|
Post by thetyler701 on Mar 25, 2020 1:19:44 GMT
Hello everyone, first post here!
I am a big collector of firearms, from military flintlock muskets up until WW2. Recently I’ve taken a liking into swords, specifically the Roman Gladius. I got a Windlass Mainz as a gift and I like it quite a lot. Obviously it’s not a top tier model, but I like it. Outside of the crappy plastic handle it looks pretty good. I have 2 questions regarding this weapon that you guys can help me with.
1) I know it’s not known for sure, but how sharp were the edges of these things back in the day? I’ve always believed that the sharper it is, the less durable it is...so swords really only had to be “sharp enough” to do their job. But then I saw a comment talking about how that’s not really the case, and that you can still have a very sharp durable blade. Not sure. Just curious as to how a blade would feel in that era. I know theirs not really a mathematical and specific answer here, just want to learn and absorb info!
2) This question also pertains to the edge. My Mainz came fairly sharp, the point at least. And I just want to know what I should do to keep the edges clean and strong. The edge seems to have some rust on it and not really cutting the way it was when I first got it. Maybe from my oily hands? I have no knowledge of blade maintenance.
I look forward to taking with some of you
|
|
christain
Member
It's the steel on the inside that counts.
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by christain on Mar 25, 2020 1:40:32 GMT
If I recall correctly, Gladi did not have to be all that sharp...as long as they were pointed. They were primarily a stabbing weapon. My CS Gladius Machete still scares the crap out of me every time I pick it up. Such a deadly deal for a decent dollar.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Mar 25, 2020 1:44:12 GMT
Afaik no antique gladius exists which has an original edge, all corroded. They probably were as sharp as possible. Archeologists found skeletons of people with deep wounds to the bone made by gladii. Short swords need a good edge for such effects. Also there was no need to make a rather blunt tough edge that survives parrying other swords due to the fighting style with a big shield.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Mar 25, 2020 2:15:18 GMT
Welcome to the forum 701. I’ll say up front that I am not into Roman history, many are. The questions you ask, especially about sharpness can’t be agreed upon even by collectors. The gladius is part of a weapon system which involves a shield and sword. I strongly suspect the edge could cut but the gladius is primarily a thrusting weapon.
As for ‘sharpness’ the experts could not agree on what sharpness was nor the proper shape of the edge should be back when the sword was still very much in use. I believe part of the confusion, and this is strictly my guess, is that depending on what theatre the senior officers fought in gave them their opinion. For example the Brits in the Indian wars had an ongoing problem with dull swords and the senior officers who gained battle experience in the Napoleonic wars had one concept and the trooper in the Indian affairs had another. They fought against Indians who had very sharp tulwars while the British swords were dull and some senior officers seemed to encourage that even going so far as reprimanding and giving a regiment’s CO the bill for issuing the order to sharpening. Books were written during the 19th century by "authorities" on the correct grind angle and these varied from acute angles that cut better to wider angles for durability. So I’ll leave you to decide that one to suite yourself.
As for maintenance, it’s best to keep your greasy, oily fingers of off the blade. You collect firearms and should know what mischief fingerprints can do. The location of where you live will have something to do with it. A dry climate with a uniform temperature is the safest, unfortunately that isn’t always available. I live in the tropics, just outside of a rain forest with big rust potentials. Best to wipe the blades down regularly and apply your favourite preservative. Collectors can’t agree on that, some like oils, some waxes. The important thing is to use something and inspect regularly.
And asking how long the edge should stay sharp is like asking how long is a piece of string. That would depend on the metals used and more so the tempering of those steels. You can also throw in the grind angle, what is being cut, and how often. I received a copy of a M1860 sabre in November and sharpened and that lasted me until about July/August. I received a CS Backsword about 6 months ago maybe a little longer and sharpened. I checked it out two days ago and it still cut a litro milk container of card stock in half leaving the bottom portion setting on my cutting stand. I received a cutlass and in 4 days that was dull. However it came with one of those pesky steel scabbards that caused that and has since been rectified.
Not only welcome to the forum but to the world of swords. I find it a fascinating one from many standpoints, there is so much to learn. It seems like a never ending process.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Mar 25, 2020 2:29:34 GMT
Welcome!
As sharp as possible.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Mar 25, 2020 12:32:49 GMT
I believe sharp as possible and still remain serviceable might be a better description. It’s possible to have one ridiculously sharp but in doing so thin the edge too much. And while being impressive with soft backyard targets it may be too fragile for other purposes. I have a doa that has a edge so sharp as to cut silk and have accidently done so a couple of times. The blade is also rather thin and will pass through a beverage carton or plastic jug and I not feel it. If it ever saw combat I’d definitely want a shield with it as not to use it in a defensive roll nor would I attempt to cut a wrapped pork bone with it just to see if it will while I have done so with another sword and machete. I think Nathan best summed it up with “This stuff doesn't have to be so much hypothetical conjecture guys, you can find these things out for yourself and have fun while doing it.”
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Mar 25, 2020 12:55:12 GMT
There are accounts in battle where the gladius hacked off complete limbs. It's quite capable of doing that. However, it's primarily a thrusting weapon designed to be used in formations along with the scutum as a weapon system. As far as sharpness is concerned: we don't know. As it was mentioned, there are no surviving examples that show this. We can assume it was a sharp as they could reasonably get it to be, and it was quite sharp enough to carve out an empire and hold it for 1500 years.
With that said, make yours as sharp as you wish. Nobody can bring forth any evidence to say you are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by thetyler701 on Mar 25, 2020 15:20:40 GMT
I believe sharp as possible and still remain serviceable might be a better description. It’s possible to have one ridiculously sharp but in doing so thin the edge too much. And while being impressive with soft backyard targets it may be too fragile for other purposes. I have a doa that has a edge so sharp as to cut silk and have accidently done so a couple of times. The blade is also rather thin and will pass through a beverage carton or plastic jug and I not feel it. If it ever saw combat I’d definitely want a shield with it as not to use it in a defensive roll nor would I attempt to cut a wrapped pork bone with it just to see if it will while I have done so with another sword and machete. I think Nathan best summed it up with “This stuff doesn't have to be so much hypothetical conjecture guys, you can find these things out for yourself and have fun while doing it.” I like your answer. So if a really sharp blade is less durable and it was used for battle like things, would it actually become more dull than the lesser sharper blade that’s meant for durability? I hope that makes sense 😅
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Mar 25, 2020 15:34:42 GMT
A very sharp blade is only less durable if it hits hard things like other blades, shields or armor. If it had only to cut into fabric or flesh it's durable enough. In the times the Romans used the gladius their opponents did rarely wear metal armor and the gladius didn't see much parrying. It was used for thrusting most of the time and even with its acute tip a sharp edge also helps penetrating fabric.
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Mar 25, 2020 15:42:06 GMT
I believe sharp as possible and still remain serviceable might be a better description. It’s possible to have one ridiculously sharp but in doing so thin the edge too much. And while being impressive with soft backyard targets it may be too fragile for other purposes. I have a doa that has a edge so sharp as to cut silk and have accidently done so a couple of times. The blade is also rather thin and will pass through a beverage carton or plastic jug and I not feel it. If it ever saw combat I’d definitely want a shield with it as not to use it in a defensive roll nor would I attempt to cut a wrapped pork bone with it just to see if it will while I have done so with another sword and machete. I think Nathan best summed it up with “This stuff doesn't have to be so much hypothetical conjecture guys, you can find these things out for yourself and have fun while doing it.” I like your answer. So if a really sharp blade is less durable and it was used for battle like things, would it actually become more dull than the lesser sharper blade that’s meant for durability? I hope that makes sense 😅 That depends. A sword that is "too sharp" is easily chipped and dulls quickly. A "just right" sharpness is a balance between cutting ability and durability in combat. However, with the gladius it's a toss up. It was designed to thrust, and it does that better than any other sword in history. It only really needs to be sharp on the very tip, and the edges can get by with table knife sharpness. It doesn't take much to punch through just about anything you can imagine with that blade design. Now, you also have to consider the quality of steel. Stop thinking in terms of modern foundry steel. Back in the days of Rome they had steel, but just what quality it was could vary quite a bit from manufacturer to manufacturer and again over 6-800 years of production. They didn't have a quality control system in place to ensure uniform steel compositions. And I would imagine there were quite a lot of variations in sword taper and thickness. We have very few surviving examples of gladii, and what we have MAY have been the "best of the best" quality blades to have survived for so long, whereas the average Antonio mud cruncher's blade long ago rotted away due to poor steel. After all, they literally made millions of them over the years and it's hard to say that "this" one or "that" one represents the overall average. Again, we just don't have a definitive answer. This is where experimenting for yourself will yield you the answer you seek. Sharpen your blade to a razor edge and then spend a few hours hitting targets with it. See the results. Then sharpen the blade to a "medium sharp" edge and repeat the experiment. Find out for yourself what is best for what you want to do with the sword. This is the fun part of sword collecting, IMHO.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Mar 25, 2020 16:46:28 GMT
I believe sharp as possible and still remain serviceable might be a better description. It’s possible to have one ridiculously sharp but in doing so thin the edge too much. And while being impressive with soft backyard targets it may be too fragile for other purposes. I have a doa that has a edge so sharp as to cut silk and have accidently done so a couple of times. The blade is also rather thin and will pass through a beverage carton or plastic jug and I not feel it. If it ever saw combat I’d definitely want a shield with it as not to use it in a defensive roll nor would I attempt to cut a wrapped pork bone with it just to see if it will while I have done so with another sword and machete. I think Nathan best summed it up with “This stuff doesn't have to be so much hypothetical conjecture guys, you can find these things out for yourself and have fun while doing it.” I like your answer. So if a really sharp blade is less durable and it was used for battle like things, would it actually become more dull than the lesser sharper blade that’s meant for durability? I hope that makes sense 😅 There isn’t much that I can add to Andi’s and Rufus’s post, they pretty much covered it. I will emphasise Rusus’s last paragraph. Edit: This is how KoA classifies their edges. This is only their definitions and others may vary somewhat. kultofathena.com/sharp.html
|
|
|
Post by thetyler701 on Mar 25, 2020 19:46:54 GMT
I like your answer. So if a really sharp blade is less durable and it was used for battle like things, would it actually become more dull than the lesser sharper blade that’s meant for durability? I hope that makes sense 😅 That depends. A sword that is "too sharp" is easily chipped and dulls quickly. A "just right" sharpness is a balance between cutting ability and durability in combat. However, with the gladius it's a toss up. It was designed to thrust, and it does that better than any other sword in history. It only really needs to be sharp on the very tip, and the edges can get by with table knife sharpness. It doesn't take much to punch through just about anything you can imagine with that blade design. Now, you also have to consider the quality of steel. Stop thinking in terms of modern foundry steel. Back in the days of Rome they had steel, but just what quality it was could vary quite a bit from manufacturer to manufacturer and again over 6-800 years of production. They didn't have a quality control system in place to ensure uniform steel compositions. And I would imagine there were quite a lot of variations in sword taper and thickness. We have very few surviving examples of gladii, and what we have MAY have been the "best of the best" quality blades to have survived for so long, whereas the average Antonio mud cruncher's blade long ago rotted away due to poor steel. After all, they literally made millions of them over the years and it's hard to say that "this" one or "that" one represents the overall average. Again, we just don't have a definitive answer. This is where experimenting for yourself will yield you the answer you seek. Sharpen your blade to a razor edge and then spend a few hours hitting targets with it. See the results. Then sharpen the blade to a "medium sharp" edge and repeat the experiment. Find out for yourself what is best for what you want to do with the sword. This is the fun part of sword collecting, IMHO. Excellent info. I wonder how many surviving examples we have. And I wonder if any Gladii exist with anything left of the handle/pommel/guard. I wish their was a site or database that could show you the surviving examples we have today. Are they ever known to pop up at auction for what I can only imagine to be hundreds of thousands of $?
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Mar 25, 2020 19:51:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Mar 25, 2020 20:04:30 GMT
Excellent info. I wonder how many surviving examples we have. And I wonder if any Gladii exist with anything left of the handle/pommel/guard. I wish their was a site or database that could show you the surviving examples we have today. Are they ever known to pop up at auction for what I can only imagine to be hundreds of thousands of $? Oh yes! Surviving organic hilt components from so long ago are not common, but they do exist. For example: "A gladius with lentoid-section forge-welded parallel-sided blade tapering at about 4/5ths of the length to an acute point; the wooden lower guard D-shaped with a bronze plaque beneath where the tang enters; bone grip, square in section with five raised ribs; lentoid-section D-shaped wooden pommel with collared bronze knop." (From Timeline Auctions, via Tumblr) Here's one page with many more examples. (EDIT: ah, ninja'd... shows me for doing it all nice and fancy instead of just posting raw links, I guess )
|
|
|
Post by howler on Mar 25, 2020 20:24:08 GMT
If you can hack off a limb than you should make it as sharp as possible within reason so it doesn't chip, roll, quickly dull, etc... A good apple seed convex perhaps.
|
|
|
Post by tsmspace on Apr 1, 2020 10:09:44 GMT
I think that when I read the above comments about sharpness, I want to know if people mean:
- the actual edge geometry ,, so more acute is more sharp and more obtuse is less sharp
-or the fine hone of the edge, ,, so very well finished and fine.
I think that a sword should always be all the way finished, and not rounded, pitted, or squared,, ,but exactly how obtuse the geometry of the final bevel is I think is the artform of properly sharpening each given shape, size, and metallurgy. I have been having severe mood swings about the most desirable edge geometry because first I can't cut unless it's so acute, and then later I am cutting beautifully with a terribly obtuse geometry on a lightweight blade of low quality stainless steel.
----- but for rust, tons of oil . I decided to just oil the crap out of it, and live with the mess. Later, you will feel more confident about reducing the amount of oil you soak your house in to keep the blade covered, but without a doubt your scabbard should be oily and should keep the blade coated while sheathed. My swords were so rusty, they actually sharpened from it before i started to clean them up.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Apr 1, 2020 11:58:20 GMT
It's not unusual that parts of the blade near the guard or up to 1/2 of the blade are relative blunt so that parrying another blade doesn't kill a fine edge. But for a gladius I'd expect this on the half of the gladius blade that isn't there.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Apr 1, 2020 13:10:26 GMT
On swords I generally leave 1/3-1/2 of the blade unsharpened. The unsharpened portion for parrying without damage to my sharp edge and also there are times I like to grab the blade. Now of late with decorated blades I am reluctant to damage the etching.
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Apr 1, 2020 14:06:13 GMT
There are no surviving manuals from the Roman period that state how the gladius was to be sharpened or cared for. Unless something is discovered in future archaeology, we simply don't know for certain and have to speculate.
We can make educated guesses based on what we do know for certain and hope the answer is mostly correct. For example, we know how the Romans fought with the sword, we also know their technological capabilities and limitations as well as their cultural norms. Knowing this, we can try to recreate the lesser known details.
In my opinion, taking into consideration what we know factually, and what I know of being a soldier myself, I think the gladius was only sharpened on the first 1/3 of the blade. I say this because the gladius was designed to thrust while using the scutum as a pivot. With this method, it only needs to be sharp in the area that is used. If you look at the majority of gladii they have a wasp waist and you can kind of see that the tip is straight like a knife and it would be logical to sharpen that area for thrusting and leave the waist alone- which is the part of the sword that rests on the scutum- not being sharp here would keep the scutum from being damaged. Also, if a soldier can get away with doing less work, they will. If they only had to sharpen 1/3 of the blade, then that is all they will do to do the minimum to stay out of trouble with the Centurion.
For the edge geometry, I think it was a bad apple seed/ bevel edge done out in the field. I can envision soldiers sitting around camp BS'ing about their girlfriends back home and half-ass sharpening their swords with a rock or something. They don't have their hearts in the work, but want to look busy so the aforementioned Centurion doesn't get angry and hit them for being lazy. The sword may have been issued with a decent bevel done by the armorer/blacksmith, but after giving that to a soldier there is no way they would maintain any such precise bevel work. They would hit it with a sharpening stone and call it good. I don't think soldiers have ever changed.
Again, conjecture. Do as you please and experiment. Nobody can say you are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by thetyler701 on Apr 4, 2020 3:18:21 GMT
There are no surviving manuals from the Roman period that state how the gladius was to be sharpened or cared for. Unless something is discovered in future archaeology, we simply don't know for certain and have to speculate. We can make educated guesses based on what we do know for certain and hope the answer is mostly correct. For example, we know how the Romans fought with the sword, we also know their technological capabilities and limitations as well as their cultural norms. Knowing this, we can try to recreate the lesser known details. In my opinion, taking into consideration what we know factually, and what I know of being a soldier myself, I think the gladius was only sharpened on the first 1/3 of the blade. I say this because the gladius was designed to thrust while using the scutum as a pivot. With this method, it only needs to be sharp in the area that is used. If you look at the majority of gladii they have a wasp waist and you can kind of see that the tip is straight like a knife and it would be logical to sharpen that area for thrusting and leave the waist alone- which is the part of the sword that rests on the scutum- not being sharp here would keep the scutum from being damaged. Also, if a soldier can get away with doing less work, they will. If they only had to sharpen 1/3 of the blade, then that is all they will do to do the minimum to stay out of trouble with the Centurion. For the edge geometry, I think it was a bad apple seed/ bevel edge done out in the field. I can envision soldiers sitting around camp BS'ing about their girlfriends back home and half-ass sharpening their swords with a rock or something. They don't have their hearts in the work, but want to look busy so the aforementioned Centurion doesn't get angry and hit them for being lazy. The sword may have been issued with a decent bevel done by the armorer/blacksmith, but after giving that to a soldier there is no way they would maintain any such precise bevel work. They would hit it with a sharpening stone and call it good. I don't think soldiers have ever changed. Again, conjecture. Do as you please and experiment. Nobody can say you are wrong. Thanks man! I’m actually about to cast my first bronze sword. Pretty much gonna experiment and figure it all out along the way.
|
|