Replica swords

[Urselius]

I collect military swords, particularly those of the 17th century and Napoleonic periods, and I have noted how poor modern reproductions of these swords are. They tend to be heavier in general, feel leaden in the hand and are point heavy due to not having adequate distal taper to the blade. As someone familiar with real swords, albeit post Renaissance, the reproductions of Roman swords I have handled have felt even worse. My question is: were Roman swords really as thick bladed (in both dimensions) and clumsy as their reproductions would suggest?

[Robert]

For a short answer: NO, they were not!! I have had the oppertunity to handle and study some originals and what always struck me is how thin and light (in comparison to "reproductions") these were. Also, they were all sharp edged. Basicly, the modern reproductions are too heavy and unbalanced by far, caused by a lack of decent distal tapering and very thick edges, which works it way through in the weight of the blade.

[Urselius]

I imagined that would be the case. The repros I have come across might be useful for butchering a cow or chopping down a modest-sized tree, but little else.

[Virilis]

This is a very good observation! Every roman sword reproduction I have handled are impossible to fold over, they are just too thick (when many real roman swords were folded over when deposited somewhere, in graves etc.). The only "right" thickness sword is a spatha made by Wojciech Slawinski. I think the reproductions should be thinner in general.

[Robert]

Ha, you would be surprised by the flex in my spatha's! But yes, these are also conform archeological finds in dimensions. I think there are more bladesmiths out there that make acurate replica's. All you need to really do is understand swords and stick to the data from books like Miks.

Oh, and on the subject of butchering a cow or chopping down a tree, they would have to be at least sharp to do so, and sharpness is one of the things totaly lacking in all "off the shelf" (read Indian) products. I cannot call them reproductions for reasons already stated.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I think they make them dull because of regulations.

[Creon01]

I order all my swords dull so the teenagers who handle them at my presentations don't cut their fingers off and the makers always tell me it adds considerable weight to the blade which corrupts their accuracy. It's a trade off for me, but the only other option is to not allow anyone except an experienced swordsman to handle them due to safety concerns and that would destroy the experience of handling a generally accurate ancient sword which is the heart of my presentation.

My question is, how much more weight as a percentage does a dull edge add?

[Neuraleanus]

For better reproductions look at Albion:
Albion Roman Swords

Christen Fletcher makes scabbards for them:
Christen Fletcher Scabbards

I have two Albion roman gladii and the blades are much thinner than the Indian repros.

[Virilis]

Lee, I also had an Albion Allectus gladius. It was lethally sharp and the "feel" was certainly light and agile. My only complaints of Albion gladiuses is that they are expensive for non-forged swords and the guard plates are wrong (too thick and the cut-out follows the shoulders of the blades when it should allow only the tang to go through).

[Neuraleanus]

Lee, I also had an Albion Allectus gladius. It was lethally sharp and the "feel" was certainly light and agile..

Isn't being "lethally sharp" the point? :twisted: I prefer sharp blades and I do not allow non-reenactors to handle them. I also have one of Deepeeka's dull limited edition pugios with silver inlay, but I would rather carry something that actually worked.

As far as price is concerned, compared to what? Wouldn't a full custom forged blade, at least in the USA, cost much more?

[Robert]

Well, that all depends on HOW dull the edge is. But is is more then just being dull, they are too thick overall and because of the lack of significant distal taper, the total could be 30 % heavier then a properly made one just in mass, but would also feel very heavy because of the unbalance.
Evan, I believe we are aware of the fact Indians are not allowed to sell sharp swords, but there is a huge range in "dull". I can make a good, nicely balanced blunt sword. The edge on that would be similar to one on a small coffee spoon (which you can safely put in you mouth without cutting yourself), about 0.5 mm. So I am sure so can others, even our Indian friends, should they see fit to do so. But look at an Indian swordedge, not only is it very thick, it is also not of uniform thickness. So this would indicate sloppy production throughout the whole thing, as that means uneven grinding.

Albion makes nice blades, but are known to take "artistic licence", certainly in the hilts, adding guardplates to spatha and things like that, so do be aware of that.

[Urselius]

I think that sharp edges are not really an issue. I have two swords with sharp edges, a Polish sabre and an Indian tulwar - yes Indians could produce sharp and handy swords 150 years ago! The others I own do not have particularly sharp edges - some like a "Charge of the Light Brigade" 1821 light cavalry sabre obviously were never sharpened in all their existence - but even with dull edges they are real swords. They have well-executed distal taper to their blades, which means they are quick and responsive - I have a German basket-hilt broadsword dating to c. 1600, it is a beast topping 3lbs in weight, but it is still for its size well balanced and responsive. The problem with most repros is not that they are not sharp, it is that their forging and grinding (if any) are crude, leaving far too much metal in the faible of the blade.

[dave74]

Every Indian reproduction I've seen has a finished blade that is thicker than the stock I start with. I've made many *dull* blades no chance of cutting yourself or anyone else.
The added weight on these reproductions in a nutshell is,to be blunt (pun intended)
due to a lack of the manufactures knowledge.
Sorry if I come across a little abrasive but,the *tap dance* around the subject is tedious to me.
They are made incorrectly because the makers lack an understanding of what they are making and,there is little motivation for them to improve when what they are making (incorrectly) sells.

[Creon01]

A basic finished gladius from Matt Lukes costs less and he offers "composite blades comprised of both low-carbon wrought iron and medium-carbon steels," and highly accurate hilts.

I am not in ANY WAY knocking Albion or anyone else, in fact I have a Mark Morrow Mainz and am quite happy with it and have a matching Pugio on the way. When I asked Mark if he could use a cheaper lower quality steel for my Mainz he said he only uses the good stuff as that's what his customers ask for. From a business point of view that makes a lot of sense, why make stuff with limited market appeal.

The issue I note among my good friends devoted to accurate ancient reenacting is that the quality of some modern blades that yield surgical scalpel sharpness is way better than what I'm told the ancients actually had.

For the most part the kids don't care, they just like stabbing a bale of hay I usually set up.

No doubt having a very very sharp blade is cool, but is it accurate? I tend to explain to whoever is handling my gear that some of it is probably made of better quality metal than what was available to the ancients.

[markusaurelius]

What does everyone here think is too thick?? I've read that original Roman blades had on average a 5-6mm thickness along the "spine" of the blade.