Quote: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.
See FABRICA ROMANORVM Recreations in the Marketplace for custom helmets, armour, swords and more!