celtic combat

[Ludens]

There are references in Livy's The War with Hannibal that Gallic swords were incredibly soft and tended to bend in battle after a short time. Is there archaeological evidence to support this? If this is true it would make me wonder about the overall lethality of such a weapon since it would be rendered inneffective after the first few minutes of combat.

I haven't read the text, but IIRC Watchman mentioned that that particular bit referred to the younger warriors, who presumably could not afford quality gear. Since Celtic society encouraged individual warriors to stand out, they may have decided to get the biggest sword their money could buy, regardless of the quality. Remember also that the quality of the Roman gladius varied wildly. Presumably, so did the quality of Celtic swords.

As for the "swan dive" or the "salmon hop" or whatever it's called in this youtube clip, I have my doubts that it was a specific tactic, but there are references everywhere of Gallic warriors having no fear, throwing themselves into phalanxes and breaking them -- hoplite not sarissa -- and generally fighting like insane people. I mean they did fight naked, so a Gaul throwing himself over the first rank of troops to certain death is something I can imagine them doing. I think the biggest reason the Gallic warrior culture was defeated, was by tactical reform. For example, the Romans were beaten by the Gauls, then they changed their tactics to defeat them. As far as I know the Gauls pretty much stuck with the same tactics win or lose, or am I wrong?

That is a somewhat simplistic and generalizing representation. Not all Gauls fought naked, and not all would have necessarily displayed suicidal courage as you describe. I imagine the majority fought in the same way as average Romans and Greeks: soiling their pants but holding the line. That's not to say they didn't use this method (as you say, there were individuals that did show exceptional bravery), but I think it unlikely for reasons cited above. It's not useful in formation combat and probably just a training device. Been suicidally brave does not equal being stupid.

Nor where the Celts unable to reform: the Gauls ditched the outdated chariots somewhere around the second century BC, and Vercingetorix apparently used Roman methods to improve his army (at least, if we can trust Caesar on this). I don't think that the Roman conquest of most Celtic tribes can be entirely attributed to a single reason, either. However, you have a point: the Romans were very adaptable in warfare, and that no doubt played a role.