Celtic Two-Handers

I kept seeing references to those two-handed swords everywhere, but I could not find pictures of them. Each time I head to the campus library I forget to look ~:angry:

Quote:

---

Who still believes in these "large continental migrations"?

---

Elmetaicos, whats your theory/ideas on large continental migrations? I hope I misunderstand you because, IMHO, its pretty obvious that they happened through out the Celtic B.C. world as they did in the later A.D. Germanic world. Here is what I mean:

-The legends/stories/facts of Belovesus and Segovesus leading the Celts into northern Italy (Boii, Cenomani, Insubres, Senones, Lingones, etc...) and southern Germany (Boi, Volcae/Volcae Tectosages
-The Eastern 'adventure' into Greece, Thrace, Macedonia, Dacia, and the Balkans (Osi, Contini, Teurisci, Scordisci, Costoboci, Britolagai, etc...) and the Tylis kingdom until the Thracian destroyed it.
-The popular Galatian type migrations (Tectosages, Tolistoboii, Trocmi, Aegosages, Daguteni, Trocnades, Novanteni, Ambitouti, Toutobodiaci, etc...) into Asia Minor...
- The Belgic migrations into Britain (Atrebates, Catuvellauni, Cantici, Regenes, Durotriges, Trinovantes, etc...), as well as the pre Belgic arrivals (Iceni, Brigantines, Parisi, Coritani, etc...)
- Large scale migrations must account for the Celts and their influences in Iberia, the Boii ending up in Aquitania, the Volcae in southern Gaul, etc...

Now the last known large continental migration of the Celtic peoples was, ironically, the one that indirectly got them into the most trouble. This was the Helvetti led migration that Caesar deemed it necessary to get involved in (make no mistake that I *highly* dislike Caesar's and his actions so it almost irresistible not to bash him to death at this point), but again from what I know that is known as the last large scale continental migration attempt by Celts anywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract

I've got an entry over at TWC: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...&postcount=239

As for militarily-themed literature, easy to read, any Osprey and Montvert work will fit the bill.

---

Excellent resources,thank you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power2the1

- The Belgic migrations into Britain (Atrebates, Catuvellauni, Cantici, Regenes, Durotriges, Trinovantes, etc...), as well as the pre Belgic arrivals (Iceni, Brigantines, Parisi, Coritani, etc...)
- Large scale migrations must account for the Celts and their influences in Iberia, the Boii ending up in Aquitania, the Volcae in southern Gaul, etc...

---

James, Collis and a few others tend to believe that this was more of a cultural migration rather then a physical migration. The Helvetti, the raids into Greece etc. seem to be a known physical migration, but some of the others may very well have been a cultural expansion.

Oh ok, the cultural migration I agree for sure, but up to a point. The Picts were a non Celtic Indo European peoples who borrowed Celtic influences, and I believe the Silures in Wales were the case. Those two cases feature the cultural migration idea favorably where some aspects of a foreign culture overrides the indigenous one. The Ligurians are a similar example.

Much of southern and middle Britain received the bulk of Celtic immigrants or refugees from Gaul and Belgica. Here especially theres plenty of evidence that points to more of a sustained Celtic presence along with the strong military presence. So at least in that area, it was not just a strong cultural influence but also strong and sustained military one.

Sources I've read, in a nutshell, mention that the Celts would have formed a powerful aristocracy over any indigenous peoples but as more and more arrived form Gaul and Belgica, any traces of the former indigenous culture would have fallen by the wayside, became assimilated, and the language and La Tene culture would have became supreme. This effect began in the south where it took firm root, spread other middle of Britain where it was strong as well. In the north (Scotland), as I mentioned above, the Picts were able to hold out and keep enough of their own culture without becoming totally absorbed by Celtic cultural centers and towns slowly spreading their way. Again, theres so much to this an many smaller traits and facets, but thats a quick 'drive by' version

Indeed, the Picts can be linked to pre-IndoEuropean peoples closely related to Megalithic culture spread along the Atlantic. All of this timeline is theoretical and constantly debated, so before anyone mentions this as if it means something, I will say there is no point in holding to that detail, when otherwise we can only throw up our hands. We do not have to say it is fact either. On a separate note, it really irks me that 'Pictish' is a Celtic language- what BS. That's like saying Cimbric is a Germanic language :wall: These languages refer to speakers who assumed an identity of others, so WTF were the coin'ers of those dialects thinking...

:stunned: Cultures... so many cultures...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

Well, he probably made the shit up I guess then, since it was that old.

edit: The site was discovered in 1851 - there are some French reports from 1852 that seem to summarize it, but I've no access to them here. Someone mentioning 14 years later that just under a hundred two-handed swords were found there doesn't seem to merit the response you provided, but meh.

---

I'm not saying he "made shit up" but I don't believe that archaeology was quite the rigorous, international academic discipline it has since become. Were there any measurements?

So you're saying that archaeology has now become quite a rigorous and international academic discipline?

Heh - certainly more so than in the 1860s. I'd better shut up because some of my friends are archaeologists...

Dear all:

What do you think of the following line of reasoning?

1) The Romans were famous for adopting to the tactical challenges they encountered during their wars of conquest (e.g.: Pilum, Manipular system)

2) The most well known example of a Zweihänder employed in Antiquity: The "Falx".

3) The Romans encountered the Falx during the Dacian wars. It gained the notorious reputation of being able to penetrate armour and helmets of its Roman adversaries with an ease not experienced before.

4) Assumption: This penetration power can be mainly traced back to its employment as a Zweihänder. No superior weapon manufacturing etc. involved.

5) The Romans reacted by strengthening their helmets and shoulder protection.

6) This specific reaction would have not been needed if they had encountered Zweihänder on a relevant scale before.

7) Conclusion: Zweihänder do not represent a tactically relevant weapon in regard to the time frame of EB (at least when we exclude the hypothetical conflicts with cultures the Romans did not encounter before 1 AD).

Best wishes from Cairo - Peter T.

Really? :grin: Why do you assume "if the Romans never encountered it during the timeframe then it's not relevant to EB" ?

Far as I know the Romans never encountered much in the way of Sakae or Baktrians or Sabaens during EB's timeframe? Would that therefore mean they shouldn't be included?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Namenlos

Dear all:

What do you think of the following line of reasoning?

1) The Romans were famous for adopting to the tactical challenges they encountered during their wars of conquest (e.g.: Pilum, Manipular system)

2) The most well known example of a Zweihänder employed in Antiquity: The "Falx".

3) The Romans encountered the Falx during the Dacian wars. It gained the notorious reputation of being able to penetrate armour and helmets of its Roman adversaries with an ease not experienced before.

4) Assumption: This penetration power can be mainly traced back to its employment as a Zweihänder. No superior weapon manufacturing etc. involved.

5) The Romans reacted by strengthening their helmets and shoulder protection.

6) This specific reaction would have not been needed if they had encountered Zweihänder on a relevant scale before.

7) Conclusion: Zweihänder do not represent a tactically relevant weapon in regard to the time frame of EB (at least when we exclude the hypothetical conflicts with cultures the Romans did not encounter before 1 AD).

Best wishes from Cairo - Peter T.

---

The rhomphaia/falx and the kind of Celtic sword discussed here are two very different kinds of beasts, so they can't really be equated in the way you have done so here.

Really? Why do you assume "if the Romans never encountered it during the timeframe then it's not relevant to EB" ?

Far as I know the Romans never encountered much in the way of Sakae or Baktrians or Sabaens during EB's timeframe? Would that therefore mean they shouldn't be included?[/QUOTE]

Hmm - I thought we are here discussing the possibility of Celtic Zweihänders... Thus, my line of reasoning offers no clue when it comes to the equipment of the Celtic tribes in Ireland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

The rhomphaia/falx and the kind of Celtic sword discussed here are two very different kinds of beasts, so they can't really be equated in the way you have done so here.

---

Ruben, sorry - but I am not really satisfied with your reply because you did not provide an explanation for your refusal. Would you be so kind to elaborate your line of reasoning why a comparison should be rejected?

Please keep in mind that I am not referring to the outer appearance.

I think it is more helpful to focus on the tactical function of a weapon (system): We know that the Zweihänder was introduced during the Middle Ages in order to overcome the problem of lacking the sufficient penetration power to dispatch heavily armored opponents as well as of breaking up densely-packed formations. From what we know about the Dacian wars this is pretty similar to the tactical challenge the Dacians faced when they encountered the Roman legions.

Best regards - Peter T.

Quote:

---

Ruben, sorry - but I am not really satisfied with your reply because you did not provide an explanation for your refusal. Would you be so kind to elaborate your line of reasoning why a comparison should be rejected?

Please keep in mind that I am not referring to the outer appearance.

---

Because Celtic swords and rhomphaiai/falxes are two totally different kinds of weapons. Firstly, the latter were longer weapons - the average length seems to have been around 1.30 m or so for rhomphaiai; secondly, they were curved, which would have significantly affected the effect of the weapon (slightly in the case of rhomphaiai, quite drastically in the case of falxes); thirdly, and most importantly, both the rhomphaia and the falx had long handles and the hands of the bearer were clearly intended to be far apart, allowing a more powerful downswing for the weapon. This is in contrast to the under 1 m, straight, short-handled Celtic sword. If the swords mentioned by Paul were two-handers, their tangs would only be long enough to allow both hands to grip the sword close together, meaning that the weapon would have a totally different dynamic than the Thracian and Dacian two-handed weapons.

good summation of the differences, MP, and I'm back in town now, so I'll work on getting the pic of those swords up soon.

Namenlos,

We cannot truly use Zweihänder-type swords as a reference of comparison, lest we go by the reasoning that Zweihänder were conceived to counter the Swiss Reisläufer formations (Hence going by the maxim that the Geto-Thracians cut through dense formations with falxes/rhomphaia). They seem to be a novelty of their own, especially as far as they were practically only used by infantry. There is a size difference, apart from the dynamics that MeinPanzer clarified.

I think the Scytho-Sarmatian and later Avar, and Kushano-Hephtalite influences in sword-crafting are of extreme importance, both when it came to the development of the Roman cavalry sword, the spatha, and its later more "Persianized" evolution throughout the remainder of the Eastern Roman Empire, and within the Iranian tradition (Before the later Persian-style sabre was conceived during the Medieval era). The only other example which stands a comparison to the Zweihänder of later Medieval European tradition, are in fact the gigantic "saddle-swords" which were used by Sassanian-influenced cavalry. Both Zweihänder and the extraordinary Sassanian sword encountered in Aphrodisias measure around six feet in total length. They still differed in function. The former was clearly the device of infantry, while the latter was a cavalry sword.