Why longswords have 0.225 lethality?

[siegfriedfr]

Really can't find a justification about that, longswords in that era werent that much longer than shortswords, and i dont remember the gallic tribes totally wiping out roman armies 1 on 1.

Any insight?

[SlickNicaG69]

Because the EB mod is skewed for Barbarian factions. And since most barbarains have longswords, then it is natural that they made longswords have the .225 lethality.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

I think it just represents that the longswords were quite lethal, usually swung with great power and thus able to shatter shields and cause damage through helmets and armour. Most of the units that use longswords lack armour (defence rating), aren't usually particularly disciplined and - unless their initially lethal attacks break the enemy will pretty rapidly lose morale. So, rather than being "skewed" in favour of the barbarion factions, it is a reasonable interpretation of the era, I think.

[The Celtic Viking]

Had it been anyone else than Slick, I'd have been certain it was sarcasm. I'm just going to take it that way anyway, because otherwise it would just be crazy.

To the OP: I've never seen AI barbarians defeating AI SPQR. In all my games, the SPQR easily expands north, unless I'm there to stop them myself. You can question it if you like, but I can't see how you could make the claim that it makes the barbs overpowered.

[abou]

Wow SlickNica, biased much? Honestly, I don't know why you're even here considering your incessant complaining of the mod. I'm sorry that we try to provide a more balanced insight into the Hellenistic world. But hey, maybe we just don't know what we're talking about and perhaps should just give up.

Siegfriedr, we do actually have a significant difference in length for the swords. In Lang's article "Study of the Metallography of Some Roman Swords" published in Britannia, she states that the Celtic La Tene III blades averaged 620 mm and one example being 855 mm. Much earlier La Tene I blades were about 535 mm and tapered. Compare this to the gladius, which has some big extremes: 367 - 590 mm. However, from tests it has been determined that practical lengths for the Roman infantry would be about 380 - 430 mm. Longer examples than this stated range may have survived, but appear to be over represented due to their use as officer swords or as votive offerings much in the way that overly fancy cavalry helmets seem to be so common as finds in rivers.

So what does this mean? Well, 20+ cm is indeed quite a difference in length as well as weight. Do a little physics using radial acceleration and you get quite a difference in force. And if the sword connects with it's "sweet spot" against a helmet, not only will it have a greater chance of overcoming the armor, but it will have a greater chance at a kill. I hope that helps.

[siegfriedfr]

Wow SlickNica, biased much? Honestly, I don't know why you're even here considering your incessant complaining of the mod. I'm sorry that we try to provide a more balanced insight into the Hellenistic world. But hey, maybe we just don't know what we're talking about and perhaps should just give up. :shrugh:

Siegfriedr, we do actually have a significant difference in length for the swords. In Lang's article "Study of the Metallography of Some Roman Swords" published in Britannia, she states that the Celtic La Tene III blades averaged 620 mm and one example being 855 mm. Much earlier La Tene I blades were about 535 mm and tapered. Compare this to the gladius, which has some big extremes: 367 - 590 mm. However, from tests it has been determined that practical lengths for the Roman infantry would be about 380 - 430 mm. Longer examples than this stated range may have survived, but appear to be over represented due to their use as officer swords or as votive offerings much in the way that overly fancy cavalry helmets seem to be so common as finds in rivers.

So what does this mean? Well, 20+ cm is indeed quite a difference in length as well as weight. Do a little physics using radial acceleration and you get quite a difference in force. And if the sword connects with it's "sweet spot" against a helmet, not only will it have a greater chance of overcoming the armor, but it will have a greater chance at a kill. I hope that helps.

Ok i understand the "physics" reasoning, and i have no problem beating them not did i see AI romans being beaten by them.

it's just that i'm running dummy fights in custom battles, and solduros are quit extraordinary 1 on 1, beating most other units while reading a book.

[The Celtic Viking]

So you tested the elite of the elite and were surprised to see them do well?

[Burebista]

Solduros are the best gallic unit to have around so it's normal to beat most things . But i know a lot of other units that can beat them 1 on 1 so....not OP

[Mediolanicus]

Ok i understand the "physics" reasoning, and i have no problem beating them not did i see AI romans being beaten by them.

it's just that i'm running dummy fights in custom battles, and solduros are quit extraordinary 1 on 1, beating most other units while reading a book.

Well, it is quite stricking that today we have "soldiers" in the army.


Roman infantry are by no means elite. They are trained, disciplined and numerous line infantry. Put one unit against an elite unit and it will most likely lose.
Put a Roman army against a Celtic army with one or two such elite units and it will win with ease.

[Cute Wolf]

Because the EB mod is skewed HISTORICALLY ACCURATE for Barbarian factions. And since most barbarains have longswords, then it is natural that they made longswords have the .225 lethality.

plus : celtic longswords are far superrior metalworks compared to Roman Gladius, if mass per length is compared, longswords is lighter, but since longswords are longer, they are at the same weight or a bit heavier, since longsword have longer reach, that means with the same mass they gain more momentum via swinging arc, that's why longswords have lower base damage, but higher lethality

[Randal]

I don't doubt the physics argument has merit, but I can't help but feel that in practice the picture would have been less clear-cut.

In Europa Barbarorum, the Legions would have a very big advantage if they switched to longswords. They'd become twice as effective killers. In reality, I expect this would actually have decreased their performance in most circumstances, which would then explain why they never did adopt them.

The flavour text describes the Gauls as swinging their swords around their heads to gain momentum for highly lethal attacks. I can see that as part of the Gallic charge. In an extended mêlée it does not however seem very likely. It's a pity lethality can't be modded to be higher during a charge.

I also do not quite see this description as being compatible with tight formations. I don't doubt the Gauls could still use their longer weapons effectively in an organised formation, but I think this would come at the expense of some of this swinging power. Rather than go with a strict physics-based approach I'd like to see loose-formation aggressive infantry keep their high lethality attacks, but the disciplined close-order elite troops lose some of this lethality in return for an effective formation. Or, alternately, wider spacing for all longsword troops, but I don't think that's historically accurate.

[Ludens]

Short-swords also get an attack bonus in the EB stat system, and the Gladius Hispaniata has a higher lethality than other short swords. The only bonus that barbarians get is a +1 to armour. This was done for balancing reasons, but there is a historical ground for this. Celts were very popular as mercenaries, so it seems unlikely their heavy infantry did not deserve their name. Personally, I reason it represents individual soldiers supplementing their equipment with captured material. I doubt most Celtic warriors would choose to continue fighting bare-chested when they had looted a half-decent chainmail vest somewhere.

You can make a case that this resulted in Celtic elite units being too strong, as they would have less opportunity to improve upon their already high-quality armour, but remember that Celtic units with chainmail are not equivalent to Roman legionaries. Legionaries represent the rank-and-file equipped with mass-produced armour and weapons. In the Celtic armies, chainmail is rare and therefore reserved for veterans and elite units.

Randal, I think you are right that longswords would require a different formation. However, it's not just a question of "better". A longsword is heavier and I guess it requires more training in specialist moves than a stabbing sword. It's also more expensive and difficult to forge, and the Romans' best steel appears to have come from Iberians and Celts. Also, the Roman legions did eventually adopt a longer sword in the form of the Spatha.

[Randal]

They already had the spatha in the Principate they just kept it for cavalry use where it was tactically more useful. Despite some revisionist scholarship on the matter I still think the later legions that adapted the spatha were far less disciplined and effective in pitched battles than the ones from the empire's golden age. Perhaps part of it was decaying discipline and organisation, perhaps part of it was the later Empire's greater focus on avoiding battle and achieving victory through means such as diplomacy, ambuscade, skirmishing and starvation of the enemy, but the bottom line remains. I see the spatha as a consequence of the change from an army that seeks out the enemy in pitched battles to one that expects to mostly fight smaller skirmishes where a more unwieldy but powerful weapon is to be preferred.

As for the stat-balancing in EB, part of the problem is the R:TW engine. Lethality simply is far better than attack. Smiths and experience can raise attack and defence values very high even if they were low to begin with, whilst nothing changes lethality. Looking through the "Surprisingly good/bad units" thread this theme is apparent again and again. Units with high lethality are surprisingly good, with low lethality surprisingly bad.

I know there won't be any more big changes to EB1, but in theory I think there are two solutions to this: First, smaller differences in lethality. A longsword being more than twice as effective as a non-gladius short-sword makes the difference too pronounced. And second: doing what mods like Fourth Age Total War do, and having all units start out with a lot of experience based on class. If stats are balanced for all elite units starting out with silver chevrons to reflect their elite status, their getting experience won't unbalance the game as they gain it much more slowly. And if it becomes hard to raise attack values through such means, then having a higher base attack actually becomes an advantage that might compensate for lower lethality.

[Burebista]

As for the stat-balancing in EB, part of the problem is the R:TW engine. Lethality simply is far better than attack. Smiths and experience can raise attack and defence values very high even if they were low to begin with, whilst nothing changes lethality. Looking through the "Surprisingly good/bad units" thread this theme is apparent again and again. Units with high lethality are surprisingly good, with low lethality surprisingly bad.

Your theory fails miserably in multiplayer . it is true , high lethality helps , but the better stats that make a unit superior in multiplayer are size , Ap attribute , morale , shield , discipline , charge value and ofc price(there are more but these i consider more important than lethality).

By your assumption , a unit such as solduros or neitos might appear godly , but they are far from it. in front warfare lethality is crappy unless you get behind your enemy , and also in 1 on 1 i know a lot of units that beat solduros any day even with lower lethality. i personally consider from personal multiplayer experience that high lethality is weak vs high armour values or tightly packed units.

In Europa Barbarorum, the Legions would have a very big advantage if they switched to longswords. They'd become twice as effective killers. In reality, I expect this would actually have decreased their performance in most circumstances, which would then explain why they never did adopt them.
.

No they wouldn't. High lethality in EB is usually compensated by a looser formation which makes the unit less effective . Romans used tightly packed units with short swords to mainly stab. the change to Spatha came after the discipline and formation of roman infantry had decayed so wielding a larger sword in a looser formation made more sense.

EB can't representate all the details , that is true , but all the units behave as they should so that is a great merit for the team. Even the multiplayer is balanced (excepty that damn guard mode issue)

[Moros]

Short-swords also get an attack bonus in the EB stat system, and the Gladius Hispaniata has a higher lethality than other short swords. The only bonus that barbarians get is a +1 to armour. This was done for balancing reasons, but there is a historical ground for this. Celts were very popular as mercenaries, so it seems unlikely their heavy infantry did not deserve their name. Personally, I reason it represents individual soldiers supplementing their equipment with captured material. I doubt most Celtic warriors would choose to continue fighting bare-chested when they had looted a half-decent chainmail vest somewhere.

You can make a case that this resulted in Celtic elite units being too strong, as they would have less opportunity to improve upon their already high-quality armour, but remember that Celtic units with chainmail are not equivalent to Roman legionaries. Legionaries represent the rank-and-file equipped with mass-produced armour and weapons. In the Celtic armies, chainmail is rare and therefore reserved for veterans and elite units.

Randal, I think you are right that longswords would require a different formation. However, it's not just a question of "better". A longsword is heavier and I guess it requires more training in specialist moves than a stabbing sword. It's also more expensive and difficult to forge, and the Romans' best steel appears to have come from Iberians and Celts. Also, the Roman legions did eventually adopt a longer sword in the form of the Spatha.

Note barbarian units that get the +1 armour are only the barechested ones. The others don't. Some do have a higher armour value for chain because of higher quality.

[seienchin]

I think it just represents that the longswords were quite lethal, usually swung with great power and thus able to shatter shields and cause damage through helmets and armour. Most of the units that use longswords lack armour (defence rating), aren't usually particularly disciplined and - unless their initially lethal attacks break the enemy will pretty rapidly lose morale.

Wait.... Isnt that what the general advisor tells you in Vanilla? ^^
I am not sure about rapidly loosing moral.
Anyway, many longswords (esspecialy the celtic ones) found from EBs timeframe were of a poor qualitiy, still its true that they were often swung from above, so had quite an impact. Anyway, roman shortsword were extremly deadly esspecialy in combination with their shield so I am sure romans were deadlier warriors than celts, but besider that:
Gladius has AP in EB, which makes it exremly good against armoured enemies and Longswords with hight lethatlity are good against unarmoured troops. This might not be accurate, but it balances the system.

@Burebist
Interesting... Adopting the Spatha because of the late roman lack of discipline... Any proof?

[siegfriedfr]

Wait.... Isnt that what the general advisor tells you in Vanilla? ^^
I am not sure about rapidly loosing moral.
Anyway, many longswords (esspecialy the celtic ones) found from EBs timeframe were of a poor qualitiy, still its true that they were often swung from above, so had quite an impact. Anyway, roman shortsword were extremly deadly esspecialy in combination with their shield so I am sure romans were deadlier warriors than celts, but besider that:
Gladius has AP in EB, which makes it exremly good against armoured enemies and Longswords with hight lethatlity are good against unarmoured troops. This might not be accurate, but it balances the system.

last i checked the EDU, legionary/roman units have absolutely no AP: just medium atk, and low lethality.

No they wouldn't. High lethality in EB is usually compensated by a looser formation which makes the unit less effective . Romans used tightly packed units with short swords to mainly stab. the change to Spatha came after the discipline and formation of roman infantry had decayed so wielding a larger sword in a looser formation made more sense.

EB can't representate all the details , that is true , but all the units behave as they should so that is a great merit for the team. Even the multiplayer is balanced (excepty that damn guard mode issue)

There has been no major EDU balancing since at least 1.1 in april 2008, and new things are discovered about unit behaviour/stat over at TWcenters every now on then. Even EB can have its shortcomings.

They already had the spatha in the Principate they just kept it for cavalry use where it was tactically more useful. Despite some revisionist scholarship on the matter I still think the later legions that adapted the spatha were far less disciplined and effective in pitched battles than the ones from the empire's golden age. Perhaps part of it was decaying discipline and organisation, perhaps part of it was the later Empire's greater focus on avoiding battle and achieving victory through means such as diplomacy, ambuscade, skirmishing and starvation of the enemy, but the bottom line remains. I see the spatha as a consequence of the change from an army that seeks out the enemy in pitched battles to one that expects to mostly fight smaller skirmishes where a more unwieldy but powerful weapon is to be preferred.

As for the stat-balancing in EB, part of the problem is the R:TW engine. Lethality simply is far better than attack. Smiths and experience can raise attack and defence values very high even if they were low to begin with, whilst nothing changes lethality. Looking through the "Surprisingly good/bad units" thread this theme is apparent again and again. Units with high lethality are surprisingly good, with low lethality surprisingly bad.

I know there won't be any more big changes to EB1, but in theory I think there are two solutions to this: First, smaller differences in lethality. A longsword being more than twice as effective as a non-gladius short-sword makes the difference too pronounced. And second: doing what mods like Fourth Age Total War do, and having all units start out with a lot of experience based on class. If stats are balanced for all elite units starting out with silver chevrons to reflect their elite status, their getting experience won't unbalance the game as they gain it much more slowly. And if it becomes hard to raise attack values through such means, then having a higher base attack actually becomes an advantage that might compensate for lower lethality.

That's what i tought too. But the slightest change in unit stats can change the tide of a battle entirely. For example add 5 base soldier to a unit, and it can win where it previously lost.
ALso, i agree that giving TWICE the lethality to longsword compared to short seems a bit overthetop, but then, its true that gallic armies will be composed of many levies and few elites, whereas roman armies are just 1 infantry with very good armor.

[Randal]

Burebista:

Wider spacing indeed is a good and logical compensation for longswords' higher lethality. However, not all longsword units have this. Milnaht and Solduros, for example, have a tighter spacing than legionary troops. Like I said above, I think it would make sense if tight-formation longsword troops had slightly lower attack and/or lethality to indicate they can't use them as effectively in such a formation.

I was talking about the single-player campaign. I don't doubt that the attack/defence system is better balanced in multiplayer, where you don't get stacks of chevroned troops unbalancing the stat-system. (Case in point: Getai, who can get up to 4 free chevrons per unit) And yes, attributes like AP make an even bigger difference even in single-player.

[SlickNicaG69]

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:

Radomir Pleiner, however, argues that "the metallographic evidence shows that Polybius was right up to a point. To judge from the swords examined in this survey, 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."[3] 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.[3] Pleiner also notes that metallurgical analysis performed on Celtic swords suggests that they were only work hardened and only very few were quench hardened, even though they frequently contain enough carbon to be hardened (in particular the swords made from Noric steel). Quench hardening takes the full advantage of the potential hardness of the steel, but leaves it brittle, prone to breaking. Quite probably this is because tempering wasn't known. Tempering is heating the steel after quenching at a lower temperature to remove the brittleness, while keeping most of the hardness.

-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...

[athanaric]

Gladius has AP in EB, which makes it exremly good against armoured enemies and Longswords with hight lethatlity are good against unarmoured troops. This might not be accurate, but it balances the system.

The Gladius does not have the AP attribute. It has, however, decent lethality (0.13).
You might be confusing it with Kopis style swords which have a lethality of 0.11 plus AP attribute.

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...

Who are you trying to troll here? Your claims were state of the art in... 1700 AD, when anti-Gaul or anti-Germanic bias was en vogue. Also the thing about Katanas...

[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.

[jirisys]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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:

Radomir Pleiner, however, argues that "the metallographic evidence shows that Polybius was right up to a point. To judge from the swords examined in this survey, 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."[3] 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.[3] Pleiner also notes that metallurgical analysis performed on Celtic swords suggests that they were only work hardened and only very few were quench hardened, even though they frequently contain enough carbon to be hardened (in particular the swords made from Noric steel). Quench hardening takes the full advantage of the potential hardness of the steel, but leaves it brittle, prone to breaking. Quite probably this is because tempering wasn't known. Tempering is heating the steel after quenching at a lower temperature to remove the brittleness, while keeping most of the hardness.

-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...

I destroyed your "cousin"'s biased arguments with completely reasonable and (most likely) true arguments, AND! without using Wikipedia... Do you want me to try it on you matey

Besides, you're going down the same topic as your "cousin" was

~Jirisys ()

[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

[SlickNicaG69]

I destroyed your "cousin"'s biased arguments with completely reasonable and (most likely) true arguments, AND! without using Wikipedia... Do you want me to try it on you matey

Besides, you're going down the same topic as your "cousin" was

~Jirisys ()

So what are you trying to say? And who said anything about my cousin? Yea I want you to try it.

[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.

[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....

[SlickNicaG69]

There was never a rumor circulating about the Romans that could be interpreted as making fun of their weaponry, let alone having it reach our own day. It wasn't like they painted themselves blue to ward off slings and arrows.