Introduction
In the
investigation of the curatorial evidence of the weapon in question, there will
be three sections presented. The first will be a discussion of the excavation
of the gladius and those artefacts
actually found on archaeological digs. This evidence forms much of the
information we have about the actual weapons that were used in the period. The
second part will be an examination of the construction of the gladius, how it was built and some of
its hilt and form of the weapon. Much more of the form of the weapon will be
found in the third part of this curatorial investigation where an examination
of the various types of gladii will
be discussed.
Excavation
With the amount of gladii made, especially in the Roman
Empire, a person would think that there would be plenty of excavations with
examples of these swords in them. Surprisingly there are actually few of them,
they simply have not been found (Burton, 1987:258). What is even more interesting
about this is that examples of complete weapons, meaning unbroken or complete
blades are also quite rare. To compound this perplexing problem, aside from the
excavations at Pompeii, most gladius
finds have been made outside Italy (Coe, 1996:25). This makes it difficult to
find out exactly what a “native” gladius
from the actual Roman people was like in the earlier periods. The lack of
archaeological evidence for the actual gladii
also results in estimates of their measurements based on the examples which
have been found.
What
information we have about the gladius
comes from weapons which have been excavated and some extrapolation based upon
these examples. Even with these few examples much information can be found. The
next step in the investigation is to examine the construction of the weapon,
how it was built.
Construction
The
construction of the gladius would
seem relatively simple however it is something which needs some investigation
to discover some of the arguments and revolutions which happened in its
manufacture. This section is designed to lay the foundation for the
construction of the gladius as more
of this will be dealt with in the typology. There are three parts which will be
discussed, metallurgy, mounting and decoration. The metallurgy will deal with
the blade manufacture, mounting will discuss the hilt or furniture of the
weapon and how it was worn, and finally the decoration of the weapon will
dealing with the social impact of this.
Metallurgy
“And the cudgel was certainly no match for the Roman gladius forged of iron.” (Wise, 2014:21)
Wise’
(2014) comment above is a little obvious as a wooden weapon would clearly not
stand up to a metal one, however it is not this which is most interesting it is
the aspect of forging which is most interesting. The weapons previous to the gladius used by the Romans and their
predecessors were not forged they were moulded and sharpened. These weapons
were stronger and sharper than their previous ones because they were created
from smelting iron from oxides then forged to blade shape (Lewis and Matthews,
2011:72). The complexity of the Roman gladius
is often underestimated, as are most European weapons.
“It’s interesting to look at the metallurgy of Gladii found in Europe. They are mostly wrought iron with carbon content at .03%. The edges were sharpened by forging (hammering) or sharpening on a wheel. Most were fabricated by placing strips of iron together in a sandwich. The quality is variable probably due to the skill of European smiths of the time.” (Anderson, 2011)
Clearly the
more skilful smiths of the Empire especially would have produced higher grades
of blade, indeed not just iron blades but also steel blades. Once the secrets
of forging good steel was discovered at the same time as the gladius hispaniensis the Romans placed
themselves ahead of the curve with regard to the quality of their blades. This
is something that will be noted later on in the study.
Mounting
 |
| Maximus' Gladius from "Gladiator" |
What are
presented here are a gladius and its
scabbard. This is what is considered when the discussion of mounting is thought
of with regard to the sword. Often how the sword was worn on the person is
forgotten. This is an element which needs to be discussed, and some of these
elements will be brought to light below. To begin with there will be an
examination of the hilt of the weapon
Hilt
To begin
with the handle is recommended to be a little rough for a better grip
(Matyszak, 2011:63). This would be of importance so that the wielder of the
weapon does not lose the weapon while he is using it in battle. These handles
were often shaped to give groves where the fingers where to be placed for even
better grip on the handle. As for the rest of the hilt, Burton (1987) describes
it in very simple fashion stating that it was usually without a guard-plate, and only simple cross-bar or small oval
(Burton, 1987:257). This fits the images which he presents in his book however
it does not reflect the common image of the gladius.
What is most interesting is that later on, even on the same page, he
goes into more detail about the hilt. He states that a bronze hilt was used
even after steel blade taken, the common grip was wood with metal knobs or
rivets, but richer sorts bone, ivory, alabaster, silver and gold; capulus: metal pommel, plain mound or
stepped pyramid, little apple became decoration (Burton, 1987:257). The little
apple is the classic bulging pommel shape which is commonly seen on the
“classic” gladius as it is known
today, and was often made of wood.
For officers of higher ranks to
distinguish them from the others their weapons were made differently. Their
weapons had different pommels, they had their weapons often capped at pommel
with head of animal in Assyrian fashion, and the eagle was a reserved favourite
(Burton, 1987:257). What can be seen here are some examples of weapon
decoration previously mentioned.
Scabbard
The scabbard, sheath, or vagina was made of leather or wood, and
had multiple rings on the sheath but archaeologists are uncertain as to all of
uses, some for mounting on belt others for sling; some examples are highly
decorated (Burton, 1987:257). So even in a simple piece of equipment such as
the scabbard there are questions which are asked and answers are not forthcoming.
What are most interesting with regard to the scabbard, beside the rings which
cannot be determined as to their use are the metal plates found on them. These
plates are often decorative and embossed plates (Quesada Sanz,
1997:259), but they appear on many examples of the scabbards so it could be
implied that something functional was made decoration, or even that the
decoration was added later as military honours, something that the Romans were
proud of showing.
Carriage
In the case
of many weapons there is no need to go into much detail about how they were
carried. Often they were carried in the hand, or over the shoulder on a sling,
or some other way which was universal to every person who used them. There are
some weapons which need some attention paid to them as to how they were carried
as there is some differentiation as to how they were carried over time and by
different people. The gladius is one
of these weapons.
Rank Differentiation
“The gladius of whatever pattern was invariably worn on the right side, save by centurions, and perhaps other senior officers, who wore their swords on the left.” (Goldsworthy, 2011:134)
For most
swords they would be carried on the opposite side to that hand which they were
to be drawn, a right-hander would carry his sword on the left and a left-hander
would carry his sword on the right. This is to make drawing the sword easier
for the swordsman. In the case of the legionary and the gladius this was not the case. The sword was carried on the right
side, the same side as the drawing hand. The legionary theory behind this was
to ensure that the drawing of the sword would not be encumbered by the shield,
and contrary to some expectations it is actually quite accessible.
“Legionnaires carried the gladius in a scabbard on their right side and they carried a dagger (pugio) in their left side. Some have argued that drawing the sword with the right hand would be too cumbersome while holding the shield in the left hand, but tests have proven that a right side gladius is quite accessible with the right hand.” (Anderson, 2011)
Practical tests have shown that due
to the short nature of the gladius
drawing the sword with the right hand and presenting the point while the sword
is carried in its scabbard on the right side is not an issue for a person who
has had practice. Arguments could be had about the last point, but one of the
things that can be said is that the Roman army was trained and drilled well.
The evidence left behind in the form of sculpture also prevents primary
evidence of the sword being worn on the right side by legionaries.
 |
| Roman legionaries with gladius worn on right side. (Goldsworthy, 2000:128) |
While the
television series Rome made the names
Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus relatively famous to the common man in the
modern world, their story is actually documented in Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul. The part of their
actual story which is documented by Caesar demonstrates why it was actually not
such a good idea to have the sword and shield on the same side.
“His shield [Pullo] was pierced by a javelin, which stuck in his sword belt; and as the blow knocked the scabbard out of place, he could not get his hand quickly to his sword when he tried to draw it,” (Caesar, 1982:125 [V.44])
In Caesar’s
recollections Vorenus and Pullo were two centurions who were rivals seeking
glory. Had the sword been worn on the opposite side to the shield, it would
have not been knocked and it would have been less trouble to draw. Vorenus had
to come and save Pullo from this situation. This idea of wearing the sword on a
different side due to rank also worked for a different weapon also.
Weapon Differentiation
When we
look even deeper there is also differentiation as to the weapon. The gladius was a short weapon, primarily
used for the infantry. The spatha,
and its predecessor the ensis, was
the weapon of the cavalry. Both were worn on belts, and also on baldrics,
however the ensis, was also worn on
the left due to its length (Burton,
1987:258). Thus it can be clearly claimed that there was differentiation in
carriage by weapon and rank.
Baldric
The
question of belt or baldric is one which has been argued a great deal,
especially in light of the rings found on the scabbard, as mentioned
previously. Clearly, at some stage the sword was worn on the belt, but it can
also be clearly claimed that the sword was also hung from the left shoulder to
hang on the right by a baldric (Devries, 2007:121). To be more precise,
especially with the documented difficulties encountered by Centurion Pullo, it
was slung on a baldric and worn on the right side, pointing slightly forward
for easier draw and replacement (Matyszak, 2011:64). Recreations of this system
have been presented demonstrating how it could have been done.
Belt and Baldric
What is
most interesting is that there is an argument that the sword was worn one way
or the other. The “belt camp” claims that there is no evidence for the baldric.
The “baldric camp” claims that the weight of the sword and the dagger would
have drawn the belt down too far and caused it to fall. What is most
interesting is that there is even a camp which places itself between these two
that recommends that there was a system in between the two which utilised both
belt and baldric to secure the weapon properly.
 |
| Image of Roman legionary with gladius at right hip both belted and slung (Hamblin, 1996: Plate 2) |
Decoration
“The appearance of the Gladius was different between gladiators of varying popularity. A criminal fighting for his life and freedom would have a simple sword, whereas a trained gladiator who is treasured by the people might have a more elegant and elaborate sword. The hilt of the Gladius occasionally had ridges for the fingers, but more often than not, it was left plain. The blade was generally left plain; however, it was not uncommon for criminal gladiators to have the phrase “Ave Caesar, mortituri te salutamus,” which means “Hail Caesar, we who are about to die salute you” engraved on the blade of their Gladius in order to remind them of their impending demise. Scabbards for the Gladius were generally made of wood and covered in leather and decorated with brass.” (Berdeguer, 2014:21)
While this description of the
decoration of the gladius focuses on
the gladiators’ weapon it does indicate some of the weapon of the legionary
indicating the decoration of the scabbard, which was mentioned above. Some of
this is indicated here, more will be demonstrated when the individual
typologies of the gladii will be
discussed later on. According to Suetonius (1958), Caesar had his legionaries
and centurions weapons decorated for better appearance of his legions an also
so that they were less likely to lose their weapons in battle
(Suetonius, 1958:37). This made the weapons personal, hence the less likelihood
that they were to lose them. The varying degree to which the weapons were
decorated reflected their ranks and also the military honours which they had
achieved in their service.
What has
been presented, in general, gives a very general overview of the construction
of the gladius. What follows examines
each of the types of gladii which was
developed over the time in which the weapon was the dominant weapon of the
Roman Republic and Empire.
Gladius Types
What
follows here is a discussion of the typology of the gladius. These types are sometimes referred to as the different gladius patterns. This typology is
generally accepted by most historians and most of the weapons found fall within
these types in one way or another. There are four types which will be discussed
after a general introduction, Hispaniensis,
Mainz, Fulham and Pompeii. Along
with these will be introduced a new type, which while similar will re-affirm
the idea of individual area-specific creation of the gladius. This will also be demonstrated under the Pompeii type with the presentation of a Pompeii type found in Denmark.
General
“Gladius”
simply means “sword” to get more specific requires conventions of naming and
other considerations. Unfortunately when it comes to the differentiation
between different weapons, classical sources are notoriously unreliable when
naming types of weapons (Quesada Sanz, 1997:251). With regard to the naming
convention, it is typically gladius and then the type, so [type] gladius.
 |
| (Berdeguer, 2014:21) |
“Though typically differentiated into two categories, Mainz and Pompeii Gladii, there are four main variations of the Gladius: the Hispaniensis gladius, the Mainz Gladius, the Fulham Gladius, and the Pompeii Gladius. Figure 19 shows the main differences in the blade design of these four Gladii.” (Berdeguer, 2014: 21)
To claim
that the weapons, even of a particular typology are all the same would be
foolish. There are always variations in their manufacture, even when made in
the same place. This is even more so the case when in other places, other
swords present in other hands are of less standard manufacture (Hamblin,
1996:343). An example of the Pompeii
type will be presented below along with another outstanding example from the
Baltic region. The changes in typology of the gladius was a developmental
process, it was not static. Weapons changed over time as a new shape became
more appropriate to the stage of expansion of the Empire.
Hispaniensis Type
The first
recognised gladius was “the famous ‘Iberian sword’ (gladius Hispaniensis)” (Fields, 2010:6). There is a lot of
information about this weapon and it is one of the most famous weapons. In fact
this weapon is so famous that all gladii
are often claimed to be the “Spanish sword”. This was the first weapon that the
Romans liked and claimed for their own.
“The Hispaniensis gladius was the original sword that the Romans liked. This Spanish version was the heaviest and longest of Roman Gladii. Additionally, it had the most prominent leaf shape in the blade. In addition, this version had the longest tip of the main varieties of Gladii.” (Berdeguer, 2014:21)
What will
be shown of this weapon is that it was a developmental weapon based on the
original Greek sword adopted from the Greeks earlier on and adopted by the
Romans. The similarities in these weapons will demonstrate this developmental
process.
General Description
“Sometime in the third century BC the Romans adopted a long-pointed, double edged Iberian weapon, which they called the gladius Hispaniensis (‘Iberian sword’). The earliest Roman specimens date to the turn of the first century BC, but a fourth-century sword of similar shape has been found in Spain at the cemetery of Los Cogotes (Avila), while an earlier Iberian example came from Atienza some 100 kilometres north-east of Madrid. The blade could be as much as 64 to 69 centimetres in length and 4.8 to 6 centimetres wide and waisted in the centre. It was a fine piece of ‘blister steel’ with a triangular point between 9.6 and 20 centimetres long; it had honed down razor-sharp edges and was designed to puncture armour. It had a comfortable bone handgrip grooved to fit the fingers, and a large spherical pommel, usually of wood or ivory, to help with counter-balance. Examples weigh between 1.2 and 1.6 kilograms. This basic design, with various minor modifications, continued as the weapon of choice through to the end of the second century AD. Unusually, a legionary carried his sword on the right-hand side, suspended by a leather belt (cingulum) worn around the waist. As opposed to a scabbard slide, the four-ring suspension system on the scabbard enabled the legionary to draw his weapon quickly with the right hand, an advantage in close-quarter combat. By inverting the hand to grasp the hilt and pushing the pommel forward, the gladius could be drawn with ease.” (Fields, 2010:17)
The sword
from Atienza has been proposed as a predecessor to the Hispaniensis gladius due
to its similar shape and also due to its origin. This makes a great deal of sense
as the Romans rarely simply took the original weapon but adapted the weapon to
their own needs as was found in the Greek weapon previous to it. This idea of a
developmental process is one which will be noted as the typology progresses.
What also needs to be noted here
is that it was sharp on the edge and the point, thus designed for both cut and
thrust. For the most part the thrust of the gladius
is highlighted in most cases with the cut being utterly disregarded. It should
be noted that the cut was not disregarded, as noted by the effort in sharpening
the edge. The carrying of the weapon on the right became a typical situation as
was the drawing method which was possible with the short weapon. With a longer
weapon this would have been much more difficult.
Adoption
As is the
case with many technologies, even in the modern world, finding a specific date
for when the Hispaniensis was
actually adopted is difficult. Much of the evidence for this comes from primary
sources, but even here the date is unclear. What is known is that it was the
result of contact with Spanish mercenaries in service to the forces of Carthage
during the Punic Wars.
“A Byzantine lexicographer, possibly following Polybios’ [Polybius'] lost account of the Numantine War (134–132 BC), says the gladius Hispaniensis was adopted from the Iberians at the time of the war with Hannibal (Second Punic War, 218–201 BC), but it is possible that this formidable weapon, along with the pilum, was adopted from Iberian mercenaries serving Carthage during the First Punic War (264–241 BC). It was certainly in use by 197 BC, when Livy describes the Macedonians’ shock at the terrible wounds it inflicted.” (Fields, 2010:6)
What needs
to be noted here is the rough date of the adoption of the weapon during the
Punic Wars, thus during the period of the Republic, and thus in use against the
Macedonians as stated by Livy. The terrible wounds that are noted are
dismemberments and decapitations, thus the use of the edge of the weapon. This
weapon was adopted due to the effectiveness of the weapon like many Roman tools
there will be more detail of its use later. It also stands as recognition of an
advance in metallurgy as well through the use of steel in weaponry.
Metallurgy
The fame of
Toledo steel and steel in general from Spain generally originates from the idea
which comes from the weapons which came from those forges during the medieval
and Renaissance periods; however, Spanish steel was famous before then. The
Romans used Spanish ores and methods,
“Of this material was made the Spatha or Iberian blade, a name adopted under the Empire, especially under Hadrian (A.D. 117 – 138). Long, two-edged, and heavier than the short Xiphos-Gladius, it added fresh force to the impetus gladiorum.” (Burton, 1987:256)
The Xiphos-Gladius was the weapon which the Romans were using before
the Hispaniensis, a design which was
modelled on the Greek weapon, hence the name, “Xiphos” being Greek for “sword”.
The spatha refers to a slightly
longer weapon, which became the standard for cavalry, but the statement is
still relevant. The stronger, sharper, heavier blade added more force to the
armies simply because the weapons were better and made from material of greater
quality. So much so that by 219 BC, some 22 years later, the change to steel weapons
was universal (Burton, 1987:256). These are steel weapons, of varying grades to
be true but steel not iron. This made them much more effective.
“the famous gladius hispaniensis or Spanish sword. With a blade less than 60 centimetres (2 feet) long, the gladius was well balanced for both cutting and thrusting, and its manufacture from high-quality steel allowed it to preserve a wickedly sharp edge.” (Goldsworthy, 2000:44)
Once again
it is mentioned that the weapon had a sharp edge and was balanced for both
cutting and thrusting. Also should be noted that the material noted here is
steel and not iron. This is of significance considering the developmental stage
of the Romans, and the impact steel weapons would have had as compared to
previous weapon manufacture. It is true the gladius was primarily a thrusting
weapon, but as has been noted the cut should not be outright discarded as the
weapon was obviously designed and suited for it.
Use
“they also carry a sword which is worn on the right thigh and is called a Spanish sword. This has a sharp point and can deal an effective blow with either edge, as the blade is very strong and unbending.” (Polybius, 1980:321)
The Hispaniensis was stronger than its
predecessor due to its manufacture this resulted in it having a sharp edge that
was not dulled quickly. The extra weight also allowed it to be more effective
at cutting than the previous weapon also. The result of this was a weapon which
was effective at both cutting and thrusting as is stated above. It is an
important note to make that while the gladius
may be primarily designed to thrust the cut was also effective also, especially
in the case of this type.
“all [Hispaniensis] are somewhat larger than types used by the later professional army. They are well-balanced blades, primarily designed for thrusting but also capable of delivering an effective slash.” (Goldsworthy, 2011:29)
A larger
sword is often assumed to be more unwieldy but this is not necessarily the
case, if the weapon is well-balanced, then there is usually no problem. In the
case of the Hispaniensis gladius it was so it could be used for
cutting and thrusting even though it was larger than the later types. This was
only enhanced by being made out of steel. The advantage of a multi-purpose
weapon is clear, and this was noted by Polybius at Cannae in 216 BC, “While the Spanish Xiphos was excellent for
both cutting and thrusting, the long and pointless Gallic Machaera could only
slash from afar.” (Burton, 1987:268). While the Spanish sword could be used to
thrust and cut, the Gallic sword could only cut. This meant than the Spanish
weapon could be used at different distances and be more effective. An idea
which Burton (1987) continues on with stating that the shorter “Gladius
Hispanus” was useful in closed spaces (Burton, 1987:268), essentially due to
its ability to use the point. A note should be made of his misspelling of “Hispaniensis”.
“it was not until the advent of the Roman legionaries’ short gladius hispaniesis, designed for an upward stabbing stroke at close quarters, that swordplay in its own right became a part of infantry tactics.” (Holmes, 2010:10)
The Hispaniensis changed cause a change in
tactics. It made the sword the prime weapon of the legionary rather than the
spear as it was in the army of the earlier parts. The advantage of the ability
to thrust with the weapon was clear but it was not the only driving force
present. This particular aspect reflects a modern bias toward a “point bias” in
the history of swordplay as it is often told, rather than a presentation of
developing circumstances. If the point was the only useful part, why was the
sharpened edge kept on later types, and so many references to the use of the
edge?
Basis of Next Weapon
“The sword of the legionaries of the late Republic was the gladius Hispaniensis (Spanish sword), adopted from the Iberian steel-cutting sword in the third century B.C. and measuring about thirty inches long and two inches wide. By the early Principate, however, this weapon was replaced by a shorter gladius, a steel, double-edged weapon ranging from sixteen to twenty-two inches long, and from two to three inches wide, designed for either cutting or thrusting. This was the standard Roman legionary sword at the time of Christ.” (Hamblin, 1996:343)
The weapon
that replaced the Hispaniensis was
the Mainz gladius. It was developed from the basic shape of the Hispaniensis for better use in the ranks
and for the use primarily with the thrust. The important thing is that it still
allowed for a cutting edge as well. What will be noted in the discussion of the
Mainz, which will follow, is that the
blade profile of the Mainz is very
similar to that of the previous form in the Hispaniensis,
and this demonstrates the developmental process which has been presented here.
Mainz Type
General Description
“In the early 1st century AD the dominant type was the ‘Mainz’ pattern. This has a slightly tapering blade and an exceptionally long point. The length of the blade on surviving examples varies from 400mm (16in) to 550mm (22in), and width from 54 to 74mm (2.1 – 2.9in) at the top to 48 to 60mm (1.8 – 2.3in) before the point. A shaped handgrip of bone was protected by a guard and pommel usually of wood. ... Although especially suited to thrusting, with the long point – sometimes as much as 200mm (7.8in) – intended to penetrate armour, the Mainz pattern sword was also an effective slashing weapon.” (Goldsworthy, 2011:133)
The
description above, from Goldsworthy (2011) gives a good idea of what the Mainz looks like. The form of the
weapon, if compared to the previous Hispaniensis
will be noted to have some similarities. The point of the weapon and the
general shape are very similar this clearly leads to the Mainz being a clear development of the previous toward a weapon
more suited to the legionary. While the long point made the Mainz an excellent thrusting weapon, the
shape of the weapon also made it suitable for cutting also, much like the
previous type.
History of Mainz and Naming
“Mainz was founded as the Roman permanent camp of Moguntiacum probably in 13 BC. This large camp provided a population base for the growing city around it. Sword manufacture probably began in the camp and was continued in the city; for example, Gaius Gentilius Victor, a veteran of Legio XXII, used his discharge bonus on retirement to set up a business as a negotiator gladiarius, a manufacturer and dealer of arms. Swords made at Mainz were sold extensively to the north.” (Wikipedia, 2016)
The
location is what the weapon was named after hence Mainz gladius, this is
often the case. What should be noted from the above information is that the
particular location of this find was also a production centre for sword so this
makes the naming of the sword after this location even more relevant. Not only
was the weapon found here it is highly likely it would have actually been
manufactured here as well. The actual weapon which is celebrated as the
archetypical Mainz type sword is
known as the Sword of Tiberius.
 |
| Sword of Tiberius - Mainz Type (Coe, 1996:26) |
“Sword of Tiberius: excavated at Mayence in 1848, in British Museum; highly decorated – presentation piece; evidence that it was to be worn on a sling rather than the belt; left mounted sword drawn by passing hand and forearm across the body under shield, grip hilt at back of blade” (Burton, 1987:258)
This weapon, as noted was highly
decorated and therefore likely to be a decoration piece, though may have
actually been used. There is an interesting note made by Burton (1987) in that
he claims that it was worn on a sling rather than a belt, which tends to
contradict some of the evidence, but examples of both have been found. This is
the weapon that other weapons are compared to as to whether or not they have
the characteristics to qualify as a Mainz
type.
This type is further recognisable as
swords of Caesar’s day were no doubt of a Mainz-type
(Coe, 1996:25). It places the type in a recognisable historical context and
allows for some further dating as to the longevity of its use. This is
something which is often missing with weapons, especially the older ones.
Blade Description
Coe (1996)
describes the Mainz type blade as
being blade 20-24in/50-60cm long, 2-2.5in/5-6cm wide, similar to hoplite sword
as slight increase before taper (Coe, 1996:25). This gives a similar profile to
both the Xiphos and the Hispaniensis and thus reveals the
origins of the weapon. The measurements, as will be noted as things proceed are
much in the general range.
“The Mainz variety is characterized by a slight waist running the length of the blade and a long point. Blade length ~50–55 cm (19.6 to 21.6 inches). Sword length ~65–70 cm (25.6 to 27.6 inches). Blade width ~7 cm (2.75 inches). Sword weight ~800g/1.76 pounds (wooden hilt).” (Wikipedia, 2016)
The
description above gives a similar shape again to the Hispaniensis as noted previous, but is more extended in the point.
This shape points something toward the use of the weapon as will be discussed
shortly. It will be noted that it is relatively light weapon considering its
manufacture. Taking into account all of the measurements given, from all of the
sources, the blade ends up being an average of 40-60cm long, 4–7cm wide. All of
the sources recognise the extended point, and the sharp edges with a leaf
shaped blade as common design feature. This demonstrates a clear development
from the Hispaniensis to the Mainz type in shape and function.
“’Mainz’ type Gladius / This is the earlier form of the gladius hispaniensis, ... The blades of surviving examples vary from 40 – 50.5cm in length and have a width of 4.8 – 6cm. The long, tapering point varies in size from 9.6 – 20com and was designed to puncture armour.” (Goldsworthy, 2000:45)
The point
of the weapon is clearly the focus of the description here, focussed on
puncturing armour. This was because at that point in time the Romans were
facing armoured opponents. It meant that the long point on Mainz was for “mail-busting” (Coe, 1996:27). There is an
interesting relationship inferred in the Goldsworthy (2000) point toward the Mainz as an earlier type of the Hispaniensis. This no doubt comes from
the general naming of all of the weapons as gladius
hispaniensis due to their origin. Indeed it could be claimed that the full
name of the Hispaniensis type would
be Hispaniensis gladius hispaniensis.
It should be noted, however that in no way was the cutting ability of the gladius reduced by this enhancement.
 |
| Gladius Hispaniensis - Rheingönheim (Coe, 1996:25) |
Next Type
“The Mainz Gladius is similar to the Hispaniensis Gladius in its prominence of the concavity in the blade; however this first revision of the Spanish version made the sword both wider and shorter. The next evolution turned the blade into the Fulham Gladius.” (Berdeguer, 2014:21)
The first
change was from the Hispaniensis to Mainz in a shortening of the blade and
gaining some width, a similar leaf shape was kept, however the point was
refined to be more exaggerated. The next stage in development overall, or only
regional, was to the Fulham. Further
changes were made to the edges, to the length and also to the point of the
weapon. Some consider this a sub-type of the Mainz.
Fulham Type
General Description
“Fulham Gladius or Mainz-Fulham Gladius: The sword that gave the name to the type was dredged from the Thames near Fulham and must therefore date to a time after the Roman occupation of Britain began. That would have been after the invasion of Aulus Plautius in 43 AD. It was used until the end of the same century. It is considered the conjunction point between Mainz and Pompei. Some consider it an evolution or the same as the Mainz type. The blade is slightly narrower than the Mainz variety. The main difference is the triangular tip. Blade length ~50–55 cm (19.6 to 21.6 inches). Sword length ~65–70 cm (25.6 to 27.6 inches). Blade width ~6 cm (2.36 inches). Sword weight ~700g/1.5 pounds (wooden hilt).” (Wikipedia, 2016)
For some
the Fulham is merely a modification
of the Mainz and not a completely
different type of its own; for others it is a different type. To cover both it
is best that it is covered as a type of its own as then it is covered to see
elements of both present. There are clear lines of investigation for both. The Fulham regardless of its status has a
narrower blade, a very triangular tip which is more pointed than the previous
type, and it is also shorter. Without much surprise this also results in it
being lighter as well. The location of the main finds on the edges of the
Empire is the main claims as to it being a sub-type of the Mainz.
Blade Description
“This version [Fulham] had a completely straight blade, a change from the previous two versions that had concave blades. This blade also had a long triangular tip, which became the signature aspect of this version of the Gladius, and was narrower than the Mainz Gladius.” (Berdeguer, 2014:21)
The Fulham has a completely straight blade
which differentiates it from the Mainz
which retained the curved edges of the previous Hispaniensis. The point was the same puncturing style however the
blade was also shorter. It is also often the lack of information about the Fulham which often places it as a
sub-type of the Mainz. What is
interesting is that the straight edges are a main characteristic of the Pompeii gladius, the type which followed
the Fulham and Mainz, which means it could have been seen merely as a development
toward the next type.
Pompeii Type
Naming and Description
 |
| Pompeii-type Blade (Coe, 1996:27) |
“Pompeii Gladius (or Pompeianus or Pompei): Named by modern historians after the Roman town of Pompeii, this Gladius was by far the most popular one. Four instances of the sword type were found in Pompeii, with others turning up elsewhere. The sword has parallel cutting edges and a triangular tip. This is the shortest of the gladii. Observe that it is often confused with the spatha which was a longer, slashing weapon used initially by mounted auxilia. Over the years the Pompeii got longer, these later versions are referred to as semi-spathas. Blade length ~45–50 cm (17.7 to 19.7 inches). Sword length ~60–65 cm (23.6 to 25.6 inches). Blade width ~5 cm (1.97 inches). Sword weight ~700g/1.5 pounds (wooden hilt).” (Wikipedia ,2016)
One of the
more important notes is that these weapons were named by modern historians, to
the Romans they would just have been gladii.
Much like the Mainz, the Pompeii was named after where the first
of its kind was found, at Pompeii. This is no doubt the most popular model
because it was used historically when the Empire was the largest and thus the
army was the largest. It was also the easiest to produce. It is often confused
with the spatha due to the similarity
in blade- shape, the spatha most
often simply being longer, the usage was also much the same, with both point and
edge, as will be presented below. Over the years the Pompeii got longer until they became semi-spatha and then were simply replaced by them. This gives a
complete description of the weapon. The Pompeii
is the one which could be claimed to be the archetypical gladius, as it is the shape which is most represented.
Reference Back to Previous
 |
| (Anderson, 2011) |
“The Roman gladii extant have lengths between 14.3 and 23.2 inches. The example shown above represents the Pompeii type which replaced the older Mainz type in the middle of the first century A.D.” (Anderson, 2011)
The Mainz was replaced by the Pompeii,
if the Fulham is not considered to be
a type on its own. It was much simpler to make due to its straight edge. The
simple shorter point was also less laborious to construct, thus the weapon was
much easier to mass produce. This was a gradual replacement which started from
the middle of the first century AD (Quesada Sanz, 1997:259). With regard
to this discussion it is important to compare it to the Fulham mentioned previously.
“The Pompeii Gladius was very comparable to the Fulham Gladius, as it has parallel cutting edges and the triangular tip; however this version did not have nearly as prominent of a triangular tip at the end of the blade. The Pompeii Gladius was also the shortest of the Gladii.” (Berdeguer, 2014:22)
When
comparing the Pompeii and the Fulham some similarities will be noted
in the form. Both have straight edges and a triangular tip, and both are
shorter than their predecessors. The thing that sets the Pompeii as different is that the triangular point on it is shorter
than that on the Fulham, a less
pointed triangle. This also results in the Pompeii
being shorter than the Fulham and
thus the shortest of the gladii.
Use for Cut and Thrust
The Romans
did not leave their army the same if they felt that something could be
improved. This can be seen with regard to every element, and the sword was no
different. The Mainz was replaced by
the Pompeii because it was not as
suitable for both cut-and-thrust (Coe, 1996:27). While the gladius remained a weapon which was still primarily thrust related,
the cut was also used and to effect. This was due to a change in circumstance
with their opposition. Previously they were armoured and the thrust was the
best and only real truly effective option, with the meeting of less armoured
opponents, the cut became a more viable option.
“This was a straight-bladed weapon [the Pompeii] with a much shorter point. Blade lengths vary between 420 and 500mm (16.5 – 20in) and widths between 42 and 45mm (1.6 – 2.2in). Even more than the Mainz pattern, the Pompeii-type gladius was a supremely well balanced and effective weapon for both cutting and thrusting.” (Goldsworthy, 2011:133)
By
shortening the point, the weight of the blade was brought back closer to the
hilt which made the weapon better balanced and thus more agile. This made it
more suitable for the delivery of cuts. The straight blade on the weapon also
made cutting with the weapon much more effective also.
New Type
 |
| Pompeii-type from Denmark |
There were
also variations in shape by the different region in which they were
constructed. The example from Denmark which is presented above which is clearly
of a Pompeii shape is not the typical
type which has been previously presented. This one has a wide fuller, often
mislabeled as a “blood-groove”, down the middle of the blade to strengthen it,
and not to let the blood out when it is used to thrust. The shape of the blade
is classic Pompeii.
“Another
completely documented and published find came from the cemetery at Khrustal’noe
(formerly Wiekau), on the Sambian Peninsula (Fig. 1: 3), where a Roman gladius
alongside a decorative harness was discovered in a rich grave. Its blade was
short, with deep fullers running to the point (Bujack 1889, p.281; Heydeck
1909, Pl. XXXVIII; Gaerte 1929, Abb. 159: e)” (Nowakowski, 2007:85)
The find at
Khrustal’noe presents the possibility of an entirely new type which has been
found in the Baltic. It has some of the characteristics of the Pompeii but it has some clear
differences also. There are arguments about its use as to whether it was a
parade sword, a gift, or even whether it was shortened for area-specific use.
The image which is presented below is of the find and the differences will be noted.
To think that all is known about all of the gladius
would be to close a book before it is finished.
 |
| Khrustal’noe type (Skvortsov,2012:173) |
Conclusion
The gladius is one of the most recognisable
swords, indeed one of the most recognisable weapons in the world. It could even
be said to be one of the most known weapons in the world, however it could be
argued that there are some that do not know as much about the gladius as they would like people to
think they know about it. This has been an in-depth discussion of this weapon
designed to give a more complete investigation of the weapon rather than the
usual glossing that it usually gets.
The
curatorial discussion of this weapon will take up the greatest amount of space
with regard to the discussion of the gladius as can be seen here takes up a lot of space here.
What can be found here is essentially broken down into three categories;
evidence, construction and classification. This is the real discussion of the
weapon as an artefact. The excavation discussion tells what has been left in
the way of artefacts from the period. The construction tells how they were
constructed, and finally the gladius
types, describes how they are classified so that they can be discussed more
easily.
What the curatorial information really discusses aside from the clear evidence presented above is evidence for
the adaption of a weapon to the task required and the environment. The Romans
started with one weapon, and then changed and adapted the weapon to suit their
changing circumstances. At first they required a weapon which was useful
against armoured opponents, and thus we see the long, tapered point of the Hispaniensis and Mainz types, primarily for thrusting but could also cut. Later on
as their opponents wore less armour, but still wore some, they required a
weapon which could still go through armour but could also cut more efficiently,
hence the Pompeii type. This idea of
adaptability is also seen in the use of the weapon.
The best way for the mists of
confusion which surround the gladius
to be cleared are for investigations to be made. Investigations such as this
one which seek out many different sources are useful to bring much more
information to the light however practical demonstrations and experimentation
with the equipment and weapons of the time would also go a long distance to
proving or disproving much of what has been stated. What should be noted is
that such demonstration and experimentation needs to be based on rigorous
research and scientific methodology for an accurate recreation and accurate
results to be achieved.
Bibliography
Anderson, M. (2011) “The Gladius – most important weapon of
the Legionnaire”, Mike Anderson’s Ancient History Blog: Honoring the
Accomplishments of Antiquity, http://www.mikeanderson.biz/2011/12/gladius-most-important-weapon-of.html
Berdeguer, C.
et.al. (2014) “Historical Evolution of Roman Gladiatorial Arms and Armors: 300
B.C. – 450 A.D.: An Interactive Qualifying Project Report submitted to the
Faculty of the WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science”
Brocklehurst, R. (2003) Roman
Army, Usborne Publishing Ltd, London
Bruce, J. (2009) Conquest!
Can You Build a Roman City?, Enslow Publishers Inc., Berkeley Heights
Burton, R. (1987) The
Book of the Sword, Dover Publications Inc., New York, Originally published
1884
Caesar (1976) The
Civil War, Penguin Books Ltd, London, Translated by Jane Mitchell
Caesar (1982) The
Conquest of Gaul, Translated by S.A. Hanford (1951), Penguin Books Ltd,
London
Carter, M. (2008) "Livy, Titus Manlius Torquatus and
the gladiatorial prolusio," Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 151
Coe, M. et. al. (1996) Swords
and Hilt Weapons, Prion Books Ltd, London
Cummins, J. (2008) The
War Chronicles: From Chariots to Flintlocks, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest,
Australia
Dando-Collins, S. (2010) Legions
of Rome: The Definitive History of Every Imperial Legion, Quercus, London
Devries, K. (et.al.)(2007) Battles of the Ancient World: 1285 BC – AD 451 From Kadesh to
Catalaunian Field, Amber Books Ltd, London
Fields, N. (2010) Warlords
of Republican Rome: Caesar Versus Pompey, Casemate Publishers, Philadelphia
Goldsworthy, A. (2000) Roman
Warfare, Cassell, London
Goldsworthy, A. (2011) The
Complete Roman Army, Thames & Hudson Ltd, London
Grant, R. (2009) Warrior:
A Visual History of the Fighting Man, DK Publishing, New York
Hamblin, W. (1996) “The Roman Army in the First Century” in Masada and the World of the New Testament
(Vol. 36, No. 3), BYU Studies, Provo, Utah
Holmes, R. (2010) Weapon:
A Visual History of Arms and Armour, Dorling-Kindersley Ltd, London
Lewis, B. and Matthews, R. (2011) The Historical Atlas of Weaponry, Chartwell Books Inc., New York
Matyszak, P. (2011) Legionary:
The Roman Soldier’s (Unofficial) Manual, Thames & Hudson, London
Nowakowski, W. (2007) “Aestiorium
Gladii. Swords in the West Balt Circle in the Roman Period” in Archaeologica Baltica 8 (2007), Klaipėda
University Press, Klaipėda, Lithuania
Plutarch (1972) Fall
of the Roman Republic: Six Lives by Plutarch, Penguin Books Ltd, London,
Translated by Rex Warner
Polybius (1980) The
Rise of the Roman Empire, Penguin Books Ltd, London, Translated by Ian
Scott-Kilvert
Quesada Sanz, F. (1997) “Gladius hispaniensis: an
archaeological view from Iberia” in Journal
of Roman Military Equipment Studies 8, Pewsey, UK
Skvortsov, K. (2012) “The Formation of a Sambian-Natangian
Culture Patrimonial Elite in the Roman Period in the Context of the Amber
Trade”, Archaeologcia Baltica 18, Klaipėda
University Press, Klaipėda, Lithuania
Soud, D. (2014) The
Illustrated History of Weapons: Swords, Spears & Maces, Kingsford
Editions, Heatherton, Australia
Suetonius (1958) The
Twelve Caesars, Penguin Books Ltd, London, Translated by Robert Graves
Wikipedia (2016) "Gladius", Wikimedia Foundation
Inc., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladius
Wise, A. (2014) The
History and Art of Personal Combat, Dover Publications Inc., Mineola, New
York
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are welcomed if they are in English and are relevant to the topic. Comments will be moderated.