Hoplites using Falcata

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Ave
I have watched TV documentaries showing hoplites, or at least Spartiate hoplites, using falcata in combat.
I just wonder how authentic this is. IIRC falcata and makhaira were primarily used by cavalry troops, infantry relying mainly on the xiphos for close combat.
Any input on this? Thanks in advance.

[Thersites]

This is going to be a bit complex. To summarize:

1.-
Real machairai found in the Balkans and Turkey (Smyrna and Sardis) share two characteristics: they have very long blades, almost straight in comparison with Italic and Iberian specimens. And they come from the peripohery of the Greek world (Saris in Asia Minor, Epiros -Dodona-, Thessaly, Macedonia. Many of these areas had good cavalry, and IMHO these weapons weremeant for cavalrymen (one edge, long blade, advanced centre of percussion).

2.-
In Southern Greece there are almost no extant machairai from the Archaic or Classical Age (none to my knowledge south of Thermopylae passs), none from the big sanctuaires. Knowledge of those swords come mostly from 5th c BC Red Figure Athenian vases (Black Figure examples are known but very rare in comparison). Now, the point is that a detailed statistical catalogue of these images (Quesada, Lissarrague) shows that they are almost always consistently placed in the hands of non-Greeks, such as Amazons, Persians, Giants, Barbarians, Northern Greeks or Heroes from the Epic... not in the hands of normal hoplites (yes, among hundreds of examples there are a very few hoplites). Also, these swords are much shorter in appearance than the long real examples cited above, so much so thay they look like the contemporary Iberian falcatas with which they share a common origin in the Balkans in the 7th century BC. (Quesada, Gustin)
3.-
In my opinion -and after an exhaustive examination of evidence- the kopis in its short version -and even more so in the long version- is not really suitable for close infantry combat, as the oriental (Greek) version is one-edged (unlike the Iberian falcata, which is two-edged in its distal part) so it needs plenty of room for effective use.

4.-
Overall, I believe:
-Kopides were not common at all among heavy infantry in Classical or Hellenistic Greece. Xiphos was the weapon of choice.
-They were considered alien, exotic, by the Greek themselves. This is the use documented by iconography, this is the known distribution of real examples.
-Machairai (or kopides, the term is almost interchageable in ancient authors) shared shape and name with the sacrificial knife, so this weapon had a heavy sacrificial connotation, that is shared by Italian machairai (Luca Cerchai) and Iberian falcatas (Quesada).

This is a very short summary a long, complex and very detailed argument published elsewhere.

Hope this helps

[hoplite14gr]

Actually cavalry used longer hoplite type swords.

Pottery shows use of kopis /falkata but most horsemen depictions show straight swords. Don't let the last films deceive you.

Kopis can be used in close space (i.e in synaspismos) if you use it like the Gurka. That is driving it downwards and using it like a "meet hook" aiming for the enemy to your right not your immediate opponent.

Hope it helps.

Kind regards

[Thersites]

To further clarify a couple of points:

1.- Agree with Stephanos that most images of cavalrymen in Archaic to Hellenistic art show horsemen carrying straight-bladed swords.
But this does not mean that the VERY long machairai known from the archaeological record, more than 80 cm. to 100 cm. in lenght (Dodona, Prodromi) were not used, and designed for cavalrymen. It only shows that machaira-like swords were rare in comparison. And yes, there are some images of cavalrymen with kopides, such as in a Clazomenian sarcophagus from c. 520 (Greenhalgh), which by the way matches ion date with most known real examples of machairai, which are almost all to be dated to the 6th century BC. A 1 m long pure sabre is not likely to have been designed for infantrymen.

2.- Also agree that the shorter kopis of late classical art -remember that almost no real examples are known- could conceivably be used in the thight enviroment of close infanty battle. And perhaps it was... some times and by a minority of the infantrymen.
But it is curious that it could not reallistically be used ithere in the way it is almost always shown by pottery (i.e., a long slashing motion starting from over the shoulder). So there is a bit of a contradiction between the way in which shorter, later kopides COULD be used and the way thery are depicted in Red Figure. which IMHO means kopides were not common among hoplites an phalangites. And again, this is why it is so rare in archaeology, so alien in iconography.

Cheers

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Thanks for the information gentlemen. One other related question - did the later phalangites of Alexander's army continue with the swords of antiquity - viz. the xiphos and the kopis, or had different hand-held weapons evolved by then?

[Thersites]

During Alexander's reign the former pattern still holds true.

If you mean after Alexander, i.e., during the third and second centuries BS, hard archaeological data is scarce for Successor armies but:

a.-there is evidence for the continued use of a pistiliform blade xiphos
b.-Sidonian stelae show a peculiar short sword with a short, triangular blade tapering from shoulders to a long point. But this peculiar shape could well be an artistic licence.
c.-Also Guy Stiebel has very recently published a gladius hispaniensis of 2nd c BC date from Jericho that seems to show that Roman-style offensive weapons were being introduced in Seleucid armies together with armour by the end of the 2nd C BC
d-Also, there is iconographic evidence for short daggers
e-Very little evidence -if any- for the continued use of kopides, both in the Eastern Mediterranean and in Italy (except for that odd relief at the tomb from Perugia), while the westrern version -the falcata- continued in use in Iberia.

[MeinPanzer]

During Alexander's reign the former pattern still holds true.

If you mean after Alexander, i.e., during the third and second centuries BS, hard archaeological data is scarce for Successor armies but:

The xiphos and kopis both continued in use well into the 2nd C. BC. However...

b.-Sidonian stelae show a peculiar short sword with a short, triangular blade tapering from shoulders to a long point. But this peculiar shape could well be an artistic licence.

...The introduction of the Celts into Asia Minor brought about the adoption of Celtic-style swords. They began to be adopted in the very late 3rd or early 2nd C. BC in and around Asia Minor and seem to have largely replaced the xiphos and the kopis by the end of the 2nd.

c.-Also Guy Stiebel has very recently published a gladius hispaniensis of 2nd c BC date from Jericho that seems to show that Roman-style offensive weapons were being introduced in Seleucid armies together with armour by the end of the 2nd C BC

This weapon was found in the Herodium and so was probably used by, if anybody, a Judaean soldier.

d-Also, there is iconographic evidence for short daggers

What evidence are you referring to?

e-Very little evidence -if any- for the continued use of kopides, both in the Eastern Mediterranean and in Italy (except for that odd relief at the tomb from Perugia), while the westrern version -the falcata- continued in use in Iberia.

There's plenty of evidence for the kopides down to the second century BC. Bird-handle swords, which are almost invariably kopides, keep popping up in art until the end of the 100's.

[Thersites]

So, we both agree that the xiphos was in continued use during the Successor period.

You surely do not mean that the Sidonian stelae represent La Tène-type swords? They completely differ in lenght, shape of the blade, etc.
If you meant that La Tène-type swords became common use by the first c. BC, I could agree with you, but not in the period prior to that. I am sure you would not confuse the type below (gladius hispaniensis) with La Téne types with similar blades but different suspension systems of Celtic origin.

As for the Jericho sword, first, the weapon I am referring to was found (I quote from the offprint Guy kindly sent to me): "a tomb near the hippodrome ar Tell es-Samarat, Jericho' associated with 2nd c BC fusiform unguentaria. Not the Herodium. You perhaps were confused by the title of the volume in which Stiebel's paper was included. Guy himself believes in the interpretation I give for the sword.
Second, I know of at least another two examples of the type from Egypt, one from Defenna, other still unpublished from Soknopaiou Nessos. Not judaean soldiers here, surely.

I would also like to remark that we do have some other sources pointing to the adoption of Roman style weapons by late Seleucid armies, not only some elements in the Sidonian stelae (but also Polybius 30,25). So perhaps it is better to be cautious, but at least we can use some sources. Also, please note I do not completely agree with Nick Sekunda's ideas on a complete 'romanisation' of the structure of the Seleucid army. I only pointed to a hitherto unknown type of sword that was used in the area in the period.

Short daggers source: terracottas from Alexandria. Admittedly perhaps out of scale. Also a much clearer clay model from Alexandria or Naucratis (quoting from memory).

Finally, I believe you are wrong in thinking that bird-headed swords invariably point to one-edged swords with curved blade of the kopistype. In fact, the opposite holds true: many of them, in late Hellenistic and Roman times are straight swords (see for example the specific Barnett paper, 'From Ivriz to Constantinople: a study in bird headed swords''). Sorry again quoting from memory, I do not have the specific Festschrift in which it was published. Considering bird-headed sword-hilts as representing one-edged swords like the kopis is not correct. So there is not 'plenty of evidence'. On the contrary, there is almost none in the East. Only a few terracotas or Roman, later date., from Alexandria in Egypt, representig Bes, show clear unsheathed kopides a few times, but this is a another story that does not contradict the overall pattern (and please note I'm also citing this evidence that seems to contradict me partially)

Best Regards

[MeinPanzer]

So, we both agree that the xiphos was in continued use during the Successor period.

You surely do not mean that the Sidonian stelae represent La Tène-type swords? They completely differ in lenght, shape of the blade, etc.
If you meant that La Tène-type swords became common use by the first c. BC, I could agree with you, but not in the period prior to that.

No, I don't mean that they are typical La Tène-type long swords. These are instead another kind, but the multi-lobate pommels of such swords clearly show their Celtic origins. They appear also in iconographic evidence from around Asia Minor and Egypt, including several 2nd C. BC ostotheke from Sagalassos in Pisidia with depictions of arms and armour carved in relief.

As for the Jericho sword, first, the weapon I am referring to was found (I quote from the offprint Guy kindly sent to me): "a tomb near the hippodrome ar Tell es-Samarat, Jericho' associated with 2nd c BC fusiform unguentaria. Not the Herodium. You porobabnly were confused by the title of the volume in which Stiebel's paper was included.

My mistake, it was the title of the volume that threw me off.

Second, I know of at least another two examples of the type from Egypt, one from Defenna, other still unpublished from Soknopaiou Nessos. Not judaean soldiers here. I am sure you should not commit the msitake of confusing the type with La Tene types with similar blades but different suspension systems.

Yes, Stiebel mentions these in the publication. He doesn't mention when they date to or in what context they were found (if you know, I'd love to hear about it). However, the Jericho example was found in a tomb with no other weaponry or equipment in it, which seems awfully strange for the grave of a Roman soldier.

I would also like to remark that we do have some other sources pointing to the adoption of Roman style weapons by late Seleucid armies, not only some elements in the Sidonian stelae (but also Polybius 30,25).

Polybius' mention seems to indicate that the only reason he thinks they are "armed in the Roman fashion" is because they wear mail. They most likely also carried thureoi, and so being the Roman-centric author that he was, he probably just used that title to easily identify them.

So perhaps it is better to be cautious, but at least we can use some sources. Also, please note I do not completely agree with Nick Sekunda's ideas on a complete 'romanisation' of the structure of the Seleucid army. I only pointed to a hitherto unknown type of sword that was used in the area in the period.

Good, I hope no one does! It's a shoddy theory which isn't supported by the evidence at all. On the matter of mysterious Roman-style weaponry, there is of course the Ptolemaic-era Kasr el-Harit shield, which is definitely not like the other thureoi we would expect Hellenistic troops to carry, but which looks very much like a scutum.

Short daggers source: terracottas from Alexandria. Admittedly perhaps out of scale. Also a much clearer clay model from Alexandria or Naucratis (quoting from memory).

Those are the exact types of swords carried by the soldiers on the Sidon stelai, albeit disproportionately modelled. They have the same triangular blade, the same multi-lobate pommel, and the same style of basic guard.

Finally, I believe you are wrong in thinking that bird-headed swords invariably point to one-edged swords with curved blade of the kopistype. In fact, the opposite holds true: many of them, in late Hellenistic and Roman times are straight swords (see for example the specific Barnett paper, 'From Ivriz to Constantinople: a study in bird headed swords'').

In Roman times, yes, but not in the Hellenistic times. Some later examples definitely weren't heavily curved like the earlier falcatae, but they were definitely kopides. I'd like to see some later Hellenistic sources that show straight swords with birdhead handles.

Sorry again quoting from memory, I do not have the specific Festschrift in which it was published. Considering bird-headed sword-hilts as representing one-edged swords like the kopis is not correct. So there is not 'plenty of evidence'. On the contrary, there is almost none in the East.

I'll post some later when I get home from work.

[Thersites]

GLadius Hisp. in Jericho:
Stiebel does indeed mention just one of the swords (Defenna), not the second one that appeared after this publication and now is in study, with a trilobate pommel like that of Celtic swords but also like that of Iberian swords which were the prototypes of the Gladius Hisp. Trilobate pommels are not exlusively Celtic, and the Iberian example from osuna is a much better match for later Roman trilobate pommels than other examples such as the often cited such as the Kirkburn swoprd at the BM. The context for the Fayum sword is still uncertain, but could be 2nd BC.

As for the daggers, the problem of scale in terracottas could mean that they represent swords, but it could also be that they represent daggers. It often happens that daggers and swords share the same hilt structure (Iberian, Celtiberian, Celtic examples can be cited, Quesada 1997). And the clay model IMHO shows a dagger, not a sword.

As for Polybius, it is not only him, but the swords we are commenting, chain mail, the scutum from Fayum (which is in my opinion Roman)... so it is perhaps a bit risky to interpret Polybius as implying ONLY loricae hamatae and not as he says 'roman weapons' ingluding chain mail. And I insist, this is not meant to support the idea for a 'Roman style' Seleucid army. But I would never label Sekunda's case as 'shoddy'. He has some support in -admittedly confusing- evidence for at least part of his considerations.

And yes, you can show some late examples of [i]kopides [/i]-I cited myself the ALexandrian Bes terracottas- but by the 2nd c.BC they were out of fashion. And there's no proof than Roman bird-headed Republican swords of hellenistic type, or hellenistic representations with straight scabbards are kopides that are, by definition, curved and one-edged, although some archaic examples dated to the sixth century (e.g Prodromi, or Dodona) are not so curved as later examples. Fourth century kopides are shorter but more curved dan require quite curved scabbards.

So, overall, we have in my opinion a wide variety of types of swords of different traditions and origins in the late Hellenistic period, which anyway was the main point in my original answer to the questions posed by 'gladius hispaniensis'.

Well, enough of this. Other work to do. Had a nice chat.
Best regards.

[MeinPanzer]

GLadius Hisp. in Jericho:
Stiebel does indeed mention just one of the swords (Defenna), not the second one that appeared after this publication and now is in study, with a trilobate pommel like that of Celtic swords but also like that of Iberian swords which were the prototypes of the Gladius Hisp. Trilobate pommels are not exlusively Celtic, and the Iberian example from osuna is a much better match for later Roman trilobate pommels than other examples such as the often cited such as the Kirkburn swoprd at the BM. The context for the Fayum sword is still uncertain, but could be 2nd BC.

Keep in mind that for almost half of the 2nd C. BC, the Hasmonaeans controlled Jericho, which was in the heart of their kingdom, and so there is a significant chance that this grave was for a Judaean warrior.

The multi-lobate pommel is ultimately Celtic in origin, being later adopted by various Hispanic, Italian, and Eastern peoples, which is also explains how all these different peoples adopted the thureos as well.

As for the daggers, the problem of scale in terracottas could mean that they represent swords, but it could also be that they represent daggers. It often happens that daggers and swords share the same hilt structure (Iberian, Celtiberian, Celtic examples can be cited, Quesada 1997). And the clay model IMHO shows a dagger, not a sword.

Whether they are swords or daggers is moot. The point is that they are the same style of weapon as the swords used by the Sidon mercenaries and as seen on numerous other late Hellenistic sources, and that is a Celtic style.

As for Polybius, it is not only him, but the swords we are commenting, chain mail, the scutum from Fayum (which is in my opinion Roman)...

The Kasr el-Harit scutum is not so simply dated... it was apparently found partially within different strata, but it is often simply dated to the Ptolemaic period.

so it is perhaps a bit risky to interpret Polybius as implying ONLY loricae hamatae and not as he says 'roman weapons' ingluding chain mail. And I insist, this is not meant to support the idea for a 'Roman style' Seleucid army. But I would never label Sekunda's case as 'shoddy'. He has some support in -admittedly confusing- evidence for at least part of his considerations.

What Sekunda has is support for a Celticization of eastern Hellenistic armies, at least in his discussion of armament, while only minor support for his theory of Romanization. He doesn't even take into account that many of the differences he notes in equipment begin to emerge already in the 3rd C. BC, well before the eastern kingdoms had any major military contact with the Romans. He also can't really carry his arguments about legionary-style armament past the mentions of the "Romanized" troops in Polybius and the Maccabees descriptions of mail-armed troops. His case for Egypt is even weaker, relying on barely anything at all.

Almost every point that he tries to use as evidence for Romanization is instead evidence of Celticization.

And yes, you can show some late examples of [i]kopides [/i]-I cited myself the ALexandrian Bes terracottas- but by the 2nd c.BC they were out of fashion.

Here are some:

A kopis from a late 3rd C. BC Bosporan grave, found alongside a helmet and a thureos:
http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.com/i ... kopis1.BMP

A late 3rd/early 2nd C. BC stele from western Asia Minor:
http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.com/i ... kopis3.JPG

Frieze from the Temple of Artemis Leucophryne, 2nd C. BC:
http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.com/i ... kopis4.jpg
http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.com/i ... kopis5.jpg

From the Pergamene weapons reliefs, c. 190-180 BC.
http://forum.xlegio.ru/photos/show-albu ... hotoid=182

These are just the clear ones. There are many others that are simply ambiguous.

And there's no proof than Roman bird-headed Republican swords of hellenistic type,

I am not claiming anything about Roman swords here, only Hellenistic.

or hellenistic representations with straight scabbards are kopides that are, by definition, curved and one-edged, although some archaic examples dated to the sixth century (e.g Prodromi, or Dodona) are not so curved as later examples.

There are definitely some scabbards that are curved so that the only kind of sword they could hold would be a kopis. The others are just extrapolation, since I've only ever seen once a Hellenistic sword with a bird handle that actually had a straight, xiphos-style blade. If you have evidence of Hellenistic straight-bladed swords with birdhead handles, please present it.

Fourth century kopides are shorter but more curved dan require quite curved scabbards.

These Hellenistic examples are much less curved and only require slightly bent scabbards.

So, overall, we have in my opinion a wide variety of types of swords of different traditions and origins in the late Hellenistic period, which anyway was the main point in my original answer to the questions posed by 'gladius hispaniensis'.

Other than very specialized swords, such as Thracian sicas and romphaiai and such, and these 3 examples of Roman-style swords, there are really only 3 kinds of Hellenistic swords in the east: xiphoi, kopides, and Celtic, and the formed two and the latter seem to have coexisted for only a short period of time.

Well, enough of this. Other work to do. Had a nice chat.
Best regards.

I hope you're not leaving already- you haven't even let me present my evidence .

[Thersites]

Oh well, you have been presenting and adapting your points of view and arguments for a long time already! :wink: But quickly enough, not to look as if I left the thread without commenting and considering your last post:

-The appearance of trilobate pommels in Iberian contexts is not dependent on Celtic influence, nor the types of thureoi south of the Ebro., which are different from those north of the river. Pattern is different and more complex in Iberian territory after 237, when these shields appear without some of the more 'Celtic' characteristics.

-You can still interpret what Polybius wanted to say, going further that what he actually said. You can also dismiss images of daggers or very short swords as mere representations of triangular swords of the Sidonian-stelae type, and then proceeed to make them both derivatives of La Tène type Celtic swords , which they do not really resemble at all. You can then dismiss the examples of gladius hispaniensis as one offs -but there are not so many actual swords over there, so methodologically we should not dismiss them so easily-, and then show your opinion that it was a 'judaean' sword (against other people's opinions -including the one who published the find - and Occam's razor and the evidence of the Egyptian swords. Finally, you can press, merge and force all this into the idea of an overall 'Celticization' of the weaponry of Hellenistic kingdoms, which I would not dare to label 'shoddy', but that in my opinion still tells only part of the overall pattern, as Sekunda's does in his own approach. I believe you are taking the data I presented, and adapting and adopting it when necessary to fit your overall pattern and ideas, which might be reasonable -even true- but which I find methodologically unsound.

As Roman Republican bird headed swords are of Hellenistic origin and are straight as you himself recognize; and taking ito account that most data for bird-headed swords shows them sheathed and is therefore debatable, I think what should be proved is the swords as the 4th relief from Side, or the Altar from Ormana in Pisidia, were not as straight as their contemporaries and descendants -we both agree on that-but all curved, and not the other way round.

I am grateful for drawing to my attention the reliefs -from Magnesia I believe?-, which I overlooked in my discussion. The Kerch sword (it is the sword discovered in the early XIX c., isnt' it?) is quite odd typologically and is probably earlier, even taking into account the context of the gravegoods it was found with. There is some remaining iconographic evidence of machairai in the 2nd century BC, of course, I already admitted that. But of a secondary nature in comparison with straight swords, and IMHO in decadence .

And finally, while I said that the presence in the area of xiphoi, some later Celtic type swords, Sidon-type swords -different IMHO to the former-, daggers, straight bladed gladii, and other types, show a 'wide variety', you insist it reflects a very limited variety and during a limited period. Ok, let it be.
I believe lines of argument, evidence, and the uses of it are clear enough for any one interested to read and evaluate. It is a long time since I abandonded this quote-counter quote method as a really useful means of discussion when the problem is complex, evidence debatible, and positions not really well defined as confronted but instead a matter of weighing and shades of meaning.

Very Best Regards, Ruben

[hoplite14gr]

As for sword use in Hellenistic period if we can trust Plutarch in life of Flamininus he says that at "Kynos Kefalae" that fallangites resisted the Romans with swords and broken only when attacked from behind.
Doesn't mention type of sword or if at there were thureophoroi with them.

Kind regards

[MeinPanzer]

Oh well, you have been presenting and adapting your points of view and arguments for a long time already! :wink: But quickly enough, not to look as if I left the thread without commenting and considering your last post:

I forgot a few things . I now realize that I also forgot the Bactrian evidence, which shows at least a few more representations of kopides.

-The appearance of trilobate pommels in Iberian contexts is not dependent on Celtic influence, nor the types of thureoi south of the Ebro., which are different from those north of the river. Pattern is different and more complex in Iberian territory after 237, when these shields appear without some of the more 'Celtic' characteristics.

Both are still, ultimately, of Celtic origin, even if they are transmitted through other peoples. Was the thureos not brought to Spain through Celtic contact with the Celtiberians, who then transferred it to the other Hispanic peoples? The thureos appears in Bactria towards the end of the 3rd C. BC. Of course, it is foolish to presume that Celts wandered all the way to modern Afghanistan, but if you trace the transmission back, it ultimately derives from the Galatian invasion of Asia Minor in 279 BC, which transmitted it to the Seleucids, who then transmitted it to the Bactrians.

-You can still interpret what Polybius wanted to say, going further that what he actually said.

I'm not "going further" than what Polybius intended to say. Firstly, neither you nor me know what he intended to say, and secondly, I am cautioning against drawing too much from that passage- i.e. interpreting it as implying the carrying of Roman-style swords and scuta, for instance.

You can also dismiss images of daggers or very short swords as mere representations of triangular swords of the Sidonian-stelae type, and then proceeed to make them both derivatives of La Tène type Celtic swords , which they do not really resemble at all.

They may have been daggers or short swords, that doesn't even matter. What I'm saying is that morphologically, the swords are very similar- if you compare the characteristics, you will find many similarities in the details- and so derive from the same stylistic source, which is a Celtic one, just as the falcata and the kopis both derived from the same original style of weapon.

Also, maybe you didn't notice but I clearly said I didn't think that these swords are derivative of La Tène types, but instead that they are some other sword of Gallic origin.

You can then dismiss the examples of gladius hispaniensis as one offs -but there are not so many actual swords over there, so methodologically we should not dismiss them so easily-, and then show your opinion that it was a 'judaean' sword (against other people's opinions -including the one who published the find - and Occam's razor and the evidence of the Egyptian swords.

I'm not saying they're one-offs. All I'm saying is that I can't account for who used them, that's all. And perhaps if you are so sure it isn't Judaean, you know a little more about the dating than was published? Because all I know from what Stiebel wrote is that the sword could date no later than the very early first century BC, which means it very well could have dated from the period of Hasmonaean power after ~140 BC. The Egyptian swords can't really be used to support your argument without a solid dating, as they could have been first century and thus Roman.

Finally, you can press, merge and force all this into the idea of an overall 'Celticization' of the weaponry of Hellenistic kingdoms, which I would not dare to label 'shoddy', but that in my opinion still tells only part of the overall pattern, as Sekunda's does in his own approach. I believe you are taking the data I presented, and adapting and adopting it when necessary to fit your overall pattern and ideas, which might be reasonable -even true- but which I find methodologically unsound.

There are a few simple facts, and those are that after the Celtic invasion of 279 BC and before the end of the third century BC, the thureos, a shield used by the Celtic invaders, became widespread in the east, as did a style of sword which possessed clearly Celtic features. These implements were widespread by the beginning of the eastern Hellenistic military contact with the Romans, and so they could not have come from Roman influence.

I think that limited Romanization did occur in the Hellenistic militaries, as is shown by the use of some small units of soldiers who were equipped similarly to Roman legionaries, even if they weren't exactly equipped with Roman equipment.

As Roman Republican bird headed swords are of Hellenistic origin and are straight as you himself recognize;

Can you show some of these Roman Republican swords you are talking about? I'm not quite sure which ones you are referring to. I'm familiar with the later, Imperial bird-headed swords (there was a thread on them a little while back), but I'm generally not too familiar with the Roman sword stuff.

and taking ito account that most data for bird-headed swords shows them sheathed and is therefore debatable, I think what should be proved is the swords as the 4th relief from Side, or the Altar from Ormana in Pisidia, were not as straight as their contemporaries and descendants -we both agree on that-but all curved, and not the other way round.

I don't think I'm familiar with the reliefs from Side or Pisidia that you are referring to. Could you post them?

I am grateful for drawing to my attention the reliefs -from Magnesia I believe?-, which I overlooked in my discussion.

Yes, it's from Magnesia on the Maeander. There are several others as well from that relief, though they are less clear.

The Kerch sword (it is the sword discovered in the early XIX c., isnt' it?) is quite odd typologically and is probably earlier, even taking into account the context of the gravegoods it was found with.

I highly doubt it, considering that both the helmet (which is Thraco-Attic in form) and the thureos point to a date in the mid-3rd C. BC at the earliest.

There is some remaining iconographic evidence of machairai in the 2nd century BC, of course, I already admitted that. But of a secondary nature in comparison with straight swords, and IMHO in decadence .

But given the paucity of Hellenistic evidence, I don't think that the evidence for kopides as being less common weapons is all that different from the Classical period, in which it was clearly a less common weapon when compared to straight swords as well. I mean, we don't even have that much clear evidence of xiphoi from the Hellenistic period that are unsheathed, either.

And finally, while I said that the presence in the area of xiphoi, some later Celtic type swords, Sidon-type swords -different IMHO to the former-, daggers, straight bladed gladii, and other types, show a 'wide variety', you insist it reflects a very limited variety and during a limited period. Ok, let it be.

If you insist that there were Celtic-type swords in use in the east in the Hellenistic period apart from the Sidon types, please present some.

I believe lines of argument, evidence, and the uses of it are clear enough for any one interested to read and evaluate. It is a long time since I abandonded this quote-counter quote method as a really useful means of discussion when the problem is complex, evidence debatible, and positions not really well defined as confronted but instead a matter of weighing and shades of meaning.

I agree that it's definitely not the most productive form of discussion, but in this case it is merely the easiest, barring each of us writing a thesis and then presenting each to a jury .

[hoplite14gr]

The mosaic in Palestrina - Praenestae museum shows hellenistic troops and rectangular "roman" shields and probably chain mail appear.
Kind regards