View the H-War Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-War's March 2010 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-War's March 2010 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-War home page.
1st Reply From: email@example.com Subject: Re: REPLY: Gallic manpower 2nd - 1st Century BC Date: March 5, 2010 8:24:37 AM EST To: H-NET Military History Discussion List <H-WAR@H-NET.MSU.EDU> Actual, their swords were overall of a better quality of low to medium carbon steel than their Celtic counterparts. The evidence of this comes from the passage in Polybius where he details how they Celts had to withdraw to straighten their swords and metallographic study. The Celts had a tendency to make theirs of iron or low-carbon steel. As Timothy Taylor documented decades ago in Atlantica Archaeologica, much of the Iron Age iron swords out of Britain and northern France were actually softer than their bronze counter-parts. (His evidence shifts the argument on why iron was adopted to the realms of a prestige good and/or it was easier to produce than bronze.) Best, Mark Hall (Independent scholar) 2nd Reply From: Mac McIntosh <firstname.lastname@example.org<mailto:email@example.com>> Date: March 4, 2010 6:49:09 PM EST To: "firstname.lastname@example.org<mailto:email@example.com>" <firstname.lastname@example.org<mailto:email@example.com>> Cc: David.Silbey <David.Silbey@alvernia.edu<mailto:David.Silbey@alvernia.edu>> Subject: Gallic Manpower John McGrath states that he believes it is an "erroneous assertion to contend the Romans were technologically superior to their enemies. " And he goes on to flatly state that "The Romans were not technically superior to the Gauls." I would take great issue with those statements. Take for example Caesar's bridge across the Rhine. In only ten days from when the first timbers were cut this technical accomplishment was awesome . The Gaul's really thought they were secure in their position . They knew they could not have built such a bridge. Even under Vercingetorix , a very able leader for the Gauls the contest was essentially between a professional army and a band of guerrillas. The Romans did manage to kill as many as two million in their various Gallic conquests. I believe that the actual military results show that barbarians are greatly handicapped by a lack of racial experience of war. A professional army such as the Romans exhibitted a tenacity of purpose and a more or less relentless will to victory. Even strong physical courage of people trying to defend their homes proved in many cases to fall short when compared to men such as the Romans fighting for power and property. Walter James McIntosh Bluff, New Zealand Original Message > From: McGrath, John J CIV USA TRADOC <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Subject: RE: REPLY: Gallic manpower 2nd - 1st Century BC > I think it is an erroneous assertion to contend the Romans were > technologically superior to their enemies. The Romans were not > technologically superior to the Gauls (or really any of the historical > foes). They fought with the same weapons and capabilities. The > difference was that the Romans had a superiority in organization. With > Caesar, they also had a superiority in leadership. ----- For subscription help, go to: http://www.h-net.org/lists/help/ To change your subscription settings, go to http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=h-war -----