So I was watching some old International Rubgy games and I came across the New Zealand Maori war dance the Haka. So I'm wondering if any barbarian tribes (or any faction really) had their own ritualistic and unique war dance they performed before each battle? I think I have read of celts painting themslves blue and screaming, shouting and making ruthless gestures, and I'm sure armies met eachother with loud screams, horns and dancing but are there any documented war dances like the Haka? The extent of my knowledge is from the EB quote that went something along the lines of ''with the celts in the prime of their lives, finely built and naked screaming''... (or something similar).

Reply

Haka is part of a very ritualised warfare, that is very unlike war we would recognise in Europe in our timeframe. The Zulus of Southern Africa were also the same, where the lines would be drawn and spears shaken and thrown and then the winners and losers would be decided with very little bloodshed. The rise of the Zulus was in part due to Shaka's break from this ritualised warfare and turning it into a warfare that we would recognise today - death, blood and conquest. I would suggest that in the past, warfare in Europe may have been as ritualised as we see in Southern Africa before the Zulu Kingdom and the various dances of pacific islanders. But as populations grew and resources became more contested, ritualised warfare would have been overtaken by actual warfare and conquest in a sort of early arms race.

As far as "War Dances" go, certainly each peoples would have had their own traditions before war began, but this would not have been as ritualised as we see in the Haka, but would instead have had a practical purpose, to raise morale and scare the enemy.

Foot

Reply

Thanks Foot! I would imagine the Haka or any sort or ritualised dance would have been quite intimidating.

Side note: If the New Zealand Rugby team spent more time practising their game and not the Haka, they might win something

Reply

lol.

Although not a dance Celtic armies appear to have had a ritualised etiquette when entering battle.

Firstly the two armies would draw up facing each other, champions from either force would then ride/walk up and down the length of their side hurling abuse at their opponent whilst recanting their own glorious deeds in battle and the achievements of their ancestors. If there was no clear winner in this contest then the champions would duel and, if there was no clear winner, the two armies would commit to battle.

The Germans also had intimidatory methods. I can't remember the actual name for it, I will look it up for you, but Germanic tribes would emit a unique battle cry, sort of a vocal Mexican wave. This battle cry would start very low and in only certain parts of the battle line, it would then increase in pitch, volume and numbers of participants until it had grown into a full scale deafening roar. Interestingly, and quite possibly as a result of increasing use of Germanic soliders, the later Roman army (4th, 5th century AD) adopted this practice.

Reply

Roman armies with their calm entry on the battlefield,when you can hear only sound of their march,soft sound of armors/weapons caused by movements and orders of the officers.That was in fact one of the most effective war dances ever.

Why?Because they can use it and use it against various cultures with great effect.

Most of the "war dances" were used within one culture and usefull only within one culture.As Brennus mentioned Gauls......you can shout insults with effect only on someone who understand what you saying.So their insults were quite pointless against germans or romans.
And while victory in duel may prove usefull it also can show boomerang effect.Death of popular officer or hero may just increase their resolution to fight:)

Also acording to Keegan even greeks use "very rudimental collective war dance with shouts" just before the battle starts.But it was more about pleasing gods rather then intimidate enemies.So i believe aim of war dance also play certain role.

Reply

Romans repeatedly hit their scuta with gladii making a lot of noise...
And as far as the Greeks, pretty sure that was about the classical period, there were many "ritualized" preparations to get the hoplite's mind ready to fight...
The only one I can think of that engaged silently were the Spartans, but with all their flutes I can't say that it was silent...

Reply

Titus Flavius Josephus and Flavius Arrianus were both historians who saw legions in action.You are not.Both of them state that legions were completly silent until the enemy reach javelin range,then they unleash their warcry.Even Tacitus mention silence of legions as tool to intimidate their enemies (Boudica rebellion).

I will never waste your time with my opinions in topic about facts....

While i dont have any rights to ask you for the same,you can still provide some source of your knowledge.

Because i can swear hitting shields with swords was used to show admiration to their leaders.
And also it dont make sense,romans throw their pilla first,then switch to swords.It will be clear disadventage for romans if they were caught with swords in their hands in PITCHED battle before they can use ranged weapons.For more reason then it was just waste of good pilla.

No offense,actualy ill be glad if you prove that i am wrong.In the end being corrected is always better then stay wrong:)

Reply

According to Herodotus the Spartans combed their hair and exercised before the battle of Thermopylae. Flutes aren’t mentioned, but I guess they could have done that too.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh7200.htm Its in section 208.

Josephus, Arrianus and Tacitus were all dead before the 4th and 5th centuries so their testimony does not contradict Brennus’ claim that the Roman army used Germanic battle cries in that period. I don’t know if Brennus is right. I’m just saying that earlier writers are not evidence that he is wrong.

Personally I think it makes sense that Roman soldiers would remain silent until pretty nearly committed so that they could better hear their orders. Less organized (barbarian) armies were not capable of complex maneuver and so listening for orders was less important. Any intimidation effect would be a bonus. However, I admit that’s just speculation on my part so take it or leave it.

Reply

Josephus wrote about sieges, if I recall, won by "stealth" actions; Arrian I even read that his works might have been theoretical...
In occasions the Romans made reserves move to the rear or sides and make noise and dust to "fake" more legions approaching; so yeah maybe was commanders' choice...

Reply

It was called 'barritus'. Herwig Wolfram mentions it being used by the Roman army in 377 at the start of a battle against the Tervingi/Visigoths, for example.

Reply