Wearing The Gladius On The Right

This may be of interest, remember the memoria were also stylised , this is a good example :

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=mo...=si&img=951

 

I recognise that, is it the tombstone for a Thracian cavalry auxiliary?

Correct , with all the stylised ritualistic elements included, (most obviously the defeated pictish enemy), but also the formulaic "head" of the stone showing the deities, ( and sometimes the person themselves at a banquet with the deities).

This may be of interest, remember the memoria were also stylised , this is a good example :

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=mo...=si&img=951

 

I recognise that, is it the tombstone for a Thracian cavalry auxiliary?

Correct , with all the stylised ritualistic elements included, (most obviously the defeated pictish enemy), but also the formulaic "head" of the stone showing the deities, ( and sometimes the person themselves at a banquet with the deities).

I thought the tombstone was dated to the Claudian period. If this were true, why would auxiliary be subduing a pictish warrior? Were they not to be defeated in a later period of Romano-British history, or did you just mean pictish as in a 'painted' Celt?

The centurions were at the head of the battle.

 

 

This is indeed true, but when his century was in tight formation he would more or less be on the sidelines giving the orders.

My apologies, for I have just realised how incoherent this statement is--I only got two hours sleep last night...damn that Who Wants to be a Millionaire marathon.

Anyway, what I meant to say is that if the Centurion was in the thick of battle, he would probably be at the side of his formation while fighting and giving orders. And as he is on the side, he would have more space to manoeuvre, meaning that there would be not need for him to wear his gladius on his right.

The centurions were at the head of the battle.

 

 

This is indeed true, but when his century was in tight formation he would more or less be on the sidelines giving the orders.

 

My apologies, for I have just realised how incoherent this statement is--I only got two hours sleep last night...damn that Who Wants to be a Millionaire marathon.

 

Anyway, what I meant to say is that if the Centurion was in the thick of battle, he would probably be at the side of his formation while fighting and giving orders. And as he is on the side, he would have more space to manoeuvre, meaning that there would be not need for him to wear his gladius on his right.

I did actually realise what you meant , as opposed to what you said . You are absolutely correct-he wasnt going to elbow anyone in the face drawing the sword nor cut across anyone with a sideways draw to his right hand side.

What kind of shield did centurions use, or did they have a shield at all? I could see that they wore the gladius on the left because there was no scutum to get in the way, so were they just unprotected?

Pertinax already said they did, but like you I've never seen them with one. Pertinax, please send me a link of a picture with a centurion with a shield.

During an Antiques program on PBS, a Republic of Texas artillery officer's sword, made in Massachusetts, was shown. It looked very much like a gladius, of about the same length, but thinner. A point was brought up that the blade was peened at the end of the handle as earlier swords of the type had the tendency for the blade to fall out of the handle. Looking at my gladius would proove nothing, as it is a copy made in Spain recently. Does anyone know if The Romans had this problem or was their gladius peened? Rivited? It seems odd to me that so obvious a feature would be left off of the Texas sword.

This Centurion Shield may be of interest to some of you.

And if you look carefully at the image below (taken from Trajan's Column), you will see a centurion hold an oval sheild.

During an Antiques program on PBS, a Republic of Texas artillery officer's sword, made in Massachusetts, was shown. It looked very much like a gladius, of about the same length, but thinner. A point was brought up that the blade was peened at the end of the handle as earlier swords of the type had the tendency for the blade to fall out of the handle. Looking at my gladius would proove nothing, as it is a copy made in Spain recently. Does anyone know if The Romans had this problem or was their gladius peened? Rivited? It seems odd to me that so obvious a feature would be left off of the Texas sword.

The answer would be: where and when?

I haven't seen an example of a rivited tang but they may have existed. The gladius Hispaniensis had a pommel tip on the tang to help hold the ball base grip.

Then you can see the "Pompeii" style in the 1st cen. CE. It too used a ball, but there was a piece of flat bronze between the tang and the ball to wedge it in place.

In the 2nd cen CE, there are examples of pommel rings attached to the tang and used in lieu of a ball. That only lasted a brief period before going back to the ball.

As far as the Texas sword; they did base it off of the gladius but how much of a sword tradition has there been in the US? A few faults in manufacture can be forgiven, especially since it was highly doubtful that it would ever be used in combat

Pertinax already said they did, but like you I've never seen them with one. Pertinax, please send me a link of a picture with a centurion with a shield.

I see youve all been busy on this topic!

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=mo...=si&img=953

Here we are-Primus Pilus of LEG II AVG , with scutum!

Is that the stick he trashes the lads with in his left hand?

Is that the stick he trashes the lads with in his left hand?

Yes indeed, a new stick that very day!

Wasn't there a centurion nicknamed "fetch another" because he kept breaking his vine staff over soldiers' backs?

Did he actually demonstrate this particular method of discipline? (Logically I would think "no" but then reenactors do some weird things sometimes in the name of authenticity )

Wasn't there a centurion nicknamed "fetch another" because he kept breaking his vine staff over soldiers' backs?

 

Did he actually demonstrate this particular method of discipline? (Logically I would think "no" but then reenactors do some weird things sometimes in the name of authenticity )

1. I admire your new avatar!

2. This Primus Pilus is keen on "Dignitas" and expects his men to represent Rome with decorum and gravity, I doubt that he has followed the example from Tacitus that you cite, but I understand he eschews levity. Note his rank markings on the scutum, and the Legions Capricorn standard.

try this shot for an overall idea of his gear...

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=mo...=si&img=955