Hmm, true. "Okay, my unit started out about a third of the way from the northeast end of the battle line, let's go look over there" . . . yeah, I can see that happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerby
Printable View
Hmm, true. "Okay, my unit started out about a third of the way from the northeast end of the battle line, let's go look over there" . . . yeah, I can see that happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerby
Yes but when Celts fought their usual enemy ( i.e each other) this would not be out of the norm :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
The only time one's family would accompany then would be during ritual battles, and despite romanticists, most Celtic combat with one another was not a battle based on niceties and ritual-based reasons. Gaul in this period was replete with civil war, where loss in a major battle often meant one side could annihilate or enslave a large chunk of a tribe; no one would concievably risk their family in this case. This is wholely different than minor raids and ritual battles.
Britain had more popularity with ritual combat; most of it steadily fell under the control of a single overking (this was more or less the situation shortly before the second Roman invasion, and had been the situation since shortly before Caesar's earlier invasion). While there was descent, actually full-scale war seems to have been avoided until pro-Roman nobles asked for help from the Romans to return to Britain and seize control. However, tribal grievances existed, and were usually handled with ritual battles. This is different from the much more brutal, full-scale war that was commonplace in Gaul; slaves generally weren't taken after ritual battles, a region wouldn't be starved or slaughtered, etc. The exception is in migrations (since the families have nowhere to go to hide), and rebellions against the Romans (because, in those cases, many of those who were rebelling, such as Boudicca, had never experienced anything but ritual warfare).