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.

[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]

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.

[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?

[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]

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".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Pretty sure that's a negative, sorry.

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".

No, I'm sorry because A) I'm not expaling myself well and B) I'm thinking of something a little more complex.

The early Gladii are leaf bladed and that extra mass near the end moves the precussion point down the blade, as you say, but the later Gladii have shorter, broader, points and pretty much exactly parralel blade edges, i.e. the blade doesn't taper like Greek or Celtic swords and that also moves the precussion point down the blade. Despite the large pommel the Gladius is decidedly blade-heavy.

As to the diamond cross section, I'm thinking about it compared to "ribbed" blades which get even move drag than the diamond. The diamond section also seems to have had something to do with honing the edge. One weapon, the Tiberius Gladius was so badly honed after it was forged it destroyed the cutting edge, which is probably why someone chucked it in the Thames.

[mcantu]

[mcantu]

Pretty sure that's a negative, sorry.

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".

the flattened diamond profile is important because it helps to reinforce the blade on cuts as well as thrusts

[Watchman]

Is that why straight double-edgers designed first and foremost for cutting liked to have out-and-out flat blades for minimum resistance and that funky lateral springiness thing, then...?

[mcantu]

pure cutting swords usually had a lenticular cross section...



the gladius is most defianetly a cut and thrust sword (although a short one)

[Che Roriniho]

pure cutting swords usually had a lenticular cross section...



the gladius is most defianetly a cut and thrust sword (although a short one)

I've made most of a narrow-fullered gladius then. judging by th reactions on this thread, that would be utterly pointless.

[Reverend Joe]

By any chance, did the broad-fullered swords have a problem with breaking when used for blocking? Because such a deep fuller seems like it would trade blade strength for speed.

(Ans yes, I know nothing about swords I'm just curious.)

[Che Roriniho]

By any chance, did the broad-fullered swords have a problem with breaking when used for blocking? Because such a deep fuller seems like it would trade blade strength for speed.

(Ans yes, I know nothing about swords I'm just curious.)

I was thinking the same. Also, I know it looks good, but was the opposing fullers actually used much? I would have though that one decent blow would cause the edges tto fall off, rendering it useless.

[mcantu]

I was thinking the same. Also, I know it looks good, but was the opposing fullers actually used much? I would have though that one decent blow would cause the edges tto fall off, rendering it useless.

viking swords tended to have wide opposing fullers....

[QuintusSertorius]

By any chance, did the broad-fullered swords have a problem with breaking when used for blocking? Because such a deep fuller seems like it would trade blade strength for speed.

(Ans yes, I know nothing about swords I'm just curious.)

No, it makes the blade lighter and more flexible. Someone better versed in the chemistry and physics involved can probably give you the science of it, but a blade that's just hard is brittle.

[Havok.]

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

Gotcha.

[Watchman]

pure cutting swords usually had a lenticular cross section...

Well yeah. Just a seriously flattened one. Or hexagonal.
Technically speaking, the optimum cutting sword would have a blade as thing and sharp as a razor; that, alas, is impossible to achieve owing to considerations of material physics...

Anyway, to nutshell the point here: when weaponsmiths made swords to cut with, they aimed for flat wide springy blades, and liked to work fullers into them; for thrusting, narrow, stiff blades, sometimes all but square in cross-section, usually with very conspicuous raised spine or rib.

the gladius is most defianetly a cut and thrust sword (although a short one)

I don't recall anyone claiming anything different either...

By any chance, did the broad-fullered swords have a problem with breaking when used for blocking? Because such a deep fuller seems like it would trade blade strength for speed.

Naw. Structurally a fuller basically creates an arc "inside" the blade; one look at an architectural supporting arch (or the armour plating of many animals) ought to tell you quite a bit about how resilient curved surfaces are relatively speaking...

As was mentioned earlier, it was sort of the whole point of the fuller to lighten the blade without compromising resiliency.

Plus, when you parry with a sword you normally use the flat of the blade to deflect the other guy's edge. There's very little the other weapon can achieve there, really, as it's impacting at a shallow angle into a solid, smooth metal surface.

viking swords tended to have wide opposing fullers....

The correct wording would be "wide fullers on both sides" (fullers being nigh invariably made symmetrically anyway), as they were in the middle of the blade. See Oakeshott Type X for a good description.

Hey, we have some of those +ULFBERHT+ swords in the museum. They look pretty bad ass even badly rusted and a millenia later...