|
11.2 Swords of Celts and
Romans
|
|
11.2.1 Background to Celtic
Swords
|
| |
Preface |
 |
About everything relating to Celtic
swords can be found in
Radomir Pleiner's book "The Celtic
Sword". So go, read it.
Or read on. That's much easier for two reasons:
- You won't be able to get Pleiner's book. It is out of print and not
available on the second-hand book market.
- It contains 211 pages. What follows is based on Pleiner's book to a large
extent but will be much shorter and far easier to read. It is also less
specific and less accurate.
|
|
The first thing to note is that there
is no such thing as "The Celtic Sword", just as there is no such
thing as "The German Car". True, the German (or better Suebian)
Carl
Benz did make the first gasoline-driven car, and his wife Bertha took it
upon herself to go out on the very first car ride, but in the 126 years that
followed many different types of German cars evolved. There were even periods
without decent
cars. Other countries also made cars, based on inventions of their
engineers, and in actual fights (on racing courses) German cars even lost on
occasion. Nevertheless, almost anybody in the world (provided he is male)
associates something specific with the denomination "German cars".
|
|
 |
It is pretty much the same with
"Celtic iron swords". There is something to that classification but
it is neither well-defined nor clearly distinguished from
"Non-Celtic" iron swords of the time. Celts also used bronze swords
for quite some time in parallel to iron swords. Then there were periods were
only few Celtic swords were found, times were swords were predominantly found
in the graves of chieftains, and times were they were found in common graves.
Sometimes they were rather long, sometimes rather short. Hilts came in various
shapes, and scabbard design could be rather plain or rather complex. Then there
are a few exceptional, totally atypical swords: "Knollenknaufschwerter"
with very long thin blades having a more or less square cross-section,
altogether rather similar to the much later
rapiers.
Nevertheless, with a little bit of background knowledge you know a Celtic sword
when you see one. |
|
Why do I start with Celtic swords
after having discussed early Near-East swords? Because we have plenty of Celtic
swords and because they are among the oldest long iron swords we are aware of. More important:
they are the most advanced iron / steel objects of their time, demonstrating
some new degrees of cunning as far as working with iron and steel is concerned.
|
| |
|
What exactly defines "The
Celts" is not all that clear but they certainly did run around Europe and
the Near East a lot in the second half of the first millennium BC, wielding big
swords of bronze or iron. I gave you a whole module on this already. They were
out to make booty and not to build an empire and eventually succumbed (around 0
AD) to the better organized and more disciplined Romans (the Celts were
not proto-Germans, obviously!). And nobody
would have called them "Celts": The Germanic tribes called them
"Walah", the Greeks "Galats", and the Romans
"Galli". Celtic tribes had names like Boii, Lingones, Senones,
Insubres, Gaesatae.
In 390 BC a Gaulish=Celtic warband first defeated the Roman army at the Battle
of Allia, moving on to
sack
Rome in 387 BC. Then they left again with plenty of gold and the well-known
quip: "vae victis" (woe to the vanquished). |
|
|
| |
|
The
Roman empire at this time was small and confined to Italy whereas Celtic tribes
controlled a much larger area. This map gives an idea of what the Western
Mediterranean empires looked like around 600 BC - 300 BC and how the Celts
related to their neighbors: |
|
 |
The Celts and other powers in the
"West" around 600 BC - 300 BC
Large picture |
| Source: Wiki common; Alexikoua.
|
|
|
Why do we have so
many old Celtic swords, often in excellent conditions, while we have hardly any
Greek iron swords and not
too many Roman ones? I don't know for sure. One reason I can think of is that
early archaeologists digging up the quite visible remains of ancient Egypt,
Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome and so on simply did not care for occasional pieces
of rusted iron or remains of smelters and forges. They treasured well-preserved
bronze swords if they found some, and rusty remains if they were associated
with
some
gold, but other stuff might have been gone unnoticed. Not that I blame
them. There were simply far more exciting things to discover than rusty swords,
not to mention that much of what we know today wasn't known then. However, when
pretty much all you dug up were Celtic swords like in
La Tène, you had to
take notice.
What we dig up iron-wise today is closely related to the way old cultures used
their metal things. Let's look at extremes with respect to swords to illustrate
what I mean.
- A sword was the ultimate symbol of a free man. You received your sword at
some coming-to-age ceremony from some authority, you treasured it and gave it a
name. It went into
your grave with you (or was passed on as holy heirloom).
- A sword was one tool among many needed by soldiers. You got it as standard
issue with your other gear, and you gave it back when no longer needed. You had
no emotional attachment to it. The iron might have been recycled in peaceful
times.
|
|
|
The Celts and in particular the
Germanic tribes lumbering in the North-East (and the Japanese, the Parthians
and others) leaned more to the first extreme, the Egyptians, Romans, Greek and
others more to the second. King Tut did have his
khopesh (sickle sword)
among his grave goods but it had no special status. Egyptians ranking below a
Pharao did not have swords in their graves as far as I know.
If swords were not conscientiously put into a special place like a grave or
sacrificed by throwing them into rivers, lakes or bogs, chances are small that
we will find much today. It goes without saying that the sword-conscious
societies were also the ones with a tendency to sacrifice the swords of the
beaten enemy (not to mention the surviving enemies). |
|
As far as the development of iron /
steel technology in certain cultures is concerned, we simply can't find out
much without having some artifacts. Whatever, for example, the ancient Greeks
or Egyptians did in this respect, we hardly know. That is deplorable but
probably no big loss. It stands to reason that the development of iron / steel
technology mostly took place in societies that attached importance and cult
status to swords. |
| |
|
|
| |
The Celtic
Sword as Seen by Writers |
|
The written history of the Celtic
sword actually begins with remarks of Greek and Roman writers about the
Celts in general and their swords in particular. However, Roman and Greek
history writers often lied, just like governments in general and the American
Government in particular, or some writers of some Holy Books, and we should not
necessarily believe everything we read. The Celts chose to be illiterate so we
have no accounts from them before about 500 AD when some written stuff with
roots to Celts appeared in Ireland. Celtic culture could survive there for some
centuries because the Romans never bothered to invade the Island. |
|
About the earliest writer dealing
with Celts and their swords is the Roman Polybius (ca. 208 BC - 125 BC). Polybius was a
cavalry commander who got around and a
writer of history books. He has a lot to say about Celts, certainly quite a bit
from his own experience. But he also recounts earlier stuff from accounts of
other writers that are now lost to us.
Even before the Celtic Senone tribe under
Brennus
sacked Rome for the first time in 387 BC, the civilized citizens south of the
Alpes ("cisalpine") got to know the "transalpine" Celtic
people from the raids inflicted on them. All authors recounting these events
agree that the citizens of the Cisalpine regions "were horrified by the savage way in which the Celts
prosecuted their campaigns. The hordes of men with their unusually large
physiques and barbarian battle-customs filled them with terror of the Gauls.
Celtic warriors provoked their enemies before battle (writes Diodorus) with
'senseless bravado' (Dionysius of Halicarnassus),
threatened them by shouting, singing, and by brandishing and clashing their
arms. They immolated (=sacrificed, e.g. as ornaments to a
bonfire) their captives and decapitated the enemy dead. The ritual basis
of these practices is reflected in reports by Diodorus, by
Strabo and Silius
Italicus. The desperate aspect of the naked fighting men of the
Gaesatae, equipped solely with their arms and golden ornaments created a
horrific impression (Polybius). The nudity of
selected warrior groups was certainly based on symbolic and ritual approaches
to lethal combats, and achieved a considerable psychological
effect" writes Pleiner.
Here are a few direct quotes: |
| |
|
Dionysius of Halicarnassus (end of
the first century BC):
"Thus at one moment they would raise their
swords aloft and smite after the manner of wild
boars, throwing the whole weight of their bodies into the blow like hewers of
wood or men digging with mallocks, and again they would deliver crosswise blows
aimed at no target, as if they intended to cut to pieces the entire bodies of
their adversaries, protective armor and all ..."
However, he continues:
"While their foes were still raising their swords
aloft, the Romans would duck under their arms holding up their shields, and
then stooping and crouching low, they would render vain and useless the blows
of the others, which were aimed too high, while for their own part, holding
their swords straight out, they would strike their opponents in the groin,
pierce their sides, and drive their blows through their breast, into their
vitals." |
|
|
Most ancient accounts generally
describe swords as the weapons of the rank-and-file, often accompanied by a
spear. But other authors state explicitly that the sword was the main
weapon of the Celts.
- Plutarch (ca. 46 – 120 AD) relates
that the strength of the Gauls depended on their swords.
- Livy (59 BC – AD 17) states that
the Galatae in Asia Minor had no other offensive weapons than swords.
- Dionysius of Halicarnassus wrote:
"As weapons of offence they (the Celts) have spears and very long slashing blades"
- Diodorus Siculus (first century BC)
states: "In place of the short sword they carry long broadswords."
|
|
|
However, there is also some
agreement on the poor quality of the Celtic swords. This does not necessarily
mean that the quality of the iron / steel was bad but that the weapon was not
efficient against Roman gear and fighting styles. This leads right into the
famous paragraph found in The
Histories of Polybius II where he
describes the battles of Cannae (216 BC) and Telamon (225 BC):
"The Romans are thought to have managed matters very
skilfully in this battle, their tribunes having instructed them how they should
fight, both as individuals and collectively.
For they had observed from former battles that Gauls in
general are most formidable and spirited in their first onslaught, while still
fresh, and that, from the way their swords are made, as has been already
explained, only the first cut takes effect; after this they at once assume
the shape of a strigil1), being so
much bent both length-wise and side-wise that unless the men are given leisure
to rest them on the ground and set them straight with the foot, the second
blow is quite ineffectual.
The tribunes therefore distributed among the front lines
the spears of the triarii who were stationed behind them, ordering them to use
their swords instead only after the spears were done with. They then drew up
opposite the Celts in order of battle and engaged. Upon the Gauls slashing
first at the spears and making their swords unserviceable the Romans
came to close quarters, having rendered the enemy helpless by depriving them of
the power of raising their hands and cutting, which is the peculiar and only
stroke of the Gauls, as their swords have no points.
The Romans, on the contrary, instead of slashing
continued to thrust with their swords which did not bend, the points being very
effective. Thus, striking one blow after another on the breast or face, they
slew the greater part of their adversaries".
Pure slander as far as all those Celt aficionados out there are concerned. But,
maybe, it's true? We shall see.
Polybius did have on thing right: If you are fighting naked, without armor, you
are particularly vulnerable to opponents who are skilled at thrusting with
their (short) swords. As Vegetius Renatus (4th century AD) wrote, looking back:
"They [the ancient
Romans] were likewise taught not to cut but to thrust with their swords. For
Romans not only made a jest of those who fought with the edge of that weapon,
but always found them an easy conquest. A stroke with the edge, though made
with ever such force, seldom kills, as the vital parts of the body are defended
both by the arms and armor. On the contrary, a stab, although it penetrates but
two inches, is invariably fatal." |
|
|
|
So far the reports from the side
fighting the Celts (and, of course, winning all the time). From the other side
we only have what archeologists dug up. We also can try to put things together
from several written sources and do a bit of reading between the lines. |
|
|
What emerges is that the Celts were
not always wildly energetic but ill-disciplined single fighters; at least some
Celts at some time engaged in organized warfare. They were among the first ones
charging and fighting from horseback, i.e. acting as cavalry. They also used
chariots (after that had been out of style for centuries).
The "TRUTH" is not black or white but
grayish, it
seems. One fact, hover, remains: The Celts in the 5th century BC or so were on
the verge of turning into a "High Culture" with the concomitant
empire building. They didn't - whereas the Romans did. |
| |
|
|
|
Finding
Celtic Swords |
|
Where does one find Celtic swords?
There are three major sources:
- Graves. From simple graves of normal people to the huge tumuli or barrows
erected for VIPs, full of goodies.
- Places of sacrifice or concealed hoards. There one might find lots of stuff
in a small area.
- Accidents. Artifacts get ploughed up in a field or trenched up from river
beds, for example.
Let's look at a few examples. |
|
What comes first to mind concerning
Celtic graves are the Hallstatt graves that
gave the name to the "Hallstatt
culture", and the large graves below major tumuli in South Germany
like the "Klein Aspergle"
or Hochdorf in my old
romping grounds. |
| |
|
Hallstatt today is such an extremely
picturesque small town that the Chinese have created a copy of the whole thing,
so they do not have to travel all the way to see it. The original is
located in
Austria, not too far from Salzburg. In 1846 the Hallstatt community
exploited the salt mines in the area, like their predecessors for the last
several thousand years, and it was then that a large prehistoric cemetery of
proto Celts or whatever you like to call them was discovered, yielding more
than 1000 burials.
A time line from 1200 BC to about 500 BC is covered in Hallstatt, and the 800
BC - 500 BC range marks the start of the European iron age and the Celtic
culture. Among the many metal objects found were (mostly bronze) swords, and
among the swords were some special ones that appeared in bronze, in iron, and
in mixes. |
|
|
| |
|
Quite similar stuff was later found
in many places in Europe and these swords are commonly referred to as
Mindelheim sword or
Mindelheim type. About 100 Mindelheim swords have been found, 60 have iron
blades. They are decidedly of the slashing type, rather long, and often come
with a characteristic "Mexican hat"
pommel: |
|
|
 |
| Mindelheim-type swords from Hallstatt.
|
|
|
|
A
prime example
of a Mexican-hat Mindelheim type iron sword was found in Oss, Holland; rather
far North in comparison to most other finds. |
|
|
Some other types of
swords were found too. The so-called Guendlingen sword
was quite prominent and mostly bronze; from 180 known swords only 18 have iron
blades. Here are a few
pictures. Books could be written (and have been written) about the Hallstatt
swords and all the other stuff but never mind, I give you
Kirk
Spencer's short article about the Mindelheim (and Gündlingen) swords
instead. Now let's consider the swords from the big graves of major chieftains if not kings.
Well - tough luck. There aren't any worthwhile mentioning. In
fact, even in Hallstatt the swords got shorter and more insignificant as time
moved on. The big Mindelheim-type swords shown above are from the so-called
Hallstatt C period, about 800 – 600 BC. In the Hallstatt D period (600
– 475 BC), elaborate show-off daggers replaced the long sword as the
essential weapon put in the grave (besides often a spear).
Here are a few examples.
The comparatively large
cities going with the
big barrow or tumuli graves fall in this period.
The Celtic "Fürst" (more or less a King), as these guys are
called in German, didn't need a sword anymore to advertise his power and
prowess in battle. He had underlings for the dirty jobs and showed his position
by imported luxury items as shown
here |
|
Graves are good places for digging
but places of sacrifice or hoards aren't bad either. While much rarer, you get
more than one sword per dig. The problem is that it in contrast to graves, it
is not always possible to figure out why
several swords (and
other goodies) were deposited in one place or within a confined area. Maybe
somebody was just hiding his goodies from the incoming enemy? Maybe a ship with
several warriors went down, depositing their goods in a river bed? Some finds
however, can be best understood by assuming that the goodies were sacrificed,
conscientiously thrown into a bog, for example. That will come up in a major
way again when I come to the Nydam treasure about 600 years into the
future. |
|
|
Now look at this
picture: |
|
|
 |
La Tène swords
Large picture |
Source: A somewhat different version of
this picture was originally assembled by
Kirk
Spencer from the Sword Forum Family.
The pictures themselves come from the book of J. M. De Navarro 2) |
|
|
|
All these swords (and more) were found close to
the small village of La Tène in
Switzerland, situated right at the shore of the Neuburger See (Lac de
Neuchâtel). The name of the village, like Hallstatt, served to identify
the La Tène culture. The La
Tène culture stretched over a huge area of much of Europe and it is a
bit ironical that the town of La Tène was right at its
southern edge. The
"early" La Tène culture is dated to (450–250) BC; the
late one to (150 - 0) BC; in between is "middle La Tène". All
the swords above are from the middle period.
La Tène is also just right beyond the borderline where the Swiss switch
from talking German to talking French. It thus comes as no surprise that the
archaeological history of La Tène is a mess. No - I didn't mean that.
The early excavations were actually supervised by a Oberst (Colonel) Friedrich
Schwab, a German officer. |
|
|
| |
|
La Tène is not the only place
where Celtic swords have been found in bulk, although it certainly leads by
sheer volume. |
|
Then we have the accidental finds.
During peat digging around Lindholmgård in Denmark an almost perfectly
preserved La Tène type
sword with its scabbard came up, for example: |
| |
|
|
|
|
Also during peat digging the world
famous Gundestrup
cauldron was found, also from the La Tène period. And so on.
Sometimes special swords turn up, like the ones with an
anthropoid hilt, typically found in
graves of the very rich and important in later times (1st century BC). |
|
The long and short of all this is:
There are plenty of Celtic iron swords for performing a thorough investigation
into their metallurgy and the processes employed for making them. So let's see
what has been done in this respect. |
|
|
|
© H. Föll (Iron, Steel and Swords script)
