23 5/8th inch blade - isn't this too long compared to any known examples? My quick Google search shows them to have been more long daggers than swords in the usual connotation. Thanks. Pg 5 latest catalog or see website. #46 BK1397.

Thanks for the words. I have a few pieces, stainless & carbon, sold thru Bud K (including the CSA Foot Officers sword that is the topic of a how-to-age article here.) They all have unsharpened edges as sold.

What were the tactics of the Roman cavalry? Did they primarily fight mounted or on foot?

Note: the same dealer offers a somewhat more authentic version of the gladius as well - #44 PCSB017.

Here are some neat Roman military links for your perusal:

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/
And -- http://www.larp.com/legioxx/gladius.html, the definitive Roman gladius page
http://www.redrampant.com/
http://members.tripod.com/%7ES_van_Dorst/legio.html
http://www.livius.org/le-lh/legio/legions.htm
http://www.romanarmy.net/
http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/archive/arma/
http://www.legionsix.org/Real%20Gear.htm

That should answer some questions....

Several of the Bud K "Roman" swords are better than many cheap repros I've seen over the years, and better than most anything seen in the movies. If you just want something Roman-esque without spending much, go for it, but they aren't really historically accurate. Mind you, the errors can be subtle!

#BK1397 is based on a gladius found in Denmark, which actually does have little studs on the pommel and guard. But grips were not generally made that way (though there is a British sword which has a similar construction), and the guard plate should be thinner or set into the face of the wooden guard. Yeah, the blade is a little long, something around 19 inches was typical. Useless scabbard!

#44 PCSB017 looks like a Mainz, though the blade shape is a little off. Not a great scabbard--shows up with any number of bad repros, these days. Pretty much the same with #44 PCSB016. It's possible that both have other little problems once you see them up close (bad balance, grips too long, etc.).

During the Republic, the Romans never had much cavalry themselves. The upper class was known as "equites", often translated as "knights", because they were wealthy enough to have horses and serve as cavalry. They typically made up for their own lack with "allied" cavalry or hired mercenaries. In the Empire, most cavalry were auxiliaries, enlisted from provincial areas that were big on horse-raising and riding. Fully half of all known auxiliary units were cavalry, and half of the infantry cohorts were "mixed" or part-mounted, being half infantry and half cavalry. So there was always plenty of cavalry in the Roman army! Each legion also had a small contingent, and while these are often written off as "scouts and messengers", they brigaded with the regular cavalry during battle.

If you want to know more about the capabilities of Roman cavalry, any book by Ann Hyland is what you want. In short, though, they were HIGHLY effective and very well regarded. And yes, cavalry swords (generally called spathae these days) were longer than the infantry gladius, around 30 inches in the blade or so.

That what you're looking for? Vale,

Matthew (Leg.XX)

Definitive Roman gladius page - "page cannot be found." Thanks for all the info.

Dave

Seems appropriate here to offer a detailed piece on the Roman helmet:

http://www.roman-empire.net/articles/article-006.html