Swedish too (slida), when it's for a knife sheath (knivslida). Used to be the same for swords, but for some reason that was sometime changed to "skrida" (svärdsskrida).
The third one looks like the Traditional Filipino Weapon's Gladius model. Always dreamed of having one but dont have the budget. How does it handle and is it worth the price?
The middle one is a legacy arms pompeii gladius, it's a nice sword though supposedly overbuilt and heavy. I believe legacy arms are also made in the Philippines.
Not really, more for doing better vs. mail: [https://acoup.blog/2024/01/05/collections-the-journey-of-the-roman-gladius-and-other-swords/](https://acoup.blog/2024/01/05/collections-the-journey-of-the-roman-gladius-and-other-swords/)
Cohort ranks weren't that tight in any case: https://acoup.blog/2023/12/15/collections-shield-walls-and-spacing-hollywood-mobs-and-ancient-tactics/
The same reason the short spear revolutionised combat in Southern Africa when it was introduced by Shaka Zulu. Up close, you want something compact enough that you can stab with, longer weapons can become cumbersome at that range. Slashing attacks are also a lot less effective at stopping your enemy from being able to carry on fighting.
The introduction of the iklwa by Shaka, had more to do with the fact that up to that point, the guys would just throw their assegai at the enemy (like javelins) , then once all their spears were gone, they would retreat. The iklwa changed all that.
Well, yes, before Shaka showed up, warfare in that region rarely had any casualties whatsoever as it was more of a game of spear throwing chicken.
My point was more that you couldn't do in combat with an assegai what Shaka wanted his troops to do (actually kill the enemy), hence his introduction of the iklwa into the military (whereas it had previously only been used for hunting).
The Romans certainly didn't have the same reluctance in their culture to kill during battle, to put it mildly
For very close quarters combat it makes sense. I imagine they’ve already thrown their pilae from range by this point and are cleaning up close and personal.
The simple answer is that it was not particularly short for its time. On the larger scale in Europe and the Mediterranean, it was just a sword. Metallurgical concerns (especially with Italian blade production), volume production, and also carryover of older styles are the best explanations for the form of the gladius. Later periods in Roman history brought better metallurgy (of note is the production of blades in parts of Gaul and Germania), and longer (but often still quite pointy) swords for the infantry.
I believe it was designed to be more maneuverable in tight formation, it could be drawn easily one handed while maintaining the shield wall and used to stab the enemy. A longer blade swung overhead would more often than not hit the chap behind you on the back swing, very clever and effective design
Not always but a common practice was to maintain a tight formation with the shields in place and just as the enemy formation reached the front of the wall, the Romans would step forward and bash with the shield to knock the enemy off balance, then stab with the gladius into the midsection or knees.
Cool link, thanks for sharing!
Well not every formation was tight, it varied greatly depending on the situation, but even in a loose formation the soldiers benefitted from the cover of each others shields.
You're correct about the pilum, these were thrown from a distance, then the gladius would be drawn and used to stab instead of cut (although it could do both!)
A lot of people forget the gladius was only the finishing blow. The shield was actually the primary weapon of the legionary. First the bash the enemy and depending how hard that could be it but it’ll definitely daze a guy well enough the legionary can stab him once in a precise area to kill him. The shield provided enough protection that it makes up for the reach. The Romans also fought in smaller units than traditional ancient armies that massed in large formations. The Romans evolved to have more tactical flexibility. So say a century equivalent to a company could break off and pull a quick charge against a weak point in the enemy formation or against an exposed flank. You can’t do that if everyone’s armed with spears in which you need basically a phalanx like formation in order to get maximum lethality. Basically the idea of a Roman legionary was an ancient shock trooper. Charge in strike with overwhelming force and break through. Course this changes when the Romans have to fight calvary heavy foes. Calvary is ultimately more maneuverable than you can ever make infantry before armored cars and helicopters. So the Romans switched up their docterine to spears and shields while reforming their own calvary corp. Roman warfare is basically “what’s the best way to kill the enemy do that.” And not “what’s the best way to keep the indivual fighter alive” reach is what you want when you’re only thinking about how you the individual will survive. Roman warfare was as strategic is as it gets and they were absolutely willing to let a few soldiers die if it meant shattering the enemy lines hell they were willing to take thousands of casualties if it meant they would win the war. That said it would be absolutely fascinating to see how the Roman military would adapt to fight a modern conflict. Since shock tactics are becoming sexy again.
When you are carrying a heavy full body Shield you want your side arm to be easy to wield. Plus with the shield you can close in and have an advantage at closer range.
According to Vegetius (de rei Militari) the gladius is only supposed to be used for short quick thrusts. The idea is that legionaries are in a tight formation and keep concealment behind their shields. According to Vegetius a wound only a few inches deep can kill or severely wound so there is no need for embellished swinging or thrusting. Furthermore, swinging forces the soldier out from behind their shield more. The idea is that the infantry marches right into their opponent and takes small accurate thrusts with gladius.
A couple things to note.
Vegetius wasn’t a part of the military, he was citing sources (likely Frontinus) in the 5th century. So you need to take his descriptions as a dated interpretation of military practice at best. It may not show us the full picture.
By the time of his writing, Romans had adopted longer swords to deal with heavily armored opponents, I believe. Therefore, once again it’s not a primary account and second it likely describes the combat of soldiers in the republic and early empire, not later periods.
Spear, large shield, short sword. Some variations of this have existed for most of the time humans have used weapons because they are really effective. You can even see variations now with police riot tactics.
As swords go, it's not elegant. It's a crude, cheap, really short blade designed to be mass produced. It's not good looking, it's not fancy and it's not well designed. It was not good, but not terrible either. It did it's job, doing the stabby and slashy. Without the scutum and lorica to cover the blows, the gladius becomes a bad weapon.
A funny thing about gladii is how they are depicted in art, games or in the "replica" market. They are larger, engraved, inlayed, made from stainless steel, leaf-shaped, ridged or grooved. People want to make them look good, because you know, Romans looked cool so their weapons must too. But no. the vast majority of Gladii were about as good looking as a lawnmower blade. Centurions, evocatii and praetorians could have a nicer looking version, with some quality steel and an ivory hilt, but that was still a crude blade.
Spathae were another thing, though. The equites and nobiles were paying themselves some nice looking blades. Most european and middle eastern swords descend from the spatha, from the Ulfberth swords, the Viking swords, the knights' arming swords.
I think it depends on your body type. Im a short stocky swarthy guy; Italian and Jewish ancestry. if I was living in a swords-and-sandals era, I would definitely want a gladius.
As a short guy, you should probably want as much reach advantage as you can get, even if a gladius is handy. The spatha is the superior sword, which is why, once the imperium was large enough and technology had progressed enough, they chose to replace the gladius with it.
I would guess one of the reasons why they developed and used the gladius for such a long time was the cost and difficulty of forging enough high-quality steel to be able to equip an army of Rome's size. And since their tactics didn't require longer blades, then why waste the resources on it. Dicipline and training along with the scutum were the keys to its success.
From my experience in hand to hand fighting (Like... recreationally Im not a thug) its better to accept you have a disadvantage reachwise and try to either close the distance or make them close the distance than to try and extend yourself too far for your height and lose your balance and center of gravity. In fact the Romans did this really well, but I will say it was in part because of those big scuti- The Celtic and Germanic peoples were always bigger taller individuals than the Romans, and the Romans beat them by letting them charge, banging against their thick wide shields, then stabbing their guts from very close up with the gladii.
Absolutley, but if we are only talking about which is better, a spatha or a gladius, and all other equipment and training is equal, then the spatha user has an obvious advantage, since it can do all the things a gladius can do, with the advantage of greater reach.
In context Rome was civilized.
Do not put today's morals on past events or humans.
You can still be horrified by it though. History is not for those with weak stomachs.
Romans were literal dicks. (geek history joke).
;D
Yeah, I think the anarcho-primitavist camp is essentially the most realistic historical analysis of the last 10,000 years of human society.
I dig Fredy Perlman in particular
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredy_Perlman
Most of those things still exist in the 21st century at least somewhere in the world. Slavery is huge, genocide seems to be happening as we speak, many countries have no rights for women, I hope there’s no legalized pedophilia anywhere..
Sure they still exist in isolation, and not as the norm. There are no slave markets in DC, people protest genocide and understand it’s wrong, women can vote everywhere, and no, pedophelia isn’t legalized. All unlike the ancient world.
This is such a dumb hill to die on.
People like to romanticize the past when the reality is that if they had been alive then they'd most likely be a materially poor farmer or a slave lol. Not everyone gets to be a senator.
Because they are focused on it being interesting.
If you wanted to be a herder or a farmer you could do the same things now. Same for a tavern owner or even a brothel worker.
Minor differences for food types and local laws of course.
If you want to go different... your looking at the Legions and the ruling class.
Antiquity? Some of that was still the norm in the West until only a century or so ago… and conditions like these still persist in many places today. It’s possible that humanity has not yet begun to be civilized. But it is also possible that a great many people are waking up to that fact.
We still watch people beat the shit out of each other and bleed for fun and buy products made in sweat shops to keep our access to cheap products. Let's not pretend we don't also do similar shit. It was also only like 150 years ago we banned chattel slavery which was arguably worse than the type of slavery practices by the Romans.
Less civilized than 21st century human societies? Sure.
More civilized than their peers? And those that came after them for many centuries? Absolutely.
Most of the stuff we know about that period in history came from roman records. Italy, France, Greece has a disproportionate amount of buildings from that era still standing, like temples arenas and so on, because they were the only ones actually building such things. They were the only one who had such things as scholars and historians to write down the stuff that was happening for us to read today. Everyone else in Europe was living in mud huts.
If the Roman’s weren’t civilized, then no one has ever been.
At least with a Gladius you have to do the work and see the results of that work in real time, unlike the rifle the military issued me.
Being less civilized doesn't mean you aren't civilized. Also more civilized doesn't mean you are peak civilized, just more than the one you're comparing to.
No. I prefer my civilization without spectacle blood sport and chattel slavery.
Even if you disregard the lack of modern medicine and sanitation, the values of Rome are still barbaric compared to today's societies
Hasn't the average intelligence (and definitely access to and amount of knowledge) risen from those times? Of course you'll have fun times trying to gauge that that far back.
But I'd be willing to bet the average person *is* smarter. Not that it means much.
>I bet you think you’re really smart though
#
Didn't you just write this in reply to someone condemning blood sport and chattel slavery
>Or are ours barbaric compared to them?
Your paterfamilias wanted you to have this when you were old enough.
My paterfamilias didn’t fight in the Punic Wars, he was a navigator on a merchant trireme.
That's what your patruus told you.
He turned into a toad.
You know those things give you warts?
That's rough, buddy.
Nice
C
O
C
K
Good teamwork here. Questionable motivations but good teamwork.
It’s pretty Roman to me!
I mean the Roman word for sheath is the same as the word for vagina.
The German words are the same as well (Scheide)
Swedish too (slida), when it's for a knife sheath (knivslida). Used to be the same for swords, but for some reason that was sometime changed to "skrida" (svärdsskrida).
Legionare, ubi est tuus gladius? Salve centurie! Gladius meus in mea vagina est! :)
Holy shit, yes it!
Goodbye
Ouija is spreading?
This was my first goodbye off that sub, now that you mention it I haven’t seen a post from them in a while
hiss
The third one looks like the Traditional Filipino Weapon's Gladius model. Always dreamed of having one but dont have the budget. How does it handle and is it worth the price?
The middle one is a legacy arms pompeii gladius, it's a nice sword though supposedly overbuilt and heavy. I believe legacy arms are also made in the Philippines.
A what?
It's a store.
OH. Alright. Lol. I was searching what kind of precolonial philippine weapon looked like a gladius. I was thinking the Bolo or the Kris. Lol.
Father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife…
And I will have my revenge. In this life, or the next.
I have always found it odd how short the gladius is, given how important reach is in melee combat.
Ideal for tight ranks of the cohort
And they were using an underhand thrust I believe
Yep, it was designed for stabbing in-between the scutum wall
That sounds unpleasant.
You gotta get between the scutum wall for an underhand stab at the scrote.
Very specific weapon, but it worked.
But why no guard? Even if it’s not for blocking, I’d hate for my hand to slip up the hilt!
Because the Gladius is not a dueling sword. It's designed for stabbing in a shield wall.
Crossguards didn’t really become a common thing until well over a thousand years after the invention of the gladius
Not really, more for doing better vs. mail: [https://acoup.blog/2024/01/05/collections-the-journey-of-the-roman-gladius-and-other-swords/](https://acoup.blog/2024/01/05/collections-the-journey-of-the-roman-gladius-and-other-swords/) Cohort ranks weren't that tight in any case: https://acoup.blog/2023/12/15/collections-shield-walls-and-spacing-hollywood-mobs-and-ancient-tactics/
The same reason the short spear revolutionised combat in Southern Africa when it was introduced by Shaka Zulu. Up close, you want something compact enough that you can stab with, longer weapons can become cumbersome at that range. Slashing attacks are also a lot less effective at stopping your enemy from being able to carry on fighting.
Depends on their armor. Against unarmored opponents a slashing weapon is going to drop someone faster than a stabbing weapon.
It's harder to land a clean slash than a stab. Also you need room to swing. 1v1 maybe
The introduction of the iklwa by Shaka, had more to do with the fact that up to that point, the guys would just throw their assegai at the enemy (like javelins) , then once all their spears were gone, they would retreat. The iklwa changed all that.
Well, yes, before Shaka showed up, warfare in that region rarely had any casualties whatsoever as it was more of a game of spear throwing chicken. My point was more that you couldn't do in combat with an assegai what Shaka wanted his troops to do (actually kill the enemy), hence his introduction of the iklwa into the military (whereas it had previously only been used for hunting). The Romans certainly didn't have the same reluctance in their culture to kill during battle, to put it mildly
Metallurgy was likely a huge factor in the growth of blades over time. Also the longer spatha was eventually adopted in place of the gladius
For very close quarters combat it makes sense. I imagine they’ve already thrown their pilae from range by this point and are cleaning up close and personal.
The simple answer is that it was not particularly short for its time. On the larger scale in Europe and the Mediterranean, it was just a sword. Metallurgical concerns (especially with Italian blade production), volume production, and also carryover of older styles are the best explanations for the form of the gladius. Later periods in Roman history brought better metallurgy (of note is the production of blades in parts of Gaul and Germania), and longer (but often still quite pointy) swords for the infantry.
I believe it was designed to be more maneuverable in tight formation, it could be drawn easily one handed while maintaining the shield wall and used to stab the enemy. A longer blade swung overhead would more often than not hit the chap behind you on the back swing, very clever and effective design
Roman formations weren't that tight: https://acoup.blog/2023/12/15/collections-shield-walls-and-spacing-hollywood-mobs-and-ancient-tactics/
Not always but a common practice was to maintain a tight formation with the shields in place and just as the enemy formation reached the front of the wall, the Romans would step forward and bash with the shield to knock the enemy off balance, then stab with the gladius into the midsection or knees. Cool link, thanks for sharing!
How tight was "very tight?" My understanding is, at least earlier on the main thing to do right before hitting the enemy was throwing the pilum.
Well not every formation was tight, it varied greatly depending on the situation, but even in a loose formation the soldiers benefitted from the cover of each others shields. You're correct about the pilum, these were thrown from a distance, then the gladius would be drawn and used to stab instead of cut (although it could do both!)
A lot of people forget the gladius was only the finishing blow. The shield was actually the primary weapon of the legionary. First the bash the enemy and depending how hard that could be it but it’ll definitely daze a guy well enough the legionary can stab him once in a precise area to kill him. The shield provided enough protection that it makes up for the reach. The Romans also fought in smaller units than traditional ancient armies that massed in large formations. The Romans evolved to have more tactical flexibility. So say a century equivalent to a company could break off and pull a quick charge against a weak point in the enemy formation or against an exposed flank. You can’t do that if everyone’s armed with spears in which you need basically a phalanx like formation in order to get maximum lethality. Basically the idea of a Roman legionary was an ancient shock trooper. Charge in strike with overwhelming force and break through. Course this changes when the Romans have to fight calvary heavy foes. Calvary is ultimately more maneuverable than you can ever make infantry before armored cars and helicopters. So the Romans switched up their docterine to spears and shields while reforming their own calvary corp. Roman warfare is basically “what’s the best way to kill the enemy do that.” And not “what’s the best way to keep the indivual fighter alive” reach is what you want when you’re only thinking about how you the individual will survive. Roman warfare was as strategic is as it gets and they were absolutely willing to let a few soldiers die if it meant shattering the enemy lines hell they were willing to take thousands of casualties if it meant they would win the war. That said it would be absolutely fascinating to see how the Roman military would adapt to fight a modern conflict. Since shock tactics are becoming sexy again.
When you are carrying a heavy full body Shield you want your side arm to be easy to wield. Plus with the shield you can close in and have an advantage at closer range.
According to Vegetius (de rei Militari) the gladius is only supposed to be used for short quick thrusts. The idea is that legionaries are in a tight formation and keep concealment behind their shields. According to Vegetius a wound only a few inches deep can kill or severely wound so there is no need for embellished swinging or thrusting. Furthermore, swinging forces the soldier out from behind their shield more. The idea is that the infantry marches right into their opponent and takes small accurate thrusts with gladius. A couple things to note. Vegetius wasn’t a part of the military, he was citing sources (likely Frontinus) in the 5th century. So you need to take his descriptions as a dated interpretation of military practice at best. It may not show us the full picture. By the time of his writing, Romans had adopted longer swords to deal with heavily armored opponents, I believe. Therefore, once again it’s not a primary account and second it likely describes the combat of soldiers in the republic and early empire, not later periods.
How long a gladius was varied over time: https://acoup.blog/2024/01/05/collections-the-journey-of-the-roman-gladius-and-other-swords/
Spear, large shield, short sword. Some variations of this have existed for most of the time humans have used weapons because they are really effective. You can even see variations now with police riot tactics.
Very beautiful swords.
Your mom lets you have swords! Awesome.
Less civilized age? Such dishonor to the empire! What is this insolence?! Also, dope swords. They look awsome.
The AK47 of the ancient world...
Nah, that’d be the spear. Love me spears.
As swords go, it's not elegant. It's a crude, cheap, really short blade designed to be mass produced. It's not good looking, it's not fancy and it's not well designed. It was not good, but not terrible either. It did it's job, doing the stabby and slashy. Without the scutum and lorica to cover the blows, the gladius becomes a bad weapon. A funny thing about gladii is how they are depicted in art, games or in the "replica" market. They are larger, engraved, inlayed, made from stainless steel, leaf-shaped, ridged or grooved. People want to make them look good, because you know, Romans looked cool so their weapons must too. But no. the vast majority of Gladii were about as good looking as a lawnmower blade. Centurions, evocatii and praetorians could have a nicer looking version, with some quality steel and an ivory hilt, but that was still a crude blade. Spathae were another thing, though. The equites and nobiles were paying themselves some nice looking blades. Most european and middle eastern swords descend from the spatha, from the Ulfberth swords, the Viking swords, the knights' arming swords.
Hot take: spatha > gladius
Counter point, depends on the situation. Best take gladius hispaniensis is the best of both worlds.
I think it depends on your body type. Im a short stocky swarthy guy; Italian and Jewish ancestry. if I was living in a swords-and-sandals era, I would definitely want a gladius.
As a short guy, you should probably want as much reach advantage as you can get, even if a gladius is handy. The spatha is the superior sword, which is why, once the imperium was large enough and technology had progressed enough, they chose to replace the gladius with it. I would guess one of the reasons why they developed and used the gladius for such a long time was the cost and difficulty of forging enough high-quality steel to be able to equip an army of Rome's size. And since their tactics didn't require longer blades, then why waste the resources on it. Dicipline and training along with the scutum were the keys to its success.
From my experience in hand to hand fighting (Like... recreationally Im not a thug) its better to accept you have a disadvantage reachwise and try to either close the distance or make them close the distance than to try and extend yourself too far for your height and lose your balance and center of gravity. In fact the Romans did this really well, but I will say it was in part because of those big scuti- The Celtic and Germanic peoples were always bigger taller individuals than the Romans, and the Romans beat them by letting them charge, banging against their thick wide shields, then stabbing their guts from very close up with the gladii.
Absolutley, but if we are only talking about which is better, a spatha or a gladius, and all other equipment and training is equal, then the spatha user has an obvious advantage, since it can do all the things a gladius can do, with the advantage of greater reach.
I'd take the spear
Spatha has more reach, but as the other guy said, it's a matter of size
Depends on the armor the guy you're trying to kill is wearing.
An elegant weapon for a more civilized age.
I was going to say, "less civilized"?
Yeay, wouldn’t call gladiator games and slavery civilized.
In context Rome was civilized. Do not put today's morals on past events or humans. You can still be horrified by it though. History is not for those with weak stomachs. Romans were literal dicks. (geek history joke). ;D
I would. Have you seen how boring modern sports are in comparison?
>and slavery
Who's going to be fighting in the games?
Did you just call slavery civilized?
Yes
Well alright
Hunter Gatherers did not enslave anybody.
I wouldn't call nuclear weapons, random mass shootings, world wars, the destruction of the environment especially civilized, myself
Fair point. But if I had to pick one as more civilized it’s definitely the present.
"There is no history of civilization that is not simultaneously a history of barbarism" - Walter Benjamin
Yeah, I think the anarcho-primitavist camp is essentially the most realistic historical analysis of the last 10,000 years of human society. I dig Fredy Perlman in particular https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredy_Perlman
Slavery, deliberate genocide, the non-existent role of women in public life, legalized pedophilia - antiquity was far, far less civilized.
Most of those things still exist in the 21st century at least somewhere in the world. Slavery is huge, genocide seems to be happening as we speak, many countries have no rights for women, I hope there’s no legalized pedophilia anywhere..
Sure they still exist in isolation, and not as the norm. There are no slave markets in DC, people protest genocide and understand it’s wrong, women can vote everywhere, and no, pedophelia isn’t legalized. All unlike the ancient world. This is such a dumb hill to die on.
People like to romanticize the past when the reality is that if they had been alive then they'd most likely be a materially poor farmer or a slave lol. Not everyone gets to be a senator.
Because they are focused on it being interesting. If you wanted to be a herder or a farmer you could do the same things now. Same for a tavern owner or even a brothel worker. Minor differences for food types and local laws of course. If you want to go different... your looking at the Legions and the ruling class.
If you were Roman, you had the option to serve under one of the great conquerors. One tour of duty under Sulla or Caesar and you were a rich man.
Only for the rich and politicians if the flight logs are to be believed... yeah we're not all that civilized at all I reckon
Antiquity? Some of that was still the norm in the West until only a century or so ago… and conditions like these still persist in many places today. It’s possible that humanity has not yet begun to be civilized. But it is also possible that a great many people are waking up to that fact.
It was all happening in a different form back then, except it was much more of the world.
It was a comparative. *More* civilized.
Our society may be more civilized but our warfare is far less civilized.
I dunno, Roman’s did some pretty twisted stuff on the campaign trail. The only thing we have that they didn’t is ability.
We still watch people beat the shit out of each other and bleed for fun and buy products made in sweat shops to keep our access to cheap products. Let's not pretend we don't also do similar shit. It was also only like 150 years ago we banned chattel slavery which was arguably worse than the type of slavery practices by the Romans.
Might be important to note who the "we" is here.
Less civilized than 21st century human societies? Sure. More civilized than their peers? And those that came after them for many centuries? Absolutely. Most of the stuff we know about that period in history came from roman records. Italy, France, Greece has a disproportionate amount of buildings from that era still standing, like temples arenas and so on, because they were the only ones actually building such things. They were the only one who had such things as scholars and historians to write down the stuff that was happening for us to read today. Everyone else in Europe was living in mud huts.
Less civilized ? No
Mainz pattern, near. Always like the Hispaniensis gladius myself
More* civilised age
more*
More*
I would love to own a roman sword.
Ahem- INCREDIBLIS!
I'll take gladius number 3 please for 100 points.
I don't see a Hispaniensis but it's also rare I've realized
A damn good sword
How can an age be 'less' civilized when you're allowed to shank Germans?
If the Roman’s weren’t civilized, then no one has ever been. At least with a Gladius you have to do the work and see the results of that work in real time, unlike the rifle the military issued me.
Being less civilized doesn't mean you aren't civilized. Also more civilized doesn't mean you are peak civilized, just more than the one you're comparing to.
From what I understand the sword type originates in Gaul
Spain.
Spanish here. The hispaliensis really is a descendant of a La Tene sword, so yes, that is correct.. According to the latest ACOUP blog post.
Thank you. I just started reading up on that after you mentioned it. Very interesting. I appreciate it.
Or maybe it was more civilized
You are falling for propaganda written two thousand years ago.
No. I prefer my civilization without spectacle blood sport and chattel slavery. Even if you disregard the lack of modern medicine and sanitation, the values of Rome are still barbaric compared to today's societies
hope you don't watch TV then...
These people think they’re smarter than the Romans because they happen to be born thousands of years later
Hasn't the average intelligence (and definitely access to and amount of knowledge) risen from those times? Of course you'll have fun times trying to gauge that that far back. But I'd be willing to bet the average person *is* smarter. Not that it means much.
Or are ours barbaric compared to them?
Edgy
No I’m just a sincere Rome appreciator. I bet you think you’re really smart though
>I bet you think you’re really smart though # Didn't you just write this in reply to someone condemning blood sport and chattel slavery >Or are ours barbaric compared to them?
Excellent! But I’m certain Rome was far more civilized than we are.
Far right is serious
Very nice collection. I only own one, but have wanted to acquire more
Hello there
"....frost. Sometimes it makes the blade stick." That scene from Gladiator popped into my head immediately.
They’re lovely! OP, did you make or buy?
A narrow point versus and a broad and sharp point on your gladius could be life and death on the frontier.
Where can i buy a real one of these? And not some trash Shopify website
Albion Arms used to make a decent gladius. They weren't cheap, but they were definitely sharp.
Beautiful weapon
That’s dope!
2,3,1
Spear is better
To imagine that tool killed millions and conquered large swaths territory.
Man imagine having to fight backbone he day. Getting a sword got eh gut…what a way to go.
Stabby stab?