Two questions about cavalry weapons and infantry swords

[VikingPower]

1. Why do some cavalry have a 9 spear attack with low lethality (like Italian)? Also do such cavalry have a better attack than those with 4 AP and high lethality?

2. Why do celtic longswords have so high lethality while the gladius shortswords have little? I have read in Vegetius that the stabbing wounds in chest were the most lethal, while a slashing attacks did not manage to pierce some bones in the body.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

The overhand spear cavalry are meant as melee cavalry, not as chargers like underhand spears are. They are generally average in melee but suffer when subjected to other ap cavalry attacks. They are generally not worth the price they have uses against lightly armed troops such as skirmishers with their higher spear attack.

The statting system for weapons is not perfect. It tries to represent the various types of weapons and what they would be most effective against. The gladius has low lethality but a relatively high attack compared with the longsword. What this strives to mean is that it is easier to land a blow with a gladius' quick strikes, but generally speaking, a large Celtic sword whirled about the head to gain momentum, and brought crashing down on an enemy was deadlier. This is of course all relative as a quick gladius strike to the abdomen would be just as deadly but I think the longsword can not only cut, but crush, and if well made could potentially stab as well.

[QuintusSertorius]

Lance-armed cavalry are useless in melee, because the lance has a long preparation time. Pit two equal units against each other, and have one switch to swords in melee, and you'll see them butcher the lance-armed unit. You can even see it in the animations, the lance doesn't strike as often as the sword. Or spear for that matter.

[Ludens]

This is of course all relative as a quick gladius strike to the abdomen would be just as deadly but I think the longsword can not only cut, but crush, and if well made could potentially stab as well.

Well, Celtic swords of the period sometimes had a rounded tip, so they couldn't be used to stab. Otherwise, you are right. A stabbing wound to the abdomen or chest is deadly, but these areas would have been protected by a shield at least. On the other hand, the sheer momentum of a longsword could be used to shatter shields, if not bones. And you don't need to kill your oponent to take him out of the fight.

[gamegeek2]

Yeah, I find when mockfighting with swords and large shields, that you always want to go for a stab but often this isn't an option. For stabbing, you have to either sneak under the opponent's shield or over it; you go for the throat or the belly. IIRC, the Romans did the latter.

For big heavy slashes, I think an axe would generally be better, but swords were better balanced, and even a sword with a rounded tip, if the tip was sharp, could stab into a torso.

[WinsingtonIII]

Well, I'm not sure, but Vegetius is probably discussing slashing v. stabbing with the gladius. One of the nice things about a longsword was that if you hit an opponent hard enough, even if you hit them where they are wearing armor, the amount of built up force that transfers through the armor can break bones or cause internal bleeding, effectively taking the enemy out of the fight. The sheer potential momentum and force that a longsword is capable of when slashing is probably much more than that of a slashing gladius.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Well, Celtic swords of the period sometimes had a rounded tip, so they couldn't be used to stab. Otherwise, you are right. A stabbing wound to the abdomen or chest is deadly, but these areas would have been protected by a shield at least. On the other hand, the sheer momentum of a longsword could be used to shatter shields, if not bones. And you don't need to kill your oponent to take him out of the fight.

I think this is represented somewhat by the models in EB. The Neitos and elite Celtic units have sharp tipped longswords to represent the better craftsmanship of their weapons while the Botroas/Bataroas have more rounded blades as their swords were not as well made.

Lance-armed cavalry are useless in melee, because the lance has a long preparation time. Pit two equal units against each other, and have one switch to swords in melee, and you'll see them butcher the lance-armed unit. You can even see it in the animations, the lance doesn't strike as often as the sword. Or spear for that matter.

I respectfully disagree. Lots of tests have been done that have shown that the secondaries are inferior to the lances, slow animations and all. The high lethality more than makes up for it.

[vollorix]

And the armor piercing ability of the lances, while some sec. weapons of the cavalry have no "ap" ability, too.

[QuintusSertorius]

I respectfully disagree. Lots of tests have been done that have shown that the secondaries are inferior to the lances, slow animations and all. The high lethality more than makes up for it.

Really? I've found even more lightly-armoured Epirote bodyguard using swords against an equal number of Seleukid, Ptolemaic or even Karthadastim bodyguard still using lances tends to win in a melee.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Really? I've found even more lightly-armoured Epirote bodyguard using swords against an equal number of Seleukid, Ptolemaic or even Karthadastim bodyguard still using lances tends to win in a melee.

Its not a major disadvantage to switch to secondaries though I feel that serious MP contestants know better than to switch. In campaign mode there are too many factors including experience, morale bonuses, uneven terrain, unit numbers, command bonuses from generals, armor upgrades, etc etc. The only way to reliably test is a multiplayer battle against a friend just charging the two home on a flat grassy plain.

In any event, some tests were done a while back and it was concluded that lances were superior mostly due to lethality and ap. Some reach around 0.4 which is almost twice even the Celtic longswords and almost 4 times as deadly as a kopis at 0.11. The extra attack points and slightly faster animations don't even matter especially considering that unlike sword animations, lance animations cannot be canceled. There are only attack animations as well, getting rid of the pointless "dodging" animations.

[antisocialmunky]

Really? I've found even more lightly-armoured Epirote bodyguard using swords against an equal number of Seleukid, Ptolemaic or even Karthadastim bodyguard still using lances tends to win in a melee.

The Eperiote Bodyguard has extra defense instead of armor. If they had more stamina, they would beat Persian cataphracts. Indeed, if you fight 2 of them online lance vs lance, the Eperiote BGs will have periods where they will be winning due to their slightly better stamina. But then the stamina equalizes and they start dropping.

The high lethality units are always good. They just need an decent attack that can cut through high armor + defense stats. That's why high lethality + low attack + AP like axemen are so good against high tier heavily armored units while they die like flies to other cheap units with high attack and no AP. Therefore you want to employ units with lower armor and higher defense vs these sorts of cheap barb units. Thus, high lethality units with high attack stats like Drapnai, Bastarnae, Indian Longbows, and Indian Guild Warriors are able to pretty much kill everything in their way.

[ziegenpeter]

Well, Celtic swords of the period sometimes had a rounded tip, so they couldn't be used to stab. Otherwise, you are right. A stabbing wound to the abdomen or chest is deadly, but these areas would have been protected by a shield at least. On the other hand, the sheer momentum of a longsword could be used to shatter shields, if not bones. And you don't need to kill your oponent to take him out of the fight.

A rounded tip doesnt necessarily mean that the sword wasnt used for stabbing. Actually if you stab an unarmoured target with that tip the wounds a more severe, because they were simply broader. I had an article about this topic (actually it was about the Katzbalger of the Landsknechte) if I find it I will post it.
A broader tip however is less likely to get caught in the wood of a shield but not your tool of choice when fighting armoured dudes.

[The_Blacksmith]

1: Celtic Longsword VS Gladius

I take this is the Gladius Hispaniensis now... the early gladius was not very broad and the wounds it made, not magnificent but they could still kill... A polybian soldier was trained to aim for the guts mainly and with a slim blade, you arrent gonna hit much, now with the later Gladius Mainz was super broad and would hurt alot...
The Celtic Longsword: im just gonna say... one cut to the clavicula and you are out... not that i would like to bring that unwieldy gloryfied metaltube into battle... ;)

2: Overhand Underhand cav.
Well guys... the overhand cavalry can be good, just not for heavycav duties... use them against other cav, they stab faster with that little spear :)

[Geticus]

Vegetius is a useful source but you have to remember his purpose, he wrote the epitoma rei militaris after the disastrous Roman defeat at Adrianople c. 378, so his whole view had to do with the denial of rising Germanic power, and a sort of pompous revisitation of old Roman military principles. The Romans fought in rigid massed infantry formations which minimized personal heroism and instead put the emphasis on massed javelin showers, superior armor and overwhelming endurance. The gladius was as often as not the means of dealing the coup de grace to an enemy already wounded or impeded by pila showers, and exhausted by the grueling press against the Roman shield wall. So I think it is dubious to attribute the millions of men killed by Roman infantry to the superiority of the gladius per se. I know of not one Roman military history that makes a central theme of swordsmanship. Roman history instead puts the emphasis consistently on superior raw manhood (virtus), and military discipline. Celtic warriors who fought against Romans did well during the early period, all but destroying Rome in the early wars, and likewise remember that Celtic warriors held Hannibal's center at Cannae and successfully withstood the impetus of one of the largest legionary armies the Republic ever fielded. So to say that the Romans killed millions of Celts because the gladius and point weapons> edge weapons strikes me as simply a repeat of the Classical anti-barbarian snobbery. I would just as soon say that the Romans won with defence, not offense, and that the gladius was effective because it worked within the Roman legionary framework which prioritized endurance and tactical discipline over offensive flair and aggression.