Lugian Swordsmen etc

**Macilrille** · 11-07-2009, 18:30

Olaf, I have non-EB related reasons, but if the unit is ahistorical it does not belong here, whether it is "cool" or not. Roman Ninjas were "cool" as well...

**Olaf The Great** · 11-07-2009, 18:55

Originally Posted by Macilrille

Olaf, I have non-EB related reasons, but if the unit is ahistorical it does not belong here, whether it is "cool" or not. Roman Ninjas were "cool" as well...

How do we know if it's ahistorical? A guy that used to be in the team obviously knew a lot about it, I doubt anyone would make up "cool" units for EB1. Too bad they can't contact him and ask for sources anymore, but I'm sure that guy knew more than you.

**Ludens** · 11-07-2009, 19:12

Originally Posted by seienchin

Wouldnt the iron the celts used be extemly easy to break, if used in such a long shape?

The Celts were some of the best iron workers of the time, so if anyone could make such long swords, it was them. Of course it's not inconceivable that these swords were ceremonial or sacrificial objects rather than actual weapons. IIRC there are some ridiculously long Japanese swords gifted to shrines. I imagine these weapons would break if you tried to lift them (but you can't lift them because they are far too heavy).

Originally Posted by Macilrille

Do we have contact details for them? I never heard of La Tené swords being used two-handed or as hand-and-a-half swords and am mighty curious.

I am certain that the team would have contacted them if they could.

Originally Posted by Olaf The Great

How do we know if it's ahistorical? A guy that used to be in the team obviously knew a lot about it, I doubt anyone would make up "cool" units for EB1.

Not so long ago, a couple of guys argued that these units were made up. That discussion wasn't very civil. Let's not go there again. The units are being re-evaluated for EB2: if they appear again, the team should have sources ready to answer your questions.

**Macilrille** · 11-07-2009, 20:59

I believe I can keep it civil and non-personal- you know what to do if not, and I am mighty curious. For though Olaf may have a hard time believing it, I do know a little bit on that particular topic and am puzzled that I have not heard of the two-handed swords elsewhere.

However;
1. I want to know more and this would be one way to learn it.

2. To me, the find of a long-ish sword is not enough to prove that hand-and-a-half or two-handed swords existed, there can be many reasons for such and many ways of wielding them. "One source is no source", we historians say, and if the only source is that a long-ish sword has been found, I find that highly dubious.

I thus want to know more, see "1" above, and if possible and the units incorrect, perhaps see an improvement in historicity of EB II. Olaf may see the EB team as infalliable, but I do not. If ever I did, 6 years studying history and political science taught me to challenge interpretations that has no sources and "traditional" interpretations, any given historical interpretation is so coloured by its own time that you would not believe it...

Anyway, I see the EB Team as highly competent and admirable for the work they do to bring historical accuracy to RTW, but no-one is infallible- not even me

. And the EB team can make mistakes or even misinterpretations, or interpretations I or others do not agree to and only through debate can the matter be cleared up and perhaps I learn something new; again, see "1".

Now, the la Tène swords I have seen are many and varied, and though I can concievably see the longest 95- 105 Cm ones wielded with two hands or one-and-a-half-handed, the handles are too short and clearly for one-handed use. That is why I am curious and wonder if I have missed a source.

Power2the1, if you can find the article about the Scordisci or a link to it I would appreciate it, anything on the alleged find on heavier blades even more so. We may not ever know for certain, but having wielded a viking sword for 16 years I can probably wager a pretty good guess at its use

**Genava** · 11-08-2009, 16:30

Great Macilrille,
I put already the question here:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...15#post4949215

It is although you would be impassioned by the Celts you too.

**Glewas** · 11-08-2009, 23:51

http://https://forums.totalwar.org/v...ad.php?t=48920

My first post to these forums a long while back dealt with the Celtic two-handed sword and hammer units. I haven't re-read through the whole thing but I think it mostly deals with the hammer units. We do get info from Khelvan and Ranika which provides interesting background on these units - although it is mostly out of date considering it was back 2005...

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ght=swordforum

Then there is this old, but more recent, thread that deals with the existence of two-handed Celtic swords. I don't remember everything it exactly covers but I think the gist of it being that there were some Celtic swords that have unusually long tangs for single-handers and could point to hand-and-a-half/two-handed use. I could be wrong, but it should provide an interesting read...

**Tollheit** · 11-09-2009, 02:43

paullus on Lugians:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...3&postcount=48

**Macilrille** · 11-09-2009, 11:05

Only makes me more undecided. And I am not dizzing the EB Team, if I had a low opinion of them I would not play. But I am also curious and doubtful about the subject matter.

I guess some literature on the matter is appropriate... will visit the uni library and see what I can find at some point.

**Genava** · 11-09-2009, 11:38

I think you have no reasons to believe the Celts used two-handed weapons.
An article on the Prezerworsk culture:
http://www.limitis.org/documentation/Article010.pdf

A two-handed sword is too encumbering and too expensive. With the method of metallurgy of the Celts and Germans, it's impossible to have a good two-handed sword. The two-handed swords are manufactured for the war only during the XIIIth century (the "Branc d'Arçon"). There are some exceptions, but it's always an exception! The majority of the two-handed swords are manufactured for the "pageantry" ("apparat" in french), the great dacian falx are simply a weapon for the poor warriors as the axe for the Celts and the Germans... it's a weapon which penalize the protection, very risky in fight.

**Macilrille** · 11-09-2009, 18:44

That is in French :-( Not one of the three languages I master, one I plan to learn, but planning is not having done ;-)

Anyway, I shall look at pics, drawings and use the bibliography.

**seienchin** · 11-09-2009, 18:50

Originally Posted by Genava

I think you have no reasons to believe the Celts used two-handed weapons.
An article on the Prezerworsk culture:
http://www.limitis.org/documentation/Article010.pdf

A two-handed sword is too encumbering and too expensive. With the method of metallurgy of the Celts and Germans, it's impossible to have a good two-handed sword. The two-handed swords are manufactured for the war only during the XIIIth century (the "Branc d'Arçon"). There are some exceptions, but it's always an exception! The majority of the two-handed swords are manufactured for the "pageantry" ("apparat" in french), the great dacian falx are simply a weapon for the poor warriors as the axe for the Celts and the Germans... it's a weapon which penalize the protection, very risky in fight.

Exactly my point. Medieval two hand swords only worked, because of their advanced steel production. Iron is just too heavy() and easy to shatter. Falxes and axes have a wooden shaft to make them usable.

**Macilrille** · 11-09-2009, 19:17

But we are not talking Zwei-händern or Flamberges here, we are talking something akin to a 12th- 13th century hand-and-a-half sword. Even the short-ish Viking Swords (75-105 cm total length, with very narrow grip/short tang) were sometimes gripped by two hands to deliver more powerful blows- if we can believe our later narrative sources...

However, until such time as I or someone else who posts here reads and digests books on the matter and cite them as sources, I will probably keep my gob shut on the matter, for it seems no-one knows anything for certain.