+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Allies & Enemies of Rome (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Swords in "Celtic" Society (/showthread.php?tid=14704)
Swords in "Celtic" Society - Jesper D - 02-25-2009
I bet the average celtic warrior would charge at the thought of someone treating something as holy as a sword as a simple tool of war! I bet it was still quite common in those early days, well maybe not in rome, to think that the magical quality of your weapon was its most important quality
Re: Sources for gladius hilt materials - caiusbeerquitius - 02-25-2009
Quote:I bet it was still quite common in those early days, well maybe not in rome, to think that the magical quality of your weapon was its most important qualityInteresting. On what kind of source do you base this argument?
Re: Sources for gladius hilt materials - Magnus - 02-25-2009
Quote:I bet the average celtic warrior would charge at the thought of someone treating something as holy as a sword as a simple tool of war! I bet it was still quite common in those early days, well maybe not in rome, to think that the magical quality of your weapon was its most important quality
As far as I know, the only high regard for a sword was from feudal Japan, unless I am mistaken. As Christian said, I'd love to see a source that Celts viewed their weapons as "holy".
And swords ARE tools of war...their mystic value is something gained in modern times, not ancient.
Re: Sources for gladius hilt materials - Marcus Mummius - 02-25-2009
Quote:Quote:I bet it was still quite common in those early days, well maybe not in rome, to think that the magical quality of your weapon was its most important qualityInteresting. On what kind of source do you base this argument?
Didn't the scandinavian people also have special feelings about the weapons they used? I think some mythic swords had a name and such. I've seen nothing like that in Roman mythology....
Re: Sources for gladius hilt materials - Jesper D - 02-25-2009
My tone was and has been ever since the moment I mentioned the word "irreverent" very light. I thought that was obvious.
I do apologize for not expressing myself clearly enough.
But yes I do and did believe celts held their weapons and especially the sword in a very high esteem. I myself find it very difficult to understand how the world must have have looked to someone raised with polytheistic ideas in a warrior society 2 and a half millennia ago.
Maybe I'm out of line(??) but I think it is highly realistic that many warrior societies from this period were more than likely to instil the thing that brings death to your enemies with just a little bit more than the factual beliefs of today. This is my opinion, it is not a fact and I do not think I have ever tried to represent it as a fact.
Cheers,
Jesper
Re: Sources for gladius hilt materials - caiusbeerquitius - 02-25-2009
Thats more.... hmmm.... esoterical, then. Usually we are on this board more concerned with sources and what we know from them resp. what can be deduced from them, and we are less concerned with / about belief. :wink:
Re: Sources for gladius hilt materials - caiusbeerquitius - 02-26-2009
Quote:But yes I do and did believe celts held their weapons and especially the sword in a very high esteem. I myself find it very difficult to understand how the world must have have looked to someone raised with polytheistic ideas in a warrior society 2 and a half millennia ago.To go more into detail:
Maybe I'm out of line(??) but I think it is highly realistic that many warrior societies from this period were more than likely to instil the thing that brings death to your enemies with just a little bit more than the factual beliefs of today. This is my opinion, it is not a fact and I do not think I have ever tried to represent it as a fact.
1. I am not sure to which extent the polytheistic religion plays a role here.
2. To which extent was the "celtic" culture a warrior society? If we look at the early "celtic" culture, that is Hallstatt, we find that war didn´t play a very large role at all. Were there differences between the "celtic" tribes in these matters?
3. As far as we can guess from the scarcity of swords these are ususally linked to high status. That´s nothing very special, the same could be said for Italic cultures from those periods as well. This is directly linked to the price of metal. So to claim that the swords were status symbols would make sense, but to claim that they also had a supernatural connotation is only speculative.
Re: Sources for gladius hilt materials - Jesper D - 02-28-2009
"1. I am not sure to which extent the polytheistic religion plays a role here."
I thought that most polytheistic religions more readily and to a greater extent than monotheistic religions tended to believe in mystical/magical abilities incorporated into objects.
"2. To which extent was the "celtic" culture a warrior society? If we look at the early "celtic" culture, that is Hallstatt, we find that war didn´t play a very large role at all. Were there differences between the "celtic" tribes in these matters?"
You are taking it back to halstatt culture... I have read very little about halstatt culture I'm afraid, most of what I have read about is post 500bc. But pls do enlighten me! Everything I have read on celtic ppls have suggested they were a very warlike ppl, with constant wars(raids rather) between tribes and social status very much based on skill in combat.
"Roman historians describing the short-coming of celtic swords when encountering roman legionaires must be seen in context: Celtic swords were probably not meant to be used on armoured opponents. The blades show a high degree of specialization: slim dimensions, fine and thin edges and points that can be used in slashing cuts and thrusting attacks on opponents that have none or very little in the way of armour. Quick, precise swords meant to be used by expert swordsment in single combat betewwn(sic!) equals (or to be used in terrorizing unarmored civilians, of course). This is very different from trying to hack into a line of heavily armed infantry with sturdy helmets and metal reinforced shileds. A highly specialized tool is bound to fail when put to use in a way not intended with the design."
This is a quote from a Peter Johnsson post on myarmoury.com
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic ... tic+swords
I have always been lead to believe that this was typical of celtic society, a small force of highly skilled warriors dominating a tribe.
"3. As far as we can guess from the scarcity of swords these are ususally linked to high status. That´s nothing very special, the same could be said for Italic cultures from those periods as well. This is directly linked to the price of metal. So to claim that the swords were status symbols would make sense, but to claim that they also had a supernatural connotation is only speculative."
Ah but of course it is speculative! Wasnt that clear from the start? Considering the background of the society in those days, with varius claims of rulers(pharaohs, augustus etc) that they were gods walking the earth, its is not too far fetched to assume that the main status symbol of the ruling class in warrior societies had a certain mystical value...
This is why I jokingly said that celts probably saw the roman use of the gladius as "irreverent".
Re: Swords in "Celtic" Society - Alanus - 03-28-2009
If I might be allowed, I would venture that so-called "Celtic" swords held very little mythical power-allusion. They were weapons of the higher members of the kindred: the kings, petty kings, and even the factums.
We have few, if any, sources for the status and value of swords in Celtic culture until we reach the Christian era. Then, luckily, we do find some references to swords, such as the Church records of Saint Cadoc (c.500-550). Several swords were given to the church (or from the factum to the king, who in turn gave the annona of a parcel of tribal land to the church) by kings and factums. One sword had a name similar to Excalibur and a value of 70 cows. Another was worth 30 cows, another at 24 cows. The first one was "gold hilted," which indicates a Black Sea styled origin and not Celtic.
But the important thing is the high value of a sword in Celtic society, understandable when we consider the time and pride involved in its construction, and its use, not only on the field of battle, but as a status symbol of those who owned it.
Re: Swords in "Celtic" Society - Jesper D - 04-19-2009
Hey and I thought this thread was dead and buried!
Look at the technical aspects of the forging procedure and the ornaments on early Celtic swords and you get a rather clear picture of the celtic sword of pre-christian times.
The picture I painted was meant to be sarcastic... I do not think the Celtic society worshipped swords or thought they had magical abilities in general.
On the other hand I wouldn't be surprised to find a successful Gaul warrior 2400 years ago claiming that he owed his success to a blessing of some god or other etc. I seriously do not understand how anyone can dispute this as the phenomenon is still not unusual today... May I recommend Latro in the Mist by Gene Wolf? For an impressive account of how the hellenistic spiritual world might have looked for an ancient with a head wound. I'd say it's a must read, I'm serious.
Having that said, I was rather new to the forum and expected a few jokes back... And then some light-hearted serious responses. I was somewhat taken aback with the tone of the response. I do understand why, to be honest I have probably reacted similarly in other areas of interest when faced with posts like my own. Anyway being the sophist I am I had to argue for a case I did not support. On the other hand I find the rationality we apply to the ancient peoples to be rather absurd at times, this was one of those cases. What I really wanted was to understand, I never did get around to it, is why the Celts at the battle of Telamon used equipment and tactics that they just had to know was useless against romans(thanks for reminding me!).
The Celts armament seem to have revolved around single combat, duels where agility and swordsmanship were the key factors to victory. The use of armour seem to have been seen as cowardly as the celtic sword generally is exquisitely forged and decorated but not powerful enough to cut through armour. See Polybius description of the battle, taken from Fabius Pictor I understand(as he was there).
These Celts were neighbours of Rome, they certainly had been exposed to Roman ways. I do realise they had not fought a battle with Rome since the ~387BC sack of Rome. But I find it very hard to believe that they did not realise the Romans were heavily armoured and made use of extensive missile troops. Small shields were not helpful, neither were swords that had difficulty beating the not so spectacular roman armour of the time or the very little armour on their own troops. The Celts had approximately 4 times as much cavalry as the Romans! And these were cisalpine Gauls, well prepared and not far from home. The romans obviously surprised and "sandwiched" the Gauls with two armies and I am not questioning why the Gauls lost the battle really, but rather why they werent equipped to meet hoplites. The Celtic infantry must have been decisively beaten if not even their extreme cavalry superiority could win the day for them
Re: Swords in "Celtic" Society - Dan Howard - 04-21-2009
I think it depends on the time period. During the early days of Rome most of the settlements in southern Italy were Greek. The Gauls at this time often travelled from their region in northern Italy to fight as mecenaries in the south for various Greek tyrants. Rome was right in the middle of this route. Some of the early skirmishes between Gauls and Romans were probably impromptu encounters with these bands. These Gauls definitely had experience fighting hoplites.
Re: Swords in "Celtic" Society - Jesper D - 04-21-2009
and still they kept the weapons that are effective against other celtic people but not against the type of armour hoplites used. One would think the experience would have taught them something...
Re: Swords in "Celtic" Society - Conal - 04-21-2009
Quote: What I really wanted was to understand, I never did get around to it, is why the Celts at the battle of Telamon used equipment and tactics that they just had to know was useless against romans(thanks for reminding me!).
Have you studied the campaign lead up to this battle in detail? Their arms and tactics had already stood them in good stead having already defeated a Roman contingent. At Telamon they were trapped between an existing army, which can be said to have wanted to avoid futher battle as they seemed content to follow at a distance and a newly (unexpectedly?) arrived army from Spain. The Celts were out-numbered also.
Quote: The Celts armament seem to have revolved around single combat, duels where agility and swordsmanship were the key factors to victory.
This a commonly held falacy. As an example the three horse policy for cavalry where there was a warrior who had an assistant with two horses, one the assistant rode and a spare used to replace the warriors mount if needed. If warrior fell in battle the assistant took his place in line. This alone requires agreat deal of co-operation and tactical planning.
Chariot tactics were similar in their co-operative aspects as they delivered warriors to the line and picked them up when pushed back. This requires unit cohesion as keeping an eye on one man in a battle would be quite a feat.
Now if you have both cavalry and chariots behaving thus I would be happy postulating that there was more unitary cohesion in the infantry than the Celt's are usually given credit for.
Quote: The use of armour seem to have been seen as cowardly
This is supposition. They are said to have developed mail ... used by the elite .. those who would, I think, not want to appear cowardly.
Quote: as the celtic sword generally is exquisitely forged and decorated but not powerful enough to cut through armour.
Are there "any" swords that powerful? Celtic swords are like any other of varied quality.
Quote:But I find it very hard to believe that they did not realise the Romans were heavily armoured and made use of extensive missile troops. Small shields were not helpful, neither were swords that had difficulty beating the not so spectacular roman armour of the time or the very little armour on their own troops.
Just how heavily armed were the Romans ... I understood that this was post Hoplite in date? Also, as mentioned above, they had been fighting Etruscans and for other Greek states so were familiar with hoplite warefare. Rumour has it that the "Celtic charge" was developed as a direct result of the need to break a hoplite line.
I very much doubt that small shields were used .. even by the Gestatae? These are likely to have been shoulder to knee scuta.
Quote:The Celts had approximately 4 times as much cavalry as the Romans! And these were cisalpine Gauls, well prepared and not far from home. The romans obviously surprised and "sandwiched" the Gauls with two armies and I am not questioning why the Gauls lost the battle really, but rather why they werent equipped to meet hoplites. The Celtic infantry must have been decisively beaten if not even their extreme cavalry superiority could win the day for them
I think you are indded questioning why the Gauls lost the battle and are in fact postulating that it was their equipment .... useless against Hoplite infantry.
I think the sandwich may well have been as much a surprise to the Romans as it was the Celts.
Maniplular tactics may also have been a factor.
Bad judgement, bad luck ... who knows. They tried for home with booty intact instead of turning on the following Romans and engaging them. Had they done so and won, no sandwich, and maybe been able to flee the 2nd army.
Re: Swords in "Celtic" Society - Jesper D - 04-21-2009
I have not studied the battle of Faesulae in detail. I did not mention this battle because it involved a "Roman" side composed of hastily recruited etruscan and samnite allies led by a Praetor. They seem to have been ambushed and badly mauled, the allies seem to have been saved by the arrival of consular legions under Papus.
I don't know if there is any detailed studies or accounts of this battle but as I understand it it didnt have anything to do with roman consular regions of the time. Not to mention that ambushes dont really reflect the impact of arms and armour, I assume Samnites and Etruscans still fought as hoplites, would have had under other circumstances.
Umm, yes Triarii did fight as hoplites, Principes were in a transition phase of going from the hoplite spear to the Pila as main weapon and the Hastati were definately not a hoplite type soldier any more. I tend to think of them as hoplites with Pila hehe
) A bad habit of mine....Btw, I thought the consensus was that the the "two" armies at Telamon, i.e. the Roman(two armies really..) and the Gaul, were pretty evenly matched with around 70 000 men on each side. Well, maybe the romans had a few thousand infantry more but that would hardly have been decisive when Gaul had ~20 000 cavalry and Rome ~5000-6000.
I think Polybius states that:
1.The Gaesatae fought with small shields and thus had problems with Roman velites
2.The Celtic swords tended to break on Roman armour
The reason why I go on and on about Celtic swords is that I have read what Peter Johnsson said about Celtic swords, after studying MANY. I posted the link above. He thinks that Polybius statement is not propaganda and find it reasonable, as I understood it. Celtic swords were not made for close rank fighting or armoured apponents.
The general idea that Celts invented mail have been criticized and from what I have read it is a shaky theory at best.
I hardly think that the Gauls had many chariots, even though they had 20 000 cavalry, and only the elite of the elite could afford the three horse policy I suspect. Then again the elite of the elite probably were differentiated, i.e. most societies recognize that leaders need more protection than "unimportant" men no? If so, the leaders perhaps would not loose status by using mail? Armour was unusual on Celts, they should have been able to armour themselves better if they wanted, I think.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Gauls had more discipline and organisation, generally, than we give them credit for.
I havent heard that about the celtic charge being developed to break a hoplite line, seems like a bad idea(phalanxes' strength was frontal defense) when they could have used their mobility to outflank the slow phalanx.
I hear that the only thing that required more "cohones" than a frontal assault on a phalanx shield wall is for infantry wo pikes to stand up to a charge of heavy cavalry. I dont know... and I have no intention to find out... :mrgreen:
Re: Swords in "Celtic" Society - Conal - 04-21-2009
Quote:I have not studied the battle of Faesulae in detail. I did not mention this battle because it involved a "Roman" side composed of hastily recruited etruscan and samnite allies led by a Praetor. They seem to have been ambushed and badly mauled, the allies seem to have been saved by the arrival of consular legions under Papus.
I don't know if there is any detailed studies or accounts of this battle but as I understand it it didnt have anything to do with roman consular regions of the time. Not to mention that ambushes dont really reflect the impact of arms and armour, I assume Samnites and Etruscans still fought as hoplites, would have had under other circumstances.
There are accounts. This cannot be dismissed as an insignificant ambush. It was a hard fought battle.
Quote:Umm, yes Triarii did fight as hoplites, Principes were in a transition phase of going from the hoplite spear to the Pila as main weapon and the Hastati were definately not a hoplite type soldier any more. I tend to think of them as hoplites with Pila hehe
:?
Quote:Btw, I thought the consensus was that the the "two" armies at Telamon, i.e. the Roman(two armies really..) and the Gaul, were pretty evenly matched with around 70 000 men on each side. Well, maybe the romans had a few thousand infantry more but that would hardly have been decisive when Gaul had ~20 000 cavalry and Rome ~5000-6000.
Two consular armies ... more like 100,000 plus.
Quote:I think Polybius states that:
1.The Gaesatae fought with small shields and thus had problems with Roman velites
2.The Celtic swords tended to break on Roman armour
He did but is it attested to elsewhere? This can be interpreted as artistic licience to explain why the javelins wre having so much effect on the Gaestatae.
Quote:The reason why I go on and on about Celtic swords is that I have read what Peter Johnsson said about Celtic swords, after studying MANY. I posted the link above.
He is speculating.
Quote: He thinks that Polybius statement is not propaganda and find it reasonable, as I understood it. Celtic swords were not made for close rank fighting or armoured apponents.
At that time they were cut & thrust weapons of 65-70cm, length .... incidently the Roman weapon at the time would have been an Italic version of a xiphos, about 60-65cm in length. Accordingly all the stuff written about a Roman advantage of Gladius vs Celtic longsword (no good for infighting) is tosh for this period.
No sword is designed to attack armour. The Celtic sword was designed to cut exposed arms & legs and to stab at openings where armour is not covering... as was the Roman sword so why Peter Johnsson needs to emphasise its lack of impact against armour (this in particular for a Celtic sword) I do not know. Try Plenier's "The Celtic Sword" book, it gives a good insight into them.
Quote:The general idea that Celts invented mail have been criticized and from what I have read it is a shaky theory at best.
Its not a general idea but specific to the earliest known mail being found in Celtic contexts. No eveidence as far as I know goes beyong speculation ... if you have a source that will debunk then please post away.
Quote:I hardly think that the Gauls had many chariots, even though they had 20 000 cavalry, and only the elite of the elite could afford the three horse policy I suspect.
You are speculating here. Why wouldnt they have had mand chariots?
The Mongols used a remuda system ... so did US cowboys on cattle drives... they managed to afford it.
Quote: Then again the elite of the elite probably were differentiated, i.e. most societies recognize that leaders need more protection than "unimportant" men no?
Celtic leaders were not stay in the rear politicians ... they were expected to get out front and challenge an opposing champion.
Quote: If so, the leaders perhaps would not loose status by using mail? Armour was unusual on Celts, they should have been able to armour themselves better if they wanted, I think.
And they did ... plenty of helments around.
Quote:There is no doubt in my mind that the Gauls had more discipline and organisation, generally, than we give them credit for.
This is a Roman board ...ssshhhhhhhHHHH they think all Celts were stupid 8)