A Question for the Historians

Within the time frame covered here, what was the strategic and tactical ability of "barbarian" tribes and alliances?

Specifically, I would like to know if barbarians actually organized themselves into units depending on weapon type such as spears or swords. I have the feeling that most "units" would be a mish-mash of differing soldier types, weapons, and proficiencies. The exception would be the difference between archers, cavalry, and infantry. I imagine that these types would certainly be differentiated. Other than that though, I would expect all infantry to simple fight as a giant blob of bodies and varying objects of death. They certainly would not be uniformly armed and equiped in this era.

Secondly, when did european barbarians begin to create uniformly equipped units? Early dark ages?

Poor conception; Celts for example had standards for specific groups to follow (there would be no other reason for them to carry standards; in fact, it was Celtic animal standards that inspired later Roman standards of a similar type, since it was easy for a unit to follow them). They organized mainly based on 'similar' equipment; long shields (or varying shapes, but of about the same size) and spears together and such, though they'd not generally look too uniform. However, they would be carrying, more or less, the same equipment. In Galatia (and those Celts that migrated to Galatia, as well as, presumably, other Gauls), bands of men with short swords and shields were used to overcome phalanxes and spear walls by rolling under them (a type of specialized unit in that sense). It isn't some complicated tactical decision to realize certain weapons work better in groups, and that mobbing together various weapons makes using them appropriately difficult; just because they weren't mediterraneans doesn't mean they were imbeciles with no concept of how to organize in the most basic and logical manner. Further, the presence of tactics like shieldwalls and testudo-like 'shells' of shields employed by different barbarians implies a necessity of 'basically' uniform equipment.

Soldiers were organized by cavalry, infantry and artillery most of the time. Within the units though sometimes they weren't. There were units that were grouped in spears and swords, but I'm not completely sure.

One thing I am sure of would be the fact that they would be divided by nobility. If you were a noble you got the best armor and were usually given a horse even if a poor peasant man part of the infantry was better.

Barbarians often had alliances, but mainly only to defeat a powerful foe (Romans). If they were victorious in holding off the powerhouse the were fighting they would most likely go to fighting each other again.

Hope it helps! I'm not a "historian", but I do know a little history!~:)

(I think~D )

Actually, Celts had rather long standing alliances and kingdoms. By about 110 BC, most of Britain south of modern York was under control of a single king (the coinage of this kingship steadily spreads from the southeast over the whole of southern Britain); this kingdom was still present when the Romans invaded for a second time. The Aedui and Arverni in Gaul were actually in a civil war (civil being the key word here) for control of Gaul; the Aedui had inherited rule from the Biturges (who had originally ruled all of Gaul), and everything was fine until Germans and Belgae overran portions of Gaul, causing a loss of faith in the Aedui. A lot of disallusioned tribes flocked to the Arverni, who believed they were more capable of defending Gaul, and many tribes formed their own alliances to form their own state indepedent of either of them (like Armorica); however, when the Romans completed their conquest of Gaul, just before that, the entire country was under the control of either the Aedui or Sequanes (who had taken power over the alliance the Arverni had started hundreds of years earlier), except the southern coasts and Italian Gaul, which was under Roman rule. The Aedui had a system of magistrates by which they organized their clients and allies (they were, in effect, a type of republic or confederacy), and a sort of 'senate' (in fact, it was this senatorial struggle that caused their major collapse; parts of it wanted to ally with the Romans, and parts wanted to fight the Romans, causing certain tribes to fall under Roman rule {those who had pro-Roman representatives} and some to fight the Romans). The Arverni/Sequani were more of a direct control government with 'allies' that were more like puppets or client-states. A similar occurence took place in Britain, when an anti-Roman faction had control shortly before the second Roman invasion (Cunobelin and his associates, including two of his three sons). Cunobelin's third son was a pro-Roman noble and was the chief of the Atrebates. His brothers ousted him, siezed his lands, and he fled to Rome to plead assistance. When the Romans arrived in Britain for conquest, not all Britons fought them for a reason; certain tribe's chiefs and regional kings were pro-Romans who'd been held down by the anti-Roman element of the government (particularly by the powerful Carradoc, or Caractus, the eldest son of Cunobelin, and a very powerful speaker, which meant quite a lot to the Britons). This also neglects Galatia, which, since its formation, was a steady kingdom until its peaceful absorbtion into the Roman empire.

Along the same lines, how much battlefield tactical control did Barbarian leadership have?

As most of us know, once the battle is engaged, it is extremely difficult to coordinate activities. What I primarily refer to, I suppose, is the planning process prior to engagement.

Did Barb Generals possess enough authority and inspiration to effectively cooridante quasi-uniform units in a meaningful manner? I would imagine that it would be slightly more than, "Here's a spear. The enemy is over there."

Plans were probably formulated before battle, and then control of a unit would be delegated to the 'officer' commanding it (that is, a noble or other official of the specific tribe or family the unit is pooled from). One has to keep in mind, almost no commander from any people in the period had a great extent of control once a battle began; it was more in planning. Commanders often fought with their men, and that's not the greatest vantage to accurately control where your men are going. So, before the battle, if you want your cavalry to flank, you'd tell them to run around the sides and attempt to flank, and ultimately have to trust the competency of your subordinates to effectively command the men they'd been delegated. Again, it doesn't take a genius to determine that hitting an enemy from the flank is more effective than just mobbing him (and Celts and Germans were both rather fond of flanking; of course, frontal charges were used, but everyone used some sort of frontal attack). Any ancient leader would organize with his subordinates before battle, giving commands for them to follow out and hopefully, ultimately, that each one does his job appropriately, allowing the attack to succeed. About inspiration, Celtic laws required 'nobility' (which was generally a type of elected aristocracy with representatives) to be capable of orating clearly, as well as capable of fighting in combat, to maintain their position. As such, it was, in a way, required that they be inspiring at least to some extent.

Yes, I'm sure plans were formulated before battle. I think barbarian generals were probably some of the most inspiring. I just feel from the way barbarian people were that they would be.

What I often wondered is why armies were allowed to retreat so easily. I'll go back a little farther to the time of Alexander the Great here.

At the battle of Gaugamela almost 3/4 of the casualties came from cavalry chasing down fleeing infantry. If the Persians had so many men could they spare to put a few regiments of the most loyal archers a ways in the rear of the main army? If the army retreated they were shot down by there own archers. Now of course this would be told to the men before the battle, but I think it would work. If they didn't flee the Persians could have possibly inflicted casualties on the Macedonians that would be fatal to the Macedonian army later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon

Yes, I'm sure plans were formulated before battle. I think barbarian generals were probably some of the most inspiring. I just feel from the way barbarian people were that they would be.

What I often wondered is why armies were allowed to retreat so easily. I'll go back a little farther to the time of Alexander the Great here.

At the battle of Gaugamela almost 3/4 of the casualties came from cavalry chasing down fleeing infantry. If the Persians had so many men could they spare to put a few regiments of the most loyal archers a ways in the rear of the main army? If the army retreated they were shot down by there own archers. Now of course this would be told to the men before the battle, but I think it would work. If they didn't flee the Persians could have possibly inflicted casualties on the Macedonians that would be fatal to the Macedonian army later.

---

Read the Virtues of War by Pressfiled. It gives a great perspective of this battle.

Alexanderofmacedon

Well, one could argue that needing to have army police at the end of the line would severly hurt the moral of the blob of farmers(The persians DID have better soldiers such as afew greeks and persian nobles, but farmers were the main stream IIRC) That made up the Persian army. In other words, you would make routing harder but more likely.

Also, Darius(God i hope i spelled that correctly:help: ) was almost sure of victory. He underestimated alexander the greats skill and thought he would be drowned in sheer numbers.

Note that all of this is in IMIO(in my ignorant opinion~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

Alexanderofmacedon

Well, one could argue that needing to have army police at the end of the line would severly hurt the moral of the blob of farmers(The persians DID have better soldiers such as afew greeks and persian nobles, but farmers were the main stream IIRC) That made up the Persian army. In other words, you would make routing harder but more likely.

Also, Darius(God i hope i spelled that correctly:help: ) was almost sure of victory. He underestimated alexander the greats skill and thought he would be drowned in sheer numbers.

Note that all of this is in IMIO(in my ignorant opinion~D

---

Mongoose/Alex:

Archers, historically, were not the preferred unit for that role. That job, pre rifle, usually fell to the cavalry. Horses could literally push men back into line, convey the impression of power, and could, of course, catch any runners fairly readily. Archers only threaten one way, and then they have to act on the threat with deadly force -- fewer "options."

Darius was confident in numbers, but would have been aware that his archers and cavalry were vital tools against the macedonians -- he wouldn't have been relying on his eastern infantry as anything but flypaper. So how many of these critical troop types could he afford to pull off the main line?

Which is not to say that something along those lines might not have improved Darius' chances. Battlefield police are an old concept, but have been used through to the present. Soviet penal battalions were the ultimate expression of this and NKVD "support" troops often were placed where they would prevent retreat. These measures did aid soviet effectiveness in combat (though not societally).

Seamus

Another possible example of deterring routers could be Zama. Here, Hannibal divided his forces into three seperate lines. The least reliable troops, probably mercenaries, held the front line, the native Carthaginians held the second line, and the third line was filled with Hannibal's famous veterans. Not only was it intended to slow down the movement of the Roman legionaries, but the system was also designed to make it more difficult for routing troops to escape; they'd have to find their way around the dense line behind them if they broke and ran, since they would not be let through by the still stable troops.

Not that it worked, but hey, Hannibal had made good attempt at it.

at gaugamela you must also remember that darius fled. seeing your king flee, your not exactly gonna want to stick around and die, are you?

this is some impressive stuff.

just one request:

could you show me some links? so that I too could get familiar with this magical information on celtic testudoes and what not?

Your snideness doesn't help; further, little of it will be found in 'links', the internet is imbecile-ridden, one has to do solid research for themselves. Anyway, a good place to start; the 'testudo' is mentioned in De Bello Gallico. He mentions that the Belgae use a similar formation to near a fortified position, like a gatehouse, to set it on fire. Numerous Celtic metalworks and carvings, most notably one of the Knowth carvings of Ireland seems to depict men entering this position (though the Knowth one is confusing, since most of those etchings are about the passage of time and illustrate the Celtic calendar). There's also mention of dense ordered formations among the Helvetii, the discipline of Nervii and the Soldurii of the Aquitanes. Metalworks from the Nantes dig depict Celtic warriors rolling beneath lines of spearmen to stab them in the gut, and considering Pergamon's response to the Galatian settlement was to developed a phalanx that had a second row of pikes that were lower, it seems the Galatians did this too (probably used to credit against the Macedonians, who they'd earlier annihilated in battle).

There's also logic; Celts used standards, constantly. It's not some mystery; the sheer number of them found in digs all over Europe and the south of Britain speaks to their importance. The logic behind the use of multiple standards in a battle is to give specific groups something to follow in the hectic nature of the fight. They must then be divided into specific groups, and logic again dictates they be divided by; basic equipment (that is, equipment that serves more or less the same purpose; long shields with long shields {though of different shapes} and the like, because if they weren't, they'd serve no real purpose as a 'unit', unless it was specific equipment paired with other specific equipment {like Germanic cavalry that had a footman with their horses; same basic equipment between two types of soldiers}), experience, and probably (in Celtic as well as other societies) age. While you may be able to argue for a more disorganized force in the more tribal northeastern European tribes of Celts, and the midland Britons, who were far more based around warbands, the mid-to-late Celts of Gaul and southern Britain were clearly based around units.

Further, one can just look at Galatia. Galatian mercenaries were used constantly. While they could be outfitted by their employers, they were always just outfitted in quality versions of what they were used to fighting with. This spawned specific units of Galatians, still intended to fight in the typical Galatian manner, and they did quite well. No one would've found roving mobs so important, but everyone near them employed them because of their ability to counter Hellenic warfare (which the successors and their nearby contemporaries, and thereby enemies, generally fought in the manner of).

so what about field-tactics?
i heard the sweboz generally ambushed and skirmished. and that both teh aedui and sweboz (and a lot of otehr tribes/confederations) like cav-flanking..
but anything else?

Sapping was apparently a part of life for many Celts; you see, directly assaulting the wall of an oppida is generally an exercise in futility. Just look at the Romans; rather than assault them unless they absolutely had to, they would siege them out. Celtic legend makes mention of sapping at different points; I'm aware it's only legend, but bare in mind that it's all generally based on actual events, passed through the lense of myth, and digging a hole under a wall to make it collapse isn't very 'mythic', so likely a leftover of the original story.

Also, when employing chariots, Celts would use them to disarray dense formations (again proof that they understood formations, or they'd not have developed methods of disorienting them; this tactic was well recorded by Romans). They would drive their chariots into dense groups of men (who would get out of the way or be crushed), to break apart the formation and create gaps that could be exploited by infantry. Just an FYI here; in EB, that is the main purpose of Celtic chariots (though they also carry javelins). They're not so much a great weapon in their own intention, but rather a primer for infantry to fill gaps in an enemy formation. In real life, they also delivered nobles to combat, and allowed them to escape quickly if the need arose, but, we can't imitate that part. However, their potential as a missile platform and their disorientation role will be in game.

Also, a lot of psychological warfare; Celts had a propensity to sing while marching or before battle (the Celtic warcry in game may include some singing, or we may use one of the other sounds for it, don't know yet), Germans would chant in a raising tone (baritus, which will also be included). Back to chariots for a moment; Celtic chariots, in a group, can make a very disturbing, disorienting noise; it's unnerving enough to men (even Romans at times admitted their men felt unnerved by the sound), but it can cause horses to simply bolt if they're unused to the sound. And it's not just psychological warfare in terms of frightening an enemy, but of getting themselves ready to fight. Celts (being what I know, I'll focus) used loud horns (carnyx), beat drums, and would sing, to both disorient the enemy, and to encourage one another. Britons (and earlier, other Celts; by this point, few others still painted themselves, except the Pictones of Gaul, and some alpine demi-Celts) painted themselves out of religious belief that the designs offered them certain protections (depending on what designs were on them, supposedly), which was, in real-world terms, translated to a belief that they were protected better from enemies.

Many barbarians were recorded as using wedge-formations (Germans particularly, but also quite a number of others, including Celts and Iberians). These weren't always the same; sometimes inverted, sometimes wider, sometimes more narrow. The concept of a forward wedge was simple; literally wedge the enemy formation into two parts, disuniting them, and making them easier to cut apart. The inverted wedge was based around a concept of trying to lead the enemy into the center, and then wheel in the edges of the wedge to their flanks.

Well, Iranians would array themselves sort of grouped by unit. For example, horse archers would operate seprately than heavy lancers. However, the heavy lancers would all have different equipment. In a given "unit", there could be sword, mace, bow, axe secondaray weapons and no bard, half bard, 3/4 bard or full bard.

About Persians, they were far from barbarians, and had quite good cavalry, and had some decent infantry. It was just styled totally different from Greek forces. And the lesser Aristabara would probably not be grouped with the better archers and hillmen skrimishers.
And almost all Iranian armies, from Achaemeid to Sarmatians to Sassanians, lost once the general was dead. It was due to the great importance the general got, and the importance of moral.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Jones

at gaugamela you must also remember that darius fled. seeing your king flee, your not exactly gonna want to stick around and die, are you?

---

Very good point. One reason Darius lost his empire in my opinion. He did the same thing at Issus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon

Very good point. One reason Darius lost his empire in my opinion. He did the same thing at Issus.

---

He fled, yes. But fleeing does not neccassarily make one a bad general, and a "tactical repositioning of forces far away from the enemy" is sometimes good. I think it boils down to that Alexander was just way better.

Quote:

---

Along the same lines, how much battlefield tactical control did Barbarian leadership have?

As most of us know, once the battle is engaged, it is extremely difficult to coordinate activities. What I primarily refer to, I suppose, is the planning process prior to engagement.

Did Barb Generals possess enough authority and inspiration to effectively cooridante quasi-uniform units in a meaningful manner? I would imagine that it would be slightly more than, "Here's a spear. The enemy is over there."

---

Steppe generals, and other Eastern horsemen could reform quite well and execute quite complecated manuevers. Unlike Western knights, which was more of a charge and that's it sort of thing, the reliance on horse archery neccestitated very coordinated manuevers, helped by hunting and years of herding animals with the guy next to you. Heavy horse could also stop a charge. For example, the Sassanians would send a charge of Savaran (cataphracts) against Roman infantry, which would turn aside and go back, which was followed by a wave of horse archer, who would also swerve, followed by another line of cataphracts. So yeah, Iranians, especially nomads could do a lot of complicated manuevers, more so than later Westerners.

Quote:

---

He fled, yes. But fleeing does not neccassarily make one a bad general, and a "tactical repositioning of forces far away from the enemy" is sometimes good. I think it boils down to that Alexander was just way better.

---

Either way I think Darius was a military disgrace to his family before him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon

Either way I think Darius was a military disgrace to his family before him.

---

Well, it depends. To Darius I, and Cyrus, perhaps. But not all of the King of Kings were good, or even decent generals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

Just an FYI here; in EB, that is the main purpose of Celtic chariots (though they also carry javelins). They're not so much a great weapon in their own intention, but rather a primer for infantry to fill gaps in an enemy formation. In real life, they also delivered nobles to combat, and allowed them to escape quickly if the need arose, but, we can't imitate that part. However, their potential as a missile platform and their disorientation role will be in game.

---

This is not a question regerding history, but since it came up: will the chariots in EB be vulnerable to cavalry, or is that ability hardcoded? I remember that, for a while, I experimented with trying to make them vulnerable to cavalry, but all I knew how to do was adjust attack and defense values; even with their attack reduced to 1, they still dominated the battlefield when pitted against cavalry.

Actually, were chariots vulnerable to cavalry, or is that a myth too?

Chariots are quite vulnerable at their flanks from cavalry, but the true bane of a chariot is light infantry; light infantry can overwhelm them. This can be imitated by giving light infantry a bonus against chariots (one can give penalties and bonuses versus certain types of mounts), representing their ability to use their ability to use their agility to essentially jump at the chariots and yank the riders down, and kill them. Of course, chariots are also vulnerable to missiles and longspears, like most cavalry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

Your snideness doesn't help; further, little of it will be found in 'links', the internet is imbecile-ridden, one has to do solid research for themselves.

---

My snideness? I was just asking for links on a subject that im genuinely interested in and so that I can read the information for myself. whats snide about that?

theres no doubt in my mind that the celts used the above mentioned tactics in battle, it would really surprise me if warrior cultures didnt produce such things.

however that said, your general attitude is (unfortunatly) similar to the attitudes of people that claim the pyramids were built by aliens.

person1" dont you know that aliens built the pyramids?"

person2" really? can i see some links or something that confirms that?"

person1" STOP BEING SNIDE YOU ASSHOLE, THE INTERNET IS FULL OF LIES ANYWAY"

"person2"um ok"

P.S. if you thought I was being snide souly on the use of the word "magical" in my previous post, I used the word MAGICAL because I was actually quite excited to learn of these formations and tactics used by the celts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

My snideness? I was just asking for links on a subject that im genuinely interested in and so that I can read the information for myself. whats snide about that?

theres no doubt in my mind that the celts used the above mentioned tactics in battle, it would really surprise me if warrior cultures didnt produce such things.

however that said, your general attitude is (unfortunatly) similar to the attitudes of people that claim the pyramids were built by aliens.

person1" dont you know that aliens built the pyramids?"

person2" really? can i see some links or something that confirms that?"

person1" STOP BEING SNIDE YOU ASSHOLE, THE INTERNET IS FULL OF LIES ANYWAY"

"person2"um ok"

P.S. if you thought I was being snide souly on the use of the word "magical" in my previous post, I used the word MAGICAL because I was actually quite excited to learn of these formations and tactics used by the celts.

---

Yes, it was the use of 'magical', it's not a very serious sounding word. It sounds more that of some snarky individual who thinks everyone else is an idiot. So yes, you sounded snide, and your reply more so; I apologize for not being able to tell the difference though, as English is not my first language. As far as my understanding, your wording was very rude, and your reply substantially more. Also, to be a contrarian, the internet IS full of lies (just look at how many sites claim the Celts came from Ireland; that'd sure surprise the original Keltoi, in central and eastern Europe). But my point was not about lies, but lack of information. All Celtic sites tend to regurgitate the same information, a lot of which is unsupplemented by recent data or flatly out of date by as much as a few decades. The internet is horrendous for proper information beyond the utter basics of what one needs. At best, you can find reports and the like on recent finds, but hardly ever decent examination of the objects within (and 'they found chunks of carnyxes, swords, and shields' in a report is not that illuminating).

http://digilander.libero.it/jackdani...ico/book_2.htm

"caes.gal.2.6": [2.6] There was a town of the Remi, by name Bibrax, eight miles distant from this camp. This the Belgae on their march began to attack
with great vigor. [The assault] was with difficulty sustained for that day. The Gauls' mode of besieging is the same as that of the Belgae: when after having
drawn a large number of men around the whole of the fortifications, stones have begun to be cast against the wall on all sides, and the wall has been
stripped of its defenders, [then], forming a testudo, they advance to the gates and undermine the wall: which was easily effected on this occasion; for while
so large a number were casting stones and darts, no one was able to maintain his position upon the wall. When night had put an end to the assault, Iccius,
who was then in command of the town, one of the Remi, a man of the highest rank and influence among his people, and one of those who had come to
Caesar as embassador [to sue] for peace, sends messengers to him, [to report] "That, unless assistance were sent to him he could not hold out any
longer."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

Yes, it was the use of 'magical', it's not a very serious sounding word. It sounds more that of some snarky individual who thinks everyone else is an idiot. So yes, you sounded snide, and your reply more so; I apologize for not being able to tell the difference though, as English is not my first language. As far as my understanding, your wording was very rude, and your reply substantially more. Also, to be a contrarian, the internet IS full of lies (just look at how many sites claim the Celts came from Ireland; that'd sure surprise the original Keltoi, in central and eastern Europe). But my point was not about lies, but lack of information. All Celtic sites tend to regurgitate the same information, a lot of which is unsupplemented by recent data or flatly out of date by as much as a few decades. The internet is horrendous for proper information beyond the utter basics of what one needs. At best, you can find reports and the like on recent finds, but hardly ever decent examination of the objects within (and 'they found chunks of carnyxes, swords, and shields' in a report is not that illuminating).

---

I too appologize for my snide second comment and original comment.
I should have looked over my first comment and seen that it could be interprited as a rude comment, so yeah , im sorry =)

and yes, It does appear that there is a lot of misinformation about the celts in particular on the net, which is a pitty. however this doesnt stop me looking for accurate information on the celts, and with things like wikipedia rapidly on the rise, I have a lot of faith that the truth will prevail in the end.

perhaps someone with your education could contribute to wikipedia.com or some other encyclopedia site once EB has been completed, I would enjoy reading it ~:cheers:

Aye, I always love reading Ranika's mini - lectures about Celts. I'm saddened they don't have an AP history class for the classical age. Should it not at least be noted that it wasn't Voltaire that invented checks and balances? The Aedui had such a system running with their government, that was more efficient and democratic than even the Carthaginian or Roman "republics," which were completely dominated by the wealthiest of the wealthy, the scum of the human race.

The ancient times - dark ages have got to be my favourite times in history to study and read about. I'm already thinking about minoring in history, and that was inspired by EB. Thanks guys :)

Celts forming "testudo's"? wow...
were they trained to be able to do it? or was it just an occasional happening?
weasn't it reasoanbly ineffective with those ovular shields?

It seems it is by no means impossible to form a testudo with oval shields. Perhaps, you just need to huddle closer. You might want to check this pic (and a few ohers) in Fectio's re-enactment site.

And here is a pdf of the scholarly paper on the formation that the re-enactors were replicating. The Internet is indeed, as Ranika says, full of bs., but now and then you do find useful stuff.

well. i didn't say impossible..
i just tought rectangular shield woudl give more covering (less gaps)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

well. i didn't say impossible..
i just tought rectangular shield woudl give more covering (less gaps)

---

Possibly. It still seems that both Gauls and Late Roman/Byzantine generals agreed that the added protection was still worth the trouble to form into a testudo-like thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

Celts forming "testudo's"? wow...
were they trained to be able to do it? or was it just an occasional happening?
weasn't it reasoanbly ineffective with those ovular shields?

---

It wasn't a 'testudo', perse, but a similar formation. And one could logically close gaps with such a form, but it's mainly mentioned in relation to Belgae, and Belgae didn't use oval shields near as often (save cavalry); they used hexagonal shields, which can more easily form a very well sealed position; makes sense, the Belgae probably engaged in more sapping and other such work than other Celts, and likely had more of a reason to use equipment better suited to keep them covered.

Other Celts, however, do show such things in metalwork and stonework, and it likely served the same, or a similar purpose. It would hardly be ineffective, a Celtic oval shield overlapping additional shields could form quite a well defended 'shell' from arrows, and would be useful for nearing fortified positions, like, perhaps, the gate of a fortress (and Gallic forts were very well-fortified; it seems likely such a manuever developed in response to fortifications and the necessity to get close and set gates and gatehouses aflame). Now, would it be effective as the Roman testudo? Unlikely; their shields still wouldn't form as tight a seal, except for the Belgae, probably, but that doesn't mean it'd be 'ineffective'; it would surely stop many projectiles.

i really hope there is a celtic unit in the game that can form this celtic testudo.

id also love to see a unit that is capable of rolling under enemy spears and stabbing the men that carry them, like what ranika mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Well, it depends. To Darius I, and Cyrus, perhaps. But not all of the King of Kings were good, or even decent generals.

---

Speaking for Darius III, I've actually written a highly regarded research paper showing that Darius III was actually a decent military man, whose main problem was the fact that he went up against Alexander the Great.

If you care to read through it, you can find it here. Excuse the use of that fairly unprofessional website, which did create some formatting issues. Also, I'm still working on my undergraduate degree in Classics, so to all of the history professionals here, don't be too harsh. ~:)

My knowledge is limited to later dark age *barbarians* but i think some of it applies.

Tribal societies generally had standard *minimum* levels of equipment for fitting a certain category of troops e.g fyrdmen and thanes in later saxon times. The units wouldn't be standardized but they'd all have the basics plus some would have extra. The point of the muster field was for the warriors to gather once a year and the chief/king to check their equipment to make sure it was in good order. Then they'd either go home or go attack a neighbouring tribe cos that was their idea of a fun adventure holiday.

I think you need to think of barbarian armies as very much dependent on the size of the tribal grouping they came from. The bulk of a tribe's warriors would always be the semi-amateur warrior farmer types. These guys would fight in a mob with very little idea of battle-field tactics. They might have lots of knowledge of small-scale raiding and ambush tactics but in a pitched battle they would only really understand either "charge them" or "hold this hill" orders. And like the fyrdmen at the battle of hastings they might ignore the "hold this hill" order and charge anyway.

But each tribal chief would also have their equivalent of the later saxon huscarls. A small tribe would only have a few and so they'd probably just be mixed in with the warbands, probably at the front and their tactical ability would be held down to the level of the mob by being a minority in the warband. They'd mostly just boost morale.

However in larger tribal groupings a king/cheif might well have enough of these guys (combined maybe with those from sub-cheifs) to form what we would think of as units. I think these guys would easily compare to elite units of any civilized faction except maybe in equipment and sometimes not even that. Given the semi-permanent nature of warfare in barbarian type cultures they'd be vastly experienced and would i am sure understand formations and battle tactics perfectly well. Those with experience fighting cavalry would know how to stay close together - a sort of shield wall, and those with experience with seiges would know how to form a sort of testudo. Tactics derived from necessity.

I think the presence of banners doesn't neccessarily prove they had units in the sense of command and control. They are just as likely to be tribal banners so guys who got split from the their local warband in a chaotic melee could find their way back to the warriors from their home area.

I think any army that comprises mostly warrior/farmers is going to have mostly warband type battle tactics for the simple reason that without a formal training program there is a limit to what you can achieve with part-time soldiers. But their equivalent of professional soldiers would be extremely good in a pitched battle unless it was undermined by cultural ideas such as the primacy of individual combat or the lameness of wearing armour.

In short I think most western barbarian armies would have "units" comprised of warbands based on locality rather than equipment together with actual units of their culture's equivalent of huscarls.

I've forgotten the rest of the original question :)

Oh yeah, command and control.

I don't think any army had much command and control once the battle started unless the general actually moved to a unit and said "go over there," barbs even less so generally. I think there were "prestige" positions in the battle line, usually the right flank or the centre, and units/groups would go there according to prestige e.g in later saxon armies the men of Kent traditionally had the right flank. I also think the prestige of the general had a lot to do with it. Some barb generals could probably have a lot more control if they were particularly famous.

For example if i'm playing a (western) barb faction and the general has less than four command stars/influence i just select all the infantry and group them in a double line letting the game decide where each unit goes. If the general is better i place them myself. Iberian devotio guys (rtr) always take the right-front slot, though i don't know if that is accurate for the "Iberians".

All this is stuff from later western barbs though, saxons, franks etc so may not apply to eastern armies or gauls.

Lol, I keep editing.

Also I think cultural ideas are vital in this. If a culture's equivalent of huscarls is a bunch of guys looking for single combat who are naked apart from magical tattoos, then even if they are supreme warriors individually, a disciplined group of close-formation, armoured "civilized" infantry will find them easy meat unless the civilized guys are so scared they run away at the first charge.

well...many "barbarians" did organize. they used an offensive (or defensive..for that matter) Wedge formation.
like you said: the basic infantrymen didn't have a good grasp of tactics...but their "generals"(for lack of a better word) certainly did...

roman/greek infantry weren't all geniuses like Alexander (i.e.) a lot of them we practically told to hold formation and move up upon the enemy. not knowing teh full plan.

i definatly don't agree with the "almost only warbands". there were a lot of tribes there. with a lot of veterans, every one being different from each other.
because Pezhetairoi were the order of teh day we should just scrap the Hypaspists/ argyraspydai's? or even those bad-ass-Torikatai argyraspydai (sp...)?

i know i'm not na expert. but

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikolai1962

My knowledge is limited to later dark age *barbarians* but i think some of it applies.

Tribal societies generally had standard *minimum* levels of equipment for fitting a certain category of troops e.g fyrdmen and thanes in later saxon times. The units wouldn't be standardized but they'd all have the basics plus some would have extra. The point of the muster field was for the warriors to gather once a year and the chief/king to check their equipment to make sure it was in good order. Then they'd either go home or go attack a neighbouring tribe cos that was their idea of a fun adventure holiday.

I think you need to think of barbarian armies as very much dependent on the size of the tribal grouping they came from. The bulk of a tribe's warriors would always be the semi-amateur warrior farmer types. These guys would fight in a mob with very little idea of battle-field tactics. They might have lots of knowledge of small-scale raiding and ambush tactics but in a pitched battle they would only really understand either "charge them" or "hold this hill" orders. And like the fyrdmen at the battle of hastings they might ignore the "hold this hill" order and charge anyway.

But each tribal chief would also have their equivalent of the later saxon huscarls. A small tribe would only have a few and so they'd probably just be mixed in with the warbands, probably at the front and their tactical ability would be held down to the level of the mob by being a minority in the warband. They'd mostly just boost morale.

However in larger tribal groupings a king/cheif might well have enough of these guys (combined maybe with those from sub-cheifs) to form what we would think of as units. I think these guys would easily compare to elite units of any civilized faction except maybe in equipment and sometimes not even that. Given the semi-permanent nature of warfare in barbarian type cultures they'd be vastly experienced and would i am sure understand formations and battle tactics perfectly well. Those with experience fighting cavalry would know how to stay close together - a sort of shield wall, and those with experience with seiges would know how to form a sort of testudo. Tactics derived from necessity.

---

True, but one needs to consider the gamit of army types over hundreds of years history. There was huge changes going on within Celtic, esp Gallic society.
The perception that Celtic armies were all a mob of farmers with no command structure is just wrong. For most of the RTW period, Celtic / Gallic warfare was primarily carried on by a professional warrior class. These troops were highly disciplined and trained (albeit admittedly not too the same degree as say the Romans).
It was only when things got desperate, when the tribe, state or confederacy / alliance didn’t have enough surviving troops that they called upon their levies..the farmers etc. This happened under the duress of the warrior class who took similar issue with it as the knighting of squires or non-noblee did in Medieval times.

This happened for eg. during the conquest of Cisalpine Gaul when the Boii were fielding armies of old men and boys as young as 12 and during the great Gallic revolt of Vercingetrix. In both cases, the warrior class was almost non-existant.

Banners served as more than just rally points. In cases were Gallic armies did manage to maintain a high degree of professional warriors, they made a fairly good show of themselves. At Telamon, the Gallic force managed to redeploy in incredible speed from a rabbled march into two well ordered divisions back to back. Even the Romans cared to note the ‘fine order’ of the Gallic army. Despite being taken by surprise they managed to be in place by the time the well practised Romans had wheeled their columns into battle line. This could only have been managed if these troops had an efficient command structure and manageable units / regiments of troops.

When the Romans marched into southern Gaul, the Arverni and their dependants marched to met them. They sent a detachment to build a pontoon bridge across the Rhone, then led their troops across ‘regiment by regiment’

The Nervi for example, in one battle managed to charge from their positions in ambush, down a step hill, over a river and up the other side whilst managing to keep cohesion in their ‘regiments’ so as to direct them to surround each Roman detachment and baggage train…forcing each Roman detachment to huddle together and become less effective. They even managed to manoeuvre a reserve force. No mean feat… by any standard. This would have been impossible if not for an efficient command and control structure.
Etc etc

Most believe because of the later reports of Celtic forces running from battle if the initial charge didn’t win the day, that the Celts had no command or control structure. This just wasn’t the case. Militarily, the Celts did suffer from a few issues:

1) They had a hero-warrior culture which mean’t that leaders led from the front. So if things went very badly very quickly, armies lost most of their officer corp.
2) When forced to deploy large bodies of levies, these were not as experienced as the warrior class and tended be less responsive to commands during the heat of battle. They would be more likely to engaged prematurely and press upon the backs of their own comrades eg. Battle of Watling St. .. and more likely to run if they witnessed their social superiors / officers being slain.