That'd be like those late-medieval bearing-swords then. Huge, ornate two-handed swords typically weighing in the 10-14 pound range, used in parades and nothing else.
As for combat two-handers, 8 pounds was regarded as very heavy...
Printable View
That'd be like those late-medieval bearing-swords then. Huge, ornate two-handed swords typically weighing in the 10-14 pound range, used in parades and nothing else.
As for combat two-handers, 8 pounds was regarded as very heavy...
Tone it down! Get off the offensive, okay. You don't need to jump down my throat. I already said that I broadly agree with you, I find it very hard to believe it weighed 12 pounds, maybe half that. However the sword he describes is an overhand hacking weapon with no point designed to deliver one type of downward strike and they were quite heavy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Iron is different in different places and steel is noticably lighter than iron. Depending on the impurities and success of the smelting process the weight can vary.
I suspect that, in fact if its the weapon I'm thinking of I'm almost sure, it was very blade heavy and Oldgamer could have misjudged the weight.
As to your other point about pila, have you considered passing them to the rear rank?
I was always under the impression iron was normally subjected to all kinds of hammering, tempering and other sheningangs for the express purpose of molding it into serviceable and effective weapons. Cast iron kind of sucks for such purposes, I understand.
And 6 pounds would be seriously heavy even for a hand-and-half longsword, I'll tell you that much.
Anyway, having the rear ranks of the unit hold the pila would probably have been an option but didn't those guys usually throw theirs too ? The whole point of the things was to distrupt the enemy formation before contact after all...
You can hammer and fold iron as much as you want, if it wasn't properly smelted its still full of impurities. The point of folding, hammering and pattern welding is to spread the impurities around as much as possible so that no part of the blade is different in composition to any other, as a blade will break at its weakest point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Tempering and quenching only really effect the nature of the surface of the blade. Its all very complicated and I don't pretend to fully understand it but as the old ssaying goes,
"You can't make a silk purse from a pig's ear."
I quite like the idea that it could have been a weapon for a Celtic god, it seems reasonable but I don't know what evidence there is for it.
What I've read on the subject of Celtic swords suggests that some of them, by no means all, really were only good for one blow before they had to be straitend.
Yeah, sorry about that Wigferth! My daughter was calling for her "Mickey Mouse" DVD. When I got back to the computer I'd forgotten that I'd switched to another thread!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
There's no proof to that assertation anyway; it's very likely an exaggeration, or perhaps a misunderstanding (some Celts like the Scordisci used curved swords). A sword that had to be rebent after every swing would be a death sentence, so it must be an exaggeration at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Also, Celtic swords were never remotely near 12 or 6 pounds. They averaged in weight between 2 - 3 pounds depending on the make and region (and period, Hallstatt longswords were heavier on average but carried more decoration as they were more often for a chief or other noble, so would have a gilt hilt, or inlay, or heavy enameling or what have you). A Celtic longsword, for one thing, isn't even that 'long', they're generally just shy of a meter in length. And the points already been raised, the weights purported here are maddeningly out of proportion to what a real sword would be built around. There were heavy votive objects though, or votive helmets or shields that were not used for battle, but were temple, decorative, or parade items (like the Battersea shield; while the general design was probably an actually shield for war, the weight of the shield with the full decorated face plate would have made it too unwieldy). Celts were big on visual status and had many things that imitated a weapon or piece of armor in appearance, but would in reality be utter junk in a fight (though they did sometimes wear elaborate helmets in battle). A good example would chariots covered in silver decoration. Completely useless for a fight, would be so heavy and slow. But, it looked good, and made the owner look impressive. It was about pomp. A real Celtic sword for battle would not be that heavy.
It didn't need to be. The idea wasn't to smash; one could get a cudgel for that. It was a cutting weapon. It had an edge on it. It was probably not razor sharp (but in truth, that isn't necessarily always a good thing anyway), but it was made to cut. You could slit some one's throat with it at the least, and you could cut off heads (a big Celtic past time). You don't need a lot of weight to smash something anyway. 1.5 - 3 pound swords were good enough in the dark and middle ages to crush men's ribcages through mail armor without breaking the skin or doing substantial damage to the armor; most wounds people died of during the middle ages were internal, caused by broken bones that cause internal bleeding, or they were from bleeding to death from wounds outside the body. A big heavy sword wasn't necessary to overcome armor. Do you really think mail would have remained in much use if a Celt, with a sword weighing four times that, could take one swing and utterly obliterate the man wearing it? It's madness. The armor would be worthless. Ever against lighter weapons, mail and the like was not a gaurantee (not remotely) that being struck wasn't going to hurt or kill you. I mean, you didn't put it on to get hit, you put it on in case you were hit, to give yourself a chance of survival. Against a huge, heavy 'sword', it'd be totally worthless, and Celts wouldn't have been so keen on mail (seeing as they were so prone to fighting with eachother; mail wouldn't have been the big possession for a warrior to attain if it didn't offer him actual protection in a melee). Nevermind the already mentioned arguments about the weight tiring a man out far too easily and the like. It just doesn't bare to reason or scrutiny. Any weapon that heavy would have to be for some ceremonial purpose. Not trying to sound aggressive or anything, just, trying to inject a broader logic. Don't just examine the weapon itself, consider what it had to fight.
And not all later Celtic swords had rounded tips. It depended on the region and the purpose of the sword. Plenty of later Celtic swords still had pointed tips
- Not actually Ranika; his cousin; I need to get a damn name on here, I know
And when it comes down to it Celtic warriors didn't normally have to fight all that much mail or other armour in the first place - it was damned expensive and as such largely restricted to nobility and elite troops, and as the Celts were also pretty keen on spears (who wasn't ?) which, as dedicated thrusting weapons, were pretty good against mail...
The Romans with their nasty short stabbing swords and mass-produced standard-issue armour were of course an entirely different story, but then by the comparatively late time they started rolling over the Celts for real they'd already developed the most badass military around anyway.
Even then, 'rolling over Celts' is an exaggeration. Gaul had utterly collapsed, the Aedui Confederacy split, the Sequani had taken control over the Arverni Alliance, and pissed off their clients, a good chunk of Gaul defaulted to being under Germanic or Roman control (they had no other authority due to these problems), and it still took 10 years to finish the conquest of Gaul (even with quite a few Gallic allies). The big factor in Gaul was a lack of armies at the end. Due to the collapse, troops could not be levied at all anymore, and it wouldn't have mattered anyway; the surviving professional soldiers were almost invariably Roman allies, and the rest, well, they hadn't survived the wars. They were dead from fighting already. It is more complex than Celts being 'rolled over'. And do note, the same Romans did not do so to the Britons, who were arguably less advanced than the Gauls (and had themselves quite a few supply problems).
Also, about armor, that's not necessarily true. Later Gallic warriors had quite a bit of armor (but by that time, around 120 BC, the tribal conflicts of Gaul had died down and it was on track toward reunification, hinging on a victory by either the Aedui or Sequani {Arverni} taking total control of Gaul; the smaller tribes and confederations had submitted by that point, and the armies had been relying on mostly professional or semi-professional soldiers for some time, with warbands only forming the levies). Celts actually had armor in a fair amount by 200 BC at latest, though it was likely more padding and leather than anything at the time (though mail proliferated steadily in Gaul more widely until it was fairly easily available by 100 BC, though still expensive, but there'd been changes in the military structure that meant that men didn't always have to buy or earn their armor; their lord might just want more armored soldiers). However, they were not unfamiliar with many types of armor, and they actually, on the continent, were fielding fairly well armored soldiers before the end. The problem came from, as mentioned, having few actual soldiers left. Vercingetorix's force largely consisted of completely untrained, inexperienced Gallic free men, who were not warriors (and he still managed to win Gergovia with them, though Caesar also totally knobbed that job up). Southern Britons were effectively Gauls culturally in many ways, but they had less armor, and they still gave Caesar quite a few headaches (although he also got kind of screwed there when his cavalry couldn't land).
The later invasion of Britain actually followed a kind of similar set up. Some nobles wanted to ally with the Romans, others didn't, the anti-Romans ultimately won that argument, and arrested, executed, or banished the pro-Romans, including Cunobelin (the former king)'s son Amminius (though he had two brothers, including Caratacus), who was a friend of many Romans, and Verica, also a friend of Romans, who prompted invasion, when they had successfully landed, took control of their estates and their private armies again, and used them to help conquer Britain. Though, they were helped by the emperor of Rome at the time being a bit of a lame duck and needing a conquest to make him look more powerful. However, it wasn't 'rolling over' by any means. For one, much of Britain was very slow to conquer even with superior numbers on the Roman side. Particularly, Brigantia. Brigantia is actually kind of a soap opera in a way. It was a subjected kingdom, or an ally, of Cunobelin's Catuvellaunian kingdom, which effectively dominated most of Britain at the time. Caratacus, by this point the 'king in exile' of southern Britain, fled from Cambria (Wales) to Brigantia, to seek help from Queen Cartimandua. Cartimandua turned him over to the Romans though in exchange for favor (though Caratacus didn't die like most barbarian kings in Roman hands, but that's a different story, though interesting). Her husband, Venutius, was not at all pleased with this. The two seperate, Venutius returns to his estates in the south of Caledonia.
Turns out, Cartimandua had been sleeping with Venutius's armor bearer. Venutius launches a rebellion with the soldiers under his command among the Carveti (and actually had good public support; it was a huge deal that she had commited adultery). It's defeated, Venutius returns home again, Cartimandua and Venutius are then divorced. Cartimandua, insultingly, takes another husband. The armor bearer, Vellocatus. Huge public outcry. Venutius, insulted greatly, takes his army again south. Roman problems elsewhere prevented a proper response, all they could do is send some auxilia, who only narrowly saved Cartimandua from likely being executed. Venutius reigned in Brigantia then until his death, indepedent of Roman rule. It's a fun story. If it were done realistically, it might even make an interesting piece of film. You've got the whole nine there. Jilted romance, lots of violence, power politics, that whole spiel. Anyway, Venutius was apparently a pretty powerful man, because he kept an indepedent kingdom out of Roman hands, despite that he probably shouldn't have been able to have managed it. It's pretty impressive, though overshadowed by the submission of the Brigantes only shortly after his death, as the subsequent king wasn't nearly up to snuff. Mind though, as well, Venutius's main complaint wasn't with the Romans, but with Cartimandua, so there wasn't a big need to fight Romans all the time (though there was a bit of it recorded).
Something I've been meaning to ask for a while, any good books to recommend on the subject of Gaul? I really would want to learn more about their culture, technology, town/city layouts, and a more detailed history. Most books that involve Gaul that I've read tend to skim this whole civil war business and focus on the Romans, but I'd like to know more about how the Aedui and Arverni ended up at each other's throats, and a good account of the history from that point onwards.
Also, if possible, such a book would contain recent(ish) archeological evidence of their technology. What I've got now is rather dated in that regard.
Ranika, as I said before, I'm not an expert on Celtic weaponry, as such I was willing to consider I might be wrong and Oldgamer right.
Thankyou for confirming my own opinion.
As to armour, the Gauls are credited with inventing mail and based on what I know of later Saxon armies I would have thought mail and scale would have been fairly prolific.
Did the Gauls pass down weapons and armour or bury them?
It would appear as though there armour and weapons would have been buried with them.
http://www.applewarrior.com/celticwe...ne/warfare.htm
it is mentioned only slightly here, very slightly(very very)