Roman Sword ??

[Tarbicus]

Michel Feugere's "Weapons of the Roman" has similar guards fitted to ring pommel swords on page 123.

Nice one Sassanid, I didn't think to look there. And there's even better news Page 116, take a look at the spatha with it's sloped edged guard. Almost a dead ringer including the thickness of the tang, without the pommel of course. Dated to 197 AD, residing in Lyon.

[aitor iriarte]

Oh, oh, perhaps we've been misunderstanding the pommel's shape all the time... :?
Is it rectangular elliptical in plan or is it rather round?

Aitor

[stevesarak]

Michel Feugere's "Weapons of the Roman" has similar guards fitted to ring pommel swords on page 123.

Nice one Sassanid, I didn't think to look there. And there's even better news Page 116, take a look at the spatha with it's sloped edged guard. Almost a dead ringer including the thickness of the tang, without the pommel of course. Dated to 197 AD, residing in Lyon.

As some of you know, I'm trying to get my hands on 1st AD pugio from the Guttmann collection, plus some other tid bits. Even though it’s not until next week, privately the bidding as already started, I hope saying this doesn’t get anyone in trouble. The price is going higher and higher and last night I got a call from the bookstore, my four osprey books plus Caesars conquest of Gaul is in. So now isn’t a good time to go out and get "Weapons of the Roman". Of course if it has swords similar to mine, I’ll have to, not counting the fact that the title alone warrants getting it.

So does any one have a link or can they post a picture of Page 116, if not that’s ok, I’ll probably go out and get the book in about a month.


Here's a picture of the pomel

[Tarbicus]

Come on Aitor, I'm holding my breath.....

[Neuraleanus]

Dark age and/or Frankist swords. I looked at the later period spathae in "Weapons of the Romans", and though there is similarity in the guard, the pommel doesn't fit. Another source of information are the spathae found at Dura Europos (mid 3rd century) . Again, both the guard and pommel are separate pieces on the spathae found there. If nothing found matches, then if the sword is geniue, then we must have the wrong period.

[Tarbicus]

Again, both the guard and pommel are separate pieces on the spathae found there.

Is that the case with all ring pommel swords? Page 123 of the Feugere book has Fig. 10, a ring pommel sword from Vertault, which on first glance looks like it might be one piece.

[stevesarak]

Dark age and/or Frankist swords. I looked at the later period spathae in "Weapons of the Romans", and though there is similarity in the guard, the pommel doesn't fit. Another source of information are the spathae found at Dura Europos (mid 3rd century) . Again, both the guard and pommel are separate pieces on the spathae found there. If nothing found matches, then if the sword is geniue, then we must have the wrong period.

Sorry, but I’m going to have to disagree with you assessment. You're looking at it wrong. Fist the sword as been verified as not being a fake, that only means it is ancient, not what era it came from.

Second, the sword, as far as I know from talking to others that deal with antique swords as well as “RATâ€

[Tarbicus]

Answered my previous question myself. Spathae found with what seem to be single construction blade, tang and guard of a fairly similar type to Steve's sword: Römische Schwerter im Gebiet des europäischen Barbaricum, by Marcin Biborski, again. At least, there are no rivets visible in the illustrations.

[aitor iriarte]

Oh, not as a I expected! For a moment I thought that the pommel was almost circular in plan, which would have been more Roman than Early Mediaeval...

Aitor

[stevesarak]

I just saw the ring pommel swords and was surprised on how close to mine they are. I can see the ring breaking off years later and somebody putting on a current or stronger pommel, lets say a hazel nut.

Sure would look familure then.

[stevesarak]

Dark age and/or Frankist swords. I looked at the later period spathae in "Weapons of the Romans", and though there is similarity in the guard, the pommel doesn't fit. Another source of information are the spathae found at Dura Europos (mid 3rd century) . Again, both the guard and pommel are separate pieces on the spathae found there. If nothing found matches, then if the sword is geniue, then we must have the wrong period.

Sorry, but I’m going to have to disagree with you assessment. You're looking at it wrong. Fist the sword as been verified as not being a fake, that only means it is ancient, not what era it came from.

Second, the sword, as far as I know from talking to others that deal with antique swords as well as “RATâ€

[Neuraleanus]

Neuraleanus, thanks again for thoughts, I do want to hear them.

Attacking me is not going to make your sword roman. It's a fact that this sword is different from anything illustrated in my collection of references. So far no one has been able to come up with anything either.

It was a fresh water find somewhere between Romania and Bulgaria.

You said that the sword came from a museum. From where did they get it? What records exist of its finding? What was found with the sword? The deposition of other objects found with it might be easier to date and they would likely to be of the same date as the sword. I'm told that the manufacture of fake roman artifacts is a huge industry in that part of the world. Your sword may be genuine, but I'm not sure that it is roman.

[stevesarak]

Neuraleanus, sorry about that, I wasn't attacking you and I don't want it to sound as if I was. You may be right in what you’re saying. There’s no proof one way or another, all you can do is to look at existing swords and try to make a comparison. You don’t see Roman and you may be right. Its very possible that tomorrow an exact duplicate of mine may show up, and it turns out, that it was a sword created by an English cook who had them made personally for him because they were good for cutting up his chickens during the Middle Ages.

I thought we were just throwing our views back and forth, I respect your view to question it because you don’t have any proof, there’s nothing wrong with that, in fact sometimes its better to keep questioning then to accept because others do.

You are right by questioning it's authenticity. Unless I spoke to some experts myself, I wouldn’t have believed it. I've spoken to them and I’m still not 100% convinced. I thought we were just enjoying the banter of trying to prove our case, if not sorry about that.

I was just pointing out what the experts, that I’ve spoken to, have said. And again it’s still their guess. I bet if you got a couple of other experts, they’d disagree, so who’s right???

Remember the experts are making an educated guess, that’s all. Based on what they’ve seen and experienced, they make a guess. It very possible and I’m sure its happened before, that some experts have made a guess, then somebody finds a piece of info in a book, forgotten to everyone, and it contradict them. I’m sure with the new information given to them that they have changed their minds.

Chances are that this sword will never be 100% identified; It's probaly a sword that's been modified, way back then. You may be right, it may not be Roman, we may never know for sure.

After talking to different people, I believe it to be a genuine Roman sword, but I still have my doubts. The reason I first posted this thread on a different forum (That was before I knew that RAT existed) was because I had my doubts. I can’t find anything to prove it, so I have my doubts. I welcome people to try to disprove it, if they do, fine, at least I know one way or another. Unless I get the proof you’re looking for, which I probably never will, I’ll always doubt it but, not being an expert myself, I have to rely on the expertise of others.

“You said that the sword came from a museum. From where did they get it.â€

[Tarbicus]

It's a fact that this sword is different from anything illustrated in my collection of references. So far no one has been able to come up with anything either.

So far no one has disputed the Biborski ROMEC references which make it x% Roman, if we are basing this on illustrations, including yourself. I'm getting a bit fed up of these not being taken into account so I made my own diagrams based on the drawings of three of the Biborski swords I've pointed out, for others to see. No rivets to be seen on the originals of the ring pommel swords, in case they are thought to be omitted in my versions.

The first in this post is based on the Feugere drawing.

[Tarbicus]

And the ring pommel swords from Römische Schwerter im Gebiet des europäischen Barbaricum, by Marcin Biborski