Why longswords have 0.225 lethality?

[SlickNicaG69]

Haha, Athanaric, I don't try to troll anybody. You can disagree, if you want, but you can't refute me without credentials.

And don't compare me with 16th century biases. I have given the barbarians much more credit than any of them ever have.

[Randal]

Your source says many Gallic swords were of poor quality. This undoubtedly is true, given that many would have been the property of poor warriors unable to afford better.

You gave no evidence Roman metallurgy in the third century BC was any more advanced than Celtic metallurgy.

As far as I am aware, it was not.

[SlickNicaG69]

Your source says many Gallic swords were of poor quality. This undoubtedly is true, given that many would have been the property of poor warriors unable to afford better.

You gave no evidence Roman metallurgy in the third century BC was any more advanced than Celtic metallurgy.

As far as I am aware, it was not.

Which is why they are rightly represented as Camillan Era units in the game. However, what difference do they have, in the game, despite their advanced weaponry and composition, besides the numerical advantage of the professional army, when they did advance such basic methods? In fact, the only advantage seems to be the numerical advantage of post-marian than any change in equipment. Much to bland and simple for what I've come to expect.

[Power2the1]

Study of the Metallography of Some Roman Swords
Author(s): Janet Lang

ii) Celtic Swords
The average length of the Celtic La Tene III blades examined in a recent study by the
author was 620 mm, although they could be much longer, like the Orton Meadows sword,
855 mm in length.14 Interestingly, the typical earlier La Tene I sword was shorter, (about
535 mm), tapering in the final third to a sharp point (eg. the two La Tene I swords from
Orton Meadows, or the recently excavated swords from Wetwang in Yorkshire). The Celtic
equipment seems to have gone through a similar change in style to the Roman, but at an
earlier date, at the end of the La T&ne I period; perhaps it marked the transition to combat
on horseback from fighting on foot when chariots were used to enter the battle.
A number of metallographic examinations have been carried out on Iron Age swords,
most extensively by Pleiner. The results show that the blades were variable in quality, some
being effective weapons, while others might easily have behaved in the ways that the
Romans described. About 40% of the swords studied by Pleiner were made of wrought iron
(up to 0-25%C), their hardness (HV) varied between 54o and 130 HV. A selection of
swords from the British Museum's collection showed a variation in cutting edge hardness
from 200 to 450 HV and there was a general technical improvement from La Tene I to III.

iii) Technical studies of Roman swords in the literature
The technical literature provided few examples of metallographic studies of Roman swords.
Williams15 examined a gladius of the first to second century from the Rheinisches
Landesmuseum, Bonn; this had a carburised blade with the carbon content increasing from
o-3% at the centre to about o-7% near the edge. The surface hardness was about 240 HV,
and apparently there had been no attempt to harden it by heat treatment. Gilmour'6 has
examined a sword, possibly of the second century A.D., from Whittlesey, now in Peterborough
Museum. This was a spatha and a section from the blade showed a well diffused
structure of ferrite and pearlite with a higher carbon zone running from the central rib
(o*25%C) to the cutting edge (o-3%C). At the surfaces the carbon content was only o- %C.
It was clear from the distribution of the slag inclusions that the blade had been made by
sandwiching a higher carbon strip between two lower carbon ones. The hardness was not
high, values of 150 to 200 HV were measured midway between the cutting edge and the
central rib area, although the cutting edge itself does not seem to have been tested. These
two metallographic studies do not show any marked superiority of the Roman blades over
the Celtic ones. More generally, Tylecote'7 found that the technical level of smithing in the
Roman period was low and that quench hardening was not widely practiced, but most of his
examples can be dated to the late first century and later. Both the published swords are also
from later contexts than the period in which the actions described by the classical writers
took place. The Whittlesey sword was a spatha, and although the Bonn sword is described
as a gladius and has a long tapering tip, the blade is extremely long (770 mm), far exceeding
any of Hazell's examples.' Neither of these swords are really comparable with the Roman
weapons which the classical writers contrasted so favourably with the Gallic swords.
In fact, the number of surviving Roman gladii is small, in comparison with the relatively
large number of Iron Age swords.

____________________


The Iron Age North of The Alps Author(s): Ralph M. Rowlett

Speaking of La Tene sword smiths:

...for while the smiths could
produce now an amazingly pure iron
for tools and weapons by eliminating
the carbon from the forge, they unwittingly
abandoned the means by
which they had been producing steel.
The more southerly parts of the territory
occupied by La Tene Culture were
lost to the Romans. During the La
Tene II phase (200-100 B.C.) weapons
and other artifacts become very
large (Fig. 4, upper left), and the
major tactic seems to have shifted from
thrusting to cutting, as shields now
more consistently bear metal reinforcement
for resisting the hewing attack,
while helmets become more streamlined
and lack the numerous protrusions
of earlier models which could
easily be engaged by swinging swords.


Not saying this is the end all of the sword debate here, but I hope this helps

[seienchin]

In fact, the number of surviving Roman gladii is small, in comparison with the relatively
large number of Iron Age swords.

This says it all. Your "scientific" proof is not so scientific after all
Many cultures like the celts had the ritual of burying people with their swords. The romans didnt. So no wonder, why there are less gladii than Iron age swords...

Anyway, its still a matter of believe. I for myself chose the common pro roman historical view. (After all, they beat all their enemies, they others didnt), but I also acknowledge the possibility that I might be wrong.
Anyway never forget that history is a market You can make money by writing new things, points of views etc. and esspecially the celtic market is booming so I guess I wait some 20 years until I read historic books about the celts again.


@athanaric
Why are you banging your head against the wall, because of the katana statement? Its true
The art of manufacturing is the single most important factor of a good sword. Japanese iron has a really poor quality, which made the complex crafting methods necessary but in the end even with the poor japanese iron the swords were incredible.

[athanaric]

@athanaric
Why are you banging your head against the wall, because of the katana statement? Its true
The art of manufacturing is the single most important factor of a good sword. Japanese iron has a really poor quality, which made the complex crafting methods necessary but in the end even with the poor japanese iron the swords were incredible.

And they can cut through tanks! I saw it!

[/irony]
I know about Katanas. However, there's a universal law that applies to Japanese blades as well as to Celtic ones: for a really good sword, you have to pay quite a bit. Otherwise, you'll get a cheap version that isn't all that great.