Less Civilized Factions

[kekailoa]

AP, to a certain extent, you're true. The Gauls and other Celtic groups did have somewhat of a propensity to retreat when the fight became brutal, bloody, and decisive.

But, I disagree with your ideas that the Celts (Gauls, Galatians, Celtiberians) were unreliable and poor soldiers. You seem to have this idea that the Gauls were just poorly armed, flighty and largely cowardly warriors and that they were no match for civilized nations. I disagree with that idea. Not only did these unwashed rabble of barbarians handily defeat Rome multiple times, but they also defeated many other 'civilized nations' with their cowardly, flighty, poorly armed warriors.

Take the Etruscans. A civilized, prosperous nation with a strong, organized warrior class (strong enough to dominate every other group in Italy for a time). The Celts ran through them.

The Macedonians. Although battered by the wars of sucession, Macedon still was in possession of a powerful and extremely successful military system. They were defeated and sacked entirely.

The Thracians. Although not quite 'civilized', they still were feared foes by the 'civilized' Greeks, and the Galatians easily dominated this warrior culture.

The Greeks. Although the Greeks drove the invaders out, no pitched battle really decided this. The Greeks used a combination of guerrilla warfare, harsh weather conditions and small-scale conflicts to drive them out. If you want to read my sources, read Barry Cunliffe's The Celtic World, who you quoted earlier on.

The Bithynians, Cappadocians, Phrygians, Karians, Pontics, various Greek cities, and Pergamese (at one point) were terrorized by the Galatians, and apparently only 10,000 migrated over into Galatia! Half were women and children, so for five thousand Galatians to terrorize most of Asia Minor must mean there is a modicum of military skill involved.

Why would Galatians be so popular to recruit as mercenaries? Why would the Ptolemies specially import Gallic mercenaries? Why would the Carthaginian empire grab as many Gallic mercenaries as they could? If they were so terrible as mercenaries, why would Hannibal continue to recruit them time and time again, and rely on them to guard his camp, to be his heavy cavalry, to even fight in his lines? Why would the Ptolemies rely so heavily on their Galatians that they drove their own citizens out to accommodate this mercenary base and their families?

Rome, for all its professional glory, was not always the victor either. Allia, Arretium, the Cimbri and Teutone invasions (yes, I know they are supposed to be German, but a large portion of these Germans were Celts from across the Danube and some that joined the hordes along the way. Also, according to some historians such as Cunliffe, D. Sue Johns of Wales and others believe based on linguistic and archaeological evidence that the Teutones and Cimbri spoke a Celtic language and had a heavily Celtic material culture.), Gergovia, Cenabum, the utter annihilation of Sabinus's legions during the Gallic wars, not to mention the ferocious battle for Celtiberia. (Btw sources are Caesars Gallic Wars, by Kate Gilliver and The Celtic Encyclopedia by Harry Mountain)

Even in defeat, the Gauls and Celts stood their ground. There are many instances where the Celts fought to the last man, not breaking and fleeing. These instances are not just exceptions, either, proving that the Celts had standing power. Caesars battle with the Helvetii and the Nervii, Anglesey, the Celtiberians, Telamon, all instances where the Celts stood and fought. It is also believed that many warriors in the German army of Ariovistus, a force which Caesar claimed to be one of the most disciplined he had ever faced, were of Celtic origin and came from Celtic tribes on either side of the Danube (source: Gallic Wars, Kate Gilliver). Celtiberia does not even need to be explained, with battles such as Numantia and the dread of Hispania Roman soldiers felt.

Celtic warriors were not professional, nor did they have the flexibility, resources and military ingenuity the Romans and other civilized nations had. But they learned fast, even as they were being absorbed into the Roman empire. We see instances of besieging armies building palisades and siege machinery (the siege of Quintus Cicero) and the unification of tribes and tribal structures. Celtic warriors, for all their unsophistication and lack of professionalism, were ferocious warriors and received and deserved the respect of every foe they faced.

[Kikaz]

AP, to a certain extent, you're true. The Gauls and other Celtic groups did have somewhat of a propensity to retreat when the fight became brutal, bloody, and decisive.

But, I disagree with your ideas that the Celts (Gauls, Galatians, Celtiberians) were unreliable and poor soldiers. You seem to have this idea that the Gauls were just poorly armed, flighty and largely cowardly warriors and that they were no match for civilized nations. I disagree with that idea. Not only did these unwashed rabble of barbarians handily defeat Rome multiple times, but they also defeated many other 'civilized nations' with their cowardly, flighty, poorly armed warriors.

Take the Etruscans. A civilized, prosperous nation with a strong, organized warrior class (strong enough to dominate every other group in Italy for a time). The Celts ran through them.

The Macedonians. Although battered by the wars of sucession, Macedon still was in possession of a powerful and extremely successful military system. They were defeated and sacked entirely.

The Thracians. Although not quite 'civilized', they still were feared foes by the 'civilized' Greeks, and the Galatians easily dominated this warrior culture.

The Greeks. Although the Greeks drove the invaders out, no pitched battle really decided this. The Greeks used a combination of guerrilla warfare, harsh weather conditions and small-scale conflicts to drive them out. If you want to read my sources, read Barry Cunliffe's The Celtic World, who you quoted earlier on.

The Bithynians, Cappadocians, Phrygians, Karians, Pontics, various Greek cities, and Pergamese (at one point) were terrorized by the Galatians, and apparently only 10,000 migrated over into Galatia! Half were women and children, so for five thousand Galatians to terrorize most of Asia Minor must mean there is a modicum of military skill involved.

Why would Galatians be so popular to recruit as mercenaries? Why would the Ptolemies specially import Gallic mercenaries? Why would the Carthaginian empire grab as many Gallic mercenaries as they could? If they were so terrible as mercenaries, why would Hannibal continue to recruit them time and time again, and rely on them to guard his camp, to be his heavy cavalry, to even fight in his lines? Why would the Ptolemies rely so heavily on their Galatians that they drove their own citizens out to accommodate this mercenary base and their families?

Rome, for all its professional glory, was not always the victor either. Allia, Arretium, the Cimbri and Teutone invasions (yes, I know they are supposed to be German, but a large portion of these Germans were Celts from across the Danube and some that joined the hordes along the way. Also, according to some historians such as Cunliffe, D. Sue Johns of Wales and others believe based on linguistic and archaeological evidence that the Teutones and Cimbri spoke a Celtic language and had a heavily Celtic material culture.), Gergovia, Cenabum, the utter annihilation of Sabinus's legions during the Gallic wars, not to mention the ferocious battle for Celtiberia. (Btw sources are Caesars Gallic Wars, by Kate Gilliver and The Celtic Encyclopedia by Harry Mountain)

Even in defeat, the Gauls and Celts stood their ground. There are many instances where the Celts fought to the last man, not breaking and fleeing. These instances are not just exceptions, either, proving that the Celts had standing power. Caesars battle with the Helvetii and the Nervii, Anglesey, the Celtiberians, Telamon, all instances where the Celts stood and fought. It is also believed that many warriors in the German army of Ariovistus, a force which Caesar claimed to be one of the most disciplined he had ever faced, were of Celtic origin and came from Celtic tribes on either side of the Danube (source: Gallic Wars, Kate Gilliver). Celtiberia does not even need to be explained, with battles such as Numantia and the dread of Hispania Roman soldiers felt.

Celtic warriors were not professional, nor did they have the flexibility, resources and military ingenuity the Romans and other civilized nations had. But they learned fast, even as they were being absorbed into the Roman empire. We see instances of besieging armies building palisades and siege machinery (the siege of Quintus Cicero) and the unification of tribes and tribal structures. Celtic warriors, for all their unsophistication and lack of professionalism, were ferocious warriors and received and deserved the respect of every foe they faced.

as a side-note AP's example was of Keltae playing a MERCENARY ROLE; and mercenaries are, as a rule, typically less reliable than soldiers who would be fighting for their homeland (although Kelts must have been somewhat of an exception, given their popularity.)
If the standard Keltic warrior was as pathetic as AP makes him out to be, they would have never managed to sack Rome in the first place (or terrify the Romans for that matter.)

and now Fleaza will say "Oh, the Keltae being tough powerful opponents was just Roman propaganda"

[Macilrille]

Well, I am no Celtic historian, nor Cel They lost and disappeared from anything but fringes, so I care little. History has its own judgement on cultures/civilisations. It is Darwinism in effect...

However, my intuition as well as professional experience tells me that there is no single answer and that the discussion is moot. Nothing is black and white.

I suspect the truth is somewhere in between. Sometimes celtic warriors fought like tribal warriors with hit-and-run tactics, fierce onsets, but fast retreats, etc. At other times they would likely fight very well and with much "discipline" (as warriors still, not soldiers), fight to the last, etc. I expect that up until the very latest times it depended largely on leadership. Under a charismatic warlord they would fight well, otherwise not. To make broad generalisations across five centuries and across most of Central Europe is moot, it is like judging all German soldiers in WWII from the 1945 Volksgrenadier divisions or the senior Waffen SS divisions respectively- only worse.

It is moot!

Which again makes the participants getting personal the more ridiculous.

[WinsingtonIII]

Well, I am no Celtic historian, nor Cel They lost and disappeared from anything but fringes, so I care little. History has its own judgement on cultures/civilisations. It is Darwinism in effect...

I personally would stay away from the Darwin analogy. Social Darwinism is never a good philosophy to follow as it sort of implies that the loser (in this case the Celts) is somehow biologically weaker and less human than the victor. Many civilizations have fallen throughout history, and just because they have doesn't mean that they are necessarily a lesser version of the species.

Generally, when a civilization falls, it is not because of some inherent biological defect that must be weeded out (as Darwinism implies) it is because of a lack of technology, or economic domination, or the greater military organization (or numbers, or tactics, etc.) of the enemy (the list goes on as well). It doesn't reflect on the biological fitness of an individual in that civilization. So, I don't think it's really fair to imply that the Celts were marked for extinction by natural selection. And after all, isn't EB all about fairly representing cultures?

[Kikaz]

I personally would stay away from the Darwin analogy. Social Darwinism is never a good philosophy to follow as it sort of implies that the loser (in this case the Celts) is somehow biologically weaker and less human than the victor. Many civilizations have fallen throughout history, and just because they have doesn't mean that they are necessarily a lesser version of the species.

Generally, when a civilization falls, it is not because of some inherent biological defect that must be weeded out (as Darwinism implies) it is because of a lack of technology, or economic domination, or the greater military organization (or numbers, or tactics, etc.) of the enemy (the list goes on as well). It doesn't reflect on the biological fitness of an individual in that civilization. So, I don't think it's really fair to imply that the Celts were marked for extinction by natural selection. And after all, isn't EB all about fairly representing cultures?

Corruption plays a major part as well.

[WinsingtonIII]

Corruption plays a major part as well.

Yep. As well as many other societal institutions and processes. Human society is so complex that it is impossible to attribute the fall of an entire civilization to a single event or cause.

[Macilrille]

I personally would stay away from the Darwin analogy. Social Darwinism is never a good philosophy to follow as it sort of implies that the loser (in this case the Celts) is somehow biologically weaker and less human than the victor. Many civilizations have fallen throughout history, and just because they have doesn't mean that they are necessarily a lesser version of the species.

Generally, when a civilization falls, it is not because of some inherent biological defect that must be weeded out (as Darwinism implies) it is because of a lack of technology, or economic domination, or the greater military organization (or numbers, or tactics, etc.) of the enemy (the list goes on as well). It doesn't reflect on the biological fitness of an individual in that civilization. So, I don't think it's really fair to imply that the Celts were marked for extinction by natural selection. And after all, isn't EB all about fairly representing cultures?

Who was so unsophisticated and unenlightened that he was talking about biologi? What I am talking about it the organism that a state is, the autopoietic system of The State. Read some Harste and Luhman and you will know what I mean. Harste has written a fine little treatise on the matter, but it is not easily digestible,

Harste, G. 2002, Krig vs. Fred - en kode i symbolsk generaliseret kommunikation, Institut for Statskundskab, Aarhus Universitet, Århus.

It is divided in both an English and a Danish version, so no worries, you can read it. But it is a challenge to understand if one does not have a background in sociology (which I had not when I had the good fortune to be taught by him back then).

[geala]

I'm with you in this point, Macilrille, and for the rest I don't want to enter the Celts-Weaklings- discussion, because one only has to look to some ancient texts to see that this is not true as a rule.

Just one question that is of interest for me: what makes you sure that the Cimbri and Teutones came from Jutland and were Germanics? Poseidonios searched the case and took them for Celts, Caesar was the first to see them as Germanics as far as I know, but perhaps for a personal reason in combination with his creation of the Rhine as a border and the new feature of the area east of it as "Germania".

I think it's better to be careful and let the case open because it is so difficult for this early time to decide of what culture people were. I personally think (and can of course not prove it) that the Cimbri and Teutones were a mix of people, perhaps some from the north, but mainly Celts from all the regions the trek went on its long way to the south.

To make it not entirely ot, two remarks:
I also have difficulties to play as the "barbarians", I just have the feeling they were not able to create a unified empire that early although they were good fighters.
And I think it is not a shame or arrogant to name some people more civilised (that means just a certain degree of sophisticated organisation with a written and mostly urban culture) than others; it has nothing to do with the worth of the people or culture.

[The General]

To make it not entirely ot, two remarks:
I also have difficulties to play as the "barbarians", I just have the feeling they were not able to create a unified empire that early although they were good fighters.

Roleplay it then not as a unified empire, but as a confederacy of various tribes electing their leader, or a hegemony established by one tribe over others creating a complex web of vassalages, protectorates, allies and subjugated foes, for example.

[Macilrille]

Just one question that is of interest for me: what makes you sure that the Cimbri and Teutones came from Jutland and were Germanics? Poseidonios searched the case and took them for Celts, Caesar was the first to see them as Germanics as far as I know, but perhaps for a personal reason in combination with his creation of the Rhine as a border and the new feature of the area east of it as "Germania".

I think it's better to be careful and let the case open because it is so difficult for this early time to decide of what culture people were. I personally think (and can of course not prove it) that the Cimbri and Teutones were a mix of people, perhaps some from the north, but mainly Celts from all the regions the trek went on its long way to the south.

If you scroll up a bit or do a Forum Search on "Cimbrii" you will see that my interpretation is that the Cimbric Wars started as parts of two Jutish tribes following charismatic leaders on a raid-migration S in Europe to claim loot and land. Much like the later Vikings, and much like them some warriors would return and others come to join, while others from the cultures they passed through would join too. We know for certain that this happened to the Goths after Hadrianopolis/Adrianople.

Now in addition to the argument you can find on Wikipedia for the Cimbrii and Teutons being from Jutland there is the fact that we suddenly find an increase in finds from the Balkans-Black Sea area in Jutland- not least the Gundestrup Cauldron which should be known to anyone with an interest in the area. This to me hints that all of a sudden there was an increase in contact for some reason, if you want a sort of analogue think of the increase in English Silver in Denmark around 1000 AD (I like Vikings).

However, what really counts with me is the fact that all our classic sources say they are from Jutland (Cimbrii Chersonesos). Why discount our written sources? Especially when they are in agreeance? What the Celtophiles have to present for them as Celts are the names of two kings. Names that may have been "Celtified" by Romans, by Gallic interpreters in Roman employ or even be Celtic versions of their German names, or Boirix for one may be the result of a political union between Cimbrii father and Celtic mother- such were not unknown amongst German tribes, in fact they were common. The names "work" as well in ancient German as in Gallic too, so I do not know how much "evidence" that is...

As for the German - Celt distinction we see a distinct difference in material culture and society between the areas we label Germanic and Celt/Gallic. One roughly concurrent with the ancient authors' distinction, the difference from them largely being that the border zone in Bohemia and the Rhine area has a mixed culture, we see the same later with the Limes. As I have mentioned elsewhere, Hugh Elton has treated this problem of "Iron Curtain" interpretation and argued instead for a frontier zone with mixed cultures and influences.

You are right that before Caivs Ivlivs many authors did not distinguish between Germans and Celts. However, if Pliny The Elder quotes Pytheas correctly, he made it on his ~325 BC voyage where he might have identified the Gutones (Goths?) and Teutons as the first (it may be Pliny who makes it on his behalf). This however is easily explained by lack of knowledge. When the first Europeans arrived in The New World they did not distinguish much between tribes either, but as knowledge grew they started to.

Thus, IMO; Jutland was populated by people of Germanic ancestry (in fact it seems it is part of the original lands of Germanic culture back in the Bronze Age) and as the Teutons and Cimbrii was from Jutland (or in case of the Teutons might have moved from the Baltic Shore to there), they were originally German too. Scroll up to see my interpretation of how it then developed in a previous post.

[WinsingtonIII]

Who was so unsophisticated and unenlightened that he was talking about biologi? What I am talking about it the organism that a state is, the autopoietic system of The State. Read some Harste and Luhman and you will know what I mean. Harste has written a fine little treatise on the matter, but it is not easily digestible,

Harste, G. 2002, Krig vs. Fred - en kode i symbolsk generaliseret kommunikation, Institut for Statskundskab, Aarhus Universitet, Århus.

It is divided in both an English and a Danish version, so no worries, you can read it. But it is a challenge to understand if one does not have a background in sociology (which I had not when I had the good fortune to be taught by him back then).

My field of study is actually sociology so I am well aware of the structural functionalist view of society as an organism (the state is actually not the entire organism but just one of the social institutions that functions as a part of the greater organism of society). I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you meant, and you are right that Herbert Spencer for one at least utilized Darwin's idea of survival of the fittest in application to the rise and fall of civilizations. However, the fact that he openly used the term survival of the fittest in regards to societies isn't regarded very well these days. Weber and Durkheim, whose ideas were really the beginnings of structural functionalism, didn't necessarily claim that because a civilization fell it was necessarily weaker, they were more concerned with how the institutions and processes maintained the system and reproduction of society as a whole.

Additionally, there are many other theories of sociology that criticize the structural functionalist approach heavily.

I'm not trying to make this personal, I'm just saying that it is my opinion that Darwin is not the correct name to invoke. Durkheim would fit better in my opinion, because then the idea of a "defect" or multiple "defects" in a society leading to its fall are considered in a sociological sense, not a biological one.

Do they print that work in the States? I will look for it if possible.