Gaulic and North European Tactics

Once again my ignorance has given way to curiosity and i must ask for information. This time its a slighty wider question.

What were the battlefield tactics used by the Gauls and other North European tribes in the RTW time period?
RTW would lead me to belive it was a simple all out charge in an attempt to break the enemies line. But somehow that feels much too hollywood and part of the foaming at the mouth blood thirsty barbarian image sometimes shown.

Any information you can give to further my limited knowledge is appreciated ~D

Ranika is the right guy to answer your question. Not sure myself, but I'm almost certaint that there was more than just charge, considering some of the varied troop types that the Gauls had.

It varies; Gauls were much more like Romans or Hellenistic peoples. They were, at one time, under a single king, and had a single actual army; when they broke up in seperate confederacies and alliances, they still organized that way, they were just smaller. They used standards and organized into companies under these standards; they were fond of frontal attacks coupled with cavalry rushing flanks, and fond of doing certain things for the sole purpose of terrifying an enemy (such as the Gaesatae, fighting naked). They would create noise and dissonance, used chariots (and the loud sound they made) to frighten horses, blew loud, piercing horns, chanted, sang, etc., to disorient or unnerve enemies. They would use shock charges often, but were also fairly accomplished flankers, and fairly innovative; from the Galatian example, they handily defeated Macedonians with anti-phalanx tactics (carrying a short sword and a shield, much like sword and buckler soldiers in the renaissance, they would rush the formation, knock up a spear, and roll under it quickly to gut pikemen; this led to Pergamon pikemen kneeling down a few rows to keep this from happening), they would hire local mercenaries or get local allies (Hellenic cavalry was a common asset for the Galatians in Greece; allies they'd forged out of bullying (clients essentially), or out of mutual interest).

Then are Britons, eastern Celts, probably German tribes, and even Gauls after the armies were all dead from infighting/fighting the German invaders (that is, Gaul right before the Romans came to power); they would usually form warbands. There were professional, experienced soldiers, but the heavily fractured state rarely allowed for much of a true army. As such, a smaller, less organized force had to rely, more often, on ambushes, not frontal charges. Real barbarians more likely relied on flank attacks and ambushes than just a mobbed frontal assault; Germans, for instance, seemed to have a knack for ambushes where they could surround and totally cut off an enemy. However, that isn't to say they never had armies; when they did, they relied on much the same tactics as any logical military leader; they pushed at flanks where they could, and had soldiers specialized in dealing with certain threats (such as a falx; many barbarian kingdoms and tribes employed specialized weapons to deal with threats such as heavily armored infantry, heavy cavalry, etc.).

Ranika;
You say that the gauls where once united but I every source about the celts that I read are stating that the Gauls always where a divided tribal people.
From which sources do you get this information?

And about the early germanics.
I have read that the early germanics had allot of difficulty to muster a large army because they where not a very populous people and (most) did not live in opida's but scatered farms and small villages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheTank

Ranika;
You say that the gauls where once united but I every source about the celts that I read are stating that the Gauls always where a divided tribal people.
From which sources do you get this information?

---

The Biturix (world-king) apparently once ruled all of what was then called Gaul; the inhabitants of that place were all called Gauls; it's where the land of Gaul gots its name. It wouldn't just be a culture name, because it'd be far too vague; Cisalpine Gauls, for example, were culturally distinct enough that no one would have considered them the same as Transalpine Gauls, unless they had the same ruler; mind you, that doesn't mean tribes didn't exist. Tribes still existed in Irish kingdoms and Scotland in the middle ages, and in the pre-Saxon Celtic kingdoms of Britain. The Celtic government model was built on tribes and codependencies. Part of the wars of Gaul involved the collapse of authority; when the Aedui came to power over the Biturges (the former rulers of Gaul), they were rather inept, losing a lot of land to Germans and dealing poorly with the Belgae invading. A loss of faith in the central government caused numerous seperate confederations to spring up; Aquitanians, Armoricans, and most importantly the Arverni, who siezed a lot of power and clout. PyschoV has some good maps detailing the decay over different periods, or did, perhaps he can get those for you; it shows better than I can explain, just how quickly things just fell apart.

Well, I'm a bit of a Celt historian myself, although I don't know nearly as much as Ranika or PsychoV...

However, with that said I can confirm that the Gauls were at one point a united kingdom. However, it was for a relatively short time before petty tribal rivalries and infighting took root and divided them again.


Edit- heh, Ranika beat me too it...And with better details then I could of mustered myself

It is my memory that there was a Gaulish high-king (my title for him, not the historical one) whose title in Celtic was Brennus. But he was the only one who for the period of his reign lorded it over a united Gaul. The Romans called him by his title, Brennus, as it if was a name. Which is why now the Gaulish factioners occasionally have a son named Brennus. But, yeah. for that fleeting period Gaul was united. THen it broke up.

So basicly much of the battle was playing mind games with the enemy (loud noises, shock tactics) and surprise attacks?
Was there any kind of standardised battle plan that armies were built around, something to the celts like the anvil and hammer was to the greeks?

Vercingetorix is also a title iirc (great war leader or something like that).

If you read roman sources (not an unbiased source sadly) their leaders could have good strategical thinking but on the tactictal field apparently they lacked in discipline, meaning individual courage and prowess was the priority of the warriors.
It seems also to be a consensus that they relied on a frontal charge with swords on many occasions (that doesn't prevent cavalry actions on the flank or units marching to attack from other directions) to break the ennemy center (much like the early roman tactic excepted the roman were more disciplined).

According to Caeasar during the campaing who led to Alesia while they had a huge superiority in Cavalry they used it very poorly. They first tried to assault the roman march column (while the infantry stayed in the rear) but the roman formed squares, repulsed the gauls (whose leaders were bond by a serment saying that infamy will be casted on those among them who wouldn't have traversed the roman lines 3 times) then Caesar launched his german cavalry when they were the most disorganized and they trashed them. Without cavalry Vercingetorix took refuge in the Alésia oppidum waiting for reinforcement. Another time the reinforcement launched an assault against the fortifications with their cavalry first (why ? I don't know... it's something suicidal to do), and another time after being disorganised the german finished them.

Vercingetorix is a poor example, at best; he didn't have a real army, the actual Gallic soldiers were all dead or in Roman service. He had a slapped together mob of peasants with very few actual trained soldiers, and probably almost no one with any real command experience. The lack of discipline thing for professional Celtic soldiers doesn't hold up under several examples; the Helvetii could form a tight, orderly phalanx, as could Noricenes. The Soldurii formed close shieldwalls that had an orderly form. The Nevii could do the same. It's more the 'warriors'; the part-time soldiers (who would probably be the best Vercingetorix could get) that would be more impetous. A soldier has nothing to prove in Celtic society; if he's a real soldier, he's more than likely well-trained, disciplined, and experienced. Warriors are generally young and wanting badly to prove themselves to be capable soldiers; you don't prove (in their mind) how to be a great fighter by holding a position. There are exceptions; generally nobility would be a bit more impetuous than other professionals, because part of their duty is to inspire their men to fight. Often, that meant leading an attack personally (but that wasn't always the case by any means). It's important to make distinctions between different classes of Celtic soldiers; depicting them all as impetous rabble is very inaccurate; there were different groups of combatants with different concerns, and different mentalities due to varying levels of experience, or different senses of duty, and so on. The usage of standards alone implies a formalized military structure with defined units; as much as some people would like to think, a Celtic army wouldn't be a mob of guys with random weapons, that's not how any sound army organizes, and the Celts (again, despite naysayers) did have a very sound military to persist as long as they did and make themselves a threat to as many as they did. Anyway; Celts also used a lot of skirmishing tactics, but usually on marching armies. That is, they harried enemies, which was not an uncommon tactic; you'd send a few bands out with bows or javelins (or horsemen with javelins as was often the case), launch a volley into the enemy lines, and withdraw, weakening the enemy before the actual battle. This was a hugely common tactic for centuries. Celts did focus on infantry, but they weren't 'weak' in cavalry by any means; they had varying degrees of cavalry, including up to 'knights' in heavy chain called the Brihentin, who would act as shock cavalry (these would be the cavalry Hannibal grouped with his Iberian heavy cavalry). Most Celtic nobles, however, did fight on foot, but many also commanded from a chariot; chariots filled multiple roles as a shock device (could crush infantry easily, and riders with longswords could kill nearby enemies), a missile platform (riders could also hurl javelins into the enemy), a transport (used to drive aristocrats into the fight, drop them off, and withdraw, then return to pick them up later), and, in the case of a commander, a personal command platform that could swiftly be driven about the field to give him a better view of what was going on. However, many also commanded on foot, though they would probably ride a horse to the battle.

Something to keep in mind; Galatians still fought as Gauls did. When they were hired in the employ of others, they were allowed to fight as they always did, and they weren't a random mob sent to tire an enemy down, they formed the core of heavy infantry in many armies. Gauls (and Galatians) knew how to combat Hellenic warfare, but in the near east though, they didn't know how to fight Celts, and that made them a large asset; the Celts there fought in a method that actually required new tactics to overcome. That isn't a sign of being tacticless rabble. The goal wasn't to hurl them blindly at an enemy, but rather use them as their strengths dictated; heavily armed Celtic warriors were good against other heavy infantry, as sheer size and strength was an asset, as was their considerable skill with various weapons, most usually the sword or a spear. Celts used light infantry to destroy phalanxes, which was a big peculiarity. Gallic cavalry was, at the very least, fairly well-trained, and well armed. They were an asset because of skill and tactic, and sometimes equipment (though many things could be replaced by different masters they would take). That isn't to say they didn't charge an enemy frontally, but the finer points of a charge aren't generally examined by enemies. For example, the Scots and Irish were described by Normans as attacking in large front charges, but the Irish and Scots explained that their charge was in stages; for example, against pikes, they would send light infantry to get under the pikes, and stab the pikemen, followed by heavier infantry to rush into the breech. Against a shield wall, they would have men with axes or cudgels run forward to smash the shields, where they would be followed by spearmen who would form a tight line behind the axemen, that the axes would then fall behind, as the spears took advantage of the gaps in the wall. Vikings fought the same things; a lot of these methods of combat developed in seeming isolation. The Gaels called it 'fighting in the ancient style'; it was what schools of combat, as long as they could recall, had always taught as methods of fighting, and the Gaels, even post-Christianization, were not that majorly affected by Rome or anyone else outside of the British Isles, for a number of centuries, with the exception of the vikings, who didn't fight that different from them. The Gaels as who fought the vikings, were essentially still real barbarian armies, and fought in what can be seen as a Celtic fashion.

Well Ranika I must thank you because now I have gained some insight in how the celts and others were fighting, this information is not very widespread in the public. This information woke up my interest for the celtic culture and I'm going to read some books about it to get more information. But I will only be able to read them in september because tomorrow I leave for summer work (sry offtopic)

from finds the tipical germanic army can be reconstructed like this:
the size was about 100 later 1000 strong
for the attack the army formed a wedge formation, the arches pelted the enemy for about 10 minutes and cavalry attacks. The infantry throws their spears and forms a shield formation with lowered lances.
After the victory the booty is sacrificed to the gods and sunk into the nearby bog



in German:
http://www.abendblatt.de/daten/2004/03/06/270127.html