Milites Ilergetum Equipment

[Bucefalo]

I am talking about this unit
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/lusotannan/ele_ibe_ilergeta.gif

I am really not an expert of iberian history, so i got quite shocked when first i read on the description of this unit that they did not use the falcata (similar to the gladius hispaniensis) as did most of the iberian tribes. In the game they are using a celtic long sword, i guess this is because of the influence of the celt culture on this iberian tribe.

As far as i know the ilergetes were culturally a iberian tribe with heavy greek influence from the colonies (emporion) and not so much celt influence. I was wondering why the ilergetes are given such a different swords, being still a iberian tribe i guessed they would have used a thrusting weapon along with the scutum, not a slashing sword. Is there any representation or evidences of this difference in equipment?

I also think the team could have done this to represent the influence of the celt culture on this tribe, but as i said earlier, i don´t really think that this tribe would have adopted the longsword. In the case they would have to fight a celt tribe, the use of a big shield like a scutum plus a thrusting sword like a falcata/gladius would me much more effective agaisnt opponents using long slashing baldes on close quarters. So then, why is this tribe depicted as using the celtic long sword instead of using, as other iberian tribes did, the falcata or a similar thrusting weapon?

Thank you in advance

[Krusader]

You don't think they would have?

I myself don't know much about Iberian history either, but I'm a good friend of Sarcasm and I know he does a thourough job when concepting units. He will probably answer this correctly, but if I would take a guess, then it is probably because most grave finds from Aragon/Catalonia have Celtic longswords in them or finds of Celtic longswords vastly outnumber finds of falcatas and/or gladiuses. Also the Milites Ilergetum does not represent every Ilergetan soldier, but the more professional/elite troops from what I read of the description. We can only depict soldiers with one sword in EB1, so I think we did the right think going for the Celtic longsword over the falcata or gladius hispaniensis if archeological excavations show there is a greater amount of them.
The Ilergetes also lived right near Gaul, so them importing Celtic longswords is not a farfetched idea. If we compare to the medieval ages, Saladin's armies seemingly imported plenty of weapons from Europe via the Italians. And I do think some Getic tribes as well adopted the Celtic longsword, as did Greeks in Greece.

But wait for Sarcasm to reply.

[Mediolanicus]

a thrusting weapon along with the scutum, not a slashing sword

i don´t really think that this tribe would have adopted the longsword. In the case they would have to fight a celt tribe, the use of a big shield like a scutum plus a thrusting sword like a falcata/gladius would me much more effective agaisnt opponents using long slashing baldes on close quarters.


And why wouldn't a long sword work with a scutum? The gaul fought with long swords and scutum. So did the Romans when they adopted the spatha sword.

They would fight "like a gaul tribe", they would fight like you would fight using those weapons, and I'm sure they would use them pretty effectively...

That of course doesn't answer your question why they are using longswords in EB or if this is historically correct. I'm curious what anyone with knowledge of the Iberians has to say on this.

[Bucefalo]

And why wouldn't a long sword work with a scutum? The gaul fought with long swords and scutum. So did the Romans when they adopted the spatha sword.

Actually i didn´t say that it wouldn´t work with a scutum. I said that in the hipotetical case that a ilergete fought agaisnt a long sword user, he would be better suited with a short thrusting sword for close combat.

That is what i´ve read about the efficiency of the falcata/gladius, and that is why i do not understand why they are wielding those long swords. I know that the advantages of a long sword are mainly the reach, and are also useful for cavalry. But i don´t really know why in the first place they would ever want to change their thrusting swords with long swords.

Their enemies were, on the south other iberian tribes (who used falcatas) and on the west celtiberian tribes (mostly the same here), also they fought agaisnt the carthaginians and later the romans, none of them used long swords extensively. So there has to be some advantage of the celtic long sword that i can´t see, if not then they would have just used the falcata as did other iberians.

[gie]

I have the plate of a Ilergete warrior from a Spanish history book. It has a long sword.

[gie]

This is a Ilergete warrior from a Spanish history book.

I think the plates tell everything about the sword!

Click on the plate for a bigger version of this plate!
https://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y154/gieImages/th_ilergete14xh.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/albums/y154/gieImages/?action=view&current=ilergete14xh.jpg)



from

http://www.libreria-almena.com/GB3.jpg

[Mediolanicus]

But i don´t really know why in the first place they would ever want to change their thrusting swords with long swords.


The Romans did the same when they started using the spatha instead of the gladius...
Every weapon has its pros and its cons...

[bobbin]

the falcata or a similar thrusting weapon?
The flacata was not a thrusting weapon, it was primarily a slashing weapon used overhand like the greek kopis.


Their enemies were, on the south other iberian tribes (who used falcatas) and on the west celtiberian tribes (mostly the same here), also they fought agaisnt the carthaginians and later the romans, none of them used long swords extensively. So there has to be some advantage of the celtic long sword that i can´t see, if not then they would have just used the falcata as did other iberians.
Given their proximity to gaul they would likley have fought celtic tribes using longswords fairly often (certainly more so than the romans or cathaginians). Also even if was an advantage to using the flacata/gladius over a longsword that doesn't mean they would do so, the adoption of the longsword could have had more to do with what was "fashionable" due to the strong celtic influence in their society. They were not the only people in Iberia to use longswords.

In the end it will come down to what Krusader said, there will be archeological or literary evidence attesting to the Ilergetes use of longswords, it would not be in EB otherwise, no matter how illogical it seems to you.

[Bucefalo]

Thankk you all for the responses

gie, i´ve seen that picture before, but i didn´t remember that it was a ilergete. My fault. So it seems they indeed used longswords more than others tribes.

One thing i left unnoticed is this section in the description of the unit made by the team: or weapons they use javelins and a longsword that was most likely imported from Gaul through the Greek colony of Emporion. It all looks like those celtic long swords really were or great utility for this tribe, maybe they fighting style were not the same as other iberians, but more similar to the used by the gauls. The clear advantages of a long sword are being able to keep your rival at a distance and more strength on a prepared blow than a short sword.

Nevermind, I´d like still to know an expert opinion on why they adopted these long swords


The flacata was not a thrusting weapon, it was primarily a slashing weapon used overhand like the greek kopis.

The falcata was the weapon on wich the romans based their gladius hispaniensis, and both weapons could be used in the same thrusting way. I am not saying that it could not be used to slash when needed (as the greek kopis), but most experts agree that they were used mostly as thrusting weapons by the iberians.

[mcantu]

The falcata was the weapon on wich the romans based their gladius hispaniensis, and both weapons could be used in the same thrusting way. I am not saying that it could not be used to slash when needed (as the greek kopis), but most experts agree that they were used mostly as thrusting weapons by the iberians.


i thought that the gladius hispaniensis was what the romans based their swords on?

[MeinPanzer]

The falcata was the weapon on wich the romans based their gladius hispaniensis, and both weapons could be used in the same thrusting way. I am not saying that it could not be used to slash when needed (as the greek kopis), but most experts agree that they were used mostly as thrusting weapons by the iberians.

You're confused. As mcantu says, the Romans based their gladius hispaniensis on leaf-shaped two-edged waisted blades which could be used for slashing or stabbing that the Celtiberians employed like this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Cogotas-II_(dagas)-Segunda_Edad_del_Hierro.jpg

The falcata was curved, single-edged, and could only be used for slashing, like the Greek kopis or machaira. It looked like this:

http://www.aceros-de-hispania.com/image/iberian-falcata/falcata.jpeg

[Sarcasm]

One thing i left unnoticed is this section in the description of the unit made by the team: or weapons they use javelins and a longsword that was most likely imported from Gaul through the Greek colony of Emporion. It all looks like those celtic long swords really were or great utility for this tribe, maybe they fighting style were not the same as other iberians, but more similar to the used by the gauls. The clear advantages of a long sword are being able to keep your rival at a distance and more strength on a prepared blow than a short sword.


Actually, I will probably plan to make this unit more general in the future, not just an Ilergetes trooper. The Ilergetes were not the only ones using longswords obviously. Most of the tribes of the Northeastern Peninsula used more or less longswords in their panoplies, especially so those over the Ebro...there's a boatload of finds at Emporion for instance, and neighbouring sites of the Indiketes. Of course, you can find pretty much all combinations of shields, spears and swords...there wasn't exactly a fixed way a certain tribe fought, it was more up to the individual. I just felt it was more representative to present a style that's not often associated with the warriors of the land...there's a lot of prejudice about how Iberians are supposed to fight in a certain fashion.

Don't get me started about how Iberians were also NOT using shortswords on horseback.

[Bucefalo]

You're confused. As mcantu says, the Romans based their gladius hispaniensis on leaf-shaped two-edged waisted blades which could be used for slashing or stabbing that the Celtiberians employed like this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...del_Hierro.jpg

The falcata was curved, single-edged, and could only be used for slashing, like the Greek kopis or machaira. It looked like this:

http://www.aceros-de-hispania.com/im...a/falcata.jpeg

Thank you MeinPanzer for pointing this, i don´t know why but i´ve always read of the falcata as the most used weapon by the iberians, and just assumed that the both you mention would be the same weapon.:sweatdrop:


Actually, I will probably plan to make this unit more general in the future, not just an Ilergetes trooper. The Ilergetes were not the only ones using longswords obviously. Most of the tribes of the Northeastern Peninsula used more or less longswords in their panoplies, especially so those over the Ebro...there's a boatload of finds at Emporion for instance, and neighbouring sites of the Indiketes. Of course, you can find pretty much all combinations of shields, spears and swords...there wasn't exactly a fixed way a certain tribe fought, it was more up to the individual. I just felt it was more representative to present a style that's not often associated with the warriors of the land...there's a lot of prejudice about how Iberians are supposed to fight in a certain fashion.

Don't get me started about how Iberians were also NOT using shortswords on horseback.

Thanks for your insight Sarcasm:2thumbsup:
I understand know, then it was all a matter of representing the big presence of these long swords in the area, in contrast with other parts of iberia. About that prejudice, well i guess is true somehow, it is generally assumed that all the peoples of iberia fought with falcatas, regardless of arqueologhical finds in the area. And no, there is no need to talk of the advantages of a long sword on horseback, i already know that a short sword would be pretty useless in that situation.

[mcantu]

there's a lot of great on the falcata here...http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2729

[Sarcasm]

And no, there is no need to talk of the advantages of a long sword on horseback, i already know that a short sword would be pretty useless in that situation.

That's the thing, see? :beam:

We do have tombs where horse bits and shortswords co-exist, even in the absence of spearheads that belong to heavy lances. It's strange to me that people disregard the use of the shortsword on horseback when they fully acknowledge the use of the falcata in the same role, when they're about the same length, and the reach of a sabre is that much more important than for a cut & thrust sword.

[MeinPanzer]

That's the thing, see? :beam:

We do have tombs where horse bits and shortswords co-exist, even in the absence of spearheads that belong to heavy lances. It's strange to me that people disregard the use of the shortsword on horseback when they fully acknowledge the use of the falcata in the same role, when they're about the same length, and the reach of a sabre is that much more important than for a cut & thrust sword.

The same situation exists in scholarly literature on Greek cavalry, unfortunately. Despite the fact that there are plenty of representations of cavalrymen using the xiphos, most take Xenophon's recommendation from "On Horsemanship" of the use of the machaira or kopis as canon and state that that was the main sidearm used by horsemen.

[keravnos]

Exactly. I can't agree more with you on this one, MP.

[Nachtmeister]

Possibly a dumb question, but something that's been knocking on the back of my head ever since I first saw one of those guys on the EB site (but I didn't dare start a thread about it):
Why does their shield carry what to me looks like some royal QartHadastim symbol? Isn't it on the factional Qarthadast signature banner? :inquisitive:

[athanaric]

Possibly a dumb question, but something that's been knocking on the back of my head ever since I first saw one of those guys on the EB site (but I didn't dare start a thread about it):
Why does their shield carry what to me looks like some royal QartHadastim symbol? Isn't it on the factional Qarthadast signature banner? :inquisitive:

It's the Qarthadastim version of the unit. The Lusotannan version has a different shield.

E: here you go:
https://img410.imageshack.us/img410/9807/iberianinfantryilergeta.th.jpg (https://img410.imageshack.us/my.php?image=iberianinfantryilergeta.jpg)

[Nachtmeister]

Thanks for the quick response! The back of my head feels very relieved now. :2thumbsup:

[Watchman]

The same situation exists in scholarly literature on Greek cavalry, unfortunately. Despite the fact that there are plenty of representations of cavalrymen using the xiphos, most take Xenophon's recommendation from "On Horsemanship" of the use of the machaira or kopis as canon and state that that was the main sidearm used by horsemen.Well, Xeno clearly had firmly picked his side in the eternal "cut versus thrust" debate which went on as long as horse cavalry had any meaningful battlefield role...

Though, I was under the impression the xiphos wasn't really meaningfully longer than the kopis/machaira anyway...?

There's also an interesting little detail regarding Medieval cavalry weaponry - while the swords certainly were long (total lenght of a full meter or more being pretty much the norm, and some specialised types going well past that - the Early Modern Polish kopia "sword-lance" could apparently be as long as a whopping 1.5 meters...), AFAIK as a rule the "mass" weapons - axes, maces, warhammers/picks etc. - used to bust up heavily armoured opponents seem to nigh universally feature rather short shafts. Diminutive, really; I've seen a few specimen in museums (there's one where I work part-time in), and the damn thing on the whole is barely longer than my forearm.

'Course, it could just be that those things were primarily used to deal with other heavily armoured knights in a cavalry melee, where the reach of the weapon isn't nearly as important as when dealing with infantry (which, being normally rather lighter armed, usually got smote with the sword). Short lenght might well have been an advantage, in making the somewhat cumbersome weapons more agile and manageable...

Or something. I'm really just speculating here. Still, Classical Greek cavalry at least primarily fought their opposite numbers and then tried to turn the flank of the infantry, and their primary tool for dealing with footsloggers was the spear right ? Might well be that the sidearms were picked above all for their usefulness in the former role...