Less Civilized Factions

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

that's quite an interesting viewpoint...

This clash between tribal "individual heroism" and the modern "disciplined mass army" model is very evident in Homer's Iliad ...
We have from one side the epitome of the hero warrior Achiles whose life evolves around notions of personal fame, glory and loot ... he's unwieldy, selfish and defies and disrespects the power of his king and army leader ... the cause of final victory is not central but merely peripheral in his lifeview...
On the other side we have the character of Hector... Hector is in fact the "Modern Man" , a product of duty, law, state and family values... he's essentialy a paradigm of the citizen-soldier ideal a soldier if need be but also a statesman, a husband , a father and a son... in short the "civil man" whose life is centered on common good (=Freudian superego) ...
The Homeric allegory is very revealing...

Coming forth from the epic era dominated by raw and primal instincts, Greeks achieved to develop a prevailing second nature, one that was characterized by their sense of rigid self discipline, measure and constraint over their all consuming and potentially destructive passions ...(of course in practice the results of this civil harnessing were not always that succesful)...
The sociopolitical roots of this self-overcoming can be genealogically outlined in a complex, copious and lengthy transformation of the Greek political model: From tribal kingdoms governed by relentless and vigorous hero-warrior-rulers (which were in fact the Mycenean societies) , to decentralized city states dominated by a dignified and dynamic middle-class citizenship. Retrospectively the content of the prevailing ideal has accordingly shifted: The qualities of classic civility, participation and modesty replaced the all domineering, warlike, assertive, traits of epic exploits and violence...

That's an interesting take-on on the subject, even if too slightly Classicist. In my view, primeval societies always had that "heroic" emphasis; compare Medieval Europe with the Celts for example. Both had a fierce warrior ethos which had almost constant emphasis on the individual feats of glory and all the like.

Yet this seems to convene the idea that both periods had an essentially undisciplined mob passing for an army. Both the Celts and later Medieval armies (as well as the early Homeric Greeks) had a developed notion of collective warfare and even collective glory, it was just seen as "honourable" and fit to let strong warriors take the initiative sometimes. This all changes in a "later" period: the Hoplite (which was a soldier forfeiting all personal glory for formation work) replaces old Homeric warfare, while in Europe the old knightly ethos crumbled in favour of mass mercenary armies, although it did survive for much longer in one or other aspect (the systematic practice and organization of duels being one of them). Celtic society might have benefited from a similar shift if they hadn't been erased from the map all too early - most of the old elites were almost dead, and so on.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Well, Unlike you, ARCHIPPOS actually makes a great deal of sense, in addition to being eloquent. "Too slightly Classicist"? Confucius say... Really. The bloke based his entire post on Homer, and you say "too Classicist" - that is painfully obvious. If there was actually anything useful in your posts, ATHN...

Do you read books? If so, mention some stuff from them, so that your posts are more informative, interesting, and well-sourced. Or mention some concrete fact or a valid opinion, and we will knwo you got it from a book. Otherwise, this is merely another YouTube-esque deabte, only with solid grammar and nicer participants.

[Cyclops]

Oooh weird, my reply to AP's post 71 somehow became post 69, even though I typed it after his...

[kekailoa]

AP, to a certain extent, you're true. The Gauls and other Celtic groups did have somewhat of a propensity to retreat when the fight became brutal, bloody, and decisive.

But, I disagree with your ideas that the Celts (Gauls, Galatians, Celtiberians) were unreliable and poor soldiers. You seem to have this idea that the Gauls were just poorly armed, flighty and largely cowardly warriors and that they were no match for civilized nations. I disagree with that idea. Not only did these unwashed rabble of barbarians handily defeat Rome multiple times, but they also defeated many other 'civilized nations' with their cowardly, flighty, poorly armed warriors.

Take the Etruscans. A civilized, prosperous nation with a strong, organized warrior class (strong enough to dominate every other group in Italy for a time). The Celts ran through them.

The Macedonians. Although battered by the wars of sucession, Macedon still was in possession of a powerful and extremely successful military system. They were defeated and sacked entirely.

The Thracians. Although not quite 'civilized', they still were feared foes by the 'civilized' Greeks, and the Galatians easily dominated this warrior culture.

The Greeks. Although the Greeks drove the invaders out, no pitched battle really decided this. The Greeks used a combination of guerrilla warfare, harsh weather conditions and small-scale conflicts to drive them out. If you want to read my sources, read Barry Cunliffe's The Celtic World, who you quoted earlier on.

The Bithynians, Cappadocians, Phrygians, Karians, Pontics, various Greek cities, and Pergamese (at one point) were terrorized by the Galatians, and apparently only 10,000 migrated over into Galatia! Half were women and children, so for five thousand Galatians to terrorize most of Asia Minor must mean there is a modicum of military skill involved.

Why would Galatians be so popular to recruit as mercenaries? Why would the Ptolemies specially import Gallic mercenaries? Why would the Carthaginian empire grab as many Gallic mercenaries as they could? If they were so terrible as mercenaries, why would Hannibal continue to recruit them time and time again, and rely on them to guard his camp, to be his heavy cavalry, to even fight in his lines? Why would the Ptolemies rely so heavily on their Galatians that they drove their own citizens out to accommodate this mercenary base and their families?

Rome, for all its professional glory, was not always the victor either. Allia, Arretium, the Cimbri and Teutone invasions (yes, I know they are supposed to be German, but a large portion of these Germans were Celts from across the Danube and some that joined the hordes along the way. Also, according to some historians such as Cunliffe, D. Sue Johns of Wales and others believe based on linguistic and archaeological evidence that the Teutones and Cimbri spoke a Celtic language and had a heavily Celtic material culture.), Gergovia, Cenabum, the utter annihilation of Sabinus's legions during the Gallic wars, not to mention the ferocious battle for Celtiberia. (Btw sources are Caesars Gallic Wars, by Kate Gilliver and The Celtic Encyclopedia by Harry Mountain)

Even in defeat, the Gauls and Celts stood their ground. There are many instances where the Celts fought to the last man, not breaking and fleeing. These instances are not just exceptions, either, proving that the Celts had standing power. Caesars battle with the Helvetii and the Nervii, Anglesey, the Celtiberians, Telamon, all instances where the Celts stood and fought. It is also believed that many warriors in the German army of Ariovistus, a force which Caesar claimed to be one of the most disciplined he had ever faced, were of Celtic origin and came from Celtic tribes on either side of the Danube (source: Gallic Wars, Kate Gilliver). Celtiberia does not even need to be explained, with battles such as Numantia and the dread of Hispania Roman soldiers felt.

Celtic warriors were not professional, nor did they have the flexibility, resources and military ingenuity the Romans and other civilized nations had. But they learned fast, even as they were being absorbed into the Roman empire. We see instances of besieging armies building palisades and siege machinery (the siege of Quintus Cicero) and the unification of tribes and tribal structures. Celtic warriors, for all their unsophistication and lack of professionalism, were ferocious warriors and received and deserved the respect of every foe they faced.

[Kikaz]

AP, to a certain extent, you're true. The Gauls and other Celtic groups did have somewhat of a propensity to retreat when the fight became brutal, bloody, and decisive.

But, I disagree with your ideas that the Celts (Gauls, Galatians, Celtiberians) were unreliable and poor soldiers. You seem to have this idea that the Gauls were just poorly armed, flighty and largely cowardly warriors and that they were no match for civilized nations. I disagree with that idea. Not only did these unwashed rabble of barbarians handily defeat Rome multiple times, but they also defeated many other 'civilized nations' with their cowardly, flighty, poorly armed warriors.

Take the Etruscans. A civilized, prosperous nation with a strong, organized warrior class (strong enough to dominate every other group in Italy for a time). The Celts ran through them.

The Macedonians. Although battered by the wars of sucession, Macedon still was in possession of a powerful and extremely successful military system. They were defeated and sacked entirely.

The Thracians. Although not quite 'civilized', they still were feared foes by the 'civilized' Greeks, and the Galatians easily dominated this warrior culture.

The Greeks. Although the Greeks drove the invaders out, no pitched battle really decided this. The Greeks used a combination of guerrilla warfare, harsh weather conditions and small-scale conflicts to drive them out. If you want to read my sources, read Barry Cunliffe's The Celtic World, who you quoted earlier on.

The Bithynians, Cappadocians, Phrygians, Karians, Pontics, various Greek cities, and Pergamese (at one point) were terrorized by the Galatians, and apparently only 10,000 migrated over into Galatia! Half were women and children, so for five thousand Galatians to terrorize most of Asia Minor must mean there is a modicum of military skill involved.

Why would Galatians be so popular to recruit as mercenaries? Why would the Ptolemies specially import Gallic mercenaries? Why would the Carthaginian empire grab as many Gallic mercenaries as they could? If they were so terrible as mercenaries, why would Hannibal continue to recruit them time and time again, and rely on them to guard his camp, to be his heavy cavalry, to even fight in his lines? Why would the Ptolemies rely so heavily on their Galatians that they drove their own citizens out to accommodate this mercenary base and their families?

Rome, for all its professional glory, was not always the victor either. Allia, Arretium, the Cimbri and Teutone invasions (yes, I know they are supposed to be German, but a large portion of these Germans were Celts from across the Danube and some that joined the hordes along the way. Also, according to some historians such as Cunliffe, D. Sue Johns of Wales and others believe based on linguistic and archaeological evidence that the Teutones and Cimbri spoke a Celtic language and had a heavily Celtic material culture.), Gergovia, Cenabum, the utter annihilation of Sabinus's legions during the Gallic wars, not to mention the ferocious battle for Celtiberia. (Btw sources are Caesars Gallic Wars, by Kate Gilliver and The Celtic Encyclopedia by Harry Mountain)

Even in defeat, the Gauls and Celts stood their ground. There are many instances where the Celts fought to the last man, not breaking and fleeing. These instances are not just exceptions, either, proving that the Celts had standing power. Caesars battle with the Helvetii and the Nervii, Anglesey, the Celtiberians, Telamon, all instances where the Celts stood and fought. It is also believed that many warriors in the German army of Ariovistus, a force which Caesar claimed to be one of the most disciplined he had ever faced, were of Celtic origin and came from Celtic tribes on either side of the Danube (source: Gallic Wars, Kate Gilliver). Celtiberia does not even need to be explained, with battles such as Numantia and the dread of Hispania Roman soldiers felt.

Celtic warriors were not professional, nor did they have the flexibility, resources and military ingenuity the Romans and other civilized nations had. But they learned fast, even as they were being absorbed into the Roman empire. We see instances of besieging armies building palisades and siege machinery (the siege of Quintus Cicero) and the unification of tribes and tribal structures. Celtic warriors, for all their unsophistication and lack of professionalism, were ferocious warriors and received and deserved the respect of every foe they faced.

as a side-note AP's example was of Keltae playing a MERCENARY ROLE; and mercenaries are, as a rule, typically less reliable than soldiers who would be fighting for their homeland (although Kelts must have been somewhat of an exception, given their popularity.)
If the standard Keltic warrior was as pathetic as AP makes him out to be, they would have never managed to sack Rome in the first place (or terrify the Romans for that matter.)

and now Fleaza will say "Oh, the Keltae being tough powerful opponents was just Roman propaganda"

[Macilrille]

Well, I am no Celtic historian, nor Cel They lost and disappeared from anything but fringes, so I care little. History has its own judgement on cultures/civilisations. It is Darwinism in effect...

However, my intuition as well as professional experience tells me that there is no single answer and that the discussion is moot. Nothing is black and white.

I suspect the truth is somewhere in between. Sometimes celtic warriors fought like tribal warriors with hit-and-run tactics, fierce onsets, but fast retreats, etc. At other times they would likely fight very well and with much "discipline" (as warriors still, not soldiers), fight to the last, etc. I expect that up until the very latest times it depended largely on leadership. Under a charismatic warlord they would fight well, otherwise not. To make broad generalisations across five centuries and across most of Central Europe is moot, it is like judging all German soldiers in WWII from the 1945 Volksgrenadier divisions or the senior Waffen SS divisions respectively- only worse.

It is moot!

Which again makes the participants getting personal the more ridiculous.

[WinsingtonIII]

Well, I am no Celtic historian, nor Cel They lost and disappeared from anything but fringes, so I care little. History has its own judgement on cultures/civilisations. It is Darwinism in effect...

I personally would stay away from the Darwin analogy. Social Darwinism is never a good philosophy to follow as it sort of implies that the loser (in this case the Celts) is somehow biologically weaker and less human than the victor. Many civilizations have fallen throughout history, and just because they have doesn't mean that they are necessarily a lesser version of the species.

Generally, when a civilization falls, it is not because of some inherent biological defect that must be weeded out (as Darwinism implies) it is because of a lack of technology, or economic domination, or the greater military organization (or numbers, or tactics, etc.) of the enemy (the list goes on as well). It doesn't reflect on the biological fitness of an individual in that civilization. So, I don't think it's really fair to imply that the Celts were marked for extinction by natural selection. And after all, isn't EB all about fairly representing cultures?

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Well, Unlike you, ARCHIPPOS actually makes a great deal of sense, in addition to being eloquent. "Too slightly Classicist"? Confucius say... Really. The bloke based his entire post on Homer, and you say "too Classicist" - that is painfully obvious. If there was actually anything useful in your posts, ATHN...

Do you read books? If so, mention some stuff from them, so that your posts are more informative, interesting, and well-sourced. Or mention some concrete fact or a valid opinion, and we will knwo you got it from a book. Otherwise, this is merely another YouTube-esque deabte, only with solid grammar and nicer participants.

All my notions from the Medieval Army come from Verbruggen, Contamine and DeVries; all my notions from the Celtic army come from a prolonged read of the discussions held in the EB forums plus privy conversations with Celtic experts

. I say it is too much Classicist because it portrays them in a too favourable and slightly biased light as "upholders of civic virtue", when in fact we should avoid this kind of judgment too much. Something which you should learn, and something you should know before making brusque patronizing statements like this, AP .

[Macilrille]

Pffffffffffffff


Both of you should learn to not get personal and to not embark on measuring penises but keep your arguments objective. Will lend much more validity and more chance of the other guy actually agreeing with you instead of just getting more hateful and stubborn.


BTW, DeVries I do not much lend credence to. At least his book on Harald Hardrada's invasion of England is... somewhat inaccurate and dated.

[Ludens]

Both of you should learn to not get personal and to not embark on measuring penises but keep your arguments objective. Will lend much more validity and more chance of the other guy actually agreeing with you instead of just getting more hateful and stubborn.

Seconded.

Discuss the post, not the poster.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Pffffffffffffff


Both of you should learn to not get personal and to not embark on measuring penises but keep your arguments objective. Will lend much more validity and more chance of the other guy actually agreeing with you instead of just getting more hateful and stubborn.


BTW, DeVries I do not much lend credence to. At least his book on Harald Hardrada's invasion of England is... somewhat inaccurate and dated.

Heh, he he, he he he .

EDIT - Sorry, assumed you dismissed all the repertory. I didn't read DeVries on Hardrada so I'll let it pass.

I agree with your remark on getting personal, but... It's AP that strangely wants this to get personal. I try to simply post my opinions, and this thread shows this neatly - which is rather unconvincing because AP seems to have very vague and very biased notions of Celtic warfare.

[Macilrille]

That's an interesting take-on on the subject, even if too slightly Classicist. In my view, primeval societies always had that "heroic" emphasis; compare Medieval Europe with the Celts for example. Both had a fierce warrior ethos which had almost constant emphasis on the individual feats of glory and all the like.

Yet this seems to convene the idea that both periods had an essentially undisciplined mob passing for an army. Both the Celts and later Medieval armies (as well as the early Homeric Greeks) had a developed notion of collective warfare and even collective glory, it was just seen as "honourable" and fit to let strong warriors take the initiative sometimes. This all changes in a "later" period: the Hoplite (which was a soldier forfeiting all personal glory for formation work) replaces old Homeric warfare, while in Europe the old knightly ethos crumbled in favour of mass mercenary armies, although it did survive for much longer in one or other aspect (the systematic practice and organization of duels being one of them). Celtic society might have benefited from a similar shift if they hadn't been erased from the map all too early - most of the old elites were almost dead, and so on.

This is my view, and the general idea is accepted by most historians and sociologists. Sociologists especially likes neat models covering all societies. Harste has written extensively on the matter based on Luhman's models of Autopoietic Systems.

kekailoa, the socalled scholars claiming that the Cimbrii and Teutons were Celts are hardly unbiased "Uni of Wales, one of the few remaining Celtic bastions...), in fact Celtic historians shows the same trend as nationalist Germanic and Nordic ones did 100- 150 years ago of wanting to include their own people in any major barbaric and heroic event of antiquity. The Cimbrii and Teutons were from Jutland and the area immediately s of it.
However:
->Their culture was influenced by Celts (from Balcans to France, the Gunnestrup Cauldron is mixed Thracian-Celtic in origin, other cauldrons and the wagon finds are Gallic), just as it was later influenced by Rome when the Romans expanded to become a power, and got close.
->It is unlikely that the entire population left Jutland to relocate, archeology does not show any large decrease in population and in the nature of later migrations (up to Viking ones and the Crusades), it is more likely that only a part of the population went. My own theory is that just like the Vikings, only warriors went, led by charismatic warlords and perhaps with some family and camp followers. These then picked up many followers, hangers-on, camp followers, etc in the land they journeyed through. Including entire tribes, mostly Germanic, but some Celts as well, and since much of the areas travelled through was Celtic, many wifes and camp followers would be Celtic in origin just as many of the original fighters would leave and new ones join (even from back home- like Vikings and Crusaders). Thus creating a mix of culture and bloodlines. The armies that fought the Romans would probably have been Jute-ish at the core, Germanic in nature, but influenced and to some extent full of Celts and half-Celts. But to make them Celtic tribes is a bit far-fetched (I am not saying you are doing that, but many Celt-lovers- especially online- do).

As for Ariovistus, he lead the Suebi confederation, which was by and large made up of Germanic tribes, only the Marcomanni and possibly the Hermanduri would have been in any way of the mixed German-Celtic from the Rhine- Bohemia areas where that mixed culture existed. In fact at least one of his allied tribes was from as far away as Jutland; the Haerudi. But then again, Tacitus mentions the seven tribes of Jutland as part of the Suebi.

[kekailoa]

kekailoa, the socalled scholars claiming that the Cimbrii and Teutons were Celts are hardly unbiased "Uni of Wales, one of the few remaining Celtic bastions...), in fact Celtic historians shows the same trend as nationalist Germanic and Nordic ones did 100- 150 years ago of wanting to include their own people in any major barbaric and heroic event of antiquity. The Cimbrii and Teutons were from Jutland and the area immediately s of it.
However:
->Their culture was influenced by Celts (from Balcans to France, the Gunnestrup Cauldron is mixed Thracian-Celtic in origin, other cauldrons and the wagon finds are Gallic), just as it was later influenced by Rome when the Romans expanded to become a power, and got close.
->It is unlikely that the entire population left Jutland to relocate, archeology does not show any large decrease in population and in the nature of later migrations (up to Viking ones and the Crusades), it is more likely that only a part of the population went. My own theory is that just like the Vikings, only warriors went, led by charismatic warlords and perhaps with some family and camp followers. These then picked up many followers, hangers-on, camp followers, etc in the land they journeyed through. Including entire tribes, mostly Germanic, but some Celts as well, and since much of the areas travelled through was Celtic, many wifes and camp followers would be Celtic in origin just as many of the original fighters would leave and new ones join (even from back home- like Vikings and Crusaders). Thus creating a mix of culture and bloodlines. The armies that fought the Romans would probably have been Jute-ish at the core, Germanic in nature, but influenced and to some extent full of Celts and half-Celts. But to make them Celtic tribes is a bit far-fetched (I am not saying you are doing that, but many Celt-lovers- especially online- do).

As for Ariovistus, he lead the Suebi confederation, which was by and large made up of Germanic tribes, only the Marcomanni and possibly the Hermanduri would have been in any way of the mixed German-Celtic from the Rhine- Bohemia areas where that mixed culture existed. In fact at least one of his allied tribes was from as far away as Jutland; the Haerudi. But then again, Tacitus mentions the seven tribes of Jutland as part of the Suebi.

No, I agree. The invading Cimbrii and Teutones were most definitely Germanic in origin and nature, but what I was trying to say is that portions of the horde were most likely Celtic, proving that yes, the Celts could fight. They could stand in pitched battles against civilized troops and hold their own, and seeing as they were a part of the hordes that ran roughshod all over Roman territory, I would call that proof. And I agree, some Celtophiles can be a little much. (Even though I really used to be one...)