Does anyone know of a roman sword with an hourglass grip

[stevesarak]

I just got a call from the person making a copy of a spatha for me, he's getting ready to make the grip. its a copy from the origianl antique I own, a crossover between roman and migration, but it doesn't have a grip, someone suggested an hourglass shape for the grip but I can't find any reference to any roman swords with that kind of grip.

The original only has room for a 4" grip so its hard finding anything at all along those lines.

Does anyone know of any roman swords with hourglass grips or what any roman 4" grips might have looked like? assuming their's any mention of a roman sword with such a small grip at all.

[Matthew Amt]

Four inches is a vey typical length for any Roman sword grip, in fact many were shorter. Those I've seen lengths for run from 3" to about 4", as I recall. Not sure if there are many that are significantly longer than that.

If your blade is late Roman, any late Roman grip will do. I agree that the hourglass grip is indicative of the Migration era, but I'm not sure how much overlap there is between "late Roman" and "Migration"--not my era!

Here's one possibility, about 2/3 of the way down the page, right-hand one of two photos, with semicircular guard and pommel, apparently ivory:

http://www.romancoins.info/MilitaryEqui ... ttack.html

The Legio XX site is mainly for mid-first century AD stuff, but if it helps,

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/gladius.html

Good luck and Vale,

Matthew

[stevesarak]

Four inches is a vey typical length for any Roman sword grip, in fact many were shorter. Those I've seen lengths for run from 3" to about 4", as I recall. Not sure if there are many that are significantly longer than that.

Matthew

I checked the blue print of my sword and it turns out that the grip, in between the pommel and gaurd, is only 3.57. that is such a tight grip I don't see how anyone could hold on to that without it being to tight a grip. are you sude that you've seen or heard of grips being 3" for an adult. I did see a roman childs sword once. I don't think an adult could fight effectivly with a 3" grip (handle)

[Matthew Amt]

Looking at a page of 20 grips from Vindonissa, there are at least 2 that are only 3" long, a couple more are 3-1/8" or so. The LONGEST one is only 3-3/4". So either the Romans tended to have smaller hands than us, or they were not holding the gladius like we think they were. A friend of mine who does western medieval martial arts says that swords are never gripped with the whole hand, but only with the thumb and first two fingers. That could be a factor in Roman times, perhaps.

Matthew

[stevesarak]

Wow, even though I can hold the sword in my own hands and you have it documented, I'm still surprised.

I heard long ago that the Romans recruited men at least 6 feet tall, but recently, on one of the post within the last week, I read that they were on the average 5’ 5â€

[Tarbicus]

[quote]I read that they were on the average 5’ 5â€

[Primvs Pavlvs]

Tarbicus\\n[quote][quote]I read that they were on the average 5’ 5â€

[Tarbicus]

Maybe I should just sell all my Roman stuff and re-enact a 1st Century German Twisted Evil

As long as your sword bends on impact like it should, I'll have a scrap with you any day :wink:

(Okay, okay, I'm just repeating text sources. I know Celtic craftmanship was excellent....)

[Matthew Amt]

Steve Sarak\\n[quote]I heard long ago that the Romans recruited men at least 6 feet tall, but recently, on one of the post within the last week, I read that they were on the average 5’ 5â€