About Neitos and more professional gallic troops

[Uberhaare]

Thanks for the kind words, those few of us left still appreciate.

Also if I may ask what kind of wargame are you making? I'm interested to see what you've been doing and will come up with.

It's actually a tabletop wargame, like Field of Glory or Impetus, I don't know if you've ever heard of them. There is a point system which lets you build a custom army of antiquity with different limitations, like minimum number of certain troops or units. After that you deploy your armies on a table, on opposite sides of your opponent (or opponents), and battle against him with certain rules. To give yo an idea, Field of Glory hast an almost 200 page manual.

The thing is, none of the existant historical wargames fits my needs or my friends' needs, so we need to create a new one, and my goal is to make it the most historically accurate of all, and also make it fun even for factions we have less information about, like gauls or germans.

[Bodeni]

I have a large selection of Keltoi miniatures I've kitbashed/sculpted myself, because no one produces even vaguely accurate Gallic minis. More into the painting myself, but your idea is one I shall follow with great interest :)
And Brennus, I don't have any photos of the actual fighting right now, just of my equipment and stuff.

[Uberhaare]

I have a large selection of Keltoi miniatures I've kitbashed/sculpted myself, because no one produces even vaguely accurate Gallic minis. More into the painting myself, but your idea is one I shall follow with great interest :)
And Brennus, I don't have any photos of the actual fighting right now, just of my equipment and stuff.

I personally like Wargames Foundry minis, but they're probably not really accurate for the late period of the La Tene culture. Also they don't have a lot of variety, so... Impressive, if you have some pics of your own minis feel free to post them here, I'd love to see them!

I don't know if I should make another thread for this question, but anyway, what about skirmishes in the ancient world? Really small skirmishes, with maybe 50 or 60 warriors per side. Maybe a raid, maybe a night attack, maybe the guards of a particular noble fighting against the warriors of a particular town... was that something usual? Because we always see big battles, or even huge battles in this game, but never the little skirmishes.

The thing is, if some skirmish like that happened, do you think there would be some variety in the troop types or the way they would act? I mean, yeah, probably skirmishers (like javelinmen and slingers, or even archers) and some light cavalry, but could there be some heavier troops? Maybe even an equal amount of Hastati & Princeps, and some cavalry or something like that?

Because in this wargame we want to be able to represent different scales of the conflict, and maybe in a campaign, a night raid into a town cannot be represented with big units of men fighting against each other, but instead it could be represented by a handfull of warriors, maybe 20, or 30, defending against the 20 or 30 attackers. How viable do you think the variety of troops is in the ancient world skirmishes?

[Bodeni]

Small skirmishes would mostly be light troops or foragers from the same cohort/tribe/settlement etc. So I think little variety in equipment. My miniatures are scaled down to about 30 men per infantry unit and 9 for cavalry.unit.

It is still in various stages of painting but here it is as it stands:


Full size: https://img809.imageshack.us/img809/2628/wqhe.jpg

I've mixed various Greek, Roman and Keltic bits from at least 6 publishers and even then had to sculpt things like their clothes, that are always Anglo Saxon shapes, and helmets, that are always Roman or Greek.
Of course the original inspiration for this mess was Europa Barbarorum I.

[Brennus]

Yes, maybe some of them participated in the legions and phalanx formations, but did the gauls actually had drilled troops? Troops that could perform complex maneuvers and were actually trained together as a unit to fight? I know they fought in units, and Solduros for example were extremely brave, and held their line no matter what, but that's not the same as being drilled or trained.

To add a few more questions, how high would the percentage of chainmail equipped troops be in a gallic army? I read somewhere, sometime ago, that probably less than 30% counting both infantry and cavalry, but maybe some rich chieftain could even get 40% of their troops equipped in that way. Also, as you say Brennus, the Neitos would be outnumbered by less professional troops and part-time soldiers, but by how much?

Another, not so related question, but still talking about gauls. From what I've read, Solduros and Gaesatae aren't contemporary. Gaesatae appeared probably earlier and dissapeared before the solduros even existed. But the thing is, the only mention of solduros is by Julius Caesar, so, maybe they had existed for a long time before he mentioned them in his De Bello Gallico.

Any other contributions to the composition of celtic armies (both early and late) would be enormously appreciated. I really enjoy reading about this, but I really can't find so much books on this.

Thanks for your time guys, I enjoyed reading you!

We know from a description giving by Polybius (I think...) that Gallic cavalry were trained to act as part of a three man team, operating in tight formation, feigning retreat and entering the fray to come to the assistance of their fellow team members. Likewise Caesar describes how well trained the Britons were in the art of chariot driving. We also know that Gallic and Belgic troops of the 1st century BC were capable of forming a testudo to assist in siege operations whilst the Bituriges were effective sappers, as shown by the siege of Avaricum. The example of Deiotaurus warriors serving alongside Caesar's legions is further proof that some Celtic states did drill and train their troops to a high degree.

As to what percentage troops like the Neitos would have formed, this is difficult to say. The archaeological record can only give us so much data with which to reconstruct past societies. During times of normal conflict, professional troops would have made up the vast majority of the armies, however in times of extraordinary conflict, such as the Gallic wars or the invasion of the Cimbri and Teutons, professional troops would have been the minority; by what ration is, however, almost impossible to say. As to the frequency of chainmail it varies from region to region. It also depends on what time of funerary practice was being employed in the area at the time, however I would say that by the 1st century BC it would have been quite common among noble warriors, especially those in the central Gallic states such as the Aedui and Arverni.

Both Soldurii and Gaesatae appear to have been warriors bound by particular sacred rites, a feature which you find in contemporary societies and later ones, rather than a grade of warrior like cavalry or archers. It should also be remembered that the Soldurii were Aquitanians whilst the Gaesatae were Gauls.

I will have a think and try to come up with a reading list or links to articles which can provide information on Celtic warfare.

[Uberhaare]

Small skirmishes would mostly be light troops or foragers from the same cohort/tribe/settlement etc. So I think little variety in equipment. My miniatures are scaled down to about 30 men per infantry unit and 9 for cavalry.unit.

It is still in various stages of painting but here it is as it stands:


Full size: https://img809.imageshack.us/img809/2628/wqhe.jpg

I've mixed various Greek, Roman and Keltic bits from at least 6 publishers and even then had to sculpt things like their clothes, that are always Anglo Saxon shapes, and helmets, that are always Roman or Greek.
Of course the original inspiration for this mess was Europa Barbarorum I.

They look really awesome! Wargames Foundry has nice minis, but you're right, they're not even close to being historically accurate, even less for the late La Tene period.

We know from a description giving by Polybius (I think...) that Gallic cavalry were trained to act as part of a three man team, operating in tight formation, feigning retreat and entering the fray to come to the assistance of their fellow team members. Likewise Caesar describes how well trained the Britons were in the art of chariot driving. We also know that Gallic and Belgic troops of the 1st century BC were capable of forming a testudo to assist in siege operations whilst the Bituriges were effective sappers, as shown by the siege of Avaricum. The example of Deiotaurus warriors serving alongside Caesar's legions is further proof that some Celtic states did drill and train their troops to a high degree.

As to what percentage troops like the Neitos would have formed, this is difficult to say. The archaeological record can only give us so much data with which to reconstruct past societies. During times of normal conflict, professional troops would have made up the vast majority of the armies, however in times of extraordinary conflict, such as the Gallic wars or the invasion of the Cimbri and Teutons, professional troops would have been the minority; by what ration is, however, almost impossible to say. As to the frequency of chainmail it varies from region to region. It also depends on what time of funerary practice was being employed in the area at the time, however I would say that by the 1st century BC it would have been quite common among noble warriors, especially those in the central Gallic states such as the Aedui and Arverni.

Both Soldurii and Gaesatae appear to have been warriors bound by particular sacred rites, a feature which you find in contemporary societies and later ones, rather than a grade of warrior like cavalry or archers. It should also be remembered that the Soldurii were Aquitanians whilst the Gaesatae were Gauls.

I will have a think and try to come up with a reading list or links to articles which can provide information on Celtic warfare.

This is what I wanted to read! I'd love to see more information on that, the links and the articles would be extremely useful.

Always a pleasure to read you guys!

[Bodeni]

Thanks. :)
And the best written Sources are The gallic Wars and Polybius' The histories. Archaeological finds are harder to research as so little is published in mainstream media, aside from a few famous examples of course, which is a real shame.