| Author |
Message |
|
Jon K.
|
 Posted: Thu 13 Feb, 2014 1:11 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| J. Hargis wrote: | Bartek: | Quote: | | Just don't try convince yourself and others that something like that 'might have actually' happened then. |
But didn't something like that actually happen? :-)
|
That's how I feel, and I've showed examples of how it could have existed. I guess my sources are iffy, and I guess, I can understand that. I can't "shoot the messenger". It would be great to find out if those pictures from the London museum were of something verfiable. J.Hagris, you've been really supportive along with everyone here.
The problem is likely that I won't be able to get items that are based in history and functionality, unless I she'll out the bucks for a major brand. The same story will be for every European Culture. I guess my collection will have to grow much more sloely, or not at all.
|
|
  |
 |
J. Hargis
|
| Posted: Thu 13 Feb, 2014 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bartek says: | Quote: | Well, I'm not expert about sculptures, but I'm pretty sure that one post-dates that early gladius design by about 400 years, no?
So we have piece of symbolic art from completely different period, depicting hilts of completely different swords. |
But that ignores what was said about the sculpture: | Quote: | | Note the wollen "Pannonian" caps commonly worn (out of combat) by officers in the late army as a result of the pervasive influence of the Danubian officer class; and the sword grips with eagle-head pommels. |
So, the sculptor got the hats right, but according to you sculpted swords that never existed.
Jon
A poorly maintained weapon is likely to belong to an unsafe and careless fighter.
|
|
|
|
|
Luka Borscak
|
| Posted: Thu 13 Feb, 2014 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| J. Hargis wrote: | Bartek says: | Quote: | Well, I'm not expert about sculptures, but I'm pretty sure that one post-dates that early gladius design by about 400 years, no?
So we have piece of symbolic art from completely different period, depicting hilts of completely different swords. |
But that ignores what was said about the sculpture: | Quote: | | Note the wollen "Pannonian" caps commonly worn (out of combat) by officers in the late army as a result of the pervasive influence of the Danubian officer class; and the sword grips with eagle-head pommels. |
So, the sculptor got the hats right, but according to you sculpted swords that never existed.
Jon |
No, eagle head swords existed, but with completely different guards, blades and scabbards than on Windlass version. And we have no idea what were the eagle heads made of. And the look of Windlass eagle doesn't really look Roman in style.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jon K.
|
| Posted: Thu 13 Feb, 2014 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote="Luka Borscak"][quote="J. Hargis"]Bartek says: | Quote: |
No, eagle head swords existed, but with completely different guards, blades and scabbards than on Windlass version. And we have no idea what were the eagle heads made of. And the look of Windlass eagle doesn't really look Roman in style. |
Can you show any pictures of the Eagle swords and their scabbards? Also can anyone verify that those pictures from the London Museum were fake?
|
|
|
|
|
Luka Borscak
|
| Posted: Thu 13 Feb, 2014 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Jon K."]Quote="Luka Borscak"] | J. Hargis wrote: | Bartek says: | Quote: |
No, eagle head swords existed, but with completely different guards, blades and scabbards than on Windlass version. And we have no idea what were the eagle heads made of. And the look of Windlass eagle doesn't really look Roman in style. |
Can you show any pictures of the Eagle swords and their scabbards? Also can anyone verify that those pictures from the London Museum were fake? |
I was interpreting the sculpture above. The guards and scabbards look much different than on Windlass version and blades in these scabbards would definitely not be "gladius" shaped in this period. This sculpture is pretty much the only reference we have for such swords until someone shows a picture of a verified archeological find.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil D.
|
| Posted: Thu 13 Feb, 2014 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I found these on line...
First on vroma.org (description and attached pics) :
bronze sword handle in the form of an eagle head, Roman, found in the Quadriporticus of the Theater in Pompeii, first century CE
The back of the handle shows a Victory standing on a globe holding up a Gorgon's head. This elaborate handle was originally attached to a gladiator's sword.
Rome, Colosseum ("Gladiatores" Exhibit; from the National Archaeological Museum in Naples). Credits: Barbara McManus, 2010
And then this on a different site:
http://sword-site.com/thread/299/roman-sword-...rollTo=677
"A bottle of wine contains more philosophy than all the books in the world." -- Louis Pasteur
"A gentleman should never leave the house without a sharp knife, a good watch, and great hat."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil D.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Thu 13 Feb, 2014 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jon K. wrote: | | Also can anyone verify that those pictures from the London Museum were fake? |
Sorry, not sure which ones you mean. The scabbard photos you posted (the actual artifact, the Sword of Tiberius) are the real thing, but I believe they're in the *British* Museum, not the Museum of London. The David Xavier Kenney eagle-hilted swords are glaring fakes. You learn to spot that color scheme easily, often on cheap Indian-made repros that have been bathed in acid and sold as antiques.
Many years ago when I started buying swords, I was picking out a 2-handed Claymore. One was a cheaper Asian-made version, with a one-piece steel hilt, kind of heavy, for about 120 bucks. The other was the very nice Del Tin for closer to $300. I went with the Del Tin, and I have never looked back. I didn't have to spend money on "starter" pieces and then later regret it and either have to spend more money to get the better ones, or give up having the good ones because I had wasted all my money on the bad ones.
That said, "good" and "bad" are variable terms, depending on your needs and desires. I don't do heavy combat or target cutting with my Roman swords, so a Deepeeka or Find-It sword would be adequate (if not superlative!). I don't buy much these days, but when I make something, I spend the time and effort and materials on it because it is what I WANT.
Matthew
|
|
 |
|
|
Jon K.
|
| Posted: Fri 14 Feb, 2014 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Eagle one of Phil D's pictures is awfully similar to the one on the Windlass. I can't argue this s word's existence into history, but some things I think I have gleaned:
1) swords with an eagle hilt existed in the culture if ancient Rome especially on the parazonium which was uses for decorative and presentation purposes.
2) According to this picture the Eagle Head although not typical did exist in this shape.
3) A similar scabbard existed..I can't argue that I haven't found any historical examples of the MRL ring placement.
Are you sure you guys don't have it in for this sword simply because it was in a movie and therefore has to be a fantasy sword?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Hopkins
|
| Posted: Fri 14 Feb, 2014 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know the first thing about Roman swords, but I have been following this thread and I think Matthew Amt has done a great job of outlining just how accurate the Windlass sword is (or isn't). I feel like some of the information he shared is being ignored or forgotten (as this thread has progressed quickly and grown quite long), and that a movie sword is being rationalized into existence. I hope Matthew doesn't mind because I am going to quote him at length!
| Matthew Amt wrote: | The hilt does indeed resemble some seen in artwork, but those are parazonium hilts, not from a gladius. The parazonium is an aristocratic officer's traditional weapon, so it would have been carried by tribunes and legates, not centurions or below. And we don't know as much about it as we'd like, so things like blade shape are still questionable or debated. Probably the hilt was ivory--I don't think any solid metal ones have been found (as legitimate archeological finds--you can find a ton of fakes on ebay!). The eagle head itself looks very American to me, not really Roman, and certainly the way the feathers are done is not Roman.
The blade shape is probably not right for a parazonium. It is a typical Indian-made gladius shape, sort of Mainz mixed with hispaniensis but not quite being either. As I understand it, both of those would have been long out of use by the timeframe of the movie.
Those scabbard parts show up on any number of cheap zinc SLOs (sword-like objects). The sad thing is that the motifs are actually not bad! But they are often cast zinc rather than stamped or embossed brass. Not sure I've ever seen anything quite like that wreathy thing in the middle, though. The suspension loops are wrong, and possibly not strong enough to actually wear the sword for very long. |
And regarding the statue being used as evidence;
| Matthew Amt wrote: | | Phil, that sculpture of the Tetrarchs is exactly what people look at for eagle-head hilts! It's very late, of course, and the blades and scabbards are very different from that MRL piece. (You can't see the blades in the sculpture, of course, but blades from that era are nothing like first or second-century ones!) |
And I think it is also worth reiterating Matthew's earlier statement on historical accuracy since I agree with him 100%.
| Matthew Amt wrote: | | J. Hargis wrote: | Jon K.:
| Quote: | | Most of us will never hold a surviving original piece. All we can really do is pontificate on accuracy by the facts that remain. I almost wonder if all the minutia we debate about as far historical accuracy would be noticable by the people of the period. Imagine showing certain functional replicas to people of the period that people deem as historically inaccurate. We would sit back and wait for their jeers in High German, Latin, ect.. In fact they something, like "Hey nice sword. Who made this" |
Well said, sir. I find it odd to think that every piece should be judged by the statistically minute number that have found their way into museums.
Jon H. |
But that's exactly what historical accuracy is all about! Though it is far from a minute number, and museums have very few of the examples we study. And even if the total number is a "statistically minute" sample, from what we can tell it is generally a good cross-section of what actually was used 2000 years ago. There are often surprising consistencies, and the artifacts agree with what we see in artwork. New finds usually fall right into the recognizable categories (though of course modern typologies can be too restrictive!). Sometimes they are new and different in some way, in which case we can expand our definitions or otherwise change our tune. I love it when new stuff turns up! But I worry about the whole premise of "We've only found 0.01% of what existed", because it gets used as an excuse to make stuff up and call it "historical". Which it isn't. Just trying to explain where I'm coming from!
That all said, I've done fantasy stuff! And with my obsession with history, I can't avoid "historically inspired" fantasy, either. And yes, there are definitely compromises with every piece you buy or make! You just have to go with what you are personally satisfied with. (Aim a little high, actually, to give yourself a margin for error!) My concern is that people should not confuse "historically inspired" with "historical", or try to rationalize one into the other. Leave them in separate mental boxes. And enjoy!
Matthew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Fri 14 Feb, 2014 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks, Jonathan! I don't mind at all.
| Jon K. wrote: | | The Eagle one of Phil D's pictures is awfully similar to the one on the Windlass. |
Ah, to me they look nothing alike. That first artifact that Phil posted *does* help to convince me that cast copper alloy eagle hilts were used, with the caveat that it might not be a weapon hilt at all. (Things get misidentified all the time!) Not sure why they ascribe it to a gladiator sword hilt--could be right, could be entirely off the wall. The second one may not be Roman, and doesn't seem to have a date--I am reminded that 19th century armies were heavily "neo-classical" in details like sword hilts, so no telling what may have been produced and lost in the last 2 centuries.
| Quote: | | 1) swords with an eagle hilt existed in the culture if ancient Rome especially on the parazonium which was uses for decorative and presentation purposes. |
Oh, I would say the parazonium was a functional weapon, though I doubt there is much to tell us if Roman officers actually used it much in battle, or if they carried a gladius or spatha into action. Not that they were supposed to be using swords in battle in any case--their duty was more like traffic direction. Though we do know tribunes and legates DID fight sometimes.
| Quote: | | 2) According to this picture the Eagle Head although not typical did exist in this shape. |
Not really in this shape, that I've seen. I think that's much of the debate here. If it were something like the spherical wood pommel on a Pompeii gladius, I don't think folks get very picky. Kinda ball-shaped, right? That will probably do, as long as it isn't way too big or small. Sometimes there are scribed lines around the middle. But if those lines were vertical, I'd say that pommel is NOT accurate, and I'd either swap it for a better one or fix it myself, or buy a different sword. But the pickiness level goes up as soon as you get into a more distinctive or ornate piece. It's a rare item, and very much a mark of distinction, and requires a higher level of historical accuracy. It's part of what makes an officer's impression so difficult--everything has to be better, and better-made.
| Quote: | | 3) A similar scabbard existed..I can't argue that I haven't found any historical examples of the MRL ring placement. |
Visually similar, but the fatal flaw here is that the metal is going to be cast zinc, plated with something and then "antiqued". To me, details like that are unusable. Of course, IF it turns out to be stamped brass, terrific! Clean off the gunk and enjoy.
| Quote: | | Are you sure you guys don't have it in for this sword simply because it was in a movie and therefore has to be a fantasy sword? |
It's not that we "have it in" for it, I just see everything from the point of view of reenacting and living history. It's clearly not a serious attempt at a historical item, and *should not be interpreted or displayed as one*. That's my only real caveat. If you like it, buy it! But if you're thinking it might get shown to an audience as something representing what Romans actually used, that, to me, is bad. That's all I'm trying to say!
Gotta run!
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
J. Hargis
|
| Posted: Fri 14 Feb, 2014 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One moment I read that the sculpture is not accurate and is not a good indicator, except for the hats in the sculpture. Then I read that the Windlass example doesn't look like the sculpture, so the Windlass is inaccurate. Then we see below this very real historical example which is different from the sculpture and the Windlass. IOW, I see contradictions.
IMO these eagle headed swords were not numerous and varied quite a bit.
Jon
A poorly maintained weapon is likely to belong to an unsafe and careless fighter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Fri 14 Feb, 2014 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| J. Hargis wrote: | One moment I read that the sculpture is not accurate and is not a good indicator, except for the hats in the sculpture. Then I read that the Windlass example doesn't look like the sculpture, so the Windlass is inaccurate. Then we see below this very real historical example which is different from the sculpture and the Windlass. IOW, I see contradictions.
IMO these eagle headed swords were not numerous and varied quite a bit.
Jon
|
No contradictions at all. The sculpture is a several centuries later than the supposed date of the Windlass sword, so it can't really be used as good documentation for it. IF that particular historical example is real, it also is later than the Windlass piece. I suspect your final conclusion is basically correct. My point is that for a *historical* piece, we *can NOT make anything up*! And we don't have to. Following the reliable artifacts and artwork is the way to go.
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Goshey
Location: Fairfax, Virginia Joined: 01 Feb 2014
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Fri 14 Feb, 2014 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
You could go to Len Morgan, from what I know his stuff is good and the prices are reasonable: http://romanarmy.net/fabrica.shtml I'm just not as sure about what the shipping from the UK would be.
|
|
 |
|
|
Jon K.
|
| Posted: Sat 15 Feb, 2014 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chris Goshey wrote: | | You could go to Len Morgan, from what I know his stuff is good and the prices are reasonable: http://romanarmy.net/fabrica.shtml I'm just not as sure about what the shipping from the UK would be. |
Thank you for sharing that link. Believe it or not that's been one of the more helpful posts. (Not that every post/message here wasn't anything less than very informative) The price for a decorated mainz seems reasonable. Are those blades functional and sharp?
Does anyone else have any other suggestions for historical and functional Roman weapons, that wouldn't break my bank? Not so interested in Deepeeka or Del Tin.
|
|
|
|
|
Luka Borscak
|
| Posted: Sat 15 Feb, 2014 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Viktor Berbekucz has done some nice Roman swords. They do have their little mistakes, but what swords in this price range don't have them...
http://www.berbekuczviktor.hu/angol/angol.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Feb, 2014 2:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| J. Hargis wrote: | | One moment I read that the sculpture is not accurate and is not a good indicator, except for the hats in the sculpture. |
No, it's accurate -- for the 4th century AD. The problem is that the Windlass sword tries to combine the kind of hilt seen in this sculpture (or rather a very modern-looking interpretation thereof) with a blade more typical of the 1st century AD, thus creating a combination that can't be historically justified without special pleading.
Let's remember that Matthew never said the sculpture is inaccurate in the first place:
| Matthew Amt wrote: | | Phil, that sculpture of the Tetrarchs is exactly what people look at for eagle-head hilts! It's very late, of course, and the blades and scabbards are very different from that MRL piece. (You can't see the blades in the sculpture, of course, but blades from that era are nothing like first or second-century ones!) |
Only that it can't be used to justify an eagle-head pommel in combination with an early Imperial gladius blade. It can be used to justify an eagle-head pommel (especially one made to closely resemble the shape in the sculpture) with a 4th-century spatha blade!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Feb, 2014 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Windlass Late Roman Sword was a much more accurate Roman eagle-headed sword. Not a replica of the Tetrarchs' swords, but inspired by them and kept close enough to be plausibly historical.
Once upon a time (and it still goes on, but less), people would sell masonic swords as "Medieval knight's sword" and similar. After all, they're cross-hilted, and knights used cross-hilted swords. A masonic sword resembles a knightly sword as closely as the Windlass Roman Eagle Gladius does Roman eagle-hilted swords we know of. But I don't think a masonic sword makes for a good stand-in for a Medieval knightly sword.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
J. Hargis
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Feb, 2014 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lafayette Curtis said: | Quote: | | No, it's accurate -- for the 4th century AD. The problem is that the Windlass sword tries to combine the kind of hilt seen in this sculpture (or rather a very modern-looking interpretation thereof) with a blade more typical of the 1st century AD, thus creating a combination that can't be historically justified without special pleading. |
So then, what would the appropriate blade look like?
Jon
A poorly maintained weapon is likely to belong to an unsafe and careless fighter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Feb, 2014 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
We don't know for sure, but given the period of the sculpture it'd be reasonable to expect a 4th-century spatha blade. This would have differed from the Windlass gladius blade by being longer (though not necessarily by a large margin), lacking the waisted profile (at most it would have had an even taper from the base to just short of the point section), and having a more lenticular rather than diamond-shaped cross-section, possibly with one or multiple fullers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic