The story of the Battle of Bosworth takes on an added newsworthy significance at the present moment. Not only was it the last battle in the “Wars of the Roses” but it was also a major historical point as it was the last time a reigning monarch, in this instance Richard III, went into battle for his country.

On February 4^th 2013, it was revealed that the bones discovered buried under a car park in Leicester city centre in August last year are actually those of Richard III.

Background to the wars

The roots of the Wars of the Roses lay much further back than many people assume, for while the actual series of battles commenced around the year 1455, the beginnings of unrest start around the death of King Edward III and the power play that formed between his sons who were all anxious to rule.

Edward III’s eldest son, the Black Prince, Edward had predeceased him by just a year and so the crown automatically passed to his grandson, the then ten year old Richard II.

However, as was customary for the time and because of his tender years, Richard’s uncle and the Black Prince’s brother, John of Gaunt ruled in his name. As Richard entered his teens he became increasingly embittered about the way in which John was ruling and started to rebel against the decisions he made. Richard’s own style of governance, was however, deemed unsuitable by most of the upper echelons of the ruling elite.

After John of Gaunt’s death in 1399, Richard confiscated his lands. As an act of revenge, Gaunt’s son Henry Bolingbroke raised an army to usurp Richard, which was successful. He took the throne as Henry IV and had Richard imprisoned in Pontefract Castle, where he died, possibly from being starved to death in 1400, the method of death was such that in the event of his body being inspected, there would be no suspicious marks to suggest foul play.

As Bolingbroke was not the natural successor to the throne, there were naturally many challenges to his right to rule, however, at the time of his death in 1413 the country was in a relatively peaceful state and, as such, his leadership passed to his own son Henry V. It was when Henry V’s son, Henry VI took the throne after the former’s death from dysentery in 1422, that signs of real unrest began to surface.

Henry VI: the weakest link?

History has generally not been kind to Henry. Coming to the throne at just four months old in 1422, by the time he reached maturity he was a young man who was seen to be not only a weak ruler but dominated by his wife, the forceful and fearsome Margaret of Anjou.

He was also the disputed leader of France for most of the length of his reign, but frequent bouts of what was termed at the time “insanity” meant that for many years he was in a catatonic state, unaware of his surroundings or what was going on in his kingdom.

This led to Yorkist factions seeking to try and usurp Henry and put their own claimant on the throne. The first real battle of the conflict took place in 1455 and was led by Richard, Duke of York. The King was defeated in battle, which brought on another attack of mental instability and Richard became protector of England. During the next four years there were more battles and skirmishes for supremacy until Richard was finally killed at the Battle of Wakefield in 1459.

Edward IV and his Queen

These were unsteady and unsafe times in England and The House of York finally gained control of the throne in 1471, after both Henry VI and his son Edward were killed after the Battle of Tewkesbury.

Edward IV ascended the throne and began to rule with a rod of iron, ruthlessly punishing anyone who failed to submit to his rule. When he died in 1483, the crown passed to his twelve year old son, also Edward, with the late King’s brother, Richard, Duke of Gloucester as protector.

A story emerged that the late King had been pre-contracted in marriage to someone else other than the Queen thus rendering his marriage and children illegitimate. Therefore, Richard took it upon himself to seize the reins of power and elect himself as King, becoming Richard III.

The Battle Of Bosworth

 In 1485, Henry Tudor was preparing to set sail from France with a not inconsiderable army of two thousand troops to help him gain the English throne. On the 17^th August he arrived at Milford Haven from Harfleur and began a march through Wales to gather more men.

It is said that at some point on his journey towards Bosworth he had considered giving up and going back, but after a meeting with one of his adversaries Lord Stanley, decided to forge ahead. This one decision, though he didn’t know it at the time, changed the course of English history.

By contrast, Richard had a much stronger showing in terms of numbers. It is estimated he had around twelve thousand troops at his disposal. However, around a quarter of that number, it is suggested, had divided loyalties as they were commanded by the Stanley family who were known turncoats and wont to change their allegiance to whosoever would give them the most power and money.

Richard had stationed himself in Nottingham, meaning that wherever Henry struck from, he would be able to travel relatively quickly to fight him.

On 22^nd August 1485 the armies met in the village of Market Bosworth. The suspect Stanleys found their positions at the north and south of the battlefield, whilst the King decided he must advance from Ambion Hill.

Henry Tudor sent his men to attack the enemy formation under the experience of the Earl of Oxford. Henry was hoping that the Stanleys would surrender and join him, but they kept themselves non-committal to either side, despite Richard having Lord Stanley’s son prisoner.

King Richard’s men responded to Oxford’s attack with a stream of artillery fire, which caused the Earl of Oxford to change his position. Oxford then began to attack the Duke of Norfolk’s division; retaliation from Norfolk meant that Oxford and his men were pounded by arrows from a team of skilled archers.

Significant intelligence was brought to Richard, informing him that Henry Tudor was about to attack. Richard therefore led an “all or nothing” charge that was aimed at killing Henry, but in the ensuing battle the Duke of Norfolk was killed. Richard was urged to try and retreat, but decided to go under his own steam and carry on.

At this point, Tudor’s standard bearer William Brandon was killed and it was here that the previously non-committal Stanleys decided to try to put an end to the battle by aligning themselves on the side of Henry.

They engaged with the King’s men and cut Richard off from his troops. Many of his men were cut down on the battlefield to cries of “TREASON!”. The few loyal to him were killed as they tried to save their monarch, before he too was found, dismounted from his horse and killed. Once the monarch was dead, the remnants of his army retreated.

According to the writings of Polydor Vergil, in comparison to other battles of the time, Bosworth was relatively short, only lasting for around two hours.

The aftermath of battle: a thorny crown

The romantic image of Richard’s crown, plucked from a nearby hawthorn bush and presented to the new King Henry VII is one that is not necessarily true but has survived the centuries. The truth is rather less wholesome.

Richard’s body was paraded unceremoniously and ignominiously through the streets to prove his death and show the colours of the new king. Henry further cemented his grip by marrying a Yorkist Princess, Elizabeth, daughter of Edward IV and uniting the two warring households once and for all.

Henry’s ascendance to the throne marked a new style of leadership, not always successful. He realised that a common sense approach to leadership was to protect his valuables in order to keep the crown in a healthy and strong economic position. He successfully stopped the sprawl of the nobility, only handing out titles to people who had really earned them and stopping some automatic inheritance, meaning for a time at least, there was little threat to power from large families who had an eye on titles and money. The Tudor line ruled for over a century in a relatively, though not completely peaceful time.

The expression ‘throwing down the gauntlet’ stems from the middle ages and is literally a call to arms. One look at the Gauntlet, often featuring knuckledusters design to maximize punishment when resorting to punches, and it’s easy to understand how the gauntlet became a symbolic call to arms.

Early metal plate hand protection began during the late 12th century when the mail sleeves of the hauberk were elongated into a mitten. Worn above a leather glove, mail armor protected the fingers, along with a single armor plate. This pattern of armored hand protection was worn until the end of the 13th century.

By the early 14th century, mail gloves with separate fingers started to appear as an extension of the sleeve plates. These extensions covered the backside of the hand, offering greater protection, from the wrist to the end of the metacarpals. Bordered by the thumb joint, embossed around the finger joints and base of the thumb, the design included overlapping plates that covered the individual fingers and cuff.

In their earlier forms, these armored gloves were known as hourglass gauntlets due to the widening plated geometry  over the back of the hand, which narrowed at the wrist and flared at the cuff. Generally, only the thumb was articulated with mechanical plates while the fingers were protected by a solid top plate, riveted to mail or leather gloves. This type of armor remained in vogue until the fifteenth century, when the cuff narrowed to protect against the threat of a sword thrust through the flared gap. This change was in response to the changing blade geometry of the medieval sword, which began to appear at the end of the 14th century. As such, the cuff plate of the medieval gauntlets grew smaller, and the wrist and finger protection changed from one piece to multiple interlocking plate construction that facilitated greater wrist and finger motion.

During the 14^th century advances in the blacksmith trade resulted in the construction of plate metal armor with increased artistry and articulation. The ability to craft articulated plate defenses, fitted to individual fingers maximized a knight’s defensive and aggressive capacities by liberating the fingers and wrists to move more naturally.

As stated by Historian Michael P. Smith,  common features of the late medieval design included spiked knuckle plates and protrusions off the third knuckle on the metacarpal plate known as gadlings. “Another very important feature on most, if not all, gauntlets of this style, is the so-called “knuckle-rider” plate. This is a plate between the metacarpal plate and the fingerplates. It is articulated with rivets to the metacarpal plate and is attached to the finger leathers… This allows the plate to cover the gap between metacarpal plate and the fingerplates, while allowing the fingers to be fully extended.”

The last half of the 15^th century saw armor reach its apex in both form, function and ingenuity. The craft of the blacksmiths during the late medieval period employed elegant mechanics that further freed both the wrist and fingers to move with even greater independence. So by the 16^th century when someone threw down the gauntlet there was no denying the significance of the act; more than just a protective armor, the gauntlet was literally regarded as the hand of war.

Recently, Eyal Azerad, the owner of Darksword Armory, took a first-hand examination of an authentic pair of 16th century German Gauntlets. The Gauntlets are dated from 1580-1590’s. Made of Iron. Rolled and roped edge cuffs, five slightly tapered and embossed metacarpal plates and shaped knuckle plates. Finely etched with continuous floral design on the central band and upper borders. These present one of the nicest pair of Gauntlets we have inspected in the last couple of years.

Interestingly enough, the floral designs etched on the German Gauntlets are almost identical to an Italian model of the same period (16th century). This close similarity points to a clear trend in fashion and artistic creativity during the end of the 15th century and extending well into the 16th. Similar floral patterns were not only found on leg armor, breastplates, gauntlets and helmets, but also on wax seals, woodcuts and architectural structures.

Previous to 1400 A.D. floral designs seems to have been limited to Persian paintings, rugs and tapestries of the fourteenth century. Armors of Medieval Europe seldom displayed similar trends in terms of design.

By the 15th Century, an artistic revival in Greek and Roman styles emerged. Blacksmiths began etching foliage on various parts of the armors. Olive vines, roses, ivies and laurels were often etched on breastplates, pauldrons and arm harness, descending to the gauntlets. This revival or revised interest in the arts began during the Trecento, a strong revival and interest in art, in all its

forms. Interest in painting, sculpting, music, and literacy were heightened and mutually influenced. At the core of the Trecento, was the return to the classical principle of composition and realism. Hence, the artistic trend examined in the Gauntlets can be explained in a much wider conceptual framework in which all aspects of art were influenced, not only in armor and sword making, but on an intellectual and humanist level.

The Evolution Of the Medieval Sword In the 13th – 15th Centuries

Sword design in the late medieval period evolved in direct response to rapid growth of the armor of the late medieval era. Hence, the understanding as to how, and why, medieval swords evolved as they did, is intertwined with an understanding of the changes in armor production during the later part of the Middle Ages.

As the arsenal of medieval weapons improved, so did the armor. The evolution of armor came as a direct response to the ever improving blade geometry of the late medieval sword. Compounded to this threat, was the ever growing arsenal of armor piercing weapons. As armor improved, the design and function of medieval weapons, in turn, improved and developed, making it easier to penetrate the complex armor of the late 15th century.  This dual relationship, between both sword design and armor construction is referred to by some historians as the ”arms race” of the late medieval period.

The high Middle Ages is the period between the early 13th and the 15th century. During this 300 year span, armor changed more dramatically and more rapidly than it had in the previous millennium. Prior to the 13th century, the primary armor was chain mail; a suit made of small interlocking rings of steel. Providing exceptional movement and a well distributed weight pattern.

Chain mail was quite effective in countering slashes and cuts afflicted by the swords leading up to the zenith of the 13th century, (particularly of type X-XIV). The tightly woven four-in-one and riveted mail armor produced a form of skin strengthened not only by the inherent strength of the alloyed rings, but also by its natural ability to disperse pressure inflicted by incoming blows. This ability however was severely challenged by the changing blade geometry, or shape, of the swords of the late 13th century. Wider at the base and with a deep seeted taper, the swords emerging during the 13th century were not only designed to break through the link armor of the period, but to pierce through it.

Crossbows, halberds, war hammers and lances were also becoming increasingly popular weapons during the 13th century. This emergence of bludgeoning weapons curtailed the effectiveness of the Chain mail and, in response, the medieval world witnessed the rise of composite armors during the mid 13th century. With this, the onset of the English longbow during the 13th and 14th century is not to be overlooked. The longbow punctured through mail armor from a hundred yards. This led to increased usage of steel plates. Composite armors combined both chain and steel plates to the Medieval Knight’s or soldier’s armor.

Initially, the joints of composite armors were left uncovered to alloy freedom of movement. These unprotected joint however proved to be a vulnerability. Longer and pointed tapered blades began to emerge, extending the soldier’s reach, permitting him to pierce in narrow openings, under the gorget, armpits, joints, and through the visors. The grip of the medieval swords were also extended. The introduction of hand-and-a-half swords during the late 13th C. and two handed swords during the 14th C. enabled strikes of greater force. Slashing weapons largely fell out of style. Hence, the arms race escalated and metal plates were added to protect the elbows - couters  – and knees, or poleyns. By the end of the 14th C. the breast plate of the Medieval armor evolved from one piece to the two parts construction, lower overlapping the upper, and contrived, by means of straps or sliding rivet, to offer more flexibility.

To improve the cutting ability and quality, the sword makers of the 14th century began using various alloys, effectively strengthing the alloy and thus making the edge and tip more efficient. This blend of various alloys and diverse tempering rendered the core of the blade softer and therefore more flexible while the outer (iron) layer was infused with of carbon to make it a harder alloy.   This harder metal allowed the edges and the tip of the blade remain sharp for extended use while giving it the ability to absord shock – and not break, while giving it the strength to thrust through the thicker, tempered plated armors emerging at the end of the 14th century.

The Swords of the 14th & 15th Century

The longsword, also known as the bastardsword, was the iconic medieval sword used during the late medieval period. It is classified by Ewart Oakeshott as a Type XIIIa sword. It differs from earlier swords, mostly by its longer hilt and narrow tappered blade.  While pre 14th C. sword blades averaged at 36″, the bastard swords, or longswords, averaged at 42″. The longsword also became considerably thicker in cross-section, thinner in width, and more acutely pointed.

By the first half of the 15th century, the medieval world witnessed the rise of the full plated armor. This culmination of the individual metal plates evolved into the full plated armor of the gothic period. It had pauldrons (shoulder) and elbow guards (couters) and gauntlets formed of braod overlapping plates. This is the era when we find the strongest sharpest two-handed medieval swords as well. By the end of the 15th Century however, the introduction of gunpowder from the east and the  increased advantage of firearm, proved the full plated armor too cumbersome for the protection it offered. Ease and manufacturing cost of guns led to the decline of body armor. By the Thirty Years War, in 1648, the full plated armor had become obsolete.

One of the most fascinating aspects of modern day sword making, particularly in regards to medieval swords, is without question, Damascus steel.  Time after time, collectors have asked us about the properties and the beautiful patterns for which Damascus steel is so well known for. Inevitably, as a collector, one is bound to be fascinated by the artistic attributes of Damascus steel blades.  The complex range of possibilities in terms of color scheme, pattern designs and the contrast between various alloys used to create Damascus present some of the fascinating aspects of pattern-welding.  The purpose of this brief introduction is to provide the novice sword collector, a basic understanding of the steps involved in forging Damascus steel blades. More advanced issues and technical details will be touched upon in follow-up articles.

Simply explained, Damascus blades are basically made of several pieces of steel, each with a different metallurgical composition. Stacked together, these layers of steel is called a pile. The pile is composed of five or more pieces of steel, stacked one on top of the other, bound together by metal wire, and forge welded and manipulated to create a pattern, hence the term “pattern welding”.

As one prepares to forge the blade, the pattern and tone will be created by the different metallurgical content contained in the alloy of the stack. As a general guideline, when forging a Damascus steel blade, Manganese will produce a dark/black tone; Nickel will produce bright silver tones, Chromium will produce a light gray color and High Carbon will produce a darker gray color.

During this step, for the lighter tones in the Damascus, we use a blend of two high carbon alloys – XC90 equivalent to 1095 -and three with medium carbon content;- C30 equivalent to 1030,  or at times, 15N20, which is close in make-up to L-6.  This is basically “our” recipe and is by no means the “end all ” of Damascus recipes. Each sword maker will experiment and develops his own selection, based on the desired color, contrast, pattern and, more importantly, functionality (i.e., the recipe for a Damascus steel knife may not necessarily be functional for a sword).

Once the sword maker has determined which alloy to use, he must determine the melting points of each billet as each type of steel has a different melting point. The steel with the highest melting point will be placed closer to the outer walls of the pile (which will cause it to heat more rapidly), while the steel with the lowest melting point should be closer to the center of the pile.

When the stack glows cherry red, it is ready for welding. We remove the stack and hammer it until it’s half its original thickness. We then fold the metal onto itself along the length, and hammer the two halves together. Although this stage can be repeated countless times, we repeat this process 8 times. Flattening the stack, folding it and hammering again.

Once completed, we make sure that the blade is dark red from the heat. If it is lighter in color, the blade is too hot and will crack during the hardening process. We quench the blade. Quenching will cause the metal’s molecular structure to crystallize and harden. Once this process is complete, the blade smith will complete the sword blade by hammering the stack to flatten, lengthen and shape the blade, ultimately
resulting in a completed Damascus steel blade.

The aformentioned steps present a basic introduction to the making of damascus steel blades. More advanced topics and techniques will be published as time permits. Below are examples of custom made Damascus Steel swords we have made in the past. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at webmaster @ darksword-armory.com

Gladiators, originating from the Latin word “gladius” or sword, stemmed from professional and amateur fighters in ancient Rome who fought for the entertainement of “civilized” spectators. Gladiators were trained in special schools called ludi which could be found as commonly as ampitheatres throughout the empire. There were four schools in Rome itself, the largest of which was called the Ludus Magnuswhich was connected to the Coliseum by an underground tunnel. Among the most famous is the school at Capua where the slave rebellion of Spartacus was sparked in 73 BC. Typically, like modern boxers, most gladiators would not fight more than 2 or 3 times a year and with enough fame and fortune they could purchase their freedom. Some, however, such as criminals, were either expected to die within a year, or might earn their release after three years, if they survived.

Gladiator games, known as “ludi circenses”, took place in arenas of various sizes and prestige, throughout the empire. The ludi circenses, seen as a method to appease the Roman gods and avert Rome from disaster, were first fought in wooden arenas. The first stone built amphitheatre in Ancient Rome was the Amphitheater of Statilius Taurus (built in 29 BC), later to be followed by the Roman Colosseum, built in 80AD. The origin of the ludi circenses is rooted in the Estruscan custom of ritual human sacrifices to honor the dead. The first recorded gladiatorial fight took place in 264 BC, when three pairs of slaves were selected to fight as part of a funeral ritual called a munus. Similar games were organized by Julius Caesar, on the death of his daughter Julia,in which 320 paired gladiators
were made to fight. The concept of the munus was to keep the memories of ranking individuals alive after death.

In its earliest forms, individuals of patrician or equestrian status organized these, often to gain political favor with the public. The organizer of any of these ludi circenses was called the editor, munerator, or dominus and he was honored with the official signs of a magistrate, but the Emperors were nearly solely responsible for all public ludi circenses.

Gladiators were typically criminals, slaves, or prisoners of war. If selected for such duty, having lost, or never had, the rights of a citizen, there was no choice but to comply. Some Roman citizens willingly pledged themselves to the owner, or lanists, of a gladiatorial troupe, known as familia, by (according to Petronius) swearing an oath “to endure branding, chains, flogging or death by the sword”. It has been estimated that by the end of the Republic, about half of the gladiators were volunteers (auctorati), who took on the status of a slave for an agreed-upon period of time, similar to indentured servitude that was common in the late second millennium.

By taking the gladiator’s oath, the auctorati agreed to be treated as a slave and suffered the ultimate social disgrace. The potential advantages for this new career could outweigh the alternatives, however. Aside from the potential for public fame and fortune, including liaisons with Roman women, the gladiator recruit became a member of a cohesive group that was known for its courage, good morale, and absolute fidelity to its master to the point of death. Life became a model of military discipline and through courageous behavior he was also now capable of achieving honor similar to that enjoyed by Roman soldiers on the battlefield.

Contrary to modern portrayal, gladiatoral combat was less likely to result in
death than is imagined. Gladiators were expensive to maintain, train and replace in the event of death, and keeping the most popular of crowd pleasers alive was far more practical than the alternative. That’s not to say, however, that death wasn’t common among the non-elite. In these cases, when a gladiator had overpowered his opponent, he would turn to the spectators for a reaction from the crowd. The defeated gladiator would possibly raise his left hand (also sometimes referred to as raising a finger which may have indicated a request for mercy) asking for his life to be spared. If the spectators turned their thumbs down they were indicating that the fighter should live (perhaps indicating a desire to sheath or lay down the weapon). One theory regarding the thumbs up is that it represented the desire for the victor to cut his opponents throat. Other suggestions include the crowd yelling ‘missum‘ or ‘mitte‘ (release or send away) as a gesture of mercy, or alternatively yelling ‘iugula‘(kill) when they wanted the victor to finish his opponent.

There are other theories regarding the use of thumbs and various motions to indicate the end of a match, such as that the thumb was positioned sideways to indicate a slashing
motion across the neck, or even that a thumb pointed down with a thrusting motion may have represented an order for the victor to thrust his sword down into his opponents chest. Regardless of the debated hand motions, the final decision in this was not made by popular crowd appeal and was usually left to a single judge (though clearly abiding by the crowd’s desire was a wise policy). In the presence of the Emperor, the judgment belonged to him, but otherwise it may rest with the games munerator or sponsor.

Gladiatoral contests came to a close in 325 AD, when first outlawed by Constantine I and then by Emperor Honorius. The last known gladiator competition in the city of Rome occurred on January 1, 404.

Facts about Gladiators

• The first recorded gladiatorial fight was staged in 264AD when three pairs of slaves who were selected to fight at the funeral of a prominent Roman
• The word ‘Gladiator’ was derived from Gladius which was the Latin word for sword
• Gladiator games were seen as a method to appease the Roman gods and avert Rome from disaster
• Gladiatorial combats were first fought in wooden arenas. The first stone built amphitheatre in Ancient Rome was called the Amphitheater of Statilius Taurus was built in 29 BC. The Roman Colosseum was built in 80AD  Nearly 30 types of gladiators have been identified
• The role of the Gladiator became big business in the Roman Empire. Political careers could be launched on the back of spectacular games. Large sums of money could be won by gambling on the outcome of gladiator fights
• The games organised by Julius Caesar, on the death of his daughter Julia, featured 320 matched pairs
• Roman courts were given the authority to sentence criminals to death fighting as gladiators
• Slaves, criminals and prisoners of war were forced into the roles of the first gladiators
• By the period of the Roman Empire free men started to enrol as gladiators. Some were ex- soldiers, some wanted the adulation and the glory and some needed money to pay their debts. A Free gladiator was called Auctorati
• Gladiators were allowed to keep any prizes or gifts they were given during gladiatorial games
• Entrance to the gladiator games was free but spectators, between 50,000 – 80,000 were issued with tickets
• Trainee gladiators were called Tirones or Tiro
• Female Gladiators, some noble and wealthy, appeared in the arenaBestiarii (Beast Fighters) were the gladiators who fought wild animals
• The Praegenarii were the ‘opening act gladiator’. This type of gladiator only used wooden swords, accompanied to festive music.
• Elite types of Gladiators were the Rudiarius who were gladiators who had obtained their freedom but chose to continue fighting in gladiatorial combats
• Gladiatorial schools “Ludi Gladiatorium”. The gladiator schools also served as barracks, or in some cases prisons, for gladiators between their fights.
• New Gladiators were formed into troupes called ‘Familia gladiatorium’ which were under the overall control of a manager (lanista)
• At the end of the day the gladiators who had been killed were dragged through the Porta Libitinensis (Gate of Death) to the Spoliarium where the body was stripped and the weapons and armor given to the dead gladiator’s lanista.
• Prospective gladiators (novicius) had to swear an oath (sacramentum gladiatorium) and enter a legal agreement (auctoramentum) agreeing to submit to beating, burning, and death by the sword if they did not perform as required .
• Gladiators often had tattoos (stigma, from where the English word stigmatised derives) applied as an identifying mark on the face, legs and hands.
• Trained gladiators joined formal associations, called collegia, to ensure that they were provided with proper burials and that compensation was given to their families.
• The early enemies of Rome included the Samnites, the Thracians and the Gauls (Gallus) and gladiators were named according to their ethnic roots
• Gladiators were always clothed and armed to resemble barbarians with unusual and exotic weapons and their fights depicted famous victories over barbarians and the power of the Roman Empire
• One of the most famous gladiator was the Emperor Commodus (177-192 AD) who boasted that he was the victor of a thousand matches. The Roman Emperors Caligula, Titus, Hadrian, Cracalla, Geta and Didius Jalianus were all said to have performed in the arena.
• The Emperor Honorius, decreed the end of gladiatorial contests in 399 AD
• The last known gladiator fight in the city of Rome occurred on January 1, 404 AD.

Northern England Roman Gladiator excavation site

The most common “how to” question sword collectors pose is categorically about sword maintenance. As such, we have written this brief overview to assist collectors protect their swords from rust corrosion and offer simple to follow tips to maintain their sword fittings and blades. It should first be noted however, that this blog article is written specifically for the maintenance of High Carbon Steel European swords. These guidelines should not be applied to Damascus steel swords or Katanas (Samurai Swords ).

Sword maintenance is not complicated. Cleaning your sword blade and fittings twice a year will suffice.  This process takes 5 to 10 minutes and does not require any machinery.

This article is an easy to follow guide for the proper maintenance of your sword.

Proper Care of Your Sword: 5 simple Tips

1- When it comes to swords, humidity plays a crucial factor. Ideally, you should store or display your sword collection in an environment that has about 30% humidity level to avoid rust or corrosion.

2- Avoid skin to blade contact. Such contact will leave oil and salt that will eventually corrode the blade.

3- Do not store your sword in its scabbard for extended periods (30 days or more). Scabbards are made of wood, wrapped in leather. The leather will trap moisture and will eventually corrode the blade if it is left in the scabbard for extended periods.

4- Clean your sword blade and fittings every 6 months if you are simply displaying your sword.

5- Clean and oil your blade after every use, whether used for reenactment combat, cutting tests, or simple training.

In cases when your swords have rusts. Two methods can be tapped to clean the rust off the steel: chemicals and abrasion cleaning.

Chemical cleaning is the simplest way to clean swords. With a quick application light to medium weight oil, such as gun care oils (RemOil or Ballistol), or regular sewing machine oil (found at WalMart). Once oiled, wipe the blade and fittings with a cotton cloth until the oil is no longer visible. This process will remove light rust and dirt.

Abrasion Cleaning: For light handling and humidity rust, Nev-R-Dull, a mild steel chemical cleaner, is recommended. This product will remove any light surface rust while polishing your blade and protecting it with a light coating of oil. For heavier rust imprints, we recommend using a fine sanding pad (180 grit) with oil. Note the direction of the grain on  your blade and fittings. Make sure to follow the direction of the grain as to not cause cross-scratching.

When restoring the blade, always start at the base of the blade; smoothly and continuously pushing the sanding pad towards the tip of the blade. This will ensure that you follow the grain of the blade and enhance your blade with a nice satin finish.