Sources for gladius hilt materials

[Gregg]

Ah, and what makes the grip unfit for "fencing"? Did other cultures in the same period use more sophisticated grips?
I am thinking especially of the hilts of the celts and the greeks - both those societies, especially the celtic one, were more built up around one on one champion duels no? All the xiphos grips I have seen are oval, that goes for a lot of early celtic swords too. So does oval grips give more freedom of movement? Unfortunately my experience in trying out sword grips is very limited :roll:

Cheers,
Jesper

I don't think other cultures necessarily used more sophisticated sword grips. The Romans could have given all their swords simple oval wooden grips if they wanted, or allowed their soldiers to pick the type of sword grip they wanted. But the evidence suggests that there was a standard "official" grip for the classic Imperial gladius. They were octagonal in cross section, ribbed for four fingers, and carved from cattle metapodia. In size, the bone grips ran from 75-85mm, the most common size being 80-85mm. Though other bones from other animals could have been utilized, cattle metapodia seems to have been specifically used because it left only a short bit of bone once the epiphysis had been removed. This short grip was sandwiched between a large guard and pommel, generally carved from wood.

This suggests the Romans specifically wanted a sword with a very secure, tight "fist" grip, but one that would have limited any real "fencing":



There are certainly variations on grip material, as well as guard and pommel size, but the fact that this "standard" seems to have been generally followed throughout the Empire suggests an official requirement. Which, by extension, suggests a "standard" style of fighting.

Roman sword furniture seems pretty unique compared to that of their contemporaries, which was quite varied. The long swords of the Gauls, the Thracian rhomphaia and Dacian falx, the Greek xiphos and Iberian falcata, the Parthian long-sword, etc. Most of these warrior peoples probably retained some kind of dueling tradition, and most of their warrior elite probably held the sword in higher esteem than the Romans, for whom the sword was hardly more than a tool of war. But then the Romans fielded trained soldiers, not warriors.

Gregg