[M. Eversberg II]

Of those 23, were any of the edges work hardened, like the earlier bronze weaponry?

M.

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

Polybius, commander of cavalry before and after great historian, tells of the weak lame Celtic, the poor from having to force the warriors to leave the fray for make straight swords. (Polybius, Histories II, 30, 8, 33, 3-5) Plutarch also says that the swords of the Celts is deformed
easily (Plutarch Camillus 41, 5).
In fact we should challenge these data, since the archaeological discoveries swords Celtic had nothing less than the swords of other peoples, apart from only a few tribes (Italic and perhaps Switzerland). To be specified, however, that even within these tribes, only the weapons belonging to the poorer classes were actually forged in soft iron, and moreover of poor quality.
Perhaps only the ignorance of the Romans, it was thought that swords are folded in the tombs were a sign of poor steel, in reality it was a funeral Celtic.
Diodorus Siculus talked with fear of the terrible swords Celtic.
The weakness of the Celts were not their swords, but their discipline in battle.
Maurizio

[Jeroen Zuiderwijk]

[M. Eversberg II]

I would much like to examine a sword like that sometime.

M.

[Joseph E.]

Along with the design features and metallurgical composition of Gallic long swords vs. Roman counterparts were the differences in tactical approach for which each was designed. Form follows function; the Gauls favored longer swords for their whirling, slashing fighting style, while post xiphos-copy Roman swords were intended and used primarily as thrusting swords. It was not only the design of Celtic blades, but their style of use that subjected them to the type of forces likely to bend them during combat. Thrusting a shorter sword from behind a shield is far less likely to bend the sword, even if it were made entirely of soft iron.

[Jeroen Zuiderwijk]

[Joseph E.]

[Shane Allee]

We simply can not rely on Roman accounts for this topic of many others when the archaeology clearly shows otherwise. If you look at the La Tene I period swords they were shorter, had large mid ribs, and acute points. These would have been thrusting and slashing weapons, not cutters. La Tene II swords drop the mid rib, start getting longer and are in general more cutting swords. By La Tene III there is an explosion of blade types that range from pure cutting swords to designs that would be primarily thrusting swords. The La Tene III sword of spheres is a rapier or smallsword type of blade. Even the blades that look like 15th century cut and thrust swords would be mainly thrusting since they are still single hand and the COP and balance point would be very close to each other. This was a major period of warefare that was driving the development of the sword, and we see this impact on blade shape, size, and hilt design.

I simply do not understand why stories over 2000 years old seem to hold more ground with people then physical artifacts.

Shane

[Dan Howard]

Agreed. Roman authors had a tendency to "spin" any details about the Gauls to make them seem inferior. The texts are of little use when trying to compare the fighting styles of Gauls and Romans. They can only be considered reliable when they are consistent with the physical evidence.

We know that bands of Gauls travelled to southern Italy to fight as mercenaries for the Greek Tyrants. They fought as hoplites just like all heavy infantry at that time. The Roman image of the Gallic barbarian fighhting by himself with his clumsy longsword is simply untrue in most cases. They knew about phalanxes and shield walls and their equipment reflects these tactics. The main difference is the tendency of Gallic champions to challenge opponents to one-on-one combat before the battle commenced.

[M. Eversberg II]

Shane, what, in your opinion, differentiates between a "cut" and a "slash"?

Never believe propaganda written by anyone, ever; it lead us down the 20 pound metal club path in the past, and we do not need to come onto the swizzle-straw sword path now.

I would, however, like to experience the technical differences between the swords I am used to and a iron (or steely iron, or steel) sword that has been work hardened instead of quench hardened (and subsequently reheated and left to cool so it didn't shatter). That would be fun.

M.

[Joseph E.]

To my knowledge, gentlemen, I have not claimed period Roman writers as my only source, or even that they are entirely believable. At the same time, however, we should not entirely dismiss Roman accounts. We know, for instance, that the majority of Gallic fighters went to battle unarmored, as claimed by Roman accounts--though the reason for this was likely more economically driven than by bravado, as the Romans suggest, and the percentage of them who fought completely naked is likely exaggerated.

It is also true that the Celts of various tribes and regions and times fought in various styles, and certainly included units of elite professionals. Moreover, the sword was most certainly not the most common weapon on the battlefield. But, we are talking about the *swords* that were used, and the likelihood of some of them bending during combat. (Please note I have also never claimed that such was a common occurrence, but have provided a theory that, if it did happen, might explain some contributing factors).
As to the tactical differences, the weapons speak for themselves. While it is true that La Tene blades are found in a variety of shapes and sizes, it is my understanding that the most common style of the late period by a considerable margin are of the long, thinner cross sectioned type, with points varying between somewhat serviceable and completely blunt. The Gauls were not uniformly armed (which either points to loose organization, or separate specialized units with distinct equipment, both of which, in fact, may be the case within a large culture), but since there are large numbers of slashing swords found, many, (it seems most) mainland Gallic swordsmen of the late period were slashers. Mind, this does not mean they couldn't have been excellent at it, just that it could create the variables necessary for bending a blade in battle with more probability than with a short sword using different tactics.


`

[Shane Allee]

[Joseph E.]

[Jared Smith]

What you have said about the physics of longer bars, higher momentum and stress does make engineering sense. I do not know the cross sectional thickness, and depth of the fuller like ridges. Can someone sketch an estimated cross section and guess at the thickness near the center ridges? From Shawn's comments, it sounds like these may thicken considerably at the center region or spine of the blade. That could give this type of blade a lot of stiffness and strength despite the length. (My Munich comes to mind which seems like it would be a delicate and flexible sword based upon a similar profile view, but realizing the true thickness of the spine and stiffness in hand always tempts me to test how thick a gauge of sheet metal I could pierce thrust straight through with it.)

As a matter of curiosity, I wonder if these longer blades could have been associated with Celtic-Gaul cavalry?

[M. Eversberg II]

Would it be correct to assume that gladii were quenched and tempered throughout their service life, or would it vary based on era and point of manufacture?

M.

[Jared Smith]

Examination of finds (Celtic) as early as 5th century B.C. era within regions that would now be considered Northern Italy found piled construction, perlite, bainite, martensite and other phases indicative of attempts at heat treat. Some discussion of sources of metal ores, their qualities, and who were adept at working them were also recorded in the Natural Histories (3rd century A.D., I think). I don't have all of the specifics, but think there are more than enough indicators to consider this as more than just a coincidence. I have no idea what percentage of weapons got this level of effort.