RomanArmyTalk

Hey!
Regarding gladius hilts... Some pretty basic qs.
As I understand it no hilts have survived?
Thus organic materials are presumed? But are there any evidence of what
organic materials were used? Is there any basis for the so common two tone wood and bone combo?
No mention of metal hilts being used at all?

Also why would anyone want a bare wood, metal or bone grip when there was leather, which I
understand to be a much more reliable and very accessible gripping material.

Cheers,
Jesper

You are wrong: a lot of roman hilt parts have survived. Hundreds of bone grips, some wooden grips, some bone pommel and guards and a few of wooden pommel and guards.

Metal hilts were used sometimes. In fact there were a kind of metal plate over the pommel or the guard.

As i remember, there are'nt any sign of use of leather hilting.

Leather can get Slimy when wet, so possible that would be a reason not to use it?

Hey!
Thanks for replying.
It was a question not a statement!! :mrgreen: I take most of these hilts are from imperial times? Do you guys know if there are any photos of the surviving hilts online?

I can picture how a metal hilt would behave in battles in wet weather.... flying gladii everywhere :roll:
Well at least gladius hispaniensis...assuming they were used more for slashing than most gladii.

Did they know how to impregnate leather in roman times? shock:

Cheers,
Jesper

Sure!





And a drawing from Bishop And Coulston second edition:

A couple of an ivory one from the BM

There are a good number of previous topics that deal directly or incidentally with sword furniture, as I recall. My own feeling is that the Romans specifically produced a restrictive grip that did not really allow for any sophisticated "fencing." The gladius seems to have been a workman-like tool, designed more for basic (though obviously effective) chopping and stabbing than for any elaborate cutting and thrusting.

Gregg

Hey,
Thanks for those photos, exactly what I was looking for! Amazing that hilts have survived in such good shape. The ones retaining color are reproductions I take it? Where are these photos from?

I actually did search for gladius and hilt in the search engine... Couldnt find anything really. Maybe my use of the search engine but it would be really helpful with some stickies when it comes to threads with basic and sound info on central aspects of roman warfare such as weapons and armour.

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

The gladius retaining colour is an authentic one. Is from Nijmegen Museum.

Quote: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

What is with #5 and #6? Are they guards that have been split in half?

Yes, there are made from cow legs bone, and fragmented. Probably in roman times the hollow part of the bone was reinforced by the adition of a wooden core, invisible form the exterior.

5 is sure a guard, but 6 could be a pommel, too...

Ah, so the romans held the gladii like one would hold an axe eh? I see what you mean the grip is so short that one would barely be able to fit the hand on the grip and then you had the voluminous guard and pommel to further restrict the hand.
What an irreverent way to treat a sword!

My fist wouldnt even fit on a 85mm grip and I havent got big hands, ok so we are larger today but still it must have been a really tight fit during roman times.

Can someoner tell me about the metal hilts that have survived, what metals were used, were all parts made in metal or was it a mixture of bone/wood and metal? Regarding the use of metal, was it used massive or just as metal plate over wood? Thanks.


Cheers,
Jesper

It's not irreverent, it worked. And worked well...centuries of use is proof of that. I would not think that metal would be common on a rank and file sword, only because of the damage they would sustain from use. Not because of finances or status...if you're looking to portray a regular legionary, wood is probably your best bet.

Quote:What an irreverent way to treat a sword!

Better than in the middle ages, where it was used like a sharp and pointy stick.... :lol: 8)