Celtic Swords.

[caldrail]

The celts used stuff they had tried and tested. Unfortunately, the modern world focuses on equipment and in technological societies superior equipment can make a huge difference, but ultimately it still boils down to the courage, skill, and motivation of the men using them. Since one sword isn't too different from another, this was even more important. Also, its a mistake to believe that all roman weaoons were top notch. They had to paid for, and because it wasn't unknown for a legionary to commision a better sword if he had the cash, clearly the issue swords weren't so special. Remember that roman artisans were notorious for cheap and shoddy work if they could get away with it. Why make something expensive when you can sell a cheap item as such? Caveat Emptor.

[Northern Neil]

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

.. which they did, round about 250 - 275. Given recent discussions on what a celt actually was in the ancient world, and the fact that use of cultural items does not neccessarily indicate that people with these items shared the same language and ethnicity, should we be talking instead about 'barbarian' or 'non - Roman' swords? Also I read somewhere that the Gladius was adopted from Spanish tribes - maybe this is the one sword in this debate which actually can categorically be called 'Celtic'? (sorry - in a pedantic mood this morning! NN)

[Melvadius]

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.

 

 

I think several important points have been skipped over or lost in this discussion up to now so to try and summarize the main points:

 

Firstly the majority of Celtic warriors were probably armed with poorer quality weapons rather than elite quality swords which by their very nature would only have been owned by a few nobles. The rest would have used a variety of spears, axes and slings but very few if any would have had swords.

 

Secondly however the quality of metalwork of any given weapon is down to the technique and even the type of wood/fuel used by the smith/armourer in making the weapon as some fuels release more carbon leading to the posibility of 'accidently' producing steel. Once a smith knew that a particular combination of fuel and metal produced more efficecient weapons he would be likely to repeat the process.

 

Thirdly the Romans did change over to the longer spartha type of sword by the 2nd/3rd century as their style of fighting and organization changed, although initially in the early Principate period the spartha seem to have only been used by cavalry and auxilliary units.

 

Fourthly, by the fourth century there were real problems with the quality of Roman equipment both in general and the specifics of items like the 'cheaper' mass produced Internissia / Spangelhlem style helmets.

 

Fifthly, the Romans copied successful designs of equipment extensively from their opponents - notably the ring or if you prefer 'chainmail' lorica hamata armour from their Celtic opponents as well as the gladius which was developed from the Gladius Hispaniensis (or Spanish sword) used by their Spanish/ Iberian opponents.

Edited May 16, 2008 by Melvadius

[caldrail]

The gladius hispianensis is recorded (by polybius?) as a weapon of superior quality, and since the sign of a good sword was to bend the blade over the head and touch the shoulders before allowing it to spring back to shape, it clearly shows the excellent spanish sword-making dates back way before the islamic invasions.