Oh flippin 'eck - that's another army I want to give my Earlies a workout.

Quote from: Techno on 29 May 2013, 12:16:39 PM
Nah ..... I don't do vehicles. (The chariot could be an exception  )
I had a complete surfeit of 'straight line' model making with 'Mechs' for Ral Partha and Wizkids etc years ago.
I truly can't stand doing that sort of stuff nowadays.....Drives me completely spare.

I'll leave those sorts of models to Martin (Mart678)......I think he gets as much enjoyment out of making those, as I do making 'organic' models.
Cheers - Phil.

Organic models - are they the ones you have to dip in fertiliser, Phil? 

They certainly are Ray..

You wait until you see the range of killer tomatoes that are sitting on the desk !
I'm not sure whether Leon sees them as something that will fit in with any range at the moment though.
Cheers - Phil.

Phil you've done it again....I can't wait to get my sweaty hands on your gauls (good job, I re-read that ). They look fantastic
all the best
Sean

Mental image! My eyes, the burn!b

  more pics of the fantastic gauls?

Quotefrom the references I've got, if anything, they might be a teensy weensy tad on the long side as they are. Undecided
From an aesthetic point of view, I think I'd agree with you....Historically I believe the representation's about right.

Yeah - i'm always surprised by how short Gallic and Celtic swords were too. Seemed to have averaged from 18 inches to about two feet which seems too short for a slashing weapon. And from the WRG book on Carthaginain/Libyan spearmen they had too few spears to throw but their spears seemed to be too short to use like a hoplite spear which is just confusing. Seems wrong that many ancient weapons were so short, but still seem to have been short in many cases (phalangite's pikes and xyston lances apart obviously)

As someone recently pointed out, there's the Spartan solution to the problem of a short weapon: step up closer.

But ferocity and short weapons will work wonders at times; ask my Zulus.

The gladius wasn't exactly huge.

Can short weapons be an indicator of technology and economics as much as tactics?   

Gallic swords, early ones anyway, were cast bronze - you really don't want to make a bronze sword too long, or it'll end up either too thin & prone to bending & breaking (which the Romans thought Gallic swords were anyway) or excessively thick & heavy, making it slow & cumbersome. Even short, though, they'd carry quite a bit of weight & momentum (especially with a leaf shape shifting the balance point forward), and would be pretty lethal when swung. The weight would go badly against them if stabbed, it's harder to get momentum up over that short distance, and the bronze would lose it's point (and edge) quickly.

What bothers me about Gauls is that they used a big shield like that with a simple central handgrip. Where's that pragmatic Celtic problem-solving inventiveness?

Quote from: FierceKitty on 09 March 2014, 11:43:08 AM
What bothers me about Gauls is that they used a big shield like that with a simple central handgrip. Where's that pragmatic Celtic problem-solving inventiveness?

What's wrong with that? Shields should be used dynamically, sweeping your opponent's weapon away, blocking his view, slamming into him, or using the edges against his legs or sides. They're just as much a weapon as a defence. A centre-grip shield is far more useful to a mobile individual warrior.

Mechanically weak against a strong blow, that's what's wrong with it.

Even weaker when there is a Roman pilum embedded in it!

Presumably worse than having no shield at all, if the balance was so 'boggered' ?
Cheers - Phil

Quote from: FierceKitty on 09 March 2014, 12:07:51 PM
Mechanically weak against a strong blow, that's what's wrong with it.

Only if you stand there & let him hit you - the centre-grip shield of the Celts, Gauls & Vikings was designed to sweep away an opponent's weapon, not block it. The weight of the shield - and it was pretty weighty - and sweeping movement would deflect the blow well. You could - for short periods - hold your opponent at arm's reach, so he couldn't swing at you at all, it was never designed to be held close to the body (except in the Shield Wall, and that was purely defensive, unlike the Romans')

Speaking of which, if the large single-grip shield was so bad, how come the Roman Empire conquered the known world with it?

...or despite it. Beware the intoxication of rhetoric!

Quote from: FierceKitty on 09 March 2014, 01:19:37 PM
...or despite it.

It would never have become so widely used if it didn't have it's advantages. The Romans were great adopters of other people's good ideas, if there were better options out there for their style of combat they'd have filched them in a heartbeat.

Quote from: Ithoriel on 09 March 2014, 03:03:00 PM
It would never have become so widely used if it didn't have it's advantages. The Romans were great adopters of other people's good ideas, if there were better options out there for their style of combat they'd have filched them in a heartbeat.

Agreed.  Until, of course, tactics or technology advance.

Is there any news on the Gauls and Early Imperial Roman releases? It has been very quiet