Printable View
for horse draw carts this may help a little?
http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/celtic/ekelt.../karl_5_1.html
I believe on the continent as larger and strong breeds of equines reached further west the war-waggons fell more out of favor. However, the Kelt pony remained very common in the insular setting; too small to ride effectively into battle.
Thanks - I'd already read that article but then forgot where it was! I'm almost inclined to think that some Celtic chariots were "modular" and that a roof, seats or a container for javelins might be added on or taken off according to what you were going to do with the chariot. I can't think anyone sat down in the middle of a battle, for instance. A scythed chariot would be a different matter; I think there was only one person in it (the Romans copied the covinnus for peacetime use) and the axle would probably need reinforcing.
Agree with what you say about the Irish. On the chariots I still don't believe that they were used in as great numbers as in Britain-the terrain of Ireland isn't ideal for chariot use outside of NE Ulster (were a part of a chariot has been found of Northern English, southern scottish origin/type-other than this find I don't think there is a definite archaeological find that can be identified as part of a chariot in Ireland).
Heres a link to a pro-chariot article on E-Keltoi (I'm sure Elmetiacos and cmacq have already read it, but for others) :http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/celtic/ekelt.../karl_5_1.html
I would also argue for a calvary unit (or at least a 'mounted infantry' unit-but that cant be simulated in RTW). This is mostly based on the sheer number of decorated horsebits and pendants (about 1/4 of all La Tene finds in Ireland).
It would seem that the Irish were an equestrian culture and a calvary unit would have been better suited to ancient Irelands terrain than chariots.
NOTE: I'm not saying that this hypothesized unit should look like or be called Cruvamendica. (I haven't a clue about Irish linguistics of any era by the way-strcitly an archaeologist. Unless Mallory of some other notable uses Irish myths or language in one of their articles I probably have never heard of it).
On axes, In Ireland at least there is evidence that it was used to kill people-see clonycavan man. But of course that was almost certainly a ritual killing.
Finally, a quote from Dion Cassius (via, Xiphilinus) where he describes the Caledonians in battle:
"They go into battle in chariots, and have small, swift horses; there are also foot-soldiers, very swift in running and very firm in standing their ground. For arms they have a shield and a short spear, with a bronze apple attached to the end of the spear-shaft, so that when it is shaken it may clash and terrify the enemy; and they also have dagger."
Although he is writing in the early 3rd century ad, the equipment he gives the caledonians-short spears with bronze spear butts, dagger might be refering to the very short Irish swords- has been found in an Irish context during ebs time period.
GAH! Didn't see that cmacq had already posted the link!
Im sorry but im not quite sure what you are indicating? Some scholars surgest that these panels are based on lost hellenistic paintings from a greek city, maybe Massila or posibly Pergamon other scholars say that they are inspired by roman art, (I didn't even state who the gauls were fighting, to avoid this). But i have not seen anybody surgest that the if i may say so "the barbarians" here would not be Kelts or even not be Gauls.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
I must say that i cant see how these having greek originals would in any way discredit what they depict?
About their representation i belive one of the reasons people think they are based on greek art is that representation appearently resemple the gauls/keltic(galatians if you want) representations know from Pergamon.
Also most commen interpretation of them seems to be that it was a monument over a familys heroic ancestors that served under Julius Ceasar against the gauls. But there might be other interpretations though.
Is this what you are talking about? Im not quite sure what exactly you were refering to. (and not sure i totally got the point)
The Caledonians sound pretty much the same as what I was proposing on the previous page for the Britons in general.
The south panel?
http://www.livius.org/a/france/remy/...m_relief_s.JPG
One may note the Hellenic dress, weapons, defensive gear, and even the Hellenic babies held in the background? Can we say Meleager's hunt for the Calydonian Boar, with Castor and Pollux on horseback? Herein Heroes attempt to drive off the monster boar sent by Artemis as (right) Theseus raising his double-bladed axe? Right, in the background we have the massacre of Niobe's callow kids, no?
Perhaps, the dedicating native (SEX·M·L·IVLIEI·C·F·PARENTIBVS·SVEIS; each with only two names) julii, not Romani, wanting to be more Hellenic? Then again possibly Keltic as in a Caledonian Bore?
No offense, but given the dearth of actual knowledge on the topic demonstrated here you seem to be talking in rather certain tones. Throughout the very long period the device has existed in metal form, purpose-made war axes have demonstrated a truly bewildering variety of shapes and sizes according to specific performance specs desired and challenges to be met; nevermind now that perfectly ordinary working axes, which every household had at least one of at least around the forested parts, kill people just fine especially if you don't have to worry about lots of armour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
Why do you think the offensive arms of the average Viking raider were the spear and the axe ? Because both were cheap, versatile, and everyone had them and some skill with them to begin with.
I'll decline to comment on the patently nonsensical statement of the weapons' employement in combat other than noting it as such, as I'm somewhat pressed for time right now.
:inquisitive: Hardly any more than one of those nifty heavy longswords required, I would daresay. Or, for that matter, the effective employement of any other weapon in extended combat.Quote:
With this in mind, if the Celts used axes in combat, then it's likely there were specialist axemen because you'd need to practice a lot to build up the muscles and stamina to do this.
Quite on the contrary, I would rather argue that the axe-wielding warriors were anything but "specialists" - rather they were individuals who simply preferred that simple, cheap and quite effective weapon. Of all the arms readily accessible to the common warrior, or for that matter Celtic warriors in general, the axe would have been by far the one best suited to defeating armour to boot, a selling point all of its own...
The advantage granted by the rather expensive and prestigious mail to your opponent rather diminishes when you can quite readily enough hurt him through it with such a readily available and cheap weapon, after all. :smash:
Watchman: how many times have you actually fought with a sword or an axe?
Already in place. IIRC only the Gallic bodyguards units get armour in the early period (age of freemen). Armoured units only become available after the first (age of bondsmen) and second reform (age of soldiers). You can check this in the recruitment viewer: the unit card shows an F, B and/or S depending on which reform the unit is tied to. The Gauls also get access to chariots (although they lose them with the second reform, IIRC because Gallic chariots were last recorded around 180 BC). However, they are seldom recruited because they are tricky to use, don't cause that much casualties, and unlike the Britons the Gauls do get decent cavalry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
I have actually trained with longsword a bit. Plus read quite a bit of what people who very seriously study and train in the matter have to say on the topic, as well as happen to have a talkative close relative who's extensively enough into the martial arts to have gotten to the weapons-training point of a Far East one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
So I would actually daresay I'm not talking entirely out of my ass here. :beam:
Anyway, as to why exactly you don't want to "keep an axe in constant motion" (aside from the most obvious stamina-preservation reasons), it's more or less the same reason as with any other weapon - no sense in just waving it about unless you have a practical reason to have it moving somewhere - plus the specific detail that so clearly sets tip-heavy "mass" weapons like axes and maces apart from most swords and gives them their characteristic impact power; namely, once you've put the thing in motion at speed along a given vector, its sheer intertia and momentum make it that much more difficult to alter its trajectory nevermind stop it. In other words once it's going one way it's going to take some time and effort to make it go somewhere else, and if the former happens to be the proverbial Wrong Place Wrong Time you are, at the very least, going to miss at least a few opportunities to do your opponent grievous bodily harm; worse, there's a very real chance that with your main offensive weapon careening "out of line" somewhere it really shouldn't be, you're giving your enemy a nice opportunity to, ah, "do unto others as they would unto you"...
...which is already a weighty enough reason to play it at least as safe and careful with an axe or suchlike as you would with a sword, ie. keep it in guard ready to strike and away from the enemy until there's a real reason to get it moving somewhere fast. These aren't the most agile weapons around, nor terribly good for warding off blows with, but they pack quite a wallop for their size and weight; not all that forgiving of wasted or plain wrong moves, but very dangerous when used properly.
I suspect this is faulty physics; a circular motion is not single vectored motion, otherwise a sling wouldn't work. I've seen axe demos modelled on Anglo Saxon huscarls where the axe was kept in motion in a figure 8 sort of pattern and I too know a few WMA afficionados, some of whom have trained with axes and it's not like using a spear or a sword (actually, I don't know anyone who's fought with a spear...) We're once again trapped by the limits of archaeology because even if we have weapon-looking axe heads, we don't know for sure the length of the handles. Hypothetical Celtic axemen could have use smaller axes or two-handed ones. It's also possible warriors who couldn't afford swords might take axes as secondary weapons, but it would still be awkward to use one if you weren't trained as an axeman.
By the way, are you arguing for or against Celtic axe units...?
I'm arguing against your somewhat dubious claims of how the axe worked in combat.
Anyway, the two-handed "broad" or "Danish" axe was, at least in Europe, a rather specialised late Viking Age developement. By all accounts dreadfully effective when they hit something - contemporary descriptions of their use in battle are rife with mentions of demolished shields, mailed men slain outright and horses brough low with one fell swoop - but also distinctly cumbersome and wont to expose their wielder to unwelcome attentions of the enemy with rather little means of doing anything about it (as getting the heavy thing back "in line" - as the experts usually seem to call the "ready" position - from a swing was a bit of a challenge). One possible solution was to obviously simply keep it moving as fast as possible to that the foemen would have a hard time getting close enough without risking a hit, and the damn unwieldy thing would be coming around for another pass ASAP before some bugger lunged into the opening and gutted you, but even a strong fit man obviously has some trouble keeping this up for long and it naturally doesn't go well with the close-packed shieldwall tactics of the time.
(I've read a longtime Viking re-enactor's accounts of his experiences with the things, too. :book: )
Another somewhat hypothetical method was pairing the axe-man with a guy wielding the usual kit (spear, sword, one-handed axe) and training them to operate as a team, so that the shield-man covered the axe-man during the inevitable "recoveries" following any swing of that mighty but tricky weapon (and blocked nasty flying sharp things while he was at it, since the axe dude obviously couldn't use his own shield).
In any case, a powerful but problematical and hence rather specialised "expert" weapon. The later assorted halberds, pole-axes and other staff weapons, which packed at least as much punch in a considerably more versatile, agile and manageable package (that extra meter or two of shaft seems to have done wonders to handling...), proved to be considerably more widely and durably popular among all ranks.
And those also aren't the axes we're talking about here. The axes we're talking about are one-handers, many by the looks of it with comparatively light heads too. The basic methods of employing such with a shield aren't terribly different from those used with a sword, already because there's only so many ways the human body geometry allows the basic combination to be used effectively. (For a rather similar reason the basic "guards" of a straight two-handed European longsword and the Japanese "bastard sabre" katana are largely identical; there's only so many possible ways to do it right.)
this is exactly right, imo. from my own experience training in a university class on Korean swordfighting (yay, my most useless class in relation to the modern world), it's amazing how stupid our modern sensibilities are on the subject, as we see with reenactment, or pop-culture swordfighting where they stick the blade out and swing it around (although Celtic swords were bade for a particular style)- in reality it's easy to knock it away and make a quick foward motion, slashing or stabbing and ending that person's contribution to a battle, even in armor. the key is to keep a blade between yourself and the enemy's blade and you'll win by virtue of defense and you wait for the appropriate opening in your opponents'. heavy swinging items may have the added value of not being entirely blockable, but they leave one severely open to attack and thus are not actually the best weapon combination. there is a reason that nobility, even viking nobility, used sword and shield as the optimal configuration and that is it: sword + shield = defense x 2 rather than just 1, because of the defensive nature of a strongly held sword.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
using this same logic, it makes no sense to swing the axe around and tire yourself out, no energy is being preserved in centripetal motion as you say, unless an enemy is so stupid they walk into the small and OBVIOUS range of your circular stroke. as soon as you deviate you lose that supposed 'sling'-like energy. (by the way, notice how, when using a sling, you use a string/chord because your arms don't move in a perfect circular / eliptical motion). besides that, you cannot defend yourself while bustling around for no reason, and the primary purpose of war is to live long enough to kill more, not kill 1 foe in single combat. predictability is almost worse than any other factor in a battle. the axe would be used moreso when an opening in defense was seen rather than willy-nilly because it takes longer to deal another.
Well - even the sword guys tended to prefer shields for defense mind you. 'Cept if they were toting two-handers (or mounted), but that's a whole different kettle of fish.
It's not a coincidence nigh every human culture ever that for some reason got into the idea of bashing your neighbours' heads in being a potentially quite profitable operation developed either the shield, some off-hand parrying device to fill the same role, or, most commonly, both.
Interesting though it may be, I don't want to get drawn too far into a Western Martial Arts axe fighting debate.
So, units of Celtic axemen or not?
I don't see why not, anyway.
So, just to get this straight, what you'll are saying is that within the EB time frame; 1) they employed formations armed primarily with the axe; 2) or was it that they were first and foremost spearmen that often used the axe?
Eh, remember the limits the engine places on equipping units ? So if you're going to have axes they're going to have to be in their own unit. I'm guessing the comparatively small base size of the basic axe guys (40 instead of the 50 commonly found in Celtic units of that grade) is there to represent that this wasn't an altogether too common combat kit ?
Sounds like a good compromise to me. If for example, the number was dropped down to say, 60 on huge, what would their advantage be; shock, armour piercing, moral boost, or a high attack/low defense?Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
You want to drop their numbers to the level of a general's bodyguard?
I guess what I'm saying is, as opposed to the common light or heavy spear/sword unit, beside semblance, what would the axe bring to the table as a minority formation?
Could always make them a poor levy unit. Can't even afford a metal spear, but they have that wood ax laying around.
Tested axes are effective against rigid targets, such as helmets and shields rather than being universally armour piercing. The (perhaps overly) realistic model would therefore be high attack but a slightly heavier than usual penalty against horse and elephant and a penalty against the few units that don't have shields, if this can be done. I'd support one less defence than a sword unit, but this is risking getting back to the axe fighting argument...
They're also pretty good against mail you know. All that leverage focusing on such a small area is Not Good for flexible armour, even if the blow doesn't actually bust through the links (which also happens often enough).
IIRC by what I've read of it, Medieval folks regarded falchions and battleaxes as good against everything up to coat-of-plates/brigandine or thereabouts.
...and to make long story short, your proposed modifiers don't make all that much sense. Nor do I even want to think about the complications such would add to statting units like Appea Gaedotos, the Babylonian heavy inf etc....
For the record, knives, spears (knives on sticks) and axes were something practically everyone had and wouldn't have too much trouble affording if he needed a new one. They were, after all, very cheap and easy to make, ubiquitously used for assorted everyday purposes (spears were usually hunted with), and made effective enough weapons when necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by russia almighty
The levies normally stuck to spears for the simple reason a bunch of men woth shields and long pointy things in reasonably close order are a credible battlefield presence even with minimal training; axes are no less demanding than swords to use, so odds are the folks who elected to fight with them as the primary melee weapon were better trained.
Despite a mail shirt the axe will break a bone better than a sword with its impact alone. But what % would you suggest of a typical field army used the axe as a primary weapon; 05, 10, 15%, or greater?
Hmm, you can't do what I suggested anyway; modifiers only count against mounts. All the same, making axes armour piercing isn't realistic, especially in a period where most armour isn't rigid.
A typical Celtic axe unit might be something like:
Or not...?Quote:
category infantry
class light
voice_type General_1
soldier ???, 50, 0, 1.05
officer ebofficer_celtic_standardbearer
officer ebofficer_celtic_officer
mount_effect elephant -4, horse -1
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, hardy
formation 1.2, 1.4, 2.4, 2.8, 5, square
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 6, 4, javelin, 35, 1, thrown, blade, piercing, spear, 15 ,1
stat_pri_attr prec, thrown, ap(?)
stat_sec 12, 6, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, slashing, axe, 0 ,0.1
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 1, 8, 3, flesh
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 2
stat_ground 0, 0, -1, -1
stat_mental 8, impetuous, untrained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
The AP attribute does not represent: 'this weapon smashes right through armour'; instead it's chosen to represent 'by and large armour does not protect very well against the damage done by this weapon' ... I.e.: blunt force trauma.
The reason I'm asking is because; whats to keep someone or the AI from building full stacks with 50 to 60% naked fanatics for example, as I have often seen. By avoiding a full-on battle, for the most-part these can be handled easy enough, yet its still not very realistic?
Additionally, is there some kind of hidden compaction factor that effects the proficiency and efficiency of a formation based on the primary weapon type?
An unit's attack values are calculated by taking the base number according to its grade and adding any modifiers from weapons.
What Tellos said, plus the way an axe puts a lot of oomph behind a small sharp contact point means it rends even mail pretty well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
Non-metallic armour collapses under (and/or is simply cut through) a square hit even more readily, obviously, so I really don't get that whole bit about non-rigid armours. Solid rounded hard surfaces always provided the best overall protection, anyway...
Also, just asking, but what exactly is your logic for suggesting axe-armed infantry would be any more vulnerable to cavalry than other non-spear melee troops ?
I've not heard any serious claims from hoplologists that axes are more effective against mail than swords. Since EB doesn't seem to distinguish swords with points from those without, I'm not sure about armour piercing axes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I'm not arguing that; I'm saying that we give axes a slightly higher attack than swords because of its effectiveness against shields and certain armour, but we take that away again when fighting cavalry and elephants because that extra effectiveness wouldn't be a factor.Quote:
Non-metallic armour collapses under (and/or is simply cut through) a square hit even more readily, obviously, so I really don't get that whole bit about non-rigid armours. Solid rounded hard surfaces always provided the best overall protection, anyway...
Also, just asking, but what exactly is your logic for suggesting axe-armed infantry would be any more vulnerable to cavalry than other non-spear melee troops ?