Printable View
This is just an idle question really, but I was wondering if anybody knows what the Celtic people used in warfare, what weapons, army organisation (was there any?), siege weaponry, etc. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I find information on the Celts tricky to come by.
Thanks.
Are you thinking of Celts during Roman times, or the Celtic kingdoms that hung on in Britain? Asia Minor, Northern Italy, Gaul, Pictland? There's a lot of time and geography crossed by the Celts, and if you narrow it down you can probably get some much more specific answers.
Ajax
Ack, sorry about that! I'm looking at ~400 BC, mainly around Gaul and Britain.
Around that time it seems the Celts, when using swords, had them rather short (think Asterix). Only later did they begin to use the longer more famous style.
But if you really don't know all that much to begin with, I would suggest that you pick up the Osprey Men At Arms that is centered on them. It is not very deep (they never are) but it will give you a general info, and a number of sources to look up for more specific info.
Or you could just download Europa Barbarorum and play that ~;)[/shameless advertising]
I think that at this point both the Gauls and the British tribes still made use of chariots, and most warriors would carry javelins (much like any "non civilised" people)
Not long after the date you mentioned the Sennones (a cisalpine Gallic tribe) completely rolled over both the Etruscans and Rome in 387, who both still used the phalanx. I find it hard to believe that a disorganised horde could have done this. But I have to admit that I hardly know anything about Celts.
Remember, it was the old Greek hoplite shieldwall, not the Macedonian pike phalanx. Shieldwalls are rather easier to bust than pike blocks from the front, when it comes down to that.
Anyway, even among the Celts swords would have been fairly prestigious and expensive weapons so the ever-popular spear would have been very common - even among the big shots able to get swords.
However, by all accounts organization and battlefield C&C weren't exactly the Celt's strongest suits. Warriors followed their tribal superiors who followed their kings etc. etc. and the whole lot made up an army. As you might imagine they weren't exactly highly disciplined or drilled or anything like that. AFAIK their tactics tended to be on the average pretty simple - form into a passable imitation of a battleline facing the enemy, go through the quota opening moves (champions fighting duels, javelin-carrying skirmishers doing their stuff, and so on), whip yourself into suitably blood-curdling howling rage, and charge the enemy en masse. Throwing any javelins before impact was of course also the order of the day. The Romans apparently developed the pila-volley tactic specifically to help break up these mass charges and dissipate their momentum before contact. If the enemy didn't break or budge such horde tactics had the unfortunate side effects of crowding the engaged troops into a pretty tight mass against the enemy line, with all the opportunities for panic to spread that go with such throngs.
The Celtic cavalry were apparently a fair bit more sophisticated in their tactics, often heavily employing continuous hit-and-run strikes and similar feats of horsemanship.
Of course, at 387 BC even the Macedonians didn't yet use the sarrisa phalanx.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
This is off topic, but anyway...Quote:
Shieldwalls are rather easier to bust than pike blocks from the front, when it comes down to that.
I seriously doubt pikemen would have an easier time, maybe if the pikemen would be perfectly lined up and deployed...but in a pitched battle that's mostly a luxury. The dual edged blade of specialisation- better, but more dependent on perfect conditions.
Well, when it comes down to it, the pike blocks seem to have been fairly good at killing things at a safe four-five meters away. Given that a standard hoplite spear wouldn't have had too much of a reach advantage over its Celtic colleague you can perhaps see how the pikemen would have an easier time absorbing the warband charge... all the more so as whoever got past the first rank of sarissa tips still had some three or four yet to cross, amongst the no doubt rather claustrophobic mass of pike-shafts. If that doesn't sap the impetus of an infantry charge I don't know what will. The Romans found the prospect quite daunting, I know that much.
That said, I know the Successor Macedonians had some trouble from Celts wandering in from the north (probably the same guys who eventually got shipped over to Galatia). I don't know the details, but apparently they figured out some reasonably workable tactics for taking on phalanxes.
However, unless the Celts were springing an ambush you can be damn sure the phalangites would have quite enough time to form up. It's not like the Celts were immediately ready to engage hand-to-hand either (remember, they tended to have some serious drill and C-and-C issues), all the more so as the phalangites would no doubt be screened by the usual clouds of pesky skirmishers.
If we are to believe the rather late accounts of what happened Alalia river, the Romans simply faced too many Celts.
They spread out as far as possible but still their flank got turned. And then we all know what would happen. A hoplite wouldn't have much of a chance against an agile swordsman or even spearman in 1v1.
When the Celts invaded Macedonia and Greece it seems to have been much the same issue. Numbers made flanking 'easy'. For instance when Ptolomy Keraunos (Thunderbolt) went to face them off initially, he brought too few troops and they were easily dispatched after he had been killed in 1v1. A few blocks of pikes can't do much really.
Anyway, later when the Celts on the 3rd invasion tried to force Thermopylae, they couldn't, so it seems the phalanx held when it couldn't be flanked.
And yes some of those of the 3rd invasion settled in Galatia.
My favorite part of the warm-up (for British Celts at least) is the part where you take off all your clothes and paint yourself blue. If I had a naked, half-blue man running toward me full tilt, screaming at the top of his lungs and waving a sword, I think I'd be a little intimidated. ~:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Ajax
I think that the main element in Celtish warfare was the charge and ambush.If we look at the later "Celtic" nations and how they fought the charge was everything.Like the Scottish the charge gave them victory or defeat.Whether it was successfull or broken.I think ive read somewhere that celtic swordsmen tryed to roll under the pikes when facing macedonians.Once they succeeded in that the phalangites were helpless.But if i remember right the Macedonians adapted in to that tactics very fast.If i would make a little generalisation.I think that the key on the succes in war for mediterranian people were co-operation and dicipline,when for the Northern people it was the fierce death abhoring charging to the enemy and the greater power of the single warrior.
Generally phalanx is much better on flat areas - in noth macedonia there is hardly any flat area :)
We can't forget that greek phalanx wasn't so bad comparing with macedonian one. Macedonian phalanxmen didn't have shields and good armour (comparing with Greeks). So when Romans came and started throwing pilums, it generally worked :). Anyway I think javelins are best option on every phalanx - they force opponents to attack ;)
I agree Krook. I think one of the real edges in roman warfare was that they really understood the use of different missile weapons.With their continues edge on "firepower", they were able to change the tactic of their enemies even so that they forced their enemies to attack their infantry or be grinded down with pilas arrows,ballista arrows and catapult ammunition.So basicly they could turn the offensive battle as defensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
But i think that turned also as weakness against them when facing more mobile eastern forces(Pathia), and when they had to go to terrain where were no roads and large forested areas hampered them(Germania).
I disagree...
Apparently all the way back to Fabius Pictor the Epirote phalanx (macedonain style) at the three battles with Pyrrhus, the pilum is reported to have had no apparent effect. And even later, there is no mention of its effect while or prior to the phalanx pushed the Romans back.
And it wasn't as if it's effect was neglected normally.
You might be right Kraxis.But i would put more weight in the wars with Pyrrhus that the Roman army faced the seasoned veterans of Pyrrhus with green army.I dont think it was technology that failed the Romans,but lack of experience in both soldiers and leaders. The Roman army just hadnt the experience yet.I have always thought as the legionary as kind very heavy peltast.Legionary was more mobile when compared to phalangite.If nothing else the pilums must have slowed down the phalangites becouse if it doesnt harm the enemy any other way it sticks and hampers the movement.Also at that time Romans didnt use so much other ranged weapons as the late republican and Imperial Roman army.The military machine of Rome was more or less not ready to face Pyrrhus and his veterans.But what those wars showed was that the Romans couldnt just give up.It shoved their determination.And their will to adapt.In those wars and later against Hannibal.The Romans could take beating after another but just didnt give up.And tryed to learn from their mistakes.I believe those where very valuable lessons for the future when the Romans took the fight to their enemies.:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Sure, but the armies at Cynocephalae and Pydna were very experienced, unlike their Macedonian oponents. And at Magenesia, again the the Romans held the advantage in experience. Yet in all three battles the pilum doesn't seem to have caused much trouble.
There is some truth to the point that the phalanx seems to have been somewhat protected against missiles. Personally I believe they would be waggling their pikes, thus any incoming missiles would have a much smaller chance of actually getting through with the business point going in first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
I have to agree.That the Roman way of warfare was more effective against heavy or light infantry then pikemen.:bow: About the how well phalanx absorbed missiles ,the persian wars showed that.I think its very intresting that while Phalanx is a legendary way to fight,we are not even sure did they fight over- or underhand and also how they were so succesfull absorbing missiles.But Kraxis m8,we are hijacking the thread it was about Celts and their warfare.:oops:
Yeah, sure...
Anyhow, as I've understood it psycology played a big part for Celtic warfare. The all-out charge, howling, painting and single combat was most for breaking the enemy's will and to make them run and that Celts mostly weren't going in for a long slug-match. Although they've proved on several occasions that they could handle it, most of the times long front to front melee fight seems to have been bad idées for the Celts.
My thoughts on the matter.
Indeed, this makes me think of Gustavus Adolphus and his mighty longboats. Oh, wait no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
Anyway, joking aside, I must disagree with your argument. For example, the schiltron wasn't the best formation for charging in.
Well, I was always under the impression the "barking mad charge" was always more of a Highlander thing, and the guys with proto-pikes (who were pretty good at seeing off attacking cavalry, but eventually got turned into pincusions) were Lowlanders... Probably a geography thing, too. What I know of the Scottish highlands doesn't suggest they were exactly prime pike territory.
Anyway, I don't think we're talking about the Middle Ages here.
By what I've read of it, and it seems to make sense, is that the Celtic lack of "staying power" in prolonged melees was a simple result of entirely insufficient military discipline and drill. Or, in other words, if the enemy line didn't budge, the barbarian horde would compress against it into a thick, chaotic, claustrophobic mass where the guys at the front could not be replaced by fresh men if they got tired or wounded until they died, and conditions were in general prime breeding ground for panic for large groups of men who quite simply had not been trained to hold their nerve in such situations. Or much trained at all in anything beyond personal combat for that matter, in most cases.
Not that the highly drilled "civilized" troops tended to do or hold too well in such circumstances either. Which is why they tried to avoid losing formation integrity and cohesion like the Plague. Well, the Celts and most other barbarians tended to not have too much of "formation" to begin with...
It's kind of that they tended to wage war more with enthusiasm and gusto than logic and training. While that equation did have its good points (remember, well into the musket-and-bayonet period the English valued the "Highland charge" of the Scots for shock action), it does seem to have been rather... cost-ineffective in the end. Just look at the approximate head counts of both sides from battles for example the Romans won against the Celts... if the civilized soldiers could maintain formation and pretty much just hold on, one gets the impression they tended to be able to simply outlast the barbarian warriors whose nerve would tend to give first in prolonged attrition matches. Enthusiasm, after all, tends to start wavering if no visible progress is made and the body count just keeps going up; and if enthusiasm is the prime motivator of the warrior, there's a problem right there...
Well, Kagemusha was arguing that the Iron Age Celts were all about the charge because the Scots were later all about the charge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Now then, Scotland does not exist as Scotland until the mid 9th century and the Scots do not become famous for their charge until the early modern period.
I was just disagreeing with that statement.
I also disagree with your highlands = charge and lowlands = pikes being geographically based. The lowlands have plenty of hilly terrain (such as the southern uplands) that saw much of the fighting in the wars of independence. Like I wrote above, the "highland charge" was very much an early modern thing, especially associated with the Jacobites. The Jacobites main support was not just from the highlands but from the still heavily Episcopalian and Catholic northern lowlands (who made up a significant proportion of Jacobite troops). These lowlanders dressed and fought in the same manner as the highlanders .
I was just using it as an example, maybe a poor example but just example.I wasnt basing my assumption of Celtish warfare on the Scottish.I just found a similarity and used it as an example.:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy_is_a_Taff
If you take the Battle of Watling Street as an example, the tactical art of the Celts was not too well developed, relying on numbers. If, as in that battle, the enemy could secure their flanks, then the issue was usually decided against the Celts. But, as mentioned elsewhere, that is a battle by Celts in Britain about 61 BC, and different groups developed different tactics. But once battle was joined, there was little way to give orders, and usually the result was victory or disaster.
But the question is, is that a fair example? I'm not by any means a military historian, but from what I've seen of debates in other venues (including the TW community) the big issue in Celtic warfare seems to be how reasonable it is to extrapolate battles like Alesia and Watling Street to Celtic society as a whole. The traditional view, seemingly supported in most Classical sources, is of admirably brave warriors, but completely lacking in any kind of cohesion and relying on overwhelming numerical superiority, and therefore easily defeated by the superior discipline, organisation and equipment of Roman or Hellenic armies. But there is also the argument that both Boudicca and Vercingetorix were rebels whose "army" consisted essentially or armed civilians without any military training or experience, and that the actual warrior caste had greatly declined by the time of the Roman conquest, and that most of the experienced warriors were either dead or had chosen to side with Rome.
I don't know enough about the topic to determine which view is correct or really analyse the issue, but it's an interesting one. I definately recommend checking out the EB forum, there have been numerous interesting discussions about the Celts there, especially anything by Ranika.
Antagonist
That, however, begs the question what withered the warrior class... I went through the EB text files a while ago, and saw in passing a mention of Celtic (or Gallic, anyway) tactics and soldiery only becoming more sophisticated towards the end, in response to the rather pressing stimulus from invading Romans. I've no idea of the historicity of the postulation, but I understand the Gauls were among the more "advanced" Celtic peoples and the stimulus-response scheme certainly makes sense - if the old "charge and destroy" approach has been consistently trounced by another system as of late, taking a few pages of that system's book only makes sense right ?
After all, not long after the Conquistadors had finished dismantling the Native empires the weapon caches of prospective rebels started sporting pikes...
Of course whether any meaningful changes in doctrine can be managed in time, especially if they go against the grain of cultural inertia and established value-sets (and quite possibly require resources the social structure simply cannot provide), is a whole different question.
According to the EB team, Gaul's warrior elite had been almost wiped out by the interminable civil war. The Neitos units, representing the proffesional soldiers trained to fill this hole in response to German and Roman incursions mostly suffered the same fate. From what I understand, Celtic soldiers varied widely in quality in training, from lightly-armed young men and levy warriors to highly disciplined proffesionals. The armies the Romans faced at Watling street and Alesia were composed mostly of the former.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
So the divida et conquera part had pretty much been already done by the Gauls themselves for the considerable delight of the Romans ? Heh.
So then what about the early Roman period, when the Gauls presumably hadn't yet mangled each other to such an extent and the Romans were still waging war with part-time citizen-soldiers (albeit very good ones) ? The Romans seemed to be fairly able to push the Celts out of Northern Italy and probably also from some other regions, and I'm under the impression they tended to win the battles more often than not back then too...
I have wondered the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
But the Romans also suffered spectacular reverses, such as the destruction of two legions in 217BC. But because Hannibal was ranging around in Italy it hasn't gotten much press.
Also, the Gauls in Cisalpine Gaul were not a homogenous collection. It seems they fought amongs themselves as well as the Romans, which of course fought them all the time for hundreds of years. It seems they were simply worn down. They didn't have the numerical strength of warriors that the Romans had.
The Ligurians supposedly gave the Romans a bloody nose too, as the harsh treatment of them indicates (soemthing the Romans were particularly fond of against their better enemies).
This is one thing that irritates me about RTW. The very first thing you do as the Julii is take Segesta (which is easily done), bringing Liguria under your control. But the Ligurians weren't actually conquered until well into the the second century BC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Well Cisalpine Gaul wasn't captured until about the same time. So what could CA do, other than sending the Julii to capture Illyria? Which would be odd with three provinces within easy reach on land.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilius
The main problem is using the Roman faction concept during the Middle Republic time frame. I think it would make more sense to have two scenarios: a single Roman faction scenario starting in 275-264 BC and running to about 100 BC, and a multiple Roman faction scenario picking up there and running until perhaps 50 AD. Put the Marian reforms right in between.
Or at least make taking Segesta difficult.
Now if CA would just let me have the code...
The various cisalpine Gaul warriors in the second part of the 3th century were sometimes almost identical to their Roman enemies in terms of equipment, at least as far as findings can tell. A good deal of them used the pila and the Montefortino helm, and various swords. The exact nature of the shield in this specific region is hard to track down, and the thueros might be subject to changes. It may have fused to a new type similar to scuta, analog to the adaption of the pila.
Hmm. I gather then that the Roman frontier in northern Italy remained essentially stable for quite a while when they were busy elsewhere (say, against Carthage and in the Balkans butting heads with the Greeks, Macs and Illyrians) and they only later on turned that way. Now, everything I've read of them suggests the Celts, like other "barbarians", were a rather warlike bunch who considered raiding and smaller-scale fighting pretty much the "business as usual" of living and not something particularly extraordinary. No doubt there were many small border wars and skirmishes fought in the region in the meantime, and of course the tribes would be butting heads with each other too.
However, it seems somewhat dubious that this sort of squabbling would "wear them out" too much unless other factors were involved; after all, that sort of comparatively low-intenstity bloodletting was pretty much the norm for the assorted "northern barbarians" all the way to the Vikings, and one would presume the communities involved limited their warmaking as necessary after suffering casualties. Very few societies voluntarily weaken themselves excessively without good reasons, after all, and I've gotten the impression the Cisalpines weren't much involved in the sort of apparently rather drawn-out and bitter large-scale power struggle that went on in Gaul proper.
In other words, I find it doubtful the warrior classes of the Cisalpine Gaul would've gotten that threadbare merely from the standard low-level conflicts. Were they employed as mercenaries to a large degree somewhere ? That, and likely rising casualty rates from skirmishes with the increasingly sophisticated and powerful Romans (who no doubt mounted punitive expeditions into the region too), would sound like a more likely cause if one has to go by straight speculation.
The Romans didn't truly expand into the region until relatively late, that is true, but they did place military colonies in the area to keep an eye on them, and they did mount punitive raids. Battles were fairly common and from the ovatio and triumph lists it is clear that while no real war was going on, the fighting was somewhat heavy.
Rome did suffer defeats of course, but they were cunning in fighting the tribes one (or a few) at a time, making sure they didn't get a massive coalition against them.
That way they would hold the edge in quality (the Gauls could easily match them in numbers with levies), that way they could crush the military elite, at least for a generation.
Julius Caesar's account of his expedition into Britain shows that the British Celts had a fairly good grasp of tactics, and tactics that utterly flummoxed Caesar too. Their highly mobile armies kept Caesar's army concentrated and unable to embark on any serious conquering, and Caesar himself describes their hit and run style tactics working on a rotation basis: constantly keeping his forces pinned down in combat whilst rotating their own units to prevent fatigue. This alone shows the Celts to have a fairly decent grasp of warfare, tactics and organisation, and that they didn't just employ a mad charge.