AndiTheBarvarian
Member
"Lord of the Memes"
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 10,331
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Oct 30, 2016 10:53:38 GMT
And spathae had those grips too, even the later roman infantry spathae.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottw on Oct 30, 2016 14:52:32 GMT
WEll, let me add a comment on gladius hilts. The Roman's were , if nothing else, a *practical* people..and so was their army.. The point I want to make is, regardless of what WE today think, THEY found that the gladius worked VERY well for their style of warfare, so much so that it remained virtually unchanged for several hundred years - you can't beat functional success. Eventually, their style of warfare changed, and the gladius of the past no longer fitted the new combat styles , so it changed. Don't judge a weapon by today's standards..it has to be realistically evaluated under the conditions of the times. I agree, it's perplexing that they were so stubborn for so long, and never changed that horrible grip. I kid  But it's strange that some later short swords kept the blade style but changed the hilt and pommel. As if the smiths thought..hey, this sucks. Let's change it. It just seams very limiting and restrictive. Too me. And I have been collecting swords for many, many days. You could say I'm a novice expert. |
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
"Lord of the Memes"
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 10,331
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Oct 30, 2016 16:16:47 GMT
Quama or kinjals didn't derive from the gladius.
The romans stopped making gladii ca. 300 AD, quama or kinjals were made more than 1000 - 1500 years later, I think, and derived from daggers.
Plus many generations of sword and hilt development between.
|
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Oct 30, 2016 22:39:46 GMT
It just seams very limiting and restrictive. What does it stop you from doing that'd you want to be doing while fighting, in formation, with a large shield? Or 1-on-1, with a large shield? It makes it harder to fight with your sword arm extended forwards (e.g., as in foil/epee fencing). But that would stick your arm past the protection of your shield, and is an invitation to have your hand cut off. (Compare sword and buckler, where the buckler can be extended to cover the extended sword arm.) On the plus side, you get a secure and non-tiring grip, since you can hold the sword securely with a quite relaxed grip. On the minus side, you give up some reach (maybe about 4"?). |
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
"Lord of the Memes"
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 10,331
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Oct 31, 2016 0:25:14 GMT
Short version: Any number of Basil Rathbones against a roman shieldwall of hard drilled gross motoric country boys = mincemeat!
|
|
|
|
Post by scottw on Oct 31, 2016 0:45:10 GMT
Quama or kinjals didn't derive from the gladius. The romans stopped making gladii ca. 300 AD, quama or kinjals were made more than 1000 - 1500 years later, I think, and derived from daggers. Plus many generations of sword and hilt development between. Looking at antique kindjals, I find it hard to believe they weren't influenced by the gladius..I suppose it could just be a coincidence though. I just like the full tang/grip scales and no obstructions on the grip (other then the protruding rivets, which may or may not annoy me). My thought is, why have a grip like that if you don't need it? The gladius is the only sword i've seen with that style of grip. I think it probably went away and was never adopted again for a reason. These are just a newbs thoughts though, not trying to rile up the historians here  |
|
|
|
Post by scottw on Oct 31, 2016 0:50:17 GMT
It just seams very limiting and restrictive. What does it stop you from doing that'd you want to be doing while fighting, in formation, with a large shield? Or 1-on-1, with a large shield? It makes it harder to fight with your sword arm extended forwards (e.g., as in foil/epee fencing). But that would stick your arm past the protection of your shield, and is an invitation to have your hand cut off. (Compare sword and buckler, where the buckler can be extended to cover the extended sword arm.) On the plus side, you get a secure and non-tiring grip, since you can hold the sword securely with a quite relaxed grip. On the minus side, you give up some reach (maybe about 4"?). You make excellent points as usual Timo, I suppose my only answer is, 4" can mean a whole lot, in a bad situation. While I've little to no experience with swords, I have plenty of experience with bad situations. It just seems outdated and overly restrictive. That said, I've never held a gladius. Perhaps I should before I write it off, though. |
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
"Lord of the Memes"
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 10,331
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Oct 31, 2016 0:55:28 GMT
I'm not a historian, only a bit interested, but I can't google a kinjal/kindjal before ca. 1700 AD.
Timo ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Oct 31, 2016 9:57:19 GMT
Khorasani, "Arms and Armor from Iran" has a chapter on the qama and qaddara. In summary, the qama came into Iran from the north (the Caucasus), perhaps in the 16th or 17th century. I haven't seen any examples of that age.
There's plenty of precedence for double-edged straight short swords in the area, all the way back to the Bronze Age. Scythian and Sarmatian examples aplenty, but then I don't know of any for a while (some long double-edged straight swords, though). Khorasani mentions an Il-Khanid example in a miniature. So I don't see any need to think they might be descended from the Roman gladius.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottw on Oct 31, 2016 13:57:52 GMT
Isnt there a heavy Roman influence in the cultures from all of those areas? I believe I read that somewhere, anyhow..
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
"Lord of the Memes"
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 10,331
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Oct 31, 2016 15:24:40 GMT
There were interactions with East-Rome/Constantinople and several germanic tribes and steppe warriors, but after the romans gave up gladii in their legions. Stabby short swords or daggers appear reiterating in different cultures without one great evolution line. Always usefull to end an enmity at a shared supper. |
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Oct 31, 2016 22:01:52 GMT
Heavy Greek/Hellenistic influence, from Greek trading colonies on the Black Sea coast, and Alexandrian conquest (the Greek alphabet and Greek-style coinage were used in Afghanistan, and early Central Asian Buddhist sculpture appears to have Greek influence).
Roman influence, too, since the Roman Empire reached the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea (at times). And centuries of almost-constant war between Rome and Parthia/Persia.
But double-edged straight short swords predate all that in the area by at least 500 years (the oldest examples I've seen are late 2nd millenium BC).
|
|
|
|
Post by scottw on Nov 1, 2016 2:59:02 GMT
Interesting. You've provided me with a reading project 😀. I'm still trying to grasp the details of the current war in Syria though. My brain is about to melt. Seriously, I'm getting headaches..I get the overview, but the details are a mess. Anyway, off topic..
|
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Nov 2, 2016 20:30:00 GMT
It just seams very limiting and restrictive. On the plus side, you get a secure and non-tiring grip, since you can hold the sword securely with a quite relaxed grip. On the minus side, you give up some reach (maybe about 4"?). The important thing to remember is that we never use our swords for what they were actually intended to be used for: killing people, most of whom are going to be wearing some kind of armor, in a battlefield setting. We either dry handle our swords, cut through extremely soft targets (milk jugs), or, on occasion, actually spar with blunt weapons. None of these accurately reproduces the intended use of most swords (later swords like rapiers are an exception, but again, we're not killing anyone with them). In a long, exhausting battle (where your sword is getting pounded against metal and heavy wood, not to mention getting stuck in other people's bodies) a secure grip is more important than a grip that allows a greater variety of moves. The Roman soldier was not a fencer, he was a single cog in a giant battle machine. If you look at most European swords from the Bronze Age to the early Medieval age, the sword hilts were designed to keep your hand snug in between the pommel and the crossguard in a hammer grip. Examples: Bronze Age swords   Greek and Roman swords   Migration Era sword  Viking Swords  |
|
Nov 1, 2024 0:13:58 GMT
Nov 1, 2024 0:13:58 GMT
