celtic combat

[Hodgson]

Where to start?

Good intro level sources include:

Collis, J. (1998). The European Iron Age. Routledge: Britain

Cunliffe, B. (1997). The Ancient Celts. Penguin: Britain.

A brilliant reference is:

Green, M.J (ed). (1995). The Celtic World. Routledge: Britain.

I can't recommend that book enough. It is absolutely excellent. It's currently my bible. And it's also really useful as a doorstop and to crush large vermin with (its massive).

Failing that, the wiki page on ancient celts and gauls ain't all that bad. I know that some people hate wiki, but for a basic gist of an idea or broad info, wiki is quite good. I wouldn't use if for a paper but hey...


In terms of fighting styles and skills there isn't much. What follows is rather disjointed, and contains a large amount of theory and personal opinion:

There are not really any written sources for combat techniques until the manuals of the 14th Century such as Tallhoffer. These manuals were used by teachers to help teach students (ie, young nobles and knights in training) how to fight with weapons such as the longsword, shortsword, axe, polearms, dagger and unarmed combat. There were several schools of thought on how to fight, mainly an Italian school and a German school. Before that period, there is little information on true combat training. A group of early medieval reenactors/reconstructionists/experimental archaeologists have however used a combination of Tallhoffer and the Icelandic sagas to create an experimental model of how viking age warriors may have fought. Turns out it is a relatively effective body of techniques. videos of demonstrations of some attacks and counters can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8SRaa33otU. In addition, the Hurstwick reenactment group also have experimented with Tallhoffer: http://www.hurstwic.org/history/arti..._technique.htm. Of course, neither of these deal with the Iron Age.

An Italian group have attempted to recreate an Iron Age combat style. I'm not sure how they went with it though. I've also spoken to some Iron Age reenactors. They say that one of the major elements of combat is the size of the shield. While not relatively heavy, it is cumbersome and awkward, meaning it is often easier to dodge blows than block them. This is however, based on modern people taking part in a combat sport. (please note that I'm not bagging reenactors. I myself was a viking reenactor and am now getting into iron age reenactment).

Now my opinions:
1. No warrior culture will survive long if the basic training consists of "clobber that guy as hard as you can". All warrior cultures seem to have a strong and underlying teaching and training framework to create warriors that fight in a particular style using particular techniques.
2. Celtic combat may have consisted of wide swings with long and heavy swords. Don't dismiss this as primitive fighting though. The Celts, as a culture would have realised two things: their soldiers were big and strong, and they were excellent metalsmiths, allowing them to create swords of that type, thus allowing them to fight in their manner.
3. Roman and Greek writers frequently mention not only the ferocity of celts but also their prowess and skill in battle.
4. celts were frequently used as mercenaries and auxilia. They wouldn't have been used if they weren't good.

In addition, there are also the modern Celtic martial arts of Scotland and Ireland (can't remember what they're called). While (relatively) modern, and not ancient, they are fully formed and functioning martial arts, distinct from eastern martial arts and created by the descendants of the iron age celts (or at least descendents of their culture. lets not get into genetics here)

Hope that made sense.
Hodgson

[Aurgelmir]

Where to start?

Good intro level sources include:

Collis, J. (1998). The European Iron Age. Routledge: Britain

Cunliffe, B. (1997). The Ancient Celts. Penguin: Britain.

A brilliant reference is:

Green, M.J (ed). (1995). The Celtic World. Routledge: Britain.

I can't recommend that book enough. It is absolutely excellent. It's currently my bible. And it's also really useful as a doorstop and to crush large vermin with (its massive).

Failing that, the wiki page on ancient celts and gauls ain't all that bad. I know that some people hate wiki, but for a basic gist of an idea or broad info, wiki is quite good. I wouldn't use if for a paper but hey...


In terms of fighting styles and skills there isn't much. What follows is rather disjointed, and contains a large amount of theory and personal opinion:

There are not really any written sources for combat techniques until the manuals of the 14th Century such as Tallhoffer. These manuals were used by teachers to help teach students (ie, young nobles and knights in training) how to fight with weapons such as the longsword, shortsword, axe, polearms, dagger and unarmed combat. There were several schools of thought on how to fight, mainly an Italian school and a German school. Before that period, there is little information on true combat training. A group of early medieval reenactors/reconstructionists/experimental archaeologists have however used a combination of Tallhoffer and the Icelandic sagas to create an experimental model of how viking age warriors may have fought. Turns out it is a relatively effective body of techniques. videos of demonstrations of some attacks and counters can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8SRaa33otU. In addition, the Hurstwick reenactment group also have experimented with Tallhoffer: http://www.hurstwic.org/history/arti..._technique.htm. Of course, neither of these deal with the Iron Age.

An Italian group have attempted to recreate an Iron Age combat style. I'm not sure how they went with it though. I've also spoken to some Iron Age reenactors. They say that one of the major elements of combat is the size of the shield. While not relatively heavy, it is cumbersome and awkward, meaning it is often easier to dodge blows than block them. This is however, based on modern people taking part in a combat sport. (please note that I'm not bagging reenactors. I myself was a viking reenactor and am now getting into iron age reenactment).

Now my opinions:
1. No warrior culture will survive long if the basic training consists of "clobber that guy as hard as you can". All warrior cultures seem to have a strong and underlying teaching and training framework to create warriors that fight in a particular style using particular techniques.
2. Celtic combat may have consisted of wide swings with long and heavy swords. Don't dismiss this as primitive fighting though. The Celts, as a culture would have realised two things: their soldiers were big and strong, and they were excellent metalsmiths, allowing them to create swords of that type, thus allowing them to fight in their manner.
3. Roman and Greek writers frequently mention not only the ferocity of celts but also their prowess and skill in battle.
4. celts were frequently used as mercenaries and auxilia. They wouldn't have been used if they weren't good.

In addition, there are also the modern Celtic martial arts of Scotland and Ireland (can't remember what they're called). While (relatively) modern, and not ancient, they are fully formed and functioning martial arts, distinct from eastern martial arts and created by the descendants of the iron age celts (or at least descendents of their culture. lets not get into genetics here)

Hope that made sense.
Hodgson

Thank you very much for your time...to write this.
It REALLY helps....thats a costructive post hodgson.It motivatad me...to read more over this matter

Its a shame that there is so little known about fighting techniques(celts)

A other question....i saw on tv(yeah i know dont start lol)that the irish(or brttain)had especially good swords because there iron had a other molecular combination than other metals(because thousend of years ago,a meteor hit/crashed somewhere near ireland and it changed the combination of iron there).Even ceasar sword was made out of it....is this true???

pls excuse my english....sometimes i can't write things properly

[Ludens]

Thanks for sharing that, Hodgson.

[cmacq]

A other question....i saw on tv(yeah i know dont start lol)that the irish(or brttain)had especially good swords because there iron had a other molecular combination than other metals(because thousend of years ago,a meteor hit/crashed somewhere near ireland and it changed the combination of iron there).Even ceasar sword was made out of it....is this true???

No, it is not true, it is false.


CmacQ

[cmacq]

First, the Scots, Irish, and Britons are not now, nor ever were Celts, in the Classical sense of the term. The modern usage of Celt, was borrowed the Classical term and initially used it to refer to a common language root based on similarities with Gaulish, which is the Latin equivalent to what the Greeks rendering as Celtic. This usage was largely usurped in the late 19th and 20th centuries by nationalists, in an attempt to empower and express a sense of unity based on ethnicity that never existed, was never achieved, and quite frankly, was and remains entirely abhorrent to the manifold composite, and largely English speaking, cultures of the Scots, Irish, and Britons, outside the socialistic bent.

Second in the Scot and Irish traditions of the early Medieval Period the Salmon, has nothing to do with combat. However, it was considered a totem animal, which in fact was used as such, by the clan from which I descend. Here the Salmon was used as a symbol of a tradition called Darna Shealladh.

Third the Scots, Irish, Britons, and for that matter the Celts, never had military schools taught by masters of a particular marshal art. The reference to the Smithy’s Dog, concerns his tutelage at the hands of Scathach on her island of Sgitheanach. Scathach was a deity whose tradition was toned down a bit in the Medieval Period, when this story was first written down. So herein she was not referred to as a goddess, but rather Lady Skye. Therefore, as a mythic device, being taught the arts of war by Scathach on her island, was akin to a Greek hero being similarly instructed by Athena on Mount Olympus.


CmacQ

[Hodgson]

Fair enough. I'm not up to date with the whole modern celtic thing. It's as confusing as the Greek news, and even less interesting. (For those wondering, in Australia we get a really condensed version the Greek news on the 'international audience' channel SBS. The Spanish news on the other hand is really good. The guy who hosts it is awesome. Anyway I digress...nearly 16 hours of straight research will do funny things to a man's mind.)

[Macilrille]

Not Celtic, but Viking, which had the same reputation and possibly same basic tactic (I suspect both were much more tactically proficient and coordinated than given credit for in ancient and thus modern sources), here www.ask-vikingekampgruppe.dk, you can also search on youtube for "Moesgaard". Further, this guy has some instructive albums from Moesgaard where you can see the fight unfolding almost pic by pic http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/p...624966599&sb=4.

All this should prove fairly instructive in how people who do more than theorise and fantasize (at least that is what we tell ourselves), envision Viking fighting, without you having to read weighty book, though of course it is not Celtic, but Viking. You go watch then let me know if you want to perform any "salmon leaps" over our lines with reserves standing ready behind the main battle...

Note that at Moesgaard we do not fight to make a show, we fight to defeat the opponent.

[Hax]

Even ceasar sword was made out of it....is this true???

Seen The Last Legion lately?

[seienchin]

Actually the movie make sfun of a movie about arthus with keira kneightly. Forgot the title because it was so unbelievable crappy

[Aurgelmir]

Seen The Last Legion lately?

yeah terrible...