Off-the-shelf Republic civil war impression

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Do you have any better images with close up Peronis? The one in the center looks flat, but that one is curved.
Also, that looks like a Roman soldier with trousers on the left too! Curved scutum and some Gallic style of helmet, looks like an 'A'?

[SOCL]

For the purposes of general edification, I thought I should also point out that the website Replik-Online also does a series of very nicely made and, by what I can tell, accurate equipment for a Republic-era kit. Check out, in particular, their belts section for the 'Roman Republic'. Any thoughts regarding those? Perhaps the 'Delos belt'?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

For the purposes of general edification, I thought I should also point out that the website Replik-Online also does a series of very nicely made and, by what I can tell, accurate equipment for a Republic-era kit. Check out, in particular, their belts section for the 'Roman Republic'. Any thoughts regarding those? Perhaps the 'Delos belt'?

They do very nice work. I have a couple of items by Erik and can vouch for their quality. 8)

[jbd_29349]

PM Sent.

[Crispvs]

"This is rather like the Titelburg pugio made by Soul of the Warrior, which also only comes with two rings, both on the same side."

Actually, the Titelberg sheath did originally have four suspension rings. It was also made of iron rather than brass (as are the other examples of frame type sheaths from Exeter, Tarent and Dangstetten) and the terminal rivet was a large cup headed rivet, which is often mistaken in reproductions as a hole, owing to the unclear nature of some of the better known images of the sheath (including the one in B&C).

Crispvs

[jbd_29349]

Actually, the Titelberg sheath did originally have four suspension rings. It was also made of iron rather than brass (as are the other examples of frame type sheaths from Exeter, Tarent and Dangstetten) and the terminal rivet was a large cup headed rivet, which is often mistaken in reproductions as a hole, owing to the unclear nature of some of the better known images of the sheath (including the one in B&C).

Crispvs

This information is correct their was even a JRMES topic done on it. Anyways that is a subject for another post.

Depending on how crafty you are you could modify the SOTW Titelburg pugio into an earlier republican pugio. All you would need to do is snip off the decoration on the bottom of the sheath, and and take off the bottom ring suspension piece (meaning the whole piece decoration on front and back of sheath also).

[Crispvs]

I am not sure what you mean by 'snipping off the decoration at the bottom of the sheath'. If you mean removing the terminal expansion, then it would definitely be wrong, as the terminal expansion, like most of the rest of the well known features of Roman dagger sheaths, was inherited from Spanish antecedents. Originally the terminal expansion existed to allow the terminal rivet, which originally had a constructional purpose, to pass through and secure the bottom of the sheath, although as time went on this function was reduced and diminished, until by the early third century AD the terminal expansion and its rivet had turned into a small terminal knob, much of the type seen on first century AD sword scabbards.
If you were instead referring to the lower cross hanger, this would also be wrong, as its primary function is to provide attachment points for the suspension rings whilst at the same time holding the side guttering in place.

A problem which also exists with the SotW sheath is that the upper left suspension loop has been replaced with an incorrect flat expansion pierced with a hole, which creates a sort of combined suspension loop/suspension ring, whereas on the actual sheath there was a suspension loop in this position which closely resembled the upper right suspension loop (in fact it was made from the same piece of metal, which extended out from the upper cross hanger to form the upper right suspension loop, before passing around the back of the sheath and then forming the upper left suspension loop). The suspension rings themselves were all normal type 'A' rings, and numbered four, as usual for Roman sheaths.

Crispvs

[jbd_29349]

Once again completely correct in everything you have said.

Granted I don't know much about early republican dagger. Yes, I know that they come from a Spanish ancestory. Yes, I know that the SOTW Titelburg pugio is reproduction of the actually find and not how it would have looked in Roman times.

When I suggested snipping off the decoration at the bottom of the dagger, I ment snip off the DECORATION at the bottom. The SOTW Titelburg pugio in stead of having an actual functional terminal expansion it has an extra metal peice to look like a terminal expanstion. I suggested this because what little I have seen of republcian dagger, mainly reproductions from well known and well liked creators, they did not have the terminal expansion. Plus, when I got my SOTW Titelburg pugio the terminal expanstion was almost bent off anyways from UPS doing a crapy shipping job.

Yes, the uppper left ring is completely incorrect for the orginal find. I didn't put this in my orginal message and I appologize to everyone out there laughing at my stupdity! I suggested that he take off the bottom to suspension rings, decoration, and everything with the bottom suspension rings. (once again I don't know much about republican dagger and going off reproduction) I have only seen republican daggers with two suspension rings. He can either make another suspension loop out of the brass he took off from the bottom suspension loop decoration or make a completely new suspension loop system out of a new piece of brass.

He wanted to make his impression simple, inexpensive, and domestic. Was just trying to make something he has work for what he wants.

If I am once again wrong in my information about the changing the pugio or early republican pugio I welcome any information, insight, and remarks that will teach me about Roman pugio!!

[SOCL]

Forgive me, Crispus, Josh, but I do not believe I am up on the jargon and am having a bit of a difficult time understanding what is being said without an image.

Here is the Bishop & Coulston image:


Now, if I understand correctly, the pugio in question is the bottom-most one, laid out side-to-side.

Now here's an image of the SOTW pugio:
[attachment=0:1wi1mhz5]<!-- ia0 SOTW Titelburg pugio.jpg<!-- ia0 [/attachment:1wi1mhz5]

Based on what I am seeing here, Josh is referring to removing the small circular decoration at the bottom of the scabbard.

Oh, and what is the terminal expansion? :?:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

So basically, the suspension ring mounts are flat 'U' pieces, riveted to the scabbard frame?
The pugio had 4 but has lost some, so a reconstruction with 4 rings is not a problem?

[jbd_29349]

I am not trying to fix the problems that this recreation has! I know this piece is not accurate by any means! I am trying to change this piece into something Saul can use for his impression.

So basically, the suspension ring mounts are flat 'U' pieces, riveted to the scabbard frame?
The pugio had 4 but has lost some, so a reconstruction with 4 rings is not a problem?

Yes, the Titelburg pugio originally had four suspension rings. It had four pieces of "U" shaped metal riveted to the scabbard to hold the pugio.

Oh, and what is the terminal expansion? :?:

To be completely honest with you I am not totally 100% what a terminal expansion is. I used that term because I am pretty sure he is referring to the circular decoration at the bottom of the scabbard. On the original pugio this decoration was not just decoration it was a molded piece of the scabbard.

I am suggesting removing the circular decoration at the bottom. I am also suggesting removing the bottom set of suspension loops along with that whole section of decoration. By doing so it will only leave the tubular section on either side, and the decorated brass piece with one suspension ring at the top. You will have to fabricate another "U" shape suspenion piece but even you should be able to do that.

Saul, if you want I have a copy of the JRMES report on the Titelburg pugio. How it was found, where it was, how it was constructed, and what was learned when making a reproduction for the report.

[SOCL]

Oh, and what is the terminal expansion? :?:

To be completely honest with you I am not totally 100% what a terminal expansion is. I used that term because I am pretty sure he is referring to the circular decoration at the bottom of the scabbard. On the original pugio this decoration was not just decoration it was a molded piece of the scabbard.

Perhaps Crispus can be of assistance in this regard.

Saul, if you want I have a copy of the JRMES report on the Titelburg pugio. How it was found, where it was, how it was constructed, and what was learned when making a reproduction for the report.

PM sent!

[caiusbeerquitius]

Saul, if you want I have a copy of the JRMES report on the Titelburg pugio.

It´s "TitelbErg" ^^

[Crispvs]

In response to the request for an explanation of the correct nomenclature, have a look at the drawing I posted up on this thread:
<!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=13523&start=40">viewtopic.php?f=22&t=13523&start=40<!-- l

As you will see, what has been referred to as the "circular decoration" is the terminal expansion and it is a necessary part of the sheath's construction. Normally it was made in one with the main sheath and the rivet which passed through it held the bottom of the sheath together. No doubt it served the same function on the Titelberg sheath, although unusually in the case of that sheath the terminal expansion was part of a separately applied chape. In the Titelberg case, it is true that the terminal expansion could be thought to be functionally redundant, as the upper part of the chape piece performed that function. However, as the chape piece was made in two pieces (front and back) the rivet through the terminal expansion was actually holding the chape together, and was thus still functionally useful. In any case, as the Exeter example shows, the people making the sheaths still thought it necessary to include terminal expansion, even where we can see they could have been done without. The reason for the terminal expansion is not really known but the best guess is that it provides a firm surround for the rivet. Do NOT remove it. If you do it will not look like a Roman dagger sheath. There are no known examples which can be shown not to have had a terminal expansion and any which you see which don't seem to have them, can usually be shown to be broken at the relevant point, or incorrectly reconstructed, or both. The earlier Iberian sheaths also featured terminal expansions. In fact, one type actually commonly featured two circular terminal expansions side by side.

The 'U' shaped pieces which have been referred to are the suspension loops, which it should be remembered are distinct from the suspension rings, which pass through the suspension loops. Again with the Titelberg sheath, the upper suspension loops were made in a rather strange way, with a long thin piece of iron extending out from the right hand end of the upper cross hanger and passing around the back of the sheath, with its end being riveted to the front of the left hand end of the upper cross hanger, thus forming two suspension loops. The lower suspension loops were formed in the more conventional way, like those of the Exeter sheath.

Crispvs

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I actually refrained from calling them 'Loops' as I figured someone would take it to the litteral extreme, and correct me.