Historical Question about Gladii

[Che Roriniho]

Question that's really been bothering me, but did they have the 'blood-groove' (not sure as to the actual name) on them? I'm making a Gladius on 3DsMax to see how it works in EB, as I think there is a sword missing on one of the units (by no means quote me). If not, then I might just use it anyway.

so yeh, blood groove or no blood groove?

[QuintusSertorius]

No such thing as a "blood groove", that's a fiction.

You might be referring to the fuller, which is designed to build some flexibility into the blade, and tends to be more necessary with longer blades.

[Che Roriniho]

No such thing as a "blood groove", that's a fiction.

You might be referring to the fuller, which is designed to build some flexibility into the blade, and tends to be more necessary with longer blades.

My bad. Would they have the fuller then? Cos I'm making it and it looks damned good, but if it's not historically accurate then I'll just use it as a show piece, or something.

[Che Roriniho]

No such thing as a "blood groove", that's a fiction.

You might be referring to the fuller, which is designed to build some flexibility into the blade, and tends to be more necessary with longer blades.

My bad. Would they have the fuller then? Cos I'm making it and it looks damned good, but if it's not historically accurate then I'll just use it as a show piece, or something.

[Havok.]

Not sure, but isn't Gladius? instead of Gladii?

[Watchman]

Gladii would be the plural form. Compare extraordinarius - extraordinarii.

[Havok.]

Gladii would be the plural form. Compare extraordinarius - extraordinarii.

Gotcha.

[Reverend Joe]

Cos I'm making it and it looks damned good, but if it's not historically accurate then I'll just use it as a show piece, or something.

You're making a sword?!

Man, that's bad ass. I want a sword.

[Che Roriniho]

You're making a sword?!

Man, that's bad ass. I want a sword.

(On 3DsMax. Not an actual sword. Although, yes, that would be Bad-ass. I want a sword. At some point in my life I want to make a real sword, and then wave it at annoying people.)

[Watchman]

The proper term would be "fuller" - it ain't got a jack to do with the other guy's blood, but rather serves to lighten the blade and tweak its balance characteristics without compromising structural integrity.

That said, I'm under the vague impression the weaponsmiths hadn't yet figured it out during (most of) the EB timeframe, and just made their blades either smoothly lenticular or *very* flat rhomboid in profile (or seriously flattened hexagon, but you get the idea). Not sure how reliably accurate this is, but it's what I could scrounge up quickly.

Late Imperial period swords did apparently start featuring fullers, tho'. I've gotten the impression the "barbarians" generally preferred a single wide one, whereas Roman designs tended to go for multiple narrow ones. But, then again, that was also the period when even the humble infantry sword had started growing quite a bit in lenght...

[Che Roriniho]

The proper term would be "fuller" - it ain't got a jack to do with the other guy's blood, but rather serves to lighten the blade and tweak its balance characteristics without compromising structural integrity.

That said, I'm under the vague impression the weaponsmiths hadn't yet figured it out during (most of) the EB timeframe, and just made their blades either smoothly lenticular or *very* flat rhomboid in profile (or seriously flattened hexagon, but you get the idea). Not sure how reliably accurate this is, but it's what I could scrounge up quickly.

Late Imperial period swords did apparently start featuring fullers, tho'. I've gotten the impression the "barbarians" generally preferred a single wide one, whereas Roman designs tended to go for multiple narrow ones. But, then again, that was also the period when even the humble infantry sword had started growing quite a bit in lenght...

I looked at that page, and I can't quite see (For some reason, this page won't allow me to see the higher resolution pictures, even though I'm logged on), but I think the two greek swords have fullers. The 3 gladii don't, but I'm being careful with those, as they are very modern remakes, as opposed to the antiques (I think) of the Xiphos and the Kipos. I'm definatly keeping my fullered Gladius though. I'll upload it to the site when it's done.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I looked at that page, and I can't quite see (For some reason, this page won't allow me to see the higher resolution pictures, even though I'm logged on), but I think the two greek swords have fullers. The 3 gladii don't, but I'm being careful with those, as they are very modern remakes, as opposed to the antiques (I think) of the Xiphos and the Kipos. I'm definatly keeping my fullered Gladius though. I'll upload it to the site when it's done.

The answer to your question is that the classic varients of the Gladius all have a diamond cross section, this, along with the leaf shape or parralel sided edge are part of what makes it such a brutal cutting blade because it moves the balance point closer to the tip.

[Watchman]

The xiphos has what is known as spine or rib, a raised section running down the middle of the blade. Helps add rigidity and strength - more or less the exact opposite of the fuller in both form and function, really.

The kopis has neither. The blade profile merely - naturally enough - tapers towards the sharpened edges (both the "true" one at the front and the "false" part-lenght one near the tip, which mainly just assists in thrusts) from the flat middle part is all.

Basically, not. Gladii didn't have fullers, not before something like the early ADs anyway (and I'd rather not bet on that either). Heck, the dang Celtic longswords didn't have them either, and such weapons are by their very nature all but quaranteed to receive such newfangled details first (owing to the eternal search for improved balance and handling and hence effectiveness).

As reproductions go, far as I know those are very faithful to the archeological originals. For that matter, IIRC the collections of the museum I work in part-time, *no* ancient blade displayed there features a fuller before around the early Migration Period (ie. the twilight era of the Western Empire)...

[Che Roriniho]

Awww, Dang... You say gladii with fullers didn't appear till the early AD's. Could I put this on an Augustan Legionary, and still call it Historically Accurate?

[Watchman]

Awww, Dang... You say gladii with fullers didn't appear till the early AD's. Could I put this on an Augustan Legionary, and still call it Historically Accurate?

Pretty sure that's a negative, sorry.

The answer to your question is that the classic varients of the Gladius all have a diamond cross section, this, along with the leaf shape or parralel sided edge are part of what makes it such a brutal cutting blade because it moves the balance point closer to the tip.

Not really. Diamond profile is actually more or less detrimental to cutting effectiveness as the mid-part "drags" in the target. This of course depends on the exact design; with a profile as flattened as that of the gladius the effect is probably minimal.

Nevertheless, it does nothing to improve a cut either. What it *does* improve is the thrust, as it adds stiffness and lenghtwise structural strength to the blade.

Given the more or less even central thickness throughout, it's not really going to do much to mass distribution and balance and, hence, the location of the optimal "sweet spot" percussion point either. Those are much more affected by details such as the weight of the grip and pommel, the specific thickness etc. of the blade, and for example the wasp-waisted shape of the "Mainz" and "Fulham" types which have a noticeably wider section just before they start to taper to a long thrusting point.
And I'm willing to bet that part is exactly their "sweet spot".