Why longswords have 0.225 lethality? [Archive]

abou

08-13-2010, 00:28

Wow SlickNica, biased much? Honestly, I don't know why you're even here considering your incessant complaining of the mod. I'm sorry that we try to provide a more balanced insight into the Hellenistic world. But hey, maybe we just don't know what we're talking about and perhaps should just give up. :shrug:

Siegfriedr, we do actually have a significant difference in length for the swords. In Lang's article "Study of the Metallography of Some Roman Swords" published in Britannia, she states that the Celtic La Tene III blades averaged 620 mm and one example being 855 mm. Much earlier La Tene I blades were about 535 mm and tapered. Compare this to the gladius, which has some big extremes: 367 - 590 mm. However, from tests it has been determined that practical lengths for the Roman infantry would be about 380 - 430 mm. Longer examples than this stated range may have survived, but appear to be over represented due to their use as officer swords or as votive offerings much in the way that overly fancy cavalry helmets seem to be so common as finds in rivers.

So what does this mean? Well, 20+ cm is indeed quite a difference in length as well as weight. Do a little physics using radial acceleration and you get quite a difference in force. And if the sword connects with it's "sweet spot" against a helmet, not only will it have a greater chance of overcoming the armor, but it will have a greater chance at a kill. I hope that helps.

siegfriedfr

08-13-2010, 05:41

Wow SlickNica, biased much? Honestly, I don't know why you're even here considering your incessant complaining of the mod. I'm sorry that we try to provide a more balanced insight into the Hellenistic world. But hey, maybe we just don't know what we're talking about and perhaps should just give up. :shrugh:

Siegfriedr, we do actually have a significant difference in length for the swords. In Lang's article "Study of the Metallography of Some Roman Swords" published in Britannia, she states that the Celtic La Tene III blades averaged 620 mm and one example being 855 mm. Much earlier La Tene I blades were about 535 mm and tapered. Compare this to the gladius, which has some big extremes: 367 - 590 mm. However, from tests it has been determined that practical lengths for the Roman infantry would be about 380 - 430 mm. Longer examples than this stated range may have survived, but appear to be over represented due to their use as officer swords or as votive offerings much in the way that overly fancy cavalry helmets seem to be so common as finds in rivers.

So what does this mean? Well, 20+ cm is indeed quite a difference in length as well as weight. Do a little physics using radial acceleration and you get quite a difference in force. And if the sword connects with it's "sweet spot" against a helmet, not only will it have a greater chance of overcoming the armor, but it will have a greater chance at a kill. I hope that helps.

Ok i understand the "physics" reasoning, and i have no problem beating them not did i see AI romans being beaten by them.

it's just that i'm running dummy fights in custom battles, and solduros are quit extraordinary 1 on 1, beating most other units while reading a book.

The Celtic Viking

08-13-2010, 07:37

So you tested the elite of the elite and were surprised to see them do well?

Burebista

08-13-2010, 07:39

Solduros are the best gallic unit to have around so it's normal to beat most things . But i know a lot of other units that can beat them 1 on 1 so....not OP

Mediolanicus

08-13-2010, 07:55

Ok i understand the "physics" reasoning, and i have no problem beating them not did i see AI romans being beaten by them.

it's just that i'm running dummy fights in custom battles, and solduros are quit extraordinary 1 on 1, beating most other units while reading a book.

Well, it is quite stricking that today we have "soldiers" in the army.

Roman infantry are by no means elite. They are trained, disciplined and numerous line infantry. Put one unit against an elite unit and it will most likely lose.
Put a Roman army against a Celtic army with one or two such elite units and it will win with ease.

Cute Wolf

08-13-2010, 08:25

Because the EB mod is skewed HISTORICALLY ACCURATE for Barbarian factions. And since most barbarains have longswords, then it is natural that they made longswords have the .225 lethality.

plus : celtic longswords are far superrior metalworks compared to Roman Gladius, if mass per length is compared, longswords is lighter, but since longswords are longer, they are at the same weight or a bit heavier, since longsword have longer reach, that means with the same mass they gain more momentum via swinging arc, that's why longswords have lower base damage, but higher lethality

Randal

08-13-2010, 10:05

I don't doubt the physics argument has merit, but I can't help but feel that in practice the picture would have been less clear-cut.

In Europa Barbarorum, the Legions would have a very big advantage if they switched to longswords. They'd become twice as effective killers. In reality, I expect this would actually have decreased their performance in most circumstances, which would then explain why they never did adopt them.

The flavour text describes the Gauls as swinging their swords around their heads to gain momentum for highly lethal attacks. I can see that as part of the Gallic charge. In an extended mêlée it does not however seem very likely. It's a pity lethality can't be modded to be higher during a charge.

I also do not quite see this description as being compatible with tight formations. I don't doubt the Gauls could still use their longer weapons effectively in an organised formation, but I think this would come at the expense of some of this swinging power. Rather than go with a strict physics-based approach I'd like to see loose-formation aggressive infantry keep their high lethality attacks, but the disciplined close-order elite troops lose some of this lethality in return for an effective formation. Or, alternately, wider spacing for all longsword troops, but I don't think that's historically accurate.

Ludens

08-13-2010, 10:14

Short-swords also get an attack bonus in the EB stat system, and the Gladius Hispaniata has a higher lethality than other short swords. The only bonus that barbarians get is a +1 to armour. This was done for balancing reasons, but there is a historical ground for this. Celts were very popular as mercenaries, so it seems unlikely their heavy infantry did not deserve their name. Personally, I reason it represents individual soldiers supplementing their equipment with captured material. I doubt most Celtic warriors would choose to continue fighting bare-chested when they had looted a half-decent chainmail vest somewhere.

You can make a case that this resulted in Celtic elite units being too strong, as they would have less opportunity to improve upon their already high-quality armour, but remember that Celtic units with chainmail are not equivalent to Roman legionaries. Legionaries represent the rank-and-file equipped with mass-produced armour and weapons. In the Celtic armies, chainmail is rare and therefore reserved for veterans and elite units.

Randal, I think you are right that longswords would require a different formation. However, it's not just a question of "better". A longsword is heavier and I guess it requires more training in specialist moves than a stabbing sword. It's also more expensive and difficult to forge, and the Romans' best steel appears to have come from Iberians and Celts. Also, the Roman legions did eventually adopt a longer sword in the form of the Spatha.

Randal

08-13-2010, 11:49

They already had the spatha in the Principate they just kept it for cavalry use where it was tactically more useful. Despite some revisionist scholarship on the matter I still think the later legions that adapted the spatha were far less disciplined and effective in pitched battles than the ones from the empire's golden age. Perhaps part of it was decaying discipline and organisation, perhaps part of it was the later Empire's greater focus on avoiding battle and achieving victory through means such as diplomacy, ambuscade, skirmishing and starvation of the enemy, but the bottom line remains. I see the spatha as a consequence of the change from an army that seeks out the enemy in pitched battles to one that expects to mostly fight smaller skirmishes where a more unwieldy but powerful weapon is to be preferred.

As for the stat-balancing in EB, part of the problem is the R:TW engine. Lethality simply is far better than attack. Smiths and experience can raise attack and defence values very high even if they were low to begin with, whilst nothing changes lethality. Looking through the "Surprisingly good/bad units" thread this theme is apparent again and again. Units with high lethality are surprisingly good, with low lethality surprisingly bad.

I know there won't be any more big changes to EB1, but in theory I think there are two solutions to this: First, smaller differences in lethality. A longsword being more than twice as effective as a non-gladius short-sword makes the difference too pronounced. And second: doing what mods like Fourth Age Total War do, and having all units start out with a lot of experience based on class. If stats are balanced for all elite units starting out with silver chevrons to reflect their elite status, their getting experience won't unbalance the game as they gain it much more slowly. And if it becomes hard to raise attack values through such means, then having a higher base attack actually becomes an advantage that might compensate for lower lethality.

Burebista

08-13-2010, 14:39

As for the stat-balancing in EB, part of the problem is the R:TW engine. Lethality simply is far better than attack. Smiths and experience can raise attack and defence values very high even if they were low to begin with, whilst nothing changes lethality. Looking through the "Surprisingly good/bad units" thread this theme is apparent again and again. Units with high lethality are surprisingly good, with low lethality surprisingly bad.
Your theory fails miserably in multiplayer . it is true , high lethality helps , but the better stats that make a unit superior in multiplayer are size , Ap attribute , morale , shield , discipline , charge value and ofc price(there are more but these i consider more important than lethality).

By your assumption , a unit such as solduros or neitos might appear godly , but they are far from it. in front warfare lethality is crappy unless you get behind your enemy , and also in 1 on 1 i know a lot of units that beat solduros any day even with lower lethality. i personally consider from personal multiplayer experience that high lethality is weak vs high armour values or tightly packed units.

In Europa Barbarorum, the Legions would have a very big advantage if they switched to longswords. They'd become twice as effective killers. In reality, I expect this would actually have decreased their performance in most circumstances, which would then explain why they never did adopt them.
.
No they wouldn't. High lethality in EB is usually compensated by a looser formation which makes the unit less effective . Romans used tightly packed units with short swords to mainly stab. the change to Spatha came after the discipline and formation of roman infantry had decayed so wielding a larger sword in a looser formation made more sense.

EB can't representate all the details , that is true , but all the units behave as they should so that is a great merit for the team. Even the multiplayer is balanced (excepty that damn guard mode issue)

Moros

08-13-2010, 15:14

seienchin

08-13-2010, 16:18

I think it just represents that the longswords were quite lethal, usually swung with great power and thus able to shatter shields and cause damage through helmets and armour. Most of the units that use longswords lack armour (defence rating), aren't usually particularly disciplined and - unless their initially lethal attacks break the enemy will pretty rapidly lose morale.
Wait.... Isnt that what the general advisor tells you in Vanilla? ^^
I am not sure about rapidly loosing moral.
Anyway, many longswords (esspecialy the celtic ones) found from EBs timeframe were of a poor qualitiy, still its true that they were often swung from above, so had quite an impact. Anyway, roman shortsword were extremly deadly esspecialy in combination with their shield so I am sure romans were deadlier warriors than celts, but besider that:
Gladius has AP in EB, which makes it exremly good against armoured enemies and Longswords with hight lethatlity are good against unarmoured troops. This might not be accurate, but it balances the system.

@Burebist
Interesting... Adopting the Spatha because of the late roman lack of discipline... Any proof?

siegfriedfr

08-13-2010, 16:22

Wait.... Isnt that what the general advisor tells you in Vanilla? ^^
I am not sure about rapidly loosing moral.
Anyway, many longswords (esspecialy the celtic ones) found from EBs timeframe were of a poor qualitiy, still its true that they were often swung from above, so had quite an impact. Anyway, roman shortsword were extremly deadly esspecialy in combination with their shield so I am sure romans were deadlier warriors than celts, but besider that:
Gladius has AP in EB, which makes it exremly good against armoured enemies and Longswords with hight lethatlity are good against unarmoured troops. This might not be accurate, but it balances the system.

last i checked the EDU, legionary/roman units have absolutely no AP: just medium atk, and low lethality.

No they wouldn't. High lethality in EB is usually compensated by a looser formation which makes the unit less effective . Romans used tightly packed units with short swords to mainly stab. the change to Spatha came after the discipline and formation of roman infantry had decayed so wielding a larger sword in a looser formation made more sense.

EB can't representate all the details , that is true , but all the units behave as they should so that is a great merit for the team. Even the multiplayer is balanced (excepty that damn guard mode issue)

There has been no major EDU balancing since at least 1.1 in april 2008, and new things are discovered about unit behaviour/stat over at TWcenters every now on then. Even EB can have its shortcomings.

They already had the spatha in the Principate they just kept it for cavalry use where it was tactically more useful. Despite some revisionist scholarship on the matter I still think the later legions that adapted the spatha were far less disciplined and effective in pitched battles than the ones from the empire's golden age. Perhaps part of it was decaying discipline and organisation, perhaps part of it was the later Empire's greater focus on avoiding battle and achieving victory through means such as diplomacy, ambuscade, skirmishing and starvation of the enemy, but the bottom line remains. I see the spatha as a consequence of the change from an army that seeks out the enemy in pitched battles to one that expects to mostly fight smaller skirmishes where a more unwieldy but powerful weapon is to be preferred.

As for the stat-balancing in EB, part of the problem is the R:TW engine. Lethality simply is far better than attack. Smiths and experience can raise attack and defence values very high even if they were low to begin with, whilst nothing changes lethality. Looking through the "Surprisingly good/bad units" thread this theme is apparent again and again. Units with high lethality are surprisingly good, with low lethality surprisingly bad.

I know there won't be any more big changes to EB1, but in theory I think there are two solutions to this: First, smaller differences in lethality. A longsword being more than twice as effective as a non-gladius short-sword makes the difference too pronounced. And second: doing what mods like Fourth Age Total War do, and having all units start out with a lot of experience based on class. If stats are balanced for all elite units starting out with silver chevrons to reflect their elite status, their getting experience won't unbalance the game as they gain it much more slowly. And if it becomes hard to raise attack values through such means, then having a higher base attack actually becomes an advantage that might compensate for lower lethality.

That's what i tought too. But the slightest change in unit stats can change the tide of a battle entirely. For example add 5 base soldier to a unit, and it can win where it previously lost.
ALso, i agree that giving TWICE the lethality to longsword compared to short seems a bit overthetop, but then, its true that gallic armies will be composed of many levies and few elites, whereas roman armies are just 1 infantry with very good armor.

Randal

08-13-2010, 17:18

Burebista:

Wider spacing indeed is a good and logical compensation for longswords' higher lethality. However, not all longsword units have this. Milnaht and Solduros, for example, have a tighter spacing than legionary troops. Like I said above, I think it would make sense if tight-formation longsword troops had slightly lower attack and/or lethality to indicate they can't use them as effectively in such a formation.

I was talking about the single-player campaign. I don't doubt that the attack/defence system is better balanced in multiplayer, where you don't get stacks of chevroned troops unbalancing the stat-system. (Case in point: Getai, who can get up to 4 free chevrons per unit) And yes, attributes like AP make an even bigger difference even in single-player.

SlickNicaG69

08-13-2010, 17:44

Ok, for those of you whom presume that I base my assertions on bias and my own private theories, here is evidence that I base mine, since I myself am not an expert in the field, on those that are experts:

Radomir Pleiner, however, argues that "the metallographic evidence shows that Polybius was right up to a point. To judge from the swords examined in this survey, only one third could be described as conforming to the quality which he ascribed generally to Celtic swords. Even so, it is quite possible that even some of the better quality swords would have failed in battle."[3] Nevertheless he argues that the classical sources are exaggerated. Plutarch's claim that Celtic swords would bend completely back is implausible, as only a slight bending would be likely.[3] Pleiner also notes that metallurgical analysis performed on Celtic swords suggests that they were only work hardened and only very few were quench hardened, even though they frequently contain enough carbon to be hardened (in particular the swords made from Noric steel). Quench hardening takes the full advantage of the potential hardness of the steel, but leaves it brittle, prone to breaking. Quite probably this is because tempering wasn't known. Tempering is heating the steel after quenching at a lower temperature to remove the brittleness, while keeping most of the hardness. -Wikipedia

The effectiveness, and hence the lethality, of a sword is not in its physical measurements, but rather in its manufacturing process - its metallurgy. We hear it stressed all the time when we see the documentaries on the Samurai sword. The fact is the Gaul's, by their relative scientific ineptitude, were unable to forge durable swords or equipment, even amongst their elites. Their only real chance at durable armor and weapons were by, as stated by Ludens, the plundering of enemy material. That is why the most fearsome of barbarians were always those with a long winning streak, allowing them to develop large caches of distinct, high-quality weapons that they themselves used as they progressed. Those of the barbarians who remained stagnate were doomed by the inferior quality of their domestic equipment.

Such is the fact of the barbarians in history, their inferiority only non-existent in the multitudes they represented. But, unfortunately, as some have said, it appears that the engine that drives EB is simply unmatched for the task of representing them accurately...

athanaric

08-13-2010, 18:10

Gladius has AP in EB, which makes it exremly good against armoured enemies and Longswords with hight lethatlity are good against unarmoured troops. This might not be accurate, but it balances the system.
The Gladius does not have the AP attribute. It has, however, decent lethality (0.13).
You might be confusing it with Kopis style swords which have a lethality of 0.11 plus AP attribute.

The effectiveness, and hence the lethality, of a sword is not in its physical measurements, but rather in its manufacturing process - its metallurgy. We hear it stressed all the time when we see the documentaries on the Samurai sword. The fact is the Gaul's, by their relative scientific ineptitude, were unable to forge durable swords or equipment, even amongst their elites. Their only real chance at durable armor and weapons were by, as stated by Ludens, the plundering of enemy material. That is why the most fearsome of barbarians were always those with a long winning streak, allowing them to develop large caches of distinct, high-quality weapons that they themselves used as they progressed. Those of the barbarians who remained stagnate were doomed by the inferior quality of their domestic equipment.

Such is the fact of the barbarians in history, their inferiority only non-existent in the multitudes they represented. But, unfortunately, as some have said, it appears that the engine that drives EB is simply unmatched for the task of representing them accurately...

Who are you trying to troll here? Your claims were state of the art in... 1700 AD, when anti-Gaul or anti-Germanic bias was en vogue. Also the thing about Katanas... :wall:

SlickNicaG69

08-13-2010, 18:32

Haha, Athanaric, I don't try to troll anybody. You can disagree, if you want, but you can't refute me without credentials.

And don't compare me with 16th century biases. I have given the barbarians much more credit than any of them ever have.

Randal

08-13-2010, 19:47

SlickNicaG69

08-13-2010, 20:16

Your source says many Gallic swords were of poor quality. This undoubtedly is true, given that many would have been the property of poor warriors unable to afford better.

You gave no evidence Roman metallurgy in the third century BC was any more advanced than Celtic metallurgy.

As far as I am aware, it was not.

Which is why they are rightly represented as Camillan Era units in the game. However, what difference do they have, in the game, despite their advanced weaponry and composition, besides the numerical advantage of the professional army, when they did advance such basic methods? In fact, the only advantage seems to be the numerical advantage of post-marian than any change in equipment. Much to bland and simple for what I've come to expect.

jirisys

08-13-2010, 20:20

Ok, for those of you whom presume that I base my assertions on bias and my own private theories, here is evidence that I base mine, since I myself am not an expert in the field, on those that are experts:

Radomir Pleiner, however, argues that "the metallographic evidence shows that Polybius was right up to a point. To judge from the swords examined in this survey, only one third could be described as conforming to the quality which he ascribed generally to Celtic swords. Even so, it is quite possible that even some of the better quality swords would have failed in battle."[3] Nevertheless he argues that the classical sources are exaggerated. Plutarch's claim that Celtic swords would bend completely back is implausible, as only a slight bending would be likely.[3] Pleiner also notes that metallurgical analysis performed on Celtic swords suggests that they were only work hardened and only very few were quench hardened, even though they frequently contain enough carbon to be hardened (in particular the swords made from Noric steel). Quench hardening takes the full advantage of the potential hardness of the steel, but leaves it brittle, prone to breaking. Quite probably this is because tempering wasn't known. Tempering is heating the steel after quenching at a lower temperature to remove the brittleness, while keeping most of the hardness.
-Wikipedia

The effectiveness, and hence the lethality, of a sword is not in its physical measurements, but rather in its manufacturing process - its metallurgy. We hear it stressed all the time when we see the documentaries on the Samurai sword. The fact is the Gaul's, by their relative scientific ineptitude, were unable to forge durable swords or equipment, even amongst their elites. Their only real chance at durable armor and weapons were by, as stated by Ludens, the plundering of enemy material. That is why the most fearsome of barbarians were always those with a long winning streak, allowing them to develop large caches of distinct, high-quality weapons that they themselves used as they progressed. Those of the barbarians who remained stagnate were doomed by the inferior quality of their domestic equipment.

Such is the fact of the barbarians in history, their inferiority only non-existent in the multitudes they represented. But, unfortunately, as some have said, it appears that the engine that drives EB is simply unmatched for the task of representing them accurately...

I destroyed your "cousin"'s biased arguments with completely reasonable and (most likely) true arguments, AND! without using Wikipedia... Do you want me to try it on you matey:wink:

Besides, you're going down the same topic as your "cousin" was

~Jirisys (:wink::wink:)

Power2the1

08-13-2010, 20:54

Study of the Metallography of Some Roman Swords
Author(s): Janet Lang

ii) Celtic Swords
The average length of the Celtic La Tene III blades examined in a recent study by the
author was 620 mm, although they could be much longer, like the Orton Meadows sword,
855 mm in length.14 Interestingly, the typical earlier La Tene I sword was shorter, (about
535 mm), tapering in the final third to a sharp point (eg. the two La Tene I swords from
Orton Meadows, or the recently excavated swords from Wetwang in Yorkshire). The Celtic
equipment seems to have gone through a similar change in style to the Roman, but at an
earlier date, at the end of the La T&ne I period; perhaps it marked the transition to combat
on horseback from fighting on foot when chariots were used to enter the battle.
A number of metallographic examinations have been carried out on Iron Age swords,
most extensively by Pleiner. The results show that the blades were variable in quality, some
being effective weapons, while others might easily have behaved in the ways that the
Romans described. About 40% of the swords studied by Pleiner were made of wrought iron
(up to 0-25%C), their hardness (HV) varied between 54o and 130 HV. A selection of
swords from the British Museum's collection showed a variation in cutting edge hardness
from 200 to 450 HV and there was a general technical improvement from La Tene I to III.

iii) Technical studies of Roman swords in the literature
The technical literature provided few examples of metallographic studies of Roman swords.
Williams15 examined a gladius of the first to second century from the Rheinisches
Landesmuseum, Bonn; this had a carburised blade with the carbon content increasing from
o-3% at the centre to about o-7% near the edge. The surface hardness was about 240 HV,
and apparently there had been no attempt to harden it by heat treatment. Gilmour'6 has
examined a sword, possibly of the second century A.D., from Whittlesey, now in Peterborough
Museum. This was a spatha and a section from the blade showed a well diffused
structure of ferrite and pearlite with a higher carbon zone running from the central rib
(o*25%C) to the cutting edge (o-3%C). At the surfaces the carbon content was only o- %C.
It was clear from the distribution of the slag inclusions that the blade had been made by
sandwiching a higher carbon strip between two lower carbon ones. The hardness was not
high, values of 150 to 200 HV were measured midway between the cutting edge and the
central rib area, although the cutting edge itself does not seem to have been tested. These
two metallographic studies do not show any marked superiority of the Roman blades over
the Celtic ones. More generally, Tylecote'7 found that the technical level of smithing in the
Roman period was low and that quench hardening was not widely practiced, but most of his
examples can be dated to the late first century and later. Both the published swords are also
from later contexts than the period in which the actions described by the classical writers
took place. The Whittlesey sword was a spatha, and although the Bonn sword is described
as a gladius and has a long tapering tip, the blade is extremely long (770 mm), far exceeding
any of Hazell's examples.' Neither of these swords are really comparable with the Roman
weapons which the classical writers contrasted so favourably with the Gallic swords.
In fact, the number of surviving Roman gladii is small, in comparison with the relatively
large number of Iron Age swords.

____________________

The Iron Age North of The Alps Author(s): Ralph M. Rowlett

Speaking of La Tene sword smiths:

...for while the smiths could
produce now an amazingly pure iron
for tools and weapons by eliminating
the carbon from the forge, they unwittingly
abandoned the means by
which they had been producing steel.
The more southerly parts of the territory
occupied by La Tene Culture were
lost to the Romans. During the La
Tene II phase (200-100 B.C.) weapons
and other artifacts become very
large (Fig. 4, upper left), and the
major tactic seems to have shifted from
thrusting to cutting, as shields now
more consistently bear metal reinforcement
for resisting the hewing attack,
while helmets become more streamlined
and lack the numerous protrusions
of earlier models which could
easily be engaged by swinging swords.

Not saying this is the end all of the sword debate here, but I hope this helps :smiley2:

SlickNicaG69

08-13-2010, 20:56

I destroyed your "cousin"'s biased arguments with completely reasonable and (most likely) true arguments, AND! without using Wikipedia... Do you want me to try it on you matey:wink:

Besides, you're going down the same topic as your "cousin" was

~Jirisys (:wink::wink:)

So what are you trying to say? And who said anything about my cousin? Yea I want you to try it.

seienchin

08-13-2010, 21:28

In fact, the number of surviving Roman gladii is small, in comparison with the relatively
large number of Iron Age swords.

This says it all. Your "scientific" proof is not so scientific after all :book:
Many cultures like the celts had the ritual of burying people with their swords. The romans didnt. So no wonder, why there are less gladii than Iron age swords...

Anyway, its still a matter of believe. I for myself chose the common pro roman historical view. (After all, they beat all their enemies, they others didnt), but I also acknowledge the possibility that I might be wrong.
Anyway never forget that history is a market You can make money by writing new things, points of views etc. and esspecially the celtic market is booming so I guess I wait some 20 years until I read historic books about the celts again.

@athanaric
Why are you banging your head against the wall, because of the katana statement? Its true :book:
The art of manufacturing is the single most important factor of a good sword. Japanese iron has a really poor quality, which made the complex crafting methods necessary but in the end even with the poor japanese iron the swords were incredible. :juggle2:

athanaric

08-13-2010, 22:10

@athanaric
Why are you banging your head against the wall, because of the katana statement? Its true :book:
The art of manufacturing is the single most important factor of a good sword. Japanese iron has a really poor quality, which made the complex crafting methods necessary but in the end even with the poor japanese iron the swords were incredible. :juggle2:
And they can cut through tanks! I saw it!

[/irony]
I know about Katanas. However, there's a universal law that applies to Japanese blades as well as to Celtic ones: for a really good sword, you have to pay quite a bit. Otherwise, you'll get a cheap version that isn't all that great.

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

08-14-2010, 00:20

Wait.... Isnt that what the general advisor tells you in Vanilla? ^^

Hmmm..., it is very likely very similar to the EB description..yes. Deliberately so. Irony seems wasted sometimes, doesn't it? The main point being (and, that I have to point this out is rather disturbing...) that taking one statistic out of many, without any consideration of the other stats, rather misses the point. Clearly the Celtic hordes don't overpower the other factions..., so I don't really see what the problem is...

Anyway, many longswords (esspecialy the celtic ones) found from EBs timeframe were of a poor qualitiy

Isn't that (poor quality) a relative term? Poor quality compatred to what?

Ok, for those of you whom presume that I base my assertions on bias and my own private theories, here is evidence that I base mine, since I myself am not an expert in the field, on those that are experts:

-Wikipedia

The effectiveness, and hence the lethality, of a sword is not in its physical measurements, but rather in its manufacturing process - its metallurgy. We hear it stressed all the time when we see the documentaries on the Samurai sword. The fact is the Gaul's, by their relative scientific ineptitude, were unable to forge durable swords or equipment, even amongst their elites. Their only real chance at durable armor and weapons were by, as stated by Ludens, the plundering of enemy material. That is why the most fearsome of barbarians were always those with a long winning streak, allowing them to develop large caches of distinct, high-quality weapons that they themselves used as they progressed. Those of the barbarians who remained stagnate were doomed by the inferior quality of their domestic equipment.

Such is the fact of the barbarians in history, their inferiority only non-existent in the multitudes they represented. But, unfortunately, as some have said, it appears that the engine that drives EB is simply unmatched for the task of representing them accurately...

Have you actually taken in what Pleiner says, in the text that you have quoted? he says, firstly, that; " only one third could be described as conforming to the quality which he ascribed generally to Celtic swords. Even so, it is quite possible that even some of the better quality swords would have failed in battle."....ok, so, what does that mean? Well; "Nevertheless he argues that the classical sources are exaggerated. Plutarch's claim that Celtic swords would bend completely back is implausible, as only a slight bending would be likely"....ahhh..., so actually, none of the swords could be described as conforming to the quality he ascribed generally to Celtic swords. About a third of them might have suffered a slight bending..., so quite what "failed" in battle outside of that slight bending might suggest....who knows? Doesn't actually say much, does it? Other than that Plutarch was talking out of his backside.

As for the rest of your post..., the drivel about the technologically undeveloped barbarians (can't really believe you actually use the term seriously...), take a look at Power2the1's post. Puts some perspective on that little fairytale....

SlickNicaG69

08-14-2010, 00:44

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

08-14-2010, 01:18

There was never a rumor circulating about the Romans that could be interpreted as making fun of their weaponry, let alone having it reach our own day. It wasn't like they painted themselves blue to ward off slings and arrows.

But that's it, isn't it? Its a rumour, promulgated by a Roman (please don't claim he was Greek..., he was a Roman citizen writing for a Roman audience), which (rumour) has been undermined by the archaeology. If you want a game based upon rumour, then EB probably isn't for you.

And...you know that the Romans tried to ward off the Carthiginians by burying a Greek and a Gaul couple.... I think you are under the misunderstanding that they were without superstition themselves...

jirisys

08-14-2010, 04:04

Have you actually taken in what Pleiner says, in the text that you have quoted? he says, firstly, that; " only one third could be described as conforming to the quality which he ascribed generally to Celtic swords. Even so, it is quite possible that even some of the better quality swords would have failed in battle."....ok, so, what does that mean? Well; "Nevertheless he argues that the classical sources are exaggerated. Plutarch's claim that Celtic swords would bend completely back is implausible, as only a slight bending would be likely"....ahhh..., so actually, none of the swords could be described as conforming to the quality he ascribed generally to Celtic swords. About a third of them might have suffered a slight bending..., so quite what "failed" in battle outside of that slight bending might suggest....who knows? Doesn't actually say much, does it? Other than that Plutarch was talking out of his backside.

As for the rest of your post..., the drivel about the technologically undeveloped barbarians (can't really believe you actually use the term seriously...), take a look at Power2the1's post. Puts some perspective on that little fairytale....

Hah! Quote mining! You're no better than mighty Kent Hovind

Clearly your religion is Romanism:clown:

On another note: You just got burnz dag!:clown:

~Jirisys (you SHOULD be ashamed:shame:)

mountaingoat

08-14-2010, 06:37

it is quite clear that no one used any swords in battle anyway , even in the medieval times... they were just all for decorative purpose ..

up until the introduction of firearms , people would gather large sacks and stuff them with coins , rocks , bits of stale bread .. swing them above their heads , and hurl them at their opponents !

Cute Wolf

08-14-2010, 08:12

hmm... put some pro-Romaioi bias in SlickNicaG69's arguments, which lead him to become Romaioi worshipper and depissed another culture, I think he just want to said something about lethality gap between sword types found in EB, well, shortswords are mostly less lethal than spears, when they should be put at equal footing (since the spear animation seems to have better kill ratio, even in EB lands - but ironically enough, sword animations made the swordsmen far better in defense - check Aradan's research on unit animation effects then). And longswords are not overpowered (celtic metalurugy should be better than Romaioi), but shortswords, especially one used on stabbing formations, should have better killing power, that's all.

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

08-14-2010, 11:52

Hah! Quote mining! You're no better than mighty Kent Hovind

Well, I 'mined' the quotes to a) point out that the quote used by SlicNicca to bolster his pov actually undermined it, and b) to show that within the thread itself there is plenty of evidence that ought to lead any thinking being into questioning their repeatedly narrow view of 'historical accuracy'.

Clearly your religion is Romanism:clown:

I think this period is a really interesting and formative period in world history, and the Romans played a major part in that. There were so many factions and internal power struggles within the Republic that I don't think you could be classed as a 'fan' of the Romans - there are many characters that interest me, for good and bad reasons - there's so much that was going on especially in the late Republic that bear much closer inspection than, I believe, has been given them. But I just think that blocking your eyes and ears to evidence and just yelling blah blah blah, your mod is wrong because the Romans aren't an invincible army of supermen with technological superiority in all departments, while decrying the superstition of the 'barbarians' (as if Rome were devoid of anything but reason and 'civilisation') is just , well, in the realms of la la land.

Cute Wolf

08-14-2010, 11:58

I think this period is a really interesting and formative period in world history, and the Romans played a major part in that. There were so many factions and internal power struggles within the Republic that I don't think you could be classed as a 'fan' of the Romans - there are many characters that interest me, for good and bad reasons - there's so much that was going on especially in the late Republic that bear much closer inspection than, I believe, has been given them. But I just think that blocking your eyes and ears to evidence and just yelling blah blah blah, your mod is wrong because the Romans aren't an invincible army of supermen with technological superiority in all departments, while decrying the superstition of the 'barbarians' (as if Rome were devoid of anything but reason and 'civilisation') is just , well, in the realms of la la land.

umm.... I knew, we'll need them sooner or later........ to counterbalance SlickNica's arguments
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/image.php?groupid=62&dateline=1257503989

stratigos vasilios

08-14-2010, 13:06

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/image.php?groupid=62&dateline=1257503989

Who made that picture anyways? That's quite a good job.

Ludens

08-14-2010, 14:01

Guys, this thread is about longswords in the EB stat system, not SlickNica.

Let's stay on topic. I've removed the OT material, apart from the Romaioktonoi quotes since this was somewhat on-topic. I'd appreciate if we'd stick to discussing the quality of swords, rather than the vices and virtues of the Romans, though.

Cute Wolf

08-14-2010, 14:25

Celtic Longswords :
- has blade of 90 - 115 cm
- weigh approximately at 1.2 - 2.4 kg
http://maskworld.scene7.com/is/image/maskworld/107044-kelten-langschwert-celtic-longsword-polster-latex-waffe-larp-foam-weapon?$fullsize$

Gladius:
- has blade of 45 - 55 cm (pompeii and mainz-fullham type - late version) or at 60 - 65 cm (hispaniensis)
- weigh approximately at 700 - 1000 gr
http://www.historycznebitwy.info/obrazki/bitwy/duze/las_teutoburski9ne/gladius.jpg

let's see, momentum L = r x P where P = m x v
if we assume the sword was swung with similar speed (v), and effective radius are smallest blade length, and assume mass are smallest mass as well, we'll get the Ratio of Angular momentum between celtic longswords and roman gladius are:

108 : 31.5
(90 x 1.2 compared with 45 x 0.7)

well, that was actually 4 times more..... if you treat only momentum from angular swing, since the Romans use stabbing move to increase the killing potential, this was better represented as a bit higher lethality than another shortswords....

draw your own conclusion from this simplified physics :wink:

jirisys

08-14-2010, 15:03

Well, I 'mined' the quotes to a) point out that the quote used by SlicNicca to bolster his pov actually undermined it, and b) to show that within the thread itself there is plenty of evidence that ought to lead any thinking being into questioning their repeatedly narrow view of 'historical accuracy'.

I think this period is a really interesting and formative period in world history, and the Romans played a major part in that. There were so many factions and internal power struggles within the Republic that I don't think you could be classed as a 'fan' of the Romans - there are many characters that interest me, for good and bad reasons - there's so much that was going on especially in the late Republic that bear much closer inspection than, I believe, has been given them. But I just think that blocking your eyes and ears to evidence and just yelling blah blah blah, your mod is wrong because the Romans aren't an invincible army of supermen with technological superiority in all departments, while decrying the superstition of the 'barbarians' (as if Rome were devoid of anything but reason and 'civilisation') is just , well, in the realms of la la land.

I was talking to slick

~Jirisys (you just got confused dag!:clown:)

WinsingtonIII

08-16-2010, 17:13

The effectiveness, and hence the lethality, of a sword is not in its physical measurements, but rather in its manufacturing process - its metallurgy. We hear it stressed all the time when we see the documentaries on the Samurai sword. The fact is the Gaul's, by their relative scientific ineptitude, were unable to forge durable swords or equipment, even amongst their elites. Their only real chance at durable armor and weapons were by, as stated by Ludens, the plundering of enemy material. That is why the most fearsome of barbarians were always those with a long winning streak, allowing them to develop large caches of distinct, high-quality weapons that they themselves used as they progressed. Those of the barbarians who remained stagnate were doomed by the inferior quality of their domestic equipment.

Such is the fact of the barbarians in history, their inferiority only non-existent in the multitudes they represented. But, unfortunately, as some have said, it appears that the engine that drives EB is simply unmatched for the task of representing them accurately...

What 19th Century Social-Darwinist tome did you pull this out of?

xypherx

08-16-2010, 19:46

jirisys

08-16-2010, 20:27

What 19th Century Social-Darwinist tome did you pull this out of?

Excuse me? Since when is "Darwinism" a social construct?

Hey xypherx, welcome to the org

We were discussing about the lethality (the possibility that a hit is a kill) so they started pointing out physics, and the guy over there started baffling his roman nationalism saying that the Romans had better swords and that the celts were sloppy and etc so that's the reason everybody's like this)

~Jirisys (It's a good first impression:clown:)

WinsingtonIII

08-16-2010, 20:51

Excuse me? Since when is "Darwinism" a social construct?

Jiri, Social Darwinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism) was a completely separate philosophy in the 1800's that took Darwin's ideas about natural selection and survival of the fittest and applied them to human history. Essentially, the claim was that different social groups in society were in constant conflict and the most "sucessful" and "best-adapted" social groups survived and thus helped society "evolve" to a higher form. As you can see, this lead to some pretty racist conclusions about how Europeans were the fittest, and the best-adapted, and so on because they were the most "civilized." It was also used by conservatives to validate the rule of the aristocracy over the peasantry (as they had survived the conflict, so to speak). I only mentioned it because this talk about the "scientific ineptitude" of barbarians reminded me of it.

My earlier comment was just a joke though, I didn't mean it in a accusatory way.

Mediolanicus

08-16-2010, 20:56

Excuse me? Since when is "Darwinism" a social construct?

Since some guys in the late 19th century used Darwinism to "explain" the "supremacy" of the white race. Those who conquered and colonized are considered "more evolved" than they who let themselves be conquered or colonized. Therefore we have "superior" and "inforior" races through evolution. The rise and victory of those "superior" is and was thus inevitable. Also, everything the "superior" ones produce or do or think and the way they act, or the swords they forge, is automatically "superior". Because "that's the way evolution works".

Very, very sound theory. Almost impossible to find arguments against...

SlickNicaG69

08-16-2010, 20:57

You guys made my day - I mean you are discussing about the quality of swords - and who made the better ones - in a way like small children discuss about who got the best dad in the world.
Ever been to a real smith? - ask him how many tries he will need to create a good blade or better exeptional blade - usually there are many influences which can spoil the attempt to forge a blade, even today a good smith cannot guarantee how good his work will be unless he has finished it - even finished he will have to thoroughly test it.
You can have the best material at your hands - but are unable to make anything practical out of it - you cannot assume that every weaponsmith was able to construct a high standard sword for thousands of warriors/soldiers - no matter if they were in roman, celt, japanese, chinese or whatever service. And the second thing is that you can qoute the quality of steel or swords but what does that tell you about the quality of the warrior? - Each weapon has it's own purpose and requires it's very own style of wielding it effectively. So i am sure there were superior blades forged by celts, as well as i am sure that even the roman mass production was able to make fine swords - but not all of them.

Take the lethality value just like it is - somebody made his thoughts about it - and came to the result that it is ok in that way, different reasons have been mentioned before so it's just a good balancing.

So, then, the typical Gallic Swordsman, with a .225 lethality, is correct when compared to the Polybian Principe @ .13?

Disregarding your assumptions for "quality of the warrior" and "skill of the blacksmith," since, as you said, each warrior in every unit is different as well as every smith, there is nowhere in history, which I believe this mod to be based upon, which ever indicates the typical Gallic Swordsman any more lethal, if not less lethal, than the typical Polybian Principe. This is fact, illustrated by the Gallic Wars of 200BC, not opinion or theory, and I'm offended by those who assume that it's a product of my own prejudices and malintentions.

But if you agree with those that adhere to the standard of physical measurements to gauge lethality, then you are also wrong because, as we've both said, the value is not in how much steel is used, but how the steel was made! Yes, there probably were smiths capable of making better swords than the standard Gladius in Gaul, but this has to be limited to Elites ( I would argue there should be more elites in Belgae than the rest but there is limited number of Belgae soldiers available...), and not passed on to typical soldiers, if the gauge is to stay true.

As far as weight being a factor due to shock, think about it... a heavy scutum, with much times the weight of a sword, is more than capable of neutralizing the force of a blunt sword. Do your research before you make assumptions and offer evidence. Coupled with the fact their metallurgical ability was below par for their times and prone to "breaking" and "bending," how could you argue such weapons to be superior to the Gladius? How could you argue the typical swordsman to be more lethal than the typical legionairy?

What 19th Century Social-Darwinist tome did you pull this out of?

In fact, the major difference in these historical battles, was always the method of warfare employed by the nations, and the generals in their command. With few exception, whenever a capable Roman general was coupled with the Roman standard of military prowess, Rome was almost always guaranteed victory. Unfortunately, your dear barbarians never developed any true art of war beyond the basic. They had no conception of grand tactics or strategy.This is why they rarely prospered and such a conclusion is not derived by the use of any element of Social Darwinism, but actually out of pure reason and judgement: they were not inferior because they were naturally inferior, they were inferior because they were inferior technologically and in the art of war. You can disagree again, but you cannot refute me without evidence.

Very, very sound theory. Almost impossible to find arguments against...

Except for the fact that non-whites were also able to develop things that were fundamentally instrumental in the development of human civilization, and which whites used to their advantage, and that it is based on segregating the "white" race from the rest of humanity.

WinsingtonIII

08-16-2010, 21:06

they were not inferior because they were naturally inferior, they were inferior because they were inferior technologically and in the art of war.

That is Social Darwinism.

Except for the fact that non-whites were also able to develop things that were fundamentally instrumental in the development of human civilization, and which whites used to their advantage, and that it is based on segregating the "white" race from the rest of humanity.

I think Mediolanicus was being sarcastic.

SlickNicaG69

08-16-2010, 21:12

That is Social Darwinism.

Man if you think what I said is Social Darwinism you have no idea what it means. What do you think? Everything is made equal independent of variables? You got a lot to learn my friend...

WinsingtonIII

08-16-2010, 21:23

The basic idea that technological superiority makes an entire group of people superior to another group of people is pretty close to Social Darwinism. If you say that technological superiority makes them technologically superior, then that's obviously a valid claim. It's when you make these broad claims about superiority and inferiority, as if the entire worth of a civilization is based on technology and weaponry, that you venture into Social Darwinist territory.

The claim that one civilization was a greater military power than another is not Social Darwinist, it's historical fact. The claim that one civilization is "superior" to another because it was a greater military power is Social Darwinist.

Do you see the distinction?

If you meant the first claim, then I apologize.

SlickNicaG69

08-16-2010, 22:01

Stick to then subject bro! Inferior Militarily if you need words to populate your mind...

WinsingtonIII

08-16-2010, 22:22

I just couldn't tell whether you were making blatant generalizations about entire cultures or not. It happens sometimes around here.

Plus, even so, saying one culture is militarily "better" than another is a bold claim and a hard thing to prove or demonstrate. Manpower and economy are often far more important in war than the individual skill of a warrior or quality of his equipment, or even tactics for that matter.

Zarax

08-16-2010, 22:28

Stick to then subject bro! Inferior Militarily if you need words to populate your mind...

I think you should reconsider broad generalizations.
Gauls were among the hottest mercenaries any power (except Rome) would seek, unless of course you'd consider Carthage and the hellenistic powers inferior too.

SlickNicaG69

08-16-2010, 22:33

I think you should reconsider broad generalizations.
Gauls were among the hottest mercenaries any power (except Rome) would seek, unless of course you'd consider Carthage and the hellenistic powers inferior too.

Except the main difference in my "generalities" and yours is the subject itself. I am not talking units or brigades, I'm talking full armies!

Zarax

08-16-2010, 22:35

In full armies you'd also see rather large numbers of levy spearmen and skirmishers that would outnumber the swordsmen.
Oh and BTW, it was not uncommon to hire entire tribes.

jirisys

08-16-2010, 23:31

SlickNicaG69

08-16-2010, 23:50

The hammer and anvil, Cannae, Teuntonburg forest, Gergovia, Plataea, Carrhae, Thermopylae (279), Heraklea, Adrianople, the Balgrades, springs to mind

Seriously, you make me like Hannibal destroying the romans and wishing he destroyed Rome

~Jirisys (I mean it)

Please be quiet man. I care not how you feel!

In full armies you'd also see rather large numbers of levy spearmen and skirmishers that would outnumber the swordsmen.
Oh and BTW, it was not uncommon to hire entire tribes.

No, the vast majority of Celtic armies would be raw levies and spearmen. Merely having a sword was a mark of distinction, and, as I was saying, only a few minority of these, the elites, had anything that dared approach the technological prowess of the gladius, legionary plate, pila, and scutum combination, much less surpass it. It did happen at times though.

antisocialmunky

08-17-2010, 00:15

Legionary Plate
https://img444.imageshack.us/img444/9136/retardsmiley.png

vartan

08-17-2010, 00:31

And the assumptions run rampant, like the Monarch butterfly in its season of flight, traveling thousands of kilometres before reaching its destination. I absolutely love it. Carry on.

<insert horizontal ruler here>

If memory serves me right, was there not something, somewhere, about how the man (or men) who developed the lethality balancing model (amongst others) is no longer with us? That is, he no longer is with the team who currently works on EB II and is inaccessible. If this is indeed correct, then it would mean that any debate over the lethalities (amongst other values in the game) would be pointless, because it is also to my knowledge that this person or persons has not left behind any documentation describing the balancing model (not a publicly available one, at least). All questions regarding explanations of such values as lethality in EB would therefore be unanswerable, as those explanations would be non-existent. 'Nuff said, I suppose.

Cute Wolf

08-17-2010, 00:43

SlickNicaG69

08-17-2010, 00:47

Plus, even so, saying one culture is militarily "better" than another is a bold claim and a hard thing to prove or demonstrate. Manpower and economy are often far more important in war than the individual skill of a warrior or quality of his equipment, or even tactics for that matter.

I'm glad you too possess that knowledge. Do you not think the Romans were economically or numerically superior to the Celts? The Romans, by 200 BC, owned the Mediterranean seas and, hence, trade, further enriched themselves by the heavy taxation imposed on their subject provinces, and invented majestic highways to not only make trade the easiest of times up to 1800 AD, but made it that much easier to protect as well. With the advent of the professional army and the splendid Roman Civil Law, which provided even a slave a pathway to military service and citizenship, how were they numerically inferior to any tribe? I simply don't see your reason one way or the other.

There is much value to a civilization, such as art, language, religion, law, government, and culture. But every civilization's worth is ultimately measured by its longetivity and impact on humanity and, although there is abundant evidence that the Celtic people had roots that probably spans 10,000 years like every other people, we must start at that time, when it came out of the simplicity of the Iron Age and became a civilization in terms of history. This they did at the same time as the Romans and, unfortunately for them, were engulfed by the latter's victory over them. Yet this was the reality of the classical age, the stronger destroyed the weaker, and in those terms, the Romans were superior over the Celts. History, but fact nonetheless.

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

08-17-2010, 00:47

bobbin

08-17-2010, 00:49

Concerning the OP

The reason longswords* have 0.225 lethality is that the weapon in itself, if it found its target, was more capable of delivering a incapacitating blow. This is balanced by having it use a slower attack animation, the aim being to produce a few, powerful attacks. For the gladius it's the opposite, each individual strike is less powerful but it gets a fast animation, so you get more attacks in the amount of same time.

*Thats all longswords in the mod, not just celtic ones btw

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

08-17-2010, 00:56

There is much value to a civilization, such as art, language, religion, law, government, and culture. But every civilization's worth is ultimately measured by its longetivity and impact on humanity

While there are, certainly, aspects of Roman culture that linger on in many countries, those older (as well as later) cultures still are present - that is why there are recognisable national and regional cultural differences.

Yet this was the reality of the classical age, the stronger destroyed the weaker, and in those terms, the Romans were superior over the Celts. History, but fact nonetheless.

..and the Germanic tribes destroyed the Romans....so those barbarians must have been superior to the Romans?

SlickNicaG69

08-17-2010, 01:09

In fact, the major difference in these historical battles, was always the method of warfare employed by the nations, and the generals in their command. With few exception, whenever a capable Roman general was coupled with the Roman standard of military prowess, Rome was almost always guaranteed victory.

Hmmmmm... this is something of a self-perpetuating argument isn't it? What constitutes a capable Roman general? Why, one who was victorious, of course.....

What did for most of Rome's enemies was not, I think, any technological, or even simply military, 'inferiority', it was a lack of political cohesion/will... That the Roans had in abundance(most of the time...)

Despite Hannibal's run of successes against Roman armies sent against him, the political situation in Carthage undermined him. The Gauls were busy busting each other's balls over Celtic hegemony (so that 'Germanic' tribes such as the Sweboz, and other outsiders like the Helvetii were gleefully entertaining thoughts of their own power there). Rome, of course, had been through that - gaining hegemony over the other Italic tribes, and their political stability at a time when all their neighbours were fighting amongst themselves was their greatest advantage.

The various Hellenic factions were knocking lumps out of each other, the various Persian/Armenian/Georgian/Scythian groupings were vying for dominance among themselves....

And, if technological 'superiority' is such a boon...., why did Rome fall to technologically backward barbarian factions ( a clue is to be found in the political situation within the remnants of the Roman Empire...)

Hannibal was the greatest general of his time, and had he possessed the technological necessities that he required, he would've conquered Rome. But he didn't do what was most required, he didn't do that which only Alexander had proven to do - to pass a complete seige train across Alp-type country. He needed to be Alexander to conquer Rome and he couldn't be. Does that not serve to testify at Rome's greatness? Fortune indeed was much more harsh to Hannibal, but I am one that believes that mind and ability, when combined with excellence, can surpass any treachery of fortune. Perhaps Hannibal thought he couldn't move over the Alps fast enough to not lose his army? Who knows? The point is he didn't, and because of that decision, lost the war.

If there is anything with more answers than your question on the Fall of Rome, then I would answer that one, but since there isn't, I will answer yours. By the time you speak of, such technological advancement was no longer present. Furthermore, by 400 AD Rome's military was vastly mercenary (look up foederati), whom possessed cultural ties to the very enemies (sometimes being ex-enemies themselves) they were fighting. When such "divisions," which in reality were whole groups of people, mutinied or revolted, it not only added to the enemy strength, but sapped the military's. Although the system in place allowed the Emperor to use all the power of Rome to surpress these threats many times while it was capable, the Emperor in place was never capable of using these powers. Subtle irony, when you realize such men existed but were excluded because they were 1/2 Roman (Stilicho and Aetius). That is the beauty of Rome. Even in it's demise, it makes you realize her other features of worth!

..and the Germanic tribes destroyed the Romans....so those barbarians must have been superior to the Romans?

Your are wrong, my dear Graccus, the Romans lived on as the Byzantines! And when the Muslims overran the Byzantines, I am like you, my friend, whom suspects they continue living amongst all of us each day...

vartan

08-17-2010, 01:30

well, maybe someone could publish some mathematical "trace back" of the unit statistics functions in EB...
Wahahaha :laugh4: No mate, I don't expect anyone to re-formulate the balancing model. Even if you did you'd have to be a very clever detective to spot even 10 percent of the reasoning behind the model, and speculative at that. The guy is long gone, just drop it. Bobbin has the longswords down, let's hope he was given the documentation by the balancer dude! What a balancing act :juggle2: !!! :laugh4:

Zarax

08-17-2010, 01:53

Ok, gloves off.
The gladius (especially the early one) was a thick and heavy sword for its size.
Its main advantage is that it would suffer less from poor craftmanship and could still be used as a cleaver while being blunt.
There was no high craftmanship involved at least for the rank and file.

Also, many celtic swordsmen would be short swordsmen, more or less the same of gladius (and they are in EB as well).
That said, celts had a professional warrior class which was not small and not many of their warriors would be affluent enough to afford much more gear than the longsword.

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

08-17-2010, 02:13

Hannibal was the greatest general of his time, and had he possessed the technological necessities that he required, he would've conquered Rome. But he didn't do what was most required, he didn't do that which only Alexander had proven to do - to pass a complete seige train across Alp-type country. He needed to be Alexander to conquer Rome and he couldn't be.

Unless, of course, it was never Hannibal's intention to conquer Rome, but rather to demoralise them into a peace treaty. Not to mention the logistics of besieging Rome - even with such as Capua switching allegiance - and the weakened state of Hannibal's army following Cannae.

Does that not serve to testify at Rome's greatness?

I'm not quite sure I even understand the question..., but I will say that her response to Hannibal's offers of peace say a deal about the political will of Rome.

If there is anything with more answers than your question on the Fall of Rome, then I would answer that one, but since there isn't, I will answer yours. By the time you speak of, such technological advancement was no longer present. Furthermore, by 400 BC Rome's military was vastly mercenary (look up foederati), whom possessed cultural ties to the very enemies (sometimes being ex-enemies themselves) they were fighting. When such "divisions," which in reality were whole groups of people, mutinied or revolted, it not only added to the enemy strength, but sapped the military's. Although the system in place allowed the Emperor to use all the power of Rome to surpress these threats many times while it was capable, the Emperor in place was never capable of using these powers. Subtle irony, when you realize such men existed but were excluded because they were 1/2 Roman (Strabo and Aetius).

So....politically, they'd lost the plot.

That is the beauty of Rome. Even in it's demise, it makes you realize her other features of worth!

Have I misunderstood you here? You think that the disbarring of capable military/political leaders on grounds of ethnicity is a worthy feature?

Your are wrong, my dear Graccus, the Romans lived on as the Byzantines! And when the Muslims overran the Byzantines, I am like you, my friend, whom suspects they continue living amongst all of us each day...

And the Carthiginians lived on as the Numidians? :dizzy2:

SlickNicaG69

08-17-2010, 02:27

Unless, of course, it was never Hannibal's intention to conquer Rome, but rather to demoralise them into a peace treaty.

Ha! You are seeking excuses for his loss Gracchus, but his failure is present nonetheless, regardless of his aims.

Ok, gloves off.

Be careful brother, I think you can get banned for this...

Zarax

08-17-2010, 03:04

I won't get banned for saying the truth... The gladius, while being effective, was made for mass production rather than quality.

Rome's advantage was not in having inherently superior weapons but rather in production and organization, which allowed them to field relatively quality equipment in greater quantity than their opponents.

While a brilliant system, the legion itself was a tactic that allowed reliable performance even under mediocre generals, unless they were facing a general skilled in combined arms tactics and those were quite rare.
Pretty much every single piece of equipment in the roman infantryman was of decent quality but not spectacular on its own (and often an adaptation of imported designs), it was the combination on all pieces of equipment and tactics that gave the legion its edge, forcing the enemy to adopt more expensive (literally, cavalry superiority was not cheap at all) tactics that could not be sustained in a prolonged war.

SlickNicaG69

08-17-2010, 03:20

Thank you Zarax, but if you consider, as I said, a complete army of infantry scaled in plate armor, the razor sharp gladius, 2 pila, and large scutum, merely mediocre, you vastly underestimate the power that was Rome at her heighth!

Pretty much every single piece of equipment in the roman infantryman was of decent quality but not spectacular on its own (and often an adaptation of imported designs), it was the combination on all pieces of equipment and tactics that gave the legion its edge, forcing the enemy to adopt more expensive (literally, cavalry superiority was not cheap at all) tactics that could not be sustained in a prolonged war.

So, who cares if what you say is that I'm right? I said it first. And, no, Rome did not lose because the barbarians "invested more in cavalry," they did so due to greater tidings that were independent of anything the barbarians did themselves. Rome died from within.

antisocialmunky

08-17-2010, 05:06

So the culture fell because of the culture itself. That would mean that their culture was inferior to those around them?

I guess that's what you're saying then.

vartan

08-17-2010, 06:19

Be careful brother, I think you can get banned for this...
Seeing as you are a legal expert on the process of banishment, tell me this: can I get banned for calling you a pleb or a nobhead? :oops: oops!

So the culture fell because of the culture itself. That would mean that their culture was inferior to those around them? I guess that's what you're saying then.
That's what I understood as well. :book:

SlickNicaG69

08-17-2010, 08:15

So the culture fell because of the culture itself. That would mean that their culture was inferior to those around them?

I guess that's what you're saying then.

I don't know, you tell me and explain your reasoning. Since it is your idea, then you are best apt to explain its reasoning. Maybe then we will see if who is right, whether it is you who argues that the Romans were inferior to the Barbarians all along, or whether I'm righ whom argues that the Romans were sadly the last of their kind - the last of that age we call the Classical - and whose demise was necessary for the dawn of a new age in humanity.

Seeing as you are a legal expert on the process of banishment, tell me this: can I get banned for calling you a pleb or a nobhead? oops!

No, but coming from you, I think you would qualify for the 10 pointer...

Moros

08-17-2010, 08:39

Complete armies scaled in plate armour? lol.

SlickNicaG69

08-17-2010, 09:11

Complete armies scaled in plate armour? lol.

Haha man are you speaking or are you thinking? LoL. But here is something to make speak, since it sounds like you're only thinking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorica_segmentata. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorica_segmentata)

Also, notice how "short" of a sword the gladius is...

Zarax

08-17-2010, 09:16

Thank you Zarax, but if you consider, as I said, a complete army of infantry scaled in plate armor, the razor sharp gladius, 2 pila, and large scutum, merely mediocre, you vastly underestimate the power that was Rome at her heighth!

Which roman army are you talking about? Even if we consider LS (which is out of our timeframe so you just invalidated your point) "plate" the army you describe maybe was fielded at some emperor's triumph and does not represent a typical roman field army.

Just to fix our timeframe: for the greater part of the game you get a polybian army, which means hastati/principes/triarii = one third of the army armoured in chain mail plus a few ones in heavier armour in the best case.

And to stop the thread derailing: You're basically bringing on "hollywood Rome" because you don't think a longsword was a "better" weapon than the gladius? And more important, which gladius are you talking about?

SlickNicaG69

08-17-2010, 09:35

Which roman army are you talking about? Even if we consider LS (which is out of our timeframe so you just invalidated your point) "plate" the army you describe maybe was fielded at some emperor's triumph and does not represent a typical roman field army.

Just to fix our timeframe: for the greater part of the game you get a polybian army, which means hastati/principes/triarii = one third of the army armoured in chain mail plus a few ones in heavier armour in the best case.

And to stop the thread derailing: You're basically bringing on "hollywood Rome" because you don't think a longsword was a "better" weapon than the gladius? And more important, which gladius are you talking about?

I'm talking about ANY kind of Gladius son, and no, I don't stress Hollywood, I stress the Roman standard. And, no, it was NOT used exclusively in triumphs. That is just a formulation of archaeology's inability to produce vast quantities of Roman military equipment AND the fact that their science's evidence is bound to lead them to inconsistencies - I mean for christ's sake I bet the Alps were 1/2 as tall when Caesar was around! Couple that with the fact that most Roman armor or equipment, when no longer usable, was probably melted down and recycled, and that they were assembled as parts of a whole (segmentata), it is no wonder they can't gather evidence. Thus, they develop such theories, which unfortunately, seems to outweigh the primary sources themselves in popular opinion these days. Oh how the vice of excess is so crippling!

And about your Hollywood statement. I believe you show your bias much more than mine in that respect.

Moros

08-17-2010, 09:36

Haha man are you speaking or are you thinking? LoL. But here is something to make speak, since it sounds like you're only thinking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorica_segmentata. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorica_segmentata)

Also, notice how "short" of a sword the gladius is... I know very well what LS is, silly. It is the fact that you seem to think that Rome's armies were mostly clad in LS which made me lol. If you really want to make a point and defend your ideas on Rome, take a few history classes first. Also if your opinions are based on such facts, you might want to reconsider your ideas after some reading or classes.

SlickNicaG69

08-17-2010, 09:48

I know very well what LS is, silly. It is the fact that you seem to think that Rome's armies were mostly clad in LS which made me lol. If you really want to make a point and defend your ideas on Rome, take a few history classes first. Also if your opinions are based on such facts, you might want to reconsider your ideas after some reading or classes.

Read above.

Zarax

08-17-2010, 09:56

I'm talking about ANY kind of Gladius son, and no, I don't stress Hollywood, I stress the Roman standard. And, no, it was NOT used exclusively in triumphs. That is just a formulation of archaeology's inability to produce vast quantities of Roman military equipment AND the fact that their science's evidence is bound to lead them to inconsistencies - I mean for christ's sake I bet the Alps were 1/2 as tall when Caesar was around! Couple that with the fact that most Roman armor or equipment, when no longer usable, was probably melted down and recycled, and that they were assembled as parts of a whole (segmentata), it is no wonder they can't gather evidence. Thus, they develop such theories, which unfortunately, seems to outweigh the primary sources themselves in popular opinion these days. Oh how the vice of excess is so crippling!

And about your Hollywood statement. I believe you show your bias much more than mine in that respect.

The "roman standard" would still include half of the fielded troops as auxiliaries (the equipment of which would vary quite a lot) and archaeology (roman one is pretty much one that gets the lion's share of the diggings BTW) showed that chain mail was always much more numerous than LS even in the periods where it was "popular".
Not to mention that roman propaganda should be taken for what it is: propaganda.

That said: again, how does all of this relates to your opinion of the gladius being "better" than the longsword?

SlickNicaG69

08-17-2010, 10:17

The "roman standard" would still include half of the fielded troops as auxiliaries (the equipment of which would vary quite a lot) and archaeology (roman one is pretty much one that gets the lion's share of the diggings BTW) showed that chain mail was always much more numerous than LS even in the periods where it was "popular".
Not to mention that roman propaganda should be taken for what it is: propaganda.

That said: again, how does all of this relates to your opinion of the gladius being "better" than the longsword?

You, my friend, are the one that shifts the timeframe to one that is irrelevant to this discussion. The period when auxilia outnumbered legionnaries, and hence the point when segmentata could be said to outnumber hamata with evidence, was in the 2nd century (Trajan's days) and, even then, even the auxilia wore the hamata, which was a full coat of chainmail. What's wrong with that? It still far surpassed the equipment of any other infantry of the world. Auxilia alone would be necessary for this status. But tell me, if you are educated as you seem to be, how can you come to call Roman history mere propaganda? Facts are not propaganda my friend. Only that which is interpretable and subject to opinion can be propaganda. Anything else is merely a confirmation of merit. But, as I've said, you can disagree.

About the sword question: Read my previous posts on what I've said about the metallurgical aspects of Celtic swords and the importance of such aspects on the function, and hence lethality, of ANY sword.

And no, the Imperial Auxilia's equipment was standarized, not variable.

Basileus_ton_Basileon

08-17-2010, 10:24

May I say a little something? :)

There's no such thing as a 'superior' people. For a nation/culture/people to form an empire over many others relies on many many factors, many of which the said people cannot actually control (like climate changes or the will of people far far away). Alexander once mentioned that "Any good Barbarian (foreigner) is as good as a Greek; any bad Greek is worse than any Barbarian (savage)." To believe a certain people as superior existence is an act of Imperialism- akin to the thoughts and doings of Nazis of recent age, The Acts of The One True Barbarian.

I'm sorry I may have derailed the thread, I hoped to read a coherent discussion on celtic metallurgy and swordsmanship.....

seienchin

08-17-2010, 10:24

Allthough people who are saying the roman army had a lot of mixed armour have clearly some points　and I think there is no doubt that the armies before the legions in marian style probably had some really superior and some inferior armour based on the wealth of the people who bought them, BUT think about romes wealth and power in augustus time. It would have been easy for the empire to give the legionaries, who were compared to the size of the empire quite few any armour they wanted.

Anyway the quality of roman armour in EBs timeframe might be debatealbe but still the simple fact that rome crushed all their enemies even when outnumbered is somewhat a fact hard to ignore. Esspecially the roman armies after the marian reform seemed to be far superior to their enemies as the roman victories over Mithridates and Tigranes showed.

PS: Speaking of the auxilarii Slick,
There is not one panel I know about showing them wearing heavy armour. So if the romans didnt even show them with it, they probably had none. ;)
PS2: ＠Basileus,
Yes, the roman were not superior people, so why did they conquer and rule most of europe at that time? Because they had the strongest army, which was good enough to win battles even with incompetent leaders= There Equipment must have been really good. ^^
Anyway I guess celtic metalurgy is just a matter of believing just as the rest.
There were some swords of good quality found and there were many bad. Still it is possible that most good swords were melted in later times to use their metal or it is also possible that we found every single good celtic sword and most of the bad ones were melted because of their uselessnes. Who knows? Archaelogy is also believing.
Their enemies said all of their sword were inferior, which is probably not true. Their "friends" today say there swords were good maybe better than romans. I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Moros

08-17-2010, 10:30

Sp Slick, when was the last time you read an Academic Article about it?

SlickNicaG69

08-17-2010, 10:37

Sp Slick, when was the last time you read an Academic Article about it?

Just now son, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noric_steel. Straight from an the industr insider himself.

May I say a little something? :)

There's no such thing as a 'superior' people. For a nation/culture/people to form an empire over many others relies on many many factors, many of which the said people cannot actually control (like climate changes or the will of people far far away). Alexander once mentioned that "Any good Barbarian (foreigner) is as good as a Greek; any bad Greek is worse than any Barbarian (savage)." To believe a certain people as superior existence is an act of Imperialism- akin to the thoughts and doings of Nazis of recent age, The Acts of The One True Barbarian.

I'm sorry I may have derailed the thread, I hoped to read a coherent discussion on celtic metallurgy and swordsmanship.....

You completely misunderstood my statement, but since I have no desire to re-explain myself, read my previous posts. I stress the military aspect, hence, their superiority in the art of war.

PS: Speaking of the auxilarii Slick,
There is not one panel I know about showing them wearing heavy armour. So if the romans didnt even show them with it, they probably had none. ;)

If, when you consider a classical era infantry unit, with a complete coat of mail, large shield, and helmet not an heavy infantryman, then what is a heavy infantryman? In fact, it seems that the Roman "propaganda" is the cause for this deviance in thought, as when compared to the Legionairy, there was some distinction where the previous was "lighter" than the latter. Hope this is as un-Social Darwinistic as most of you would like.

Zarax

08-17-2010, 11:09

Just now son, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noric_steel. Straight from an the industr insider himself.

Except that romans didn't get access to that until after the punic wars, so quite a bit inside our timeframe and standardization of equipment was not completed unit Augustus, pretty much at the very end of EB.
Oh, and wikipedia is not an academic source, bringing that in any academic circle is an excellent way to get laughed at.

Incidentally, Noricene iron came from celtic lands, which incidentally are the owners of the .225 longswords, while the gladius himself is heavily influenced by celtiberian swords (hence the name Gladius Hispaniensis).

Again, the gladius was a good and reliable (as it could cope with lower quality craftmanship) sword that along with the rest of the roman panoply made the legionary an excellent infantryman but that does not mean that it was necessarily a superior sword, rather that it was the one best suited for roman tactics at the time.

Mediolanicus

08-17-2010, 11:43

I think Mediolanicus was being sarcastic.

Yes, I was. And I thought that would be more than obvious. I apologize if it wasn't.

About the discussion. The example of the most recent "academic article" the guy read says it all...
Don't argue with him. He's not going to hurt anyone with his believes, so let him have them. If it makes him happy.

Moros

08-17-2010, 11:46

Just now son, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noric_steel. Straight from an the industr insider himself.

:bounce: ROFLMAO :bounce:

SlickNicaG69

08-17-2010, 12:02

Except that romans didn't get access to that until after the punic wars, so quite a bit inside our timeframe and standardization of equipment was not completed unit Augustus, pretty much at the very end of EB.

The game spans roughly from 300 BC to 0 AD. The 2nd Punic War ends in 200 BC. So then the use of Noric Steel would span 2/3 of the game's timeframe. Also, the Marian Reforms occur (which involve the advent of standarization to say nothing of orginazation and tactics), in 100 BC, at least 1/3 of the timeframe. All this, of course, disregarding any means beside conquest which the Romans might have used to obtain the material (trade anyone)? Quite significant and unlike what you said.

Oh, and wikipedia is not an academic source, bringing that in any academic circle is an excellent way to get laughed at.

It is as academic as anything Adrian Goldsworthy writes, which is a regurgitation of many things over and over again...

Incidentally, Noricene iron came from celtic lands, which incidentally are the owners of the .225 longswords, while the gladius himself is heavily influenced by celtiberian swords (hence the name Gladius Hispaniensis).

Not all Gauls came from Noricum. And not all gladius were made of celt-iberian steel. The term is in its design, not construction. And even if Gauls were the natives of Noricum, the Gauls did not possess the metallurgical skills necessary to employ it to its maximum effect.

[/QUOTE]Again, the gladius was a good and reliable (as it could cope with lower quality craftmanship) sword that along with the rest of the roman panoply made the legionary an excellent infantryman but that does not mean that it was necessarily a superior sword, rather that it was the one best suited for roman tactics at the time.[/QUOTE]

It was as notorious in the Classical world as the Katana is in our own day today. There is a reason for that beyond the academical. It transcends any literal definition you will find in any textbook. It is the means by which the world was conquered, and to disregard it as merely "on-par" with its contemporaries is like saying a nuclear weapon is only a bomb built on a larger scale than say... a grenade. The gladius did things no other type of sword of its time could do - slash and thrust - with equal effectiveness. It dismembered with ease and was resilient in wear. For the 500 years it was consistently employed by the Romans, it was inferior to no other sword. So why then Zarax, is it given a .13 lethality instead of .225? Why is considered a spear?

About the discussion. The example of the most recent "academic article" the guy read says it all...
Don't argue with him. He's not going to hurt anyone with his believes, so let him have them. If it makes him happy.

Please, Be Quiet you Mediolanicus. My example does nothing to hinder my argument. In fact, your argument is the one that contains false pretenses. If you were an actual academic, you would realize that the first rule in academics is to not assume those you deal with are ignorant. Otherwise, would Socrates and Aristotle ever had the inclination to share their views with their subordinates?! I think not, and for you to do so would imply you are wiser than those two ever were...

Zarax

08-17-2010, 12:31

The game spans roughly from 300 BC to 0 AD. The 2nd Punic War ends in 200 BC. So then the use of Noric Steel would span 2/3 of the game's timeframe. Also, the Marian Reforms occur (which involve the advent of standarization to say nothing of orginazation and tactics), in 100 BC, at least 1/3 of the timeframe. All this, of course, disregarding any means beside conquest which the Romans might have used to obtain the material (trade anyone)? Quite significant and unlike what you said.

The same argument can be said for celtic longswords, with the advantage they actually start owning the area in our timeframe and keep steadily it for roughly 100 years in our timeframe with stable roman occupation taking roughly another 80 years, which is more or less half of the game.

It is as academic as anything Adrian Goldsworthy writes, which is a regurgitation of many things over and over again...

You'd better quote his sources if you want to be taken seriously.

Not all Gauls came from Noricum. And not all gladius were made of celt-iberian steel. The term is in its design, not construction. And even if Gauls were the natives of Noricum, the Gauls did not possess the metallurgical skills necessary to employ it to its maximum effect.

Are you shunning gallic metalworking skill? Celtic metalsmiths and their techniques were highly sought after all over the mediterranean, which is just one way to state their skills.

It was as notorious in the Classical world as the Katana is in our own day today. There is a reason for that beyond the academical. It transcends any literal definition you will find in any textbook. It is the means by which the world was conquered, and to disregard it as merely "on-par" with its contemporaries is like saying a nuclear weapon is only a bomb built on a larger scale than say... a grenade. The gladius did things no other type of sword of its time could do - slash and thrust - with equal effectiveness. It dismembered with ease and was resilient in wear. For the 500 years it was consistently employed by the Romans, it was inferior to no other sword. So why then Zarax, is it given a .13 lethality instead of .225? Why is considered a spear?

It was also notorious because history is written by the winners.
If you really want to use modern terms you're comparing a sherman's 75mm cannon to a tiger's 88mm.
The party with the sherman won the war but it doesn't infer that german guns were inferior.

And BTW, .13 lethality is pretty much correct coupled with attack (which you never mention) and speed, making it superior to any shortsword in game and allowing roman principes (and legionaries) to beat most longsword units (which have lower and slower attack) except of course elites (which are much more expensive).

anubis88

08-17-2010, 12:39

If you want to know if Romans used propaganda extensively, try reading the Res Gestae Divi Augusti... You'll see what everyone means about how history is written by the winners.

SlickNicaG69

08-17-2010, 12:45

The same argument can be said for celtic longswords, with the advantage they actually start owning the area in our timeframe and keep steadily it for roughly 100 years in our timeframe with stable roman occupation taking roughly another 80 years, which is more or less half of the game.

You'd better quote his sources if you want to be taken seriously.

Are you shunning gallic metalworking skill? Celtic metalsmiths and their techniques were highly sought after all over the mediterranean, which is just one way to state their skills.

It was also notorious because history is written by the winners.
If you really want to use modern terms you're comparing a sherman's 75mm cannon to a tiger's 88mm.
The party with the sherman won the war but it doesn't infer that german guns were inferior.

And BTW, .13 lethality is pretty much correct coupled with attack (which you never mention) and speed, making it superior to any shortsword in game and allowing roman principes (and legionaries) to beat most longsword units (which have lower and slower attack) except of course elites (which are much more expensive).

I'm done with you Zarax. Despite numerous evidence, you presume to laud that which is less relevant but more beneficial to your argument, and deride that which is more relevant but less beneficial to it. I can't argue with someone who uses such methods.

If you want to know if Romans used propaganda extensively, try reading the Res Gestae Divi Augusti... You'll see what everyone means about how history is written by the winners.

You're right, but not even someone like me, who truly admires the history of the Romans, considers the Augustan History a true history of Rome. And the Res Gaestae, that is a speech man, not a history!

You simply can't discredit the credentials of an Arrian, or Plutarch, or Polybius, or Livy, or many others for that matter that wrote about Rome and which are mostly lost to us. That is my main objectives with those of your kind. The list far surpasses that of any other culture beyond that of the modern period. And yet to you, it is all mere propaganda, devoid of any of that which we today call history. Simply unbelievable.

anubis88

08-17-2010, 12:57

Who said it's all propaganda? Noone... I read all of those guys that you posted, but they do talk crazy sometimes... Just to mention some numbers of Plutarch are completly overdosed, and not to mention only 12 Romans losing their lives at Chaeronea...

I mean you must understand that it was in the interest of those writers to write things that glorify Rome, don't you? And no-one is deinyng that the Romans had one of the greatest Empires of all time, it just wasn't all black and white like some people think.

Also you mentioned before the vast riches of the Empire in the Augustan era. In the early Augustan period Rome's finances were catastrophic. It took Augustus his entire reign to bring the finances of the empire to a good state; this is imho one of his greatest achivements which consolidated the Empire for centuries to come.

Moros

08-17-2010, 12:58

It is as academic as anything Adrian Goldsworthy writes, which is a regurgitation of many things over and over again...

~D

Not all Gauls came from Noricum. And not all gladius were made of celt-iberian steel. The term is in its design, not construction. And even if Gauls were the natives of Noricum, the Gauls did not possess the metallurgical skills necessary to employ it to its maximum effect.
Steel?

It was as notorious in the Classical world as the Katana is in our own day today.
Now, the katana is a highly overrated weapon as well. The history channel or National geocgraphic are not really good place to get historical info from. Try to compare one to a bastardsword.

There is a reason for that beyond the academical.
What Academical? I've not seen any academic argument, reference,...

It transcends any literal definition you will find in any textbook. It is the means by which the world was conquered, and to disregard it as merely "on-par" with its contemporaries is like saying a nuclear weapon is only a bomb built on a larger scale than say... a grenade.
A bad analogy is not an argument. Secondly you are overly generalising a lot again. Also last time I checked Rome almost went down a few times and had a lot of luck. But mostly it's population and economical power were the main motors. Having a proffesional army did help, yes. But that doesn't have to anything with lethality. You're moving the subject a lot. Is it because you have no real arguments?

The gladius did things no other type of sword of its time could do - slash and thrust - with equal effectiveness. It dismembered with ease and was resilient in wear. For the 500 years it was consistently employed by the Romans, it was inferior to no other sword.
Hmm you can do that with a falcata as well. With a lot of swords actually... Ask reenactors.

Please, Be Quiet you Mediolanicus. My example does nothing to hinder my argument. In fact, your argument is the one that contains false pretenses. If you were an actual academic, you would realize that the first rule in academics is to not assume those you deal with are ignorant. Otherwise, would Socrates and Aristotle ever had the inclination to share their views with their subordinates?! I think not, and for you to do so would imply you are wiser than those two ever were...
IIRC Mediolanicus studies Archeology (right?) at university. So he might not have a phd, he is being educated for a few years now how to do academic research and discussion on this very subject.

SlickNicaG69

08-17-2010, 13:05

Such altering of numbers is pardonable, given the primitive degree to which science in general was at that time compared to our own, and because of the much greater importance history had on classical culture, also in contrast to our own. The only way to get reliable numbers was through a census, and opposing armies rarely had them. They were almost always related in comparison to the Roman army. Yet, you are still right, that inflation of figures did occur.

Yet, the reality of classical warfare was that even though the victors lost more in proportion than modern armies do (with the exception of the World Wars), they nonetheless sustained vastly less dead than those whom they defeated, and the defeated suffered more deaths in proportion than in any other period including the World Wars. Yes, maybe 120 died, instead of 12, and maybe when they say 50 charged in the midst of thousands, it was really 500, but its manipulation takes nothing away from the fact that vast odds were faced and unless you are properly equipped, I don't care who you are you can't win against numerically superior forces while being less equipped than them.

I take it your have some sense within you, so read the biographies of Theodore Dodge. The greatest of American military historians. The American Arrianus (whom he in turns bases his work on). It is worth 10,000 times the weight of any of Goldsworthy's books in gold. I would suggest you start with Alexander...

IIRC Mediolanicus studies Archeology (right?) at university. So he might not have a phd, he is being educated for a few years now how to do academic research and discussion on this very subject.

What is he studying Mr. Moros? Dead artifacts? How can I tell what a person was like, by looking at their grave 100 years after they are dead? Not to mention 2000 years...

Moros

08-17-2010, 13:11

I'm done with you Zarax. Despite numerous evidence, you presume to laud that which is less relevant but more beneficial to your argument, and deride that which is more relevant but less beneficial to it. I can't argue with someone who uses such methods.
What evidence, you haven't shown any piece of evidence. The only thing I saw was a reference to wikipedia. Which supported an argument that has not much to do with the lethality of longswords either.

You're right, but not even someone like me, who truly admires the history of the Romans, considers the Augustan History a true history of Rome. And the Res Gaestae, that is a speech man, not a history!
So you acknowledge that you are biased?

You simply can't discredit the credentials of an Arrian, or Plutarch, or Polybius, or Livy, or many others for that matter that wrote about Rome and which are mostly lost to us. Plutarch is a biographer. Livy wrote mostly on things long before his time without much knowledge. All academics agree that Roman historiography back then was not about telling the truth or history. But it was moralising and it's main goal was often to show examples of how one should act. It was a literary genre, not a scholarly tradition. There was such a tradition but it produced mostly lexicons or encyclopedic works. Wallace-Hadrill gives a good review of this. [1]

That is my main objectives with those of your kind. The list far surpasses that of any other culture beyond that of the modern period. And yet to you, it is all mere propaganda, devoid of any of that which we today call history. Simply unbelievable.
What list surpasses what list? You mean the amount of historians? What point are you trying to make?

---------------------------------------------------

[1] WALLACE-HADRILL, A., Suetonius, New Haven, 1983.

antisocialmunky

08-17-2010, 13:23

Thank you for wasting your time on this clown to show every else how much of an idiot he really is, Moros.

SlickNicaG69

08-17-2010, 13:24

What evidence, you haven't shown any piece of evidence. The only thing I saw was a reference to wikipedia. Which supported an argument that has not much to do with the lethality of longswords either.

So you acknowledge that you are biased?

Plutarch is a biographer. Livy wrote mostly on things long before his time without much knowledge. All academics agree that Roman historiography back then was not about telling the truth or history. But it was moralising and it's main goal was often to show examples of how one should act. It was a literary genre, not a scholarly tradition. There was such a tradition but it produced mostly lexicons or encyclopedic works. Wallace-Hadrill gives a good review of this. [1]

What list surpasses what list? You mean the amount of historians? What point are you trying to make?

---------------------------------------------------

[1] WALLACE-HADRILL, A., Suetonius, New Haven, 1983.

I am done with you as well. You have no understanding of what I am saying. But, as I've said before, read up on Theodore Dodge. He is an influence of mine, and one which I believe to be TRUE and devoid of bias. But you will probably just dismiss my advice as being Social Darwinistic propaganda won't you Mr. Moros?

Thank you for wasting your time on this clown to show every else how much of an idiot he really is, Moros.

And I'm especially offended by this, seeing as it comes from a'munkey...'

Zarax

08-17-2010, 13:34

I'm done with you Zarax. Despite numerous evidence, you presume to laud that which is less relevant but more beneficial to your argument, and deride that which is more relevant but less beneficial to it. I can't argue with someone who uses such methods.

You failed to bring any real evidence and just made gross generalizations.
You infer that as the romans won against the celts everything about them must be superior, including weapons.

Unfortunately you fail to see all the geopolitical implications that brought the rise of Rome, not to mention how game balance works in EB and just stick to your concepts.
If your disagreement is so deep maybe you should consider starting your own project and give a proof of concept of what the "right" balance should be.

You simply can't discredit the credentials of an Arrian, or Plutarch, or Polybius, or Livy, or many others for that matter that wrote about Rome and which are mostly lost to us. That is my main objectives with those of your kind. The list far surpasses that of any other culture beyond that of the modern period. And yet to you, it is all mere propaganda, devoid of any of that which we today call history. Simply unbelievable.

You seem to forget that even roman historian views tended to clash with each other, with Polybius calling on the accuracy of previous writers and the same for Livy, Arrian and Plutarch.
Even Polybius was not meaning to do a military manual but himself states that his work is meant to represent an opera about how peoples should be governed.

Moros

08-17-2010, 13:40

I am done with you as well. You have no understanding of what I am saying. But, as I've said before, read up on Theodore Dodge. He is an influence of mine, and one which I believe to be TRUE and devoid of bias. But you will probably just dismiss my advice as being Social Darwinistic propaganda won't you Mr. Moros?
No. But I'd remind you that you brought forth no reasons to change lethality. Moved the discussion to a different topic, one in which you show no neutral position. I'll read Theodore Dodge and if academic reviews of his books (if there are such and if I can find them) when I have more time, as I must admit not to have read his books yet. Either way it's off topic.

Zarax

08-17-2010, 13:42

Dodge makes rather entry level books and he cannot be called a specialist historian on the subject.

SlickNicaG69

08-17-2010, 13:53

Dodge makes rather entry level books and he cannot be called a specialist historian on the subject.

Hahaha!!! Zarax the Wise. I just can't seem to hold back from you man! You are so planted I want to kiss you on that thick ol' forhead of yours... Hahaha. You give me No Credit!... Saddening.

Zarax

08-17-2010, 13:55

You know, Dodge did not just write about Rome.
I've read his book about Carthage (which is MY field) and trust me, you can get way deeper and more accurate than that.

He's a good introductory read but no specialist by any means.

SlickNicaG69

08-17-2010, 13:58

Then we will agree to disagree my dear Zarax.

Off Topic Question: If you admire the Carthaginians above all else, why do you have a Khan-looking icon?

Zarax

08-17-2010, 14:04

Somebody with deeper knowledge or roman archeology than me can suggest you a better author (if they can be bothered given your pretty confrontational attitude).

Just a tip: if an author writes book about as many subjects as him it's quite clear you are not dealing with a specialist historian.

Hoping I'm not breaking any forum rules: http://www.amazon.com/Theodore-Ayrault-Dodge/e/B000APIQVK/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1282050204&sr=8-1

That avatar is because I'm in this forum since MTW (the first one) times and I never changed it.

SlickNicaG69

08-17-2010, 14:13

He was a specialist in the sense that his biographies are related to his subjects' contributions to the Art of War. Quite specialized in my opinion. And, within it, he would state the various superiorities, or as you prefer advantages, that they possesed over their adversaries, whether natural or derived of thought.

Up to this point I have read only Alexander in entirety, and, though obviously stressing the preeminence of Alexendar's personal abilities as the reasons for Macedon's dominance against Persia, he didn't shy from stressing the value of their armament. I love how he ends it too, speculating on whether Alexander had lived would he have squashed Rome? Although he makes no firm statement, he does acknowledge that the Roman infantry was on par with his phalanx. Words to think about from a man educated in the field of war, especially when the infantry he speaks about had not yet reached its eventual height. Don't worry, Caesar is next on the list.