Roman Sword Grips

[Lucius Aurelius Metellus]

Ave everyone,
I know this has been discussed somewhere once before, but I have been unable to find the thread in which it was discussed, and I need some help.
I think that most Roman swords which had the classic grooved grips usually had three "ridges" or bands in the grip which resulted in four depressions to fit one's fingers; but I am wondering if any original grips have ever been discovered with less than four "ridges"? Can anyone help me out?

[Conal]

Isn't there one in the British Museum ?

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Jeff,

I assume this topic is the one discussing the grip displayed in the British Museum:
link from old RAT

Other grip discussions:
link from old RAT
link from old RAT

[Lucius Aurelius Metellus]

Hi Conal and Robert,
I'm not sure on that one in the British Museum. Robert, thanks for the thread links, but those aren't the right ones, I read through them last night trying to find this discussion, but with no success. Somewhere I recall reading a discussion on whether some sword grips had only two "ridges" (or knurles) as opposed to the more familiar three. I'm trying to find out more about this, as I have a knurled sword grip that is too long and I'd like to shorten it. The problem is, if I do so, in order to keep the grip symetrical, I'll have to take a little bit off of each end of the grip, which will leave only two raised ridges, in effect giving only three "grooves" for the fingers. Before I do this, however, I want to be sure whether or not any actual Roman pieces were made like this as well.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Jeff,
I have another up my sleeve:
link from old RAT
In his message of 8 september 2004, Paulus Brittanicus talks about finger spaces on the hilt, providing a picture of a gladius from the British Museum that seemed to have less 'finger spaces': [url:b0ep3pdf]http://www.romanauxilia.com/Exploratio/britishmuseum/bm3.htm[/url]

[LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS]

SALVE

I'm not sure, but that sword showed at British Museum is probably from Hod-Hill.

http://www.romanauxilia.com/Exploratio/ ... um/bm3.htm

(you can see that the gladii near are bigger)

I think is a kind of mix between gladius/spatha and local tradition swords.

The metal parts that divides the grip in 3 segments are to ornate. You can see a reconstruction at

http://larp.com/legioxx/HdHlhlt.jpg

(Reconstruction showed at LEGIO XX WEB PAGE)

VALE

[Dan Z]

I have gladius with a two ridge grip. I've had it made a few years ago though so unfortunately now I can't remember where I saw a picture of a similar authentic grip. I'm afraid I can't contribute much there.

I can contribute, however, to the discussion on 3 "finger spaces" (or 2 ridges) versus 4 "finger spaces" (or 3 ridges).

The study of historical Western swordsmanship is another one my interests and the proper way to hold a sword is to grip it with only your first finger and thumb. The other fingers just rest lightly on the grip. It is just the basic mechanics of sword that they work better when you hold them this way. The only "finger space" on the grip that matters then is the first one - the rest are pretty much just decoration. I also have a gladius with a 3 ridge/4 space grip and personally I prefer the 2 ridge/3 space grip because it is more comfortable to hold properly.

I suppose someone could counter by saying that the typical Roman soldier did not care about whether is was better to hold his sword with his thumb and forefinger versus clenched in his fist. I am not so sure I believe that, but anything's possible. If it was true it might explain why the typical Roman gladius hilt has spaces for all 4 fingers. The gladii with 3 space hilts might then have belonged to soldiers who were better than average swordsmen and who customized their swords to make them more effective weapons.

Of course that is all guesswork. What is certain is that the proper way to hold a sword is with your thumb and forefinger and not to use all four fingers and clench it in your fist.

Cheers,
Dan

[Lucius Aurelius Metellus]

Hi Robert,
Bingo! That's the one I have been searching for! Thanks so much for your help, and for the others who have posted on this subject, my thanks go out to you as well.
I made a grip for a spatha that had the finger-knurls, and it ended up just looking far too long and narrow to me, so I decided that it would be put into proper proportions to the rest of the sword if I were to cut it down just a little, but as I mentioned previously, that procedure would make it a three finger-spaced grip rather than the usual four, and I didn't want to go ahead with the modification without first knowing if it would be historically accurate or authentic first. Now I know, and I thank you all for your help.

[Robert Vermaat]

Bingo! That's the one I have been searching for!

Good. It's what I do for a living, so.. :lol:
I just loooove the searching facilties on this board compared to the old one!

[ambrosius]

Jeff/Robert,

The sword in the British Museum is the famous 'Fulham'
blade (found in the Thames, near Fulham) but the organic
parts of the hilt had rotted away. Ralph Jackson, who is
the curator of the Romano-British gallery, told me that
he had a spare grip found elsewhere in London, which
he attached to the Fulham sword to make it look more
complete. I asked him if he though it was authentic to
have only three finger-grooves instead of four, and he
claimed that there were occasionally grips with only
three. But if you look carefully at the grip fitted to the
Fulham sword, it looks like it is a 'four-gripper' which
has been broken (probably in antiquity) as there are
the remains of the fourth groove beginning at the
blade-end of the grip. I'd always go for four, not three.

I recognise what Dan Z says from fencing training.
It's true that a foil or epee may best be controlled by
just thumb and fore-finger. But Roman legionaries
weren't fencers. And if they were taught to punch
their gladius into the target, at short range, possibly
through leather or mail armour, then they would need
the grip of all four fingers. Hence the four grooves
so standard on gladii. Also, there would be a time
when they would be required to cut, rather than thrust.
In which case, thumb and forefinger would not be
enough to grip the hilt. The same, of course, applies
to the spatha. Swinging a blade at an enemy shield
or helmet requires all four fingers to grip it. 8)

Ambrosius

[Uwe Bahr]

Ralph Jackson, who is the curator of the Romano-British gallery, told me that he had a spare grip found elsewhere in London, which he attached to the Fulham sword to make it look more complete.

Ambrosius,

thank You for that explanation. I have a gladius replica with the lower part of the grip (in English hand-guard?) being too narrow for the sheath, like it is on this photo from the Fulham sword and sheath. I always wondered whether this is correct. Thus, as the parts on the photo don't belong together, can one say that the hand-guard should be at least as broad as the upper part of the sheath, for aesthetical reasons?

Uwe

[LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS]

Salve

Not only for aesthetical reasons. A guard broader prevents rain water, dirty, etc. to get into the sheath.

[ambrosius]

Uwe/Avitianus,

That's right. We know that the wood/leather structure of the
scabbard is meant to keep rain off the sword-blade. So what
would be the point of a hilt so small that it allowed rain to run
straight down inside the scabbard and rust the blade anyway? :lol:

The only reason the broken grip/guard/pommel fit this Fulham
sword anyway is because the top half of the tang of the blade
had rusted/broken-off while lying under the Thames. Having
the sword displayed like this does make it look more complete,
but it gives a false impression of how it looked originally. It
might have been better to fit a reproduction hilt assembly
from a modern Mainz/Fulham sword. :wink:

Ambrosius [/quote]