Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:51:42.781Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Study of the Metallography of some Roman Swords

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

Janet Lang
Janet Lang
Affiliation:
British Museum Research Laboratory
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

While working on some Celtic iron swords a number of references were encountered which contrasted the swords of the Celts and their methods of fighting with those of the Romans. Polybius (200–118 B.C. or later), writing of the battles of Cannae (216 B.C.) and Telamon (225 B.C.), says that the Gauls fought with great courage ‘in spite of the fact that man for man as well as collectively they were inferior to the Romans in point of arms. The shields and swords of the latter were proved to be manifestly superior for defence and attack….’ This was because the Gaulish swords ‘could only give one downward cut with any effect but after this the edges were so turned and the blade so bent that unless they had time to straighten them out with their foot against the ground, they could not deliver a second blow … their blade has no point.’

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 19 , November 1988 , pp. 199 - 216
Copyright
Copyright © Janet Lang 1988. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Polybius, Histories, vi, 39.

2 PlutArch. Life of Camillus xli, 1–4.

3 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 7–14–10, 18.

4 Tacitus, Agricola, 36.

5 Aulus Gellius, Nodes Atticae, 9–13–1–20.

6 Hazeli, P.J., Antiq. Journ. lxi (1981), 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Webster, G., The Roman Imperial Army (1985), 129.Google Scholar

8 Herrman, F.R., Saalburg Jahrbuch xxvi (1969), 129–41.Google Scholar

9 Manning, W.H., Catalogue of the Romano-British Iron Tools Fittings and Weapons in the British Museum (1985), 152.Google Scholar

10 Ulbert, G., Germania xlvii (1969), 97–128.Google Scholar

11 H. Russell Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome (1975).

12 Webster, op. cit. (note 7), 141.

13 ibid., 147.

14 Stead, I., Iron Age Metalwork from Orlon Meadows Durobrivae (1984), 9, 61.Google Scholar

15 Williams, A.R., Journ. Arch. Science iv (1977), 77–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Tylecote, R.F. and Gilmour, B.J.J., The Metallography of Early Ferrous Edge Tools and Edged Weapons BAR 155 (1986), 164–5.Google Scholar

17 Tylecote, R.F., The Prehistory of Metallurgy in the British Isles (1986), 174.Google Scholar

18 op. cit. (note 6).

19 Webster, op. cit. (note 7), 14.

20 McMullen, R., AJA lxiv, I (1960), 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Gillam, J.F., Bonner Jahrbücher clxvii (1976), 233–43.Google Scholar

22 Breeze, D.J., Close-Brooks, J. and Ritchie, J.N.G., Britannia vii (1976), 73–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 op. cit. (note 6).

24 Manning, op. cit. (note 9), 149.

25 H. Blythe, unpub. PhD thesis.

26 op. cit. (note 10).

27 op. cit. (note 8).

28 I.R. Scott in Breeze et al., op. cit. (note 22), 90.

29 op. cit. (note 9), 149.

30 idem.

31 Webster, G. in Down, A., Chichester Excavations V (1981), 173.Google Scholar

32 Pliny, , Natural History, xxxiv, 41, 143–6.Google Scholar

33 Williams, op. cit. (note 15).

34 op. cit. (note 32).

35 idem.

36 op. cit. (note 2).

37 op. cit. (note 20).

38 Tacitus, Annals I, 17.

39 Dio, Histories lxix, 12.

40 Codex Theodosianus, 20–22–1; 7–20–10.

41 Ammianus Marcellinus, Histories, 22–7–7; 29–3–4.