Longsword vs Shortsword(with scutum maybe)

Googling casually on Celt-Rome conflicts, I came across numerous articles(Webpages) stating "Celtic longswords are inferior to Roman gladius&scutum combo in close hand-to hand fighting so Romans gained an edge on the battlefield."

Then I remember that I saw some hellenic phalanx units in EB like Celto-hellenics or Hypaspists chose longsword as their sidearm although they usually fight in denser formations than Roman legionaries do.

I am under the impression that people are mostly rational in what they choose so I speculate there will be some logical reason beyond the preference but can't catch it.

Maybe "Heroic" culture of Celts required warriors to carry longswords which are supposedly better than other weapon types in 1-1 duels. But Greeks certainly did not dueled THAT much and still, some of them chose longswords over shortswords and Kopis. If longswords are so much inferior to shorswords in close combat then why use them? Esp. luxurious Royal Shield Bearers who could afford almost anything on the market? (albeit under the phalanx formation restrictions)

Somebody please Enlighten me :help:

And please refrain from arguments like "Celts are so dumb and Greek geeks are just irrational enough to follow after them." :dizzy2:

-Comp

Saw some History Channel program where they used the wepons of yore and they showed that what made the Gladius Hispaniensis so effective was its use together with the scutum allowing the bearer to get real close to the enimy, close enught to used the short Gladius sword... The long sword is not better nor worse, it is a question of tactcal adaptation of wepons, shields and armours...

yeah, im sure with a big huge shield you could easily block the first blow and move in and get in so close he cant use his sword too well, raise your shield up and stab him in the gut.

Then is it just that Celts/Greeks were just not aware of Roman shorsword&shield trick? Were they just immersed with some sort of "Longsword Bias"? (Sounds like I am the one who's biased here though)
Sorry, I just don't get the reason beyond preference for longsword.

Lomg swords were effective too, do not think that Rome won all battles and certainly do not think that Celtic gear was not efficient, as far as I believe, the question here is that Romans chosed the best gear for their close quarters, close combat and celtics choose their best gear fo their tatics too try to imagine that you have an scutum and some two meters tall, heavy muscled Gaul is attacking your shield with a long sword and all its weight... you can see that the Gladius Scutum combination may have had a hard time blocking, avoiding and counter attacking this... still, victories were not only Romans and can not be credited only to combat gears

Think your missing the key point here. Romans were by and large money scrunging beaurocrats. Longswords were far expensive then any shortsword and took alot longer to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Companion

If longswords are so much inferior to shorswords in close combat then why use them? Esp. luxurious Royal Shield Bearers who could afford almost anything on the market? (albeit under the phalanx formation restrictions)

---

You hit on the exact reason here. Longswords are more expensive, thus the royal guards could afford them. It's not as though longswords couldnt thrust as easily as a shortsword could....

The reason the shortsword and scutum worked was that they were cost effective. Cost effective enough that if one legion was defeated, you could easily raise another with more shortswords and scutums. Personally I think the scutum is far more effective then the gladius hispanius ever was. Big, plywood shield, encases in leather and the edges protected by bronze.

AFAIK longswords require a bit of momentum to strike someone properly. The gladius could be used after a shield block and a step forward to poke you in the belly (or wherever) really quickly, which is why it is superior in a close fight.

The Celtic long sword (or any longsword for that matter) is NOT to be used like a gladius. :no: A gladius is to get REAL close (or let the enemy get real close) and stab/hack. A longsword is to hack and also stab BUT at a longer distance.
BTW since I made my celtic shield I noticed that it was EXTREMELY easy to use a "long sword+long-slender-shield" combo common in Celtic units. I can keep my shield in place while I hack, stab, lundge, run, whatever. :2thumbsup:

The problem was with the Celts Ceasar & other Imperial Romans encoutered were mostly rookies and who got REAL close to the legions, so close that they can't wield their swords properly and get stabbed. :skull:

Oh and don't forget by 400BC the roman legions used the Hasta (a longsword) as their main infantry weapon. BUT they no longer fought like the legions of Ceasar, Titus, etc.

So in conclusion:

BOTH weapons are effective its just a matter of knowing how to use it.
-Gadius get close, REAL close.
-Longsword, don't get too close.

btw.. any longsword carries more momentum in a hack so it can crack ur head under your helmet. (A flax, or an axe is even more powerful)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobf

AFAIK longswords require a bit of momentum to strike someone properly. The gladius could be used after a shield block and a step forward to poke you in the belly (or wherever) really quickly, which is why it is superior in a close fight.

---

Longswords can easily be used for stabbing as well, but in very close quarters this of course becomes more difficult than for the shorter gladius.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

The reason the shortsword and scutum worked was that they were cost effective. Cost effective enough that if one legion was defeated, you could easily raise another with more shortswords and scutums. Personally I think the scutum is far more effective then the gladius hispanius ever was. Big, plywood shield, encases in leather and the edges protected by bronze.

---

...Sounds convincing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoSpartan

The problem was with the Celts Ceasar & other Imperial Romans encoutered were mostly rookies and who got REAL close to the legions, so close that they can't wield their swords properly and get stabbed. :skull:

Oh and don't forget by 400BC the roman legions used the Hasta (a longsword) as their main infantry weapon. BUT they no longer fought like the legions of Ceasar, Titus, etc.

---

Gauls at Telamon are not fresh greens I believe... Superiority of Roman arms at Telamon is maybe another one of those Roman boasts I guess...

BTW, out of topic though, wasn't hasta a Roman name for spear and spatha a name for Roman cavalry longsword?

Well we know that in the late roman empire, when things were looking bad and the legions were in a sorry state having to deal with numerous invasions and having too few romans willing to serve, that the spatha saw widespread apoption over the gladius hispanis. I read somewhere that the multifaceted reasons included a breakdown in discipline, formations, and tactics on the battlefield as well as the inclusion of more and more germans in the legions who would of course bring their culture battlefield tactics. This is further seen by the adoption of lighter, oval shaped shields than the former scutum. I believe these would offer better mobility and better compliment a longer sword than the full scutum. Obviously, in order to swing a long sword you would need a good amount of space between you and your fellow soldiers, and when chaos insued on the battlefield and you were pretty well on your own it would be your best friend. But the gladius hispanis allowed the legion to fight in a coehisive unit, due to its short size which was none the less deadly for the short but lethal stabs it would produce, though I would imagine this would require more training. Well, I've said too much, I'm no historian and I don't consider myself informed on this topic, no doubt some EB historian will come along and dismantle everthing I've said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Companion

...Sounds convincing.



Gauls at Telamon are not fresh greens I believe... Superiority of Roman arms at Telamon is maybe another one of those Roman boasts I guess...

BTW, out of topic though, wasn't hasta a Roman name for spear and spatha a name for Roman cavalry longsword?

---

I said CEASER AND IMPERIAL ROMANS!

Telamon was during the Republic..... and they outnumbered and hit the Gauls from the front & back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stupac

Well we know that in the late roman empire, when things were looking bad and the legions were in a sorry state having to deal with numerous invasions and having too few romans willing to serve, that the spatha saw widespread apoption over the gladius hispanis. I read somewhere that the multifaceted reasons included a breakdown in discipline, formations, and tactics on the battlefield as well as the inclusion of more and more germans in the legions who would of course bring their culture battlefield tactics. This is further seen by the adoption of lighter, oval shaped shields than the former scutum. I believe these would offer better mobility and better compliment a longer sword than the full scutum. Obviously, in order to swing a long sword you would need a good amount of space between you and your fellow soldiers, and when chaos insued on the battlefield and you were pretty well on your own it would be your best friend. But the gladius hispanis allowed the legion to fight in a coehisive unit, due to its short size which was none the less deadly for the short but lethal stabs it would produce, though I would imagine this would require more training. Well, I've said too much, I'm no historian and I don't consider myself informed on this topic, no doubt some EB historian will come along and dismantle everthing I've said.

---

you are not 100% wrong...

...just don't make the mistake a lot of people (including me made) that the legions of 100-200 AD were "better" because of their equipment than the legions of 400-500 AD.

They were badass too. :yes:

Correct me if i'm wrong, the legions of the 3rd and 4th centuries were not as effective as they were in the 1st and 2nd centruies because of constantly reoccuring civil wars, not neccessarily because of the quality of the soldier and their equipment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoSpartan

...just don't make the mistake a lot of people (including me made) that the legions of 100-200 AD were "better" because of their equipment than the legions of 400-500 AD.

They were badass too. :yes:

---

You mean their foes were much better than in 100-200ad ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stupac

Well we know that in the late roman empire, when things were looking bad and the legions were in a sorry state having to deal with numerous invasions and having too few romans willing to serve,

---

This is not true, the legions were not in a sorry state at all. some necessary changes to the static grouping of the army and it's different branches had been made since the time of the Antonines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stupac

that the spatha saw widespread apoption over the gladius hispanis. I read somewhere that the multifaceted reasons included a breakdown in discipline, formations, and tactics on the battlefield as well as the inclusion of more and more germans in the legions who would of course bring their culture battlefield tactics.

---

It is true that the Spatha became the main weapon but:

this process already started during the antonine era (2nd century) with the introduction of the ring pommel swords and the semi-spathae instead of the gladius...so at a time when we are at the hight of "fanboy-segmentata -wearing-disciplined legions"... Same goes for the more frequent use of spears and other weapons instead of pila and more and more oval shields.

Tactics had changed and the troops equipped to fullfill more different roles. the infantry spatha is a bit longer but can be used like a gladius or more like a longsword in situations like smaller skrimishes or such things.

the Germanics have nothing to do with it. Germanic customs concerning swords were mostly influenced by the Romans not the other way round.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stupac

This is further seen by the adoption of lighter, oval shaped shields than the former scutum. I believe these would offer better mobility and better compliment a longer sword than the full scutum.

---

that's true

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stupac

Obviously, in order to swing a long sword you would need a good amount of space between you and your fellow soldiers, and when chaos insued on the battlefield and you were pretty well on your own it would be your best friend. But the gladius hispanis allowed the legion to fight in a coehisive unit, due to its short size which was none the less deadly for the short but lethal stabs it would produce, though I would imagine this would require more training.

---

the republican hispaniensis like the Delos type have a lenght between 620 and 760mm, for example some 3rd century CE types vary from 557 to 800mm. not that big a difference if you ask me.

Many (majorty?) celtic longswords are completely unsuitable for stabbing due to rounded tip.

Roman scuttum+gladius combination allowed forming sth like phalanx with the line of closely packed shields. the result was that each solider was very well protected and can reach his enemy almost without exposing himself to attack. You can also slash with gladius - Livy mention even cut off limbs as the wounds romans inflicted on macedonians in early stages of II macedonian war.

On the other hand, if you use slashing longsword you need more free space to allow blade get momentum. Without momentum (for ex if gaul champions penetrated roman line and were swarmed by legionares) the longsword loses almost all its merit.

So in single combat I'd place my bet on celt but in formation with experience equal I'd choose romans

The key is to represent formation vs formation fight. It more seems that represented 1man vs 1man duel..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'ETAIPOS

So in single combat I'd place my bet on celt but in formation with experience equal I'd choose romans

---

Yay! It took a lot of reading, but eventually someone came up with the obvious answer. To the Celts generally the ethos was biased very much towards single combat. Rome's focus was on disciplined manipular tactics. Two very different weapons suited to two very different styles of warfare. Neither weapon is "better", both are suited to their purpose.

For the Celtic tribes a battle could be decided by a single one-on-one fight. The Romans didn't have the same honour system, and I can't remember which battle in particular but one "famous" Roman victory over the Gauls really boiled down to many of the Gauls seeing - "Oh, look our champion just killed their champion. We've won, let's go home and get pissed". Of course the Romans thought no such thing ~D There was a command sent out to Roman officers to desist from single combats - because they nearly always lost (and anyway what's the point if you don't accept the result as binding in the same way the Celts did?) All of which points to longsword for single combat, gladius (itself a celtic word/weapon btw) for manipular tactics.

Quote:

---

because they nearly always lost

---

bull shit. never heard about Roman (not remember exactly) , that killed gallic chiftain in head-to-head?

Yes - that's WHY you heard about him - he was by far the exception!

There were not a few Roman aristocrats in the republic who were honored with coronae because they killed foes in single combat. Victory in single combat is often more a question of individual skill and luck and not of the type of weapons used.

That aside, consider that more or less no weapon is superior to another in an abstract way. The circumstances and the tactics is what counts. The legions of the republic and the early principate were made to fight pitched decisive battles. By coincidence (fight against the Oscan people led to the fighting techniques) the preferred style of fight was with scutum and sword. The tactics were made for it. The tactics and the weapons were fit for the demands of the time - the fight against well organized armies of civilized states or barbarians in big battles. No need to change to longer swords.

Later in the principate and in the dominate the foes were more or less unstructered barbarian small armies, quite more often however small bands on raids. The fight against and the interception of raids was the biggest task for the later Roman army. Big battles were rare (except in civil wars). Individual fighting in small groups was the rule, not the exception. A longer sword offered more possibilities in this kind of fighting although the gladius would have done the job too.

In the east the situation was not that different. The Parthians and Sassanids were never able to threaten the Roman hinterland other than with large scale raids, the fighting was more for the border towns and forts. The kind of warfare against these foes, who used mainly cavalry, saw either no need for close packed anti-infantry infantry forces with heavy shield and short stabbing sword.

yep well said fellas... there was ONE roman comander who did fought a Gallic chieftan (forgot the guys name, forgot the tribes name) and he won. I don't know of any other Roman Officer engaging in single combat to decide the fate of the battle.

BTW, not all gallic swords had a rounded tip, or the same size, or quality, etc... remember there was no set "statandard" for the making of swords among the Celts, there was no "state", so it came down to the tribe's smiths and the soldiers $$, and/or standing with the noble, and/or status in the tribe.

But geala, didn't the Roman republic face lots of unstructured enemies as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoSpartan

yep well said fellas... there was ONE roman comander who did fought a Gallic chieftan (forgot the guys name, forgot the tribes name) and he won. I don't know of any other Roman Officer engaging in single combat to decide the fate of the battle.

BTW, not all gallic swords had a rounded tip, or the same size, or quality, etc... remember there was no set "statandard" for the making of swords among the Celts, there was no "state", so it came down to the tribe's smiths and the soldiers $$, and/or standing with the noble, and/or status in the tribe.

---

Plus a rounded tip doesn't prevent stabbing, as long as there is still a sharpish edge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoSpartan

yep well said fellas... there was ONE roman comander who did fought a Gallic chieftan (forgot the guys name, forgot the tribes name) and he won. I don't know of any other Roman Officer engaging in single combat to decide the fate of the battle.

---

Manlius Torquatus, according to tradition, that's how he got his cognomen.
I seem to remember accounts of later Romans (perhaps an emperor even, I couldn't find anything in a quick search) also achieving fame through single combat against a Gaul. It could even be the result of Livy's cut and paste approach to describing battles (how many times does he have the standard thrown into the enemy lines?), so that several men have been given the reputation of doing something which might never have happened but was just a family story to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoSpartan

yep well said fellas... there was ONE roman comander who did fought a Gallic chieftan (forgot the guys name, forgot the tribes name) and he won.

---

All information given is according to the article entitled "Scars, Spoils, and Splendour" found in the April 2007 issue of the magazine Ancient Warfare..... :book:

Just reread this article the other day. :laugh4:

Here are two famous examples of spolia opima (spoils taken, by a Roman, from a king in single combat) with Gauls:

Titus Manlius Torquatus dueled a Gallic champion/chieftain in 361BC. "His subsequent taking of the Celt's torque gained him his nickname and made the torque one of Rome's decorations for bravery."

Marcus Claudius Marcellus dueled Viridomarus (King of the Gaesati) in 222BC. The consul took the Gauls armor and head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoSpartan

I don't know of any other Roman Officer engaging in single combat to decide the fate of the battle.

---

"The first historic example of the taking of spolia opima...:"

Cornelius Cossus, a military tribune, unhorsed and killed Lars Tolumnius (king of the Veii) in 437BC. Cossus stripped the king of his armor and head. Put the head on his lance and brandished it at the enemy cavalry. The enemy cavalry promptly fled.

EDIT: Maeran beat me to it.

thanks man....

i have that magazine somewhere around my room.... now where the hell is it?:dizzy2:

this stuff just doesn't go on anymore.

the last badass war event i can think if is that guy (i can't recall his name) who got shot like three times, but jumped up and took control of a .50 cal and killed like 60 germans and held off, singlehandedly, his position from being completely overrun.

war needs more one on one general fighting and head-lance mounting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoSpartan

yep well said fellas... there was ONE roman comander who did fought a Gallic chieftan (forgot the guys name, forgot the tribes name) and he won. I don't know of any other Roman Officer engaging in single combat to decide the fate of the battle.

BTW, not all gallic swords had a rounded tip, or the same size, or quality, etc... remember there was no set "statandard" for the making of swords among the Celts, there was no "state", so it came down to the tribe's smiths and the soldiers $$, and/or standing with the noble, and/or status in the tribe.

---

Read Soldiers & Ghosts by J. E. Lendon. He claims that individual combat was what Roman soldiers strived for and he gives pretty good evidence for it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runes

this stuff just doesn't go on anymore.

the last badass war event i can think if is that guy (i can't recall his name) who got shot like three times, but jumped up and took control of a .50 cal and killed like 60 germans and held off, singlehandedly, his position from being completely overrun.

---

Kind of reminds me of the story of Sergeant Alvin York during the first World War.

EDIT: Your thinking about 2nd Lt. Audie Murphy. (http://www.audiemurphy.com/citation.htm) The movie "To Hell and Back" shows this.

You want some more badass war stuff, check out this site: http://www.worldwariihistory.info/Medal-of-Honor/

Neat little site that tells about the men that were awarded the Medal of Honor during World War 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runes

war needs more one on one general fighting and head-lance mounting.

---

LOL!

Individual duels aside...

Assuming that warriors choose what is better for them in battle, (like Romans choosing Gladius)
If shortswords are so convenient in close quarters, then what would be the rationale behind some phalanx soldiers like Hypaspistai (as depicted in EB) using longswords and many Celtic noble formations actually choose to fight in a close-knit formation with spear&longsword rather than spear&shortsword? (actually a weapon of choice for Greek hoplites)

To me, it was rather amazing that the top-notch Celtic warriors would fight together as a sheildwall type cohesive unit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Companion

Individual duels aside...

Assuming that warriors choose what is better for them in battle, (like Romans choosing Gladius)
If shortswords are so convenient in close quarters, then what would be the rationale behind some phalanx soldiers like Hypaspistai (as depicted in EB) using longswords and many Celtic noble formations actually choose to fight in a close-knit formation with spear&longsword rather than spear&shortsword? (actually a weapon of choice for Greek hoplites)

---

Prestige.

A sword wasn't just a tool of war in the modern sense. It was exceedingly expensive and showed your worth as a warrior and your position in a very hierarchial social structure.

rgds/EoE

But then, not all of hoplites of Massilia are prestigious nobles. But they go with longswords anyway.

Quote:

---

Its soldiers have adjusted themselves with some Celtic gear to make them of greater use in a close melee if the phalanx is abandonned. They make use of a superior Celtic longsword in close quarters, able to handle themselves better in such situations compared to others with lesser weapons.

---

This is from EB description of Massilian Hops and I am getting a bit confused.

Its hard to explain but easier to see for youself & test.

A shield like the scutum (Long, rectangular & curved in) makes it hard to wield a longsword properly. The edges of the shild get in the way too much so it limits the use of a long sword.

A round shild, an oval shiled, a long-slender shield, non of which curve in, allow you to use a long sword better since the shield's edges don't really get in the way.

Also notice something, those units that use longsword & fight in tight formation ALSO carry a spear. :yes: Guess for what???? Soldurus, Hypas, etc all carry longsword & spear. So if they need to hold a line, or present a solid defensive wall, or charge in with a solid punch they use the spear, AND once the enemy is tired or disorganized, they breakup the shieldwall and pull out the sword.

The legions of 400AD did the same thing, they carry a hasta longsword, an oval shild, a spear (not a pilum), and some rather nasty darts.

You know, it's not like the Celts were any strangers to big tall shields, spears, short swords or close order fighting - even if their longswordmen generally preferred a more fluid style of open-order combat, probably partly due to mobility and rugged-terrain maneuverability issues. Short swords are much cheaper to make than long ones, and if I've understood correctly were common enough among junior Celtic warriors (who couldn't afford long blades) and militia types as well as backup sidearms. If combining such with a decent-sized shield offered as overwhelming an advantage against a longsword-and-shield man as is sometimes, IMO somewhat tunnel-sightedly, argued, why in the world would the Celtic warrior class that basically made its living and justified its existence through warfare not favoured a spear-shortsword-and-shield combination ? Were it so efficient they would readily enough have observed the matter whenever the longsword-bearing warriors were up against their poorer colleagues with short blades, and drawn the due conclusions - warfare being a somewhat Darwinian affair after all. The cavalry, of course, would still have found long blades useful enough, but if the infantry had had the choice between a cheaper kit that was advantageous relative to the more expensive one it ought to be plenty obvious which one they would have stuck to.

The same goes for close-order, even shieldwall, infantry in other times and places; few of them particularly favoured short swords as sidearms, generally tending to opt for axes, maces and, if finances allowed, mid-lenght to long swords.

The matter may be related to a curious detail I've read of re-enactors having noticed - in the crush of shield-to-shield combat, the actually most intuitive method of getting "elbow room" to swing a long sword or similar relatively large weapon is to go forwards, into the enemy ranks, which is the goal of heavy-infantry clashes in any case. This would seem to fit well enough into the generally rather "proactively" aggressive approach the Celtic warriors seem to have had for combat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

Plus a rounded tip doesn't prevent stabbing, as long as there is still a sharpish edge.

---

True enough, but factually you're only going to inflict superficial injuries that way unless you manage to open a jugular vein or something along those lines. The structural needs of purely cutting swords and cut-and-thrust types are moreover rather different; the cut benefits from a thin, relatively flexible blade that does "drag" in the target matter and "rebounds" deeper into it from the slight flex it develops during the swing; the thrust conversely works best with a stiff, rigid blade (which typically has a raised "spine" or "rib" for the purpose, as many spears do, or is otherwise thicker in the middle - which obviously increases the "drag" during a cut) tapering to a narrow point. The Celts were AFAIK capable enough of making sharp-tipped long sword also useful for thrusting, but quite simply usually preferred ones optimised for shearing cuts; that they didn't have to deal with metal armour all that much likely had rather a lot to do with it.

Remember people, not all Celts had shields since they were a very mixed bunch, the way i see it is the longer your sword is, the more cumbersome a shield becomes for you. The guys who spent all their time fighting would be very experienced in fighting and would rely more and more on his prowess than a shield, the ones who could afford/use a long sword would weeve in and out through people trying to find their next opponent seeking fame. These would be the ones at the front of the battle line, they would be the first in the charge and the ones others would try and emulate and this is great for inter-tribal warfare which would consist of one on one fights. The younger warriors would have a shield and a spear and nothing else and anyone inbetween would have whatever they could find/afford or whatever suited them, the richer may have chainmail and helmets and perhaps more and might have a shield and medium sword


Now we look at the Romans, they have a large shield and short sword and were generally well armoured (depending on the time period obviously) but all in all, on par with a rich celt. They had the scutum which was as much an offensive weapon as it was defensive, it had a large metal boss in the middle which was perfectly suited for smacking someone in the face as well as defending against large sword wielding Celts who are out for glory. They fought, all in all, rather differently, they were taught to fight as part of a machine, to keep formation and keep going without retreat, they would chuck their pila when the enemy was about 15 foot away and then charge in as the enemy lost momentum (the momentum which the Celts really really needed). Since the enemy had lost their momentum, getting hit with a counter charge is hard to counter (especially when disorganised) and as the Romans move in, pushing and punching with their shields the Celts get hemmed in and arne't able to move freely as they normally would, they can't weild their wepaons as well as they would like and at the same time they are being stabbed at from beind these large shields. You can surivive a slash usually but if you get stabbed it is a lot different since the bleeding is not only internal (much harder to stop) but it's probably also punctured an organ or two and that is a problem in any time period, but especially then.


For a good "longsword vs shortsword example, check out the last battle of Boudicca. There is an episode in a series called battlefield Britian or something along the lines and i think the presenter is Peter/Dan Snow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSXVDog-ZOc This is it.


Ignore the religious stuff though.

Uh - I don't think there was any particular trend among Celtic longswordmen towards smaller shields, or any practical necessity for such either; either going by the EB units (which often enough combine a long sword with the tall hexagonal Celtic infantry shield), or by what I know of swordsmanship in other times and places (or the little detail the Massilian hoplites apparently merrily combine Celtic longswords with the big aspis shield, which the Greeks themselves readily admitted being bulky and unwieldy). Medieval warriors for example merrily mated meter-long swords to tall "kite" shields and did perfectly fine far as I know. Heck, the High Medieval pavesari of Northern Italy carried huge "body shields" that rivaled the old Achamenid spara in size and certainly exceeded them in weight (being of solid wooden construction rather than woven wicker), and commonly enough carried long swords as sidearms if their purse allowed...

Moreover, inasmuch I'm aware of the Celtic and Roman techniques of using large shields were similar enough, already due to the great similarities between the shields themselves (and I'll be damned if the Romans didn't originally nick that shield concept from the Cisalpine Gauls in the first place...). Both were carried by a central handgrip proteced by a reinforced boss, and no doubt similarly used to hit and ram the enemy situation allowing; indeed, given the comparatively greater "elbow room" required to wield the heavy Celtic longsword, this would seem like a prime method of creating that space.

Hell, when was the last time you heard of a general fighting at the front?

Hmm, any greek general?

Most "barbarian" generals?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pharnakes

Hmm, any greek general?

Most "barbarian" generals?

---

Quite a few Roman generals in the Republic too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by palmtree

Hell, when was the last time you heard of a general fighting at the front?

---

The greeks loved doing it it seemed. Though, it tended not to end well unless you have some crazy stupid-divine aura of invulnerability ala Alexander the Great.

All three of the main players of the anti-Spartan league that formed after the Spartan conquest of Athens died in the last major battle against the Spartans which led to a peace instead of a victory.

Hannibal was said to have been in the center of his lines to keep his men from routing and coordinate the slow retreat of the center to allow his envelopment of the Romans at Cannae.

Then there were several occasions during the wars of the Sucessors that had kings leading in battle.

Then there was the good old Epierote that lost his head at Argos. And if you're following the history scrolls in EB, you'll see that the Spartan king and your prince both died assaulting cities.

If you want a modern example, Patton was probably the closest. There was that one commander in the Falklands campaign that lead an assault into a prepared Agentine position and was shot to death in the process. If you look at some of the Afghan Mujahadeen leaders, I'm sure you could find a few that did lead from the front.

Of coz roman generals never fought in battle.
"They don't hate romans".. https://img219.imageshack.us/img219/...itivemycx4.gif

disrespect at least...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charge

Of coz roman generals never fought in battle.
"They don't hate romans".. https://img219.imageshack.us/img219/...itivemycx4.gif

disrespect at least...

---

Wait, what? :inquisitive:

My feelings exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

But geala, didn't the Roman republic face lots of unstructured enemies as well?

---

Not so many. The early Rome was surrounded by more or less civilized and well structered states. And Rome was on the offensive (of course only because they had to defend themselves in advance...). The Romans could force their enemies more or less to fight pitched battles to settle the wars. In longer wars with smale scale warfare (e.g. Iberia) the Romans did not excel, to say it modestly.

From the 2nd c. AD onwards the empire was more or less static, Rome was on the defensive. The Roman army up to the beginning of the 5th c. AD was of such an overwhelming might that the enemies (mostly Germanic tribes) could often not dare big battles. Look at the battle of Strasbourg 357 AD: the Romans were about 13000, the Alemanni about 10000-15000, mostly professional war bands, an exception that such a big number came together (35000 from the sources, which is almost impossible to get into accord with the run of the battle). But ridiculously low numbers in a major battle compared with the times of the republic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geala

Not so many. The early Rome was surrounded by more or less civilized and well structered states. And Rome was on the offensive (of course only because they had to defend themselves in advance...). The Romans could force their enemies more or less to fight pitched battles to settle the wars. In longer wars with smale scale warfare (e.g. Iberia) the Romans did not excel, to say it modestly.

From the 2nd c. AD onwards the empire was more or less static, Rome was on the defensive. The Roman army up to the beginning of the 5th c. AD was of such an overwhelming might that the enemies (mostly Germanic tribes) could often not dare big battles. Look at the battle of Strasbourg 357 AD: the Romans were about 13000, the Alemanni about 10000-15000, mostly professional war bands, an exception that such a big number came together (35000 from the sources, which is almost impossible to get into accord with the run of the battle). But ridiculously low numbers in a major battle compared with the times of the republic.

---

Hmm, I would have thought the tribes in southern Italy, and of course the Gauls in northern Italy, counted as unstructured or uncivilised people. Or of course the multitude of Gauls Caesar faced near the end of the republican era.

So i emailed Mike loades about Celtic fighting styles and uses of a shield and he emailed me back something quite intresting so i thought i'd share it here.



"Hello James,

Thanks for your kind comments. Apologies for delay in reply but I am in

america at the monet filming a new series and have been on the road the

past few days.

Now to your very good question. Any answer is, of course, pure
speculation - we just don't have enough written evidence on these
matters. However i would suggest one of two possibilities. The first is

that I believe warriors would be likely to fight in pairs - a right
hand man, a wing man, a buddy system - call it what you will. If you're

going into the thick of a melee it is quite a good idea to have someone

watch your back. They may not win as much personal glory as you but
they can help you do so - their role being primarily defensive, a
larger shield could be an advantage.

The second thought is that one shouldn't necessarily think of a shield
as a purely defensive weapon. It protects against missile attacks
(spears, axes, slingstones, arrows etc) during the crucial approach to
the enemy front line. Once there it can be used offensively to smash
into the line and make your way through. Even in one on one combat, a
skilled warrior can use his shield and sword as an efficient and fluid
combination. However I take your point and it may be that once in the
thick of the melee, a heroic warrior would discard his large shield and

fight ferociously with his two handed sword or, according to personal
choice, favour a smaller trage or buckler type shield. I think the
words 'personal choice' are the key and what suits one man doesn't suit

another. Personally I would go for a smaller shield every time - but
I'd quite like a big guy with a big shield behind my back.

Best Wishes

Mike"


It is a real shame we cannot implement a buddy type unit in EB but we all know about the limitations. I hope you all found it as intresting as myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geala

Not so many. The early Rome was surrounded by more or less civilized and well structered states. And Rome was on the offensive (of course only because they had to defend themselves in advance...). The Romans could force their enemies more or less to fight pitched battles to settle the wars. In longer wars with smale scale warfare (e.g. Iberia) the Romans did not excel, to say it modestly.

From the 2nd c. AD onwards the empire was more or less static, Rome was on the defensive. The Roman army up to the beginning of the 5th c. AD was of such an overwhelming might that the enemies (mostly Germanic tribes) could often not dare big battles. Look at the battle of Strasbourg 357 AD: the Romans were about 13000, the Alemanni about 10000-15000, mostly professional war bands, an exception that such a big number came together (35000 from the sources, which is almost impossible to get into accord with the run of the battle). But ridiculously low numbers in a major battle compared with the times of the republic.

---

Rome did just as well in small scale warfare as it did in large scale warfare, it generally had problems mainly with the fighting style the Iberians used which was to charge forward and attack and then just as quickly to withdraw which looked very much like a retreat. When they did this the Romans thought they had broken and so went after them, when they did this the Iberians re-grouped just as quickly and attacked the disorganised Romans who had broken rank to chase down what they thought was a broken enemy. One writer (can't remember his name) mentions how well trained they must of been to do this when fighting in such a large army.

In the later centuries large scale warfare became less common and smaller skirmish's became the norm and generally the Romans became very adapt at it. The main problem the Romans had in the later centuires wasn't the tribal enemies but internal strife (civil wars) and when this happaned the tribes on the frontiers took advatage of the fact that the numbers had dwindled and raided deep into Roman lands. Indeed the Romans did lose a few pitched battles against Tribal enemies but on the whole it wasn't the fact that they were outclassed but simply poor leadership, especially with the battle with the Alemanni although that isn't to take away from the tribal warbands and their leaders, there were of course times when they out matched and out smarted the Romans but to say it was because the tribal enemies overwhelmed the Romans by themselves is wrong.

If the Romans had kept it together politically a bit more, they most probably would of been able to hold off the tribal raids and might of even added more lands. This is total speculation though but i still believe their downfall was the civil wars and that most of the other problems came from that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Internet

Now to your very good question. Any answer is, of course, pure speculation - we just don't have enough written evidence on these matters. However i would suggest one of two possibilities. The first is that I believe warriors would be likely to fight in pairs - a right hand man, a wing man, a buddy system - call it what you will. If you're going into the thick of a melee it is quite a good idea to have someone watch your back. They may not win as much personal glory as you but they can help you do so - their role being primarily defensive, a
larger shield could be an advantage.

---

That sounds a LOT like two examples I can think of. The first example was in Ming Dynasty China (~1400ADish) when it was constantly raided by Japanese pirates equipped with excellent Japanese weaponry like the katana longsword and wakizashi shortsword. One Chinese general, after many Chinese armies were utterly routed by the Japanese, began a search through China to find ways to defeat the invaders. One of the places he searched included the Shaolin Temple where most arts he found there he believed were now obsolete, save the Shaolin staff. Eventually, he came up with an ingenious idea of creating a squad of men to fight against them. One man held a large, oversized shield, another wielded a spear, another wielded double Chinese broadswords, etc. One interesting invention was the Chinese ringed saber that was meant to counter the Japanese fencing art of kendo that was based on sight and sound by making lots of noise from the rattling of the rings and the bright red silk scarf it had on it. Needless to say, the Chinese armies fared much better after making these reforms.

The other example that comes to mind is the biblical story of Jonathon and his armor bearer from 1 Samuel 14: 4-13. Basically, Jonathon and his armor bearer decide to take a risk and attack the Philistines' position for the glory of God. Apparently, their attack was extremely successful; the two men slew 20! From what I recall, an armor bearer was like a defensive aid to a warrior and acted like a shieldman who had some offensive capability too, but they were most effective when working together. Both examples sound like those Celts! The moral of these stories? Teamwork rocks! :yes: