Celtic Two-Handers

[Teleklos Archelaou]

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

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

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

[lobf]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[keravnos]

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

[Celtic_Punk]

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

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

[abou]

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

[russia almighty]

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

[Power2the1]

@lobf:

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



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

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

[Ibrahim]

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

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

[lobf]

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

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

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

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

@lobf:

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

{image snip}

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

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

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

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

[keravnos]

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



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



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

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

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

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

[Taliferno]

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

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

[HFox]

If you look at the top row

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

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

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

...or maybe hand and a half possibilities.

Does the blade 'need' to be longer?

[Reverend Joe]

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

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

Edit 2:



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

[lobf]

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

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

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

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

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

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

EDIT: Good points, Rev. Joe.

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

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

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

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

[mcantu]

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

[Theodotos I]

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

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

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

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

[Tancredii]

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

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