Why longswords have 0.225 lethality?

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Wait.... Isnt that what the general advisor tells you in Vanilla? ^^

Hmmm..., it is very likely very similar to the EB description..yes. Deliberately so. Irony seems wasted sometimes, doesn't it? The main point being (and, that I have to point this out is rather disturbing...) that taking one statistic out of many, without any consideration of the other stats, rather misses the point. Clearly the Celtic hordes don't overpower the other factions..., so I don't really see what the problem is...

Anyway, many longswords (esspecialy the celtic ones) found from EBs timeframe were of a poor qualitiy

Isn't that (poor quality) a relative term? Poor quality compatred to what?

Ok, for those of you whom presume that I base my assertions on bias and my own private theories, here is evidence that I base mine, since I myself am not an expert in the field, on those that are experts:

-Wikipedia



The effectiveness, and hence the lethality, of a sword is not in its physical measurements, but rather in its manufacturing process - its metallurgy. We hear it stressed all the time when we see the documentaries on the Samurai sword. The fact is the Gaul's, by their relative scientific ineptitude, were unable to forge durable swords or equipment, even amongst their elites. Their only real chance at durable armor and weapons were by, as stated by Ludens, the plundering of enemy material. That is why the most fearsome of barbarians were always those with a long winning streak, allowing them to develop large caches of distinct, high-quality weapons that they themselves used as they progressed. Those of the barbarians who remained stagnate were doomed by the inferior quality of their domestic equipment.

Such is the fact of the barbarians in history, their inferiority only non-existent in the multitudes they represented. But, unfortunately, as some have said, it appears that the engine that drives EB is simply unmatched for the task of representing them accurately...

Have you actually taken in what Pleiner says, in the text that you have quoted? he says, firstly, that; " only one third could be described as conforming to the quality which he ascribed generally to Celtic swords. Even so, it is quite possible that even some of the better quality swords would have failed in battle."....ok, so, what does that mean? Well; "Nevertheless he argues that the classical sources are exaggerated. Plutarch's claim that Celtic swords would bend completely back is implausible, as only a slight bending would be likely"....ahhh..., so actually, none of the swords could be described as conforming to the quality he ascribed generally to Celtic swords. About a third of them might have suffered a slight bending..., so quite what "failed" in battle outside of that slight bending might suggest....who knows? Doesn't actually say much, does it? Other than that Plutarch was talking out of his backside.

As for the rest of your post..., the drivel about the technologically undeveloped barbarians (can't really believe you actually use the term seriously...), take a look at Power2the1's post. Puts some perspective on that little fairytale....