Gaul and swords

[Cheomesh]

From my study of history, I am under the impression that amongst Gallic warriors, swords were an extreme minority, only seen in the hands of a wealthy few. It appears, however, that the intention of the Gallic faction is to field a lot of swordsmen in general (they're the "men of the line" according to the description). Was this decision to spice up the variety of the units fielded by the Gauls (which in reality is mostly spearmen with a few axes I'd guess), or is there something I'm not in on?

Actually, for this period of time Rome was unique in issuing swords as the standard arm as opposed to spears or something similar.

M.

[Carados]

I'm not sure of the matter myself to be honest, but I believe Quinn found something that suggested that swords where actually more common than it seems. However I think the most telling factor is to stop the gauls from producing tons of useless units that get destroyed in seconds. I do believe that all swords get a +4 attack bonus against spear armed units and that really does put a dent into their usefulness.

[Audacia]

Yet still wouldnt it hold true that the core of the Gallic Army was "warband", and sometimes I spot Gaul sporting armies with 5 or more units of swordsmen and not as many warband (especially the larger ones)

And did the Gallic tribes use much cavalry? I would assume they did and I think Gaul could pose a much larger threat to its neighbors if it used more cavalry, which could easily decide the outcome of the battle. Most of the time its just two light cavalry on the flanks and maybe some Noble Cavalry as well

[Ramiro]

Actually all the contemporary sources depict the gauls as charging with long swords. They were not of good quality (bad temper) but it was a rather common weapon. In fact, most of the weapons recovered from known celtic archeological sites are long swords. What was the prerrogative of the wealthy was to have armor.

[Quinn Inuit]

AFAIK, Ramiro's right (here's a thread on the subject: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...barian+numbers). That's why I got rid the spear warband in 3.5. That, and the AI tended to spam them and make crappy armies.

Also, the Gauls did have decent cavalry, but I believe they preferred to fight on foot. It also depends where they're coming from; some areas had better horse-raising potential than others.

[Cheomesh]

From my understanding, Gaul's cavalry was a thorn in the side of the Romans, as it was of better quality in terms of combat potential (and numbers). This points to an understanding of animal husbandry, as "real" horses (before we modified them) were really small and not suitable for cavalry.

Will the spear warband make a return in the future, maybe with some tweaks? (Perhaps model spears, but don't give them the kinds of penalties seen with spear units) Or something suitably realistic, perhaps, like axes. Actually, is it possible to mix weapons within a unit? A mixed unit of swords, spears and the like would be visually interesting to say the least.

I'll ask my fellow members at My Armoury for info on the Gallic armies; they're pretty knowledgeable.

Ramiro, from my studies I've found that Gallic swords were work hardened, not quench hardened; their swords had enough carbon to be quenched but they didn't know of tempering techniques yet.

M.

[Carados]

With medieval 2 that might be possible but not so with rome. Everything looks the same except for those 3 officer slots. So everyone has the same weapon or not at all.

[Cheomesh]

Ah, that's a pity.

I'd be tempted to say that heavy cavalry of any kind should simply steam roll these unarmored and undisciplined swordsmen (they're not even formed up enough to brace), but that would make it too easy for many factions :/

M.

[Caligula Caesar]

I did some research on this, and I couldn't find anything about them using either in contemporary sources, except for "...the Gallic sword can only slash, and that needs space". That does sort of imply that the sword was the main weapon, in which case the peasants didn't fight much.

However, nearly all modern sources speak of the spear for lower classes and the sword for higher ones. Also, archaeology has found spearheads in various Gallic oppidum. My uggestion would be to make the peasant spearmen 0-turn and cheap (or just cheap, if tests go wrong ), but considerably weaker, so the Gauls won't consider recruiting many of them unless they are in serious trouble.

I have heard the Gallic cavalry, just like the Celtiberian cavalry, was very powerful. Just look at the RTR quotes...

[Quinn Inuit]

I need to do some more research on the cavalry issue. I think the problem is that there are lots of different types of Gauls running around.

I'm not going to argue that the Gauls used spears widely, just that I think they weren't the primary combat weapon.

We may just need to change the AI personality. I think the Gauls are currently on a Spam Crap personality right now. The AI has a horrible tendency to overuse crap units, though. If we bring back the spear warband, I think they need to be roughly as good as the sword warband.

Speaking of which, does anyone have any idea how the fighting style of more urban Gauls might've differed from rural Gauls? If so, we could do something really interesting with city levels.

[Cheomesh]

I don't think it would have differed that much, except (maybe) the urban Guals being poorer wrestlers (which is handy in single combat but not in this game). I do think, however, that the standard unit would (and should) simply be some kind of spear user. Now, for the sake of the game they don't have to be SPEARMEN class units (unless giving them a spear always does that). They could be light or heavy infantry just modeled using spears, given some kind of nasty charge ability to represent them being spear users but agressive and disorganized (i.e. they don't get the bonus against cavalry for being spearmen).

Also, generally speaking "peasants" don't fight, especially in a warrior culture. Remember how to join the Roman army (pre-Marian and before) you had to be a rich Roman landowner? Well the Gauls and Celts and Germans were that way too. Gaully McScratchEarth isn't going to become a spear-wielding warrior when war season is on. Instead, it'll be land owners, their family and perhaps a few select others that march to war because they can afford equipment AND they have time to learn how to fight to a higher degree than everyone else. If they didn't, they couldn't hold power -- if all your peasants are armed, they now have political power. With slavery, however, I do wonder what proportion of their population was "peasant". It's...a complicated topic.

Swords require a lot of iron. Iron that is hand mined, crushed, roasted, bloomed, forged and sharpened. This quantity of iron has to compete against other uses: Tools and other weapons, as well as export.

Also, Quinn, this might be handy: http://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.1.1.html

Words of Caesar himself.

M.

[Carados]

I have heard somewhere that by alt- attacking a unit, the unit attacks with its secondary weapon and not the primary. This would make some sense in that archers (and roman units, and cataphracts etc.) all charge with their secondary weapon when you alt- attack. Is this true to anyones knowledge? If so... how about we solve everything by giving the current swordsmen spears as a secondary weapon or to throw at the enemy?

(If not then the spear as secondary weapon is useless, but missile weapon is still viable).

[Cheomesh]

I tried Alt-attacking Carados, but that appears to only work if it's a missile-bearing unit; FE I couldn't get Hoplites to use their sword instead of their pikes (at least, I heard they also had a sword).

I would like to suggest that Gaulish swordsmen be weakened against cavalry and given much greater stamina. I've been fighting them (and using them as mercs a little) for a while now, and it appears they're pretty good against cavalry to the front, and generally tire quickly. Having studied single handed swordfighting, I can tell you you can fence quite a while before fatigue sets in, and I'm not even that physically fit! Toss that in with the lack of armor, and you have the soup for an endurence unit.

M.

[Fridericus Rex]

Weaponry in 1st Century:
Contrary to the Gallic warriors, the sword was only used by a few German tribesmen. The Gallic warriors were well equipped with swords, getting most of them from Spain.
Armories in Gaul and particular German Tribal areas were not set up for mass-production while the Romans got their weaponry and armor from Elba and Spain.
The German tribesmen had three short spears, called framea, which could be thrown over great distances and had a devastating effect even on armored troops (lorica hamata) - one of the reasons why the Romans changed to the lorica segmentata.

The distribution of weapons for the Germanic tribes can be calculated on the finds of the weapon cache in Ejsbol/Denmark: 60 swords, 190 spears, 200 javelins, and 200 shields. This cache reflects the equipment of a company of 160-200 soldiers. Based on this, it can be said that one-in-four would have been lucky enough to own a sword.

This should be reflected in the mod:
Germanic Tribes:
1. Spear throwing for all spear units - greater effect than pillum, etc.
2. Virtually no armor - large numbers of own casualties
3. Fewer or more expensive sword units

[Ramiro]

I think that we should not make such an artificial distiction as urban and rural gallic tribes or way of warfare... Maybe between poorer and welthier tribes o tribes under the influence of germanic, hispanic or roman warfare.

Very interestinf the reference to the germanic warfare. I also read once that the Gallic cavalry feared the germanic one for their savagery.

[Caligula Caesar]

Germanic Tribes:
1. Spear throwing for all spear units - greater effect than pillum, etc.
2. Virtually no armor - large numbers of own casualties
3. Fewer or more expensive sword units

Except for the east Germans: "Then immediately following them and on the ocean are the Rugii and Lemovii. The distinguishing features of all these tribes are round shields, short swords, and a submissive bearing before their kings." (Tacitus, Germania). The Rugii are a German tribe just west of the Gothones.

[Carados]

So it seems Spain was the major source of swords?
Are the celtiberians going to be turned into how they are in FOE? They obviously seem to be big on swords. Would make a fair bit of sense for the iberians to have lots of swords, and not so many spears. For the gauls to have less swords than the iberians but more spears, and the germans to have the most spears but least swords.

[Quinn Inuit]

I don't think it would have differed that much, except (maybe) the urban Guals being poorer wrestlers (which is handy in single combat but not in this game). I do think, however, that the standard unit would (and should) simply be some kind of spear user. Now, for the sake of the game they don't have to be SPEARMEN class units (unless giving them a spear always does that). They could be light or heavy infantry just modeled using spears, given some kind of nasty charge ability to represent them being spear users but agressive and disorganized (i.e. they don't get the bonus against cavalry for being spearmen).

Also, generally speaking "peasants" don't fight, especially in a warrior culture. Remember how to join the Roman army (pre-Marian and before) you had to be a rich Roman landowner? Well the Gauls and Celts and Germans were that way too. Gaully McScratchEarth isn't going to become a spear-wielding warrior when war season is on. Instead, it'll be land owners, their family and perhaps a few select others that march to war because they can afford equipment AND they have time to learn how to fight to a higher degree than everyone else. If they didn't, they couldn't hold power -- if all your peasants are armed, they now have political power. With slavery, however, I do wonder what proportion of their population was "peasant". It's...a complicated topic.

Swords require a lot of iron. Iron that is hand mined, crushed, roasted, bloomed, forged and sharpened. This quantity of iron has to compete against other uses: Tools and other weapons, as well as export.

Also, Quinn, this might be handy: http://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.1.1.html

Words of Caesar himself.

M.

Thanks for the quick lesson on Gallic society. That'll be useful as we try to hammer this out.

What I took from that is there should be the following units:
Rural:
1) Chief + his solduri
2) Freeholders, reasonably well-armed and trained
3) Probably not peasant units, both for socio-political reasons (why let them have the glory?) and because the game likes to spam them

More urban:
1) Chief + solduri
2) Ambacti (elite warriors you can afford to equip due to the wealth of the city)
3) Urban poor - less well-trained and armed, but much better than a peasant unit

How does that sound?

I have read a bit of that, actually, mostly to see how he described Gallic fighting styles. I didn't find too much new, although I'm still mulling over how to address his description of the Helvetii fighting in a phalanx.

I have heard somewhere that by alt- attacking a unit, the unit attacks with its secondary weapon and not the primary. This would make some sense in that archers (and roman units, and cataphracts etc.) all charge with their secondary weapon when you alt- attack. Is this true to anyones knowledge? If so... how about we solve everything by giving the current swordsmen spears as a secondary weapon or to throw at the enemy?

(If not then the spear as secondary weapon is useless, but missile weapon is still viable).

That's actually my plan (FOE has fantastic Gauls that I've been planning to use for months). They'll have spears for throwing and swords for fighting, which seems to be a decent representation of how they fought IRL.

I tried Alt-attacking Carados, but that appears to only work if it's a missile-bearing unit; FE I couldn't get Hoplites to use their sword instead of their pikes (at least, I heard they also had a sword).

I would like to suggest that Gaulish swordsmen be weakened against cavalry and given much greater stamina. I've been fighting them (and using them as mercs a little) for a while now, and it appears they're pretty good against cavalry to the front, and generally tire quickly. Having studied single handed swordfighting, I can tell you you can fence quite a while before fatigue sets in, and I'm not even that physically fit! Toss that in with the lack of armor, and you have the soup for an endurence unit.

M.

Ah, good point. I agree that they should be hardier, then. I should probably double-check the other barbs, too. If nothing else, they should have good stamina.

They don't have any bonuses now against cavalry--what you may be noticing is the general weakness of cavalry in melee in the ExRM. Which cavalry are they fighting? Italian and Greek Cities cavalry tends to suck more than most.

Hoplites don't have the secondary weapon enabled ATM. I was all set to do it a few months ago (the thread is around somewhere), but was informed that the game is broken and will switch them to the secondary almost immediately once they enter melee. The only infantry units for which the secondary weapon works properly are missile units and phalanx units (by which I mean units with the phalanx attribute).

Weaponry in 1st Century:
Contrary to the Gallic warriors, the sword was only used by a few German tribesmen. The Gallic warriors were well equipped with swords, getting most of them from Spain.
Armories in Gaul and particular German Tribal areas were not set up for mass-production while the Romans got their weaponry and armor from Elba and Spain.
The German tribesmen had three short spears, called framea, which could be thrown over great distances and had a devastating effect even on armored troops (lorica hamata) - one of the reasons why the Romans changed to the lorica segmentata.

The distribution of weapons for the Germanic tribes can be calculated on the finds of the weapon cache in Ejsbol/Denmark: 60 swords, 190 spears, 200 javelins, and 200 shields. This cache reflects the equipment of a company of 160-200 soldiers. Based on this, it can be said that one-in-four would have been lucky enough to own a sword.

This should be reflected in the mod:
Germanic Tribes:
1. Spear throwing for all spear units - greater effect than pillum, etc.
2. Virtually no armor - large numbers of own casualties
3. Fewer or more expensive sword units

Very interesting. I just checked and the German line units are spear-armed, with the elite units sword-armed. End result should be roughly the correct spear-sword ratio. Hmmm...might be interesting to have a German "fantasy" unit to represent what they'd have done once they migrated to areas where they could get access to more swords. All of the sword units they have are currently AOR-limited.

So you'd recommend the framea be armour-piercing, then?

I think that we should not make such an artificial distiction as urban and rural gallic tribes or way of warfare... Maybe between poorer and welthier tribes o tribes under the influence of germanic, hispanic or roman warfare.

Very interestinf the reference to the germanic warfare. I also read once that the Gallic cavalry feared the germanic one for their savagery.

I'm drawn to the urban/rural distinction because, the more research I do, the more I realize how inextricably linked the social system of an area was and what troops could be produced. Read this post about the decline of Sparta coupled with this article about the development of the thureophoroi and you'll see precisely what I mean:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=306947
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sar...hikrates2.html

(they need to be read together to really understand Greek fighting styles in the 3rd C BC)

Except for the east Germans: "Then immediately following them and on the ocean are the Rugii and Lemovii. The distinguishing features of all these tribes are round shields, short swords, and a submissive bearing before their kings." (Tacitus, Germania). The Rugii are a German tribe just west of the Gothones.

Ah, so that's why the German sword units are mostly in the east. Interesting.

So it seems Spain was the major source of swords?
Are the celtiberians going to be turned into how they are in FOE? They obviously seem to be big on swords. Would make a fair bit of sense for the iberians to have lots of swords, and not so many spears. For the gauls to have less swords than the iberians but more spears, and the germans to have the most spears but least swords.

Yep, I was planning to take all or almost all of their Celtiberians. I'll probably leave the Cantabrian cavalry we have now, though, and I think there was one other unit I was going to leave as-is. Can't remember offhand.

[Fridericus Rex]

Quinn -
You can make a special and unique German Unit. My grandfather tells me that the Roman author Dio wrote about a special German elite unit called hundreds (translated) without going further into details about their setup.
My guess is they were small crack units, probably 100 men strong.

The framea was the weapon of the main army in the 1st century - most our knowledge comes from the archeological findings, paricularly Germania Magna (Frisii, Chauci, Angrivarii, Bructeri, Cherusci and Chatti), and the pulication of Tacitus, Pasterculus and , most of all, Dio.
Tacitus wrote: "Iron is not common, a fact that you might gather from the manner of their weapons. Few have swords or long lances but they carry spears with short and narrow tips which they called framea in their own language. This is such a vicious and handy weapon that they use it for both long range and hand-to-hand combat. Even the cavalryman is content with a framea and shield. Each infantryman spews forth many missiles, and either naked or wearing a light cloak they hurl them immense distances... few wear mail, and scarcely one or two have helmets or leather caps." (Germania, 6.1-3)
The German tribes tried to avoid open field battles; they use more the hit-and-run tactic - but this is probably hard to code for the Mod.
They had a genuine disadvantage in an open battle - when the battle started the German general could not take any corrective or tactical measure; while the centurion of the Roman army had the freedom to direct his unit as he saw fit.

Caligula - can you please provide the Tacitus reference?

The German lack of iron was not due to a lack of natural resources. Germany was (and remains) rich in iron ore. Nor was it from a lack of technical skill. German smiths produced weapons of equal quality to their Roman provincial counterparts. But the primitive nature of Germanic society and economy inhibited the mass-production of steel; hence, large amounts of swords were not available for any of the Germanic tribes. The collective effort of village charcoal-burner and smithies in Germania could not match the output of slave-run mines in the Roman Empire, where the ore-producing Island of Elba was nicknamed "Smokey" (Aethalia) because of the smelting fires. Nor could the hap-hazard efforts of a few German magnates patronizing local craftsmen match the command-directed efforts of legionary craftsmen.
It will be very interesting for me to read what Tacitus exactly said.

[Quinn Inuit]

"I have read a bit of that, actually, mostly to see how he described Gallic fighting styles. I didn't find too much new, although I'm still mulling over how to address his description of the Helvetii fighting in a phalanx."

Actually I think that we can eliminate this problem by understanding that "phalanx" simply means a unit in close order. If the Heveltii had advanced with shields-touching as the Chatti did, then they would have formed up in a close body of troops. The aim could have been simply to provide protection against the pila barrage but also to provide impetus for a fierce charge to break the Roman line.
Don't forget that the Heveltii had beaten Roman armies before so would have had some memory of how they fought. It may be worth postulating that the pila did not always have a large effect upon the battle, unless thrown from a height - as Marius did against the Teutones. This could also explain why in other battles such as Telamon, the "pilum effect" is not mentioned by the sources. This might also explain why the pilum was useess against the Macedonian phalanx.

I was wondering if that was the case. I had a feeling Caesar might have been referring to what was functionally a shield wall.

Interesting. So the pila weren't that useful in most fights? Currently, I have them set up as good as the soliferrum and better than framea. Do you think that's a mis-estimation?

I'm having real trouble with the Macedonian-style phalanx, now that you mention it. They weren't that heavily armoured, and carried fairly small shields. Nevertheless, they don't seem to have been that vulnerable to missile fire. How did that work?

Quinn - You can make a special and unique German Unit. My father tells me that the Roman author Dio wrote about a special German elite unit called hundreds(translated) without going further into details about their setup.
My guess is they were a small crack unit, probably 100 men strong.

Sounds good, thanks. I'm adding that to the to-do list.

Update:
Hmmm...it had a narrow head? That does sound like it had armour-piercing potential.

Yeah, it's hard to replicate the German ambush skill. The game doesn't really do ambushes very well.