celtic combat

[Aurgelmir]

Yesterday i saw on youtube 2 guys explaining how the celts fight.
I'm a noob...so i dont know how to put links here(youtube:celtic war...you should find it)
When the celtic warrior charged the line he did some kind of salto/loop over the enemy,so he lands behind him and can cut his throat or stab him.Could someone verify this?
I know this sound redicolous,but see for yourself...

[SwissBarbar]

:laugh4: :laugh4:

i can explain it. The crash towards the enemy's line so hard, that on both sides some make salto's ^^but not on purpose *G* Did those guys also explain what these warriors did after the cut the throats of the enemy and how they managed not to get stabbed while making the stuntman?

I just imagine them looping into a greek phalanx formation. Spears up mates :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Aurgelmir]

yeah i know.....
But pls check youtube...they did this (move) not accidentally.
they jumped on with there back on the top of the enemy shield,so he loops himself behind the enemy,stabs him and eventually beheading him.

I always thought they just clashed with each other and then starting swinging there weapons,using brute force with some basic hack/slash skills.

Dam...how do i put links here?

I checked it again...its called the salmon leap...you tube/celtic warriors A Comprehensive Journey - Part 1...so my question is... did they use such moves

[Tyrfingr]

Yeah, definitly noob...

[Aurgelmir]

Yeah, definitly noob...

And what has this to do with the topic??

[bobbin]

That move might have been useful in one on one combat, but in a large battle the guy is just going to get stabbed by someone in the next rank of enemy soldiers, seems to be reffering to something talked about in the irish mythologies so i'm not sure how historical it would have been, I certainly doubt it would have been common sight on a celtic battlefeild.

edit heres the video if anyone wants a look/laugh https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEnbbAvfvVQ
Check out the sexy celtic pants!

[Maion Maroneios]

Just saw the video and this is quoted from the description given by the creators of the video themselves: "Since youve always wanted to learn about Celtic Warriors, you may as well learn with the best of the worst. Also our Salmon Leap is accurate because we say so."

Notice the underlined part. As for the historical accuracy, let's say I believe you should know better than believe a clearly amateur video made (most probably) for fun. Just use common logic: Would you try a "salmon leap" against an enemy in the first row, thus turning your back to who-knows how many other soldiers in the hind lines?

Maion

[Aurgelmir]

Just saw the video and this is quoted from the description given by the creators of the video themselves: "Since youve always wanted to learn about Celtic Warriors, you may as well learn with the best of the worst. Also our Salmon Leap is accurate because we say so."

Notice the underlined part. As for the historical accuracy, let's say I believe you should know better than believe a clearly amateur video made (most probably) for fun. Just use common logic: Would you try a "salmon leap" against an enemy in the first row, thus turning your back to who-knows how many other soldiers in the hind lines?

Maion

lol i did not hear what they say,because i have no sound here...
And yes its a amateur video...but that doesn't mean that they are not correct....thats why i'm asking here:book: lol to get the info

And yes its not the best move to make against a battle line..

So to answer your question...no i would not....(i would rather take out my remington out of my trunk lol)

[Hodgson]

I;'m probably not the best person to post on this, as I'm not an expert and my books are too far away (they're actually less than 30m away but I'm just lazy) but here goes.

The salmon leap is referenced in some of the Irish myths as being one of a number (12?) of tasks and feats that all true Irish warriors must be capable of performing. A lot of them seem to be more displays of strength, coordination, agility, endurance and courage than actually being useful combat techniques. Whether or not the "Salmon Leap" looks like it does in that video is anyone's guess, but my guess is no.

In addition, the actual jump used there would be utterly useless against massed ranks. Roll over man 1, right onto man 2's gladius/spear/axe/spiky-thing-on-the-top-of-his-helmet.

Finally, some of the Roman writers reference Gauls and Britons performing some pretty amazing tricks and techniques in combat. Caesar mentions that some warriors would catch pilum from the air while running at the Roman line and throwing them back. And I can't remember if it is Caesar or Tacitus but I think one of them mentions warriors leaping over the first rank of legionairres, crashing into the second and causing general mayhem 1/2 a second before the rest of the warriors start partying. Of course, they did die after performing their little jump...

Finally, I recall reading that Galatians, at least once, rolled underneath the spears of a Pergameme (?) phalanx and coming up stabbing in the front rank. The Greeks got round that one by having the front rank kneel down next time. Mind you, after rolling all that way underneath a line of sarissas, I think I'd be too dizzy to do anything except lie down and close my eyes. I can't remember where that came from so I wouldn't put too much faith in it.

If any of this is wrong, someone who knows better can correct me. If any of this is right, I think I'll have a celebratory drink :)

Hodgson

[Aurgelmir]

I;'m probably not the best person to post on this, as I'm not an expert and my books are too far away (they're actually less than 30m away but I'm just lazy) but here goes.

The salmon leap is referenced in some of the Irish myths as being one of a number (12?) of tasks and feats that all true Irish warriors must be capable of performing. A lot of them seem to be more displays of strength, coordination, agility, endurance and courage than actually being useful combat techniques. Whether or not the "Salmon Leap" looks like it does in that video is anyone's guess, but my guess is no.

In addition, the actual jump used there would be utterly useless against massed ranks. Roll over man 1, right onto man 2's gladius/spear/axe/spiky-thing-on-the-top-of-his-helmet.

Finally, some of the Roman writers reference Gauls and Britons performing some pretty amazing tricks and techniques in combat. Caesar mentions that some warriors would catch pilum from the air while running at the Roman line and throwing them back. And I can't remember if it is Caesar or Tacitus but I think one of them mentions warriors leaping over the first rank of legionairres, crashing into the second and causing general mayhem 1/2 a second before the rest of the warriors start partying. Of course, they did die after performing their little jump...

Finally, I recall reading that Galatians, at least once, rolled underneath the spears of a Pergameme (?) phalanx and coming up stabbing in the front rank. The Greeks got round that one by having the front rank kneel down next time. Mind you, after rolling all that way underneath a line of sarissas, I think I'd be too dizzy to do anything except lie down and close my eyes. I can't remember where that came from so I wouldn't put too much faith in it.

If any of this is wrong, someone who knows better can correct me. If any of this is right, I think I'll have a celebratory drink :)

Hodgson

Thx for the usefull post:book: With this i can do something...

Much better(by far) than

{Yeah he is definitly a noob...(what a stupid ignorant being...(i hope this is better maion)} It makes me angry when i just want to learn something and people are telling just useless crap....so sorry for my personal dissorder

I was curious..don't know much about there fighting skills.

Is there a site,or books where i can find more about combat techniques of the celts

[Maion Maroneios]

That's a very good explanation and general iformation you got there, Hodgson. Here, a balloon for you: :balloon3:

@ Aurgelmir: I'd delete that c***sucker part if I were you.

Maion

[Aurgelmir]

Are there any books about this topic or site's where i can read about it?

What kind of basic training did the celts...not only for fighting...the same goes for hunting,fishing etca?

Where they all farmers,or did they choose who becomes a soldier or not.

I don't know much about the celts...before i get post how noob i am:inquisitive:

[SwissBarbar]

yeah, I would like to read those sources too.

btw: there's nothing wrong about being a noob

[Hodgson]

Where to start?

Good intro level sources include:

Collis, J. (1998). The European Iron Age. Routledge: Britain

Cunliffe, B. (1997). The Ancient Celts. Penguin: Britain.

A brilliant reference is:

Green, M.J (ed). (1995). The Celtic World. Routledge: Britain.

I can't recommend that book enough. It is absolutely excellent. It's currently my bible. And it's also really useful as a doorstop and to crush large vermin with (its massive).

Failing that, the wiki page on ancient celts and gauls ain't all that bad. I know that some people hate wiki, but for a basic gist of an idea or broad info, wiki is quite good. I wouldn't use if for a paper but hey...


In terms of fighting styles and skills there isn't much. What follows is rather disjointed, and contains a large amount of theory and personal opinion:

There are not really any written sources for combat techniques until the manuals of the 14th Century such as Tallhoffer. These manuals were used by teachers to help teach students (ie, young nobles and knights in training) how to fight with weapons such as the longsword, shortsword, axe, polearms, dagger and unarmed combat. There were several schools of thought on how to fight, mainly an Italian school and a German school. Before that period, there is little information on true combat training. A group of early medieval reenactors/reconstructionists/experimental archaeologists have however used a combination of Tallhoffer and the Icelandic sagas to create an experimental model of how viking age warriors may have fought. Turns out it is a relatively effective body of techniques. videos of demonstrations of some attacks and counters can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8SRaa33otU. In addition, the Hurstwick reenactment group also have experimented with Tallhoffer: http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_sword_technique.htm. Of course, neither of these deal with the Iron Age.

An Italian group have attempted to recreate an Iron Age combat style. I'm not sure how they went with it though. I've also spoken to some Iron Age reenactors. They say that one of the major elements of combat is the size of the shield. While not relatively heavy, it is cumbersome and awkward, meaning it is often easier to dodge blows than block them. This is however, based on modern people taking part in a combat sport. (please note that I'm not bagging reenactors. I myself was a viking reenactor and am now getting into iron age reenactment).

Now my opinions:
1. No warrior culture will survive long if the basic training consists of "clobber that guy as hard as you can". All warrior cultures seem to have a strong and underlying teaching and training framework to create warriors that fight in a particular style using particular techniques.
2. Celtic combat may have consisted of wide swings with long and heavy swords. Don't dismiss this as primitive fighting though. The Celts, as a culture would have realised two things: their soldiers were big and strong, and they were excellent metalsmiths, allowing them to create swords of that type, thus allowing them to fight in their manner.
3. Roman and Greek writers frequently mention not only the ferocity of celts but also their prowess and skill in battle.
4. celts were frequently used as mercenaries and auxilia. They wouldn't have been used if they weren't good.

In addition, there are also the modern Celtic martial arts of Scotland and Ireland (can't remember what they're called). While (relatively) modern, and not ancient, they are fully formed and functioning martial arts, distinct from eastern martial arts and created by the descendants of the iron age celts (or at least descendents of their culture. lets not get into genetics here)

Hope that made sense.
Hodgson

[Aurgelmir]

yeah, I would like to read those sources too.

btw: there's nothing wrong about being a noob

There is indeed nothing wrong being a noob....but to called a noob is a other story lol

especially when you asking about some stuff,because you want to learn it.

There has to be an celt expert here..?Who is it?

[Aurgelmir]

Where to start?

Good intro level sources include:

Collis, J. (1998). The European Iron Age. Routledge: Britain

Cunliffe, B. (1997). The Ancient Celts. Penguin: Britain.

A brilliant reference is:

Green, M.J (ed). (1995). The Celtic World. Routledge: Britain.

I can't recommend that book enough. It is absolutely excellent. It's currently my bible. And it's also really useful as a doorstop and to crush large vermin with (its massive).

Failing that, the wiki page on ancient celts and gauls ain't all that bad. I know that some people hate wiki, but for a basic gist of an idea or broad info, wiki is quite good. I wouldn't use if for a paper but hey...


In terms of fighting styles and skills there isn't much. What follows is rather disjointed, and contains a large amount of theory and personal opinion:

There are not really any written sources for combat techniques until the manuals of the 14th Century such as Tallhoffer. These manuals were used by teachers to help teach students (ie, young nobles and knights in training) how to fight with weapons such as the longsword, shortsword, axe, polearms, dagger and unarmed combat. There were several schools of thought on how to fight, mainly an Italian school and a German school. Before that period, there is little information on true combat training. A group of early medieval reenactors/reconstructionists/experimental archaeologists have however used a combination of Tallhoffer and the Icelandic sagas to create an experimental model of how viking age warriors may have fought. Turns out it is a relatively effective body of techniques. videos of demonstrations of some attacks and counters can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8SRaa33otU. In addition, the Hurstwick reenactment group also have experimented with Tallhoffer: http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_sword_technique.htm. Of course, neither of these deal with the Iron Age.

An Italian group have attempted to recreate an Iron Age combat style. I'm not sure how they went with it though. I've also spoken to some Iron Age reenactors. They say that one of the major elements of combat is the size of the shield. While not relatively heavy, it is cumbersome and awkward, meaning it is often easier to dodge blows than block them. This is however, based on modern people taking part in a combat sport. (please note that I'm not bagging reenactors. I myself was a viking reenactor and am now getting into iron age reenactment).

Now my opinions:
1. No warrior culture will survive long if the basic training consists of "clobber that guy as hard as you can". All warrior cultures seem to have a strong and underlying teaching and training framework to create warriors that fight in a particular style using particular techniques.
2. Celtic combat may have consisted of wide swings with long and heavy swords. Don't dismiss this as primitive fighting though. The Celts, as a culture would have realised two things: their soldiers were big and strong, and they were excellent metalsmiths, allowing them to create swords of that type, thus allowing them to fight in their manner.
3. Roman and Greek writers frequently mention not only the ferocity of celts but also their prowess and skill in battle.
4. celts were frequently used as mercenaries and auxilia. They wouldn't have been used if they weren't good.

In addition, there are also the modern Celtic martial arts of Scotland and Ireland (can't remember what they're called). While (relatively) modern, and not ancient, they are fully formed and functioning martial arts, distinct from eastern martial arts and created by the descendants of the iron age celts (or at least descendents of their culture. lets not get into genetics here)

Hope that made sense.
Hodgson

Thank you very much for your time...to write this.
It REALLY helps....thats a costructive post hodgson:balloon2:.It motivatad me...to read more over this matter

Its a shame that there is so little known about fighting techniques(celts)

A other question....i saw on tv(yeah i know dont start lol)that the irish(or brttain)had especially good swords because there iron had a other molecular combination than other metals(because thousend of years ago,a meteor hit/crashed somewhere near ireland and it changed the combination of iron there).Even ceasar sword was made out of it....is this true???

pls excuse my english....sometimes i can't write things properly

[Ludens]

Thanks for sharing that, Hodgson.

[cmacq]

A other question....i saw on tv(yeah i know dont start lol)that the irish(or brttain)had especially good swords because there iron had a other molecular combination than other metals(because thousend of years ago,a meteor hit/crashed somewhere near ireland and it changed the combination of iron there).Even ceasar sword was made out of it....is this true???

No, it is not true, it is false.


CmacQ

[cmacq]

First, the Scots, Irish, and Britons are not now, nor ever were Celts, in the Classical sense of the term. The modern usage of Celt, was borrowed the Classical term and initially used it to refer to a common language root based on similarities with Gaulish, which is the Latin equivalent to what the Greeks rendering as Celtic. This usage was largely usurped in the late 19th and 20th centuries by nationalists, in an attempt to empower and express a sense of unity based on ethnicity that never existed, was never achieved, and quite frankly, was and remains entirely abhorrent to the manifold composite, and largely English speaking, cultures of the Scots, Irish, and Britons, outside the socialistic bent.

Second in the Scot and Irish traditions of the early Medieval Period the Salmon, has nothing to do with combat. However, it was considered a totem animal, which in fact was used as such, by the clan from which I descend. Here the Salmon was used as a symbol of a tradition called Darna Shealladh.

Third the Scots, Irish, Britons, and for that matter the Celts, never had military schools taught by masters of a particular marshal art. The reference to the Smithy’s Dog, concerns his tutelage at the hands of Scathach on her island of Sgitheanach. Scathach was a deity whose tradition was toned down a bit in the Medieval Period, when this story was first written down. So herein she was not referred to as a goddess, but rather Lady Skye. Therefore, as a mythic device, being taught the arts of war by Scathach on her island, was akin to a Greek hero being similarly instructed by Athena on Mount Olympus.


CmacQ

[Hodgson]

Fair enough. I'm not up to date with the whole modern celtic thing. It's as confusing as the Greek news, and even less interesting. (For those wondering, in Australia we get a really condensed version the Greek news on the 'international audience' channel SBS. The Spanish news on the other hand is really good. The guy who hosts it is awesome. Anyway I digress...nearly 16 hours of straight research will do funny things to a man's mind.)

[Macilrille]

Not Celtic, but Viking, which had the same reputation and possibly same basic tactic (I suspect both were much more tactically proficient and coordinated than given credit for in ancient and thus modern sources), here www.ask-vikingekampgruppe.dk, you can also search on youtube for "Moesgaard". Further, this guy has some instructive albums from Moesgaard where you can see the fight unfolding almost pic by pic http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/profile.php?id=696459871&v=photos&viewas=624966599&sb=4.

All this should prove fairly instructive in how people who do more than theorise and fantasize (at least that is what we tell ourselves), envision Viking fighting, without you having to read weighty book, though of course it is not Celtic, but Viking. You go watch then let me know if you want to perform any "salmon leaps" over our lines with reserves standing ready behind the main battle...

Note that at Moesgaard we do not fight to make a show, we fight to defeat the opponent.

[Hax]

Even ceasar sword was made out of it....is this true???

Seen The Last Legion lately?

[seienchin]

Actually the movie make sfun of a movie about arthus with keira kneightly. Forgot the title because it was so unbelievable crappy :skull::skull::skull::skull:

[SwissBarbar]

you mean "King Arthur" ? that film was not SO crappy

[Aurgelmir]

Seen The Last Legion lately?

yeah terrible...

[Africanvs]

There are references in Livy's The War with Hannibal that Gallic swords were incredibly soft and tended to bend in battle after a short time. Is there archaeological evidence to support this? If this is true it would make me wonder about the overall lethality of such a weapon since it would be rendered inneffective after the first few minutes of combat.

As for the "swan dive" or the "salmon hop" or whatever it's called in this youtube clip, I have my doubts that it was a specific tactic, but there are references everywhere of Gallic warriors having no fear, throwing themselves into phalanxes and breaking them -- hoplite not sarissa -- and generally fighting like insane people. I mean they did fight naked, so a Gaul throwing himself over the first rank of troops to certain death is something I can imagine them doing. I think the biggest reason the Gallic warrior culture was defeated, was by tactical reform. For example, the Romans were beaten by the Gauls, then they changed their tactics to defeat them. As far as I know the Gauls pretty much stuck with the same tactics win or lose, or am I wrong?

[satalexton]

:clown: the galatikoi makes for good heavy infantry in the makedonian army...Of course thats after they're punished for raiding the makedonian tombs!

[Ludens]

There are references in Livy's The War with Hannibal that Gallic swords were incredibly soft and tended to bend in battle after a short time. Is there archaeological evidence to support this? If this is true it would make me wonder about the overall lethality of such a weapon since it would be rendered inneffective after the first few minutes of combat.

I haven't read the text, but IIRC Watchman mentioned that that particular bit referred to the younger warriors, who presumably could not afford quality gear. Since Celtic society encouraged individual warriors to stand out, they may have decided to get the biggest sword their money could buy, regardless of the quality. Remember also that the quality of the Roman gladius varied wildly. Presumably, so did the quality of Celtic swords.


As for the "swan dive" or the "salmon hop" or whatever it's called in this youtube clip, I have my doubts that it was a specific tactic, but there are references everywhere of Gallic warriors having no fear, throwing themselves into phalanxes and breaking them -- hoplite not sarissa -- and generally fighting like insane people. I mean they did fight naked, so a Gaul throwing himself over the first rank of troops to certain death is something I can imagine them doing. I think the biggest reason the Gallic warrior culture was defeated, was by tactical reform. For example, the Romans were beaten by the Gauls, then they changed their tactics to defeat them. As far as I know the Gauls pretty much stuck with the same tactics win or lose, or am I wrong?

That is a somewhat simplistic and generalizing representation. Not all Gauls fought naked, and not all would have necessarily displayed suicidal courage as you describe. I imagine the majority fought in the same way as average Romans and Greeks: soiling their pants but holding the line. That's not to say they didn't use this method (as you say, there were individuals that did show exceptional bravery), but I think it unlikely for reasons cited above. It's not useful in formation combat and probably just a training device. Been suicidally brave does not equal being stupid.

Nor where the Celts unable to reform: the Gauls ditched the outdated chariots somewhere around the second century BC, and Vercingetorix apparently used Roman methods to improve his army (at least, if we can trust Caesar on this). I don't think that the Roman conquest of most Celtic tribes can be entirely attributed to a single reason, either. However, you have a point: the Romans were very adaptable in warfare, and that no doubt played a role.

[Mediolanicus]

Aurgelmir, for an "easy" book about the Celts read "De Oude Belgen" by "Udo Janssens".
And it's in Dutch too, so possibly easier to read for you.

[Africanvs]

I haven't read the text, but IIRC Watchman mentioned that that particular bit referred to the younger warriors, who presumably could not afford quality gear. Since Celtic society encouraged individual warriors to stand out, they may have decided to get the biggest sword their money could buy, regardless of the quality. Remember also that the quality of the Roman gladius varied wildly. Presumably, so did the quality of Celtic swords.

That is a somewhat simplistic and generalizing representation. Not all Gauls fought naked, and not all would have necessarily displayed suicidal courage as you describe. I imagine the majority fought in the same way as average Romans and Greeks: soiling their pants but holding the line. That's not to say they didn't use this method (as you say, there were individuals that did show exceptional bravery), but I think it unlikely for reasons cited above. It's not useful in formation combat and probably just a training device. Been suicidally brave does not equal being stupid.

Nor where the Celts unable to reform: the Gauls ditched the outdated chariots somewhere around the second century BC, and Vercingetorix apparently used Roman methods to improve his army (at least, if we can trust Caesar on this). I don't think that the Roman conquest of most Celtic tribes can be entirely attributed to a single reason, either. However, you have a point: the Romans were very adaptable in warfare, and that no doubt played a role.

Hey thanks for the answers! I never meant that all Gauls fought in such a way, I was only saying that there are references to such behavior so I can see some of them doing thus.

[Macilrille]

Notice that "throwing themselves at" can be a flowery way of saying attacking or charging in ancient and medieval texts/rethoric, in fact in certain parts of the world I believe it still is.

[Africanvs]

Notice that "throwing themselves at" can be a flowery way of saying attacking or charging in ancient and medieval texts/rethoric, in fact in certain parts of the world I believe it still is.

I think in this sense, the term "throwing themselves at" means a frontal charge which successfully broke the Roman phalanx.

[Power2the1]

These are my musings from the plethora of articles and books I have read on the Celts. I will address a few points on Celtic combat in general.

First, its important to remember that combat in the Celtic world did not typically revolve around armies of multiple thousands and thousands of warriors. Celtic tribes and confederations typically would allow their heroes, champions, and other skilled warriors to settle issues and disputes. It was pretty much an issue based on honor and prestige. If a smaller group, or a single champion, could settle a dispute though single combats against the opposition's own hero, then that keeps the community intact and the death toll is minimal. Classical mention of druids overseeing conflict was just that: they oversaw these duels between champions and could put a stop to the battle and declare one tribe winner or loser. Things did get out of hand. No, theres no classical reference to this happening specifically, at least that I know of, but you have champions and there clients/vassals watching the fight and if your man lost, you'd be upset. Its not a great stretch of the imagination that larger scale battles would and did happen. After all, its about bringing fame and glory to you and also you tribe. No room for sore losers here.

However, does that mean that Celtic armies, such as Telamon, were free-for-alls? Not at all. The champions and their retinue were not that impulsive for personal fame, nor were the freemen that joined with the armies on the march to greater adventures. They understood the concepts of discipline and order in a large army, as plenty classical sources mentions deployments, fine order, divisions, quick positioning, battle arrays, etc... Standards, the carnyx, and perhaps drums could all be used to signal maneuvers and coordination on the battlefield.

Now something I was thinking about reading this is what we know of chariot display; the whole manner of performing stunts and feats of acrobatics while the chariot was moving. If the Celtic warriors and champions would do that on a chariot, then they would surely have 'moves' to display against an opponent while ready to fight on foot. After, its not just about killing your opponent, its could also be how glorious you look doing it :wink2:. If the two or more dueling heroes spun, jumped, ducked, swerved, and all other manners of fighting, then it truly was a unique style of fighting where the skill and one's own abilities mattered and if you won, then you really won not just the match, but the admiration and prestige from whomever was watching, something that deeply mattered in the Celtic culture. Also, just in case someone did know already in RTW games, the Celtic chariot is not quite true in it's depiction. Yes, the warrior would throw javelins while riding, but he would dismount when these were used up and fight on foot. Unfortunately we cannot have the chariot warrior dismount in RTW.

Looking at how the Celtic shield was made, it was and could be used as a weapon in itself. Since it wasn't strapped to the arm, it had farther reach than the lower and upper arm. The Celtic shield could be as mobile as the warrior using it. It can be moved quickly; brought up and down in the blink of an eye. You can hold out much further out in front of you, thus giving more space for the opponent to close, and giving you more time to maneuver around and respond. The shield can be brought up and the rim smash an opponents face quickly, followed by your sword strike. Sword feints could be concealed behind it to fool the opponent into thinking the sword strike is coming from one direction, when its really coming from another. The Celtic shield was large, medium sized, and very small. It could be broad as well as rather narrow, not covering the entire body.

The order of the Macedonian style phalanx could be broken with a mass advance/charge from the Celtic warrior. Hellenistic armies were defeated, probably more than once, by the Celts rolling under the spears. Pergamene phallangites would kneel to prevent this. Wielding the longer slashing swords, one would have a harder time physically rolling. They cannot run with the swords draw because rolling could cut you badly. Having the long swords sheathed meant having a iron 'pole' almost as long as your leg attached to your hip as you try and role. Chances are (my guess) is the warriors in this initial assault would use medium or shorter swords for this initial assault, or champions would do with a smaller sword, not the very long swords. No way to tell for sure, but perhaps once the warriors disrupted the phalanx formations, the heavy infantry wasn't far behind to really bring the pain. The majority of phallangites would not stand a chance 1 on 1 vs. the Celtic warrior once they realized the phalanx had fallen.

About the very long swords. Who used them: The Celtic cavalry or the infantry? Chances are it was primarily the cavalry, but that need not mean it was exclusive to the cavalry. Burials have been found at Bibracte, capitol of the Aedui, with spurs (denoting a cavalryman, thus, a noble/wealthy warrior) and the very long swords. However, not every long sword is accompanied by spurs. Draw your own conclusions on this. Also, plenty of Celtic swords had points, perfect for both slashing and stabbing. The Gallic word for a sword is cladio, and this is where the Latin word gladius could have have derived from. Some of these swords contain the name or stamp of the sword smith too, such as the "Sword of Korisios," who forged the iron on the outside of the swords to be harder, while the core was softer, giving the blade elasticity. Some blades were becoming thinner without broad flat cutting edges. Findings in Aedui territory and a find in Port-Nidau reveal atypical blades shapes and unique hilts to go with them.

Anyway, my 2 cents ~:)

[heldelance]

I think the chaotic tactics like the salmon dive are at least plausible. I mean think about it. Romans fought in a solid line, if it was disrupted or breached, it would cause them some trouble. By leaping over the first rank and landing in the second/third, you'd cause a decent amount of chaos, even if it were your corpse that landed on them. I'd think they would've done something like the Galatikoi to be impervious to pain thus allowing them to fight a little longer than normal. Anyway, a live "salmon" thrashing about in the midst of semi densely packed soldiers would be an inconvenience.

[A Very Super Market]

Those are hoplites. Unless you are talking about the early Romans, the salmon dive would make no sense whatsoever.

[MeinPanzer]

The Celtic shield was large, medium sized, and very small. It could be broad as well as rather narrow, not covering the entire body.

I don't think I've ever seen a "very small" Celtic thureos. In most cases, though, we simply can't tell how big Celtic thureoi were based on representational evidence.


The order of the Macedonian style phalanx could be broken with a mass advance/charge from the Celtic warrior. Hellenistic armies were defeated, probably more than once, by the Celts rolling under the spears. Pergamene phallangites would kneel to prevent this. Wielding the longer slashing swords, one would have a harder time physically rolling. They cannot run with the swords draw because rolling could cut you badly. Having the long swords sheathed meant having a iron 'pole' almost as long as your leg attached to your hip as you try and role. Chances are (my guess) is the warriors in this initial assault would use medium or shorter swords for this initial assault, or champions would do with a smaller sword, not the very long swords. No way to tell for sure, but perhaps once the warriors disrupted the phalanx formations, the heavy infantry wasn't far behind to really bring the pain. The majority of phallangites would not stand a chance 1 on 1 vs. the Celtic warrior once they realized the phalanx had fallen.

Do you have a source for any of this?


About the very long swords. Who used them: The Celtic cavalry or the infantry? Chances are it was primarily the cavalry, but that need not mean it was exclusive to the cavalry. Burials have been found at Bibracte, capitol of the Aedui, with spurs (denoting a cavalryman, thus, a noble/wealthy warrior) and the very long swords. However, not every long sword is accompanied by spurs. Draw your own conclusions on this.

Plenty of burials have been found of both infantrymen and cavalrymen with long swords. There's no need to speculate.

[SwissBarbar]

The ceremonial weapon they lay in your grave, must not be the same you used in battle.

[Macilrille]

I apologise in advance for any insult my comment will cause...

"I think the chaotic tactics like the salmon dive are at least plausible. I mean think about it. Romans fought in a solid line, if it was disrupted or breached, it would cause them some trouble. By leaping over the first rank and landing in the second/third, you'd cause a decent amount of chaos, even if it were your corpse that landed on them. I'd think they would've done something like the Galatikoi to be impervious to pain thus allowing them to fight a little longer than normal. Anyway, a live "salmon" thrashing about in the midst of semi densely packed soldiers would be an inconvenience."

No it would die horribly. And I do speak from 16 years of experience with unit combat with swords, spears and axes. In fact in the opening scene of Rome there is a foolish barbarian that leaps over the Romans and die immediately. In any case, if you guys think the Salmon Leap is feasible, I invite you to one of our traning sessions so you can try it yourself, we will try not to hurt you too much, but landing on weapons does hurt. This is about as sensible as the mounted slingers debate a while back. It defines all logic and expert statements, if you still believe it, go and try it. Lots of people do Parceur, they will gladly train you, then try it against a formation with weapons. That will be the end of that theory.

I am sorry if I sound arrogant, but the amount of theories people can come up with in front of their screens with no practical knowledge is incredible. Go try it.

[SwissBarbar]

not arrogant, but logical. I completely agree. Any non-suicidal warrior of any nation would not do such a daring feat in abttle

[DeathFinger]

Don't know much about celtic combat, but I can submit you a video. It's an encounter between two groups of experimental archeology, the Santons (from South-West Gaul, "Pictonnes-like" I think) and the Trimatricii (mix of Mediomatricii and Triboi, which were the 2 most important tribes in what's actually Alsace).

Watching from 4:30 . We have firstly melee, and after som one-by-ones.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/k15WFmMchorMY5RzW0

There's surely some comments to do ^^

I also have the website of the Mediomatricii if you want (It's in french of course :2thumbsup:)

http://gaulois.trimatrici.over-blog.com/

[SwissBarbar]

awesome :2thumbsup: looks fun, I want to join *GGG*

[DeathFinger]

awesome :2thumbsup: looks fun, I want to join *GGG*

Me too :2thumbsup:
One friend send to the Trimatrici a message and we're waiting for the response. In the case I am caught in the group I would surely have lot of questions to ask to them about celtic crafts and way of fighting, it may still serve :yes:

[SwissBarbar]

I'd join as a Gaesatae-Warrior :laugh4: :laugh4:

[ziegenpeter]

Definetly!

[MeinPanzer]

The ceremonial weapon they lay in your grave, must not be the same you used in battle.

There's no reason to think that long swords placed in the burials of infantrymen are ceremonial weapons, especially with the mention in literary sources of Celtic infantrymen using long swords in combat.

[Africanvs]

There's no reason to think that long swords placed in the burials of infantrymen are ceremonial weapons, especially with the mention in literary sources of Celtic infantrymen using long swords in combat.

I would imagine they can look at the swords burried with soldiers and see if they've been used in battle? Knotches in the blade? Besides I imagine a sword like that would have been relatively expensive for a warrior to aquire right? Doesn't make since to me to be buried with a shiny new sword you've never used. If I am a warrior, I want to be buried with the sword I have taken to combat countless times.

[Aurgelmir]

Aurgelmir, for an "easy" book about the Celts read "De Oude Belgen" by "Udo Janssens".
And it's in Dutch too, so possibly easier to read for you.

lol...

In dutch....hm,but to be honest,i only read that are written in german....i think the german language is the best...to read,i'm NOT a nazi or someything like that

And it dont have to be an''easy''book...Now i feel insulted...slithly :balloon2:


So ok i'm convinced that this move would be bad in a battle line........BUT...one on one...its not a bad move at all...its not that the chinese wu shu't there way against full army's lol...but more for individual fights...

I did 3,5 years of wing tjun...and individual fights an (group)fights are totally different...when it comes to technique and approaching the enemy

So...it can be possible that they used this move.....youtube or not..but i dont see an army standing behind that guy...mayby i have troubles with my eyes...dont know


But some titles of books would be nice,in english(Mediolanicus..lol:book:),german...or dutch


Thx...

[Macilrille]

People who think it is a good idea in single combat are encouraged to come to our trainings and try it as well. I will personally, and despite permanent injuries making me much less effective than I was 5 years ago, take on the challenge and if you beat me or even the noob-est beginner we have with this move I will buy you a crate of my favorite beer, Refsvindinge Blue Ale nr 16.

Gauntlet is thrown, pick it up or forget about this fantasy-Salvatore-move please. This is the third time today I apologise for my possible arrogance and the second time in this thread, but I am fed up with armchair/screen fighters. Listen to the people who actually fight for God's sake, or think! How long are you in the air? Defenceless. That is how long I have to react and possibly strike at you, coming down while your guts spill out would be embarrasing no?

How far our society has come from actual body use and excertion :-(

[SwissBarbar]

Where is your training?

[Macilrille]

Risskov, Aarhus, Denmark, the biggest battle we fight is at Moesgaard, S of aarhus, Denmark.

BTW, somewhere you asked where I am from, I am from aarhus, denmark. And I have been to Switzerland but briefly, but I love the Alps and like the Swiss I have met.

[Power2the1]

I don't think I've ever seen a "very small" Celtic thureos. In most cases, though, we simply can't tell how big Celtic thureoi were based on representational evidence.

I never pecifically said thureos, becasue the thureos would need to be defined first. Do we only go by the "door size" connotation that the Greeks gave to the large shield? Do we go only by size alone? Shape? Presence of a central spine (round shields have central spines too). In some ways, calling the Celtic shield a thureos is/can be, misleading.

However, a perfect example is the Clonoura shield from Ireland. Made of wood but completely covered in leather, it only measures 57 x 37 cm, obviously making this a tiny shield compared to they average shield. For continental examples the best (and only, I think) example are from the Civitia Alba terracottas. All of those shields, when compared to ones on the Vacheres and Mondragon statues, and late Boian coin shields, all have a huge differential in size as well as shape.


Do you have a source for any of this?
None that I have read myself (doesn't mean its not true), but I've not read anything refuting this tactic either.

As I've read, high casualties would result initially from blindly charging straight into a Macedonian phalanx...a great way to kill off all of your nobility if they lead that charge, so, either they would have to try and go under, or, send in the 'lesser infantry', who'd have smaller, shorter swords, to disrupt the formation first. Too bad theres no details from classical sources to tell exactly what happened the moment before impact.



Plenty of burials have been found of both infantrymen and cavalrymen with long swords. There's no need to speculate.
No speculation needed, but for the record certain books on Celts do favor or specifically mention those swords of that size being a cavalry weapon as they would be too unwieldy to use in hand to hand combat.

[SwissBarbar]

Unfortunately I've never been to Denmark. Maybe I'll visit you there once, and join such a celtic battle ;-) I always wanted to do sth. like that.

[Macilrille]

Viking, we do Viking, denmark was never Celtic, and you would be required to train with an organised group for a while before joining. But I have enough leverage that should anyone want to try a salmon Leap I can arrange something ;-)

This guy has lots of vids of the big fight at Moesgaard https://www.youtube.com/user/waraegerking

[SwissBarbar]

I know denmark was never Celtic. :laugh4: But that would not prevent you from making the experience and discovering the fighting style of EB ^^ would be funny. half of you form a phalanx, the other half some galatians. :2thumbsup:

viking of course is cool too

[MeinPanzer]

I never pecifically said thureos, becasue the thureos would need to be defined first. Do we only go by the "door size" connotation that the Greeks gave to the large shield? Do we go only by size alone? Shape? Presence of a central spine (round shields have central spines too). In some ways, calling the Celtic shield a thureos is/can be, misleading.

Well, using "Celtic shield" is more problematic. Firstly, the name "thureos" comes from the shape of the shield resembling the doorstone of a tomb, and not because of its size. The thureos can be pretty clearly defined as any oblong shield with a spine and/or boss running lengthwise.


However, a perfect example is the Clonoura shield from Ireland. Made of wood but completely covered in leather, it only measures 57 x 37 cm, obviously making this a tiny shield compared to they average shield.

This is an example from an isolated and peripheral region of the Celtic world which dates to the 2nd c. AD or so. It is relevant neither to the mainland Celts nor to Celts of the EB time period. We do have fairly small thureoi from northern Europe, but they are from Germanic contexts (e.g. Hjortspring).


For continental examples the best (and only, I think) example are from the Civitia Alba terracottas. All of those shields, when compared to ones on the Vacheres and Mondragon statues, and late Boian coin shields, all have a huge differential in size as well as shape.

But again, it is extremely difficult to judge size from representational evidence, as artists often distorted the size of weapons. Even so, though, we never really see small thureoi (as in Hjortspring small) in Celtic use in representational evidence.


None that I have read myself (doesn't mean its not true), but I've not read anything refuting this tactic either.

Which is about as good as saying it never happened.


No speculation needed, but for the record certain books on Celts do favor or specifically mention those swords of that size being a cavalry weapon as they would be too unwieldy to use in hand to hand combat.

A supposition which is clearly proven wrong by literary mentions of Celtic infantry using exceptionally long swords.

[Macilrille]

No speculation needed, but for the record certain books on Celts do favor or specifically mention those swords of that size being a cavalry weapon as they would be too unwieldy to use in hand to hand combat.


Notice that there is often a large difference between what people theorise to be possible and what experimental archeology (in my case Viking fighting re-enactment), find in practice is.

[Power2the1]

Well, using "Celtic shield" is more problematic. Firstly, the name "thureos" comes from the shape of the shield resembling the doorstone of a tomb, and not because of its size.
Obviously that the origin of the word, and I am sure you've noticed, too, that pretty much all doorstones to tombs are nearly door sized. Still, I wasn't exactly clear by what I meant by the door size comparison however so it's my fault.


The thureos can be pretty clearly defined as any oblong shield with a spine and/or boss running lengthwise.
And to that add the small rounded shields and 'weird' squarish shields like the one shown on the Como relief.


This is an example from an isolated and peripheral region of the Celtic world which dates to the 2nd c. AD or so. It is relevant neither to the mainland Celts nor to Celts of the EB time period. We do have fairly small thureoi from northern Europe, but they are from Germanic contexts (e.g. Hjortspring).

But again, it is extremely difficult to judge size from representational evidence, as artists often distorted the size of weapons. Even so, though, we never really see small thureoi (as in Hjortspring small) in Celtic use in representational evidence.

Discoveries on what you term "the periphery of the Celtic World" doesn't disqualify the find. Look at the Clonora, look at the Civitia Alba and the Hjortspring examples, especially the shield missing it's boss with the hole in the middle, and you can visually see the size connection on these shields here. I'm not saying shields of this size were all the rage, not at all, but they did exist. At La Tene we've a thureos shield barely over 3 ft. tall and only 2 ft. wide. Again, compare that to Mondragon and Vacheres shields and its pretty clear that the La Tene shield finding is very similar in proportion to the Hjortspring and Civitas Alba depictions, a depiction that you are the only person that has called into question the validity of what is displayed. Of the scene, there are no discrepancies in the scale/size of the men, horses, or the loot they are carrying, nor any reason to think that the shields are solely disproportioned.


Which is about as good as saying it never happened. Which is about as good as saying you cannot disprove...
~:handball:

Really, the notion that Celtic nobility, who would typically lead the charge, willingly flung themselves upon a wall of pikes is absurd. There'd be no nobility left after a stunt like that and their tactics would need to change. Not every single warrior rolled under the pikes. If so that left nothing to surprise the enemy with. We know they would attack and disrupt the phalanxes, but it probably wasn't by doing Salmon leaps :wink2:


A supposition which is clearly proven wrong by literary mentions of Celtic infantry using exceptionally long swords.
Yes, I agree, but we also have to realize that not every long sword used by the Celts was say, a rounded tipped double edged sword of the 85-90cm variety. The classical writers would no doubt compare the Celtic blades to contemporary Greek or Roman blades which are obviously shorter. Many Celtic swords could be seen as very large and super long to the writer, although in a Celtic only context, they would be classified as a sword of average, medium, or slightly over average in length.

[Aurgelmir]

People who think it is a good idea in single combat are encouraged to come to our trainings and try it as well. I will personally, and despite permanent injuries making me much less effective than I was 5 years ago, take on the challenge and if you beat me or even the noob-est beginner we have with this move I will buy you a crate of my favorite beer, Refsvindinge Blue Ale nr 16.

Gauntlet is thrown, pick it up or forget about this fantasy-Salvatore-move please. This is the third time today I apologise for my possible arrogance and the second time in this thread, but I am fed up with armchair/screen fighters. Listen to the people who actually fight for God's sake, or think! How long are you in the air? Defenceless. That is how long I have to react and possibly strike at you, coming down while your guts spill out would be embarrasing no?

How far our society has come from actual body use and excertion :-(


Actually i would love to try to do that,You may laughing now,but throwing you sand in your eyes,you would have trouble to see me lol

Listen to the people who actually fight for God's sake....SRRY...playing viking does not count as fighting.
I did wing tjun and Mu thai..pls
Its a shame that you not live in holland. REALLY because it would not be the first time to put an end to people who thinking they can fight...come on.I did box for money....i know how to shed REAL blood,only to give my fam some food and pay my dephts

For my arrogance...27-9 for my count...official fights,onofficial...i lost the count..
SO I KNOW HOW TO FIGHT!!

So i'm irritated by your arrogance,mayby with a sword you would have a VERY little chance.
Mu thai is more focused on weapons than the most people know,so i think that i have a pretty good chance.And i have a hard time to inmagine how you beat me with viking techniques,that probably just move's right out your inmagination.Vikings did not write much down...so

I rest my case...

Lol this topic was just about a few questions over the celts....and ALWAYS someone post something,that is not helpfull at all...i ask about celtic stuff...then you are coming and telling me thats impossible to do because you and your friends are playing viking?????

Jesus christ...Your arrogance will be your downfall........someday......

[SwissBarbar]

1. Celtic warriors did not fight Mu thai

2. Don't take this wrong, but I think a trained and battle-tested ancient warrior, a Greek, a Roman and especially a Celt still would have hit your ass up in combat

3. The question in this thread was, if this strange loop and stuff would have been a good Celtic battle tactic. Answer: NO, it would not have been. Even a Mu thai fighter, if making a loop over the first battleline of any hostile army, would have given the enemy (with 8-50 more ranks behind it) enough time to make a coffee (including discovering southern america, establish a coffee plantation...) and still stab him 20 times while he hurtled through the air.

IF the Celts really used it (we cannot prove) , to me at least it would explain why they got conquered by the Romans relatively easily.


Edit

Let me illustrate it

Would you make a loop over these first battlelines?

http://www.300spartanwarriors.com/images/550_Copy_of_300spartanwarriors-Nikos_Panos_phalanx-A.jpg

http://www.livius.org/a/1/greece/phalanx.jpg

https://img152.imageshack.us/img152/9769/titlescreenxkg4.jpg

[Aurgelmir]

1. Celtic warriors did not fight Mu thai

2. Don't take this wrong, but I think a trained and battle-tested ancient warrior, a Greek, a Roman and especially a Celt still would have hit your ass up in combat

3. The question in this thread was, if this strange loop and stuff would have been a good Celtic battle tactic. Answer: NO, it would not have been. Even a Mu thai fighter, if making a loop over the first battleline of any hostile army, would have given the enemy (with 8-50 more ranks behind it) enough time to make a coffee (including discovering southern america, establish a coffee plantation...) and still stab him 20 times while he hurtled through the air.

IF the Celts really used it (we cannot prove) , to me at least it would explain why they got conquered by the Romans relatively easily.


Edit

Let me illustrate it

Would you make a loop over these first battlelines?

http://www.300spartanwarriors.com/images/550_Copy_of_300spartanwarriors-Nikos_Panos_phalanx-A.jpg

http://www.livius.org/a/1/greece/phalanx.jpg

https://img152.imageshack.us/img152/9769/titlescreenxkg4.jpg

1.I know...lol:laugh4:...hm i inmagine how they low kick there way into there ranks

2.We can not know that,but i would love to try....eastern fighting art compared to the old hand to hand combat/wrestling of the roman/celt/greek....pls are you kidding me
I'm not small at all,and exactly 109 kg...have exp in the ring and outside...but i read somewhere that they had more muscular strenght compared to us today...so we cannot know it
But i guess in the ring,me training for it.....i dont think so lol

3.You are all right here....but as i posted before, in individual fights they could use it,without getting stabbed from behind.


I dont say that they used it,i wasn't there,i just saw this on youtube and asked myself could they used it?..but getting this arrogant''i know better'' posts are not helping either..
The most of you where helpfull though. :book:

I asked for some book titles...english/german/dutch is ok...thx again

[SwissBarbar]

to 2. : of course I meant armed and armoured, not wrestling ;-) Hand to hand I would beat up such a Celtic warriors myself *GGG*

actually the guys on youtube just look quite... well... ridiculous. Maybe if a trained warrior or gymnastics - trained guy like jackie chan would try the loop, it would be different. They may use this effectfully in 1to1 combat.

The only thing that could not work is, that I think your enemy kind of has to help lifting you over the shield. Imagin you try the loop over a single greek hoplitai. IMO you would crash at his Hoplon and fall down like a wet sandbag. But we cannot know.

I didn't intend to doubt your fighting abilities, I'm sure you're a good fighter.

[Aurgelmir]

to 2. : of course I meant armed and armoured, not wrestling ;-) Hand to hand I would beat up such a Celtic warriors myself *GGG*

actually the guys on youtube just look quite... well... ridiculous. Maybe if a trained warrior or gymnastics - trained guy like jackie chan would try the loop, it would be different. They may use this effectfully in 1to1 combat.

The only thing that could not work is, that I think your enemy kind of has to help lifting you over the shield. Imagin you try the loop over a single greek hoplitai. IMO you would crash at his Hoplon and fall down like a wet sandbag. But we cannot know.

I didn't intend to doubt your fighting abilities, I'm sure you're a good fighter.


Ok lol...when they armed an armored,i would not make a chance. thats for sure...:smash:

I watched the youyube movie again,and yes...you need help to do it
Posted this thread to soon.should had watched it more carefully:embarassed:
I was just curious when i saw it...i'm very interested in there fighting style's(any books???)

And no...i'm not that good,i have alot of body mass to bring on and i'm 2m tall....in mu thai basic moves are more than enough in the ring(because most of the techniques are not allowed here),and with my weight and height.....so not really honest for the most of the times smaller and lighter opponments....and sometimes they where alot faster then i :oops::skull:
And a small personal dissorder was getting me disqualifications from time to time :wall:

Thats why i did wing tjun....no contests(to dangerous lol)....more spiritual...but ALOT thougher

[Macilrille]

I am puzzled in all my arrogance.

You propose to fight unarmed using Muay Thai (which I have done for three years before concentrating on Viking) against sword and shield? To punch in a steel helmet while parrying blows from a sword with your fists?

If I comment on that I will insult you even more than I apparently have, and that is not my purpose. My purpose is to exhibit the foolishness of the Salmon Leap under any circumstances in armed combat.

Or to throw sand in your opponent's eyes, in theory that is a much better idea than to leap around (though it was the Salmon Leap we were discussing, not who can beat who). However, you need a hand for that, a free hand, ie you would have to leave your sword/axe or your shield sheated/on your back. That is quite a gamble, if the opponent evades the sand you are pretty bad off while you struggle to get either in place. As a boxer you will be aware that gambling all on a KO to such an extent that you have to KO him or get KO-ed yourself is not the best of ideas except in very special circumstances, or?

I shall try to explain.

Now, please picture this if you will; you are on a field, ready to fight. You have experience you say, so it should be fairly easy to imagine. Now, your opponent come running up and leaps, at 109 Kg I imagine you are fairly tall as well, so he would have to leap pretty high to avoid not just your head, but the reach of your sword, right? As a boxer, you also know that sending of a blow (or a stab or cut with a sword) is incredibly fas,t you think your leaping opponent can clear you before you send of one? Whereever you hit him in his leap he will be injured as he lands = you have the advantage. Even if he did manage to miraculously kill you he will still be injured, and medical care back then left much to be desired, so you did not really want much of an injury, being a hero is not much fun if infection is eating your leg or arm is it?

See, it is not against me only it is stupid, it would be against you as well even though you have no training with weapons, it would be against anyone who is not seeing action for the first time. It is a bit like the Back Roundhouse kick, it lookes pretty, but takes too long to be really practical unless your opponent is dazed or very surprised. In the ring if people did a Back Roundhouse at you when you were fully alert I imagine you would pile into them or get their knee with a low kick. If somebody leapt over you, you would stab or cut them.



As for "playing Vikings", this here is what the best of us do https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVU2lCZ6Ybs, notice how they (I am not on this vid) move, feel free to Salmon Leap all you please against it. and yes, we have done test cuts with sharps, the cuts we make in Huskarl will easily cut a big ham and despite using blunts most of us have been stitched up loads of times from it. Last year a guy got a blade that pushed his eye aside and 2.5 cm into his brain (he is OK now), I carry permanent injuries to knees and elbows from Huskarl and has had the inside of my nose split by an axe though we try to be safe and it is only the best of us who does this (most fight freestyle, which is like Taekwondo, light contact). Thus I consider myself qualified to actually comment on the practicality of Salmon Leaps both in single combat and formation- and even to an extent that I come across as arrogant, otherwise I would keep my gob shut, as I have explained above Salmon Leaping is abject stupidity against anyone who is at his senses and knows what end to hold a sword- including you.

See what I mean?

As for books on it I cannot comment, we Vikes fight with a mixture of HEMA, Asian and logical deduction (a Daneaxe is to be swung f.x.). The best of us also fight the variation of HEMA called Huskarl and participate in HEMA trainings with medieval and renaissance weapons to broaden our horizons, but that does not help you much. In fact I am afraid any theories on Celtic fighting style will be much like ours as the Celts left even less written sources and depictions than the Vikings.

[MeinPanzer]

And to that add the small rounded shields and 'weird' squarish shields like the one shown on the Como relief.

The round shields with spinae were related to thureoi/scuta but were not, and oddly-shaped shields, such as the miniature shields from the Salisbury hoard or the one on the Como relief, fit right into that definition because they are oblong.


Discoveries on what you term "the periphery of the Celtic World" doesn't disqualify the find. Look at the Clonora, look at the Civitia Alba and the Hjortspring examples, especially the shield missing it's boss with the hole in the middle, and you can visually see the size connection on these shields here.

Yes, it does. The Clonoura example is from the 2nd. c. AD, and it is the only shield of its kind to be found, though shields very similar to it have been represented on early 2nd c. AD stelae from northern England. It seems very likely that this is a late shield type employed in Britain. Civitia Alba I do not think we can judge based on the style of the representation. Finally, The Hjortspring shields and the similar example from Borremose are Germanic, not Celtic.


I'm not saying shields of this size were all the rage, not at all, but they did exist. At La Tene we've a thureos shield barely over 3 ft. tall and only 2 ft. wide. Again, compare that to Mondragon and Vacheres shields and its pretty clear that the La Tene shield finding is very similar in proportion to the Hjortspring and Civitas Alba depictions, a depiction that you are the only person that has called into question the validity of what is displayed. Of the scene, there are no discrepancies in the scale/size of the men, horses, or the loot they are carrying, nor any reason to think that the shields are solely disproportioned.

Firstly, the majority of the Hjortspring shields were around 2.8 feet long and 1.3 feet wide, which is quite a bit smaller than the La Tene example. The Civitas Alba depiction is clearly fantastical in nature, with its bizarre chariot. As for scale, are we looking at the same scene? There is a huge discrepancy in scale between the men and the horses. Most of the figures' heads are about as long as the horses'.


Which is about as good as saying you cannot disprove...
~:handball:

But there's nothing to disprove, so my work is already done.


Really, the notion that Celtic nobility, who would typically lead the charge, willingly flung themselves upon a wall of pikes is absurd. There'd be no nobility left after a stunt like that and their tactics would need to change. Not every single warrior rolled under the pikes. If so that left nothing to surprise the enemy with. We know they would attack and disrupt the phalanxes, but it probably wasn't by doing Salmon leaps :wink2:

Or how about parrying the sarissae with sword and shield? You can't honestly think that rolling into a phalanx would somehow be anything but suicidal.


Yes, I agree, but we also have to realize that not every long sword used by the Celts was say, a rounded tipped double edged sword of the 85-90cm variety. The classical writers would no doubt compare the Celtic blades to contemporary Greek or Roman blades which are obviously shorter. Many Celtic swords could be seen as very large and super long to the writer, although in a Celtic only context, they would be classified as a sword of average, medium, or slightly over average in length.

In which case, as I stated before, refer to the many burials of infantrymen with long swords.

[Aurgelmir]

I am puzzled in all my arrogance.

You propose to fight unarmed using Muay Thai (which I have done for three years before concentrating on Viking) against sword and shield? To punch in a steel helmet while parrying blows from a sword with your fists?

If I comment on that I will insult you even more than I apparently have, and that is not my purpose. My purpose is to exhibit the foolishness of the Salmon Leap under any circumstances in armed combat.

Or to throw sand in your opponent's eyes, in theory that is a much better idea than to leap around (though it was the Salmon Leap we were discussing, not who can beat who). However, you need a hand for that, a free hand, ie you would have to leave your sword/axe or your shield sheated/on your back. That is quite a gamble, if the opponent evades the sand you are pretty bad off while you struggle to get either in place. As a boxer you will be aware that gambling all on a KO to such an extent that you have to KO him or get KO-ed yourself is not the best of ideas except in very special circumstances, or?

I shall try to explain.

Now, please picture this if you will; you are on a field, ready to fight. You have experience you say, so it should be fairly easy to imagine. Now, your opponent come running up and leaps, at 109 Kg I imagine you are fairly tall as well, so he would have to leap pretty high to avoid not just your head, but the reach of your sword, right? As a boxer, you also know that sending of a blow (or a stab or cut with a sword) is incredibly fas,t you think your leaping opponent can clear you before you send of one? Whereever you hit him in his leap he will be injured as he lands = you have the advantage. Even if he did manage to miraculously kill you he will still be injured, and medical care back then left much to be desired, so you did not really want much of an injury, being a hero is not much fun if infection is eating your leg or arm is it?

See, it is not against me only it is stupid, it would be against you as well even though you have no training with weapons, it would be against anyone who is not seeing action for the first time. It is a bit like the Back Roundhouse kick, it lookes pretty, but takes too long to be really practical unless your opponent is dazed or very surprised. In the ring if people did a Back Roundhouse at you when you were fully alert I imagine you would pile into them or get their knee with a low kick. If somebody leapt over you, you would stab or cut them.



As for "playing Vikings", this here is what the best of us do https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVU2lCZ6Ybs, notice how they (I am not on this vid) move, feel free to Salmon Leap all you please against it. and yes, we have done test cuts with sharps, the cuts we make in Huskarl will easily cut a big ham and despite using blunts most of us have been stitched up loads of times from it. Last year a guy got a blade that pushed his eye aside and 2.5 cm into his brain (he is OK now), I carry permanent injuries to knees and elbows from Huskarl and has had the inside of my nose split by an axe though we try to be safe and it is only the best of us who does this (most fight freestyle, which is like Taekwondo, light contact). Thus I consider myself qualified to actually comment on the practicality of Salmon Leaps both in single combat and formation- and even to an extent that I come across as arrogant, otherwise I would keep my gob shut, as I have explained above Salmon Leaping is abject stupidity against anyone who is at his senses and knows what end to hold a sword- including you.

See what I mean?

As for books on it I cannot comment, we Vikes fight with a mixture of HEMA, Asian and logical deduction (a Daneaxe is to be swung f.x.). The best of us also fight the variation of HEMA called Huskarl and participate in HEMA trainings with medieval and renaissance weapons to broaden our horizons, but that does not help you much. In fact I am afraid any theories on Celtic fighting style will be much like ours as the Celts left even less written sources and depictions than the Vikings.



Hej...by reading my posts i never stated that they use such thing,its a whole other time area...and i was asking myself...'did they do such thing like the leap'' nothing more...lol

you convinced me...that it is unwise and foolish to do....but then again...2000 years ago,mayby they thought different...mayby foolish and heroic fighting was order of the day lol

And about mu thai...you should know that they use alot of different weapons....of course i would not fight without weapons LOL...you guys would kill me

But with a batton....and you without shield only sword....hm i dont know...

i dont question your skills with sword and shield...i say have fun with it

[Macilrille]

I must have misunderstood then, which I suspect is the cause of most of the disagreement, in fact I have a feeling misunderstandings are behind 75% of the arguments online. The I-net has its limitations.

Anyway, glad we can agree. Dunno about baton, never tried that. As it is these days my various injuries keep me down, my body will only sustain 5-10 minutes of sword, then 20- 30 mins of spearwork each time we train, sometimes almost none at all :-( but I used to be a pretty damn good swordsman, Alban (the guy in the vid who is clearly best and moves best) and I followed eachother in close friendly competetion for 13 years till I got injured- in fact he was the one who split my nose after 4 hours of hard fighting (inside nose is not a pleasant place for being stitched LOL). Anyway, I have fought without shield as well one-on-one, but Viking swords are not so suited for that. And with two weapons, but that is a blind alley, no defence is... a bad idea when the other guy has a shield or wields a 2m Danish Axe. Shield and sword is fun one-on-one, spear is fun in line.

There are Dutch re-enactors BTW.

Anyway, with that resolved I shall withdraw from this thread.

[Aurgelmir]

I must have misunderstood then, which I suspect is the cause of most of the disagreement, in fact I have a feeling misunderstandings are behind 75% of the arguments online. The I-net has its limitations.

Anyway, glad we can agree. Dunno about baton, never tried that. As it is these days my various injuries keep me down, my body will only sustain 5-10 minutes of sword, then 20- 30 mins of spearwork each time we train, sometimes almost none at all :-( but I used to be a pretty damn good swordsman, Alban (the guy in the vid who is clearly best and moves best) and I followed eachother in close friendly competetion for 13 years till I got injured- in fact he was the one who split my nose after 4 hours of hard fighting (inside nose is not a pleasant place for being stitched LOL). Anyway, I have fought without shield as well one-on-one, but Viking swords are not so suited for that. And with two weapons, but that is a blind alley, no defence is... a bad idea when the other guy has a shield or wields a 2m Danish Axe. Shield and sword is fun one-on-one, spear is fun in line.

There are Dutch re-enactors BTW.

Anyway, with that resolved I shall withdraw from this thread.


I agree that the net has its limitations,could somebody see there faces,and listen to there voices....probably alot of discussions would be''easyer''.

A question though....how heavy are your swords and shields that you training with?

[kekailoa]

Macrille.

I was watching the video you posted on Huscarl training, and I have a question. It seem like the swings of the swords are more centered around the wrist when they attack, and less of the sweeping full arm cuts I would expect from a champion duel.

I realize that huge sweeps and hacks with a longsword leave you open for an easy thrust, but can't the shield be used to cover the torso? It seems like a lot of the power of the cut and assault are being robbed by using the wrist too extensively, but I have no idea what I'm talking about. Is it a safety issue? I can understand that because being hit full force with a heavy length of steel would not be particularly comfortable.

[Power2the1]

Yes, it does. The Clonoura example is from the 2nd. c. AD, and it is the only shield of its kind to be found, though shields very similar to it have been represented on early 2nd c. AD stelae from northern England. It seems very likely that this is a late shield type employed in Britain. Civitia Alba I do not think we can judge based on the style of the representation. Finally, The Hjortspring shields and the similar example from Borremose are Germanic, not Celtic.
You must factor in that items of the Hjortspring findings are thought to be of La Tene/Celtic import and or influence as well. Obviously the find contains distinctly Germanic items, but the Hjortspring shields are definitely Celtic/La Tene, either through influence or import. The Krogsbole (sp?) findings contain swords of both single edge and double edged, the latter being of a La Tene design and appearance. The so called La Tene 'plastic style' was prevalent in Denmark, northern Germany, and even as far as Scandinavia. Building up over time this influence came to a definitive peak sometime in the 3rd century, culminating in finds such as the Bra Cauldron among other Celtic finds outside the typical 'Celtic' areas. These things, among others, cannot be so easily written off based on where they are found, periphery or not.


Firstly, the majority of the Hjortspring shields were around 2.8 feet long and 1.3 feet wide, which is quite a bit smaller than the La Tene example. The Civitas Alba depiction is clearly fantastical in nature, with its bizarre chariot. As for scale, are we looking at the same scene? There is a huge discrepancy in scale between the men and the horses. Most of the figures' heads are about as long as the horses'.
That chariot certainly isn't Gallic. What is it, Etruscan? I have no idea ~:confused:

The Celts used significantly smaller horses/ponies than what we have today. The vast majority of the horses that they were famed for were much smaller (as were virtually all domesticated animals back then). Other sources mention that at the withers the horses/ponies were only 12-14 hands or 1.2-1.4 meters tall, some no doubt smaller and larger than this. A tall rider would have his feet near tot he ground when riding. If you take those facts into account then they do not appear to be too far off the mark, even if making them diminutive was the sculptors intent.

Consider many of the (accurate) illustrations we have of a Gallic/Celtic cavalryman upon his horse. You will see they are not mounted upon huge animals but significantly smaller ones. I can provide examples of modern impressions and illustrations if you like.


But there's nothing to disprove, so my work is already done.

Or how about parrying the sarissae with sword and shield? You can't honestly think that rolling into a phalanx would somehow be anything but suicidal.

Rolling into the phalanx? No, but getting under the phalanx, by ducking, rolling, or otherwise getting past the pikes (where obviously there are no sarissa points to poke you) is a viable tactic leaving the warrior in less danger than a frontal assault. Its the simple strategy of facing an opponent with a greater reach. You've got to get inside his defense to inflict punishment and barreling into it is only one of many.

If you believe the Celts dealt with this by charging straight ahead and nothing else, so be it. Thats attested and a very 'safe' conclusion, but leaves unanswered questions and no room for growth beyond a simple charge. For example, if the leading warriors/nobility (not mounted ones) led the charge at the pikes and suffered high casualties, someone has to prove how the tribes leading warriors/nobility would stay intact over generations. Or why would Celtic weapons, swords, and shield bosses change with the times and adapt to their enemies, but not their tactics to actual fight them? If Celts were successful with one kind of attack/equipment, then we'd typically find little variance in their gear. Why was Telamon a supreme example of Celtic organization and quick orderly deployment in rows, if all these warriors simply devolved into a mass charge? Rhetorical questions, but you certainly will not find all the answers in classical writing sources. To make any attempt you have to think outside the box and entertain many ideas and possibilities. Thus, if theres some mention of Pergamene phalangites kneeling to counter the Celts, and this is from some unpublished or obscure book that I have no access to, I do not simply dismiss it because I cannot read it myself. It isn't that far fetched to me because every army would change/adapt to counter their enemies tactics, even if its uncommon, infrequent, or a single occurrence.

[MeinPanzer]

You must factor in that items of the Hjortspring findings are thought to be of La Tene/Celtic import and or influence as well. Obviously the find contains distinctly Germanic items, but the Hjortspring shields are definitely Celtic/La Tene, either through influence or import.

I've never read a well-researched source discussing the Hjortspring find that ever stated the Hjortspring shields to be Celtic imports. We have contemporary rock art from Scania in southern Sweden showing soldiers carrying small rectangular shields and also an analogous shield cover from Borremose, both of which indicate that these were local shield types. Given as well that the general nature of the shields and their construction is unlike any other finds from the rest of the Celtic world, we can say with some certainty that these are Germanic in form and origin. You could say that they are "thought to be of La Tene influence," but then you could also say that the Ai-Khanoum thureos exhibits "La Tene influence."


The Krogsbole (sp?) findings contain swords of both single edge and double edged, the latter being of a La Tene design and appearance.

Those swords are Germanic in type, not "of La Tene design." The nearest early pre-Roman find of a Celtic swords are from Germany. (Of course, in the late 2nd c. BC, La Tene swords spread in use all over northern Europe and Scandinavia, but that is well after the time of the Hjortspring or Krogsbolle finds.)


The so called La Tene 'plastic style' was prevalent in Denmark, northern Germany, and even as far as Scandinavia. Building up over time this influence came to a definitive peak sometime in the 3rd century, culminating in finds such as the Bra Cauldron among other Celtic finds outside the typical 'Celtic' areas. These things, among others, cannot be so easily written off based on where they are found, periphery or not.

There was certainly Celtic influence in northern Europe, but that doesn't necessarily say anything about the Hjortspring shields (beyond the basic fact that through Celtic middlemen the form of the shield was transmitted from northern Italy to as far as Scandinavia by 5th c. BC at the latest and then adapted to local taste, much the same way that the thureos was transmitted to Bactria by various peoples).


That chariot certainly isn't Gallic. What is it, Etruscan? I have no idea ~:confused:

And yet a Celt is depicted in it fleeing along with the other figures around him. It's clearly a fantastical creation of the artist.


The Celts used significantly smaller horses/ponies than what we have today. The vast majority of the horses that they were famed for were much smaller (as were virtually all domesticated animals back then). Other sources mention that at the withers the horses/ponies were only 12-14 hands or 1.2-1.4 meters tall, some no doubt smaller and larger than this. A tall rider would have his feet near tot he ground when riding. If you take those facts into account then they do not appear to be too far off the mark, even if making them diminutive was the sculptors intent.

Look at their heads - even ponies have larger heads than an adult human. The artist has clearly shrunk down full size horses to fit the scene. Their size has clearly been distorted by the artist, which is no surprise given, again, the overall fantastical nature of the scene.


Rolling into the phalanx? No, but getting under the phalanx, by ducking, rolling, or otherwise getting past the pikes (where obviously there are no sarissa points to poke you) is a viable tactic leaving the warrior in less danger than a frontal assault. Its the simple strategy of facing an opponent with a greater reach. You've got to get inside his defense to inflict punishment and barreling into it is only one of many.

Yes, and they would get inside the reach the same way that everyone else with a shorter weapon did- by parrying the weapons and breaking through. To roll under a bank of pikeheads sounds ridiculously improbably in writing and was probably even less viable in real life. You do realize that phalangites in the first few rows could lower their pikes fairly easily and without consequence to the integrity of the phalanx, right?


If you believe the Celts dealt with this by charging straight ahead and nothing else, so be it. Thats attested and a very 'safe' conclusion, but leaves unanswered questions and no room for growth beyond a simple charge. For example, if the leading warriors/nobility (not mounted ones) led the charge at the pikes and suffered high casualties, someone has to prove how the tribes leading warriors/nobility would stay intact over generations.

The same way every other body of infantry did fighting the Macedonian phalanx. They knocked the pikes aside (whether with sword or shield) and broke through. No fancy tactics were necessary for the Romans, so why would the Celts, fighting with a similar armament, have needed them?


Or why would Celtic weapons, swords, and shield bosses change with the times and adapt to their enemies, but not their tactics to actual fight them? If Celts were successful with one kind of attack/equipment, then we'd typically find little variance in their gear.

Firstly, this is an unfounded assumption. Any number of reasons would have driven the development of arms and armour: outside influences through trade, looting, etc.; changes in the availability of resources or craftsmen; or simply fashion. Let us not forget that huge changes in weaponry and tactics (cavalry using shields, for instance) could take place simply due to outside influence and a shift in tastes. Secondly, they probably did shift in tactics, but not toward something ridiculous like rolling into a phalanx.

Also, it should be noted that for the most part, there isn't major difference in Celtic panoplies throughout the La Tene period, either for infantry or cavalry, beyond the form of the equipment (i.e. early spined thureoi versus later round-boss thureoi) and the introduction of mail/the dropping of organic tube-and-yoke cuirasses.


Why was Telamon a supreme example of Celtic organization and quick orderly deployment in rows, if all these warriors simply devolved into a mass charge? Rhetorical questions, but you certainly will not find all the answers in classical writing sources. To make any attempt you have to think outside the box and entertain many ideas and possibilities. Thus, if theres some mention of Pergamene phalangites kneeling to counter the Celts, and this is from some unpublished or obscure book that I have no access to, I do not simply dismiss it because I cannot read it myself.

There isn't even solid evidence to begin with that the Pergamenes fielded phalangites, so I defy you to produce this source or a reference to it. Where did you even get this notion from?

[Macilrille]

Viking swords weighed ~900- ~1800 Gr, ours are ~850- ~1650, but we have them slightly differently balanced with the weight further back in order to do "Freestyle" safely. This makes them less "hungry" as we call it, a sword with balance slightly further forwards really wants to be swung, slash and cut, it almost begs it, but Freestyle is light contact. A very few of us have some for Huskarl and HEMA that are balanced historically, but fighting swords (quality) come at a price, and most of us are not too wealthy ;-) our hilts are also slightly longer in order to actually have room for our heavy leather gauntlet.

The wrist problem also comes from Freestyle, when you fight Freestyle a quick wrist movement is a fast way to get a kill as any contact with blade in target area "kills". Those of us who are "fundamentalists" try to use arm and shoulder in freestyle as well, not just the wrist, and to kill properly with a cut or stab, but though in the long run it strenghtens our fighting style and makes it more universal and adapted against any opponent in any situation in the short run it weakens us (called "Heavy Style").

The wrist moves you see are guys who are good fighters but not fundamentalists and not very experienced in Huskarl, so have not laid off the wrist "taps" yet. The vid is from Moesgaard where 350+ of us from all over the world meet for a week, train freestyle and special techniques (such as Huskarl), drink our brains out in the evening, then have four large competetive battles in two balanced lines during the weekend. IE some try Huskarl there for the first time. If you look at Alban (mail and helmet, nice foot and body movement), who invented Huskarl after starting to train HEMA, his moves are really nice, using elbow and shoulder, as it should be.

As for safety, we do not whack full strength (as we would soon be cripples or dead all), but in Huskarl and Heavy Style we hit significantly harder, and more importantly, we cut with the length and edge of the blade as it was made to.

If you look on Youtube for "Cold Steel" you will see a guy in horrible physical shape doing cut test with swords (they do make nice blades BTW), but using them as an axe or hatchet, overextending, putting too much force in his blows and not actually cutting. We have achieved the same results by our cutting style with sharp swords. Blades are made to cut, axes to whack. Daneaxes to both cut and whack. Spears to pierce, large spears to cut as well. On their homepage he is even featured in a vid called "The Warrior Lifestyle" I would like to show him some Huskarl and "Warrior Lifestyle".

Hope it helps, now I have to go and look for some info for Frostwulf that I am not certain I have at hand.

[Power2the1]

I've never read a well-researched source discussing the Hjortspring find that ever stated the Hjortspring shields to be Celtic imports. We have contemporary rock art from Scania in southern Sweden showing soldiers carrying small rectangular shields and also an analogous shield cover from Borremose, both of which indicate that these were local shield types. Given as well that the general nature of the shields and their construction is unlike any other finds from the rest of the Celtic world, we can say with some certainty that these are Germanic in form and origin. You could say that they are "thought to be of La Tene influence," but then you could also say that the Ai-Khanoum thureos exhibits "La Tene influence."
[/QUOTE]See Iron & Steel in Ancient Times for the La Tene nature of the Hjotspring shields:"It is of general opinion the iron weapons belonged to the intruders and were not produced in Denmark. The shields in the Hjortspring boat are of Celtic origin, and at least one of the Krogsbolle swords is two edged and very similar to Celtic swords."


Those swords are Germanic in type, not "of La Tene design." The nearest early pre-Roman find of a Celtic swords are from Germany. (Of course, in the late 2nd c. BC, La Tene swords spread in use all over northern Europe and Scandinavia, but that is well after the time of the Hjortspring or Krogsbolle finds.)

There was certainly Celtic influence in northern Europe, but that doesn't necessarily say anything about the Hjortspring shields (beyond the basic fact that through Celtic middlemen the form of the shield was transmitted from northern Italy to as far as Scandinavia by 5th c. BC at the latest and then adapted to local taste, much the same way that the thureos was transmitted to Bactria by various peoples).
See The Celts by Kruta and Moscati for La Tene branching into Scandinavia:Towards the end of the third century B.C. a definite Celtic influence reached Southern Scandinavia. The so-called Plastic Style of the Early La Tène period was imitated on massive Danish bronze fibulae and torques, and the shield bosses of the Hjortspring hoard are reminiscent of the earliest Celtic iron-plated bosses. At the same time a remarkable series of Celtic cauldrons began to appear in Denmark.


And yet a Celt is depicted in it fleeing along with the other figures around him. It's clearly a fantastical creation of the artist. It looks like an Etruscan chariot probably being looted from a temple or other holy site, along with the other items the Celts are looting. That, or the only other logical thing for me to concede is that everything else in the scene is inaccurate and distorted too...


Look at their heads - even ponies have larger heads than an adult human. The artist has clearly shrunk down full size horses to fit the scene. Their size has clearly been distorted by the artist, which is no surprise given, again, the overall fantastical nature of the scene.A small horse really means nothing, even if it was shrunk to 'fit'. See the following. Modern breeds are in black, Iron Age sizes in tan:
https://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b9/Power2the1/GEDC4663.jpg
Horses in the background do not account for the space in the foreground which has more than enough space to make the shields large and in charge shields, yet that was not done.


The same way every other body of infantry did fighting the Macedonian phalanx. They knocked the pikes aside (whether with sword or shield) and broke through. No fancy tactics were necessary for the Romans, so why would the Celts, fighting with a similar armament, have needed them?
The vast majority of Celts wore their pants, were bare chested, had a shield, and a spear, and maybe a couple javelins. The average Roman had a chainmail vest, helmet, shield, two pilum, and a gladius; certain not similar armament by any means.


Firstly, this is an unfounded assumption. Any number of reasons would have driven the development of arms and armour: outside influences through trade, looting, etc.; changes in the availability of resources or craftsmen; or simply fashion. Let us not forget that huge changes in weaponry and tactics (cavalry using shields, for instance) could take place simply due to outside influence and a shift in tastes. Secondly, they probably did shift in tactics, but not toward something ridiculous like rolling into a phalanx.
Also, it should be noted that for the most part, there isn't major difference in Celtic panoplies throughout the La Tene period, either for infantry or cavalry, beyond the form of the equipment (i.e. early spined thureoi versus later round-boss thureoi) and the introduction of mail/the dropping of organic tube-and-yoke cuirasses.
The Celts had no enemies superior to themselves on the equipment level...others were copying them and their innovations, not the other way around. Also, plenty of sources mention the battles against the main enemies (Greeks, then Romans), particularly the hoplites in one book, as driving the changes in their gear...no mention of petty fashions and tastes. Through all these discussions you've not given the Celts one shred of tactical aptitude beyond a vague cozy classical writer view that, basically, a charge was all they really could do.


There isn't even solid evidence to begin with that the Pergamenes fielded phalangites, so I defy you to produce this source or a reference to it. Where did you even get this notion from?Since I already stated that I do not recall where I read/heard/saw that at, then the only rational thing to do is recognize the impossibility of a fit Celtic soldier ever doing any feat of unexpected physical agility on the battlefield


Yes, and they would get inside the reach the same way that everyone else with a shorter weapon did- by parrying the weapons and breaking through. To roll under a bank of pikeheads sounds ridiculously improbably in writing and was probably even less viable in real life. You do realize that phalangites in the first few rows could lower their pikes fairly easily and without consequence to the integrity of the phalanx, right?
I never read of the phalanx doing such a thing against Celtic charges, therefore I cannot consider this occurrence as a possibility, so I defy you to produce this source or a reference to it. Where did you even get this notion from?

[Macilrille]

I was asked my opinion in PM and replied, and was then asked to poste my opinion here as well, which I will, pasted directly, for I am unresolved on the matter, and can thus only offer the few insights I have and answer the questions I believe I can even if it is in a vague manner ;-)

Re: Hey mate
________________________________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macilrille
Well, the Spanish Tercios certainly did it at Ravenna that I know off but hinted in Alatriste (horrible film, but they did have experts on fighting stuff and listened to them) that they did elsewhere as well, or even knelt and dashed in low.

Apart from that, in our technique it is not a very good idea, in fact it is suicide, but we are not phalangites, we are Viking Re-enactors. Our spears are 2.5- 3.5 m for two-handers, 1.7- 2.5 for one handers used with shield. And we intersperse the spears with people wielding short weapons, in fact our longer spears are often behind the shorter weapons supporting them when we push forwards so as to concentrate more weapon points on a section of the line we want to break (our formations are rarely more then three men deep and the third row will be reserves with more loose "runnders" behind them to either go through the enemy line and create havoc behind his main formation and kill his main line in their back or catch the enemies trying the same. So against us it would be a bad idea. Against a Phalanx... it really depends on how tight the formation is, if it is possible for some phalangites to lower their spears and stab low, it would also be a bad idea. If it is so tight they cannot lower their spearpoints, they are in trouble. However, getting there may be difficult, rolling with a sword and shield is not easy.
Personally I would not like to try it, rather the tech of late medieval and renaissance armies where you have big strong guys (on double pay) interspersed in your formation and on the flanks with two-handed weapons to sweep pikes aside and break up formations. To get into them and start the slaughter. Or the technique shown near the end of Alatriste where they rush in low and stab.

The Tercios wore breastplates at Ravenna, which is lighter than mail. Mail slows you down, even if you are fit and used to it, it slows you slightly. However, a fit warrior who is used to his mail can do anything an unarmoured one can, if slightly slower and with a bit more effort. 10- 5 years ago there were few athletic feats I could not perform even in my quite heavy mail (20 kg, they are usually 10- 14), but it did slow me slightly.

I honestly cannot say. With the right equipment and technique against a Pikeblock or Phalanx it might work, but it is a question of how much use there was for it, in the later times the Tercios and Zweihändern only evolved because of incessant warfare between Pike-armies.


Not much help, but notice I have also not commented on that particular thread, for I am not resolved.
----------------------------------
Reply
What you have mentioned here, if you'd like to post this in the thread, for others to check out. Interesting stuff...
----------------------------------

Now done, I can add the following clip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqB92RmzUzM&feature=related 2.30+ they start crawling, though a bit unrealistic to crawl right past the enemy crawler.

[Aurgelmir]

When did the vikings used maces?

And how do fend off blows from a 2 m axe?...,i inmagine that youre shield looses alot of his functionality...when you try to block him with your shield

I somewhere read that they used a mace in one hand to disrupt there shieldblocks...mayby even destroy the shield...and in the second hand a sword to stab/slash right after it.....of course this could just be another hollywood story i dont know.

And the shield quality of course is not always the same...but who had the best quality shield?
I always aks myself,how long somebody could wear off blows from sword/spear...before it breaks

When i remember it right....i think the only time i saw a shield smashed in a hollywood movie...was in the 13th warrior lol

But i can inmagine that one good strike of a mace,could crush a shield immediately,mayby even breaks the arm holding it.....Before somebody things that are statements...NO...i dont know it

So when i had to choose i would prefer 2 weapons(lol i learnt to fight with 2 weapons...and i know that i can't compare it...to the old days)
But still i think when somebody is not properly trained in useing a shield...it would be not more that a burden for him...of course would he be in a better position when its raining blood..ehm arrows.

Wich nation used the biggest shields?...wasn't it a persian one?

lot of questions..yeah


And how cool would it be...if an ancient warriors could put on there i-pods's..and battle against the enemy with songs like...mother north...or Blashyrk..(this is a joke...before i get a serious anwser:laugh4:)

[Macilrille]

When did the vikings used maces?

Never, or at least neither archeology nor written sources have any trace of maces in them

And how do fend off blows from a 2 m axe?...,i inmagine that youre shield looses alot of his functionality...when you try to block him with your shield

you block with the shield boss, or using the shield in such a way that his cut go across the grain in the wooden planks in your shield, he will still wreck it, but it will buy you time to get inside his reach and cut or stab him

I somewhere read that they used a mace in one hand to disrupt there shieldblocks...mayby even destroy the shield...and in the second hand a sword to stab/slash right after it.....of course this could just be another hollywood story i dont know.

Hollywood

And the shield quality of course is not always the same...but who had the best quality shield?
I always aks myself,how long somebody could wear off blows from sword/spear...before it breaks

Good question, I do not know, the Roman "Plywood" Scutums would have been quite strong and resilient, but those who have actually constructed an authentic copy of a Viking shield have found them remarkably resilient, spears and arrows will go through, but not hit you and a twist of the shield may break the speak (described in Sagas). Viking shields were from buckler size to 1.2 m and circular made of wooden planks 8- 15 mm thick as I recall, I have a friend finishing his Ma Thesis in archeology on Viking shields, I could ask him if you want a real lecture ;-)

When i remember it right....i think the only time i saw a shield smashed in a hollywood movie...was in the 13th warrior lol

I honestly do not know, I tend to avoid Hollywood "historical" films, especially about something as dear to me as Vikings. I avoided Rome and City of God for a long time before letting friends talk me into seeing them, one I regret avoiding, the other I should have avoided altogether;-)

But i can inmagine that one good strike of a mace,could crush a shield immediately,mayby even breaks the arm holding it.....Before somebody things that are statements...NO...i dont know it

Maces are nasty weapons with high impact, well suited for caving in armour. However, a shield would be the best defense against it. Some of us do late Medieval re-enactment as well (not I), so I have tried some medieval weapons.

So when i had to choose i would prefer 2 weapons(lol i learnt to fight with 2 weapons...and i know that i can't compare it...to the old days)
But still i think when somebody is not properly trained in useing a shield...it would be not more that a burden for him...of course would he be in a better position when its raining blood..ehm arrows.

Well, I was one of the best two-weapon fighters there were and for freestyle it is superb as you can almost always get a "tap" in by all-out attack. In a real fight however, and thus in Heavy Style or Huskarl it is less suited. There is a reason history does not tell of many great heroes wielding two weapons;-) and against spears and/or arrows, well... let us just say that the Chinese wire-fight films, though beautiful are somewhat far-fetched.

Wich nation used the biggest shields?...wasn't it a persian one?

Outside my area of expertise.

[Aurgelmir]

When did the vikings used maces?

Never, or at least neither archeology nor written sources have any trace of maces in them

And how do fend off blows from a 2 m axe?...,i inmagine that youre shield looses alot of his functionality...when you try to block him with your shield

you block with the shield boss, or using the shield in such a way that his cut go across the grain in the wooden planks in your shield, he will still wreck it, but it will buy you time to get inside his reach and cut or stab him

I somewhere read that they used a mace in one hand to disrupt there shieldblocks...mayby even destroy the shield...and in the second hand a sword to stab/slash right after it.....of course this could just be another hollywood story i dont know.

Hollywood

And the shield quality of course is not always the same...but who had the best quality shield?
I always aks myself,how long somebody could wear off blows from sword/spear...before it breaks

Good question, I do not know, the Roman "Plywood" Scutums would have been quite strong and resilient, but those who have actually constructed an authentic copy of a Viking shield have found them remarkably resilient, spears and arrows will go through, but not hit you and a twist of the shield may break the speak (described in Sagas). Viking shields were from buckler size to 1.2 m and circular made of wooden planks 8- 15 mm thick as I recall, I have a friend finishing his Ma Thesis in archeology on Viking shields, I could ask him if you want a real lecture ;-)

When i remember it right....i think the only time i saw a shield smashed in a hollywood movie...was in the 13th warrior lol

I honestly do not know, I tend to avoid Hollywood "historical" films, especially about something as dear to me as Vikings. I avoided Rome and City of God for a long time before letting friends talk me into seeing them, one I regret avoiding, the other I should have avoided altogether;-)

But i can inmagine that one good strike of a mace,could crush a shield immediately,mayby even breaks the arm holding it.....Before somebody things that are statements...NO...i dont know it

Maces are nasty weapons with high impact, well suited for caving in armour. However, a shield would be the best defense against it. Some of us do late Medieval re-enactment as well (not I), so I have tried some medieval weapons.

So when i had to choose i would prefer 2 weapons(lol i learnt to fight with 2 weapons...and i know that i can't compare it...to the old days)
But still i think when somebody is not properly trained in useing a shield...it would be not more that a burden for him...of course would he be in a better position when its raining blood..ehm arrows.

Well, I was one of the best two-weapon fighters there were and for freestyle it is superb as you can almost always get a "tap" in by all-out attack. In a real fight however, and thus in Heavy Style or Huskarl it is less suited. There is a reason history does not tell of many great heroes wielding two weapons;-) and against spears and/or arrows, well... let us just say that the Chinese wire-fight films, though beautiful are somewhat far-fetched.

Wich nation used the biggest shields?...wasn't it a persian one?

Outside my area of expertise.


What kind of wood did they use for there shields?...I know that they where very carefully when they choose there wood for there boots....there boots where not so breakable then others in that time-area

I can inmagine that choosing the wood for there shields wasn't that easy...


What is ...city of god? never heard of it

Because i can't really understand your point(my lack of english srry).....The way you block the blow of a 2m axe
Dont you have a youtube vid for this?...or like this doen't have to be an 2 m axe lol

[MeinPanzer]

See Iron & Steel in Ancient Times for the La Tene nature of the Hjotspring shields:"It is of general opinion the iron weapons belonged to the intruders and were not produced in Denmark. The shields in the Hjortspring boat are of Celtic origin, and at least one of the Krogsbolle swords is two edged and very similar to Celtic swords."

He clearly means that the basic form of the shield (i.e. that they are oblong and have barley-corn bosses) is Celtic, which really tells us very little, as I said before. As he says, we have very good evidence that the arms of the Hjortspring deposit came from raiders from southern Scandinavia. Again, taking this criteria, we can call the Ai-Khanoum thureos "of Celtic origin." Note also that he says that the Krogsbolle sword is similar to Celtic swords, but it is of Germanic origin and we find later two-edged swords like it which are not of La Tene origin.


See The Celts by Kruta and Moscati for La Tene branching into Scandinavia:Towards the end of the third century B.C. a definite Celtic influence reached Southern Scandinavia. The so-called Plastic Style of the Early La Tène period was imitated on massive Danish bronze fibulae and torques, and the shield bosses of the Hjortspring hoard are reminiscent of the earliest Celtic iron-plated bosses. At the same time a remarkable series of Celtic cauldrons began to appear in Denmark.

Only the portion relating to the Hjortspring shield bosses is relevant here, but yes, that is evident. As stated before, the scutum/thureos spread from northern Italy to Scandinavia through Celtic intermediaries by the 5th century BC, but all evidence points to northern European peoples adapting the shields to their own tastes, producing the shield types found at Hjortspring.


It looks like an Etruscan chariot probably being looted from a temple or other holy site, along with the other items the Celts are looting. That, or the only other logical thing for me to concede is that everything else in the scene is inaccurate and distorted too...

Then you'd have to prove that this chariot is Etruscan in origin. But how would a group of Celts find a fully-equipped chariot when looting a temple? The form of the chariot is also unlike any other contemporary examples I have seen depicted in non-mythological sources.


The vast majority of Celts wore their pants, were bare chested, had a shield, and a spear, and maybe a couple javelins. The average Roman had a chainmail vest, helmet, shield, two pilum, and a gladius; certain not similar armament by any means.

I was referring to this comment:

"For example, if the leading warriors/nobility (not mounted ones) led the charge at the pikes and suffered high casualties, someone has to prove how the tribes leading warriors/nobility would stay intact over generations."

Nobles would have been similarly armed to Romans - helmet, mail cuirass, shield, spear and javelins, long sword. So why would they, leading a charge, as you have put forth in this scenario, need to use some fancy feat to break through the serried ranks of the Macedonian phalanx and the Romans not?


The Celts had no enemies superior to themselves on the equipment level...others were copying them and their innovations, not the other way around.

Firstly, even if this were true, it wouldn't matter because fashion can often override efficacy. But it isn't, considering that, for instance, surveys of evidence show that mail, that piece of armour thought to be so Celtic, probably originated in northeastern Thrace and spread from there to neighbouring Celtic peoples (and not the other way around, as was once thought).


Also, plenty of sources mention the battles against the main enemies (Greeks, then Romans), particularly the hoplites in one book, as driving the changes in their gear...no mention of petty fashions and tastes.

Necessity and tastes can both drive change. But would you care to offer some of this evidence that proves that the change in equipment was driven by contact with the phalanx (I'm not referring to the Romans in this case)?


Through all these discussions you've not given the Celts one shred of tactical aptitude beyond a vague cozy classical writer view that, basically, a charge was all they really could do.

I guess sticking to the evidence and dismissing claims that Celts rolled under the spears of a phalanx in full arms based on a made-up source makes me a "cozy classical writer."


Since I already stated that I do not recall where I read/heard/saw that at, then the only rational thing to do is recognize the impossibility of a fit Celtic soldier ever doing any feat of unexpected physical agility on the battlefield

I don't doubt that Celts could have performed feats of physical prowess on the battlefield, but that particular one? That I certainly doubt.

[Macilrille]

What kind of wood did they use for there shields?...I know that they where very carefully when they choose there wood for there boots....there boots where not so breakable then others in that time-area

I can inmagine that choosing the wood for there shields wasn't that easy...


What is ...city of god? never heard of it

Because i can't really understand your point(my lack of english srry).....The way you block the blow of a 2m axe
Dont you have a youtube vid for this?...or like this doen't have to be an 2 m axe lol


As far as I can recall they used ash or lind for shields, but to be sure you would have to ask my expert friend. The Vikings ships were usually made of oak and were constructed to be very flexible, which was their main strength. I have sailed Viking ships and they can co as fast as most modern sail-powered yaths (16-17 knots), but where modern ships fight the sea a Viking ship makes love to it, flying across the waves. The way they are constructed makes them sort of suck air down beneath the keel and makes them fly across the waves with less friction than from pure water, moving and flexing and making love to the waves.

Well... if you split a pice of firewood you do it with the grains in the wood, these go from top to bottom/lengthwise in a tree and it splits easy that way, but across them, wood is much harder to split, you will only chip out pieces. So in order to block a blow from a Daneaxe you will have to catch it on the shieldboss or across the grains of the wood used in your shield, it will still get damaged (even the shieldboss will).

There are no Vids of it, but try do a Google picture search for Dane Axe. Really horrendous weapon. There is a depiction on the Bayex Tapestry where a Huscarl kills a knight and horse in one blow with one.

City of God is a crap Hollywood film featuring Surferboy Orlando Bloom as a Crusader. It is as historically correct as you would imagine, but the heroine is a hottie.

[Power2the1]

He clearly means that the basic form of the shield (i.e. that they are oblong and have barley-corn bosses) is Celtic, which really tells us very little, as I said before. As he says, we have very good evidence that the arms of the Hjortspring deposit came from raiders from southern Scandinavia. Again, taking this criteria, we can call the Ai-Khanoum thureos "of Celtic origin." Note also that he says that the Krogsbolle sword is similar to Celtic swords, but it is of Germanic origin and we find later two-edged swords like it which are not of La Tene origin.

Only the portion relating to the Hjortspring shield bosses is relevant here, but yes, that is evident. As stated before, the scutum/thureos spread from northern Italy to Scandinavia through Celtic intermediaries by the 5th century BC, but all evidence points to northern European peoples adapting the shields to their own tastes, producing the shield types found at Hjortspring.
Actually this La Tene exposure occurred through migrating/conquests under legendary/real (?) Segovesos into southern Germany beginning in the 500's and lasting well over another 100 years into the 400s B.C. These migrations consisted of La Tene tribes, absorbing and assimilating the old Halstatt chiefdoms and spreading out across southern Germany. This would have been the first large introduction of items of La Tene make into the Germanic world and would serve as the initial prototypes for other Germanic copies. Germans had small shield and theres no reason to think those cannot be traced back to Celtic originals in service.

Later finds can possibly the second wave before and around the 300-270's B.C. Each time theres a significant boom in Denmark/Scandinavia/Germany, it is preceded by a Celtic military expansion phase that cannot be ruled out to introduce military items to those around them.


Then you'd have to prove that this chariot is Etruscan in origin. But how would a group of Celts find a fully-equipped chariot when looting a temple? The form of the chariot is also unlike any other contemporary examples I have seen depicted in non-mythological sources.
Everything is Roman. The Celts are looting a temple, and fleeing due to divine intervention. The horse is to scale, the men, unless they are 10' tall, are to scale, and theres nothing to question the size of the shields, which appear just about the same size as the La Tene 3'x2' shield in the first place.



I was referring to this comment:

"For example, if the leading warriors/nobility (not mounted ones) led the charge at the pikes and suffered high casualties, someone has to prove how the tribes leading warriors/nobility would stay intact over generations."

Nobles would have been similarly armed to Romans - helmet, mail cuirass, shield, spear and javelins, long sword. So why would they, leading a charge, as you have put forth in this scenario, need to use some fancy feat to break through the serried ranks of the Macedonian phalanx and the Romans not?
Celts were not utterly predictable in their attacks as the classical sources wish us to believe. Many would no doubt charge right into an enemy formation. Others, seeing how Celts fought individualistic mostly, would have their own styles, methods, and ways to fight based on ones own strength and weakness. Feints to the left or right, parry with shield and sword, spin, bash with the shield, weave, and other things obviously. Dodging pikes and rolling under something that could be around 20 feet long seems easy.


Firstly, even if this were true, it wouldn't matter because fashion can often override efficacy. But it isn't, considering that, for instance, surveys of evidence show that mail, that piece of armour thought to be so Celtic, probably originated in northeastern Thrace and spread from there to neighbouring Celtic peoples (and not the other way around, as was once thought).
Celts that 'gave' Montefortinos and other late Gallic helmets to the Romans, chainmail to the Romans, thureos and chainmail to the Greeks; even the gladius has a Celtic connection (Gallic:cladio) as does the scutum. The influence of Celtic military upon nearby peoples cannot be underestimated. Plenty peoples came into contact with the Celts and copied what they saw, even in Germanic areas. The Celts receive credit for chainmail's widespread usafe


Necessity and tastes can both drive change. But would you care to offer some of this evidence that proves that the change in equipment was driven by contact with the phalanx (I'm not referring to the Romans in this case)? Certainly

The Standard Third-Century Panoply: Cumbersome Equipment
In quantitative terms, the evolution of military equipment from the fifth century B.C. seems to follow an ascending curve through to the third century. The spears, omnipresent in early La Tène burials, gradually lose their importance in relation to other equipment; the spear and the sword remained the two basic pieces of equipment during the fourth century. Shields, on rare occasions attested by a metal fitting of some kind, were probably also present but perished completely. Helmets also become rare and their relative concentration in Cisalpine Gaul soon gave way to a fairly widespread absence in cemeteries from the first quarter of the third century onward. Apart from this exception, there was a sharp increase in the equipment carried and worn by warriors as the fourth century drew to a close. This modification of the panoplies suggests a complete change in combat techniques in use at the time. The Celts' keenness for innovation is mainly seen in the evolution of their shields (especially in the metal umbo or boss), and in the scabbard attachments, i.e., the belt-chains mentioned earlier.

The chains were basically trappings and not really part of the fighting equipment, which is why they were ignored for so long. The collective term Dreierausrüstung used by German archaeologists (denoting sword, spear and shield) leaves out the chains altogether. Unlike the shield and its evolving boss, the chains are exclusive to the Celts of the third century. It is precisely this four-piece set of equipment, more than the three-piece system which gives the Celtic warrior the unexpected appearance of a heavily-armed infantryman. The cause of the evolution is probably the Celts' increasingly frequent skirmishes with the hoplites, who were even more static and weighed down with their weaponry. The development reached a new peak when the weight of the chains became twice that of the sword and scabbard. The production of warrior equipment in the third century B.C. could involve up to five times more metal than those of two centuries earlier. Another characteristic of this evolution, namely, the increased length of the swords (particularly noticeable at the end of the century), may obey the same logic, but with a different end in mind, as explained in the paragraph on combat techniques.

This mounting burden of metal risked becoming a handicap rather than an advantage, and the Celts took care to reconcile the physical properties of iron with the lightness necessary for insuring the effectiveness of their weapons. This technical problem is of the utmost importance, and underlies the constant evolution of the entire combat gear.


The Shield

Unlike their Mediterranean counterparts, which were generally round or curved, the Celtic shields were elliptical and flat with a protruding midrib. The shape and the horizontal handgrip made the shield more maneuverable, whereas the hoplite shields were designed for a more stationary defense. The head-on clashes between these two types of footsoldier had probably prompted the Celts to reinforce the umbo or boss in the middle of the shield. In early versions it consists of two metal plates each fixed with two nails, and sometimes given a metal brace to secure the vertical join. If the boss was knocked hard, however, the nails protruded dangerously on the inside; a provisional solution was to lengthen the metal plates and hence nail them further toward the shield's rim. Despite this improvement, structural weaknesses persisted around the handgrip, a feature that enabled the bearer to wield the shield. This led to a completely new form in which the round or square central bosses, which had thitherto helped reinforce the assembly of the wooden sections, became one with the midrib, enabling a more solid coupling of the handgrip with the whole. This transitory solution quickly led to the classic umbo, made from a single midrib extended to either end. By eliminating earlier inconveniences, this umbo became a central feature of the shield, guaranteeing the protection of the bearer's hand but also greatly improving the assembly of the midrib with the wooden sections and handgrip, affording solidity and maneuverability. From this point on, the variations of the midrib extensions illustrate the range available at any one time and chronicle the general evolution of combat techniques. It thus happens that at the end of the century, the smaller umbo (included merely for assembly purposes) is replaced by something ten times larger and much heavier.


Combat Techniques

The technological advances reveal the rational evolution of weaponry for tenacious fighters who realized they had to adapt to match their adversaries. This is in stark contrast with the stereotyped image of the howling, disordered barbarian hordes with their unpredictable behavior. The development of the shields and sword-chains is clearly a coherent succession of innovations, carefully tailored to a technique where nothing could be left to chance.

In the third century, the Macedonian phalanx, which succeeded those assembled by Philip of Macedon and Alexander the Great, had became an academic model for the Mediterranean armies. This apparently invulnerable block several rows deep, bristling with spears, proved increasingly static due to the complex maneuvers needed for facing the enemy on all sides. The ploy the Celts adopted to confuse and destabilize this compact mass of men was the dynamic onslaught of their foot soldiers, whose effectiveness lay in the sheer force of their initial attack. The violence of this onslaught was crucial to the success of the operation and justified the need to be able to dash unimpeded into the enemy lines. The rapid expansion of the Celts in eastern Europe is sufficient proof of the success of this assault tactic, which was even effective against the heavily-armed hoplite soldiers. However, the tactic cost many lives and much energy, and could rarely be performed more than once. Hence the clichés in the battle accounts, which stress the Gauls' apparent indifference to death, or their sudden despair when their frontal attack was not immediately successful.

Third-century assault tactics saw the introduction of cavalry to the battlefield, once again by King Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander. Horsemen had, of course, long been present in battle but proper formation combat on horseback was first devised by the Macedonian generals. The Celts, mercenaries by nature and inclination, were practiced horsemen, and must have used horses in battle at a fairly early stage. The simple list of the effective soldiers lined opposite each other during the battle of Telamon referred to by Polybius ( Histories, II, 27-31) highlights the relative importance of the Celtic cavalry, which comprised a fifth of all combatants, and hence twice as many employed by the enemy. The Second Punic War, which followed soon after this event, witnessed another great strategist of ancient times, Hannibal, decisively make use of these detachments of mercenary horsemen. Whether lightly armed and aimed at scattering the enemy, such as the Numidian horsemen, or heavily armed like the Celts, combat on horseback was essentially limited to dissuasive charges on the infantry, and rarely developed into close combat. In fact, when the situation forced the adversaries into close fighting, the horsemen jumped down from their mounts, as at the battle of Ticino, and engaged in traditional hand-to-hand fighting. ( Polybius, Histories, II, 64).

The certainty of the presence of cavalry is not endorsed by archaeological material, although some vague indications are slowly emerging. The clearest sign of the appearance of cavalry on the scene is the progressive lengthening of the sword, which can be noted from midway through the century. During the first half this growth was minimal, but by the end of the century it exceeded twenty centimeters. With a blade of eighty to ninety centimeters long, the sword had become a long, straight saber, much the same as those worn by the cavalry of later eras. A weapon this size, hanging down to an average man's ankles, would clearly be too unwieldy for the infantry, preventing them from rushing into the attack.

For the horseman there was no such problem. Even when forced off his horse, he was never obliged to charge the enemy. The growing emphasis on cavalry forces did not mean that troops on foot were phased out; there was probably a full revision of combat techniques. Assault formations of the Mediterranean kind seem to have eventually got the better of the Gauls' furious onslaughts, as indicated by the rounded-off spearheads, devised to avoid wounding comrades in the rear lines. Just as they reached perfection, the belt-chains became obsolete, for cavalry and for infantry alike. The points of some spears become inordinately long until they resembled bayonets. The small shield-bosses were abandoned abruptly like the chains, in favor of bosses ten times larger that virtually covered the entire shield.



I guess sticking to the evidence and dismissing claims that Celts rolled under the spears of a phalanx in full arms based on a made-up source makes me a "cozy classical writer."
No, you are not, but your scope on the great variety and range of Celtic combat techniques, especially seeing how they are a heroic warrior culture, leaves much to be desired. 'Evidence' from classical sources equals: Celtic warriors charged mindlessly into the enemy. Thats about it. If you accept that simple explanation, fine. I don't.


I don't doubt that Celts could have performed feats of physical prowess on the battlefield, but that particular one? That I certainly doubt.
The 'charge ahead and forget' tactic is rubbish, and anyone that cannot see other views on the true fluidity of a heroic warrior culture is wearing 'blinders'. Tactics would ebb and flow, leaving the enemy in the dark over your next move...after all, individual combat styles among thousands of men cannot be shoehorned into a nice and tidy little package consisting of a set of 2 or3 combat moves! Variety is what we have to look at in combination with the famous charge. Yes, mad charges happened, but even a casual consideration of the high casualties charging a phalangite line questions preconceived notions that the nobles consistently led the attack thus suffering tremendous losses, thus leaving a tribe without its upper class, thus causing a self destructive power vacuum in the tribe. If all nobles were mounted, then who are the rich guys being dug up with expensive gear but no sign of cavalry items, like spurs? I think of a zillion cases and counter cases for each.

[kekailoa]

City of God is a crap Hollywood film featuring Surferboy Orlando Bloom as a Crusader. It is as historically correct as you would imagine, but the heroine is a hottie.

Kingdom of Heaven, I believe? City of God, Kingdom of Heaven, pretty close.

But thank you for explaining the Huscarl techniques. It looked a little light handed, but I did go back and review the clip and I did notice one of the combatants did seem to use more of a sweeping cut than the wrist techniques.

It looks like a lot of fun, and looks like it keep you in great shape, too. All I can do in Hawaii is surf and pole vault, sadly.

[MeinPanzer]

Actually this La Tene exposure occurred through migrating/conquests under legendary/real (?) Segovesos into southern Germany beginning in the 500's and lasting well over another 100 years into the 400s B.C. These migrations consisted of La Tene tribes, absorbing and assimilating the old Halstatt chiefdoms and spreading out across southern Germany. This would have been the first large introduction of items of La Tene make into the Germanic world and would serve as the initial prototypes for other Germanic copies. Germans had small shield and theres no reason to think those cannot be traced back to Celtic originals in service.

Later finds can possibly the second wave before and around the 300-270's B.C. Each time theres a significant boom in Denmark/Scandinavia/Germany, it is preceded by a Celtic military expansion phase that cannot be ruled out to introduce military items to those around them.

You are basically stating exactly what I stated before. The scutum was transmitted to Germanic peoples by Celtic peoples coming into contact with them. However, the shields themselves, which are at the core of the debate, are clearly Germanic adaptations of a type of shield they encountered first among Celts.


Everything is Roman. The Celts are looting a temple, and fleeing due to divine intervention. The horse is to scale, the men, unless they are 10' tall, are to scale, and theres nothing to question the size of the shields, which appear just about the same size as the La Tene 3'x2' shield in the first place.

The chariot is clearly fantastical, which casts doubt on the details of the scene.


Celts were not utterly predictable in their attacks as the classical sources wish us to believe. Many would no doubt charge right into an enemy formation. Others, seeing how Celts fought individualistic mostly, would have their own styles, methods, and ways to fight based on ones own strength and weakness. Feints to the left or right, parry with shield and sword, spin, bash with the shield, weave, and other things obviously. Dodging pikes and rolling under something that could be around 20 feet long seems easy.


No, you are not, but your scope on the great variety and range of Celtic combat techniques, especially seeing how they are a heroic warrior culture, leaves much to be desired. 'Evidence' from classical sources equals: Celtic warriors charged mindlessly into the enemy. Thats about it. If you accept that simple explanation, fine. I don't.


The 'charge ahead and forget' tactic is rubbish, and anyone that cannot see other views on the true fluidity of a heroic warrior culture is wearing 'blinders'. Tactics would ebb and flow, leaving the enemy in the dark over your next move...after all, individual combat styles among thousands of men cannot be shoehorned into a nice and tidy little package consisting of a set of 2 or3 combat moves! Variety is what we have to look at in combination with the famous charge.

You are building up a strawman here... I never said that the only tactic Celts employed was blindly charging into combat, and the testimony of ancient authors about Telamon, to use an example, shows that they could show significant tactical variability. I am simply stating that I strongly doubt that Celts would spin or roll in combat. There is a significant range of infantry tactics lying between blindly charging and doing martial arts in close combat, and I think that the Celts probably fell somewhere in between there. I think it is reasonable to assume that the Celts, who used a similar general panoply to the Romans, employed roughly the same individual infantry tactics to combat the Macedonian phalanx. That is, they would parry or deflect the sarissae of the phalangites, and once they could get into close combat range, would try to disrupt the body of men.


Yes, mad charges happened, but even a casual consideration of the high casualties charging a phalangite line questions preconceived notions that the nobles consistently led the attack thus suffering tremendous losses, thus leaving a tribe without its upper class, thus causing a self destructive power vacuum in the tribe.

I don't think anybody is suggesting this.


If all nobles were mounted, then who are the rich guys being dug up with expensive gear but no sign of cavalry items, like spurs? I think of a zillion cases and counter cases for each.

Lesser nobles?


Celts that 'gave' Montefortinos and other late Gallic helmets to the Romans, chainmail to the Romans, thureos and chainmail to the Greeks; even the gladius has a Celtic connection (Gallic:cladio) as does the scutum. The influence of Celtic military upon nearby peoples cannot be underestimated. Plenty peoples came into contact with the Celts and copied what they saw, even in Germanic areas. The Celts receive credit for chainmail's widespread usafe

I'm not underestimating their influence on the military equipment of neighbouring peoples, nor am I denying that Germanic peoples adopted the Celtic style of shield. What I am saying is that as in other regions where peoples adopted the thureos from the Celts, they evidently adapted the equipment to their local taste.


Certainly


The Standard Third-Century Panoply: Cumbersome Equipment
In quantitative terms, the evolution of military equipment from the fifth century B.C. seems to follow an ascending curve through to the third century. The spears, omnipresent in early La Tène burials, gradually lose their importance in relation to other equipment; the spear and the sword remained the two basic pieces of equipment during the fourth century. Shields, on rare occasions attested by a metal fitting of some kind, were probably also present but perished completely. Helmets also become rare and their relative concentration in Cisalpine Gaul soon gave way to a fairly widespread absence in cemeteries from the first quarter of the third century onward. Apart from this exception, there was a sharp increase in the equipment carried and worn by warriors as the fourth century drew to a close. This modification of the panoplies suggests a complete change in combat techniques in use at the time. The Celts' keenness for innovation is mainly seen in the evolution of their shields (especially in the metal umbo or boss), and in the scabbard attachments, i.e., the belt-chains mentioned earlier.

Did you write this? If so, it's not much of a source to quote your own writing without referencing any outside sources.


The chains were basically trappings and not really part of the fighting equipment, which is why they were ignored for so long. The collective term Dreierausrüstung used by German archaeologists (denoting sword, spear and shield) leaves out the chains altogether. Unlike the shield and its evolving boss, the chains are exclusive to the Celts of the third century. It is precisely this four-piece set of equipment, more than the three-piece system which gives the Celtic warrior the unexpected appearance of a heavily-armed infantryman. The cause of the evolution is probably the Celts' increasingly frequent skirmishes with the hoplites, who were even more static and weighed down with their weaponry.

This is pure speculation and doesn't take into account that this shift primarily occurred in the Celtic heartland where most, if not all people would not have encountered hoplites.


The development reached a new peak when the weight of the chains became twice that of the sword and scabbard. The production of warrior equipment in the third century B.C. could involve up to five times more metal than those of two centuries earlier. Another characteristic of this evolution, namely, the increased length of the swords (particularly noticeable at the end of the century), may obey the same logic, but with a different end in mind, as explained in the paragraph on combat techniques.

This mounting burden of metal risked becoming a handicap rather than an advantage, and the Celts took care to reconcile the physical properties of iron with the lightness necessary for insuring the effectiveness of their weapons. This technical problem is of the utmost importance, and underlies the constant evolution of the entire combat gear.


The Shield

Unlike their Mediterranean counterparts, which were generally round or curved, the Celtic shields were elliptical and flat with a protruding midrib. The shape and the horizontal handgrip made the shield more maneuverable, whereas the hoplite shields were designed for a more stationary defense. The head-on clashes between these two types of footsoldier had probably prompted the Celts to reinforce the umbo or boss in the middle of the shield. In early versions it consists of two metal plates each fixed with two nails, and sometimes given a metal brace to secure the vertical join. If the boss was knocked hard, however, the nails protruded dangerously on the inside; a provisional solution was to lengthen the metal plates and hence nail them further toward the shield's rim. Despite this improvement, structural weaknesses persisted around the handgrip, a feature that enabled the bearer to wield the shield. This led to a completely new form in which the round or square central bosses, which had thitherto helped reinforce the assembly of the wooden sections, became one with the midrib, enabling a more solid coupling of the handgrip with the whole. This transitory solution quickly led to the classic umbo, made from a single midrib extended to either end. By eliminating earlier inconveniences, this umbo became a central feature of the shield, guaranteeing the protection of the bearer's hand but also greatly improving the assembly of the midrib with the wooden sections and handgrip, affording solidity and maneuverability. From this point on, the variations of the midrib extensions illustrate the range available at any one time and chronicle the general evolution of combat techniques. It thus happens that at the end of the century, the smaller umbo (included merely for assembly purposes) is replaced by something ten times larger and much heavier.

I don't really understand this later part. You state that "this led to a completely new form in which the round or square central bosses ... became one with the midrib," but this is evident on representational sources from long before the 3rd c. BC. Also, when you discusss "the smaller umbo," are you referring to the umbo itself or its metal reinforcement?



Combat Techniques

The technological advances reveal the rational evolution of weaponry for tenacious fighters who realized they had to adapt to match their adversaries. This is in stark contrast with the stereotyped image of the howling, disordered barbarian hordes with their unpredictable behavior. The development of the shields and sword-chains is clearly a coherent succession of innovations, carefully tailored to a technique where nothing could be left to chance.

In the third century, the Macedonian phalanx, which succeeded those assembled by Philip of Macedon and Alexander the Great, had became an academic model for the Mediterranean armies. This apparently invulnerable block several rows deep, bristling with spears, proved increasingly static due to the complex maneuvers needed for facing the enemy on all sides. The ploy the Celts adopted to confuse and destabilize this compact mass of men was the dynamic onslaught of their foot soldiers, whose effectiveness lay in the sheer force of their initial attack. The violence of this onslaught was crucial to the success of the operation and justified the need to be able to dash unimpeded into the enemy lines. The rapid expansion of the Celts in eastern Europe is sufficient proof of the success of this assault tactic, which was even effective against the heavily-armed hoplite soldiers.

Do you have any direct evidence for this, or is this just speculation?


For the horseman there was no such problem. Even when forced off his horse, he was never obliged to charge the enemy. The growing emphasis on cavalry forces did not mean that troops on foot were phased out; there was probably a full revision of combat techniques. Assault formations of the Mediterranean kind seem to have eventually got the better of the Gauls' furious onslaughts, as indicated by the rounded-off spearheads, devised to avoid wounding comrades in the rear lines.

Do you mean rounded-off spear butts?


Just as they reached perfection, the belt-chains became obsolete, for cavalry and for infantry alike. The points of some spears become inordinately long until they resembled bayonets. The small shield-bosses were abandoned abruptly like the chains, in favor of bosses ten times larger that virtually covered the entire shield.


All of these developments occurred in the Celtic heartland which would only have had indirect contact with the Macedonian phalanx. You have not provided any compelling reason to see any of these changes as being related to contact with the phalanx.

[Macilrille]

Kingdom of Heaven, right you are. See, it is so bad I have repressed the memory even of its name...

Huskarl is great fun, unfortunately fighting wears down your body terribly :-(

kekailoa, if you host a Viking Market on Hawai, we will definately show up, DEFINATELY!!! :clown::laugh4:

[Power2the1]

You are unwilling the consider that the chariot could be something that has not been discovered yet or one not designed foe war, such as a ceremonial or triumph type...so in face of everything else that is correct in the scene,you latch on to that to cast doubt on the entire depiction. You are unable to entertain the thought that Germanics (like Romans and others) copied military equipment directly from prexisting same sized Celtic examples.

The small text is from The Celts, an 800 plus page book with an abundance of info, military and mainly archaeological, each chapter written by experts from the field and info based on what they find as well as thories from this that obviosly flies against classical propaganda and info. Yet you seem to still find problems even what they interpret. I guess you have found your salvation and there's no need for me to continue in face of your rejection and issues with well, everything, I have posted so far.

Lesser nobles were few becoming few and far between, most having been reduced in rank, wealth, and prestige, through vassalization or becoming endebted to greater nobles (thus fighting alongside their 'master' as men at arms) under the master's command. Add the fact that only around 20 percent (30 is rare) would even have mail with hemets and swords, burials with these items are overwhelmingly of the noble/chief status, although its very possible some wealthy burials are 'lesser' nobility, it would b extremly rare as these are not leading men or the like in the culture. Dynamics of middle and late La Tene society caused this to happen, similar to a feudal arrangment.

[Aurgelmir]

Ah yeah kingdom of crap...i know that one.The lol part of the movie was,when lionhart came at the end to conquer jerusalem.....LOL

For what do you practise this mac?
Do you guys do shows or something like that,or is it just for fun/hobby?

Always wanted to see such a show...here the only shows you get to see are fantasy based ...with elfs and shit.More fun for my wife then for me:wall:

England has some nice medieval shows...and in germany you can get married in the old fashion way...you rent a castle for 2 or 3 days,get the custums there...and then you party like they did.The people who work there perform acts,theater,fights....but it is expensive!

And in south france you can go on a medieval vacation...dont know the name of the place....french words are all the same to me:sweatdrop:

[Macilrille]

Ah yeah kingdom of crap...i know that one.The lol part of the movie was,when lionhart came at the end to conquer jerusalem.....LOL

For what do you practise this mac?
Do you guys do shows or something like that,or is it just for fun/hobby?

Always wanted to see such a show...here the only shows you get to see are fantasy based ...with elfs and shit.More fun for my wife then for me:wall:

England has some nice medieval shows...and in germany you can get married in the old fashion way...you rent a castle for 2 or 3 days,get the custums there...and then you party like they did.The people who work there perform acts,theater,fights....but it is expensive!

And in south france you can go on a medieval vacation...dont know the name of the place....french words are all the same to me:sweatdrop:

We practice for fun, for the training of body, the fighting, the companionship and to do shows all summer all around the world, mostly Europe-Scandinavia-Denmark though. We really-really want to go places like Japan, but it is hard to convince anyone we "know" there (Danish Embassy) that they should pay for our trip and food. Try search for "Moesgaard" on Youtube to see the most prestigious one. "Trelleborg" and "Wolin" should yield some results also.

We are in Eindhoven sometimes, and there are Dutch re-enactors. They are quite nice, Dutch and Danish mentality is very similar. In fact one of them have married our founder and "Queen", at most markets there would be entertainment for your wife as well (even if she does not fancy sweaty men with weapons fighting and swaggering around as if they own the world), as there is lots of Viking crafts, dress and jewelry as well as horses (and horsegirls ;-p ). For example, this guy is the Alban Depper who invented Huskarl http://www.northan.net/ selling his Viking Jewelry (he makes a living off that and training people in Huskarl around Europe).

In Denmark, paganism is now recognised as a "true" religion (though all we know is what Christians tell us, so rather neo-paganism, I am not into that), so you can get married in that faith as well. And when we do, we party!!

[MeinPanzer]

You are unwilling the consider that the chariot could be something that has not been discovered yet or one not designed foe war, such as a ceremonial or triumph type...so in face of everything else that is correct in the scene,you latch on to that to cast doubt on the entire depiction. You are unable to entertain the thought that Germanics (like Romans and others) copied military equipment directly from prexisting same sized Celtic examples.

Rather, you have not provided any evidence for why we should take the chariot depicted as anything other than fanciful. Chances are that a Roman artist would not have had direct exposure to Celtic arms, and so his depictions are probably a best guess based on received knowledge. And yes, I am unable to entertain the thought that the Germanic shields we find are not copied directly from Celtic examples for the very reasons I stated earlier - the details of their form and construction point to them being local variants.


The small text is from The Celts, an 800 plus page book with an abundance of info, military and mainly archaeological, each chapter written by experts from the field and info based on what they find as well as thories from this that obviosly flies against classical propaganda and info. Yet you seem to still find problems even what they interpret. I guess you have found your salvation and there's no need for me to continue in face of your rejection and issues with well, everything, I have posted so far.

There are a number of books titled "The Celts," which are you referring to? The title by T.G. Powell or by Duncan Norton-Taylor, or some other one?

I am working mainly from the information provided by articles and publications of J.L. Brunaux and A. Rapin, both renowned scholars of Celtic arms and armour.

The main problems I find with that excerpt is that it states that there was a general increase in arms borne by Celtic soldiers at the end of the 4th c. BC, then goes on to state that this was probably due to contact with hoplites. However, the author does not bother to state why he thinks this is so, and does not address the fact that these changes occurred throughout the Celtic "heartland" of France and Central Europe where the Celtic populations obviously would have had extremely limited contact, if any, with hoplites or phalangites. Such a shift could simply have been caused by a change in combat between the Celts and their immediate neighbours or even between Celts themselves, and a good reason would have to be given why we should attribute this change to contact with the Greeks.

The same is true for the comment that the reinforcing of umbos can be attributed to contact with the phalanx. Why would contact with specifically the phalanx require reinforcing the umbo? Why not contact with, say, the Thracians or the Romans? And why could this not just be a general "up-arming," as we find among the militaries of the Hellenistic period? Say, one Celtic group tries to gain an upper hand against another and begins reinforcing its umbos, which then requires that the others follow suit to keep up with general trends in military advances. The necessity to defend against bashes damaging the umbo and grip can clearly not be attributed to contact with hoplites or phalangites, as neither would have normally bashed their opponents' shields in combat.


Lesser nobles were few becoming few and far between, most having been reduced in rank, wealth, and prestige, through vassalization or becoming endebted to greater nobles (thus fighting alongside their 'master' as men at arms) under the master's command. Add the fact that only around 20 percent (30 is rare) would even have mail with hemets and swords, burials with these items are overwhelmingly of the noble/chief status, although its very possible some wealthy burials are 'lesser' nobility, it would b extremly rare as these are not leading men or the like in the culture. Dynamics of middle and late La Tene society caused this to happen, similar to a feudal arrangment.

The burials speak for themselves. How do we define what is a burial of "noble/chief status" and what is of "lesser noble status"? If these burials exist which include richer equipment than most but are not the richest, what other way is there to interpret them than as lesser nobility?

[Aurgelmir]

We practice for fun, for the training of body, the fighting, the companionship and to do shows all summer all around the world, mostly Europe-Scandinavia-Denmark though. We really-really want to go places like Japan, but it is hard to convince anyone we "know" there (Danish Embassy) that they should pay for our trip and food. Try search for "Moesgaard" on Youtube to see the most prestigious one. "Trelleborg" and "Wolin" should yield some results also.

We are in Eindhoven sometimes, and there are Dutch re-enactors. They are quite nice, Dutch and Danish mentality is very similar. In fact one of them have married our founder and "Queen", at most markets there would be entertainment for your wife as well (even if she does not fancy sweaty men with weapons fighting and swaggering around as if they own the world), as there is lots of Viking crafts, dress and jewelry as well as horses (and horsegirls ;-p ). For example, this guy is the Alban Depper who invented Huskarl http://www.northan.net/ selling his Viking Jewelry (he makes a living off that and training people in Huskarl around Europe).

In Denmark, paganism is now recognised as a "true" religion (though all we know is what Christians tell us, so rather neo-paganism, I am not into that), so you can get married in that faith as well. And when we do, we party!!


When you are in eindhoven...tell me...i come and visit...mayby we can try that leap thing hahaha:smash: lol

Are you guys also practising stuff like the music they made?
Despite i'm more fan of the extreme northern music,i like old instruments

yeah paganism....i read that the vikings where the last people who submit to christianity..1300 AD

But in the end,the only thing what vanquished the vikings,where themself

And i saw on tv(:shame:)That there where vikings who used drugs(plants,mushrooms)...they called them beserkers...is that true?
There was a story,how they beat up half of england before some duke or lord defeated them....a nicy story though

[antisocialmunky]

Kingdom of Heaven, right you are. See, it is so bad I have repressed the memory even of its name...

Huskarl is great fun, unfortunately fighting wears down your body terribly :-(

kekailoa, if you host a Viking Market on Hawai, we will definately show up, DEFINATELY!!! :clown::laugh4:

I dunno, it wasn't a bad movie. Certainly there were some very good actors in it... I mean, it wasn't a bad movie, it just starred Orlando Bloom. Which I guess is akin to serving a steak with a dog turd on it.

[Macilrille]

KoH is also vastly ahistoric in so many ways.

I am not usually at Eindhoven, but I think it is soon, I will check for you.
Some of us play music and sing as well, but that is more for entertainment in the evenings besides the fire and under the stars (or tarpaulin when it rains, of course made from authentic fabric, handstitched etc.) while we drink talk, brag, tell tall tales, boast, swear oaths on what we will accomplish, and drink and sing... and change horsegirls/Viking groupies ;-)

Denmark was officially Christened in ~965 when King Harald Gormssøn "gjorde danerne kristne", Norway in the first half of the 11th century and Sweden 100 years later. The Sami/lapps in the borthern parts of Scandinavia were shaminism/hethern until the 17th century, but the last "Indoeuropeans" to be so were the Vends and Slavs along the south and east coast of the Baltic, ironically often force christened by Danes and Swedes on crusades there, and by the german Order. Lithuania was only Christened in 1386 (when the official religion changed paganism often thrived in remote places and with individuals. We know that Toke Trylle (Toke The Sorcerer) greatgrandfather of the later archbishop Absalon who was a crusading force with the Danish King valdemar the Great, was a pagan in the first half of the 11th century, and pagan burials have been found up to about the same time, this would be true of the other countries as well).

We were not vanguished- we are still here, we just changed with the times. Though the behavior and orgainisation of society, in fact my Master's degree Thesis is a paper on hos the old societial organisation and power politics continued in harmony with the new through all the 12th century. I inspired a whole new school of scholarship in Denmark with that and a guy who was "inspired" (he basically copied my thesis) got a Ph-D grant and a stipend for a year in Cambridge on it :-(

The muchroom thing might be true, but I suspect it is mostly myth. There are certain mushrooms that will make you go berserk, but the heat of battle can as well. I for one would go on the field at Moesgaard even with sharp weapons so fired up am I when we go on. Rousing speeches helps (I made a post on that two months ago somewhere).
berserker means "Bear Cloak" or "Bear Coat" though just as "Ulfhednir means the same with Wolf, what we know is that there were warriors called berserkers and Ulfhednir, we assume they wore animal skins, but whether they ignored pain or were just good fighters we do not know, nor whether they partook mushrooms first. I seem to recall that the Cheyennes had some elite warriors dedicated in some way connected to shamanism and impervious to pain etc, if I remember correctly it may be similar.

[Aurgelmir]

We were not vanguished- we are still here, we just changed with the times. Though the behavior and orgainisation of society, in fact my Master's degree Thesis is a paper on hos the old societial organisation and power politics continued in harmony with the new through all the 12th century. I inspired a whole new school of scholarship in Denmark with that and a guy who was "inspired" (he basically copied my thesis) got a Ph-D grant and a stipend for a year in Cambridge on it :-(


Man....i would''huskarl''his ass all over the school...you can bet on that
Did you really let him get away with this?...I hope for your viking honour ..not:smash:

[Macilrille]

I cannot prove anything, he has been cunning enough that there is a similarity, but not an exact one. And yes I wanted to do him in badly at first, but then realised that I could just have applied for the stipend myself, but wanted a break from academics, so the one to blame is ... me. If one does not pick up a treasure in the street, one should not blame the next man. People exploit you if you let them.

I do plan to show up at a seminar dealing with the subject on Cambridge where they hail him as a genius with new thoughts and by my presentation make it clear who came up with the idea in the first place.

We are moving OT though.

[Aurgelmir]

I cannot prove anything, he has been cunning enough that there is a similarity, but not an exact one. And yes I wanted to do him in badly at first, but then realised that I could just have applied for the stipend myself, but wanted a break from academics, so the one to blame is ... me. If one does not pick up a treasure in the street, one should not blame the next man. People exploit you if you let them.

I do plan to show up at a seminar dealing with the subject on Cambridge where they hail him as a genius with new thoughts and by my presentation make it clear who came up with the idea in the first place.

We are moving OT though.

I wish you good luck with that.
Since my first solution always ends in violence....its better to prove that he was copying you.:oops: i guess his name isn't that good anymore after you prove it

[Power2the1]

There are a number of books titled "The Celts," which are you referring to? The title by T.G. Powell or by Duncan Norton-Taylor, or some other one?
This one: Sabatino Moscati, Otto Hermann Frey, Venceslas Kruta, Barry Raftery, Miklós Szabó; Rizzoli, 1991.