|
|
Post by Paladin Ryan on Jun 2, 2017 4:58:25 GMT
So as much as I find Roman arms and armor appealing, my knowledge and experience with it is limited. Devil's Edge released a new Gladius that looks good overall but I'm not familiar enough with the sword or its history to speak to its historical accuracy in terms of aesthetics, size, balance, etc. I am considering getting it as a cheap but functional gladius personally (once I have a bit of cash to spare) but figured I may as well see what thoughts on here are first. Link on KOA: www.kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=AK009&name=Devil%27s+Edge+Murmillo+Gladius |
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Jun 2, 2017 7:18:30 GMT
I've seen worse. The grip is long, too long for average hands. Also really fat. That's a recipe for it being more tiring to wield. It's maybe a little short, but historically OK. The guard looks very sharp-edged. The scabbard is rather unhistorical. The base of the blade looks a bit funky; it looks like an old and much-sharpened sword rather than a new one. The guard plate should be set into the guard, if you want to be fussy about accuracy.
As for balance, etc., my first thought is that it's about 200-250g (1/2lb) too heavy.
Apart from the weight and the grip, it looks pretty good for the price. If I was after a gladius, I'd get one of the good Deepeeka ones before this, but then I'd have to sharpen it (if I wanted a sharp one). The better historical accuracy of the Deepeeka (and not just the sword - an accurate scabbard as well) is the big factor. If I want something "Roman", why not get the one that's more Roman?
If I just wanted a short sword of about gladius size, there's the Devil's Edge qama, the Windlass qama, and the Windlass Cobra Steel kindjal, all much cheaper. (Hmm, that Cobra Steel kindjal looks nice ...)
|
|
|
|
Post by Paladin Ryan on Jun 2, 2017 7:37:38 GMT
I've seen worse. The grip is long, too long for average hands. Also really fat. That's a recipe for it being more tiring to wield. It's maybe a little short, but historically OK. The guard looks very sharp-edged. The scabbard is rather unhistorical. The base of the blade looks a bit funky; it looks like an old and much-sharpened sword rather than a new one. The guard plate should be set into the guard, if you want to be fussy about accuracy. As for balance, etc., my first thought is that it's about 200-250g (1/2lb) too heavy. Apart from the weight and the grip, it looks pretty good for the price. If I was after a gladius, I'd get one of the good Deepeeka ones before this, but then I'd have to sharpen it (if I wanted a sharp one). The better historical accuracy of the Deepeeka (and not just the sword - an accurate scabbard as well) is the big factor. If I want something "Roman", why not get the one that's more Roman? If I just wanted a short sword of about gladius size, there's the Devil's Edge qama, the Windlass qama, and the Windlass Cobra Steel kindjal, all much cheaper. (Hmm, that Cobra Steel kindjal looks nice ...) The only thing is that Deepeeka makes it kind of hard to sort out the good ones from the bad ones... plus my understanding is even their good ones are often a bit soft. Not to turn this into a "suggest me a sword" thread but do you know which Deepeeka ones are considered better so I can save them for later? EDIT: Preferably Pompeii or Fulham as I prefer the straight blade design. Sorry to impose, it's just obvious you know far more about this subject than I do. |
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Jun 2, 2017 7:57:53 GMT
To sort the good Deepeeka gladii from the rest:
1. Does it look OK? The scabbard, too?
2. Is the weight about 1lb 8oz to 1lb 10oz? 2lb is too much!
3. Is the grip about 3.5" long (KOA lists the good ones mostly as 3 1/2" or 3 5/8")? 4" is too long for the average hand. 4 1/2" is far too long!
As for the steel and heat treatment, well, it might be on the soft side. 'Tis Deepeeka, after all. Devil's Edge heat treatment looks a bit spotty, too, from reviews of their other swords.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paladin Ryan on Jun 2, 2017 21:55:50 GMT
To sort the good Deepeeka gladii from the rest: 1. Does it look OK? The scabbard, too? 2. Is the weight about 1lb 8oz to 1lb 10oz? 2lb is too much! 3. Is the grip about 3.5" long (KOA lists the good ones mostly as 3 1/2" or 3 5/8")? 4" is too long for the average hand. 4 1/2" is far too long! As for the steel and heat treatment, well, it might be on the soft side. 'Tis Deepeeka, after all. Devil's Edge heat treatment looks a bit spotty, too, from reviews of their other swords. Okay, thanks for the tips. In fairness you are right, Devil's Edge is known for inconsistent heat treat but I have heard that it is improving in that regard. However, based on what you said, Deepeeka would likely be the way to go for a low end gladius. Ultimately I don't intend to be all that abusive on the sword so it would probably be fine. |
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Jun 2, 2017 22:25:23 GMT
If the DE was lighter, and the grip shorter and thinner (or if you're prepared to modify the grip to fit your hand), then the only reason to prefer Deepeeka would be if you wanted re-enactor level accuracy.
The weight of the DE would be fine if it was much longer, e.g., a 25" blade gladius hispaniensis. But not so good for a short gladius like this. At least it isn't as heavy as the French coupe-choux (cabbage cutter), their 1831 artillery gladius.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paladin Ryan on Jun 3, 2017 2:04:12 GMT
So one thing I am noticing on a lot of the Deepeekas is a squarish grip. I was under the impression that they should be round. Are the squarish ones accurate?
|
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Jun 3, 2017 3:11:30 GMT
Surviving ones I've seen are usually oval, hexagonal, or square/diamond (with rounded corners). As for the square/diamond ones, I don't know whether they were mounted on swords as square or diamond; some are flattened diamond and would have been mounted as diamond. Circular cross section is rare. The oval ones are often barrel-shaped, with no finger ridges (but finger ridges are still common on oval section grips). A link to some examples was posted in the recent thread about the BCI gladius: www.romancoins.info/MilitaryEquipment-Attack.html |
|
|
|
Post by Paladin Ryan on Jun 3, 2017 3:57:27 GMT
Surviving ones I've seen are usually oval, hexagonal, or square/diamond (with rounded corners). As for the square/diamond ones, I don't know whether they were mounted on swords as square or diamond; some are flattened diamond and would have been mounted as diamond. Circular cross section is rare. The oval ones are often barrel-shaped, with no finger ridges (but finger ridges are still common on oval section grips). A link to some examples was posted in the recent thread about the BCI gladius: www.romancoins.info/MilitaryEquipment-Attack.htmlThank you again for sharing your knowledge. |
|
|
|
Post by rhema1313 on Sept 14, 2017 4:08:13 GMT
I am not here to knock anyone else's swords, however, you asked about historical accuracy. Keep in mind that it is being posted as a "Fulham" style Gladii...however it is NOT directly being sold as a "Legionary's" Sword. the opening line states:
Named for the Murmillo Gladiator who was equipped with the Gladius and Scutum shield in similar fashion to a Roman Legionary, this blade is brutal in it’s simplicity.
So, with that being said... you really cannot critique it from a "Historically Accurate" point of view. Yet, in the same breath... the write up says... "Though named after a type of Gladiator, this gladius would be equally at home in the hand of any Roman soldier of the time."
So... (yet another "So" LOL)
As for a "Fulham" Style... Well possibly at first glance. But I would have to say through years of research... NO. Not a "True" Fulham. Shapes, measurements are not historically accurate.
The blade is an inch too short for the shortest Fulham on record as an Archeological relic.
The over all weight of the sword is surprisingly almost a 1/2 lbs. to heavy...especially with the blade being so short.
The hilt is poorly fashioned, but for $139.00 that is to be expected.
The guard plate should be fully inset into the guard.
The grip is to long. The one pictured is tapered the wrong direction. Grips that are tapered are wider at the guard than they are at the pommel.
The pommel "Finial" looks ok... But it appears to me it might be screwed on or threaded... not peened. (But I cannot tell for sure...)
The point of balance is ok... however, it puzzles me... because of the shortness of the length of the blade... the distal tape is accurate... the width is a little bit wide as the average Fulham is 2.250" at the widest. The P.O.B. baffles me because that means that the Hilt components of the Guard plate< Guard, Grip, Pommel and Pommel finial has to be heavy... or the tang is bigger than usual to make the P.O.B. where it is.
Overall... it is being sold as a Gladiator's sword not a Legionary's. So... for a Gladiator's sword... sure... why not? As a Legionary's... Ummm... No.
So to me... the benefit goes to the Write up... what they say it "Is" and yes, I guess if a Legionary lost his sword... a Gladiator sword might do.. but not likely.
|
|
