Scutum and Pilum Question

So I have been wondering recently about the Roman scutum and I figured that if anyone could answer these questions it would be those here.

The scutum is stated as having a horizontal handgrip, which apparently is made so that the shield can be carried at the side when marching. This makes sense and even though having the grip horizontal would put a lot of work on the forearm rather than the bicep the legionaries were in excellent shape; thus there isn't an issue of getting tired early in the fight. Now, what about the pilum? If the pila are supposed to be held in the shield hand, how were they held if the shield-grip is horizontal?

Pilum are held ONTO the shield by clips aren't they?

Firstly, a horizontal grip provides better stability when recieving blows and the shield is held out with the forarm at right angles to the ground so the strain does go on the bicep. There is no evidence to suggest that the pila were clipped onto the shield as far as I know.

The Pila were thrown and as such were held in the sword arm for the most part. I suspect the spare was driven into the ground while the first one was thrown. Once you entered melee I can't see any way to keep ahold of the pilum, it would get shatterd by the first downward cut the scutum recieved anyway.

A horizontal strap definetly gives more strain to the bicepts, the action should be very similar to lifting some weights(in the typical sense). This also allows someone to easily tilt the shield down or up depending on the impact recieved.
Regarding the pilum: i dont see a reason why they cannot be held in the shield hand, perpindicular to the scutum, much like how peltasts would carry their javelins while carrying a theuros.

^^
some educated guessing, i could be wrong

actually, one reason why they might not have been able to do this (scutum + pila) is if the strap on the scutum was very tight. This coupled with the concave bend of the shield might not leave enough room for the pila to be gripped without bending it as well.

The reason why I say there would be more strain on the forearm is because I would imagine the shield would be held with the palm facing down rather than up. When you lift weights and grasp the bar from above with palms down that works the forearms, which is different from what is normally done with the palm up. Now, if a pilum were held in the shield-hand that would leave it along the horizontal axis and, as Elthore stated, difficult because of the curve of the scutum - if possible at all. Hence, my confusion to this.

I've looked around on reenacting websites, but haven't found much to answer my question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

Pilum are held ONTO the shield by clips aren't they?

---

Nothing I have read has made mention of clips except in the case of plumbatae. Personally, I don't think clips could hold the heavy pilum in place.

The shield is held with the knuckles facing outwards and it definately strains the biceps.

Theory: The curve of the Scutum might allow you to grip one Pilum at an angle and the curve would stop it falling out of your arm.

No one should consider this as evidence, one way or the other. However, for whatever it's worth ...

I've been involved in Roman re-enactment units, in the past. The scutum is carred with the palm facing up, because the thing weighs about 27 pounds. A palm-facing down carry would put tremendous strain on the hand and lower arm. Besides which, when a "barbarian" crashes a 12-pound longsword onto your shield, it's coming out of your hand, if the palm is down.

Because of the unique shape of the pilum, "clips" really aren't needed. Once the pilum is slipped between scutum and strap, it comes to a stop at a logical point. Gravity does the rest, as Ironwall correctly theorised. I also wish to point out that the scutum and two pila is a large load for the one hand and arm, especially over a long march.

Uh 27 pounds? I would have said an Imperial Scutum was half that tops, are you sure. As to the longsword thing, aren't you going to break your elbow with that sword crashing into your shield and how are you going to manuver it or do the "face punch" with the boss?

I'm going to get hold of John and ask him about this.

Never mind, from the Ermine Stree Guard Website:

Quote:

---

The writer's personal experience of using Legionary shields has shown that although it may, due to its curved shape, appear difficult to carry and use, this is not the case and in fact once one is experienced in its use the benefits of this type of shield for a unit operating in formation become evident. To carry the shield an overhand grip is used and the shield is held vertically at arm's length, as if one was carrying a shopping bag. Although this type of grip may appear awkward it is better than a underhand grip where the weight of the shield is continually trying to straighten the arm against the joint's natural articulation.

Using a overhand grip also has the benefit of making the shield more manoeuvrable, meaning that you can hold the shield away from the body; close in to the body; at arms length at shoulder height; above the head; in front of the body or braced against the shoulder with the top edge of the shield at eye level. Because of its curvature the shield wraps around the user providing a large degree of protection which increases when the carrier is part of a formation. Although as said, the shield is easy to carry and manoeuvre, after prolonged periods of carrying it, the arm begins to feel the weight, despite its lightweight construction.

---

http://www.esg.ndirect.co.uk/legionary%20equipment.htm

These guys have over 30 years of experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Uh 27 pounds? I would have said an Imperial Scutum was half that tops, are you sure. As to the longsword thing, aren't you going to break your elbow with that sword crashing into your shield and how are you going to manuver it or do the "face punch" with the boss?

I'm going to get hold of John and ask him about this.

Never mind, from the Ermine Stree Guard Website:

http://www.esg.ndirect.co.uk/legionary%20equipment.htm

These guys have over 30 years of experience.

---

With 30 years of experience, it's a good thing they never had to go into actual combat, with the overhand grip. Based upon historical accounts and dimensions, the scutum that I used ... like the actual Roman shield ... was made of two layers of plywood, covered with thick leather, all bound by a iron strap around the edges. Mine tipped the scales at slightly over 27 pounds.

It was essential to throw your two pila before engaged in melee, because the added weight on the shield made it unwieldy, to say the least. You try holding a scutum like a shopping bag, and see if you can maintain your grip on it, when the "12-pound longsword" I mentioned comes crashing down from above.

As for the face punch, it was more of a body punch, designed to use the considerable strength of the legionary, combined with the weight of the shield, to knock the enemy backwards into the men behind him. As he bounces off of them, he receives the gladius in center-of-mass. Note that a legionary could penetrate the same or more armor than a modern .30-06 hunting rifle at 100 yards. The purpose of the what I would call the "body punch" is to set the enemy up for a thrust.

I am a member of SAFD, but like I said in the first post here, you shouldn't consider this as "evidence", especially if you're moving in a different direction with the animations.

One final thing, take something that weighs about 13.5 pounds (you mentioned half the weight that I'm talking about), and see how long you can maintain a shopping bag carry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oldgamer

With 30 years of experience, it's a good thing they never had to go into actual combat, with the overhand grip. Based upon historical accounts and dimensions, the scutum that I used ... like the actual Roman shield ... was made of two layers of plywood, covered with thick leather, all bound by a iron strap around the edges. Mine tipped the scales at slightly over 27 pounds.

It was essential to throw your two pila before engaged in melee, because the added weight on the shield made it unwieldy, to say the least. You try holding a scutum like a shopping bag, and see if you can maintain your grip on it, when the "12-pound longsword" I mentioned comes crashing down from above.

As for the face punch, it was more of a body punch, designed to use the considerable strength of the legionary, combined with the weight of the shield, to knock the enemy backwards into the men behind him. As he bounces off of them, he receives the gladius in center-of-mass. Note that a legionary could penetrate the same or more armor than a modern .30-06 hunting rifle at 100 yards. The purpose of the what I would call the "body punch" is to set the enemy up for a thrust.

I am a member of SAFD, but like I said in the first post here, you shouldn't consider this as "evidence", especially if you're moving in a different direction with the animations.

One final thing, take something that weighs about 13.5 pounds (you mentioned half the weight that I'm talking about), and see how long you can maintain a shopping bag carry.

---

Ok, I'm going to stop you at "12 pound longsword." Assuming you mean a single handed weapon you can cut that down to a quarter. As I said the Ermine Street Guard are one of the world leaders in Roman re-enactment. I suggest you actually read the link I posted in full as he goes through the construction of each piece of equipment, both historically and in modern terms.

You still haven't addressed the lack of manuverability with the palm up grip or the strain it places on the elbow. Regardless the shield shouls never jump out of you hand because your forarm will be braced against it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Ok, I'm going to stop you at "12 pound longsword." Assuming you mean a single handed weapon you can cut that down to a quarter. As I said the Ermine Street Guard are one of the world leaders in Roman re-enactment. I suggest you actually read the link I posted in full as he goes through the construction of each piece of equipment, both historically and in modern terms.

You still haven't addressed the lack of manuverability with the palm up grip or the strain it places on the elbow. Regardless the shield shouls never jump out of you hand because your forarm will be braced against it.

---

Sorry for the long delay in answering you. BTW, I love your screen name!

A three-pound sword sounds more like a ceremonial or theatrical weapon. The swords used by northern European barbarians were long and quite heavy. Their purpose was to shatter shields, crush helms, and break bones under body armor. They had a secondary ability to thrust, but this was not their primary purpose. For these purposes, they needed strong, highly-conditioned men.

I did read the link you provided, and found it very interesting. I don't deny any of the claims made there. Indeed, my purpose in this thread is not to start an argument or a debate of any kind, but to raise a question based upon my personal experience as a re-enactor, and as a trainer in theatrical productions.

Like I said earlier, none of what I have to say in this thread should be taken as "evidence", and it certainly should have no effect whatever on the animations used in the mod.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oldgamer

Sorry for the long delay in answering you. BTW, I love your screen name!

A three-pound sword sounds more like a ceremonial or theatrical weapon. The swords used by northern European barbarians were long and quite heavy. Their purpose was to shatter shields, crush helms, and break bones under body armor. They had a secondary ability to thrust, but this was not their primary purpose. For these purposes, they needed strong, highly-conditioned men.

---

Thanks, the name comes from one of the Saxon heros in VI.

As far as swords go I'm afraid you are sadly mistaken. No sword has ever been used to crush helms, it simply isn't possible, I've seen men try and barbarian swords were cutting weapons not crushing weapons. They rarely exceeded 3.5 pounds in weight and were really quite wieldly. All swords in Europe have a common ancestor in the Naue II, the cut-and-thrust weapon developed in the late bronze and then used From Greece to Egypt to Denmark.

I'm sorry but you're simply wrong, think about it objectively, no "barbarian" was significantly larger than a modern European, they weren't larger than Germans or Danes, a 12 pound weapon would be unuseable in a battl lasting several hours.

Just incase that doesn't convince you a Roman Gladius would mass around 1.2-1.6 Kg, or about 3 pounds, with a blade around 24" long and 2.5" wide its a fairly heavy weapon, by comparison a Barbarian sword would usually have blade around 28-32" tops and would probably taper towards the point.

Work it out, the barbarian sword would only be 4 pounds, tops. Probably less because a Roman sword has parralel sides or a leaf-blade.

Those swords are suprisingly light actually.

I guess it's the Hollywood-brainwashing at work, when you imagine barbarians doing Conan-like overhand swings, straining under the weight of the swords and yelling bloody murder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

As far as swords go I'm afraid you are sadly mistaken. No sword has ever been used to crush helms, it simply isn't possible

---

One point here: just because you may argue that the "barbarian" swords were not meant to crush helms doesn't mean that no swords ever were designed to meet this end.

https://img163.imageshack.us/img163/4407/falcata9cu.png

The Falcata was not an unusually large sword, nor was it unusually heavy (although it certainly wasn't light); but it was specially designed ao that all of the weight would be brought down on one point, in a single downward slash. A sword like this would almost certainly be specialized to slice through armor like butter, and yes- smashing helmets (not to mention shields) was probably part of the goal.

Repeat post.

Repeat post.

Another repeat post...

How the hell did I do that?!

On the weight of swords - few examples I know from early medieval (achaeological finds) weighted about 1 kg - without hand coverage(missing).
Some of celtic longswords were wider but still it won't give much more than 2-3 kg

Thanks for the backup O'ETAIPOS, I know a couple of articles on Medieval sword weights mut obviously Roman era weapons were mostly carbonised iron rather than true steel and a bit heavier.

Zorba: Yes, but the Falcetta and the Falx are really glorified can openers and they cut rather than crush. Infact because it was so durable the Gladius was relatively effective against armour, certainly more so than a "barbarian" longsword.

Musopticon?: You are correct, swords were never that heavy, battleaxes were never that heavy. Lord of the Rings, Gladiator and BRaveheart have good sword combat. Look how fast Gibson moves with that claymore.

The average claymore ran about 55 inches (1.4 m) in overall length, with a 13 inch (33 cm) grip, 42 inch (1 m) blade and weighed approximately 5.5 lb (2.5 kg). And that's about as big as any sword gets gentlemen

I will make one more post, in this thread, unless I am invited back. I rather feel like I'm in the "Mudpit" at the TWC, and there's people who feel obligated to shoot me down at every juncture.

First, I am not an 18-year old, who has just watched The Adventures of Robin Hood for the first time, and thinks that Medieval broadswords are used like fencing foils.

I am a 58-year old veteran of the military, and paramilitary/intel work, and am in the best of health. I can bench-press over 400 pounds, run a 440-meter in 1 minute, 48 seconds, and the 100-yard dash in 10.8 seconds. My conditioning is roughly equivalent to that of a 20-year legionary or a northern "barbarian" who has trained for war, all of his life.

Second, I am a member of the Society of American Fight Directors (SAFD), and hold the rank of "Fight Master" in that society. Description follows:

These individuals have been awarded this status (inclusion in the College of Fight Masters) for having demonstrated the highest level of professional experience as teachers and directors of physical violence in the entertainment industry. The Society sanctions these individuals to adjudicate Skills Proficiency Tests, to serve as Master Teachers at any SAFD sanctioned workshop and to serve in the College of Fight Masters, an Advisory Board to the Governing Body of the Society.

Third, I am not entirely unfamiliar with the academic background of what we are talking about here. For example, the Chicago Historical Society has one of the largest collections and ancient and Medieval weapons and armor in the United States. After demonstrating some of the techniques used in combat during the Middle Ages, I was privileged to handle some of the exhibit's prize specimens, which includes a leaf-shaped Celtic sword dating from the 2-3rd Century, BC. Although the handle is missing, the weapon ... made of iron ... weighs 10-11 pounds, if it weighs an ounce. And note that the weapon is not made for stabbing, like the gladius. Its purpose is to wave on high and bring down on an opponent with maximum force (and for this purpose, it is weighted so that the weapon's force would occur within 5 inches of the tip).

You are aware that the metallurgist's trade has changed a great deal, since the 2cd Century BC, correct? Today, you would be completely right about a Gallic longsword weighing about 3-3.5 pounds. Indeed, the Zweihander is of inferior quality, if it weighs more than 4 pounds, and that sword is a massive weapon. But in the 2cd Century, BC?

Concerning actual combat ...

You can call it "crush", or whatever you wish. I'm not interested in semantics, here. But if you and I were in combat, and I were using a weapon like this and brought it down on your helmet, you would be in a world of hurt, my friend. Indeed, your ONLY chance of survival is if the sword only struck a glancing blow. And even then, it is likely that the weapon would glance off the helmet and strike you in the shoulder, and, depending on your armor, either break your shoulder or make you "Ironwall, the One-Armed".

There are people in the world who know something about this subject besides yourself, sir. I will cede you your point about the carry on the scutum, because I have done some research since entering this, including the link you provided earlier. My own experience with re-enacting was a long time ago, and perhaps our research ... without an internet available, then ... was faulty.

Quote:

---

I will make one more post, in this thread, unless I am invited back. I rather feel like I'm in the "Mudpit" at the TWC, and there's people who feel obligated to shoot me down at every juncture.

---

I have not been trying to shoot you down. However, if I think you are wrong I will say so, here I am drawing on what I have read and been taught in the field of experimental archaeology.

I will concede the following points.

1.) A weapon from the 2nd century BC would definately weigh more than one from the 1st century BC/AD, the period from which I generally work. As you say many advances have been made and a lot of them were made after your particular sword was forged. I still think ten pounds is very heavy and it sounds like an odd weapon, how long was it?

[Edit: Some initial research suggests the weapon you descibe is a cavalry weapon, ealier infantry weapons being shorter and pointed.]

2.) I will also concede that an Imperial Scutum was, I discovered today, around 20 pounds, so we were both about as wrong as each other there.

You are correct that the shield was not overly mobile and I apolagise if I gave that impression, it is something of a controvosy between experience and the literature. I would say that it was manuverable and fairly easy to carry and use with practice.

Quote:

---

As for the face punch, it was more of a body punch, designed to use the considerable strength of the legionary, combined with the weight of the shield, to knock the enemy backwards into the men behind him. As he bounces off of them, he receives the gladius in center-of-mass. Note that a legionary could penetrate the same or more armor than a modern .30-06 hunting rifle at 100 yards. The purpose of the what I would call the "body punch" is to set the enemy up for a thrust.

---

You are more-or-less right here actually and I hang my head in shame for mentioning the "face punch." You can't do it with the boss, you can however, do a nifty number with the brass rim. I was remembering one photograph of a big guy with a little scutum.

:oops:

So it would seem we both made some mistakes.

Oh, "Wigferth the One Armed"

How about, "Wigferth wooden arm?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

I have not been trying to shoot you down. However, if I think you are wrong I will say so, here I am drawing on what I have read and been taught in the field of experimental archaeology.

---

First, sorry about the tone of my previous post. I've been spending too much time in the TWC Mudpit!

Quote:

---

I will concede the following points.

1.) A weapon from the 2nd century BC would definately weigh more than one from the 1st century BC/AD, the period from which I generally work. As you say many advances have been made and a lot of them were made after your particular sword was forged. I still think ten pounds is very heavy and it sounds like an odd weapon, how long was it?

[Edit: Some initial research suggests the weapon you descibe is a cavalry weapon, ealier infantry weapons being shorter and pointed.]

---

The weapons I held was about 42 inches long, from tip to end of tang. At its widest point ... and remember that it was a leaf-shaped weapon ... it was some 4-4.5 inches (down where the hilt would have been, it was about 2.5 inches). It was a large weapon, to say the least, and would have required a strong man to wield it. The archaeologist who showed it to me wasn't sure whether it was a cavalry weapon or not (I asked him), but reminded me that many people of Celtic, Gallic, and Teutonic origins used very long and heavy weapons designed to smash armor and break bones.

Quote:

---

2.) I will also concede that an Imperial Scutum was, I discovered today, around 20 pounds, so we were both about as wrong as each other there.

You are correct that the shield was not overly mobile and I apolagise if I gave that impression, it is something of a controvosy between experience and the literature. I would say that it was manuverable and fairly easy to carry and use with practice.

You are more-or-less right here actually and I hang my head in shame for mentioning the "face punch." You can't do it with the boss, you can however, do a nifty number with the brass rim. I was remembering one photograph of a big guy with a little scutum.

---

Concerning the weight of the scutum, much would depend on the thickness of the plywood from which it was made. I've never been able to find any truly reliable source concerning this. We don't even know how thick the "plys" were, and from what type of wood they were made. It's very possible that the plywood we used in my re-enactment group was too thick.

I guess that it would be possible for a highly-conditioned warrior to do a face punch, if the opportunity presented itself. For the quality of all of our research, we don't really have a clear idea of what happened man vs. man in ancient warfare, except that men died.

Quote:

---

So it would seem we both made some mistakes.

---

I make them all the time!

Quote:

---

Oh, "Wigferth the One Armed"
How about, "Wigferth wooden arm?"

---

Sounds good to me. I like the aliteration!

Once again, sorry for the testy nature of my earlier post.

Don't worry about it, I can sound a bit uppety some times. The important thing to remember is I don't do subtext and I don't pull puches. What you read is what I think.

Thats mostly a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oldgamer

The weapons I held was about 42 inches long, from tip to end of tang. At its widest point ... and remember that it was a leaf-shaped weapon ... it was some 4-4.5 inches (down where the hilt would have been, it was about 2.5 inches). It was a large weapon, to say the least, and would have required a strong man to wield it. The archaeologist who showed it to me wasn't sure whether it was a cavalry weapon or not (I asked him), but reminded me that many people of Celtic, Gallic, and Teutonic origins used very long and heavy weapons designed to smash armor and break bones.

---

I was reading an article earlier, I'd post it but its on a university network, Celtic swords got longer and lost their points, this is attributed, by the author, to the swirch from chariot "taxies" to full mounted warfare. It sounds a very improbable weapon for any foot soldier to use.

Quote:

---

Concerning the weight of the scutum, much would depend on the thickness of the plywood from which it was made. I've never been able to find any truly reliable source concerning this. We don't even know how thick the "plys" were, and from what type of wood they were made. It's very possible that the plywood we used in my re-enactment group was too thick.

---

I'm afraid you're a little out of date here, several well preserved shields were found in the Middle East and dated to around the 1st century AD, IRRC. The method of construction seems to have been three layers with the grain alternating between horizontal and vetical. The examples were weighted between 10-11kg.

Quote:

---

I guess that it would be possible for a highly-conditioned warrior to do a face punch, if the opportunity presented itself. For the quality of all of our research, we don't really have a clear idea of what happened man vs. man in ancient warfare, except that men died.

---

Its definately possible but I must admit that its more impressive to do infront of your mates than on the battlefield. I was talking to one of my friends today who knows more than either of us, he said you can "garage-door" with the shield and slam the edge into their face relatively easily, which also has the advatage of keeping them at arm's distance.

Right now I'm wondering how to break it to the team that Manchester university have decided that the Romans didn't have a red die that would take to horsehair.

What about the red dye taking to feathers? I presume that it would be fine there?

You have the wrong topic but I'll answer anyway.

Polybius explicitely tells us that the pre-Marian Legionaries had painted purple and black crests. It all repends on whether they had a good red dye, I would say they probably did.

"12-pound swords" my arse. Maces never got that heavy (the one-handed kind tend to top at around 4 kg tops), and those things work purely by mass and leverage. Big "zweihander" greatswords made to chop anything short of solid steel plate armour to bits tend to top around 3 kg despite their size...

I don't care how big and burly the Celts were, they weren't going to go around swinging six-kilo swords. No need to either. A good overhand swing from a relatively heavy (ie. 2 kg tops) longsword is going to give you about as much power as you're ever going to sensibly get out of a one-hander (Renaissance combat manuals apparently call that sort of downward cut "cut of wrath"); both Celtic and Roman mail shirts had shoulder doublings pretty much specifically to resist this sort of impact. If you want more oomph, you don't go and buy a heavier sword (unless you're switching to a straight two-hander); that'll be too heavy and cumbersome to use effectively anyway. Instead you're going to get a sword with a different point of balance - think falchion - or something like an axe or mace of similar "mass" weapon. Those aren't markedly heavier either, they just have their mass concentrated at the end of the lever which although it makes them a tad clumsy in comparision also imparts some pretty nasty leverage.

The level of metallurgy has little to do with this. The maximum viable mass of a weapon isn't determined by its materials, but by the physical limitations of its wielder - and those say that in practice one-handed swords can't go too much above one kilo in weight if you intend to fight with them for any amount of time. Metallurgy determines the resiliency, durability, edge-keeping qualities and suchlike of the weapon, and when it comes to *that* both the Celts and Romans knew how to make high-quality pattern-welded steel blades - those just tended to be pretty expensive.

As for the scutum-pilum thing, I've gotten the impression the legionaires didn't necessarily carry more than one javelin to combat anyway - and presumably new ones could be procured from the baggage as needed, given that major battles could well take the better part of a day. Certainly if they did take two along there'd be a minor issue with just where they put the spare when they threw the first one - given that Roman tactics were AFAIK pretty keen on maintaining formation and drill it seems somewhat unlikely they'd have taken too much of a running start when throwing the pila, but I don't know much about this. Obviously if they threw more or less stationary the spare javelin could probably be stuck on the ground or held under the shield arm or somesuch - historical warriors were often quite creative when coming up with means of holding onto cumbersome weapons not currently used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

"12-pound swords" my arse. Maces never got that heavy (the one-handed kind tend to top at around 4 kg tops), and those things work purely by mass and leverage. Big "zweihander" greatswords made to chop anything short of solid steel plate armour to bits tend to top around 3 kg despite their size...

I don't care how big and burly the Celts were, they weren't going to go around swinging six-kilo swords. No need to either. A good overhand swing from a relatively heavy (ie. 2 kg tops) longsword is going to give you about as much power as you're ever going to sensibly get out of a one-hander (Renaissance combat manuals apparently call that sort of downward cut "cut of wrath"); both Celtic and Roman mail shirts had shoulder doublings pretty much specifically to resist this sort of impact. If you want more oomph, you don't go and buy a heavier sword (unless you're switching to a straight two-hander); that'll be too heavy and cumbersome to use effectively anyway. Instead you're going to get a sword with a different point of balance - think falchion - or something like an axe or mace of similar "mass" weapon. Those aren't markedly heavier either, they just have their mass concentrated at the end of the lever which although it makes them a tad clumsy in comparision also imparts some pretty nasty leverage.

The level of metallurgy has little to do with this. The maximum viable mass of a weapon isn't determined by its materials, but by the physical limitations of its wielder - and those say that in practice one-handed swords can't go too much above one kilo in weight if you intend to fight with them for any amount of time. Metallurgy determines the resiliency, durability, edge-keeping qualities and suchlike of the weapon, and when it comes to *that* both the Celts and Romans knew how to make high-quality pattern-welded steel blades - those just tended to be pretty expensive.

---

We've done this. Iron is heavier than steel for a start, and both Roman and Celtic swords were iron, not steel. In fact in both cases there is evidence that the quality of weapons actually fell, rather than rose. the later "Tiberius" sword in the London Museum is of an inferior quality to the earlier Fulham sword.

Regardless I am inclined to agree that 12 pounds is very heavy. However, if Old Gamer is telling the truth then you might consider , since he has handled this weapon himself, that he could be correct.

How much do you know about Le Tene III swords, which is what this weapon probably is. I'll hold my hands up and say. "Not much."

Unless the guys using those La Tene III swords were all the Incredible Hulks then I fail to see what difference it makes. They'll still have the exact same physical limitations and considerations as Charlemagne's scara cavalrymen, ranking Viking warriors, Chinese soldiers, Japanese samurai, Medieval European knights, Middle Eastern ghulams and faris or any other sword-toting combatant you care to think of to cope with. Too heavy is too heavy period. If a sword of certain size ends up too heavy using certain materials (although I'm not terribly convinced adding carbon to iron particularly lightens it in the first place, and all-iron and steel swords of the same general design AFAIK kind of tend to have similar amounts of material...) then you make a smaller sword of a sensible and manageable weight.

Now, some specialized mace designs (the Caliphate-era Arab 'amud and some Byzantine and Persian types come to mind) could be impressively heavy indeed, requiring lots of strenght and skill to use and in spite of their cumbersomeness having a habit of pulverizing just about anything they hit (there's an account of a missed 'amud swing that hit the foe's saddle cantle flatly knocking both the man and the saddle off the horse...) - but those are maces. Swords have a bit different overall operating logic, and making them very heavy was never a particularly effective move.

There's also the little detail that it's actually somewhat difficult to put all that much metal into an about meter-long blade without making it too thick to effectively cut with, and then also the heavier the sword the more difficult it is to put real speed into the swing...

This addresses more or less the same issue in detail. Personally I kind of suspect the laws of physics involved were quite the same for the ancient Celts and whoever, but maybe that's just me.

One thing you do not consider Wigferth and Old Gamer that this particular sword might have been made for god. maybe it was made to stay in shrine and look impresive. I do not know about celts, but ther are informations about such god's weapons in Slav pagan shrines.

That'd be like those late-medieval bearing-swords then. Huge, ornate two-handed swords typically weighing in the 10-14 pound range, used in parades and nothing else.

As for combat two-handers, 8 pounds was regarded as very heavy...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Unless the guys using those La Tene III swords were all the Incredible Hulks then I fail to see what difference it makes. They'll still have the exact same physical limitations and considerations as Charlemagne's scara cavalrymen, ranking Viking warriors, Chinese soldiers, Japanese samurai, Medieval European knights, Middle Eastern ghulams and faris or any other sword-toting combatant you care to think of to cope with. Too heavy is too heavy period. If a sword of certain size ends up too heavy using certain materials (although I'm not terribly convinced adding carbon to iron particularly lightens it in the first place, and all-iron and steel swords of the same general design AFAIK kind of tend to have similar amounts of material...) then you make a smaller sword of a sensible and manageable weight.

Now, some specialized mace designs (the Caliphate-era Arab 'amud and some Byzantine and Persian types come to mind) could be impressively heavy indeed, requiring lots of strenght and skill to use and in spite of their cumbersomeness having a habit of pulverizing just about anything they hit (there's an account of a missed 'amud swing that hit the foe's saddle cantle flatly knocking both the man and the saddle off the horse...) - but those are maces. Swords have a bit different overall operating logic, and making them very heavy was never a particularly effective move.

There's also the little detail that it's actually somewhat difficult to put all that much metal into an about meter-long blade without making it too thick to effectively cut with, and then also the heavier the sword the more difficult it is to put real speed into the swing...

This addresses more or less the same issue in detail. Personally I kind of suspect the laws of physics involved were quite the same for the ancient Celts and whoever, but maybe that's just me.

---

Tone it down! Get off the offensive, okay. You don't need to jump down my throat. I already said that I broadly agree with you, I find it very hard to believe it weighed 12 pounds, maybe half that. However the sword he describes is an overhand hacking weapon with no point designed to deliver one type of downward strike and they were quite heavy.

Iron is different in different places and steel is noticably lighter than iron. Depending on the impurities and success of the smelting process the weight can vary.

I suspect that, in fact if its the weapon I'm thinking of I'm almost sure, it was very blade heavy and Oldgamer could have misjudged the weight.

As to your other point about pila, have you considered passing them to the rear rank?

I was always under the impression iron was normally subjected to all kinds of hammering, tempering and other sheningangs for the express purpose of molding it into serviceable and effective weapons. Cast iron kind of sucks for such purposes, I understand.

And 6 pounds would be seriously heavy even for a hand-and-half longsword, I'll tell you that much.

Anyway, having the rear ranks of the unit hold the pila would probably have been an option but didn't those guys usually throw theirs too ? The whole point of the things was to distrupt the enemy formation before contact after all...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

I was always under the impression iron was normally subjected to all kinds of hammering, tempering and other sheningangs for the express purpose of molding it into serviceable and effective weapons. Cast iron kind of sucks for such purposes, I understand.

And 6 pounds would be seriously heavy even for a hand-and-half longsword, I'll tell you that much.

Anyway, having the rear ranks of the unit hold the pila would probably have been an option but didn't those guys usually throw theirs too ? The whole point of the things was to distrupt the enemy formation before contact after all...

---

You can hammer and fold iron as much as you want, if it wasn't properly smelted its still full of impurities. The point of folding, hammering and pattern welding is to spread the impurities around as much as possible so that no part of the blade is different in composition to any other, as a blade will break at its weakest point.

Tempering and quenching only really effect the nature of the surface of the blade. Its all very complicated and I don't pretend to fully understand it but as the old ssaying goes,

"You can't make a silk purse from a pig's ear."

I quite like the idea that it could have been a weapon for a Celtic god, it seems reasonable but I don't know what evidence there is for it.

What I've read on the subject of Celtic swords suggests that some of them, by no means all, really were only good for one blow before they had to be straitend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

You have the wrong topic but I'll answer anyway.

Polybius explicitely tells us that the pre-Marian Legionaries had painted purple and black crests. It all repends on whether they had a good red dye, I would say they probably did.

---

Yeah, sorry about that Wigferth! My daughter was calling for her "Mickey Mouse" DVD. When I got back to the computer I'd forgotten that I'd switched to another thread!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

What I've read on the subject of Celtic swords suggests that some of them, by no means all, really were only good for one blow before they had to be straitend.

---

There's no proof to that assertation anyway; it's very likely an exaggeration, or perhaps a misunderstanding (some Celts like the Scordisci used curved swords). A sword that had to be rebent after every swing would be a death sentence, so it must be an exaggeration at best.

Also, Celtic swords were never remotely near 12 or 6 pounds. They averaged in weight between 2 - 3 pounds depending on the make and region (and period, Hallstatt longswords were heavier on average but carried more decoration as they were more often for a chief or other noble, so would have a gilt hilt, or inlay, or heavy enameling or what have you). A Celtic longsword, for one thing, isn't even that 'long', they're generally just shy of a meter in length. And the points already been raised, the weights purported here are maddeningly out of proportion to what a real sword would be built around. There were heavy votive objects though, or votive helmets or shields that were not used for battle, but were temple, decorative, or parade items (like the Battersea shield; while the general design was probably an actually shield for war, the weight of the shield with the full decorated face plate would have made it too unwieldy). Celts were big on visual status and had many things that imitated a weapon or piece of armor in appearance, but would in reality be utter junk in a fight (though they did sometimes wear elaborate helmets in battle). A good example would chariots covered in silver decoration. Completely useless for a fight, would be so heavy and slow. But, it looked good, and made the owner look impressive. It was about pomp. A real Celtic sword for battle would not be that heavy.

It didn't need to be. The idea wasn't to smash; one could get a cudgel for that. It was a cutting weapon. It had an edge on it. It was probably not razor sharp (but in truth, that isn't necessarily always a good thing anyway), but it was made to cut. You could slit some one's throat with it at the least, and you could cut off heads (a big Celtic past time). You don't need a lot of weight to smash something anyway. 1.5 - 3 pound swords were good enough in the dark and middle ages to crush men's ribcages through mail armor without breaking the skin or doing substantial damage to the armor; most wounds people died of during the middle ages were internal, caused by broken bones that cause internal bleeding, or they were from bleeding to death from wounds outside the body. A big heavy sword wasn't necessary to overcome armor. Do you really think mail would have remained in much use if a Celt, with a sword weighing four times that, could take one swing and utterly obliterate the man wearing it? It's madness. The armor would be worthless. Ever against lighter weapons, mail and the like was not a gaurantee (not remotely) that being struck wasn't going to hurt or kill you. I mean, you didn't put it on to get hit, you put it on in case you were hit, to give yourself a chance of survival. Against a huge, heavy 'sword', it'd be totally worthless, and Celts wouldn't have been so keen on mail (seeing as they were so prone to fighting with eachother; mail wouldn't have been the big possession for a warrior to attain if it didn't offer him actual protection in a melee). Nevermind the already mentioned arguments about the weight tiring a man out far too easily and the like. It just doesn't bare to reason or scrutiny. Any weapon that heavy would have to be for some ceremonial purpose. Not trying to sound aggressive or anything, just, trying to inject a broader logic. Don't just examine the weapon itself, consider what it had to fight.

And not all later Celtic swords had rounded tips. It depended on the region and the purpose of the sword. Plenty of later Celtic swords still had pointed tips

- Not actually Ranika; his cousin; I need to get a damn name on here, I know

And when it comes down to it Celtic warriors didn't normally have to fight all that much mail or other armour in the first place - it was damned expensive and as such largely restricted to nobility and elite troops, and as the Celts were also pretty keen on spears (who wasn't ?) which, as dedicated thrusting weapons, were pretty good against mail...

The Romans with their nasty short stabbing swords and mass-produced standard-issue armour were of course an entirely different story, but then by the comparatively late time they started rolling over the Celts for real they'd already developed the most badass military around anyway.

Even then, 'rolling over Celts' is an exaggeration. Gaul had utterly collapsed, the Aedui Confederacy split, the Sequani had taken control over the Arverni Alliance, and pissed off their clients, a good chunk of Gaul defaulted to being under Germanic or Roman control (they had no other authority due to these problems), and it still took 10 years to finish the conquest of Gaul (even with quite a few Gallic allies). The big factor in Gaul was a lack of armies at the end. Due to the collapse, troops could not be levied at all anymore, and it wouldn't have mattered anyway; the surviving professional soldiers were almost invariably Roman allies, and the rest, well, they hadn't survived the wars. They were dead from fighting already. It is more complex than Celts being 'rolled over'. And do note, the same Romans did not do so to the Britons, who were arguably less advanced than the Gauls (and had themselves quite a few supply problems).

Also, about armor, that's not necessarily true. Later Gallic warriors had quite a bit of armor (but by that time, around 120 BC, the tribal conflicts of Gaul had died down and it was on track toward reunification, hinging on a victory by either the Aedui or Sequani {Arverni} taking total control of Gaul; the smaller tribes and confederations had submitted by that point, and the armies had been relying on mostly professional or semi-professional soldiers for some time, with warbands only forming the levies). Celts actually had armor in a fair amount by 200 BC at latest, though it was likely more padding and leather than anything at the time (though mail proliferated steadily in Gaul more widely until it was fairly easily available by 100 BC, though still expensive, but there'd been changes in the military structure that meant that men didn't always have to buy or earn their armor; their lord might just want more armored soldiers). However, they were not unfamiliar with many types of armor, and they actually, on the continent, were fielding fairly well armored soldiers before the end. The problem came from, as mentioned, having few actual soldiers left. Vercingetorix's force largely consisted of completely untrained, inexperienced Gallic free men, who were not warriors (and he still managed to win Gergovia with them, though Caesar also totally knobbed that job up). Southern Britons were effectively Gauls culturally in many ways, but they had less armor, and they still gave Caesar quite a few headaches (although he also got kind of screwed there when his cavalry couldn't land).

The later invasion of Britain actually followed a kind of similar set up. Some nobles wanted to ally with the Romans, others didn't, the anti-Romans ultimately won that argument, and arrested, executed, or banished the pro-Romans, including Cunobelin (the former king)'s son Amminius (though he had two brothers, including Caratacus), who was a friend of many Romans, and Verica, also a friend of Romans, who prompted invasion, when they had successfully landed, took control of their estates and their private armies again, and used them to help conquer Britain. Though, they were helped by the emperor of Rome at the time being a bit of a lame duck and needing a conquest to make him look more powerful. However, it wasn't 'rolling over' by any means. For one, much of Britain was very slow to conquer even with superior numbers on the Roman side. Particularly, Brigantia. Brigantia is actually kind of a soap opera in a way. It was a subjected kingdom, or an ally, of Cunobelin's Catuvellaunian kingdom, which effectively dominated most of Britain at the time. Caratacus, by this point the 'king in exile' of southern Britain, fled from Cambria (Wales) to Brigantia, to seek help from Queen Cartimandua. Cartimandua turned him over to the Romans though in exchange for favor (though Caratacus didn't die like most barbarian kings in Roman hands, but that's a different story, though interesting). Her husband, Venutius, was not at all pleased with this. The two seperate, Venutius returns to his estates in the south of Caledonia.

Turns out, Cartimandua had been sleeping with Venutius's armor bearer. Venutius launches a rebellion with the soldiers under his command among the Carveti (and actually had good public support; it was a huge deal that she had commited adultery). It's defeated, Venutius returns home again, Cartimandua and Venutius are then divorced. Cartimandua, insultingly, takes another husband. The armor bearer, Vellocatus. Huge public outcry. Venutius, insulted greatly, takes his army again south. Roman problems elsewhere prevented a proper response, all they could do is send some auxilia, who only narrowly saved Cartimandua from likely being executed. Venutius reigned in Brigantia then until his death, indepedent of Roman rule. It's a fun story. If it were done realistically, it might even make an interesting piece of film. You've got the whole nine there. Jilted romance, lots of violence, power politics, that whole spiel. Anyway, Venutius was apparently a pretty powerful man, because he kept an indepedent kingdom out of Roman hands, despite that he probably shouldn't have been able to have managed it. It's pretty impressive, though overshadowed by the submission of the Brigantes only shortly after his death, as the subsequent king wasn't nearly up to snuff. Mind though, as well, Venutius's main complaint wasn't with the Romans, but with Cartimandua, so there wasn't a big need to fight Romans all the time (though there was a bit of it recorded).

Something I've been meaning to ask for a while, any good books to recommend on the subject of Gaul? I really would want to learn more about their culture, technology, town/city layouts, and a more detailed history. Most books that involve Gaul that I've read tend to skim this whole civil war business and focus on the Romans, but I'd like to know more about how the Aedui and Arverni ended up at each other's throats, and a good account of the history from that point onwards.

Also, if possible, such a book would contain recent(ish) archeological evidence of their technology. What I've got now is rather dated in that regard.

Ranika, as I said before, I'm not an expert on Celtic weaponry, as such I was willing to consider I might be wrong and Oldgamer right.

Thankyou for confirming my own opinion.

As to armour, the Gauls are credited with inventing mail and based on what I know of later Saxon armies I would have thought mail and scale would have been fairly prolific.

Did the Gauls pass down weapons and armour or bury them?

It would appear as though there armour and weapons would have been buried with them.
http://www.applewarrior.com/celticwe...ne/warfare.htm
it is mentioned only slightly here, very slightly(very very)