Two questions about cavalry weapons and infantry swords

[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.

[vollorix]

If i had to empathize a horsemen in a pitch battle versus cavalry or infantry, i can´t help it, but the only weapon i can imagine is something as versatile as a sword, perhaps an ax or a club, but only for some poor horsemen, which would be a contradiction in itself, well perhaps not for some nomads, or maybe if it would be some kind of old style tradition to fight with those weapons. You can´t actually wield a spear and hit with it anything near accurately while surrounded by your comrades and/or enemy, you can only thrust; you can´t repulse attacks from different sides effectively, and you will never be able to do it with a spear as quick as with a sword, while sitting on a horse back, imo.
There is, of course, the game engine limitation, only allowing a soldier to use 2 weapon types, but the reason why i´m arguing against the spear and for the sword is because the cavalry, not only the one controlled by a simple minded AI, but also my own, barely, if ever, switches to the secondary weapons, even when i order them to do so! I sometimes like to zooming in the battle camera close to watch the battle a bit, but this boring thrusting with spears performed by cavalry makes me zoom out very quickly, and move to the infantry...

Btw: About swords an AP: i still have to figure out why the roman AI is so obsessed by Pedites Extraordinarii even though i have halved their initial size ( which means only 40 men on large unit settings )...!?! I mean, Triarii ( i´ve halved their unit sizes too, btw. ) have got even better stats than the PO, but as soon as SPQR gets enough money in their coffers, they start to spam them. I still somehow suspect that the AI is very well aware of the armor piercing ability of their swords. And if it is, could it mean that the "ap" attribute significantly affects the auto resolving engine? o0

[moonburn]

If i had to empathize a horsemen in a pitch battle versus cavalry or infantry, i can´t help it, but the only weapon i can imagine is something as versatile as a sword, perhaps an ax or a club, but only for some poor horsemen, which would be a contradiction in itself, well perhaps not for some nomads, or maybe if it would be some kind of old style tradition to fight with those weapons. You can´t actually wield a spear and hit with it anything near accurately while surrounded by your comrades and/or enemy, you can only thrust; you can´t repulse attacks from different sides effectively, and you will never be able to do it with a spear as quick as with a sword, while sitting on a horse back, imo.
There is, of course, the game engine limitation, only allowing a soldier to use 2 weapon types, but the reason why i´m arguing against the spear and for the sword is because the cavalry, not only the one controlled by a simple minded AI, but also my own, barely, if ever, switches to the secondary weapons, even when i order them to do so! I sometimes like to zooming in the battle camera close to watch the battle a bit, but this boring thrusting with spears performed by cavalry makes me zoom out very quickly, and move to the infantry...

Btw: About swords an AP: i still have to figure out why the roman AI is so obsessed by Pedites Extraordinarii even though i have halved their initial size ( which means only 40 men on large unit settings )...!?! I mean, Triarii ( i´ve halved their unit sizes too, btw. ) have got even better stats than the PO, but as soon as SPQR gets enough money in their coffers, they start to spam them. I still somehow suspect that the AI is very well aware of the armor piercing ability of their swords. And if it is, could it mean that the "ap" attribute significantly affects the auto resolving engine? o0

herm the knights in the midleages prefered the mace over the sword at least the more elite one´s ... as for the reason i believe that just like the lance but on a more personal and intimate level "it leaves a strong impression either on a shield or in another horseman´s head" once again many people choose to fight with diferent weaponry not because it was better but because they had a status to preserve in some way like the boers and the americans still today have their grandfathers winchesters at home since those are the family´s "tradition"

people had a warring tradition that allowed them to keep their status in their society and altough the romans didn´t had their fathers weapons cult in many warrior traditions the weapon that is passed on broken and reforged is still strong

there´s stories of a few nobles in the 17th century ordering the melting of their grandfathers swords and having those weapons reforged as rifles and pistols

[VikingPower]

There is one more thing which I would like to understand:

Many people are often saying that you should use High lethality infantry against light/medium armoured foes. I can understand that when fighting cheap units like militias and light infantry who have so little overall defense that the Celtic longswords will work much better in getting a hit and kill. I also know that High lethality units are best when backstabbing other enemy units. But since most spear units have a 14-15 base attack then they should be just as/more effective when fighting against opponents with little armour but a high defense skill (even for a 2-penalty against swords).

Also when I did often test using high lethality units as a frontal charge against all medium/professional enemy units with high overall defense (whether it is armour or high defense skill) then I really did not notice anything noteworthy about the high lethality units in comparison to others, like how Milites illergetum get their asses kicked while the Iberian scutari destroy all other medium units in their path. Maybe the Iberian scutari are an exception to this rule, but I wonder whether you should not just use a multi-purpose spearmen against all enemy units with a high defense skill. Are the high lethality units only useful against cheap units?