Celtic Two-Handers

Let me preface this topic-

It looked like it was the tone of a few of the posts that got the last thread shut down, rather than the idea of examining this question. Assuming that...

The question of whether or not two-handed Celtic swords existed in the EB time frame has been itching me for the last week. I have looked into it a bit, but I'll be the first to admit I don't even know where to start. Many of you take special interest in these sorts of things, so this seems to me like the best place to ask- Is there evidence of two-handed swords from the La Tene period? I would have assumed big swords could have existed at any time, but now that somebody has presented the possibility that there's no evidence for them in this period, my interest is piqued. So is there anyone out there with knowledge of the period that can set the record straight?

"presented the possibility"? That's a nice sounding way of putting it. I saw zero sources or mentions of texts or anything that had information about it - there was just demands, in a way we think is offensive and is why we are really irritated at dealing with it, calling them fantasy units and saying the unit possibly came from a recent atrocious movie. Seriously - you wonder why we lock threads, get pissed off, and won't reply to your offensive PM's also? I know nothing about those units, but I know disrespect that we are not due when I see it.

As we have said time and time again: "Show us why you did this" is tiring. "This (with "this" being more than half a sentence without sources, etc.) is why I don't think X is the case, so could you respond why you think X is the case?" is more likely to get a response.

Try reading this post, which has been up for well over a year on this same subject, and was posted by someone much more adept at dealing with this mess than I am: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=79193

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

"presented the possibility"? That's a nice sounding way of putting it. I saw zero sources or mentions of texts or anything that had information about it - there was just demands, in a way we think is offensive and is why we are really irritated at dealing with it, calling them fantasy units and saying the unit possibly came from a recent atrocious movie. Seriously - you wonder why we lock threads, get pissed off, and won't reply to your offensive PM's also? I know nothing about those units, but I know disrespect that we are not due when I see it.

---

Did you notice how my only post in that part of the thread was asking Elmetiacos to back up his assertion?

Quote:

---

As we have said time and time again: "Show us why you did this" is tiring. "This (with "this" being more than half a sentence without sources, etc.) is why I don't think X is the case, so could you respond why you think X is the case?" is more likely to get a response.

---

I didn't ask any team members to show me why you did this. It was an open question to people with knowledge of Celtic history to answer if they could.

Quote:

---

Try reading this post, which has been up for well over a year on this same subject, and was posted by someone much more adept at dealing with this mess than I am: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=79193

---

Thanks, I've read it, but I didn't take issue with anything in the mod. Like I said, I'm wondering if this idea could possibly be true. I always assumed the opposite, and I was hoping someone with a La Tene background could clear things up.

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewto...er=asc&start=0

if it is historically accurate (im all for a huge claymore-weilding drunken scottish and irishmen regiment) i ll be watching for this addition then.

shortswords are fun, but (most of you dont have hte luxury as i do) swinging a 5 foot claymore around, cleaving heads off is pretty friggin fun!

lobf, have you really been that ignorant as to your tone of voice in your posts?

After you his one friend, I don't think he knows what to do anymore.

@lobf:

I have not had a chance to fully read through the link that Keravnos posted (so the picture below might be discussed somewhere in that thread), but I have seen the possibility brought up of two handed swords in this pic.

https://img50.imageshack.us/img50/26...tfinishvn2.jpg

Which ones might be two handed? Take a look at the bottom row, all the way to the left. Those first three swords (the single blunted/round tipped and the two pointed tipped ones) are candidates. Again, I've only heard that they might be two handed.

In comparison, the blade of the three are definitely much bigger than the others although the handle part (or the tang I think it's called) might disqualify them as they do seem a bit small or 'normal' sized. Ideally, it'd be great to find detailed discussion on each sword in that pic and where it was found, as that might would help narrow things down a bit ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keravnos

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewto...er=asc&start=0

---

Well I searched that thread for every occurrence of the word "two" hoping to find it followed by "handed" but the search was fruitless. If I'm missing something could you point towards the relevant posts there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

lobf, have you really been that ignorant as to your tone of voice in your posts?

---

Which posts? Because I'm really making an effort to be non-confrontational here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power2the1

@lobf:

I have not had a chance to fully read through the link that Keravnos posted (so the picture below might be discussed somewhere in that thread), but I have seen the possibility brought up of two handed swords in this pic.

{image snip}

Which ones might be two handed? Take a look at the bottom row, all the way to the left. Those first three swords (the single blunted/round tipped and the two pointed tipped ones) are candidates. Again, I've only heard that they might be two handed.

In comparison, the blade of the three are definitely much bigger than the others although the handle part (or the tang I think it's called) might disqualify them as they do seem a bit small or 'normal' sized. Ideally, it'd be great to find detailed discussion on each sword in that pic and where it was found, as that might would help narrow things down a bit ~:)

---

Thanks for taking the time to contribute, Power2the1. Those blades sure are huge, but don't the hilts seem awfully short? That is, of course, my uneducated observation.

Edit- looking back, perhaps they are long enough. Are all those swords in the same scale?

settles it for me. though maybe the swords in q were used not like clymores per-se..thinking a bastard sword (or those 1 1/2 handers). I don't know-I leave this to the EB team, and I think they did a good job-and Lugian swordsmen rock, and that british unit too (forgot the name). just my 2 cents, with respect to the team.

EDIT: they are. the swords too the left are a bit too narow to be normal sized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobf

Well I searched that thread for every occurrence of the word "two" hoping to find it followed by "handed" but the search was fruitless. If I'm missing something could you point towards the relevant posts there?



Which posts? Because I'm really making an effort to be non-confrontational here.



Thanks for taking the time to contribute, Power2the1. Those blades sure are huge, but don't the hilts seem awfully short? That is, of course, my uneducated observation.

Edit- looking back, perhaps they are long enough. Are all those swords in the same scale?

---

Υes, they are in the same scale.
The theory is that (for the longswords) the champion fielding them (and it would take someone very close to the hi-king as those longswords would cost the equivalent of a small car to purchase) would use them single handed. Now I understand that the hilt may be small, but the wooden part of it is missing. As such, I cannot dismiss out of hand the possibility of a double hander champion. If anything, when dueling with longswords (as champions of Celtic Kings used to-hence their title) you would need to hold the sword with both hands. It would be too heavy to continuously use it with one.

I am pretty sure the double handed use of those longswords is discussed, but I cannot take the time to search for it. I can tell you this though. Reading through all that thread, is a journey on its own. A lot of stuff you thought the Celts were incapable of, well, they did it.

Off the top of my head, there was no "distinct" 2 handed sword that the Iron Age celts used, the same way that there was a claymore or Zweihander in the Medieval period. I no zip about the eastern Celts so I could be wrong.

BUT, it was entirely possible to use a "typical" Celtic longsword two handed if the user so wished, and they might have been more effective if used as such.

If you look at the top row

from the left sword 8 gives an idea of a single handed sword scale of the hilt to the pommel.

If you look four more along to the right, that handle is twice the size, IF to the same scale.

Now if all of these are to the same scale, then there are a number of '2' handed possibilities....

...or maybe hand and a half possibilities.

Does the blade 'need' to be longer?

Just to throw a little into the mix... is it possible that the swords in the above pic could have lost part of the metal support in the handle? It's a bit of a stretch, but if you consider that:
1) several of the shorter swords have noticeably longer handle supports,
2) the supports on the long swords are also rather straight and skinny, so it would be harder for someone to notice a piece missing, as opposed to the triangular-shaped supports and
3) again, they are rather long and skinny, so it would be easier for a piece to break off to begin with...
maybe they used to have longer metal supports. And again, we have no idea how long the wooden handles were.

Edit: the more I look at them, the more I am sure those swords used to have longer hilts. I will put up a pic in a moment showing you what I mean.

Edit 2:

https://img341.imageshack.us/img341/...xampleskx3.jpg

Observe the swords I have pointed out; in particular, the ones on the right almost certainly have fully intact hilts, as indicated by the knob at the back. Observe that these hilts are longer than those of the three swords on the far left, especially scale-wise; while it is arguable that this is simply a different style, I simply can't see how this could be the case without those swords being totally unwieldy. True, they could have been specially wrought for champions, or possibly ceremonial, but I just think it's more likely that they at least had much longer wooden hilts.

lobf, I also posted the pic with the swords a few months back in another thread and it was Elmetiacos who brushed the picture off (like he usually did with everything that was not to his liking) by saying he doesn't see any scale and they're just a collage put together, I'm pretty sure you were around that thread too so stop beating around the bush and stop posting these bait questions, you either are really slow to understand things or just like to play with our nerves...

EDIT: Good points, Rev. Joe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keravnos

Υes, they are in the same scale.
The theory is that (for the longswords) the champion fielding them (and it would take someone very close to the hi-king as those longswords would cost the equivalent of a small car to purchase) would use them single handed. Now I understand that the hilt may be small, but the wooden part of it is missing. As such, I cannot dismiss out of hand the possibility of a double hander champion. If anything, when dueling with longswords (as champions of Celtic Kings used to-hence their title) you would need to hold the sword with both hands. It would be too heavy to continuously use it with one.

I am pretty sure the double handed use of those longswords is discussed, but I cannot take the time to search for it. I can tell you this though. Reading through all that thread, is a journey on its own. A lot of stuff you thought the Celts were incapable of, well, they did it.

---

Very interesting and informative. Can I ask where you pulled this info from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

Observe the swords I have pointed out; in particular, the ones on the right almost certainly have fully intact hilts, as indicated by the knob at the back. Observe that these hilts are longer than those of the three swords on the far left, especially scale-wise; while it is arguable that this is simply a different style, I simply can't see how this could be the case without those swords being totally unwieldy. True, they could have been specially wrought for champions, or possibly ceremonial, but I just think it's more likely that they at least had much longer wooden hilts.

---

I agree with you, I think. Some of those swords seem impossible to use without two hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redmeth

lobf, I also posted the pic with the swords a few months back in another thread and it was Elmetiacos who brushed the picture off (like he usually did with everything that was not to his liking) by saying he doesn't see any scale and they're just a collage put together, I'm pretty sure you were around that thread too so stop beating around the bush and stop posting these bait questions, you either are really slow to understand things or just like to play with our nerves...

EDIT: Good points, Rev. Joe.

---

I knew I had seen the picture before somewhere but I wasn't sure where or if they were even La Tene swords. In the topic that got locked, I mentioned that I thought it had been brought up before, but wasn't sure.

And how is this a bait question? I personally think the idea that there were no two-handers is unlikely. I mean, they obviously have huge swords, how much of a step is it to add some extra handle? Anyways, it's just a question. I have no vested interest in one answer or another. I'm not out to get you.

The point of this thread was to put the evidence in one place where we could all look at it and discuss it. I thought that's what scientists and historians did.

Though I notice some of those swords have different backgrounds around them, like they were taken at separate times. Does anyone know where that image came from in the first place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobf

Very interesting and informative. Can I ask where you pulled this info from?



I agree with you, I think. Some of those swords seem impossible to use without two hands.



I knew I had seen the picture before somewhere but I wasn't sure where or if they were even La Tene swords. In the topic that got locked, I mentioned that I thought it had been brought up before, but wasn't sure.

And how is this a bait question? I personally think the idea that there were no two-handers is unlikely. I mean, they obviously have huge swords, how much of a step is it to add some extra handle? Anyways, it's just a question. I have no vested interest in one answer or another. I'm not out to get you.

The point of this thread was to put the evidence in one place where we could all look at it and discuss it. I thought that's what scientists and historians did.

Though I notice some of those swords have different backgrounds around them, like they were taken at separate times. Does anyone know where that image came from in the first place?

---

http://forums.swordforum.com/showthr...hlight=navarro

This may have been covered...

I remember reading a paper several years back, about Latene blade length being related to an increase in the use of larger horse breeds. As these weapons were used by the horse and not the foot, for greater reach. I believe that much later, the development of swords that could be effectively used with two hands have tangs, not so much the hilt, disproportionate to the length of the blade when compared to the single hand grip. This is for leverage, with a space between the hands, which is translated into the speed of the blade's end, the great advantage the clay mor has over other swords. There was also an issue of the type of metal used to prevent breakage. Again the two handed grip has a very long tang. Without the support of the tang, a longer hilt would simply soon break or shatter upon repeated impact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Peffley from sword forum

The longest sword is third from the bottom. If the scale isn't changed, this sword is about 130 cm - 51.2 inches long, of which about 115 cm - 45.3 inches is blade. Also, "narrow" is a relative term for blade width - third from the bottom has a blade width of about 4.5 cm - 1.75 inches. The greatest blade width in this series belongs to ninth from the top. It appears to be about 6 cm - 2.4 inches wide.
These measurements if accurate are comparable to the Longswords of the Medieval and Renaissance much later. As these are rather large i wonder what the cross section was like on these and if the distal taper became *very* thin - 2 mm out toward the last third of the blade. This also is typical of the much later Longswords.

---

http://forums.swordforum.com/showpos...8&postcount=17

@Lobf, I read that someplace, but for the life of me, I cannot remember where.
Note, that I am not saying that there were actual zweihanders in the Late Latenne era, but every evidence that we have suggests that there might have been. (look at the above)

What I know for a fact is that for many things that are considered of medieval and other origin, were actual discoveries of the Celts, (take soap for example-a Celtic invention). I think that the Celtic contribution to world history is saddly misrepresented and that must change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the dude who made the sword picture

Over the last two years or so I have been collection any image I could find of LaTene blades. I compiled a folder of xerox copies. I remember that page after page had come from Navarro. It is quite possible that all of the Late LaTene came from another source. Yet, I seem to remember that there was some Late LaTene in Navarro. (If Nate B. is listening he could answer this... he has a copy I believe).

I scanned each of these pages into photoshop, cropped each image and adjusted it to as clear an image as possible. I compiled all of these images onto a very large canvas and then began arranging them based on the general blade profiles given in Navarro and Pleiner for Early Middle and Late LaTene. In dealing with the Late LaTene there was so such variation that I came up with the arbitrary distinction of wide and narrow. (You are right in that it is not the best distinction.)

As I segregated these images, in most cases, the Early and Middle LaTene swords were proportional and I could just move them into position on the canvas. However with the late LaTene it was different. Because of the longer lengths, the plates were of different scales and also the fact that they were taken from several sources (you can see the different tonal differences in the cropping)... because of these factors, they had to be adjusted. All of the adjustments were proportional, so the relative dimensions are good. However the proportion between each blade is, as you have demonstrated, only ball park at best. I took two markers to try and shrink the swords to relative size: the length of the tang and the blade width... I tried to balance these two out as best as I could. (For instance, It might be that if I made the tang the same length the blade was obviously too wide compared to the other swords. So I made the sword smaller to match the width with other swords.)

---

So the picture cannot be used as a fully accurate reference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

Again the two handed grip has a very long tang. Without the support of the tang, a longer hilt would simply soon break or shatter upon repeated impact.

---

While this may be true, plenty of swords were made well before the Naue sword and similar innovation. Weak parts certainly didn't keep them from being built.

On the subject of long blades and cavarly- this certainly makes sense, esp. with a short hilt... Spatha anyone ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

So the picture cannot be used as a fully accurate reference.

---

So? citings on the internet or scanned images without publication will never be 'accurate' in authority anyways. it really doesn't matter how much the layman likes wikipedia or how suprisingly accurate some of the info is, academia exists for a reason, and even then, there is no 'truth' and humans are prone to error

To those who are interested in absolutely gigantic "Zweihänder"-style swords of Antiquity... Look no further than the late Sassanids. The findings in Aphrodisias in today's Turkey unveiled one of the most tremendous discoveries in historical military technology of all time: A gigantic, single-edged sword measuring over 1.8 metres in length, with an integrated hilt. They precisely confirmed attestations of Sassanian cavalry wielding swords as "large as a man", and depictions of "Kushano-Hephtalite" cavalry in cave paintings and bowls found in Afghanistan. I am not making this up. You read it correctly, a sword measuring six feet in length.

That, is crazy. No stirrups, yet some cavalry used ridiculously gigantic blades. Ever since the discoveries were found to correlate with each other, the image of late Sassanian chivalry and its armaments have undergone a serious change. It's a serious punch in the face of classicists who have for far too long suppressed the importance of Iranian chivalry in the western tradition. Slowly but safely, the image of "hordes of barbarian rabble" is being phased out in favour of "spear-head of equestrian warfare". And I am so liking it.

if only the Savaran in ibfd had those...*fantasizes*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract

Slowly but safely, the image of "hordes of barbarian rabble" is being phased out in favour of "spear-head of equestrian warfare". And I am so liking it.

---

Absolutely so.

Now, on the subject of long/very long swords, I don't think there has ever been a doubt that the swords were really that long.

Mauryans used long swords both for fighting, but also ceremonially, so as to denote authority. If an official would come along carrying a big-huge sword, you would know he was someone important. As Persian Cataphract noted, they would be used from the saddle, as a longer sword means longer reach.

Mauryans faded but the longsword tradition didn't fade with them. Sungas, the followup dynasty used them, and so did the Indogreeks who conquered their western holdings.

Case in point,
From western India, Saanchi stupah approx. about 150 BCE comes this frieze, said to depict an IndoGreek King, possibly Menandros,
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/...ingDrawing.jpg
and
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/...nderMuseum.jpg

The statue isn't lifesize, but the proportion of the sword to the King is, according to archaeological finds. That being the case, we are talking about a pretty long sword.

Kern, haven't they found iron swords in India from like 1000 B.C at lengths wouldn't be reached in the west till the La Tene period?


Though, I've seen some crazy weaponry from India, so advance metallurgy would have to be required.

I've gathered (yet to be confirmed), that them Indian swords were extra wide-then again, the person was no expert.:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russia almighty

Kern, haven't they found iron swords in India from like 1000 B.C at lengths wouldn't be reached in the west till the La Tene period?


Though, I've seen some crazy weaponry from India, so advance metallurgy would have to be required.

---

Indeed, Metallurgy in India at that time was the most advanced in the world, especially where Iron was concerned.

considering the Hittites around a somewhat similar timeline and their special place in the early age of iron usage, could we then assume that India was directly influenced by Indo-European culture in concern to iron-working? Or possibly the Scythic Era/Eurasian steppe in general? Or were the native peoples of the Indus valley that developed completely separate from any Aryan invaders or practicers of steppe lifeways?

One of the reasons why the Aryan invaders of India conquered the Indus and Ganges plains was their use of Iron. Haomavarga Saka ancestors' and their own ancestors must have been one and the same, as they themselves drunk Haoma/Ephedra and glorify that in their Vedas.

At last the question gets answered! The longest blades are from Port Nidau in Switzerland. Reading the rest of the Swordforum thread, though, two-handed use is only one possibility; others posters suggest their use in executions, from horseback (hmm... too early for Celtic cavalry?) from chariots (hmm once again) or simply as great big swords to be used as ornaments or thrown into lakes as offerings. Perhaps most importantly, the possible two-handers all come from before the EB timeframe. That, incidentally would be before the Celts invented mail which makes two-hander use on the battlefield even less likely: unless you need to cut through heavy armour, discarding your shield is not going to be worth it.

To set the record straight, I never said that all Celtic swords were short and blunt, what I said was that during the La Tene period, there was a tendency for swords to get shorter and for more to be made with blunt ends. You start off, c.700BC with the classic Celtic Longsword, leaf shaped and long and you end up with little machete-like weapons. Doesn't that make you wonder how Celtic warfare was developing...?

Calling the British "sword masters" a fantasy unit is still valid, since no swords anything like the Port Nidau models have turned up in Britain or Ireland. The continental equivalent, if not fantasy, is still both conjecture and anachronistic even if real (much more so than the lorica segmentata everyone gets so annoyed about)

Thank you and goodnight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

"presented the possibility"? That's a nice sounding way of putting it. I saw zero sources or mentions of texts or anything that had information about it - there was just demands, in a way we think is offensive and is why we are really irritated at dealing with it, calling them fantasy units and saying the unit possibly came from a recent atrocious movie. Seriously - you wonder why we lock threads, get pissed off, and won't reply to your offensive PM's also? I know nothing about those units, but I know disrespect that we are not due when I see it.

As we have said time and time again: "Show us why you did this" is tiring. "This (with "this" being more than half a sentence without sources, etc.) is why I don't think X is the case, so could you respond why you think X is the case?" is more likely to get a response.

Try reading this post, which has been up for well over a year on this same subject, and was posted by someone much more adept at dealing with this mess than I am: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=79193

---

Good response, Teleklos. This team has put a phenomenal amount of effort into a mod which is unparalleled in my experience with computer gaming. I wish people would show some respect for that. You guys have done your homework. If someone isn't happy, then they need to mod the game themselves. From scratch. My two cents.

For those that have access to a copy page 58 of Peter Connolly's Hannibal and the enemies of Rome has a nice summary of the development of Celts swords. It is brief but does give the dimensions - unfortunately he does not postulate as to why sword lengths increased from 55-65cm (450-250 BC) to 80 or 90cm by 120-50 BC.

I don't think we can really submit statues as evidence of size - lets face it all men from the Greek Islands would be hung like a horse based on the statues your other half brings back from a holiday!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elmetiacos

Calling the British "sword masters" a fantasy unit is still valid, since no swords anything like the Port Nidau models have turned up in Britain or Ireland. The continental equivalent, if not fantasy, is still both conjecture and anachronistic even if real (much more so than the lorica segmentata everyone gets so annoyed about)

---

Speaking of fantasy, what would you call suggesting authority based on random internet postings? oh, sorry... was there ever a single legitimate academic citation? Maybe I missed when you bothered with that. EB does use citations in our internal forum. We don't have to prove it to you. We might have a collection of such available for the public in the future to dismiss the rag of some harpies, but we certainly don't need internet evidence held to your subjective standards. When you see anything posted concerning the internet by EB members, that's called a treat. Treat for you (us too)- it is no authority. Much more fun and interesting than nothing.


Concerning swords, so, what is the argument? That the small amount of evidence we have for the exact EB starting time period does not hold completely convincing evidence? and that somehow the technology was lost, since later there are no examples even though it was available earlier? Atlanteans! :7fortuneteller: I suppose axes are similarly a lost technology... thus the Germanic tribes became adept at felling trees with clubs, since the Battle Axe culture was gone and there are no examples of axes... :applause: now we can come back to 'Celts Don't Know Axe' topic. What fun the internet is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

Speaking of fantasy, what would you call suggesting authority based on random internet postings? oh, sorry... was there ever a single legitimate academic citation? Maybe I missed when you bothered with that. EB does use citations in our internal forum. We don't have to prove it to you. We might have a collection of such available for the public in the future to dismiss the rag of some harpies, but we certainly don't need internet evidence held to your subjective standards.

---

Let's please not let this turn into a flame war. All the mean-spiritedness could be avoided by just posting contrasting evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobf

Let's please not let this turn into a flame war. All the mean-spiritedness could be avoided by just posting contrasting evidence.

---

Ditto.

We have literally said a million times that at the moment we do not have the resources to respond to your concerns at this time. While we are developing EBII we will revisit these sources and make new conclusions. Until that time we really cannot waste our time responding to your endless and repeative questions. Tempting us to respond these questions by either directly or indirectly bringing the EB name into disrupute is not helpful at all.

If you are concerned with celtic swords in the La Tene period perhaps you should try at a forum that specialises in that area. We cannot help you at this time.

Foot

Wasn't some of the stuff from a uni data base? I don't know about you but I could get in deep shit from letting people not at uni see material on it (cause it's a form of piracy if I were to just copy-pasta a page and photobucket it)

Wasn't there a thread recently where some of the same folks were saying we shouldn't have any Celtic units with swords at all? That they were just used when a spear broke or when they wanted to cut the head off dead enemies? That one got quiet suddenly. Oh well, all of it is "fantasy" I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elmetiacos

The continental equivalent, if not fantasy, is still both conjecture and anachronistic even if real

---

This statement confuses me.....is there a point to it. Or is it just fantasy to?

Quote:

---

(much more so than the lorica segmentata everyone gets so annoyed about)

---

no......everyone does not get annoyed about it. I don't, I know he doesn't, so that's two of us, so the statement is a bit....glib

Quote:

---

Thank you and goodnight.

---

Good point

Most of us just enjoy what has been given to us on a plate by a bunch of people working their asses off.

Good to know that the most substantial source posted thus far is an image cobbled together on swordforum.com. Class act. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

Wasn't there a thread recently where some of the same folks were saying we shouldn't have any Celtic units with swords at all? That they were just used when a spear broke or when they wanted to cut the head off dead enemies? That one got quiet suddenly. Oh well, all of it is "fantasy" I guess.

---

It suggested that there may well not have been any formations in a Celtic army entirely armed with swords as primary weapons in the EB period, because the sword seemed to have declined in functionality and importance as a primary weapon. This applied only to Gauls and Britons, by the way; the Galatians apparently carried on using swords. It got quiet because nobody else posted anything on the topic. That's what happens when nobody else posts: the thread goes quiet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobf

Let's please not let this turn into a flame war. All the mean-spiritedness could be avoided by just posting contrasting evidence.

---

All the evidence is in that well-known academic work "La Tene Gaul" published by the University of Prague - https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=502 in the chapter "There Were No Two Handed Swords"...

Elmetiacos, linking to Frostwulf's post, who took the time to make citations- that is not the same thing at all as making a citation yourself. Or is your argument that the 'Celts are overpowered'?

Blitz I believe he is referring to the fictitious citation made by Psycho:

Quote:

---

(‘Indo-European History’, ‘La Tene Gaul’, XVI, 5.63, Univerzita Karlova v Praze)

---

He is insinuating that the 'Celtic' two handed sword would find a place in that fake citation.

I'm curious about the 'Celtic' two handed sword thing myself, has there been any professional opinion on the subject or classical texts which speak of such things?
On another similar subject:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract

They precisely confirmed attestations of Sassanian cavalry wielding swords as "large as a man", and depictions of "Kushano-Hephtalite" cavalry in cave paintings and bowls found in Afghanistan. I am not making this up. You read it correctly, a sword measuring six feet in length.

---

Is there classical writings of these swords being used from horseback or were they ceremonial? The same question holds true of the cave paintings and bowls, were the swords represented being used in battle or just accompanying the warrior? Also since they didn't have stirrups, did they have some kind of saddle like that of the 'Celts'?

about the records in Persia, I dunno, but judging from the Arabs fear of the Savaran's sword and bow play, the answer is yes, they probably did exist (dhi qar I gathered was a huge upset in Arabia, since the Aras actually defeated the persians). and aren't those photos enough? and the Archeological dig (I'm confirming atm). as for saddle, the sassanid era was famed for the introduction of the high saddle (ancestral to a knight's saddle. its possible to wield good sized swiords on horsvback sine stirrups: knights are ofetn depicted fighting with a straight posture, and with their feet off the stirrup

and for all those who are flamin around about history, open the spoiler (the moderaters might want to read the first sentance in particular)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

and before this goes out of hand, please close this thread. Its not right to be flaming each other over historical info like so. this can be settled elsewhere, like a debate room (or the back room)...and its not right for Elmetiacos to insult a person's intelligence (if you rellly reffered to the blatently false info from this psycho fellow), or Blitz to retort like that. I've learned my lesson about these things, and think you all need it too as well. If poeple want to ask questions, they got The assorted historical questions thread-its there for a purpose (I'm using it nowadays), namely for poeple to answer questions with out distracting the EB members, who need to focus on EB 2 at the moment. and please read the thread from khelvan about the mod. its solves so may problems.

this team has put up with many a harsh critiques before, and they are probably fed up, but I say this: they have put their time and effort into this (I gather 3 years now), to realize this project, and to make this more historically accurate. they have had to put up with lack of sources (for the languages in Europe), lack of readily available good info on equipment, and a need to rummage through practicaly ever library they have access to these morsels of information (judging from the bibliography). they have also gone through several changes in crew (some leaving, others quieting, or even god forbid-dying), further adding to the trouble they have to go through. for all I know, the info they got this stuff from was lost with the dissappearence of these members. no one can claim to know everything about any period of time in the past (hear me Elmetiacos?), and even though some may come very very close (like TPC), no one has all the answers. thus they have to rely on their judgement, and weigh it against the evidence already presented. thus have they come up with what they did. I believe that they have come up with the most historically detailed mod that they can humanly make, without having the power of a 'arraf (a person who can literally see the past using magic, and is Islamically prohibited). if you want 100% accuracy, I suggest a time machine for your purposes. in the meantime, EB has come as close as humanly possible to the ideal of a ultra-realistic mod, and thus we must be thankful poeple like the EB team, or the RTR team, exist.

lastly: who's psycho? (ok that came out wrong):inquisitive::embarassed: (PM if you want to tell me)

sorry for this lecture on ethics, but it had to come out:sweatdrop:. my 2cents

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Is there classical writings of these swords being used from horseback or were they ceremonial? The same question holds true of the cave paintings and bowls, were the swords represented being used in battle or just accompanying the warrior? Also since they didn't have stirrups, did they have some kind of saddle like that of the 'Celts'?

---

This is a valid point. The findings in Aphrodisias yielded a large blade which was sharp only on one side, even though the blade appeared to be of symmetrical design. It is possible that it may have been a ceremonial blade, or a part of some treasury (Again, the hilt was found to be integrated, presuming that the sword had the feeling of a one-piece work; This is not usual in Sassanian sword-crafting). The main source behind the claim lies mainly in the chronicles of Al-Tabari and Al-Baladhuri where they recount the equipment of a Sassanian cavalry during Chosroës' feudalistic reforms, probably inspired by his Hephtalite enemy to the east. The silver-bowl (Which depicts the hunt and three similarly attired cavalry) is dated somewhere between 4th and 6th centuries CE. The swords were hung from belts, rather than from the saddle. There is little doubt about the size; It's a bit stylized, but seen in matter of proportion, it's a good thumb for assessing how the Aphrodisias blade might have been used. In any case, the dish portrays one of the huntsmen actually using this blade (Which is not surprising; Three similarly armed cavalry bearing the sword for show... Not likely; This wasn't exactly regalia in the sense of the Medeo-Achaemenid acinaces and Sassanian royalty eventually leaned towards the Avar-styled sabres with pistol-grips)

The Sassanians in the beginning had to largely rely upon Parthian methods and techniques, however by the 3rd and 4th centuries they had conceived an improved framed saddle, which gave them greater elevation. It had a cantle to the back portion, and generally speaking two guard clamps which allowed them their famed rigid "ballerina posture" (Feet drooping down; Parthian depictions are more archaic where the riders are visibly applying pressure with their knees). Previously the horned saddle (Allegedly of unknown origins) was used by the Parthians and sparsely by the Sassanians as well.

There is however reason to believe that the late Sassanians began to accept the stirrup as a useful element in cavalry warfare (It was certainly not unknown to them; They interacted with Indians for much longer than any other historical power, and must have known of the toe-stirrup); Even though sadly the feet of the Tâq-î Bûstân relief are damaged beyond repair, mainly by factors such as over-handed thrusting of a kontos, and some support provided by the Pûr-î Vahman dish (Which is in late Sassanian style, clearly showing stirrups, but is dated between 7th and 8th centuries CE) suggest that it was emerging. However during a time when the Sassanian clibanarius was a more lightly armoured incarnation of Shâpûr's thousand-strong cavalry vanguard.

So I am not the only one who found this a bit odd. I too raised this same question a little while back...

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=48920

Since I've no internet connection at home I haven't been able to read back through that thread, but I do remember some justification for the swords as being pretty much what has been concluded here...

That of the sword blade being a "standard" single-hand length but with a two-handed/hand and a half grip. The new version of the Kluddargos represents this better idea than the old, which seemed to have a very large, pointy, claymore-like sword.

The picture of all the sword blades kind of backs this theory up as I am pretty sure blade lenghts don't exceed your average single-hand size, but, as observed, there are some pretty long tangs. Such long tangs could point to hand and a half use, although I don't think they are long enough for a true two-handed use. However, nothing is for certain as the handle/grip materials survive the ravages of time so we cannot tell the exactly the size of the guards, pommels, grips, etc...

Also, I think many of the blades from above picture are from the plates of Navarro's "Finds from the site of La Tene," and if anyone is interested I might be able to find some stats on those swords... Although the text is mainly concerned with the scabbards I would think that there should be good info on the blades themselves... haven't really became acquainted with the book yet.

the basis for the Lugian two-handers was, I believe, a couple of Przeworsk-culture swords of rather impressive size and weight with long tangs.

the first, from Lachmirowice, had a blade that was right at 6 1/4cm wide and just over 87cm long. its tang, which had broken, was 13cm long at the break, but estimated by the archaeologists, based on comparison to other Przeworsk sword tangs, at around 18cm total. i haven't seen a dating for the sword more secure than "Przeworsk culture."

the second is less significant, and from Drbzankowo, a sword in a scabbard. I'm not sure on blade dimensions, but the scabbard is just barely shy of 1m long (98cm). as for width, the sword was excavated withdrawn a little over 1cm from its scabbard, and the blade there, at its base, is nearly 5cm wide. so its still a hefty blade, though I'm not sure what the blade length should be thought to be based on the scabbard. the tang, which is complete, is shorter, only 10cm long.

I hope that helps a bit. I'm not really up on hand-and-a-half and two-handed swords and whatnot, but that first sword particularly seems like it would have been too heavy to use with one hand, and also clearly seems to have had a tang long enough 1) to support such a heavy sword, and 2) to allow at least two hands to grip it (third hand anybody?).

EDIT: if the sword from Lachmirowice is from one of the main concentrations of burials there, its likely from either the 1c bc or the late 1c ad. The site was occupied throughout the Przeworsk period, and I haven't seen anything to indicate that particular sword.

@ Glewas -
Good link, that discussion provided some good background to what the team was thinking when they planned these apparently controversial units (not controversial to me, mind you, but surprisingly incendiary in the passion they cause). Based on the linked discussion, the units do not seem to be planned as fantasy units, but rather are intended to reflect the diversity of weapons used by various Celtic tribes...

so I'm not the only one who read Tabari:laugh4:
*no longer feels alone*

anyways, this thread is starting to look better.:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paullus

the basis for the Lugian two-handers was, I believe, a couple of Przeworsk-culture swords of rather impressive size and weight with long tangs.

the first, from Lachmirowice, had a blade that was right at 6 1/4cm wide and just over 87cm long. its tang, which had broken, was 13cm long at the break, but estimated by the archaeologists, based on comparison to other Przeworsk sword tangs, at around 18cm total. i haven't seen a dating for the sword more secure than "Przeworsk culture."

the second is less significant, and from Drbzankowo, a sword in a scabbard. I'm not sure on blade dimensions, but the scabbard is just barely shy of 1m long (98cm). as for width, the sword was excavated withdrawn a little over 1cm from its scabbard, and the blade there, at its base, is nearly 5cm wide. so its still a hefty blade, though I'm not sure what the blade length should be thought to be based on the scabbard. the tang, which is complete, is shorter, only 10cm long.

---

If my conversions are correct then...

Lachmirowice:
width: 2.4"
overall length: 34.25"
tang length: 7"

Drbznkowo:
width: 2"
overall length: 38.5" (scabbard)
tang length: 4"

Unless the overall length doesn't include the tang length (ie. just the blade length) then I wouldn't really consider these anything more than single-handed swords (see Albion Swords Next Gen swords for reference). A 18cm/7in. tang can be gripped by two hands but the guard, pommel, even a pommel nut would have to be taken into consideration, which would leave little room for multiple hands depending, of course, on the size of the hilt furniture.

Paullus, do you have any pictures of the two swords or thier weights? The 6 1/4cm width on the Lachmirowice sword is interesting especially if the sword doesn't have much taper along its length or width making for a possible hefty blade.

Isn't Lachmirowice a Roman sword anyway: http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=11056 ?

On the earlier thread Glewas linked to, I see no reference to the uncommonly large Swiss discoveries, only Irish sites. Fortunately, Aegis Archaeology has site reports for all the places mentioned. :beam:
Here's the site report from Curraghgraigue Upper: http://www.aegisarchaeology.com/inde...gue-Upper.html and there are no two handed swords.
Here's Rockfield: http://www.aegisarchaeology.com/inde...nty-Kerry.html and again, no swords, only cremated remains.
Here's Ballykane Hill: http://www.aegisarchaeology.com/inde....-Kildare.html and once again, no mention of swords, only copper and stone tools along with human remains.
Finally, Newtown: http://www.aegisarchaeology.com/inde....-Kildare.html and despite 3,000 years of occupancy there's no mention of any swords.

There's a prize of a silver torc once owned by Venutius himself to the first person who can find a reference in Polybius or Tacitus to the Britons using two handed swords... :inquisitive:

If the two-handers had been given the Helvetii, I'd have a harder time arguing that they were "fantasy" but there's nothing I can find so far supports Britons or Lugians using them.

no, i don't think that's the same sword. the tang appears much shorter, and if the discussion on RAT is any indication, the sword is of a transitionary size between the gladius and spatha. lachmirowice has been a pretty productive cemetary, with quite a few warrior burials across 3+ centuries.

and glewas, sorry for the slow response, i've been on holiday and i still am. i should have posted the pic the first time, but i prioritized getting materials together for our unit artists, who are creating some truly beautiful units for EB2.

Thanks for the information on the Sassanids (swords,saddles etc.), very interesting. I am woefully ignorant of that area of the world, I would like to get more acquainted with it. Any suggestions on a book that would give me a broad overview history of the region?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elmetiacos

If the two-handers had been given the Helvetii, I'd have a harder time arguing that they were "fantasy" but there's nothing I can find so far supports Britons or Lugians using them.

---

Why?

I think Elmetaicos is referring to the 100 two-handed swords were found near Bern, Switzerland, at a place called Teifenau.

Which brings up a good point about the distribution of weapons originating from that area. I've read that the Noricum/Helveti areas (where the 100 two-handed swords were found) held the biggest weapon manufacturing areas in Celtic Europe. Other areas like the Aedui weapons center at Cabillonum (modern Chalon-sur-Saone) was known as a big trading/military outpost.

Now I am not saying that two-handed swords were all the rage in the La Tene period of Europe. Not at all. I cannot find pictures of these two-handed Tiefenau weapons anywhere. However, the valleys of the La Tene heartland lay in the crux of the Rhine and the Rhone river systems and were a hop, skip, and a jump from the Danubian river system corridor. With the weapon making abilities of the region combined with the local river/transport system, its perfectly reasonable to believe that the metalworks of the Alpine region, including two-handed swords, could reach anywhere in Europe even as far as Britain especially when one considers the large continental migrations to that island.

What makes you think that the swords at Tiefenau were two handed? I was referring to the unusually long sword mentioned above from Port Nidau.
Who still believes in these "large continental migrations"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elmetiacos

What makes you think that the swords at Tiefenau were two handed?

---

I am not at a university library currently but there is some remark of it in a few places it seems, including here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=HNf...um=4&ct=result

John Lubbock's Pre-historic Times, as Illustrated by Ancient Remains, and the Manners and Customs of Modern Savages written in 1865. Hmm.

EDIT - I'll ask on the Continental Celtic group if anyone knows of a catalogue of Tiefenau discoveries. It's mainly linguists on there, though, so it could be some time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Thanks for the information on the Sassanids (swords,saddles etc.), very interesting. I am woefully ignorant of that area of the world, I would like to get more acquainted with it. Any suggestions on a book that would give me a broad overview history of the region?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elmetiacos

John Lubbock's Pre-historic Times, as Illustrated by Ancient Remains, and the Manners and Customs of Modern Savages written in 1865. Hmm.

---

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 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.