Testudo

[PSYCHO]

Victoria (8/2/04) tells us that the Romans will be able to use the testudo formation post Marius Reforms.

Seeing as it was the Gauls who taught them how to do it, will the Gauls be able to form a Testudo?

...will they be able to engage as sappers whilst in that formation?

...will the Gauls be able to form a shield wall?

...will the Gauls be able to form a phalanx with certain units?

...will they be able to build all the same Roman seige equipment by mid 1st century BC?

my2bob

[Ashen]

hm. I never knew the gauls taught the Romans the testudo, but I know you're well read on the Gauls, so I won't contradict you :)

Also, I doubt the Gauls would have considered using the Phalanx. It doesn't seem suited to their sword and charge sort of gameplay. It just wouldn't seem right :/

[PSYCHO]

Ashen, thanks, but I’d encourage you to question everything anyones says, including myself http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif, and still do some research.

As to the Phalanx, certain Gallic tribes did use the phalanx. Caesar mentions in the first chapter of his 'De Bello Gallico' that the Helvetii used a ‘phalanx’ and were proficient in its use, employing very long spears for such a purpose. They still carried the long Gallic swords, so scholars assume that once the enemy formation was disordered / broken up, they'd drop the spears and charge home, sword in hand.

Numerous other tribes are mentioned forming a tight discipline shield wall with their spears protruding. This seems to have been the reserve of the ‘Gallia Comata’ or ‘long-haired’ (below the shoulders) Gauls. These included the Belgae, the Aedui confederacy, Arverni alliance, Helvetii and Volcae. The Boii, Insubres and other tribes in Italy, Spain and the East all had hair shorter to the shoulders which they tended to spike using lime or other materials at hand. The later fighting in the more 'classic'/ 'mob' Gallic style.

my2bob

[Hurin_Rules]

Hiya PSYCHO,
Can you give us a reference for your claim that the Gauls taught the Romans the testudo?

And is it correct that Gallic shields were modelled after the Roman Scutum?

Cheers

[PSYCHO]

Posted the same thing over at the .com

References (http://pub133.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm7.showMessage?topicID=2986.topic)




Quote[/b] ]And is it correct that Gallic shields were modelled after the Roman Scutum?

Actually the other way around. The Romans adopted their shield from the Celts, as they did with their mail shirts, Imperial helmets etc etc.

[spmetla]

I always thought their helments where borrowed from the Etruscans.

[PSYCHO]

Well, not sure about the early republic but the 'Imperial Gallic Helmet' (http://www.romancoins.info/iron-helmet-gallic-imperial.jpg)was influenced by the Gauls, hence the name given them.

[Nowake]

Well, you posted the same thread at .com, so I'm going to give you the same answer http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

.. in De bello gallicoa Caesar gives a good account on his battle with the helvetii and boii (you know, that first battle ..)

Both seemed expert in the phanlax formation, but seemed to have a hard time against the pilla and lacked discipline. So I don't really think it'll work for barbarians.

[Kraxis]

psycho, he most likely meant the montefortino helmet.

It seems the first scutum was adopted from the Samnites as Sallust wrote: "our ancestors... took their offensive and defensive weapons from the Samnites" and the author of Ineditum Vaticanum wrote: "We did not have the traditional Samnite scutum nor did we have the pila. But we fought with round shields and spears... But when we became involved in war with the Samnites we were equipped with the scutum and the pilum... so with foreign weapons and copied tactics we enslaved those who had developed a conceited pride in themselves."

[PSYCHO]

The montefortino helmet was introduced by the Celts into Italy in the 4th C BC http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif


"It seems the first scutum was adopted from the Samnites as Sallust wrote: "our ancestors... took their offensive and defensive weapons from the Samnites" and the author of Ineditum Vaticanum wrote: "We did not have the traditional Samnite scutum nor did we have the pila. But we fought with round shields and spears... But when we became involved in war with the Samnites we were equipped with the scutum and the pilum... so with foreign weapons and copied tactics we enslaved those who had developed a conceited pride in themselves." - Kraxis

Yes that may be the Roman’s story but one needs to consider the bigger picture. Sallust is referring to the Roman adoption of the Scutum post 1st Samnite War (341 BC). The Roman’s obviously gained a lot of exposure to the aforementioned during that war.
Interesting enough, archaeology testifies that the Samnites themselves had only adopted the long shield around 50 years previous. There was also the appearance of other strange / non-native military equipment like the triple disk breastplate that became such a famous Samnite icon. The tri disk being of religious significance to the Celts (see early examples of the Montefortino helmet)


http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif Join the dots and fill in the gaps....it’s a hypothesis but isn’t it possible that the Samnites had adopted the long shield from the Celts who had carried that sytle of shield from the 6th century BC and whom the Samnites had been warring with to their north for over half a century previous. Shields similar to the Gallic shield called the ‘thureos’ in Greek (Pausanias, 10.22.6) have been found within their territory dating to around the beginning of the 4th c BC and the Celtic incursions. The Celtic Insubres were the first to enter Italy and they carried the thin ‘thureos’. Half a century later the Boii and other tribes entered Italy and carried the long oval shields ..and funnily enough, the Samnites in that part of the historical record were soon found with the same.

The proud conceited Roman’s were either ignorant that their arms had possibly come from the Celts or they deliberately chose to attribute them to the ‘more civilised’ ‘Italian cousins' than the ‘barbarian’ horde of Celts.
Considering that Sallust was writing during a period when Rome was at war with the Celts of Gaul, decendants of the sackers of their beloved city; and reading other Roman accounts of the Celts amounting to propaganda, the weight of evidence seems to support the hypothesis and the later 'Roman reasoning' imo.

[Kraxis]

It is not impossible that the Samnites had adopted it from the Gauls, but that doesn't make it impossible for the Romans to adopt it from them.
The gaulish shields were also oval, while the Roman scutum had the top an bottom cut off (sometimes one one or either). This coincides nicely with the fact that the Samnite scutum was a trapezoid shield. Being broad at the top and slimmer at the bottom and flat at all edges (corners rounded though).
So it is not impossible that the first Roman scuta were like that, and later it was noticed that it was more sensible to have equal sided shields if the legionaries were to stand in a line, but the cut off top and bottom was retained.

Why isn't it the other way round that the Romans cut it off themselves? Could be, nothing is ever really certain when the sources are both limited and unreliable. But why would the Romans cut them off? There isn't really a reason for this, so my belief is that the Roman scutum evolved from the Samnite scutum and thus retained a little of that heritage.

[PSYCHO]

Not arguing that the Romans ‘may have’ got the idea from the Samnites. Just hypothesising that it was in fact a Celtic shield, adopted by the Samnites and later by the Romans. The Celts were the first to appear in the historic record with such a shield.

The interesting point is that even if they had originally thought it Samnite, they were still claiming the same story after a century of fighting the Celts with similiar shields. They must have got a real shock how much 'Samnite culture' had spread all over Gaul, Briton, Iberia and Asia Minor http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

They tried to play down the fact that they 'the sons of Mars' needed to adopt a form of 'barbarian' equipment. They did a similar thing with playing down the ‘Gallic’ helmet, the chain mail, and even the much celebrated gladius.

In the end, I guess we both can only speculate, but an interesting discussion nonetheless.

Thanks

[Kraxis]

Now that is certainly interesting.
I think the Romans took the shield from the Samnites, then later understood that, hey the Gauls have it, and it is widespread. So they must have understood that the Samnites have gotten the shield from the Gauls. But the Romans had a bit of a cultural hatred to the Gauls, so it isn't surprising to notice that they didn't accept they learned anything from them.
That hatred also leads me to believe that the Roman sources for battles against Gauls might explain how the battle went, but besides that they can't be very reliable. For instance the effectiveness of the Roman troops and the number of Gauls involved. The Romans certainly had an axe to grind there. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif

[Barkhorn1x]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Feb. 20 2004,08:30)]That hatred also leads me to believe that the Roman sources for battles against Gauls might explain how the battle went, but besides that they can't be very reliable. For instance the effectiveness of the Roman troops and the number of Gauls involved. The Romans certainly had an axe to grind there. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif
I agree, and would also add that there seems to be a general acceptance amoungst the more "civilized" ancient peoples (Greeks, Romans) that "barbarian" armies were MASS armies, be they Persian, Gaul, German, Briton, Pontic, etc.

This leads to high levels of absurdity in many battle descriptions (Tigranocerta, Watling Street).

Barkhorn.

[Sir Robin]

History is written by the victor...

Historical research is usually coloured by the "opinions" of the writer and reader.

When you accept that everyone is lying, at least a little bit, things start to make sense.

I love history but would never consider myself more than an amateur historian. Still it is often blatantly obvious that the various authors are biased towards their own interpretation of past events.

[PSYCHO]

Too true


Quote[/b] ]The Romans certainly had an axe to grind there.

A whole nation of Chosen Axemen http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif

[Herodotus]

The Romans chopped the top and bottom of their shields of to make marching with them easier. I think it was one of Marius' innovations. It meant that the legions could walk with their shields on their backs without them bouncing on the back of their legs the whole way.

[Leet Eriksson]

I thought the roman military took alot from the carthaginians than the guals.

[Scipio]

The Romans "took" from alot of different civilizations. And it is also good to note that their close neighbors in Italy where Gualish and they took alot from them (Census etc.)

[RisingSun]

This is thoroughly off-topic, but Scipio, are you a true-born Italian, or a Canadian living in Rome (perhaps studying abroad)? It seems the latter, now that I see your new sig, but I always thought you were born and raised Roman. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Silly me.