OEANIA BEITANNICA. [.CHAP. V.
of the autonomous coins of Britain and Gaul, representations of the spear, as carried especially
liy horsemen, are seen*.
The sword, according to both Strabo and Diodorus, was not worn on the left side as by the
Greeks and Romans, but was hung over the right thigh, as by the Persians t- Strabo says that
it was a long maohcBra, and Diodorus a long spatlia, by which name the latter expressly distinguishes
it from the ordinary sword of his time, and especially, as may be believed, from that used
by tlie Romans. Livy, speaking of the swords of the Cisalpine Gauls at Cannte, two centuries
earlier (21(i B.C.), says that they were veiy long and without points, " prselongi, ac shie mucronibus;"
contrasting them with the short swords of the Spaniards, likewise in the army of
Haimibal,—brevitate habiles, et cum mucronibus i." The swords of the Gaids in Asia Minor
(189 B.C.) are also described as of great length, " praslongi," and are evidently contrasted with the
short Spanish swords, by this time adopted by the Roman soldiers, which were sharpened to the
point and better iitted for use in a close encounter §. Polybius, who also refers to their defective
points, fm-nishes another characteristic of the Gallic swords of this period. The swords of the
Insubrian Gauls, at the battle of the Addua (223 B.C.), he says were made only for catting, and
so bad, that by the first heavy blow, they were blunted and bent like a strigil, both in breadth
and length, to such a degree that they could not be used again, unless the men had time to
straighten them on the ground by means of their feet ||. This description seems to apply to
swords of badly-tempered iron: swords of bronze coxild hardly have been bent into the form of a
strigil without breaking. At this period, then, it is to be admitted that the Cisalpine Gauls had
begun to make swords of iron, but were ignorant of the manufactm-e of steel, as they probably
remained to a much later tune. It is not likely that the chiefs would discard their bronze
swords for such inefadent weapons of ii-on as these. To retm-n, however, to Transalpine Gaul
at the beginning of om- sera: Diodorus teUs us that the Gallic swords or spathse were not
shorter than the saunians or javelins of other people, but that they were less pointed. It is
hence to be inferred, not that the swords of the Gauls, as described by Polybius and Livy, " sine
mucronibus," and those of the Britons in the same words by Tacitus, nearly three centuries
later, were without points, but simply that the poLats were blunt and ineffective, the sharp cuttino'
edo-es not being continued to the very end, as was necessarily the case with javelins, and
* Akerman, " Coins of Hispania, Gallia and Britannia,"
1846. plates 13. fig. 9 ; 18. fig. 4 ; 20. figs. 2, 11, 15 ; 23.
fig. 19 ; 24. fig. 9. Men. Hist. Brit, plate 1. fig. 19.
t Strabo, Kb. iv. c. 4. § 3. Diodorus, lib. Y. C. 30. Tbe
sword of the Cimbri is likewise described as a large and heavy
machtera (Plutarch, Mar. c. 25). The machaira, in heroic
times, was a small blade resembling a knife or dagger rather
than a sword. The resemblance of the armour of the Cimbri,
as described by Plutarch, to that of the Gauls, as described by
Diodorus, and its dissimilarity to that of the Germans, as described
by Tacitus, affords a strong argument in favour of the
Cimbri being Celts.
J Livy, lib. xxii. c. 46. comp. Polybius, Ub. iii. c. 114.
It was at this very period of the Second Punic War, that according
to a supposed fragment (siv.) of Polybius (apud
Soidas, s. V. MIIXAIPA, comp. Polyb. lib. vi. c. 23; iii. c. 114),
the Romans laid aside their native sword and adopted that of
the Iberians, with an effective point and a powerful cutting
edge on both sides. They were, however, it is added, " by no
means able to imitate the excellence of the iron nor the rest
of the manufacture." As critics generally admit, Livy (lib. vii.
c. 10) must have anticipated the use of the Celtiberian sword
by the Romans, and have spoken proleptically when he assigns
such a sword to Manlius, 361 B.C.
§ Livy, lib. xxxviii. c. 17, 21. There is no authority, we
believe, in cither Livy or Polybius, for the term " broadsword,"
which both Niebuhr and Arnold apply to the GalMc swords of
this period. Niebuhr's " Rome," vol. ii. p. 528. .\rnold's
" Rome," vol. ii. p. 342.
II Polybius, lib. ii. c. 33. (c. f. c. 30, and lib. iii. c. 114.)
According to this passage, theGallic sword was of no use in close
fight, " because it had no sharp point." Polybius calls it
a " machaira," properly a short sivord ; but no stress, in the
face of the "proelongus" of Livy, can be laid on the use of this
word, as Polybius in the same chapter calls the Gallic sword
liifos. It is clear that by writers so late as Strabo and Plutarch,
the distinction in the use of the two words was not observed.
CHAP. V.] HISTORICAL ETHNOLOGY OE BRITAIN. 89
also with daggers and cut-and-thrust swords intended for use in close combat. The spatha is
named by Tacitus as the weapon of the auxiliaries in the Roman army in Britain (A.D. 60), at
this period almost certainly Gauls, who were aUowed to use their national weapons *. There
can be Uttle doubt, that by the spatha, a leaf-like sword, like that of the ancient Greeks, the
form of which is shown on many painted vases, was intended. Such is the form of the wooden
implement of the same name, anciently used in weaving, to condense the threads of the woof t-
The Gallic sword or spatha, lilie that of the Greeks, had a cutting edge on both sides, but
differed from it, as would seem, in its greater magnitude Í. The Roman sword, adopted from the
Spaniards at the time of the second Punic war, was straight and likewise double-edged, but being
sharply pointed, which the Gallic sword was not, was adapted for both cutting and thrusting.
When the swords of the Gauls are described as very long, this must be understood in comparison,
not with those of the later empire, but with the contemporary Roman swords, which
appear seldom to have exceeded twenty or twenty-four inches in length. On a very few Gaulish
coins referable to the age of Julius and Augustus, and on some famüy and consular Roman
coins, showing Gaulish trophies on the reverse, the Celtic sword of this period is depicted,
apparently with much fidelity. Prom these representations, there is no reason for attributing to
it a greater length than two and a half feet. The most characteristic representations of such
swords are those on the coins of "Dabnoreix," supposed to be the iEduan chief Dumnorix of
CiBsar §. On the reverse of these medals, is the figure of a GaUic warrior with his sword gixt
over the right thigh, the length being about thirty inches, and the form long and leaf-like.
Dion, as has been seen, does not mention the sword byname, in speaking of the weapons of
the Britons, but says that in addition to a short spear or javelin, they use daggers or poignards.
That the Northern Britons did not possess swords at this period cannot be supposed; but the
use of daggers is confirmed, by the examination of barrows of the British period. In South
Britain, at least, it is certain, that whñst in perhaps not a single instance has a bronze sword
been found in a tumiúus, numerous examples of daggers with handles of curious workmansliip,
in addition to spear and javeUn-heads of the same metal, have been discovered. In North
Britain and in Ireland, bronze swords, generaUy broken, have oeeasionally been found in sepulchral
mounds ; whence it is probable that these examples belong to a time subsequent to the Roman
conquest of South Britain.
That in distant Britain the older metal, bronze, should have been used for the manufacture
of weapons to a stiü later period than in Gaul, is probable &om the condition of the people and
their insiüar situation; and is confirmed by Csesar's statement, that there was but a scanty supply
of iron in the island, and that the Britons used imported bronze. The archaeological evidence is
íütogether in favom- of the swords, daggers, and heads of the spears, javelins and other missiles
of the Britons, being of bronze down to the close of the pre-Roman age. In none of the many
Greeks, and is named as the weapon by which Philip the
Second of Macedón was assassinated, 336 n.c.
§ De Lagoy, Rech. Numismat., &c. p. 17. plate 2. fig. 2.
Akerman, " Coins of Hispania, Gallia," &c. p. 172. The representation
of a sword on a British coin of Tasciovanus is perhaps
too indistinct to afford anycertain inference. Even allowing
for possible obliteration, it must have been much shorter than
that on the coin of Dubnoreix, and can hardly have exceeded
twenty-one inches in length. See the coin in Akerman, ib.
plate 22. fig. 4. Mon. Hist. Brit, plate 1. fig. 4.
* "Si auxiharibus resisterent, gladiis ac pilis legionariornm ;
si Imc verterent, spathis et hastis auxiliarium stemebantur."
Tacitus, Ann. lib. xii. c. 35. The auxiUaries in the army of
Plautus in Britain, A.D. 43, are expressly stated to have been
Celts. Dion. lib. Ix. § 20. There is monumental evidence
of the retention of their own armour, by the barbaric auxiliaries
of the Romans.
t Smith, " Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities,"
p. 1100. Rich, "Illustrated Dictionary," p. 611.
t In the fourth century before Christ, the " Celtic sword"
seems to have been clearly distinguished from that of the