+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Reenactment (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Roman Re-Enactment & Reconstruction (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+--- Thread: How authentic is authentic? (/showthread.php?tid=16496)
Pages:
1
2
How authentic is authentic? - lyuv - 02-24-2010
I got myself into making a gladius. Browsing this forum and other sources, there seem to be several specific models with very strict specifications. For example, a Hainz should be about 50cm long and have no fullers. Based on these specifications people judge a reproduction to be "correct" or "errored".
My question to you is: How sure are we that indeed only these specifications represent a true gladius? Perhaps they are based on only few samples, and in reality there was a vast selections of models, of wich only few survived?
I read the Mainz model is based on several swords found together on a river bottom, possibly from the same manufacturing batch. Fulham and Pompei where also unique findings.
The Roman empire spanned over hundreds of years and HUGE area with HUGE variety of local influences. It seems to me neerly impossible to maintain such strict specifications of only 4 (or even 10) models. Not to mention that each of these models is suppusedly dominant in a certain long era.
Isn't it likely that a ligion posted for decades somewhere months away from Rome, making it's own weapons with local blacksmiths, will gradualy develop a liking for those sexy fullers (or different point shape, or length or width or section or whatever)?
Does anyone know if there is a strong evidence that indeed these models where the closely whatched standard?
(I"m talking about a general standard. not if it's impossible that some blacksmith "dared" making a variant).
Re: How authentic is authentic? - Robert - 02-24-2010
Most reproductions sold on the market are wrong to some extent, some are horrid, some can just pass muster. Only a few makers produce accurate reproductions based on as solid as possible scientific data (like Matt). There is an excellent book out on Roman swords, listing nearly all finds described in musea and private collections. The range is indeed wide, although Miks does group them in a large number of types. The Mainz actually has SEVEN different bladetypes described. So I would advise you to pick a specific sword you like, perhaps from your region and having a good description / documentation, and make that, instead of going for an archtype of a blade, which will be a compromise anyway. I would however strongly advise against adding any undocumented features yourself just because you think they look good.
Re: How authentic is authentic? - Matthew Amt - 02-24-2010
The point of authenticity is to stick with what evidence we have, whenever possible. So if we see a reproduction gladius that deviates significantly from known original examples, we label it as "wrong". Such "errors" or "flaws" can be major or minor, of course! Much of it is subjective.
However, as has been pointed out there are a LOT more surviving examples than you may be aware of! Some items are surprisingly consistent, even if they come from opposite ends of the empire. So for things like sword blades we have perfectly usable guidelines for shape and size, and we are pretty sure that we have a decent cross-section of what was *commonly* used at the time. You can make a sword that simply falls into the known "ballpark", or you can meticulously copy a specific example, and most everyone will be pleased either way.
We never claim to know it all, or that something outside our current knowledge base can not have existed. All we can do is go with what we know. Straying outside of those parameters, merely for the reason that "they could have done it", is not generally accepted as "historically accurate". Obviously there has to be some speculation or mixing and matching at times, and not few of us insist that every reproduction has to be a perfect copy of a specific artifact. But we don't have to prove that something is "wrong"--the person who wants to use it has to provide the *evidence* that it is "right".
Oh, as far as "government standards" go, we really don't know for certain how all those various styles of things got around or were specified. But before the Jewish Revolt of 66 AD, Judean craftsmen armed themselves by producing weapons for the Roman army which were deliberately made to fail inspection. When the Romans rejected these weapons, the Jews simply stored them instead of modifying, recycling, or destroying them. So they were clearly fully functional, just not what was ordered. If only we had more details, this would be REALLY USEFUL!! Typical historical source...
Valete,
Matthew
Re: How authentic is authentic? - M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER - 02-24-2010
Quote:But before the Jewish Revolt of 66 AD, Judean craftsmen armed themselves by producing weapons for the Roman army which were deliberately made to fail inspection.
What is the source of this information?
Thanks,
Re: How authentic is authentic? - Matthew Amt - 02-24-2010
Quote:Matthew Amt:285qclmu Wrote:But before the Jewish Revolt of 66 AD, Judean craftsmen armed themselves by producing weapons for the Roman army which were deliberately made to fail inspection.
What is the source of this information?
Thanks,
Josephus. At least, it had better be! If not, I will have to retract it as a product of my aging brain. Sorry, I don't have a citation for it.
Matthew
Re: How authentic is authentic? - Gaius Julius Caesar - 02-24-2010
Quote:Well, if your aging brain is producing errors, mine is too.M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER:2gnl84lw Wrote:Matthew Amt:2gnl84lw Wrote:But before the Jewish Revolt of 66 AD, Judean craftsmen armed themselves by producing weapons for the Roman army which were deliberately made to fail inspection.
What is the source of this information?
Thanks,
Josephus. At least, it had better be! If not, I will have to retract it as a product of my aging brain. Sorry, I don't have a citation for it.
Matthew
Josephus was the first thing I thought of as well when I read your post.
Re: How authentic is authentic? - M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER - 02-24-2010
Quote:Josephus
Well, I was hoping for the passage, since I cannot remember him saying that.
Re: How authentic is authentic? - Uhrisa - 02-25-2010
[. There is an excellent book out on Roman swords, listing nearly all finds described in musea and private collections. .[/quote]
Wich book is this?
Regards
Re: How authentic is authentic? - jvrjenivs - 02-25-2010
Quote:[. There is an excellent book out on Roman swords, listing nearly all finds described in musea and private collections. .
Wich book is this?
Regards[/quote]
I think there is referred to this one:
Christian Miks - Studien zur römischen Schwertbewaffnung in der Kaiserzeit.
ISBN-13: 978-3-89646-136-0
ISBN-10: 3-89646-136-2
See [url:jjo4wqst]http://www.vml.de/e/detail.php?ISBN=978-3-89646-136-0[/url]
Re: How authentic is authentic? - lyuv - 02-25-2010
Quote:M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER:3nk4s4hk Wrote:Matthew Amt:3nk4s4hk Wrote:But before the Jewish Revolt of 66 AD, Judean craftsmen armed themselves by producing weapons for the Roman army which were deliberately made to fail inspection.
What is the source of this information?
Thanks,
Josephus. At least, it had better be! If not, I will have to retract it as a product of my aging brain. Sorry, I don't have a citation for it.
Matthew
If you are reffering to Josephus Plavius, than I just finished reading his book on the war between the Jews and the Romans (dont know the English name), and I fear I saw no mention to such practice. His other 3 books (which I read only in part) deal with other matters.
In addition, the "Great Revolt" is well known and tought in schools here in Israel. I never heard of this interesting piece of info.
BTW, in the past months, there where two seperate instances of workers in arms manufacturing, who "kept" parts that "fell" of the assembly line, to make illegual and unregistered guns. so perhaps there is nothing new under Judea's sun...
Re: How authentic is authentic? - PhilusEstilius - 02-25-2010
I can't remember the reference off hand but was it not around the period of the Emperor Hadrian when this weapons of poor manufacture took place in Judea.
If I come across it again I will certainly post it.
Re: How authentic is authentic? - M. Demetrius - 02-25-2010
Quote:so perhaps there is nothing new under Judea's sun...Agreed, or anybody else's for that matter.
Re: How authentic is authentic? - lyuv - 02-25-2010
Quote:M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER:3v1jezdp Wrote:Matthew Amt:3v1jezdp Wrote:But before the Jewish Revolt of 66 AD, Judean craftsmen armed themselves by producing weapons for the Roman army which were deliberately made to fail inspection.
What is the source of this information?
Thanks,
Josephus. At least, it had better be! If not, I will have to retract it as a product of my aging brain. Sorry, I don't have a citation for it.
Matthew
Found it!
The source is Cassius Dio in his description of the final jewish revolt of 132AD, which indeed was in the time of Hadrian.
Re: How authentic is authentic? - Matthew Amt - 02-25-2010
Quote:Found it!
The source is Cassius Dio in his description of the final jewish revolt of 132AD, which indeed was in the time of Hadrian.
Ah, thank you! I had the wrong revolt. Amending mental files.
Matthew
Re: How authentic is authentic? - john m roberts - 02-26-2010
Yuv,
A good example of the flexibility of the authentic/inauthentic variations of gladii is the familiar guard plate. Some swords had it, some did not. In those that had it, the guard was recessed into the guard proper at the base of the blade. So it's authentic to have it either way. What's not authentic is to have the guard plate exposed outside the guard, sandwiched between guard and blade, as is the case on a number of gladius "replicas" sold today. It's inauthentic because no specimens have been found that were made that way. Maybe someday such a sword will be found. If so, then it will be reclassified as authentic, but not until then.