century BC.

[Densus]

[quote][quote="XorX" post=363420]
"[Celtibernians] grasp the hilt [of their swords] in their right hand and the end of the blade in their left; then, laying it horizontally on their heads, they pull down at each end until they touch their shoulders [each end]. Next, they let go sharply, removing both hands. When released, [the sword blade] straightens itself out against and so resumes its original shape, without retaining a suspicion of a bend. Though they repeat this frequently, the sword remains straight."
Philon of Byzantium, Belopeika, 4.71, written in 2nd Century BC[/quote]

For those of us that don't have much experience with swords or metal working that seems completely incredible that they were as flexible as that.

Do those of you who know period sword making think that is an accurate description or is it likely to be exaggerated?

[Bryan]

Sempronius Densus,

For those of us that don't have much experience with swords or metal working that seems completely incredible that they were as flexible as that.

Do those of you who know period sword making think that is an accurate description or is it likely to be exaggerated?[/quote]

What Phalon (c. 200 BC) wrote about is in line with time tested ways of getting a measurement for flexibility. Most swords are not purposely made stiff (mainly thrusting swords such as estoc or rapiers), so this level of springiness and flexibility would be the norm for well built swords and sabers throughout the ages. Flexibility of this type is absolutely necessary for a good cutting sword, and the various gladii were known to be cut and thrust swords with a well forward center of balance.

In the demonstration, Philon was describing the sword of the Keltoi, which I believe was their La Tene II (or III) long double bladed slashing style swords, versus Tony Drake's theory that the sword in question would be a kopis/falcata style, which had a much thicker spine in the rear of the blade that would have made this test harder to perform.

Nevertheless, the test as Philon describes it couldn't have been an exaggeration by my reckoning, if flexibility and springiness would have been real in the 200 BC time period, then that method described would have been a way to detect it. Now whether every sword could do that is a different story.

Some other examples of testing blade springiness:
Medieval style long sword
Another more elaborate method

[Bryan]

Jürgen,

I wasn't referring at all about hardening steel, or more specifically iron, since steel making reliably was spotty at best. What I was referring to is the flexibility of swords, which is not just a matter of carbon content, but from my understanding, a matter of heat treatment (quenching and tempering). I understand and agree with you that most swords of the time period wouldn't have had this treatment. But as someone knowledgeable about sword making you can't argue that what Philon was describing wasn''t a sword that had obviously been tempered, regardless of its steel content. With that description, you can't come to any other conclusion. So whatever you previously thought of, know now that while it may not have been prevalent, tempering in some way, shape or form, existed in the 2nd Cent. BC time period, at least by the Celts.

"Evolution" of sword making is a historical feature that hasn't always proven to be correct. Haven't we recently found out that pattern welding had been created far earlier in the past then previously assumed?

Where are you getting info that Roman swords weren't flexible? Is this a guess or based off of archaeological remains?

[Crispvs]

"Jason wrote:
Pugios have been found with a gladius like hilt on rod tang pugios, but they were not made originally like that; they were just replacement handles.

How do you know that?"

There are two known pugios with replacement handles. One was found in the Walbrook and is presently displayed in the Museum of London. It has a bulbous piece of turned wood which appears to have been made for a different purpose fitted tightly over the rod tang. The replacement handle does not quite reach the shoulders of the blade. The second pugio with a replacement handle is from Vindonissa. It has a replacement guard made from the striker plate from a Mainz pattern sword handle and a grip reused from an old sword handle.
The idea of a Mainz pattern handle as a replacement handle for a pugio comes from the dagger carried by the Herculaneum soldier. His dagger had a Mainz style handle but it remains a possibility that it is actually a broken Mainz type sword which has been re-used and a new scabbard made for it. I spent a considerable time looking at it but was not able to securely determine much more than that the sheath had been made to fit it and was not a cut down sword scabbard.

Most pugios with rod tangs are found without grip plates, but a pugio with a rod tang from Usk has a normal layered handle with (presumably) two inner organic plates hugging the tang and the normal outer grip plates of inlaid iron. It is possible that the inner layers were a single block with a hole drilled down it. It is not possible to tell now. Two other grips though, show a different method of handling for pugios with rod tangs. An ivory pugio handle, again from the Walbrook, is pierced down its length for the insertion of a rod tang. One face of the handle has been recessed to accept a normal iron grip plate. This would presumably be the outer face. This handle would be somewhat thicker than a normal pugio grip and the iron grip plate would have been framed by a thin band of ivory. This find is exactly paralleled by an ivory handle of exactly the same type from Heddernheim. It is possible, although by no means certain that cheaper versions of this type of handle could have been made from wood or thick bone but if so, none have survived which I am aware of.

Crispvs