Roman Gladius - Pompeii

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Robert, I see where you are coming from as it has tha twaisted appearance of a mainz, but is this not just an illusion caused by material loss due to corrosion?

That was my conclusion, but would be happy to be wrong!

[Robert]

No, the late Mainz swords have no waistpinch, they are a separate type, Miks names 7 types in all. We tend to lobb all Mainz in the early catagorie, being "waisted", but Miks descibes other types as well which conform to more paralell sides. It is really the transition between the blade and tang, the shorter length and the point shape which would class this sword as a late Mainz instead of a Klassische Pompeii, if we are to accept Miks classification (which I do).

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Ok, I seem to recall that now. I haven't looked at my book for a while. Thanks for the memory jog. I seem to recall there was one which really looked like a fantasy roman sword too, but there are actually artifacts for them. I think I'll take it for light reading on my trip home!!

[Nero]

Hello,

first off all sorry for my late reply.
I see there’s quite some discussion here with regards to my sword; Late Mainz or Pompeii type.
My attribution to Pompeii is made based on the research I’ve done (from pictures and information I mainly found on the internet) and my visit to the conservator of Museum “Het Valkhof” in Nijmegen.
He confirmed my attribution (Pompeii type). Of course I'm very intrested hearing opinions and even more seeing some pictures or plates of the late mainz type.

Robert, the sword is found in Belgium; according to the seller near the Maas river. Unfortunately this is all I could found out.

Best Regards,

Jos

[Tarbicus]

Slightly wasp waisted (or so it seems from the photos), long taper to the point with a bit of a curve and no sharp angle change into the point from the main edge - you're sure it's not a late Republican or Augustan Hispaniensis?

[Robert]

Jos, send me a PM with a regular e-mail adres. Louis Swinkels (Valkhof) is a great guy, but Chrisian Miks did a very exhaustive comparative study on blade typologies. There are just too many things about the blade that do not add up to a Pompeii type blade. You may want to come over and leaf through Miks.

[marcos]

But all things considered, it could be a late mainz as well as a pompei , type A-B or G, simply because these typologies are make by ourselve, not by Romans.

We can call into being as many typoligies as we wish , one student can make 7 sub-types and another 10, and both are right ; it's just a modern convention.
Thus we will have the faction of the "five typologies" students against that of the "five types plus 4 subtypes" , both against that of "six typologies" , but Romans brush-off all that!

I'm afraid here we have here the some problems discussed in another topic concerning helmets, wich is the basic problem of all students of ancient weaponary.

I think that our classifications of ancient weapons are not truly existing , the only right thing is to link a weapon to the period and - when possible - to the area and culture , then if one want to call it "type mainz subtype A" or "type Goofy"... why not?

Each sword , as each helmet or pugio, is different from the others and a choosey crazy student could make so many typologies as gladii exisiting.

[Tarbicus]

Each sword , as each helmet or pugio, is different from the others and a choosey crazy student could make so many typologies as gladii exisiting.

Sure, the individual finds, rare as they are, may seem different, but I'm not convinced of your reasoning. We know from letters that there certainly was a 'specification' for swords in the 2nd or 3rd Century AD, IIRC, where a lanciarius in Britain complains of a batch of delivered swords not being up to specification and needing to be resupplied. A specification is a kind of typology, ergo...

Also bear in mind the individual soldier reprimanded for having a shield of a different shape to his comrades and punished for it.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I think that was as far back as the Punic wars IIRC? His shield was far larger than everyone elses?

[Robert]

Typologies are not sacred lists, they help us better understand the development over time and area of objects used by man. They are a proven scientific tool. Yes, there may be controversy about certain listings, but at least that is also part of the academic debate. I would not rule them out, even if they do not always fit our specific observations.

[marcos]

sure , Tarbicus, mine was a sort of exasperation of my idea to mean that in my opinion is a mistake to talk about type- subtype- subsubtype etc.
We surely can identify the main categories of swords, and if we want to call them mainz- fhulam-pompei or in other way that's right , but then is very hard to want to go onward.
In this case we would have an infinity of subtypes.
By the way , even in this case often some blade is quite hard to classify.

[john m roberts]

I suspect that there must have been specifications from some sort of authority, but that these weren't of the modern sort, with drawings, blueprints, minute detailing, etc. At some time, it may have been specified that the legionary's sword must be straight, double-edged, no longer than x and no shorter than x. Within these parameters there could be a great deal of variation in the way of straight vs waisted sides, thickness, width of blade, presence or absence of midrib, angled or tapered point, etc. These were trifling differences that would have little to no effect on the employment of the weapon in combat. If any one piece of gear was standardized throughout a legion, it would be the shield. There were formations that required close placement or even overlapping of shields, and one that was just a few inches too large or small would weaken the formation. We just haven't discovered any of these regulations. In the Republic, it may have been the Senate itself. Supposedly, a senatorial committee studied the camp of King Pyrrhus and recommended that henceforth the legions adopt this sort of encampment. Even if the story is apocryphal, it indicates that the Senate had oversight of military regulations.

[Tarbicus]

I'd guess the best way to provide a specification would be to give the manufacturer a physical example of what he was supposed to deliver. However, camps may be a good, and obvious, example of specification in the Roman period, as are roads and a myriad other construction tasks (walls, ditches, etc). Another specification would be for weights and measures; the list could go on and on (concrete must have been specified or little of that would have stood up at the time, and even less would be standing now, if any).

But then when we get to swords, helmets, etc, they're suddenly an artform on an individual basis, and not about reliably supplying and re-supplying one of the largest armies in the world at the time with reliable equipment :wink: All a specification is is a detailed description of dimensions, materials and quality.

[Robert]

May I observe that the Romans themselves were very into "standarisation of production"? Having observed something worked well, they quickly expanded that idea to all other similar endevours, such as the layout of castella, vexilatio fortresses, roads, temples and what have you. These also help us date things, because the system was addapted as time progressed and circumstances changed. There is even an example of a known Roman commander who, having served in what we now call Africa, erected a small castellum along the same lines as he had learned there in the middle of Germania Superior, causing a nice break in typology. The thinking along lines of what worked best, given certain battle strategies, much influenced development of arms, creating typologies all on their own. The Romans wouldn't have named them "the Pompeii sword" as we do to adress a range of similar products within a given timeframe, it was just the newest model of the gladius to them, best fit for the job at hand. To scoff at any and all typologies does reak of a very unacademic way of trying to understand the development of items. I have no aim to berate or offend, but ask simply for a more level approuch to those trying to further develop understanding of development of artifacts through time ....

[marcos]

Robert, sounds we are saying almost the some.
I absolutely agree on the standardization of production ,linked to the historical period, and thus in the identification of the main types, just I don't believe in the exasperation of this concept, so I don't think is possible to talk about sub-types.
When Romans , as you well said, made the newest model of the gladius best fit for the job at hand, then each blacksmith forged the swords according his style .
If you compare all pompeii known , as well as hispaniensis or mainz or ring-pommel, you realize that each sword is quite different from the others , similar of course but not identical, sometimes also very different.

In the meantime is true that there are some swords almost unidentifiable.

Thake a look to this sword, it 's blade is similar to a mainz type but it has the ring pommel. What can we say in this case , is it a mainz type or a ring-pommel type?


and this other one has still a ring pommel , but the blade seems from a republican hispaninesis. Is it a strange hispaninesis or a strange ring-pommel?


all above is just mine opinon , of course