Celtic Swords.

[Lost_Warrior]

::sigh:: I wish I had not lost my research on ancient weapons that I did for school. I may have a copy upstairs somewhere...but finding all of the pictures again...

 

In earlier times, fine bronze weapons were often better quality and more effective than the average iron weapon being produced.

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

what is the quotation " the Roman sword can both stab and cut, but the Celtic sword can only cut, and that needs a little room", I paraphrase badly, but I think you have it there.

 

"The slashing blows favoured by the Dacians was far inferior to the stabbing motion of our own Legionnaries"

 

Also paraphrased. I think a few of the Generals said similar things though, I believe it.

 

Hey, those Dacian falxes were nasty. If they got you at all it probably meant dismemberment or split down your head. That was one of the few moments in history where the Romans had to use unorthodox armor- gladiator armbands and helmet reinforcement.

[Princeps]

what is the quotation " the Roman sword can both stab and cut, but the Celtic sword can only cut, and that needs a little room", I paraphrase badly, but I think you have it there.

 

"The slashing blows favoured by the Dacians was far inferior to the stabbing motion of our own Legionnaries"

 

Also paraphrased. I think a few of the Generals said similar things though, I believe it.

 

Hey, those Dacian falxes were nasty. If they got you at all it probably meant dismemberment or split down your head. That was one of the few moments in history where the Romans had to use unorthodox armor- gladiator armbands and helmet reinforcement.

 

The falx has been discussed in this thread, http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showto...4&hl=hammer

 

I know it had merit, I think I nominated it as my favourite weapon (behind the Gladius of course, which I still think is superior when combined with Roman techniques).

[Rameses the Great]

As Pertinax earlier stated, the metalworks of the Mediterranian were more advanced than the Celts. Also the Roman shield can easily intercept the oncoming slow motion sword. The dagger with one quick motion can already disable the Celt thus making it more effective.

 

That is why the Romans did not really use long swords. If they saw it as effective they would have made the switch.

[Moonlapse]

An interesting read... prvides plenty of fodder for further research into the Celt V. Roman era.

http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?threadid=63909

[Pertinax]

As Pertinax earlier stated, the metalworks of the Mediterranian were more advanced than the Celts. Also the Roman shield can easily intercept the oncoming slow motion sword. The dagger with one quick motion can already disable the Celt thus making it more effective.

 

That is why the Romans did not really use long swords. If they saw it as effective they would have made the switch.

 

If my understanding of metalworking skills as regards medical equipment is pertinent, there may be an analogy to be drawn . The superior overall quality, superior finish and fineness of instruments increased toward Rome . Found instruments become larger, clumsier and cruder as one progressed to the edge of the known world. So I tentativly suggest it is , not unreasonable , to build in a quality factor in mettalurgical practice.

 

An interesting read... prvides plenty of fodder for further research into the Celt V. Roman era.

http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?threadid=63909

That is most interesting.

[Vibius Tiberius Costa]

A Celtic Longsword was brilliant against another longsword but against an interlocking shield system of Roman shields there is no room to admininster a fatal blow. The Legionaries learnt in the 3rd century bc when invading Cisalpine Gaul to duck/crouch to 1 knee, raise their sheild above their head and stab upwards into the groin of the Celtic Warrior.

[DecimusCaesar]

If my understanding of metalworking skills as regards medical equipment is pertinent, there may be an analogy to be drawn . The superior overall quality, superior finish and fineness of instruments increased toward Rome . Found instruments become larger, clumsier and cruder as one progressed to the edge of the known world. So I tentativly suggest it is , not unreasonable , to build in a quality factor in mettalurgical practice.

 

I agree, according to what I read the further north you got the more primative and poor quality the weapons became for instance I have read that the Celtic tribes of North Wales were armed with bronze weapons and that they themselves had very little connection with the more sophistacated tribes in Southern England. Many were also armed with primative slings and sharpened sticks as spears.

 

 

 

 

A bit-off topic but This discussion reminds me of a sketch by a comedian (Eddie Izzard i think) in whcih he says the Romans conquered the world thanks to sandals (unlike the flip-flops of their enemies that kept falling off) and also because the Romans had 'pointy sword' as he called it which meant they could stab their enemies while they were swinging their swords around. At least he got that sort of right...

Edited September 6, 2006 by DecimusCaesar

[Pertinax]

I would not contend that individual Celtiberian smiths were unable to produce excellent work, however your comedic point is relevant: I suggest a generality of greater collective skill in mass production, access to the best materials, distributive skill, and re-supply in bulk. The medical instruments actually become ,not only fine and beautiful as we move toward Rome , but actually over elaborate for purpose ( decoration that would host bacteria for example)!

A hilt example:

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=mo...si&img=1224

and rather more painful

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=mo...si&img=1225

[caldrail]

Just to add my two cents worth, the problem was not so much the celtic sword but the poor technique of the men wielding them. The celtic fighting style was aggressive and brash but depended on individual prowess. After all, a fast, confident, aggressive man will quickly assume the upperhand in any fight between individuals. The romans countered this with their discipline and training, besides the afore-mentioned swordplay.

[edgewaters]

Romans eventually achieved superiority in iron metallurgy ... but not intitially. The Roman phalanxes (they were still using them) sent out to defend the city in the Battle of Allia weren't just unprepared tactically, they were relatively poorly equipped to deal with the short swords wielded by the Celts of that age - for the same reasons the Romans would later obliterate phalanxes, as in the Battle of Pydna. The gladius is definately of Celtic origin. One thing to keep in mind here is that the martial culture of the Celts that were in the Po Valley, or the ones that swept down on Greece, was very very different from the Celtic martial culture found in northern France or the British Isles. They didn't have chariots, but cavalry forces; and their typical weaponry included short swords, darts (javelins), oval shields, and chainmail (for the elites). Romans adopted all this, because it was very effective equipment.

 

The best (iron) metallurgical centers the Celts possessed, however, were virtually all within the Eastern Alps and/or Iberia. This is where Hallstatt was discovered, this is where the famed Norici smiths were, in fact, you could go right back to the Bell Beakers, who spread out from these areas. By strength or diplomacy, Rome added these territories to its empire early on, its earliest additions of Celtic territory. Rome also put alot of funds into developing these centers and vastly increasing their output, especially the client state at Noricum. By the time the Romans marched on Britain or Gaul, they already possessed (or had exclusive trade with) all of the high-quality metallurgical centres that had formerly been part of the central and western European trade networks.

Edited February 19, 2007 by edgewaters

[caldrail]

Yet there has been a british sword of this period unearthed which display advanced construction techniques, the metal blade having been folded in a herring bone pattern for strength as much as appearance rather than simply hammered out.

[edgewaters]

Yet there has been a british sword of this period unearthed which display advanced construction techniques, the metal blade having been folded in a herring bone pattern for strength as much as appearance rather than simply hammered out.

 

Well, the Romans were concerned about the Britons supplying weapons to the Gauls - so who knows - maybe it was a third center of excellence in terms of iron sophistication. The only thing is that the Romans adopted many designs from the smiths of the eastern Alps and Spain - chainmail, gladius etc - and even employed a great many smiths from these areas to manufacture arms and armour (eg, Imperial Gallic helmets are distinguished from Imperial Italic as being crafted by Gallic smiths, and IGs are found in vast quantities). So what did they adopt from the Britions? And why wasn't Britain a major source of Roman arms, as the other captured metallurgical centers were?

[caldrail]

One point I made earlier somewhere and worth repeating is that swords differed in quality of manufacture. No celtic swordsmith is going to waste time, effort, and good materials on some idiot with only a pair of pigs to pay for it. The real good stuff was reserved for the wealthy clients - the top echelon of celtic warrior. Most of the celtic swords would therefore be of a lesser quality. Not quite mass produced, but getting there.

[Brennos]

I believe the Celtic long sword would have been more suitable & effective as a cavalry sword. The long range with the wieghted tips would have been perfect for slashing down on a foe from a lofty position. I also do not believe that all Celtic swords were of poor quality as Polybius describes. I think the design & quality depended alot on what was going on at the time. For example, we know that as a whole the Gauls were not very organized and at times were raiders. Perhaps the poor quality swords were produced at a time when swords had to be produced very quickly for a large number of warriors. With the lack of organization, it would be very hard for a tribal society to produce such high quality weapons on a consistent basis. However, archaeological evidence does support that some of their weapons were quite nice. In many ways, the Celtic smith was superior to his Roman counterpart, and when Gauls were brought into the empire, many of them still served as Smiths.

 

The Celts were very innovative when it came to weapons & armor of warfare. If they were so crappy, than the Romans wouldn't have adopted such items as the Gallic helm for example. It was just an issue of organization and the lack of ability to churn out top notch weapons on a regular basis like the Romans could.