Dual-Wielding units?

[Orlorin]

[spoiler]

(or they repeat themselves in broken English....)

i've seen it first hand.

Thats because their usually nationalist Europeans trying fix their national image damaged in WW2. (Germans screwed over the world, French got skrewed)

[torongill]

Who said it had to be a chiefatin? I was simply pointing out that the idea of dual wielding might appeal to a random warrior who HAD to have a sword anyway. It's not like every Gaul preferred to use a spear. And no, just because something happened before doesn't mean everyone will account for it. For example, it was evident that armored divisions fared poorly in urban enviornments, yet what did Russians do in Chechnya? Send in Tank Divisions. So your point is moot.

Actually, you did:

if a noble wanted to fight with two swords, let him.

And no it would probably not appeal to him since one of the things that showed he was a free man was his shield(at least that was among the Germans, as well as the knife). But that's another topic. Most Gauls used a spear, as they used javelins and lots of them; A lot of them had swords, both long and short; Somecarried axes. They had shields, because the shield was the most cost-effective protection there is. Even without armor if a warrior had a big shield he would be decently protected. Dual Swords would require them to ditch their shields, which as I explained I believe using simple words, with predictable terrifying results. Maybe I should draw you a picture with stick men, using the painting techniques of four-year olds, so that you can understand me? And if you're going to provide examples, please use relevant ones, because right now you're comparing apples and onions. And by this I mean that the Chechnya blunder has as much relevance to the discussion of whether there were dual-wielding units in Antiquity as apples, being a tree fruit with sweet flavor, can be compared to onions, which are the roots of herbaceous vegetables with pungent, even irritating taste. I'm not really sure I can put it more simpler than this.

I just provided you a source from a history textbook...

And you misinterpreted it hilariously

I was raised a Korean in Uzbekistan under the shambles of Post-Soviet panic. Trust me, I'm not suffering from Eurocentrism.

I didn't say Eurocentrism.

When did I ever say the Greek Cities were centralized?

You implied it by sayng that the Gallic armies couldn't have been organized, because there was no king of Gaul and that they were centralized, as opposed to the Greeks, who according to you were the complete opposite. Selective loss of memory? Again?

They are also quite proficient at it. European and Jewish armies have fared very well against poorly organized militias that the Middle East fields.

Not relevant to the topic at all, which you know.

Everything about that time period is highly subjective.

Actually no, it isn't. But it requires you to think instead of trusting the words of often highly subjective sources.

Saying all cultures are equal is incredible naive. No, not all armies and cultures are equal.

Nobody has said so.

Some were beter adapted for that particular time period. Some allowed for a higher level of development across all sectors. That's why we remember Romans as victors and Gauls as losers. This is despite all their "ingenuity and sophistication." Something was obviously amiss that allowed Romans to triumph over Gauls not once, but many times. Each side won some, lost some but Romans clearly dominated overall.

It has a lot more to do with climate, population density and numerical superiority and cultural heritage(Rome was exceptionally expansionist and militaristic), apart from the fact that the Romans had no problem with what we call today "ethnical cleansing".

Thats because their usually nationalist Europeans trying fix their national image damaged in WW2. (Germans screwed over the world, French got skrewed)

Please go troll somewhere else. And maybe learn the difference between "they're" and "their" while you're at it.

[Sukiyama]

Actually, you did:

Did I ever say only nobles?

[quote=torongil]
And no it would probably not appeal to him since one of the things that showed he was a free man was his shield(at least that was among the Germans, as well as the knife). But that's another topic. Most Gauls used a spear, as they used javelins and lots of them; A lot of them had swords, both long and short; Somecarried axes. They had shields, because the shield was the most cost-effective protection there is. Even without armor if a warrior had a big shield he would be decently protected. Dual Swords would require them to ditch their shields, which as I explained I believe using simple words, with predictable terrifying results.

Maybe I should draw you a picture with stick men, using the painting techniques of four-year olds, so that you can understand me? And if you're going to provide examples, please use relevant ones, because right now you're comparing apples and onions.

That's just rude and unnecessary, would you like me to reply in a similar manner? Or perhaps arguing with you is disrespectful because I shouldn't argue with you?

And by this I mean that the Chechnya blunder has as much relevance to the discussion of whether there were dual-wielding units in Antiquity as apples, being a tree fruit with sweet flavor, can be compared to onions, which are the roots of herbaceous vegetables with pungent, even irritating taste. I'm not really sure I can put it more simpler than this.

Not at all, both are decisions made by people. They weren't the smartest ones and ignored common sense thus proving that humans are prone to making errors.

And you misinterpreted it hilariously

I did not, the textbook clearly implies that all future citizen-patriots partake in such trainign. Maybe you'd like me to scan the page for you in the original Russian?

I didn't say Eurocentrism.

Might as well have, since you seem to be under the imperssion I view the Greek and Roman cultures as superior to others.

You implied it by sayng that the Gallic armies couldn't have been organized, because there was no king of Gaul and that they were centralized, as opposed to the Greeks, who according to you were the complete opposite.

No, I clearly stated this.

I'm not questioning their ingenuity. I'm questioning the social structure they lived in. I doubt there was such a thing as "King" of Gaul. Power was decentralized. As such, a standing army of significant proportions would be hard to maintain considering they are a tribal system. I understand that Gauls united when there was trouble or when they had a common Gaul, but what impact does that have on an army? Thousands of different troops from twenty different regions, using different home-brought equipment. They speak differently, fight differently, dress differently. Of course it's ingenious how Gaul commanders fought with such an army. They are similar enough, and speak a similar language but even in the 18th century during the American Revolution we had trouble bringing different troops from different states together and use them as an effective fighting force. I can't imagine how hard it must've been when your army is potentially 80-200 thousand troops and with a much lower level of technology than today.

How many times are you going to skim what I post?

Selective loss of memory? Again?

Trying to be a smartass again? And the mods call me "insulting." I rarely start the fires, yet it seems they catch me in the act somehow. This is an unnecessary quip and I can reply in a similar acid-like manner if you want.

I believe the mods already removed something about selective vision from one of your posts.

Not relevant to the topic at all, which you know.

Really?

Alright, let me explain to your why it is Spoiler alert.

[spoiler]

Unless you claim that sports in high school today are a preparation for service in the armed forces, you can't claim that the Athenians trained for war from twelve years of age. That's pure troll logic.
The term you're not sure how to translate would probably be "ephebeia".
But this hardly means Athens had a professional army. What you're describing here is more like the obligatory military service for males that countries like Germany, Switzerland or Israel are practising. The young men receive knowledge and train for war in case they have to defend their country. A professional army is what the USA have right now - volunteers, who take up soldiering as their profession.

Thank you for explaining to me the "word" I was looking for. Also, the textbook clearly stated that yes, athletism was practiced precisely with war in mind, as well as a healthy lifestyle.

Now since you clearly consider militias inferior...

They are also quite proficient at it. European and Jewish armies have fared very well against poorly organized militias that the Middle East fields.

I posted this because it disproves your point. Well trained militia units have proven to be capable fighters. This was proven during Napoleonic Wars as well. Why wouldn't Athenian militia units be a reliable military machine as well? In fact weren't Romans militia units as well? Just a few months training and they become a deadly fighting force...

Actually no, it isn't. But it requires you to think instead of trusting the words of often highly subjective sources. Nobody has said so.
It has a lot more to do with climate, population density and numerical superiority and cultural heritage(Rome was exceptionally expansionist and militaristic), apart from the fact that the Romans had no problem with what we call today "ethnical cleansing".

Really? You do realize that history is about events caused by people and nations, who are often fickle in their decisions. This is why sometimes we come to the wrong conclusions. We read the causes and effects wrong simply because our own human nature would do things for "different reasons."
Especially when we don't have evidence and can only infer from "logic."

Please go troll somewhere else. And maybe learn the difference between "they're" and "their" while you're at it.

Careful, apparently throwing the word "troll" around warrants an offense.

[torongill]

Not at all, both are decisions made by people. They weren't the smartest ones and ignored common sense thus proving that humans are prone to making errors.

One is a strategic decision based on faulty intelligence and severely underestimating the enemy, while severely overestimating the capabilities of friendly forces, while also employing outdated attack patterns and models. IIRC Grachev thought that just having the tanks appear would cower the Chechens into submission and was in fact thinking more along the lines of Pudapest 1956 instead of Berlin 1945.

The other is a hypothetical situation, the outcome of which would be evident immediately to anybody with a functioning brain and rudimentary knowledge of Gallic warfare. A dual-wielder would be a big juicy target for the enemy javelins, of which practically every single enemy soldier would have a couple. He would be outranged by enemy spears, he would need probably double the fighting space of a generic swordsman with a long sword and shield, which would mean he'd be outnumbered as well in any situation. The only way he might even think about ditching his shield would be if he had superb armor. And ringmail this is not. So what would be the advantages of dual swords in your view? Would they be enough to compensate the weaknesses?

Maybe you'd like me to scan the page for you in the original Russian?

Не надо, спасибо.

Thank you for explaining to me the "word" I was looking for. Also, the textbook clearly stated that yes, athletism was practiced precisely with war in mind, as well as a healthy lifestyle.

But it was not training for war. It prepared you for the rigours of combat, true, but it was school and sports training. The disciplines you posted would help you build the muscles you'd need for military training and war, but the disciplines themselves weren't. In fact they were the official Greek Sports, celebrated at the Olympic Games. Javelin throwing was not used by the hoplites. Nor did they throw disks in combat. Neither was jumping, unless you count the two ridiculous scenes from the movie Troy(Achilles jumping in the air to stab the giant from above and the scene of the Greeks charging the Trojan army after Menelaus dies.) Training for war was done in the ephebeia, where for two years the future citizens learned to work as a team in the phalanx, learned to advance as one, learned to push in synchron, learned swordfighting if they could afford an instructor, etc.

Now since you clearly consider militias inferior...

I don't actually. I was just pointing out the differences between a militia-based army and a professional army. No bias implied. In fact, I love the Swiss model and wish it could be implemented. Some other examples - The Carthaginian armies of the Punic wars were made of professionals mostly. The Spartan phalanx from the time of the Persian wars was the only professional fighting force in Greece(although here the boundaries are a bit blurred, since the Spartiates had no choice. Theirs was a compulsory lifelong army service). The Macedonian army was professional for the most part. The Republican Legion after the Marian reforms became professional as well. This does not imply that one system is superior to the other, it just points out the differences.

Careful, apparently throwing the word "troll" around warrants an offense.

Duly noted.

[Sukiyama]

Alright, I'm glad we started speaking in a softer tone.

One is a strategic decision based on faulty intelligence and severely underestimating the enemy, while severely overestimating the capabilities of friendly forces, while also employing outdated attack patterns and models. IIRC Grachev thought that just having the tanks appear would cower the Chechens into submission and was in fact thinking more along the lines of Pudapest 1956 instead of Berlin 1945.

The other is a hypothetical situation, the outcome of which would be evident immediately to anybody with a functioning brain and rudimentary knowledge of Gallic warfare. A dual-wielder would be a big juicy target for the enemy javelins, of which practically every single enemy soldier would have a couple. He would be outranged by enemy spears, he would need probably double the fighting space of a generic swordsman with a long sword and shield, which would mean he'd be outnumbered as well in any situation. The only way he might even think about ditching his shield would be if he had superb armor. And ringmail this is not. So what would be the advantages of dual swords in your view? Would they be enough to compensate the weaknesses?

Fair point, but I only meant to say that humans are prone to doing irrational things for irrational reasons. As in, why some things happen don't necesserily make sense.

Regardless, I never meant to imply that dual-wield is historically accurate, merely plausible.

There were many instances in which soldiers did not have substational protection from arrows because they used weaponry that required two hands. Wouldn't a giant falx, axe, hammer, or sword sacrifice protection as well? Now, dual-wielding is a bit far fetched, this is not Asia, but it's certainly not impossible. Let's say it's not a noble, it's not heavy infantry. What about javelinmen or archers who might use dual daggers/short swords in combat?

Не надо, спасибо.

Ну... Как хочешь.

But it was not training for war. It prepared you for the rigours of combat, true, but it was school and sports training. The disciplines you posted would help you build the muscles you'd need for military training and war, but the disciplines themselves weren't. In fact they were the official Greek Sports, celebrated at the Olympic Games. Javelin throwing was not used by the hoplites. Nor did they throw disks in combat. Neither was jumping, unless you count the two ridiculous scenes from the movie Troy(Achilles jumping in the air to stab the giant from above and the scene of the Greeks charging the Trojan army after Menelaus dies.) Training for war was done in the ephebeia, where for two years the future citizens learned to work as a team in the phalanx, learned to advance as one, learned to push in synchron, learned swordfighting if they could afford an instructor, etc.

Alright, if you say so I'll take your word for it. My point was that there is formalized training in order to fight in the Greek Style. I haven't read anything about Gauls.

I don't actually. I was just pointing out the differences between a militia-based army and a professional army. No bias implied. In fact, I love the Swiss model and wish it could be implemented. Some other examples - The Carthaginian armies of the Punic wars were made of professionals mostly. The Spartan phalanx from the time of the Persian wars was the only professional fighting force in Greece(although here the boundaries are a bit blurred, since the Spartiates had no choice. Theirs was a compulsory lifelong army service). The Macedonian army was professional for the most part. The Republican Legion after the Marian reforms became professional as well. This does not imply that one system is superior to the other, it just points out the differences.

I'm well aware of the differences. I realize that I may have used the wrong word here to describe the Athenian army, Proficient is close to what I had in mind.

[torongill]

Regardless, I never meant to imply that dual-wield is historically accurate, merely plausible.

There were many instances in which soldiers did not have substational protection from arrows because they used weaponry that required two hands. Wouldn't a giant falx, axe, hammer, or sword sacrifice protection as well? Now, dual-wielding is a bit far fetched, this is not Asia, but it's certainly not impossible. Let's say it's not a noble, it's not heavy infantry. What about javelinmen or archers who might use dual daggers/short swords in combat?

Falx yes, but what we know about them is limited. It's speculated that their religious beliefs might have helped imbibe them with scorn of death. They might have also been trained to dodge incoming missiles(which would explain why they are portrayed half-nude). But the falx is a weapon with long range and it's capable of terrible wounds. It had range advantage over most melee weapons of the time and it might have been used by the second rank in a formation, thus using the protection of the shields of the first rank. Two-handed swords and warhammers iirc were used by champions, who would duel in front of the lines for fame and glory and to raise the morale of the their side. Again, in a missile-light environment they would've been very efficient weapons for a second-ranker. Plus their high status would practically give them the best equipment available. But the main advantage would be range and mass. Also two-handed weapons can be used from horseback or to counter an attack by a horseman. Two swords, especially two short swords would be much less effective. In fact the only discipline that used two swords was one of the japanese martial arts and it was not very popular, because you'd need a lot of practice and it didn't deliver strokes as powerful as the katana used with both hands. And the Samurai at this point had "armor that needs no shield"(I don't remember the exact japanese name).

Alright, if you say so I'll take your word for it. My point was that there is formalized training in order to fight in the Greek Style. I haven't read anything about Gauls.

Well see, the Gauls passed through several different systems, which in a way formed their military. I learned from it from Europa Barbarorum(fabulous RTW mod by the way, very informative ), but basically first they were militia, every free-born was a fighter as well. Then they passed through the "warrior" stage, with a warrior class emerging. And third, they had a "bondsmen" stage, in which warriors pledged allegiance to a warlord and became his household troops. Each of these stages influenced the whole society and the way the Gauls conducted warfare.

I'm well aware of the differences. I realize that I may have used the wrong word here to describe the Athenian army, Proficient is close to what I had in mind.

This I accept.

[Sukiyama]

Falx yes, but what we know about them is limited. It's speculated that their religious beliefs might have helped imbibe them with scorn of death. They might have also been trained to dodge incoming missiles(which would explain why they are portrayed half-nude). But the falx is a weapon with long range and it's capable of terrible wounds. It had range advantage over most melee weapons of the time and it might have been used by the second rank in a formation, thus using the protection of the shields of the first rank.

That doesn't seem realistic though, but arrows fire in an ark. How are you supposed to dodge arrows volleys anyhow? I mean it's not like you leave meters of space between each other. Shields only cover the front, what about everyone behind them?

Two-handed swords and warhammers iirc were used by champions, who would duel in front of the lines for fame and glory and to raise the morale of the their side. Again, in a missile-light environment they would've been very efficient weapons for a second-ranker. Plus their high status would practically give them the best equipment available. But the main advantage would be range and mass. Also two-handed weapons can be used from horseback or to counter an attack by a horseman. Two swords, especially two short swords would be much less effective. In fact the only discipline that used two swords was one of the japanese martial arts and it was not very popular, because you'd need a lot of practice and it didn't deliver strokes as powerful as the katana used with both hands. And the Samurai at this point had "armor that needs no shield"(I don't remember the exact japanese name).

You do raise a lot of good points, I never meant to dispute the fact that dual wielding swords is a bit... out there. However, I'm also arguing that the idea wouldn't be that horrible. In a missile light environment dual short swords actually aren't that bad of an idea. In close quarter combat Thrusts are preferred, ironically thrusting is also the way to get parried. Thrusts lack the power and mass that a full slash offers, for a seasoned swordsman it is reasonbaly possible to deflect Thrusts, not block, deflect. Here is where dual wielding would carry it's greatest advantage, the ability to counterattack almost immediately.

Let's not talk about in detail about swordsmanship, it's not what we are discussing. Let's just talk in terms of gameplay now. I'm sure you've seen those threads that talk about "variety within a unit." Slight variations in uniforms and gear withing a specific unit like... say "Warband." Let's say that one out of every 20 men carriers dual short swords to battle once the battle line breaks? (ex: Think when triarii drop their spears and draw their swords in mods, you cannot fight with a spear once CQB starts)

Would that be far too historically inaccurate to include? I only see benefits from including such "fantasy units." There is a certain thresh hold but in general they only add to the gameplay, not detract from it.

Well see, the Gauls passed through several different systems, which in a way formed their military. I learned from it from Europa Barbarorum(fabulous RTW mod by the way, very informative ), but basically first they were militia, every free-born was a fighter as well. Then they passed through the "warrior" stage, with a warrior class emerging. And third, they had a "bondsmen" stage, in which warriors pledged allegiance to a warlord and became his household troops. Each of these stages influenced the whole society and the way the Gauls conducted warfare.

This I accept.

Were Gauls also taught to fight in ranks like Greeks though? Were they taught how to keep formation? I'm skeptical because imo, it'd be hard to keep ranks and formations straight and running for hundreds of meters in woods, simply too much terrain interference. Thus, why I have my doubts about the "organization" of "barbarians." It's not that I believe them to be inferior, simply having different strengths.

[torongill]

That doesn't seem realistic though, but arrows fire in an ark. How are you supposed to dodge arrows volleys anyhow? I mean it's not like you leave meters of space between each other. Shields only cover the front, what about everyone behind them?

I was also going to talk about more, because it seems to me that Dacian warfare might have been more about combat without a lot of formations and ranks and more along the lines of pure horrifying slaughter. In that case a falx would be a very potent weapon. Its Thracian equivalent, the Rhopmhaia, had a straight blade that could be used as a polearm as well as a spear and according to evidence was used by the higher-ranked warriors, who could also rely on having better armor. They also had small, forearm-strapped shields and would take part in the fight once the skirmish was over and the charge and butchery began. Perhaps the falx was employed in a similar manner and so would be protected from missiles. As for arrow volleys, the fact is that tribes didn't fight in the manner of "concentrated batteries of archers/slingers". Instead, the light infantry that was put in front of the the main line would consist of archers, slingers and javelineers trying to make the other side keep under their shields and maybe cause a few casualties. But I admit that this is not my most knowledgeable field and in fact our main evidence of Dacian combat comes from the Trajan column and the accounts of The Roman invasion of Dacia.

You do raise a lot of good points, I never meant to dispute the fact that dual wielding swords is a bit... out there. However, I'm also arguing that the idea wouldn't be that horrible. In a missile light environment dual short swords actually aren't that bad of an idea. In close quarter combat Thrusts are preferred, ironically thrusting is also the way to get parried. Thrusts lack the power and mass that a full slash offers, for a seasoned swordsman it is reasonbaly possible to deflect Thrusts, not block, deflect. Here is where dual wielding would carry it's greatest advantage, the ability to counterattack almost immediately.

Let's not talk about in detail about swordsmanship, it's not what we are discussing. Let's just talk in terms of gameplay now. I'm sure you've seen those threads that talk about "variety within a unit." Slight variations in uniforms and gear withing a specific unit like... say "Warband." Let's say that one out of every 20 men carriers dual short swords to battle once the battle line breaks? (ex: Think when triarii drop their spears and draw their swords in mods, you cannot fight with a spear once CQB starts)

Would that be far too historically inaccurate to include? I only see benefits from including such "fantasy units." There is a certain thresh hold but in general they only add to the gameplay, not detract from it.

I think someone already stated that CA will not have soldiers of a unit with different weapons. That saddens me a bit, but on the other hand imagine having to calculate in every second the defense and block/dodge ability of individual soldiers vs a variety of treats . I guess it would be too demanding.

Were Gauls also taught to fight in ranks like Greeks though? Were they taught how to keep formation? I'm skeptical because imo, it'd be hard to keep ranks and formations straight and running for hundreds of meters in woods, simply too much terrain interference. Thus, why I have my doubts about the "organization" of "barbarians." It's not that I believe them to be inferior, simply having different strengths.

Like I said, the different periods would've demanded different type of warfare. Meaning that during the time of the freemen, battles would've been decided by clashes of massed formations of spearmen. However, later when warfare became more of a "raiding and much more frequent small-scale clashes", then personal equipment would've been adapted more for that type of warfare and probably mounted warfare. And finally in the time of bondsmen, it might've been a combination of the two, with an emphasis on 1 vs 1 warfare. I personally am not anywhere near a well-informed source on Celtic warfare, but seems to me that the deep-running warrior culture and traditions of the Celts would've accounted for a way of learning to fight, maybe not as systematic and organised as that of the largest Greek Poleis, but certainly in a way that made the warriors effective. Caesar certainly encountered a well-dressed massed formation in his clash with the migrating Helveti and afterwards in his battle against the Germans(called "phalanx" and definitely exhibiting interlocked shields). So yes, I believe some sort of training would've taken place, but IIRC the only source that we have is Caesar himself in De Bello Gallico.

[BroskiDerpman]

Can somebody get me the popcorn, this is getting funnier and funnier.

Seriously though this thread is kind of pointless. CA already stated: They're aiming for historical authenticity.
If you ever played Forgotten Hope 2 (Not promoting mod, using it as an example.) they say they're aiming for historical authenticity and they have all of that historically accurate weapons tanks planes etc etc etc
Would men wielding 2 handed weapons meet that criteria? nope. I'm not a history buff but wielding 2 weapons seem like it takes skills and being really good at it probably takes a long time, and then suddenly a random skirmisher picks you off with his sling. having a shield a a 1 handed weapon seems more cost effective and offers more protection+allows fighting in formation.

Alright I better run away, posting in the Rome 2 discussion thread is blasphemy.

[Sukiyama]

Can somebody get me the popcorn, this is getting funnier and funnier.

Seriously though this thread is kind of pointless. CA already stated: They're aiming for historical authenticity.

They're 8.99 at the stand

If you ever played Forgotten Hope 2 (Not promoting mod, using it as an example.) they say they're aiming for historical authenticity and they have all of that historically accurate weapons tanks planes etc etc etc
Would men wielding 2 handed weapons meet that criteria? nope. I'm not a history buff but wielding 2 weapons seem like it takes skills and being really good at it probably takes a long time, and then suddenly a random skirmisher picks you off with his sling. having a shield a a 1 handed weapon seems more cost effective and offers more protection+allows fighting in formation.

Not every young man who picked up a weapon and a suit of armor knows the horrors of the battlefield.
A Toyota Yaris would also be extremely cost-effective, but not everyone drives tiny cars do they?

Alright I better run away, posting in the Rome 2 discussion thread is blasphemy.

Not at all, emotions get high on this board so we are prone to over... everythig really. At the end of the day though, if I got my word out, I'm happy

Instead, the light infantry that was put in front of the the main line would consist of archers, slingers and javelineers trying to make the other side keep under their shields and maybe cause a few casualties

You're right, I forget that tribal cultures often fought between each other more often than other nations. It only makes sense that they don't account for volley fire.

I think someone already stated that CA will not have soldiers of a unit with different weapons. That saddens me a bit, but on the other hand imagine having to calculate in every second the defense and block/dodge ability of individual soldiers vs a variety of treats . I guess it would be too demanding.

I think it was more of a weapons attribute thing actually(i.e. having a haevy infantry and spearmen bonus). I mean, even in RomeTW we had secondaries and throwables.

And finally in the time of bondsmen, it might've been a combination of the two, with an emphasis on 1 vs 1 warfare. I personally am not anywhere near a well-informed source on Celtic warfare, but seems to me that the deep-running warrior culture and traditions of the Celts would've accounted for a way of learning to fight, maybe not as systematic and organised as that of the largest Greek Poleis, but certainly in a way that made the warriors effective.

No, the info your provide is enough to infer "logical" conclusions. Wars between tribes must've been a somewhat regular occurence, since these are not nation-wide conflicts numbers are smaller. Taking the terrain into account as well... (It's not exactly flat grassy area) skirmishes were probably an affair where men had an opportunity to fight with plenty of space. Thus, the Celt longsword. A weapon unsuitable for CQB.

I would imagine that ranged units would also carry melee weapons of some kind. Maybe an axe, daggers, short sword. Soemthing light and portable, and once again I don't see the issue of dual-wielding being a problem. If you were attacked by an angry gaul, wouldn't you grab everything you could to beat his head with? haha

[torongill]

I would imagine that ranged units would also carry melee weapons of some kind. Maybe an axe, daggers, short sword. Soemthing light and portable, and once again I don't see the issue of dual-wielding being a problem. If you were attacked by an angry gaul, wouldn't you grab everything you could to beat his head with? haha

I would either run away(dagger vs long sword, size does matter ) or would have my gladius+scutum replicas and would rush the bastard Offense is the best form of defense. But that's just me

[Lord Baal]

Offense is the best form of defense. But that's just me

No is not, is about the whole damn military forces of the planet deal. At least until we got the capacity of launching each other at orbit without the need of a rocket using radioactive explosions, then determent became the best defense/offense.

And c'mon, really? Dual wielding units are really even considered? What would be the choose then? I just want to hear what guns akimbo would you choose Sukiyama.

[torongill]

No is not, is about the whole damn military forces of the planet deal. At least until we got the capacity of launching each other at orbit without the need of a rocket using radioactive explosions, then determent became the best defense/offense.

And c'mon, really? Dual wielding units are really even considered? What would be the choose then? I just want to hear what guns akimbo would you choose Sukiyama.

way to completely miss the point of the post, congrats.

[Lord Baal]

way to completely miss the point of the post, congrats.

Thanks but no. I get your point. Just making the comment that is not only your mindset.

[Sukiyama]

No is not, is about the whole damn military forces of the planet deal. At least until we got the capacity of launching each other at orbit without the need of a rocket using radioactive explosions, then determent became the best defense/offense.

And c'mon, really? Dual wielding units are really even considered? What would be the choose then? I just want to hear what guns akimbo would you choose Sukiyama.

RTW had dual wielding peasants. Nobody ever really complained about those. Sure, now we do but I dont remember anything from a year or two ago.

Also, I never handled a gun in my life so....

[Irishman]

It really wouldn't make much sense. Perhaps in barbarian units, you could have axeman with two axes instead of a shield interspersed into the unit, reflecting the low standardization in many warbands, but I would not recommend having whole units of dual wielding soldiers.