The return of the Western Mediterranean Way of War

[Duncan Head]

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.

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, 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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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, 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'.

[Duncan Head]

Well, skipping the Halstatt issue as being strictly before the period we're interested in, here's one summary:

Aux 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.

[Patrick Waterson]

What do you make of the Mindelheim sword type, 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?

[Duncan Head]

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.

[Mark G]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

was it Telamon that Polybius commented about on that long celtic swords were of poor quality and easily bent?

[Duncan Head]

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.

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.

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

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.

[Andreas Johansson]

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.

[Mark G]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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

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.

[Duncan Head]

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".

[Patrick Waterson]

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.