Well, not exactly the same argument that was put forward by Paul M-S on the ancmed list a few years ago; but similar in that it suggests a Western Mediterranean "military koinē" based around infantry fighting in "clouds" with various javelins and long shields, and established before Roman ascendancy.
https://www.academia.edu/26292605/Ante_bella_punica_Western_Mediterranean_Military_Development_350-264_BC
Specific points made vary from the interesting to the inaccurate.
Not that again.
And from a university on the the inferior island too.
I had a quick flick and will return when I have read it more deepky.mHowever, there does appear to be a flaw in his ligic. Soldiers adopt a panoply that suits their skirmishing tactics, later they are adopting skirmishing tactics because they are using arms and armour that are suitable for skirmishing. I'm confess I have a problem with large armies of footsoldiers operating in clouds as I cannot see them having any solidity and thus being aboe to deal with hoplites or similar foot except in rough ground ( and Sphacteria is rough ground). Nor am I happy that we can just ignore the written sources and follow an extreme 'function follows form' argument against solid infantry lines when the form of the weaponry fits equally well with a denser formation. Perhaps later on the author gives some back- up evidence, but the first part of the argument, which should have referred to such evidence relies on the author's own inagined construction of an argument from the presence of Italic style armours in N Africa and Spain.
Roy
His secondary sources list was a bit thin for an M.A, I thought. (lesser island, shouldn't be surprised)
Including bar kochva also raises questions for me too, so much of his military analysis keeps falling apart now that it is no longer the main English language book on Seleucids, as it was in the 70s.
And a bit too reliant on prof Q.S and his Spanish work.
Not yet able to face the task of seeing whether that is evident in the text though.
The thing about QS that stood out for me, was that he was mostly interested in defeating a 19th century notion that the Spanish could only fight as irregulars and skirmishers. Basically, some prusdian Junker's only bothered to read back to corunna, and missed tertios, the Reconquista, and basically the entire Spanish imperial phase.
Extrapolating that simple argument into a parallel system across the western med is problematic.
Recognising that Spain and Italy have lots of hilly bits is not hard, so there are obviously going to be similarities in tactics that work in hills and forests. Greeks called the same thing peltasts., and there are only so many ways you can shape a spear, sword , helmet of shield if you excluded decoration.
I could easily hear a case for similarity between Spanish and Samnite's. It would be like comparing apples and oranges on the basis of shape though. What matters is how they taste, and there is no link there.
Not so sure I can accept an argument that social legions were unchanged by fighting for Rome.
Nothing on gaul stood out from the first skim. The thesis is pointless if it avoids the Celtic connecting lands.
And a lot on the Carthaginians, it seems. It will be interesting to see whether he classes them as western med, Hellenistic, or north african.
But frighteningly for me, we had a broader bibliography for our sling shot piece. There seemed very little modern work on roman fighting methods, and if he has indeed focussed on a received wisdom about Rome, a lot of detail on Spain, and a theory that social legions were unchanged until well into the pubic wars, i would be reluctant to grant a masters.
But that's just from a first skim.
And I am already biased against because he went to Auckland uni.
Quote from: Mark G on March 31, 2017, 07:11:28 AMNothing on gaul stood out from the first skim. The thesis is pointless if it avoids the Celtic connecting lands.
Actually for me it was some of the ideas about the Gauls that did stand out. Nothing new as such, but it did remind me:
- That there are so many shanked pilum-like javelins from Montefortino and other Italian-Gallic sites;
- That the classic long Gallic slashing-sword developed from c.250 BC, so earlier Gauls are using mid-length pointed swords;
- That as Lumsden points out this throws serious doubt on some of the classic written accounts of Roman responses to the Gauls, such as Plutarch's Camillus, which describes innovations intended to counter weapons that don't exist yet.
It does make me wonder if 4th-century Italian Gauls might be significantly tactically different from later Gauls. And if so, why?
Quote from: Duncan Head on March 31, 2017, 08:47:19 AM
Quote from: Mark G on March 31, 2017, 07:11:28 AMNothing on gaul stood out from the first skim. The thesis is pointless if it avoids the Celtic connecting lands.
Actually for me it was some of the ideas about the Gauls that did stand out. Nothing new as such, but it did remind me:
- That there are so many shanked pilum-like javelins from Montefortino and other Italian-Gallic sites;
- That the classic long Gallic slashing-sword developed from c.250 BC, so earlier Gauls are using mid-length pointed swords;
- That as Lumsden points out this throws serious doubt on some of the classic written accounts of Roman responses to the Gauls, such as Plutarch's Camillus, which describes innovations intended to counter weapons that don't exist yet.
It does make me wonder if 4th-century Italian Gauls might be significantly tactically different from later Gauls. And if so, who changes, and when and why?
Mark,
which book has replaced Bar Kochva? I could not find any listing in the forum book section.
Regards,
bill
Thanks for sharing, Duncan. It's an interesting thesis, but it strikes me that there are a few problems with the argument.
1) He proceeds from the assumption that the Romans were not really that different from anyone else and that when Livy and Polybius say they were different it is because they were in fact propagating a myth of 'Roman exceptionalism'. Roman allies are not really any different from Carthaginian mercenaries or subject peoples and Roman fighters are not really any different from Carthaginians, Iberians, Celts, etc...
This is a built-in assumption, not one that is arrived at.
2) He reinforces his argument with argumentation rather than evidence.
Preparation: "This thesis will show that x fought in a cloud formation."
Evidence: "It seems that x fought in cloud formation [A, 2001]."
Reinforcement: "As this thesis has shown, x fought in cloud formation and y probably did too [A, 2001]."
Conclusion: "Therefore, x and y were not really that different, and in fact utilised a broadly similar system [A, 2001]."
3) He does not properly take into account the complementary battlefield functions of different types of troops. He argues that the Roman line structure is only what everyone else was doing. The Romans were only different in that they clearly delineated who was doing what, and this is probably being attributed backwards anachronistically anyway. Therefore, he contends, Roman tactics were not really exceptional.
Actually, for wargamers at least, this recognition and institutionalisation of complementary function is one of the things that made them exceptional!
4) He hedges his bets with equipment. In one section he asserts that only the rich used swords; at other points in the argument swords of various types are well attested, and indeed corroborate the correlation between x and y. The possible ceremonial function of arms and armour is enlisted only in support of his argument, when it can be used the other way as well.
5) He ignores or dismisses contrary evidence. As one example, he argues at one point that because Roman officers are recorded as being hit by javelins that warfare was primarily skirmish-based. Surely the obvious sword damage that so unnerved Philip's Macedonians should be taken into account as well?
It's interesting stuff but I'm unconvinced by his theory as a whole. I find certain aspects of his argument persuasive at times, and it will be interesting where he takes things from here. He promises to pursue this further in doctoral studies, so he will be able to further refine his ideas then and address criticisms. I certainly wish him all the best and it's great to see a new generation taking such an interest in ancient warfare.
Quote from: Duncan Head on March 31, 2017, 08:47:19 AM
Actually for me it was some of the ideas about the Gauls that did stand out. Nothing new as such, but it did remind me:
- That there are so many shanked pilum-like javelins from Montefortino and other Italian-Gallic sites;
- That the classic long Gallic slashing-sword developed from c.250 BC, so earlier Gauls are using mid-length pointed swords;
- That as Lumsden points out this throws serious doubt on some of the classic written accounts of Roman responses to the Gauls, such as Plutarch's Camillus, which describes innovations intended to counter weapons that don't exist yet.
I thought the Gauls under Brennus were not Italian-based Gauls; might they have been using different weaponry and possibly even a differing tactical repertoire?
Quote
It does make me wonder if 4th-century Italian Gauls might be significantly tactically different from later Gauls. And if so, why?
WMWW ;D - sorry, proximity of 1st April ...
Actually, that is a point worth pursuing. How best to pursue it?
Bill,
Book? No idea, but his conclusions keep showing as dubious as time progresses.
Most notably for me, his magnesia is very dodgy (and was seen as controversial at publication, but became dominant as far as I can tell because we all brought the book and wanted to validate our new army lists).
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 31, 2017, 08:08:02 PM
Actually, that is a point worth pursuing. How best to pursue it?
Well, one area would be comparative archaeology. Duncan notes a change in weaponry slightly later. Are there any antecedents to that to show a different "panoply" North and South of the Alps?
Quote from: Prufrock on March 31, 2017, 06:01:39 PM5) He ignores or dismisses contrary evidence. As one example, he argues at one point that because Roman officers are recorded as being hit by javelins that warfare was primarily skirmish-based. Surely the obvious sword damage that so unnerved Philip's Macedonians should be taken into account as well?
But the clashes with Philip V were well after the period covered in the thesis, and involve the Spanish sword which according to Suda/Polybios was adopted after the Second Punic War. So this can't undermine his thesis about the pre-Punic Wars period.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 31, 2017, 08:08:02 PMI thought the Gauls under Brennus were not Italian-based Gauls; might they have been using different weaponry and possibly even a differing tactical repertoire?
Livy's account of the Gallic migrations into Italy is perhaps not as clear chronologically as it might have been, but:
Quote from: Livy 5.35Then the Senones, the last to come, occupied the country from the Utis to the Aesis. It was this last tribe, I find, that came to Clusium, and from there to Rome; but it is uncertain whether they came alone or helped by contingents from all the Cisalpine peoples.
He attributes the sack of Rome principally to the Cisalpine Senones, the very nation who left us the Montefortino cemetery - though possibly with Transalpine allies.
Quote from: Duncan Head on April 01, 2017, 09:31:29 PM
Quote from: Prufrock on March 31, 2017, 06:01:39 PM5) He ignores or dismisses contrary evidence. As one example, he argues at one point that because Roman officers are recorded as being hit by javelins that warfare was primarily skirmish-based. Surely the obvious sword damage that so unnerved Philip's Macedonians should be taken into account as well?
But the clashes with Philip V were well after the period covered in the thesis, and involve the Spanish sword which according to Suda/Polybios was adopted after the Second Punic War. So this can't undermine his thesis about the pre-Punic Wars period.
Good point, Duncan. But of the examples of javelin wounds in Livy he cites (from Sabin) in order to support his contention that the sword was not the dominant weapon in the 3rd and 4th centuries, all but one (poor old Decius Mus) were themselves from the time of the 2nd Punic War or later (see p.115 in thesis).
Quote from: Duncan Head on April 01, 2017, 09:38:29 PM
Livy's account of the Gallic migrations into Italy is perhaps not as clear chronologically as it might have been, but:
Quote from: Livy 5.35Then the Senones, the last to come, occupied the country from the Utis to the Aesis. It was this last tribe, I find, that came to Clusium, and from there to Rome; but it is uncertain whether they came alone or helped by contingents from all the Cisalpine peoples.
He attributes the sack of Rome principally to the Cisalpine Senones, the very nation who left us the Montefortino cemetery - though possibly with Transalpine allies.
While that paragon of antique historical information, Geoffrey of Monmouth, brings Brennus from our very own sceptred isle. :)
Tradition, such as it is, does seem to favour transalpine allies (cf. Livy V.34 where the emigration from Gaul into Italy at least begins under one command) and hence could relieve us from exclusive commitment to Montefortinocentric paraphernalia. As of 391 BC, the men of Clusium regarded the Gauls as "
the unfamiliar [invisitatus = not seen before] figures of the men and their novel weapons [armorum]," [Livy V.35.4] indicating a lack of commonality with then existing Italian equipment.
According to Livy, the Gauls defeated the Romans at the Battle of the Allia in 390 BC, the year after they first invaded Italy. This would be some time before they could have established the Montefortino cemetery, which would thus not be an accurate guide to weaponry and equipment in use at the time.
Quote from: Erpingham on April 01, 2017, 10:29:53 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 31, 2017, 08:08:02 PM
Actually, that is a point worth pursuing. How best to pursue it?
Well, one area would be comparative archaeology. Duncan notes a change in weaponry slightly later. Are there any antecedents to that to show a different "panoply" North and South of the Alps?
I must confess to ignorance on this point. La Tene weaponry (dating from c.500 BC onwards) seems to be our principal sample for north of the Alps, characterised by broad-bladed spears and long iron slashing swords. For Montefortino weaponry I shall have to rely on Duncan as internet searches seem obsessed exclusively with the helmet type.
Being still at the educated(?) guessing stage, I would envisage the Gauls arriving in Italy with their traditional long, heavy swords as primary armament and then later, say during the 3rd century BC, the Gauls still resident in Italy might well have adapted to a more missile-oriented approach for the initial stages of a battle.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 02, 2017, 10:28:19 AMBeing still at the educated(?) guessing stage, I would envisage the Gauls arriving in Italy with their traditional long, heavy swords as primary armament and then later, say during the 3rd century BC, the Gauls still resident in Italy might well have adapted to a more missile-oriented approach for the initial stages of a battle.
But the issue that the original author points out is the opposite: that the "long, heavy swords" are
not traditional but only emerge in the 3rd century. Before that the Gauls used shorter, pointed swords developed from Halstatt types - as shown here (http://www.livius.org/a/1/romanempire/etruscan_celt.jpg), which is an Etruscan stele from c.400-350 and may be one of the earliest depictions of an Italian Gaul.
What further research would want to do, I suspect, is:
- Try to confirm how accurate this idea is, whether it's an oversimplification of a more mixed picture (it's bound to be a simplification to some degree or other), or whatever. I'd start with Radomir Pleiner's book
The Celtic Sword were I doing this, which I am not. Connolly had something to say on this as well.
- If the accepted picture of a move from mid-length pointed swords to long slashers in the 3rd century is indeed correct, can we identify a geographical area where this started and spread from?
- Look at the distribution of spearhead types in cemeteries beyond Cisapline Gaul. Is the abundance of iron-shanked javelinheads at Montefortino and Monte Bibele repeated in other regions, or is it distinctive of the Italian Gauls?
- If not, did they adopt these javelins in Italy itself? If so we might be looking at "Italianization" affecting the Gauls. Certainly Paddock's thesis on the bronze Italian helmet suggests that the Celts brought iron helmets south of the Alps, and that it was
Italian smiths who started copying them in bronze - producing the bronze Montefortino which we know (because it was found at the eponymous Senonian cemetery) was then adopted by the Italian Gauls themselves, as well as by so many others. Not that this directly bears on fighting style, but it's an intriguing example of mutual influencing.
Quote from: Duncan Head on April 02, 2017, 07:57:50 PM
But the issue that the original author points out is the opposite: that the "long, heavy swords" are not traditional but only emerge in the 3rd century. Before that the Gauls used shorter, pointed swords developed from Halstatt types - as shown here (http://www.livius.org/a/1/romanempire/etruscan_celt.jpg), which is an Etruscan stele from c.400-350 and may be one of the earliest depictions of an Italian Gaul.
But were not some of the Halstatt types of the long variety? The contention that 'long, heavy swords' first emerge in the 3rd century BC is the key issue, but its basis seems questionable.
The list of points to pursue is a good one, as these should help to validate or invalidate the assertions about weaponry, even if they do not directly address the central contention of 'cloud-based warfare'.
Well, skipping the Halstatt issue as being strictly before the period we're interested in, here's one summary:
QuoteAux dagues et poignards de la première moitié du Vème s. av. J.-C. succèdent de longues lames étroites et acérées d'environ 80 cm. Leur taille diminue sensiblement à la fin du siècle (50 à 60 cm). Les lames du IVème s. toujours effilées sont pourvues d'une nervure médiane plus ou moins marquée. Les plus longues atteignent 65/70 cm pour une largeur d'environ 5 cm, tandis que les plus courtes, larges de 3 à 4 cm, ne dépassent guère 50 cm. Un module intermédiaire comprend des lames mesurant entre 60 et 64 cm. Au IIIème s. av. J.-C., avec le passage à La Tène moyenne, les épées les plus courtes disparaissent au profit d'armes plus puissantes avec des longueurs allant de 65 à 75 cm. Si l'extrémité est encore marquée, la pointe s'émousse, et la section tend à devenir lenticulaire. La fin du siècle, et le suivant se singularisent par un allongement significatif de l'épée. L'amplitude des longueurs de lame (65/85 cm) qui n'excédait pas une dizaine de cm durant la première moitié du siècle, double, marquant plus nettement la différence entre l'équipement des cavaliers et des fantassins. L'épée avec sa pointe à peine marquée n'assume plus que des fonctions de taille, la lance étant l'arme d'estoc par excellence de cette période.
from https://www.academia.edu/1459341/Larmement_celtique_en_fer_Lecce_2011
Depends what you call "long", I suppose; but the 4th century blades sound not much longer than what we now think of as the "gladius hispaniensis" - up to 70 cm compared with the Delos sword at 64 cm blade-length and the Smihel swords at up to 66 - while according to this, it's only in the second half of the third century that barely-pointed slashing-only blades up to 85 cm become popular.
What do you make of the Mindelheim sword type (http://www.bronze-age-craft.com/Mindelheim_Sword.htm), Duncan? Might it be a precursor of the long Gallic slashing sword, and if so, are we absolved of the need to wait until 250 BC for such a weapon to arrive/emerge?
It could be, I suppose. But I am not convinced, because it seems to die out around 600 BC; we'd need to establish some sort of continuity between 600 and 250.
And if the theory is correct that Mindelheim is a cavalryman's (or charioteer's) weapon, its relevance for Gallic infantry combat is limited anyway.
These shorter Celtic swords.
Are they slashers, or pointers?
I'm just wondering whether the longer sword was an improvement on existing as metallurgy improved,
but the same basic role of slashing in combination with lighter shields.
Whereas Roman were more stabbing in combination with the large body shield.
Two entirely different models of combat with just a roughly similar sword length in common.
was it Telamon that Polybius commented about on that long celtic swords were of poor quality and easily bent?
Quote from: Mark G on April 04, 2017, 04:44:54 PM
These shorter Celtic swords.
Are they slashers, or pointers?
Probably dual-purpose, judging from the longish points. And the Gaul on the stele linked to above looks to be thrusting.
QuoteI'm just wondering whether the longer sword was an improvement on existing as metallurgy improved,
but the same basic role of slashing in combination with lighter shields.
Whereas Roman were more stabbing in combination with the large body shield.
The Romans' "Spanish" sword adopted c.200 was a dual-purpose cut-and-thrust weapon, as Polybios makes clear in Book VI. We don't know with any certainty what swords the Romans were using in the 400-250 BC period that the original article covers. It might have been the Greek leaf-bladed xiphos, since that's illustrated on early Roman currency-bars. If so, that's primarily a cutting sword, judging from the blade shape and the way it's used in Greek art, though it has a thrusting point as well.
So no real indication of different fighting styles here, once you start to look behind the stereotypes.
Even the shields are similar - long ovals with a single horizontal handgrip, wooden spine, etc. By the later 3rd century the Roman shields are bigger than (most) Gallic shields, and are curved where Gallic shields are flat; but in the period under discussion we don't even know if that is true.
Quote from: Duncan Head on April 04, 2017, 09:44:38 AM
It could be, I suppose. But I am not convinced, because it seems to die out around 600 BC; we'd need to establish some sort of continuity between 600 and 250.
Which may be difficult if the populations concerned were migrating in the meantime, particularly with regard to the preservation of iron weapons. We need some nice fortuitous datable burial sites.
Quote
And if the theory is correct that Mindelheim is a cavalryman's (or charioteer's) weapon, its relevance for Gallic infantry combat is limited anyway.
Although it is just a theory - or even 'speculation'. Another theory is that the Mindelheim sword was the 'real thing' (i.e. standard infantry combat weapon) and the Gundlingen sword an inferior trade version. The aspect that appeals to me is the existence of a long sword designed for slashing in a 'Celtic' cultural context prior to the Gallic invasion of Italy c.391 BC - even if we have no direct examples from that particular time period. The apparent 200-year (or more) discontinuity is potentially problematic, but the pre-existence of these long Halstatt types does at least overturn arguments that weapons of this nature only began to exist in the 3rd century BC.
That the Mindelheim and Gundlingen sword types have different geographical distributions would seem to argue against the one being a cavalry sword and the other an infantry one, or any similar functional split: at least infantry must have existed all over the areas in question.
Holly,
That is seen as more myth than truth now, probably from confusing the ritual sacrifice by bending, with poor iron making a flimsy sword.
I understand all evidential finds show a perfectly sound and non bending weapon.
And example general metallurgy is if high quality.
Quote from: Holly on April 04, 2017, 07:13:46 PM
was it Telamon that Polybius commented about on that long celtic swords were of poor quality and easily bent?
It is in his account of the fight against the Insubres in 223 BC (Polybius II.33). At Telamon he remarks only upon the other feature of Gallic swords:
"The shields and swords of the [Romans] were proved to be manifestly superior for defence and attack, for the Gallic sword can only deliver a cut, but cannot thrust." - Polybius II.30.8
Quote from: Mark G on April 05, 2017, 06:36:50 AM
That is seen as more myth than truth now, probably from confusing the ritual sacrifice by bending, with poor iron making a flimsy sword.
Except that ritually bent swords were buried in Gallic ceremonies to which Greek authors were not, as far as we know, invited, so the latter would have to rely on after-action reports from people who actually fought Gauls. :)
As earlier noted in a different thread, classical references to bendy Gallic swords cease after Hannibal crosses the Alps. I suspect his smiths helped the Gauls master
tempering as a better solution than
annealing to the problem of potentially brittle iron.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 05, 2017, 08:01:35 AM
Except that ritually bent swords were buried in Gallic ceremonies to which Greek authors were not, as far as we know, invited, so the latter would have to rely on after-action reports from people who actually fought Gauls. :)
Not a safe assumption, given sources such as Pytheas and Poseidonios who travelled extensively among the Celts and published their findings. Diodoros certainly was confident that he knew what went on in Gaul "n connection with the sacred precincts of the gods".
Good point: Posidonius (Poseidonios) is a little late to influence Polybius etc. but Pytheas is in the right timeframe (late 4th century BC) and there is reason to believe that Polybius read him.
The question to my mind is whether the soldier Polybius would take his understanding of Gallic sword characteristics in battle from accounts of burial ceremonies or accounts of battles.