Mainz and Pompeii swords

[PhilusEstilius]

I am afraid I must go off topic to ask just how is -9 of a statute mile 1620 yards we are missing 36 yards some where or is some one trying to pull my leg.

[Matt Lukes]

Why not start a new thread Brian- these kinds of digressions, like I mentioned, really make following topics later on rather difficult. And the often useful information they can bring about is lost too since anyone interested will never find it...

[Robert]

The lightness/cost issue may not be the best way of going at this. This is a modern projection not backed by the finds.
Why? Well, looking at Miks, it would appear the Pompeij galdius got bigger/wider, instead of smaller, through time. The classic blade was followed by two others, the Hamsfeld type blade being a LOT more massive then the original first Pompeij blade. It is much wider, has a more rounded short point and twin cutting edges. The production of this type started at around 90 AD, being in use only slighty longer then the classic blade shape of the Pompeij, which faded out around 170 AD. I recenty had a Hamsfeld blade with a handle from Nijmegen made. It feels like a very good sword for both thrusting and cutting, good balance and heavy enough to really cause damage when used in a slash/cut. The handle was done spot on to the museum data, very good grip and feels like a versitile blade. I made the mistake of not specifying the actual cross section of the blade :oops: , so it is trapezium shaped instead of romboud (hope I got that right). I mean to grind away the raised section down the middle to get an accurate reproduction of the Hamsfeld type blade with a period handle.
Could this be linked to the fasing out of the rectangular scutum in favour of the clippius, making for a dual use of the sword and calling for a weapon suited for both types of use, to thrust and to cut? Only to be replaced by the spatha, which has these characterists as well, but has a longer reach due to its lenth. One must never forget that a sword was part of a total weapons system, so one needs to look at both shields, armor and the way war was waged to draw any conclusions on merits of sword design.

[Ron Andrea]

Robert mentions, "So yes, a new type of gladius (the Pompeij) was developed at the same time as a new type of spatha (var. Newstead, stays around till 200 ad) came about."

So, do these designs (Pompeii gladius and Newstead spatha) persist to AD 200? If so, what replaces them? Was that an evolved design or a radical departure? If not, how long did the Pompeii design persist?

[If you gentlemen think this question merits a different thread, I'd be happy to start one.]

[Robert]

Pompeij is followed by Spatha type blades around 170 AD. Newstead spatha stays around till 200 AD. Evolution seems to be gradual, the Pompeij classic "out-lived" one of its predecesors and lasted almost as long as the other. You should also look at quantities found, not just blade typology. Pompeij was the predominant blade and can be regarded as THE galdius till the fasing out of the gladius altogether.