Gladius discussion (was: show your gladius off)

[Luka Borščak]

Well, since Celtiberians were the basic designers of both blades, it's not surprising that they are similar...

I think the Mainz style Gladius was purely a Roman design as it appears in the latter half of the 1st Cent BC, well after the Celtibernians were subdued, and continued on in used for quite some time, until gradually replaced by the Pompeii style. Are you referring to the original Gladius Hispaniensis in general? Because that blade style had little in common with the Mainz other than the tang and that they were both double bladed. Most Glad. Hispaniensis were straight bladed and had thinner blades, whereas nearly all pugio and Mainz Gladius are fat and are wasp-waisted.

I meant both earlier Gladius Hispaniensis and Mainz, but Mainz as a more romanized version... But look at this Celtiberian sword from 4th/3rd century BC (photo by Manuel Velasco) and tell me it couldn't be a prototype for a mainz/fulham type gladii:
http://www.pinterest.com/pin/142285669451717641/

Very interesting. But I looked at other versions of the Arcobriga type swords (couldn't find many) and not all were as wasp waisted as the one you linked to. Now compare that to a pugio, which in nearly every case was heavily wasted.

Here is another very "mainz"-ish celtiberian shortsword:
http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/10234037

And here is a celtiberian dagger, very similar to later pugios:
http://www.pinterest.com/pin/512354895082191269/

I never said both pugio and gladius descended from the same ancestor, spanish swords were inspiration, at least party, for the gladius, and spanish daggers are obvious ancestor of the pugio.

[Sextus Saturninus]

Any more pictures? Anyone?

[Bryan]

Well, since Celtiberians were the basic designers of both blades, it's not surprising that they are similar...

I think the Mainz style Gladius was purely a Roman design as it appears in the latter half of the 1st Cent BC, well after the Celtibernians were subdued, and continued on in used for quite some time, until gradually replaced by the Pompeii style. Are you referring to the original Gladius Hispaniensis in general? Because that blade style had little in common with the Mainz other than the tang and that they were both double bladed. Most Glad. Hispaniensis were straight bladed and had thinner blades, whereas nearly all pugio and Mainz Gladius are fat and are wasp-waisted.

I meant both earlier Gladius Hispaniensis and Mainz, but Mainz as a more romanized version... But look at this Celtiberian sword from 4th/3rd century BC (photo by Manuel Velasco) and tell me it couldn't be a prototype for a mainz/fulham type gladii:
http://www.pinterest.com/pin/142285669451717641/

Very interesting. But I looked at other versions of the Arcobriga type swords (couldn't find many) and not all were as wasp waisted as the one you linked to. Now compare that to a pugio, which in nearly every case was heavily wasted.

Here is another very "mainz"-ish celtiberian shortsword:
http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/10234037

And here is a celtiberian dagger, very similar to later pugios:
http://www.pinterest.com/pin/512354895082191269/

I never said both pugio and gladius descended from the same ancestor, spanish swords were inspiration, at least party, for the gladius, and spanish daggers are obvious ancestor of the pugio.

I think we might be saying the same thing while talking around one another. First, there may some issues with terminology so I want to clear a few things up. In my mind, gladius means sword, not a specific style, just Latin for sword. For early Roman period, ensis was used, then gladius replaced it in common Latin. So most swords, unless another type of name existed to describe the style (like a Machaera) would have been called a gladius. They weren't just the stabby short swords that heavy armored Roman infantry carried, that's just an internetism.

The most famous gladius is the gladius hispaniensis, the Spanish Sword. This was the name commonly given to the longer Republican era sword (Delos, Smihel), then still used for the Mainz style, then the offshoot Fulham, and then the Pompeii. All were still called Spanish Swords by authors as the name seems to have become synonymous with the Roman military sword. (I won't be getting into the Spatha or ring pommel gladius to avoid confusion).

Dr. F. Quesada Sanz has researched the evolution of Iberian swords and has found that his Type VI Arcobriga (the sword type you posted a few back) is NOT the descendant of the Gladius Hispaniensis. The blade was too short, the hilt different, and it seems to have disappeared too early. Quesada believes the true descendant of the Roman "Spanish Sword" was a Iberian version of the La Tene I double edged sword, abandoned earlier by the Gauls for the longer slashing La Tene II (III) swords, but kept and still made and used inside Iberia. So likely, the Gladius Hispaniensis was that sword.

But around the mid 1st Cent. BC, the Mainz style Gladius Hispaniensis emerged and seems to have completely replaced the older longer thinner version of the Spanish Sword by the 1st Cent. AD. My question is where did this sword come from?

One possible speculative theory is that it was a modern version of the Type VI Arcobriga sword, lengthened some and with a different tang/pommel. The problem with that is that by the 1st Cent BC period, the Type VI was "extinct" and was no longer being made or used by anyone.

The Pugio, a Puncher, was another weapon, a fighting dagger, which evolved from a Iberians version. I won't get into its history, but in my theory it goes like this:

Due to the popularity of the Pugio style daggers being used more and more by the 1st Cent. BC time period, and maybe partly due to other issues with construction methods of longer swords (original Gladius Hispaniensis were 24-26"x 1.75"), some armorers and military purchasers decided to go with a shorter and wider design of the Mainz, 21"x 2.6"), in a shape reminiscent of a Pugio, but with a different hilt design (borrowed from older Gladius), with the mid rib removed (not necessary to stiffen blade with a more pronounced diamond cross section), with a longer point (for thrusting and to lengthen), but keeping the overall shape of the wasting (for shifting POB for cutting as well as style), and lastly the flared shoulder of the tang (one of the biggest similarities between Mainz and pugio besides blade waist shape).

Iberian La Tene I Sword evolves into Original Gladius Hispaniensis

Iberian Dagger evolves into Pugio Dagger

Original Gladius Hispaniensis + Pugio = Mainz Gladius Hispaniensis

[PhilusEstilius]

I think that I have to disagree with the statements that all the Mainz gladius blades were blades with a waist to them, some yes but others are straight after the upper inward curve at the shoulder and this straight edge narrows down until the long taper point begins as with both the Tiberius and the Fulham.

[Bryan]

I think that I have to disagree with the statements that all the Mainz gladius blades were blades with a waist to them, some yes but others are straight after the upper inward curve at the shoulder and this straight edge narrows down until the long taper point begins as with both the Tiberius and the Fulham.

One of the main differentiators between a Fulham and a Mainz gladius is that the former lacks the waisting of the latter. When it comes to the Sword of Tiberius, some (like Albion) already classify that sword as a Fulham, not a true Mainz. Even so, considering its condition and the deterioration of the blade, there is no real way to know whether it actually had any waisting or not though.

Whats the earliest Mainz known of? Compare that to the later known original Gladii Hispaniensii. Maybe it was a slow progression of swords getting wider and shorter. But some fairly recent excavations of early 1st Cent. BC gladii shows they fall in similar dimensions of the others, and aren't similar to the Mainz. Is there evidence of a slow progression or fast?

[Vindex]

Gentlemen

As much as this is a very interesting debate it is straying from the original purpose of this thread and therefore, sadly, some of the very good arguments about the merits of various swords is being lost in a thread other members may well ignore.

I will ask the assistance of one of my fellow Moderators to split this discussion out (I'm useless at that sort of thing and would hate to lose the current discussion) but may I please ask you all to come back to the OP's original request.

Thank you.

[Sextus Saturninus]

Anyone have more photos?

[Luka Borščak]

Anyone have more photos?

Of what exactly?

[Sextus Saturninus]

Of swords, daggers, and other weapons! That's the whole purpose of this thread, to post pictures, and then to talk about them, and post more pictures...

[Vindex]

Jason

The other "show" threads are not "show and tell" as such - they are for people to post pictures.

Discussion should be kept separate as there are those who will not even open a thread on pictures of reconstructions who have a lot to say about them.

Can I therefore recommend that this is left to show with short description.

[Luka Borščak]

Of swords, daggers, and other weapons! That's the whole purpose of this thread, to post pictures, and then to talk about them, and post more pictures...

I forgot what this thread was. :oops:

[66kbm]

Its not quiet the Boudica thread yet Luka.... :evil:
Kevin

[Soldat222]

For those of you with a SOTW Gladius can you speak to the quality of the steel in used in the blade? I know they use a mild steel but in your experience how has it held up at reenactments and seeing use?

I guess what I am asking is, are these strictly showpieces or can they be functional to any degree?

[Sextus Saturninus]

I have an SOTW gladius and I can say a few things about it. First off, the scabbard was a mess. The brass parts did not fit well and the plates were awful and were poorly punched. The blade slipped out of the scabbard fine, but that was about it. My blade had a freak accident happen to it - getting well grinded (Most Indian blades are just lumps of steel. Ask Robert Wimmers and he will explain much better than I can.) Mine was quite well balanced and had a nice hilt, but the scabbard was the downside. I ordered new scabbard plates from Suhel that cost around $60 USD and now I am reworking the scabbard to match a sword from Mik's. Overall, it cost around $220. Okay, but if you want really high quality, save up and get Matt Lukes or Mar Morrow to make you one. They are both craftsmen and make their blades good. Its expensive, but well worth it. I have a custom pugio made by Phil McKay, and I love the quality. Custom pieces are always beauties, but off-the-shelf ones are cheap. Its a trade-off and it is your choice on which one to take.

P.S. If you do get an SOTW, you WILL need to modify it in some way. Another okay off the shelf gladius is the Deepeeka, but it has an TERRIBLE square grip and costs more. And it will need modifying too. Only custom work is perfect

[Flavivs Aetivs]

For those of you with a SOTW Gladius can you speak to the quality of the steel in used in the blade? I know they use a mild steel but in your experience how has it held up at reenactments and seeing use?

I guess what I am asking is, are these strictly showpieces or can they be functional to any degree?

It's 10-40 Steel I think. Not sure.

I haven't had a problem with my SOTW Gladius, the only thing I really had to do was take a pair of needle-nose pliers and clamp the brass pieces that hold the rings on the side on shut. I tightened a few other bits and the scabbard has held up fine. Yeah some of the plates are loose, but it wasn't anything superglue wouldn't fix.