RomanArmyTalk

Can you please give me some critique so that I can fix anything before completion. It is based on several images of republican pugios

Looks pretty good to me!
Perhaps the extra rivet on the cross piece.
Do the blades in the drawings look narrower than your or is it just camera illusion?
Very nice work!

I also would say your blade has to be narrowed. Otherwise a fine job!

Thanks for pointing out the width. It was something I have only just noticed :oops: Will put in an extra rivet in the hilt area.
What was commonly used for rivets? I was going to just use an iron nail and carefuly dome each end over, or were rivets a little more fancier than that?

Nice work!!

You can find every thing about early pugiones here:
http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/index.p ... ew/193/195
http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/index.p ... ew/194/196

It's in spanish. If you want to ask some spanish word, dont hesitate to ask me.

Good work Andy ,Just some fine tuning required 8) , You have been very busy of late, regards Dave

Hello,
can you guys tell me, if the Pugio was standard for a legionair of the first century BC, just like the Gladius and the Scutum? I'm specifically interested in the legionair under Julius Caesar. Would a Titelberg be correct for that period?

It is what I plan to use, from advice I have recieved.

Quote:It is what I plan to use, from advice I have recieved.

Is it correct that the belts durung the time of Julius Caesar were plain? If so, do you have an advice how to attach the Pugio to the belt, since there are no hooks for it. :oops:

I'm not sure if that is totally correct, as there are plates from an earlier period which were not.
There seems to be a train of thought also that there were attachment hooks and frogs used for either gladius and pugio, but no compeling or definitive evidence. there has been an ongoing debat about an artifact which many believe had a wide variety of uses, from cloak fastening to belt hangers, as a sort of precursor to the frog. I would not limit myself to plain plates though, I'm sure Caesar would not have insisted on it either.

I can just imagine the young, sweet ladies watching a legionary walk by and saying, "Mmmm. Look at the plates on that one...." can't you? :wink: 8)

Quote:Nice work!!

You can find every thing about early pugiones here:
http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/index.p ... ew/193/195
http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/index.p ... ew/194/196

It's in spanish. If you want to ask some spanish word, dont hesitate to ask me.

These are excellent papers. Whoever is interested in the origins of the pugio should download them, even if they do not read Spanish, just for drawings.There are decorative elements I have never seen elsewhere. I think it was also Cesar who posted a link to another article in Spanish about the Montefortino a few years ago. There are versions in that publication I have never seen anywhere else either. Fortunately I can read some Spanish, even though it has been awhile since I really tried, and I've forgotten way too much.

A device similar to a pugio frog was found at Castillejo. The shape is of a vertical rectangle with a triange shape on the long side. The apex of the triange ends in a large disc. This disc shaped end of the piece has a spike through the middle. If this spike was turned back and long enough, it could have, in conjecture, held a pugio through the scabard rings at a diagonal angle if the belt was under tension. The diagonal angle would match the ring positions on the Titelberg pugio sheath of the Early Pricipate. The shape however, is also similar to what appears to be a belt buckle on the right side of a belt worn on the Aemilius Paulus relief, in a position similar to later Imperial period belts. The relief shows two triangular shapes coming together to form an elongated X shape with a dot in the middle. The Castilljo piece, again conjecture, may be the male, and therefore overlaping piece of a similar buckle that is made in two pieces. Both the Castillijo finds and the Paulus relief are roughly contemporary.

Ralph