10-12-2010, 09:40 AM
Quote:
Hi Diegis,
I don't know of any evidence that fullers were intended as blood channels on any blade. As far as I know, that's a 20th century idea by people who didn't know much about smithing or stabbing things and wanted to sound gruesome. They reduce the amount of metal you need, and they look nice, and those are enough reason for a smith to use them.
Greaves and manicae would be useful against lots of weapons, and cross-braced helmets would be better at resisting stones from above. So while they could have been adopted to resist a two-handed war falx, there are lots of other explanations. Reading that Bishop and Coulston quote, they don't think the evidence shows that this armour first became common in the Dacian Wars, and they know a lot about Roman arms.
Couldn't this theta symbol on blades be just a maker's mark? I can't read that article in Romanian, but it seems like assuming it was protective and only used on weapons is just a guess.
Hi Sean
Well, since i didnt stab yet anyone, using a sword with and one without "blood channels" i dont know if make any diferences. I read about shorter blades, where the presence of such channles doesnt make any observable improvments, which i agree. But at long blades, who might go thru entire parts of a body, it might have some point. But, as i said, i dont know for sure if so, and you may be right as well.
I agree as well that "manica" at least can be used against other types of swords too, and even the greaves, against spears for example, or arrows, protecting the legionar body parts not covered by "scutum". Fact is that during Dacian wars this equipment was probably used more "on mass", and specificaly presented on imagery. And the most suitable sword to produce such damages (as easily cutting limbs) to Romans was Falx (maybe even Sica). Thats why Fronto mentioned the "terrible wounds made by Dacians curved swords".
Its an interesting idea too, the one with helmets reinforced against stones from above. I didnt think to that, but i think is possible now. Even if at a 30 kilograms stone falling from 10 or 20 meters on your head, i dont think it will make any diference if you have a cross of metal bands on your helmet or not. The fact that this change occured in the same period of this wars, and the Falx (and even smaller Sica) is very suitable for such hits over the shield is a point in the favour of this hypothese (of Falx reason), but in the same time Romans fight to conquer quite many Dacian fortresses. Dont know, maybe was a combination of reasons.
About that mark on the sword, i dont think it was a simple maker's mark, as was found on Sicas from diferent regions and even periods probably (on some Sicas apear other symbols too). And i dont think that a protective symbol is used for an agricultural tool, or for a person who go to cut trees, but is more probable to be for one who go to war and may be killed
Razvan A.
