How authentic is authentic?

[M. Demetrius]

And who knows? Perhaps one day one will be found like that, or even with a screw-thread tang nut. It's just that for now, no such sword exists, so we're left trying to refit the available "replicas".

[Matt Lukes]

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)?

Generally, the best way I think one should look at accuracy/authenticity is to simply use the evidence known as much as humanly possible and only theorizing within the boundaries of evidence and logic where absolutely necessary (because something is too damaged to know for sure what its exact nature was, something is clearly missing, etc.); i.e., maximizing the reality. Certainly it's dubious to consider a few or just one example of something to be a definite 'type', but we can only work with what we have, yes?

Certainly there is variation and there may be significant forms we don't know about, but unless there's evidence for a fuller, etc. any such pieces would rightly be considered fantasy; the key is evidence- if you have sufficient evidence for any feature, and as importantly combination of features, it's possibly reasonable to reconstruct it/them. There has never been a 1st century Pompeii blade found with any indication of fullering or ricasso, for example, nor is there any circumstantial or associated evidence for either (such as a later form of the sword with either one), therefore it's just terribly bad form to consider using either just because it's not impossible or to appeal to the bad logic of 'local smith variations'.

I think you're mistaken to conisder it 'nearly impossible' to maintain any strict specifications with regards to kit- there's actually some remarkable consistency in the size and design of many 'standard' Roman military objects from swords to armour fittings; I have a Lorica segmentata lobate hinge that was found in eastern Europe that's nearly identical in size and shape as one from Britain in the BM (and many others); I have a number of hinged buckles also from the Lorica segmentata also that were clearly made by different people (since the shape of the buckle itself varies) yet the sheet metal sections are of consistent length and only vary slightly in width (<1mm); The Fulham gladius and one from Straßburg are extremely close in overall shape and only vary it seems by about 1cm of point length- and other examples seem to vary only slightly in width and length (reasonably attributable to their hand-made nature); the scabbards of several Mainz gladii, including one from Mainz (the archetype) and one in Belgrade, are nearly identical in form possibly suggesting a 'standard issue' type. One of the more impressive things is the consistency in width of Pompeii scabbard lockets- they vary in length, which is often a function of the decoration, but the general size of the scabbard for which they were made varies little- even between pieces of vastly different decorative style (thus different source). This isn't to say there wasn't a significant range of variation also because clearly there was, just that there was also some remarkable consistency as well at times.

[P. Clodius Secundus]

Generally, the best way I think one should look at accuracy/authenticity is to simply use the evidence known as much as humanly possible and only theorizing within the boundaries of evidence and logic where absolutely necessary (because something is too damaged to know for sure what its exact nature was, something is clearly missing, etc.); i.e., maximizing the reality.

I whole-heartedly agree with the statement above. One piece of I would like to emphasize is "...something is clearly missing...". One should make absolutely sure to have exhausted all other possibilities before resorting to this crutch. I fear that much damage has been done, particularly to our understanding of artillery, by such well intentioned "corrections". Sometimes by ignoring our assumptions and rethinking the evidence, a simpler alternative can be found. Granted, Occam's Razor is not a true scientific method but when faced with two versions, the one with fewer parts and none of them "missing" should hold sway unless or until additional hard evidence is found.

[A_Volpe]

Matt Amt wrote:

Some items are surprisingly consistent, even if they come from opposite ends of the empire.

I have to wonder if it didn't come down to when a Legion established a [new] base, and had to start repairing soldier's equipment, than the item being repaired didn't invariably become the 'model' or 'standard' - I can only imagine a soldier with a busted piece of his lorica seggie going to the [smithy] and saying "just make a copy of the part"

I think we can get a little sense of 'standard' going on the Corbridge (I think it was this find..?) seggie - being that one of them had the hinge busted so many times they said screw it and just riveted the pieces together! Leading up to that 'final' fix, I can imagine they tried to replicate/replace the broken hinge with an identical, if not very closely looking replacement, a few times before settling on the rivet. If I remember right, wasn't there a find up in Scotland where they seemed to have found a few bits of what likely was the Newstead style, but later re-thought as the 'scrap pile' - but that the pieces looked pretty similar.

So it could be they used existing [armors] in use as 'masters' to copy, so that could be one theory as to why so many pieces look similar to each other. And, if soldiers are sometimes being transfered to different Legions in different areas, that could also be a theory as to why similar pieces show up so far spread out among the empire.

But of course, these are just theories.