spatha or gladius?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In my mind you are not offtopic Bucefalo because the thing you ve say it's very true (also if it's a game).
With spatha you can't bring a rectangular shield, you can only bring a oval shield and this second give you less protection to arrow or low attak.
I think the massive use of armour in Middle Ages was naturally conseguence of use of oval shields, then the long sword.
This shows that the majority of medieval troops had little discipline and little value.
For bring rectangular shield and gladius effectively must be well trained and know how to act in harmony with the companion you are next.
This is according to me the secret of strength of ancient legions than the post Constantine legions.

The Spatha was in use at the same time as the rectangular tower shield for about a century.

So I'm afraid none of that held up.

[Aper]

Aulus, you are FAAAAAAAAAAR too much simplicistic in your view of history, especially military history.
My god, I don't even know were to start... No offense here, but all you wrote in this thread is completely crap & obsolete & wrong.
Read carefully the replies (some very good infos here), study some NOT OUTDATED history books (academic, not history channel stuff, maybe your next university can be of help) and maybe try some practice with qualified medieval fencing master, before throwing s**t on the longsword and the knights, and posting odd theories with that bold attitude, thanks.
I know I have been quite rude, but it was necessary, trust me.

some links I hope you'll find useful

http://www.warfare.it/tattiche/costa...entiniano.html
http://www.warfare.it/tattiche/presu...edioevale.html
http://www.thearma.org/essays.htm
http://www.scherma-antica.org
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=70698

As I guess you are italian, if you want to understand better medieval warfare try the books of Aldo Settia, he is the greatest italian autorithy in middle ages military history IMHO.

Regards

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

Dear Aper, I read with great interest your documentation.
I have always interest to enrich my knowledge.

But what makes you think that my sources are outdated, and your sources are the truth?

I do not believe that anything I say is "cast gold"(as they say here in italy), I say to discuss and exchange information and opinions, freely and with respect.
I and anyone: we do not have the presumption to know everything, but we interact with others for answers, start provocations, laugh together.

Have you perhaps the presumption to be infallible?
I this case, I thank you for your information, but avoids trashing everything in advance that he disagrees with your ideas.
Here we discuss togheter! do not criticize others! we have respect for people!
This last thing that we do not learn from books, unfortunately for you.

all regards to your respectable person

[Aper]

But what makes you think that my sources are outdated, and your sources are the truth?
I do not believe that anything I say is "cast gold"(as they say here in italy), I say to discuss and exchange information and opinions, freely and with respect.
Have you perhaps the presumption to be infallible?
I this case, I thank you for your information, but avoids trashing everything in advance that he disagrees with your ideas.

I apologize for my manners, if I can't control myself maybe I should avoid posting.
Btw, I didn't posted "my ideas" as you say, I simply suggested you the opinions of well known experts, based on facts and research, that in most cases I checked myself in many years of hard studying (I'm getting a II level degree in Archeology and I have years of practice of medieval and renaissance real fencing, not for show, based on ancient treatises like that of Fiore de' Liberi, Filippo Vadi, Achille Marozzo, and many others).
My criticism comes from my studies, and more than suggesting you links and books to see by yourself what I mean, I cannot do, because an internet discussion like this always end like "my idea vs. your".
If you are interested, I'll post or send you by PM the material I wrote about: I'm italian too, so I can suggest you some books in our language, easier to read (like that of Settia).

Basically, I can say some time ago like you I enjoyed a lot of "black vs. white: what's the best?" or like we say in Italy "what's the gender of angels?" questions: I slowly understood that this is pure nonsense, reality is far more complex and interesting than some fanboysh simplicistic theories, and if you want a real answer you have to spend much time on actual evidences before cry "this is common sense!" around... About the sword, what make you think that 10-20 cm of difference in blades made spatha and gladius so dramatically different to decide the fate of a centuries old empire? Different weapon, different fencing, what make an army successful have little to do with the weapon of choice... The small increase in lenght of the longsword didn't prevent it to be used with great success in dense formations for a millennium, but here's the funny part, when you say "solduros, rycalawre, etc. have longsword, so the EB team is wrong giving them a close and dense formation." What? Only because your prejudices tells you that a longsword cannot, never, be used in tight formations, this should make the professionals historians of the EB team and the evidences spread from La Tene culture to late middle ages wrong??? This is what made me angry, nothing personal, but this is a most dangerous attitude in proper understanding of history.

gladius:




spatha:

Look at that images: you say someone told you the spatha was primarily a slashing weapon: well, judging from that long, narrow blade, I say it probaly was a better thruster than the gladius, more agile and with a better reach, while the gladius seems more like a butcher cleaver...

About the shields, AFAIK people in history made shield-walls with an infinite variety of protective tools, for an amateur it's hard to say the Thyreos (oval shield) was unsuitable for the task, considering that the EB team historians included in game some descriptions stating otherwise. And BTW it was not the only shield they used... and maybe the less suitable was really the scutum, its shape preventing legionaries overlapping them... the only prerequisite for a solid shieldwall.

About the late roman army being a bunch of smelling barbarians... ... ... ... I don't really know what to say, the practice of recruiting germanic mercenaries, probably increased over time due to the lack of manpower, but you should take in account that there was not a great difference between western and eastern regular roman army, the eastern one was plenty of germanic recruits too, but it remained for centuries the most refined and effective military force in europe and middle east, so...

An interesting article about gross generalizations regarding the actual way of fighting with a sword
http://www.thearma.org/essays/thrusting_vs_cutting.html

Cheers

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

Ah sei italiano? Di dove?
Sono felice se mi dai documentazine a riguardo, ma non in PM, meglio qui: così tuuti possono vederla.

Polibio (II, 33):
“…I tribuni…avevano osservato nelle battaglie precedenti che i Galli in genere sono più temibili per il loro coraggio al primo assalto, finchè sono freschi, e che le loro spade sono costruite in modo da avere efficace solo il primo colpo di taglio: infatti si rovinano facilmente, ripiegandosi tanto nel senso della lunghezza che in quello della larghezza. E se non si dà il modo ai soldati di raddrizzarle col piede piantandole per terra, il secondo colpo risulta del tutto inutile…”

On the alleged superiority of the Celtic blacksmiths.


I am not an archaeologist and then by not speaking archaeologist.
now you talk to workers.

-I hold with my right arm a tube that weighs 6 kg and is 0.8 m long.
-With her left arm supporting a rectangular sheet.
-Now, if I want to lead a coup cut from left to right is necessary to rotate the tube above my head.
-If instead I want to sink to the right or hit the cut I have to do a broad movement to harness the centrifugal force of my pipe, otherwise my shot is pretty weak.
-These movements are quite difficult to repeat, will also portray the tube sank after a long time use (the good old inertia force), during this time, I have found my right side completely exposed to the enemy.
To harness the centrifugal force of the tube, must also do ample movements and leave open the right side.
For this reason, in a dense formation is easier than I wound my companion, who is beside me, compared to the enemy that stands before me (and Solduros died).

With a 4 kg weighs and 0.6 m long pipe I do not have these problems: I am less tired and my sink is rapid. the retreat of the tube is fast and is back in comfortable position to defend themselves.

This is simple mechanics, and common sense. You do not to hear a scholar of history to need it.

Remember that the fencing has nothing in common with a battle: fear and fatigue do not allow the soldiers to be casual and take precise attacks.
Is much more convenient to carry simple attacks and take as much as possible closed defense.

Read this it's more interestig debate (especially what say Flavius and Rufus):

http://www.contubernium.it/modules.p...iewtopic&p=468

Other sources:

http://italia.novaroma.org/arsmilitaris/telum.htm
http://www.roma-victrix.com/armamentarium/pvgiones.htm

See you again

[geala]

I would like to second the warnings to be not too oversimplicistic. When you look closer to medieval warfare you can find an astonishing amount of sophistication.

When you speak of the steel armour of the later middle ages as the main reason for the abandonement of large shields you should take into account that the percentage of warriors with such armour was always relatively low.

The development of the use of shields and weapons was always influenced by different political and social reasons and coincidence. The early Confederates f.e. in the 14th c. AD used mainly heavy two handed axe like weapons (halberds)which had connections with rural tools. They scarcely used shields although the use of armour was very rare. If they had had another tradition they might also have used strong longbows or big shields, swords and javelins.



Edit to Aulus: I just saw your last post too late. What do you mean with a 6 kg and 4 kg tube? The swords or the shields? The longest one handed longswords were by far lighter, between 0,8 to 2 kg, but more near 1 to 1,5 kg. The high medieval knights with large kite shields and long single handed swords were at least often able to fight in close formations on foot. I think the Celts and Germanics were too.

To Polybios: two theories, firstly perhaps he confused infos about Celtic sword sacrifices (deliberately bent swords) with battle use or, secondly and more probable, there was a wide span of quality with Celtic (and Roman) swords. I'm not a specialist for Celtic or Roman weapons but I know that there are quite a lot archaeological findings of Celtic swords with very good steel quality.

[Mediolanicus]

This is [...] common sense.

Since when did history become common sense?

[Aper]

Polibio (II, 33):
“…I tribuni…avevano osservato nelle battaglie precedenti che i Galli in genere sono più temibili per il loro coraggio al primo assalto, finchè sono freschi, e che le loro spade sono costruite in modo da avere efficace solo il primo colpo di taglio: infatti si rovinano facilmente, ripiegandosi tanto nel senso della lunghezza che in quello della larghezza. E se non si dà il modo ai soldati di raddrizzarle col piede piantandole per terra, il secondo colpo risulta del tutto inutile…”

On the alleged superiority of the Celtic blacksmiths.

I miss the point: why a single, ROMANOPHILE, reference, should be taken as absolute truth?
Aulus, here there are people who devote their life to the study of history, and know far more you or me (I'm just a student) can imagine, trust me I know from bitter experience, don't be disrespectful.
About celtic smith, remember, every weapon is made for a purpose, it's stupid to speak of superiority of inferiority: for example, celtic sword were made in a world that know little body protections, and so probably the average weapon was forged using a quite soft steel, that is more prone to bend impacting hard targets, but is less prone to break like harder ones.
And BTW, there was enormous difference between the quality of the sword: the more money you had, the better you got, like today.

As early as 700 BC, the Celts were forging weapons, both spears and swords, by piling on layers of iron and forging the whole mess. This process continually improved until by 500 AD excellent pattern-welded swords were being made. In this process, bundles of carburized iron bars were welded together, and then a hard steel edge was welded on. This produced a sword, usually double-edged, with a soft, resilient body and a hard edge. The sword was flat, rather thin, quite light and flexible. Weight was in the area of 28 to 40 ounces.

This method produced blades almost as good as Damascus ones, and surely the romans had nothing like this.

-I hold with my right arm a tube that weighs 6 kg and is 0.8 m long.
-With her left arm supporting a rectangular sheet.
-Now, if I want to lead a coup cut from left to right is necessary to rotate the tube above my head.
-If instead I want to sink to the right or hit the cut I have to do a broad movement to harness the centrifugal force of my pipe, otherwise my shot is pretty weak.
-These movements are quite difficult to repeat, will also portray the tube sank after a long time use (the good old inertia force), during this time, I have found my right side completely exposed to the enemy.
To harness the centrifugal force of the tube, must also do ample movements and leave open the right side.
For this reason, in a dense formation is easier than I wound my companion, who is beside me, compared to the enemy that stands before me (and Solduros died).

With a 4 kg weighs and 0.6 m long pipe I do not have these problems: I am less tired and my sink is rapid. the retreat of the tube is fast and is back in comfortable position to defend themselves.

This is simple mechanics, and common sense. You do not to hear a scholar of history to need it.

This is what I mean: please, don't take this as an offense, but you know absolutely nothing about swords. Follow my suggestion, speak with a good ancient fencing master, or with a scholar who cares about military history (they are very few).
1) As already pointed out, a one-hand sword had a maximum weight of 2 kg, so your experiment is just meaningless.
2) The weight of the sword is absolutely secondary in comparison with balance.
a sword is all about balance, if you have the chance, look for an ancient and medieval weapons vendor, and tell him to hold in hand swords of different quality, you'll see the better ones seems far lighter, even if they should actually be heavier.
And take in account, that few swordsmith in the world can reach the level of skill of medieval ones, according to comparisons made between the best modern replicas and the best museum longsword: that masterpieces seems to almost have life, modern swordsmasters say.
http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm

Remember that the fencing has nothing in common with a battle: fear and fatigue do not allow the soldiers to be casual and take precise attacks.
Is much more convenient to carry simple attacks and take as much as possible closed defense.

Yeah, so weapon training is useless, and Marius (and others) called swordmasters from the schools of gladiators to train legionaries because he was dumb.
In battle, you cannot surely use perfect academic techniques, but an expert fencer who trains with war weapons, like ancient and medieval fencers did, and not with specialized civilian dueling ones, as modern, have surely an immense advantage. I repeat myself, try some ancient fencing with qualified masters, some practice is far more important than a thousand words.

Ok, maybe I have been again disrespectful to you, and I'm very sorry, but this stuff is my life, and I get passionate quickly.
I apologize again, and thanks for the links.

BTW, sono della provincia di Genova, a nasty roman-hater Ligurian

Regards

EDIT: After a quick reading of the posts of "Contubernium" I can say my "prejudices" are confirmed: someone have real, documented, knowledge about some arguments, but have very odd ideas about others! for example, R. in the middle of an interesting and informative post says "the hoplite is the maximum expression of individual, disordered valor" ...
This is the subtle danger of homemade studies, usually books in the libraries are very very different in their scientific value, and are far inferior to academic ones, so it's almost unavoidable to fall in gross misinterpretation.

Look, I'm not saying that if you aren't academic you are comndemned to know nothing, you can just take a day of free time, go to the university, search for a good bibliography, and buy books that you are quite sure to be trustworthy, and that come from recent researches.

Forum interessante, comunque, grazie!

EDIT 2: a very important point not already taken in account: the critics of references. Reading the Roma Victrix site, I see that is common knowledge that most Gladii measured 60-80 cm: how much do you think late roman and medieval infantry spathae were long? Actually, there were little difference in the lenght of the 2 weapons! Longer swords are cavalry swords, medieval weapons confirm this: 100 cm of blade lenght is more typical of a bastard sword (used almost always with 2 hands), than of a medieval sword adept to be used with a shield! I fear our discussion comes from a misinterpretation of terminology...

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

ah ah sei ligure, salutami i pesciolini dell'acquario, io sono veneto, but nevertheless I can not hate the Romans.
certainly in medieval forges were working for.
during my visit to San Marino, I have seen many medieval two hands swords , but they were very long (1.3-1.4 meters). Great works.
In San Marino, there are huge armories, where they sell (without making too many requests) ornamental weapons, but also realistic reproduction weapons.
I have brought home a sword of steel similar to the old (not chrome and color very dark, almost black), I have given to 19.90 euros.

I read in some book of my "squalid" library of the province that the Etruscans had already realized that certain types of steel were more resistant than others. them and the Greeks knew that increasing the percentage of carbon swords were more rigid and resistant. The carbon also promotes the hardening heat treatment that makes the material hard, but it greatly reduces the impact strength (resistance to shocks instant). However it was not easy for the manufacturer then determining the correct percentage of the elements. But the swords had toughness that could not simultaneously have a high stiffness, so it is plastically deformed (ductility = tough), then I do not think is quite unlikely the story of Polybius.
Have you read the speech of "damascatura"?
The Greeks and Romans knew, maybe the Celts do not.
Or the Celts were so advanced to do the spade in 24NiCrMo6 (stainless steel).
You who devote their lives to the study of history, I can not think off even in metallurgy (my work).

But the site contubernium you like for the arguments or for the many women in them?

Important note:
if you want to help the earthquake victims of Abruzzo send a sms to 48580 (you give them some euros).

[Aper]

ah ah sei ligure, salutami i pesciolini dell'acquario, io sono veneto, but nevertheless I can not hate the Romans.

I was joking :)
So you are from Veneto... Caecina made me imagine you were Etruscan! I know some fellow fencers from Verona...

during my visit to San Marino, I have seen many medieval two hands swords , but they were very long (1.3-1.4 meters). Great works.

2 handed. I wrote bastard, or "hand and an half: it's different.

I read in some book of my "squalid" library of the province that the Etruscans had already realized that certain types of steel were more resistant than others. them and the Greeks knew that increasing the percentage of carbon swords were more rigid and resistant. The carbon also promotes the hardening heat treatment that makes the material hard, but it greatly reduces the impact strength (resistance to shocks instant). However it was not easy for the manufacturer then determining the correct percentage of the elements. But the swords had toughness that could not simultaneously have a high stiffness, so it is plastically deformed (ductility = tough), then I do not think is quite unlikely the story of Polybius.
Have you read the speech of "damascatura"?
The Greeks and Romans knew, maybe the Celts do not.
Or the Celts were so advanced to do the spade in 24NiCrMo6 (stainless steel).
You who devote their lives to the study of history, I can not think off even in metallurgy (my work).

So you are a smith? Very interesting! BTW I didn't wrote your library is "squalid", I wrote that if an amateur chooses books without the guidance of some real expert, he can buy good works or complete thrash, he cannot really know what have actual scientific value or not.
About steel, it's not only a matter of metal quality, or the percentage of carbonium, the point is the method of crafting: the celtic (and early medieval) technique was this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_welding. This method allow the smith a good degree of control about the percentage of carbonium in the different parts of the blade, something romans could not achieve; not only, the edges where added separately later, and were made of much harder steel, so you have a final product that combine a great thoughness and a great hardness & sharpness togheter; obviously, as Polibius pointed out, this is true only for the weapons of the "nobles", common warriors had inferior blades.
The technique of Pattern Welding was erroneously assimilated in middle-ages to Damascus steel, a mistake that endures today http://digilander.libero.it/forgiabe...io_damasco.htm, as you can see, that our friends from Bergamo call "damasco" is simply pattern welding; the real damascus steel was indeed the islamic version of the exceptional, somewhat mithical Wootz steel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wootz ; http://materials.iisc.ernet.in/~woot...tage/WOOTZ.htm, a great Indian discovery that present some uncertain aspects still today. And BTW, "Damascus" comes from an arabian word meaning water AFAIK, because of the beautiful "waves" on the surface of the steel.

But the site contubernium you like for the arguments or for the many women in them?

Many womens discussing about history is surely a wonderful thing, but I was speaking about the arguments: the problem is that fans-of-something are very ready to jump to bold statements without having enough evidencies.

Important note:
if you want to help the earthquake victims of Abruzzo send a sms to 48580 (you give them some euros).

Thank you very very much, I was wondering what to do, I thought about donating some blood but they said they have enough...

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

no, I am not a smith, I work in the foundry and I am a graduate in metallurgy.
Verona? that great city, but my city is that of Andrea Palladio.

[Aper]

no, I am not a smith, I work in the foundry and I am a graduate in metallurgy.
Verona? that great city, but my city is that of Andrea Palladio.

...Padova? ... I dunno for sure...
Awesome, btw, Genova is rich of marvelous palaces too, but Palladio was the best

One last thing, in the ARMA site I found this interesting article explaining "Why a sword is not just a sharp piece of steel", IMHO it's a very good introduction to... "Swordology" , valid also for ancient times, even if it speaks about medieval and modern eras...
http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/heymr.htm

Cheers

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

no Vicenza, but also Padova is beautiful city.
vicenza(vicetia) was an ancient Roman camp.

not this week because i have night shift, but next week(when i work on morning), try to join hamachi on evening (EB15):
we can discuss in chat. And if you can do 1.2 EB also a nice challenge.
Parlemo ciaro (dialetto veneto).
we hope that you are a little less acid. ah ah

[Aper]

no Vicenza, but also Padova is beautiful city.
vicenza(vicetia) was an ancient Roman camp.

not this week because i have night shift, but next week(when i work on morning), try to join hamachi on evening (EB15):
we can discuss in chat. And if you can do 1.2 EB also a nice challenge.
Parlemo ciaro (dialetto veneto).
we hope that you are a little less acid. ah ah

Vicenza? http://www.baccalaallavicentina.com/it/
I just love baccalà soo much...

I was serious when I said I'm sorry... I feel a lot of pressure on my shoulders in this weeks (I wasn't accustomed), and my manners suffered accordingly... my apologize again.

[Watchman]

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the spatha (and by that token, the "international standard" longswords of the Migration Period) more or less a direct descendant of the Celtic longsword ? If that's the case it was likely actually a pretty damn light as swords go... for the sake of the argument, compare the weights and lenghts of the following reconstructions (which if I've understood correctly are very "high fidelity" respective the originals) - Celtic longsword, Migration Period longsword and straight flush of gladii.

Anyways, as for the longsword being unsuited for close-order combat, poppycock. Such obsessive shieldwall fighters as the Vikings and Migration Period "barbarians", whose infantry mainly fought closely enough packed to easily rival the Greek hoplites, cheerfully used longswords, axes and similar "swinging" weapons as their primary sidearms to good effect.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

So see if the accounts add up.
The Long Sword is useful for cavalry to hit farther down the infantry.
It could be that 4th century, with the exponential increase of the cavalry in the army, the long sword was used by infantry to hit higher up the knights?
Then against cavalry: short sword < long sword < spear

returning to the speech of the Celtic blacksmiths: making their items complex and valuable by virtue of the fact that workers usually soft iron (ductile, tenacious, but not very hard).
This material, however, did not allow them to run efficiently on a hardening metal part.
This is because, as mentioned above, they did not know well the carbon used in metal alloys.
carbon is in fact responsible for the hardening after tempering (heating and cooling fast).

[Watchman]

The standard universal anti-cavalry infantry weapon was ever the spear, though... and in some contexts it has been noted infantry actually found short swords quite useful when mixing it up in a whirling melee with horsemen (ones presumably first checked with spears, mind); good for disemboweling and hamstrinting the horses at close quarters or something, apparently.
My guess is that the Romans' preferences just drifted over time; short and long blades have different advantages, and the soldiers may simply have come to prefer those of the latter. The shift was one of gradual lenghtening of the infantry blades over the span of a better part of a century or so, after all, not some kind of overnight jump.

Anyway, as regard period metallurgy, I'm pretty sure most weaponsmiths at least were familiar enough with the effects carbon content has on iron. AFAIK the still rather crude methods used for reducing iron ore produced small amounts of high-carbon steel (which was AFAIK often used to "build up" the edge of a bladed weapon; the "core" of the blade is better off as springier, softer iron anyway) as a side effect, and quite a few phases in the manufacturing process of a blade ought to have altered the carbon content of at least the surface layers. And if teh Wiki article Aper linked earlier is to be trusted, the Celts were quite familiar with pattern-welding...

[mcantu]

the movement over time wasn't always to longer weapons. as the middle ages went on, many knights used short axes and hammers which were effective against the heavier armors that swords (no matter the length) could not penetrate...

[Watchman]

Fair enough; many of the dedicated cavalry "mass" weapons of the period seem almost ludicrously short-hafted (the museum I work in has a warhammer barely the lenght of my forearm, for example). My pet theory is that the short lenght made them usefully handy and agile in a whirling melee with other cavalry.

Swords, though, to a large degree only grew larger in the same period, as the extra control and power two hands gave was increasingly necessary for dealing with the increasingly formidable armour encountered even on common grunts... OTOH the infantry just as often opted for a shorter, handier blade better suited for close quarters, and easier to carry around.

[satalexton]

I'd opt the theory that improving metallurgy allowed for longer blades of better quality. A similar process happened in Sinae around 2 centuries ealier, where single edged proto-katanas gradually replaced the wide-sword as the main Han infantry sidearm.

A person skilled with a longer sword could easily transfer the same skills to a shorter one. The gladius was an excellent weapon for it's period. But that period was over as time went by...similar to the musketeers adapting into riflemen.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

I'd opt the theory that improving metallurgy allowed for longer blades of better quality. A similar process happened in Sinae around 2 centuries ealier, where single edged proto-katanas gradually replaced the wide-sword as the main Han infantry sidearm.

A person skilled with a longer sword could easily transfer the same skills to a shorter one. The gladius was an excellent weapon for it's period. But that period was over as time went by...similar to the musketeers adapting into riflemen.

WARNING, make swords longer does not mean that they are necessarily made in better material.
Metallurgy has been developed with the progress of man and the most advanced civilizations of Greece and the Middle East were most certainly evolved than Celtic.
Certainly the metallurgy of the first had nothing less than that of seconds (it was even better and more advanced).
But, despite this, the long sword was less common in Greece and Middle East.
The large availability of raw materials had become the Celtic smith good for what concerns the forms and the complexity of objects.
But to say that the Celts had a better metallurgy than Greek above me as a questionable assertion.
The long sword should be tough to resist at strong impacts due to centrifugal force.
If it were too hard and might break easily clique.
The soft iron is good at allowing long swords and Celtic had in abundance.
This implies a tough material, but also very flexible and deforms in a plastic (sometimes become unusable).
Unless the Celts did not know the harmonic steel, I doubt that the manufactures were better than the East (from the metallurgy).
I, as metallurgiy graduate, can easily believe this phrase of Polibio:

Polibio (II, 33):
“…I tribuni…avevano osservato nelle battaglie precedenti che i Galli in genere sono più temibili per il loro coraggio al primo assalto, finchè sono freschi, e che le loro spade sono costruite in modo da avere efficace solo il primo colpo di taglio: infatti si rovinano facilmente, ripiegandosi tanto nel senso della lunghezza che in quello della larghezza. E se non si dà il modo ai soldati di raddrizzarle col piede piantandole per terra, il secondo colpo risulta del tutto inutile…”

traduction:
"... The tribunis ... they had seen in previous battles that the Gauls are generally more fearful for their courage to first attack, until are fresh, and that their swords are constructed to be effective only on the first shot of cut: in fact it ruin easily fold both in the length than in width. And if you do not give way to the soldiers of the right it with foot planted for land, the second shot appears totally useless ... "

[Watchman]

Polybius' description there tends to make both historians and smiths go a little "o_O WTF", you know... one theory is that he's rather heavily misinterpreting the fairly widespread custom of "killing" swords by bending them.

Anyway, the Celts were among the top ironworkers of their era; we can also thank them for mail, and they had access to some high-grade iron ore in Noricum and I think it was around what's now Hungary and Bohemia. And they certainly *were* the first to figure out the somewhat tricky art of making metallurgically solid longswords, anyway. Got copied quite widely down the road too.

Also, the Iranic "horse peoples" developed their own patterns of longswords. Those remained the Middle Eastern and Central Asian standard until the Turks eventually introduced the curved sabre (whose early Arabic name actually translates roughly as "Turkish sword") into the region.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Le Tene longblades are perfectly sound, though much stouter and heavier than later Migration Era blades.

[Watchman]

People don't spend centuries hacking each others' heads off with a particular weapon design, which then goes on to spawn a lenghty lineage, unless it works pretty well, that's for sure...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The great thing about the universal-straight-edged-with-a-point design is that it is simple to make, relatively easy to use, and is both a chopper and a poker, not to mention a slasher.

So, that gives you three basic ways to releive a man of his innards.

[Ibrahim]

Indeed. these straight swords are very much useful when fighting.


but I'll still prefer a short poking sword and a long wobbly cane spear any day.

[Megas Methuselah]

Also, the Iranic "horse peoples" developed their own patterns of longswords. Those remained the Middle Eastern and Central Asian standard until the Turks eventually introduced the curved sabre (whose early Arabic name actually translates roughly as "Turkish sword") into the region.

That's pretty cool, man. I remember seeing some cataphracts in-game with their sweet longswords. Does anyone mind telling me a bit more about these?

[Watchman]

Don't forget the occasional reference ot "Scythian longswords". You'll need to ask the steppe and Iranic guys about those, but given the nomads' penchanct for burying their nobility with some *seriously* opulent grave goods (AFAIK they were among the few peoples to commonly include armour), and the amount of digging that has been done in those kurgans, I would assume the archeological evidence is pretty solid.

'Course, given the Scythians' habit of importing or "subcontracting" their higher-end metalwork I wouldn't be surprised if that lineage was a spin-off of imported Celtic blades from Central Europe - the Danube trade route leads right to the Black Sea, after all. But could just as well be a parallel developement - such consummate horsemen would presumably have been early in realizing how useful a long blade is for a mounted warrior, and Middle East at least has a long enough history of fairly long swords going back to the Late Bronze Age, what with the Sherden and Assyrians and whoever. (Dunno 'bout Central Asia.)

[chairman]

There is at least one author that I read on the Celts who was of the opinion that period of Celtic ethnogenesis was one of strong east-west cultural and migrational co-influence between central europe and the north pontic steppe. He said that this would help explain how both the celts and scythians had such similar characteristics: love of horses, LOVE of GOLD, longswords, rich burials, disposition towards movable material goods (gold, cattle, etc) rather than territory or cities. This isn't saying that they were the same peoples, but that at least some minor migrations westward from the steppe took place. Just a theory, but it seems to have some merit.

Chairman

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

There is at least one author that I read on the Celts who was of the opinion that period of Celtic ethnogenesis was one of strong east-west cultural and migrational co-influence between central europe and the north pontic steppe. He said that this would help explain how both the celts and scythians had such similar characteristics: love of horses, LOVE of GOLD, longswords, rich burials, disposition towards movable material goods (gold, cattle, etc) rather than territory or cities. This isn't saying that they were the same peoples, but that at least some minor migrations westward from the steppe took place. Just a theory, but it seems to have some merit.

Chairman

Much that you say is more of an universal drive.