Celtic Two-Handers

[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

[cmacq]

This may have been covered...

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

[keravnos]

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

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

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

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

[Reverend Joe]

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

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

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

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

[blitzkrieg80]

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

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

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

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

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

[The Persian Cataphract]

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

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

[Ibrahim]

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

[keravnos]

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

Absolutely so.

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

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

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

Case in point,
From western India, Saanchi stupah approx. about 150 BCE comes this frieze, said to depict an IndoGreek King, possibly Menandros,

and


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