A Question for the Historians

[jerby]

well. i didn't say impossible..
i just tought rectangular shield woudl give more covering (less gaps)

[Angadil]

well. i didn't say impossible..
i just tought rectangular shield woudl give more covering (less gaps)

Possibly. It still seems that both Gauls and Late Roman/Byzantine generals agreed that the added protection was still worth the trouble to form into a testudo-like thing.

[Ranika]

Celts forming "testudo's"? wow...
were they trained to be able to do it? or was it just an occasional happening?
weasn't it reasoanbly ineffective with those ovular shields?

It wasn't a 'testudo', perse, but a similar formation. And one could logically close gaps with such a form, but it's mainly mentioned in relation to Belgae, and Belgae didn't use oval shields near as often (save cavalry); they used hexagonal shields, which can more easily form a very well sealed position; makes sense, the Belgae probably engaged in more sapping and other such work than other Celts, and likely had more of a reason to use equipment better suited to keep them covered.

Other Celts, however, do show such things in metalwork and stonework, and it likely served the same, or a similar purpose. It would hardly be ineffective, a Celtic oval shield overlapping additional shields could form quite a well defended 'shell' from arrows, and would be useful for nearing fortified positions, like, perhaps, the gate of a fortress (and Gallic forts were very well-fortified; it seems likely such a manuever developed in response to fortifications and the necessity to get close and set gates and gatehouses aflame). Now, would it be effective as the Roman testudo? Unlikely; their shields still wouldn't form as tight a seal, except for the Belgae, probably, but that doesn't mean it'd be 'ineffective'; it would surely stop many projectiles.

[the_handsome_viking]

i really hope there is a celtic unit in the game that can form this celtic testudo.

id also love to see a unit that is capable of rolling under enemy spears and stabbing the men that carry them, like what ranika mentioned.

[cdbavg400]

Well, it depends. To Darius I, and Cyrus, perhaps. But not all of the King of Kings were good, or even decent generals.

Speaking for Darius III, I've actually written a highly regarded research paper showing that Darius III was actually a decent military man, whose main problem was the fact that he went up against Alexander the Great.

If you care to read through it, you can find it here. Excuse the use of that fairly unprofessional website, which did create some formatting issues. Also, I'm still working on my undergraduate degree in Classics, so to all of the history professionals here, don't be too harsh.

[nikolai1962]

My knowledge is limited to later dark age *barbarians* but i think some of it applies.

Tribal societies generally had standard *minimum* levels of equipment for fitting a certain category of troops e.g fyrdmen and thanes in later saxon times. The units wouldn't be standardized but they'd all have the basics plus some would have extra. The point of the muster field was for the warriors to gather once a year and the chief/king to check their equipment to make sure it was in good order. Then they'd either go home or go attack a neighbouring tribe cos that was their idea of a fun adventure holiday.

I think you need to think of barbarian armies as very much dependent on the size of the tribal grouping they came from. The bulk of a tribe's warriors would always be the semi-amateur warrior farmer types. These guys would fight in a mob with very little idea of battle-field tactics. They might have lots of knowledge of small-scale raiding and ambush tactics but in a pitched battle they would only really understand either "charge them" or "hold this hill" orders. And like the fyrdmen at the battle of hastings they might ignore the "hold this hill" order and charge anyway.

But each tribal chief would also have their equivalent of the later saxon huscarls. A small tribe would only have a few and so they'd probably just be mixed in with the warbands, probably at the front and their tactical ability would be held down to the level of the mob by being a minority in the warband. They'd mostly just boost morale.

However in larger tribal groupings a king/cheif might well have enough of these guys (combined maybe with those from sub-cheifs) to form what we would think of as units. I think these guys would easily compare to elite units of any civilized faction except maybe in equipment and sometimes not even that. Given the semi-permanent nature of warfare in barbarian type cultures they'd be vastly experienced and would i am sure understand formations and battle tactics perfectly well. Those with experience fighting cavalry would know how to stay close together - a sort of shield wall, and those with experience with seiges would know how to form a sort of testudo. Tactics derived from necessity.

I think the presence of banners doesn't neccessarily prove they had units in the sense of command and control. They are just as likely to be tribal banners so guys who got split from the their local warband in a chaotic melee could find their way back to the warriors from their home area.

I think any army that comprises mostly warrior/farmers is going to have mostly warband type battle tactics for the simple reason that without a formal training program there is a limit to what you can achieve with part-time soldiers. But their equivalent of professional soldiers would be extremely good in a pitched battle unless it was undermined by cultural ideas such as the primacy of individual combat or the lameness of wearing armour.

In short I think most western barbarian armies would have "units" comprised of warbands based on locality rather than equipment together with actual units of their culture's equivalent of huscarls.

I've forgotten the rest of the original question :)

Oh yeah, command and control.

I don't think any army had much command and control once the battle started unless the general actually moved to a unit and said "go over there," barbs even less so generally. I think there were "prestige" positions in the battle line, usually the right flank or the centre, and units/groups would go there according to prestige e.g in later saxon armies the men of Kent traditionally had the right flank. I also think the prestige of the general had a lot to do with it. Some barb generals could probably have a lot more control if they were particularly famous.

For example if i'm playing a (western) barb faction and the general has less than four command stars/influence i just select all the infantry and group them in a double line letting the game decide where each unit goes. If the general is better i place them myself. Iberian devotio guys (rtr) always take the right-front slot, though i don't know if that is accurate for the "Iberians".

All this is stuff from later western barbs though, saxons, franks etc so may not apply to eastern armies or gauls.

Lol, I keep editing.

Also I think cultural ideas are vital in this. If a culture's equivalent of huscarls is a bunch of guys looking for single combat who are naked apart from magical tattoos, then even if they are supreme warriors individually, a disciplined group of close-formation, armoured "civilized" infantry will find them easy meat unless the civilized guys are so scared they run away at the first charge.

[jerby]

well...many "barbarians" did organize. they used an offensive (or defensive..for that matter) Wedge formation.
like you said: the basic infantrymen didn't have a good grasp of tactics...but their "generals"(for lack of a better word) certainly did...

roman/greek infantry weren't all geniuses like Alexander (i.e.) a lot of them we practically told to hold formation and move up upon the enemy. not knowing teh full plan.

i definatly don't agree with the "almost only warbands". there were a lot of tribes there. with a lot of veterans, every one being different from each other.
because Pezhetairoi were the order of teh day we should just scrap the Hypaspists/ argyraspydai's? or even those bad-ass-Torikatai argyraspydai (sp...)?

i know i'm not na expert. but

[PSYCHO V]

My knowledge is limited to later dark age *barbarians* but i think some of it applies.

Tribal societies generally had standard *minimum* levels of equipment for fitting a certain category of troops e.g fyrdmen and thanes in later saxon times. The units wouldn't be standardized but they'd all have the basics plus some would have extra. The point of the muster field was for the warriors to gather once a year and the chief/king to check their equipment to make sure it was in good order. Then they'd either go home or go attack a neighbouring tribe cos that was their idea of a fun adventure holiday.

I think you need to think of barbarian armies as very much dependent on the size of the tribal grouping they came from. The bulk of a tribe's warriors would always be the semi-amateur warrior farmer types. These guys would fight in a mob with very little idea of battle-field tactics. They might have lots of knowledge of small-scale raiding and ambush tactics but in a pitched battle they would only really understand either "charge them" or "hold this hill" orders. And like the fyrdmen at the battle of hastings they might ignore the "hold this hill" order and charge anyway.

But each tribal chief would also have their equivalent of the later saxon huscarls. A small tribe would only have a few and so they'd probably just be mixed in with the warbands, probably at the front and their tactical ability would be held down to the level of the mob by being a minority in the warband. They'd mostly just boost morale.

However in larger tribal groupings a king/cheif might well have enough of these guys (combined maybe with those from sub-cheifs) to form what we would think of as units. I think these guys would easily compare to elite units of any civilized faction except maybe in equipment and sometimes not even that. Given the semi-permanent nature of warfare in barbarian type cultures they'd be vastly experienced and would i am sure understand formations and battle tactics perfectly well. Those with experience fighting cavalry would know how to stay close together - a sort of shield wall, and those with experience with seiges would know how to form a sort of testudo. Tactics derived from necessity.

True, but one needs to consider the gamit of army types over hundreds of years history. There was huge changes going on within Celtic, esp Gallic society.
The perception that Celtic armies were all a mob of farmers with no command structure is just wrong. For most of the RTW period, Celtic / Gallic warfare was primarily carried on by a professional warrior class. These troops were highly disciplined and trained (albeit admittedly not too the same degree as say the Romans).
It was only when things got desperate, when the tribe, state or confederacy / alliance didn’t have enough surviving troops that they called upon their levies..the farmers etc. This happened under the duress of the warrior class who took similar issue with it as the knighting of squires or non-noblee did in Medieval times.

This happened for eg. during the conquest of Cisalpine Gaul when the Boii were fielding armies of old men and boys as young as 12 and during the great Gallic revolt of Vercingetrix. In both cases, the warrior class was almost non-existant.

Banners served as more than just rally points. In cases were Gallic armies did manage to maintain a high degree of professional warriors, they made a fairly good show of themselves. At Telamon, the Gallic force managed to redeploy in incredible speed from a rabbled march into two well ordered divisions back to back. Even the Romans cared to note the ‘fine order’ of the Gallic army. Despite being taken by surprise they managed to be in place by the time the well practised Romans had wheeled their columns into battle line. This could only have been managed if these troops had an efficient command structure and manageable units / regiments of troops.

When the Romans marched into southern Gaul, the Arverni and their dependants marched to met them. They sent a detachment to build a pontoon bridge across the Rhone, then led their troops across ‘regiment by regiment’

The Nervi for example, in one battle managed to charge from their positions in ambush, down a step hill, over a river and up the other side whilst managing to keep cohesion in their ‘regiments’ so as to direct them to surround each Roman detachment and baggage train…forcing each Roman detachment to huddle together and become less effective. They even managed to manoeuvre a reserve force. No mean feat… by any standard. This would have been impossible if not for an efficient command and control structure.
Etc etc

Most believe because of the later reports of Celtic forces running from battle if the initial charge didn’t win the day, that the Celts had no command or control structure. This just wasn’t the case. Militarily, the Celts did suffer from a few issues:

1) They had a hero-warrior culture which mean’t that leaders led from the front. So if things went very badly very quickly, armies lost most of their officer corp.
2) When forced to deploy large bodies of levies, these were not as experienced as the warrior class and tended be less responsive to commands during the heat of battle. They would be more likely to engaged prematurely and press upon the backs of their own comrades eg. Battle of Watling St. .. and more likely to run if they witnessed their social superiors / officers being slain.