|
Post by bleiz on Sept 11, 2019 14:35:37 GMT
Doing some research on Gladius shapes in view of adding one to my collection.
Is one of the 3 main shapes of Gladius best for both cutting and thrusting?
It seems that historical/archeological evidence shows that scabbards included bronze decorations, is that generally accepted for combat versions or just parade swords? Having all kinds of buckles and other decorations would get tangled in the field
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Sept 11, 2019 14:54:29 GMT
myarmoury.com/feature_ironempire.htmlPompeii for sure is the "worst" cutter (still won't get a cut from one). A Mainz should be a little bit better in cutting than a Fulham and vice versa in thrusting theoretically, but it rather depends on the real swords you compare. Mainz and Fulham I consider as cut and thrust swords (Pompeii as a thrust and cut one). A 22" blade isn't sooo short. Dunno if the leaders of the legions took their blingbling scabbards into battle.
|
|
christain
Member
It's the steel on the inside that counts.
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by christain on Sept 11, 2019 15:59:27 GMT
Sadly, one of the best--and most usable swords--in my collection isn't even a 'sword', but a machete. Cold Steel Gladius machete. Definitely no 'bling' there, but the shape of the blade makes it a fun backyard whacker/stabber. I've put it through the wringer many times and it just keeps on coming back for more. I broke the very tippy-tiny point off, but about 2 minutes with a file and it was back to a needle-point again. I recently dispatched a large watermelon with it. I would hate to get stabbed by that thing. I can see why the Romans favored it.
|
|
|
Post by bleiz on Sept 12, 2019 15:42:39 GMT
Thank you for the suggestions. Very nice blades mad the shape is interesting. I am hesitant to get a Gladius with such decorations on it. It may be historically accurate for some periods. It just seems a bit much to me for a practical sword. Matter of taste
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2019 16:13:05 GMT
Thank you for the suggestions. Very nice blades mad the shape is interesting. I am hesitant to get a Gladius with such decorations on it. It may be historically accurate for some periods. It just seems a bit much to me for a practical sword. Matter of taste I have this one, an accurate copy and less bling. I wanted something a regular legionnaire would carry. kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=AH4209NT&name=Roman+Mainz+Gladius+%2D+Red+Scabbard
|
|
|
Post by rhema1313 on Sept 17, 2019 2:49:25 GMT
Doing some research on Gladius shapes in view of adding one to my collection. Is one of the 3 main shapes of Gladius best for both cutting and thrusting? It seems that historical/archeological evidence shows that scabbards included bronze decorations, is that generally accepted for combat versions or just parade swords? Having all kinds of buckles and other decorations would get tangled in the field If you saw my other post about the Hispaniensis, the Mainz and the Fulham blades would be the best for stabbing and cutting. I variations of all of those blades in lengths, and shapes that are Historically accurate.
|
|
|
Post by tsmspace on Oct 26, 2019 17:45:23 GMT
Sadly, one of the best--and most usable swords--in my collection isn't even a 'sword', but a machete. Cold Steel Gladius machete. Definitely no 'bling' there, but the shape of the blade makes it a fun backyard whacker/stabber. I've put it through the wringer many times and it just keeps on coming back for more. I broke the very tippy-tiny point off, but about 2 minutes with a file and it was back to a needle-point again. I recently dispatched a large watermelon with it. I would hate to get stabbed by that thing. I can see why the Romans favored it. that's a really interesting thing because you would think with all of the "weight of battle" resting on swords, they would out-perform some backyard machete. but I too experience that machetes are really good for cutting. I mean, how is that?? does that make a machete a "more real" sword??
|
|
christain
Member
It's the steel on the inside that counts.
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by christain on Oct 26, 2019 18:24:14 GMT
Well...first off...the 'weight of battle' in ancient warfare did NOT rest on swords. Cavalry, pike-men, and archers were brought to play before a sword was ever drawn. A sword would be the last resort. Hollywood does their best to try and make us believe otherwise, but it just simply isn't true. Sorry. A machete is a SLO (sword-like-object) but in the best possible way. The term -SLO- is normally saved for ridiculously non-functional wall hangers, meant to be displayed and nothing else. There's a thread here about the subject in the 'Forum Cafe'. A machete is a cutting instrument, and was designed to do the task with ease. It's not a weapon of finesse, but a simple tool. I only mentioned my CS Gladius machete because it's an odd duck. As a machete I would choose almost ANY other style to do chores like cutting brush, chopping vines, or clearing a path while hiking/camping. As a machete, the Gladius is not that great. BUT---being used as a sword WOULD be used, as in self-defense or target cutting, it is excellent. In other words, it sucks as a machete, but it's a machete that makes for a pretty damn good sword.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Oct 26, 2019 18:34:32 GMT
Machetes as thin cutting blades have also disadvantages. You can't make a long thin machete, esp. with the historical steel. Thrusting against armor doesn't work well. On the other side there existed swords or bladed weapons that are similar to machetes. Seaxes, kopis, messers, cutlass.
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Oct 26, 2019 18:38:12 GMT
For the topic of "bling" in battle- the answer is yes. Read the "Illiad" for a very contemporary account of ancient battle. The warriors wore their "Sunday best" into battle with the idea that if they died, they would look heroic in doing so. It would have been a great shame to have ratty or dirty gear. Often the fighters would carry trophy weapons and armor into battle.
For the legions of Rome, things were a bit more formalized, but the individual soldier did have broad leeway to decorate themselves. The Roman mindset in general was to not have a lot of possessions- but what possessions they did have were of the most expensive kind. Remember back then they didn't have banks, so they had to manage their wealth in a way they could hold on to and rapidly move if needs be.
Roman relief carvings show a formalized account of battles and parades, and we can draw some limited conclusions from the art left behind, but it's unlikely a stone carver would take the time or effort to show individual soldiers instead of simply carving a generic figure many times over. We get a somewhat "clean" image of a Roman foot soldier. Written accounts of every day individuals are exceeding rare in the ancient world overall, since they didn't bother recording the lives of commoners.
The practical take away from this is that if YOU want a bling scabbard for your gladius, then go right ahead and do so according to your financial means.
|
|
|
Post by tsmspace on Oct 26, 2019 21:03:47 GMT
For the topic of "bling" in battle- the answer is yes. Read the "Illiad" for a very contemporary account of ancient battle. The warriors wore their "Sunday best" into battle with the idea that if they died, they would look heroic in doing so. It would have been a great shame to have ratty or dirty gear. Often the fighters would carry trophy weapons and armor into battle. For the legions of Rome, things were a bit more formalized, but the individual soldier did have broad leeway to decorate themselves. The Roman mindset in general was to not have a lot of possessions- but what possessions they did have were of the most expensive kind. Remember back then they didn't have banks, so they had to manage their wealth in a way they could hold on to and rapidly move if needs be. Roman relief carvings show a formalized account of battles and parades, and we can draw some limited conclusions from the art left behind, but it's unlikely a stone carver would take the time or effort to show individual soldiers instead of simply carving a generic figure many times over. We get a somewhat "clean" image of a Roman foot soldier. Written accounts of every day individuals are exceeding rare in the ancient world overall, since they didn't bother recording the lives of commoners. The practical take away from this is that if YOU want a bling scabbard for your gladius, then go right ahead and do so according to your financial means. just thinking out loud, but that makes me think it might have been somewhat common for people to show up to battle without knowing anything about battle, and just wearing and carrying things that are definately wrong. Like, bringing a sword or armor that ISN'T going to work right, but they just don't know any better. Medievil battles might have been often between two sides that don't know anything, with all kinds of shenanigans. Knowing something about battle might have been uncommon enough, in some places, that when someone who DID know something showed up,,,, the whole place turned into one country.... (theirs)
|
|
LeMal
Member
Posts: 1,085
|
Post by LeMal on Oct 26, 2019 21:34:10 GMT
You can't make a long thin machete, esp. with the historical steel. ^^THIS.^^ Which has much to say on not over-fetishizing archaic manufacturing processes. They did the best they could with what they had, but--not always, but more often than not--modern materials science is what ancient blademakers could only wish for. Still, done right, for some purposes--including some martial ones-- that does allow much-denigrated "cheap" modern designs to indeed out perform "proper" historical blades.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Oct 27, 2019 14:05:04 GMT
Machetes as thin cutting blades have also disadvantages. You can't make a long thin machete, esp. with the historical steel. Thrusting against armor doesn't work well. On the other side there existed swords or bladed weapons that are similar to machetes. Seaxes, kopis, messers, cutlass. I'd say Seaxes are almost the opposite of machetes, being extremely thick and rigid and often wickedly pointed.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Oct 27, 2019 14:18:15 GMT
just thinking out loud, but that makes me think it might have been somewhat common for people to show up to battle without knowing anything about battle, and just wearing and carrying things that are definately wrong. Like, bringing a sword or armor that ISN'T going to work right, but they just don't know any better. Medievil battles might have been often between two sides that don't know anything, with all kinds of shenanigans. Knowing something about battle might have been uncommon enough, in some places, that when someone who DID know something showed up,,,, the whole place turned into one country.... (theirs) Where would they get such arms or armour? There was no mass-production of cheap decorative SLOs, no demographic capable of sustaining such an industry, no disposable toys that could be mistaken for weapons floating around en masse - even toys and purely decorative items were not disposable or cheap. Everything was made by hand and, while labour was relatively cheap, advanced materials like most metals were quite expensive. The basic notion that people would sometimes try to join an army without proper gear and/or training isn't wrong, though, which is why most military organizations had explicit standards for joining them, why pay was usually based directly on your experience and equipment, and why there were laws in various places at various times requiring certain social classes to be equipped for war in certain ways (usually to the effect that poor people answering a call to arms must bring some kind of weapon, wealthier individuals proper weapons of war and personal armour, particularly rich people good weapons and armour and a combat-capable mount, and so on).
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Oct 27, 2019 15:14:06 GMT
Machetes as thin cutting blades have also disadvantages. You can't make a long thin machete, esp. with the historical steel. Thrusting against armor doesn't work well. On the other side there existed swords or bladed weapons that are similar to machetes. Seaxes, kopis, messers, cutlass. I'd say Seaxes are almost the opposite of machetes, being extremely thick and rigid and often wickedly pointed. The opposite of a machete is a smallsword. I see more similarities between a machete and a seax than a smallsword and a seax.
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Oct 27, 2019 16:26:13 GMT
MOK is quite correct in his equipment assessment. In the old days, it really didn't pay to be wealthy because the burden of fighting fell upon you. Wealthy people could afford decent weapons and armor, so the King required them to be the front line warriors. Of course, great privilege came with that "honor".
But on the other end of the scale, there were way more peasants than rich people, and when you have to fight a war, numbers count. Then it was up to either a Lord or the State to provide some measure of weaponry and armor for the foot sloggers. Spears were very popular because they were effective and very cheap to make and an army of peasants can be fitted out with them for next to nothing. Peasant conscript armor was usually some form of war hat made from thin metal or even wood, with maybe chainmail if there was enough money and time to make it, or a padded shirt like a gambeson or similar. Wood armor was popular in Asia for it's availability and low cost and it worked decent enough. In a crunch, peasant conscripts got maybe a uniform shirt to identify which side they were on and not much else.
Naturally, it's wrong to make blanket statements about military equipment since it varies widely through era, economics, and region. But the one common thing for any government in time of war is to make as much as they can as cheap as they can.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Oct 27, 2019 17:23:20 GMT
I'd say Seaxes are almost the opposite of machetes, being extremely thick and rigid and often wickedly pointed. The opposite of a machete is a smallsword. I see more similarities between a machete and a seax than a smallsword and a seax. Hence "almost".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2019 18:17:50 GMT
The opposite of Andi is reality
|
|
Scott
Member
Posts: 1,675
|
Post by Scott on Oct 28, 2019 1:35:03 GMT
I'd say Seaxes are almost the opposite of machetes, being extremely thick and rigid and often wickedly pointed. The opposite of a machete is a smallsword. I see more similarities between a machete and a seax than a smallsword and a seax. So where does the smallsword machete fit in? Blade geometry has to be appropriate for what you're cutting. I've watched someone cut firewood with a machete and it was both painful and amusing.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Oct 28, 2019 2:57:58 GMT
MOK is quite correct in his equipment assessment. In the old days, it really didn't pay to be wealthy because the burden of fighting fell upon you. Wealthy people could afford decent weapons and armor, so the King required them to be the front line warriors. Of course, great privilege came with that "honor". But on the other end of the scale, there were way more peasants than rich people, and when you have to fight a war, numbers count. Then it was up to either a Lord or the State to provide some measure of weaponry and armor for the foot sloggers. At least in northern Europe it was not; the populace at large (EDIT: or rather, the free, male, non-Jewish members of it) was required by law to arm themselves, on pain of non-trivial fines, to the point that it became common parlance in legal texts for over half a millennium to refer to the standard set of shield, spear and either sword or axe as "the people's arms". Rulers arming their troops really only became a thing in early modern times, and even then for quite a long time the soldiers were expected to pay off the equipment from their salary. Taking part in warfare used to be not only an honor, but also highly lucrative (usually through loot rather than pay) if you came out on top.
|
|