Posts: 1,757 Location: Storvreta, Sweden
Fri 07 Oct, 2005 12:09 am
Hey Guys, Thanks for all the positive remarks.
The NG romans differ in subtle ways from their first gen counterparts.
As has been noted, the grips are now holly and not bone. It´s as Howy said a matter of availability and workability of the bone. There is also a health issue.
It is a bit of a modern convention that a roman sword should have walnut pommel and guard and a grip of bone. It looks nice for sure but it is not really an authentic feature (although I am sure it could have hapened). (Bone grips were common, but also wood grips. I have not been able to make out what was most common.
On the drawing I fell prey to another modern convention: the median lines on the pommel. This is a common feature on modern reproductions (as it looks nice) but again, it is not that common on originals.
When one hold the sword in hand, I think the subtle shapes of the components work toghether well in creating visual interest even without these lines.
Before I started the final design work I searched for additional material. I made a trip to Copenhagen to see the exhibition "Spoils of War" that presented the danish bog finds with all the roman military equipment. There were numerous blades and hilt component exhibited. Very interesting.
While there were no clean cut
Mainz, Fulham or Pompei swords, it was still possible to get an impression of shapes, styles and characters of roman hilts spanning most of the imperial period.
I tried to use the impressions from this exhibit when working with the final design of the hilts (this will be more directly applicable when I get to the spathae).
Another point of reference is a
gladius or spatha hilt in the British Museum. It is carved out of one single piece of ivory. Its grip is simply turned with a round section (this one is the direct inspiration for the grips of the NG gladii). The tubular grip is something I´ve seen on other roman swords as well. I was at first worried by this feature as I thought an oval section was necessary for proper edge alignement.
During the development of the gladii I tried out various shapes and sizes for the different parts. The effect and functionality of the turned grip was a surprice: the shape of the guard and to some degree the pommel actually provide all the purchase and guide you need for secure edge alignement. It is very tactile and intuitive. No need to adjust the grip, it naturally sits very fimrly with perfect alignement of the edge. The pommel provides good support in a horisontal stabbing attack, but does not hinder an overhead sweeping cut. The curve and radius of the pommel allowes free movement of the wrist.
After working with these hilts for some time I was impresed by the simple and very effective use of shapes and proportions. It tok soem experimentation to get it where I think it should be. Like viking hilts the roman swords have a striking and very typical shape, but there are some finess in how it is made, it is an interesting study. The romans obviously had some idea of what they were doing...;-)
The blades for these swords are also different from the first gen conterparts. I have based the designs on those specimen I have had opportunity to see close or handle (not many!) but also examples I´ve seen in museum desplays. Added to this whatever papers on the topic I have had access to.
The leaf shape of the
Mainz and Fulham patterns is sublte. In many reproductions the waist and flair are pretty exaggerated. The lines on originals follow more gentle curves. This to me makes all the difference, and I have tried to make justice to this feature in these blades.
There is also some thought invested in cross sections of the blade blanks and the management of
distal taper. You sometime hear that roman swords did not have distal taper. I do not know where this idea comes from. It is true the distal taper is not very pronounced, but on all the originals I´ve seen it is obvious there if you look for it. Some archaeological drawings of originals do not show this feature, but I have some suspicion this is not a true reflection of the originals in this respect.
The distal taper is not linear. It starts out concave and turns into a convex distal taper towards the point. The point is thick enough to form into a sturdy stabbing point, but the management of the distribution of mass makes a marked difference in handling. The
Mainz and Fulham are similar in feel: the
Mainz is the heftier oner (slightly), but both are agile and powerful choppers with good point controll. Compact and very aggressive swords with (surprisingly?) good cutting performance and very good manouverability.
The Pompei was perhaps the biggest surprice of these three. But more of that later...