Less Civilized Factions

[The General]

While you are in general right, this view is couloured by a romanticised view of primitive societies, wrong; and very firmly refuted by Lawrence Keely in,
Keely, Lawrence H.; War before Civilisation, Oxford 1996.

I encourage everybody to read it. It gives great insight in tribal warfare. Warfare that is in effect even more total and horrid than that which socalled civilised peoples fight.

I did not intend to say ritualistic warfare was the only kind of warfare in tribal communities; I'm aware of more lethal forms of conflict between tribes to the point of conflicts that escalate to the level of war of annihilation.

(It's not that hard to imagine to what lenghts people will go to survive, say, in cases of famine.)

[ARCHIPPOS]

It seems to be common knowledge though that the Celtic warrior ethos was more focused on a)training a strong professional warrior class, b)valuing individual acts and bravery more over "group work". Equipment, training et all were more focused on individual feats, and it is also true IIRC (from my own readings on the subject) that the average Celtic militia was of lower quality, not only because it lacked the sort of attention the Germans and Romans gave to lower tier troops but because there was never an emphasis in collective training and war-making outside of the *admittedly large* warrior class.

The Romans, on the other hand, adopted the opposite approach - they had no "warrior class" in the sense of the word, rather focusing on giving militias as much collective training as possible and emphasize the "group" aspect of the legion. So a legionary in average spent more time training how to act effectively in formation, while a Gaesatae (rough comparisons, I say) would spend far more time duelling, or training alone, or being told that his own courage alone was enough to win and to earn him glory and fame, and the like.

Fact is though that the Celts seemed more impetuous and more prone to "individual challenges" on the battlefield than the rest. Literally everywhere I've read that touches the subject even remotely agrees. Last time was in a book about the Etruscans (written by Raymond Bloch) that gives a side glance at Celtic warrior ethos and says that it was not uncommon for a Celtic warrior to get off his line and challenge other individual enemies for a duel. Not that hard to imagine since we're all familiar with the Knightly Ethos too.

All in all I can presume that an "ethos" that values collective identity over individual identity would also give far more discipline to the group as a whole, since all the people would need to act in unison for most things. 1 vs. 1, though, my money is on the Celts, and it is not like Celts were completely averse to group work either, or that some Celtic bands did not equal the collective discipline of more "civilized" warriors. It's a rough generalization frankly.

that's quite an interesting viewpoint...

This clash between tribal "individual heroism" and the modern "disciplined mass army" model is very evident in Homer's Iliad ...
We have from one side the epitome of the hero warrior Achiles whose life evolves around notions of personal fame, glory and loot ... he's unwieldy, selfish and defies and disrespects the power of his king and army leader ... the cause of final victory is not central but merely peripheral in his lifeview...
On the other side we have the character of Hector... Hector is in fact the "Modern Man" , a product of duty, law, state and family values... he's essentialy a paradigm of the citizen-soldier ideal a soldier if need be but also a statesman, a husband , a father and a son... in short the "civil man" whose life is centered on common good (=Freudian superego) ...
The Homeric allegory is very revealing...

Coming forth from the epic era dominated by raw and primal instincts, Greeks achieved to develop a prevailing second nature, one that was characterized by their sense of rigid self discipline, measure and constraint over their all consuming and potentially destructive passions ...(of course in practice the results of this civil harnessing were not always that succesful)...
The sociopolitical roots of this self-overcoming can be genealogically outlined in a complex, copious and lengthy transformation of the Greek political model: From tribal kingdoms governed by relentless and vigorous hero-warrior-rulers (which were in fact the Mycenean societies) , to decentralized city states dominated by a dignified and dynamic middle-class citizenship. Retrospectively the content of the prevailing ideal has accordingly shifted: The qualities of classic civility, participation and modesty replaced the all domineering, warlike, assertive, traits of epic exploits and violence...

[Aemilius Paulus]

How about Battle of Telamon, where the Insubri, Boii and Taurini fought to death even after seeing their Gaesatae allies perish or retreat from their positions?

Shall we then throw lone events, exceptions that deviate from standard behaviour, as valid arguments? No stand on any issue is impervious to such assaults. There are always plenty of irregularities. I am giving you a trend, and you attempt to refute it with a singular happening?

I am sorry, but that will not cut it. There is the general propensity of Gauls to waver swiftly and then there are isolated groups of Gauls in certain events where they actually make a last stand. One of the skills of a historian or a debater is to be able to differentiate between a peculiar instance and a widespread fact of the matter.

Whatever the truth may be, Republican and Principate Romans do not seem to display similar reputation. Nor do the Classical Greeks. Same goes far Carthaginians. Most civilised nations have steadier, more dependable troops who do not take flight as easily. Exceptions abound as usual, but the general history stays the same.

Gausl simply had less incentive to fight. Their culture was not the same, it was a classic example of a semi-tribal, semi-civilised tradition in transition. They had little in the face of centralised states, and their culture did not focus on the overall outcome of the war as opposed to individual glory-hunting. Romans were one of the few who valued ultimate victory in a war as the sole most important goal.

Other nations, such as Carthage for example, had few such convictions. With Hannibal in Italy, the Council could have easily squashed the Romans with a fraction of expenditure of their vast resources. Yet they were suspicious of Hannibal, their rival, and when the war turned in the other direction, they mainly funded the Spanish Wars, which made sense from an economic perspective, given the resources of Spain, but from a military perspective, Hannibal was holding the wolf by its ears, with his ever-depleted army he nevertheless gained new recruits among Southern Italians and Gauls, continuing to keep the Romans down. With 30,000 reinforcements he could have conquered all of Italy.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

You have not given a "trend", AP. In fact you have done the same thing you're criticising now: quoting a single example of Celtic cowardice on the field as the ruling definition of their battle eagerness. Telamon is not just the single example of Celtic prowess on the field, the same prowess alas which would not be possible if Celts did not have balls, as you are suggesting.

[Aemilius Paulus]

You have not given a "trend", AP. In fact you have done the same thing you're criticising now: quoting a single example of Celtic cowardice on the field as the ruling definition of their battle eagerness. Telamon is not just the single example of Celtic prowess on the field, the same prowess alas which would not be possible if Celts did not have balls, as you are suggesting.

I gave you the battles of Hannibalic wars, which were well-documented, and in all the battles where Gauls were a significant force, they wavered, even when Hannibal was winning, such as Metaurus. Then we have the Cisalpine Gallo-Roman wars, or the Gallic invasion of Greece, where in most documented battles, the Gauls routed prematurely.

In general, the Gauls did not have the same drive to win, unless they were defending their homeland, as in the later stages of the of the wars for their homelands. And those skirmishes were not even documented for the most part, save for Caesar's commentaries. But by that time, the Gauls have changed radically, into a much more cohesive, centralised states.

Nor did their culture place great value on the collective victory - you can be recklessly brave in the beginning of the battle, earn some standing, and then retreat with everyone else, only gaining. But what is there to gain by fighting to death, especially when fighting in faraway lands in battles that do not have much direct effect you? As a Gaul, you do not have the same sense of national pride. you do not have a state and government to answer to. You have your hometown or village, and if needed, you will fight to death to defend it. Otherwise, why bother to fight, save for loot and honour?

[ARCHIPPOS]

hey what's the deal ??? is there an ongoing debating feud between you two ???

[Aemilius Paulus]

hey what's the deal ??? is there an ongoing debating feud between you two ???

Not quite. ATHN is my spamming friend, whose only hobby on this site is to spam and troll, aggravating other people. He follows me around, even in the Backroom, and does his best to appear legitimate, but in truth simply rebuking me for the heck of it. He has no conviction to actually research his statements, so most of his arguments are cardboard dummies. Especially in the Backroom, where he sounds downright pathetic. Unknowledgeable trolling is quite simple to spot there. Go figure... Poor fella' has no life.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Not quite. ATHN is my spamming friend, whose only hobby on this site is to spam and troll, aggravating other people. He follows me around, even in the Backroom, and does his best to appear legitimate, but in truth simply rebuking me for the heck of it. He has no conviction to actually research his statements, so most of his arguments are cardboard dummies. Especially in the Backroom, where he sounds downright pathetic. Unknowledgeable trolling is quite simple to spot there. Go figure... Poor fella' has no life.

What do you know of myself to make such statements, AP ? You want to have a discussion, then have it :P.

[Cyclops]

Nice try. But how strong were the Makedones then?

Not strong enough. Like the Romans. And the Etruscans. And the Hellenes of Asia Minor. In fact the Gauls who founded Galatia were only stopped by several Pachyderms. I read somewhere Elephants are also "wavering" types, so I'm amazed the battelfield wasn't deserted by both sides.

How many other peoples were they fighting?

You tell me, you're the one venturing a interesting claim that Gauls have no staying power.

How many Celts were there against them?

Well there enough Celts that their new homeland was called Galatia, so you tell me?

I read the invasion was immense.

Immense but wavering, of course. "moral power is to physical as three parts out of four..." but what would a Ajaccione know? He was probably a Gaul too.

And notice I said Celts. Not Gauls. Celts were too varied of a nation to generalise.

But the Gauls are not too varied for you to generalise about them .

I never said Celts were unreliable.

Go on, give it a try. You might catch a few more fishes.(I'm using this as a fly-fishing smilie)

Your turn.

Well all this provocation and sniping aside, I agree with you thesis in part. Its fair to say non-urban peoples don't stand and fight as much. Tribal societies fight a more skirmishy type of warfare. Its probably even more true of the Germans and Iberians than of the Gauls.

That doesn't mean they lack courage or staying power: the Romans found out how much staying power the Celtiberians and others in Hispania had, those guys fronted up for centuries of skirmishing and ambush warfare which showed unwavering hostility to foreign rule, often to the death.

I don't think its so much a matter of having a state to believe in or not (that smells like a nationalist back-projection to me, no pun intended) so much as a set of economic and cultural circumstances (hehe, a Socialist back projection!). I have a farm, with a timeline for a harvest, so I want a decisive battle now godammit! One way or another lets finish this thing.

Anyway I suspect you're having some fun teasing, and more fun thread-hijacking. I doubt you really believe "gauls=wavering" anymore than your other thesis "Rome rose because they were brave and fell because they were decadent".

Have you enjoyed playing any of the non-urban factions in EB?

[Cyclops]

...In general, the Gauls did not have the same drive to win, unless they were defending their homeland, ...

The Galatians must've known their new homeland was in Asia Minor, otherwise they wouldn't have wavered their way through Makedonia to get there.

Sorry AP, this "Gauls were unsteady" doesn't wash (Roman propaganda to the contrary). They either defeated or served in almost every major army after Alexander, and even big Al had to check with them first if he was allowed to go east and conquer.

Keltoi-bitchifying Europe and Asia since 300 BC.

[Aemilius Paulus]

The Galatians must've known their new homeland was in Asia Minor, otherwise they wouldn't have wavered their way through Makedonia to get there.

Nice try. But how strong were the Makedones then? How many other peoples were they fighting? How many Celts were there against them? I read the invasion was immense. And notice I said Celts. Not Gauls. Celts were too varied of a nation to generalise. I never said Celts were unreliable.

Your turn.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

that's quite an interesting viewpoint...

This clash between tribal "individual heroism" and the modern "disciplined mass army" model is very evident in Homer's Iliad ...
We have from one side the epitome of the hero warrior Achiles whose life evolves around notions of personal fame, glory and loot ... he's unwieldy, selfish and defies and disrespects the power of his king and army leader ... the cause of final victory is not central but merely peripheral in his lifeview...
On the other side we have the character of Hector... Hector is in fact the "Modern Man" , a product of duty, law, state and family values... he's essentialy a paradigm of the citizen-soldier ideal a soldier if need be but also a statesman, a husband , a father and a son... in short the "civil man" whose life is centered on common good (=Freudian superego) ...
The Homeric allegory is very revealing...

Coming forth from the epic era dominated by raw and primal instincts, Greeks achieved to develop a prevailing second nature, one that was characterized by their sense of rigid self discipline, measure and constraint over their all consuming and potentially destructive passions ...(of course in practice the results of this civil harnessing were not always that succesful)...
The sociopolitical roots of this self-overcoming can be genealogically outlined in a complex, copious and lengthy transformation of the Greek political model: From tribal kingdoms governed by relentless and vigorous hero-warrior-rulers (which were in fact the Mycenean societies) , to decentralized city states dominated by a dignified and dynamic middle-class citizenship. Retrospectively the content of the prevailing ideal has accordingly shifted: The qualities of classic civility, participation and modesty replaced the all domineering, warlike, assertive, traits of epic exploits and violence...

That's an interesting take-on on the subject, even if too slightly Classicist. In my view, primeval societies always had that "heroic" emphasis; compare Medieval Europe with the Celts for example. Both had a fierce warrior ethos which had almost constant emphasis on the individual feats of glory and all the like.

Yet this seems to convene the idea that both periods had an essentially undisciplined mob passing for an army. Both the Celts and later Medieval armies (as well as the early Homeric Greeks) had a developed notion of collective warfare and even collective glory, it was just seen as "honourable" and fit to let strong warriors take the initiative sometimes. This all changes in a "later" period: the Hoplite (which was a soldier forfeiting all personal glory for formation work) replaces old Homeric warfare, while in Europe the old knightly ethos crumbled in favour of mass mercenary armies, although it did survive for much longer in one or other aspect (the systematic practice and organization of duels being one of them). Celtic society might have benefited from a similar shift if they hadn't been erased from the map all too early - most of the old elites were almost dead, and so on.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Well, Unlike you, ARCHIPPOS actually makes a great deal of sense, in addition to being eloquent. "Too slightly Classicist"? Confucius say... Really. The bloke based his entire post on Homer, and you say "too Classicist" - that is painfully obvious. If there was actually anything useful in your posts, ATHN...

Do you read books? If so, mention some stuff from them, so that your posts are more informative, interesting, and well-sourced. Or mention some concrete fact or a valid opinion, and we will knwo you got it from a book. Otherwise, this is merely another YouTube-esque deabte, only with solid grammar and nicer participants.

[Cyclops]

Oooh weird, my reply to AP's post 71 somehow became post 69, even though I typed it after his...

[fleaza]

The Galatians must've known their new homeland was in Asia Minor, otherwise they wouldn't have wavered their way through Makedonia to get there.

Sorry AP, this "Gauls were unsteady" doesn't wash (Roman propaganda to the contrary). They either defeated or served in almost every major army after Alexander, and even big Al had to check with them first if he was allowed to go east and conquer.

Keltoi-bitchifying Europe and Asia since 300 BC.

roman propaganda that the kelts were waverers? ridiculous, theyd want to make the kelts the most terrifying beasts on earth to make their star of glory shine brighter.

[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.

[The General]

roman propaganda that the kelts were waverers? ridiculous, theyd want to make the kelts the most terrifying beasts on earth to make their star of glory shine brighter.

The Celts were the boogeymen of Rome for quite a few centuries, downplaying them might've helped motivate troops facing them.

[Macilrille]

That's an interesting take-on on the subject, even if too slightly Classicist. In my view, primeval societies always had that "heroic" emphasis; compare Medieval Europe with the Celts for example. Both had a fierce warrior ethos which had almost constant emphasis on the individual feats of glory and all the like.

Yet this seems to convene the idea that both periods had an essentially undisciplined mob passing for an army. Both the Celts and later Medieval armies (as well as the early Homeric Greeks) had a developed notion of collective warfare and even collective glory, it was just seen as "honourable" and fit to let strong warriors take the initiative sometimes. This all changes in a "later" period: the Hoplite (which was a soldier forfeiting all personal glory for formation work) replaces old Homeric warfare, while in Europe the old knightly ethos crumbled in favour of mass mercenary armies, although it did survive for much longer in one or other aspect (the systematic practice and organization of duels being one of them). Celtic society might have benefited from a similar shift if they hadn't been erased from the map all too early - most of the old elites were almost dead, and so on.

This is my view, and the general idea is accepted by most historians and sociologists. Sociologists especially likes neat models covering all societies. Harste has written extensively on the matter based on Luhman's models of Autopoietic Systems.

kekailoa, the socalled scholars claiming that the Cimbrii and Teutons were Celts are hardly unbiased "Uni of Wales, one of the few remaining Celtic bastions...), in fact Celtic historians shows the same trend as nationalist Germanic and Nordic ones did 100- 150 years ago of wanting to include their own people in any major barbaric and heroic event of antiquity. The Cimbrii and Teutons were from Jutland and the area immediately s of it.
However:
->Their culture was influenced by Celts (from Balcans to France, the Gunnestrup Cauldron is mixed Thracian-Celtic in origin, other cauldrons and the wagon finds are Gallic), just as it was later influenced by Rome when the Romans expanded to become a power, and got close.
->It is unlikely that the entire population left Jutland to relocate, archeology does not show any large decrease in population and in the nature of later migrations (up to Viking ones and the Crusades), it is more likely that only a part of the population went. My own theory is that just like the Vikings, only warriors went, led by charismatic warlords and perhaps with some family and camp followers. These then picked up many followers, hangers-on, camp followers, etc in the land they journeyed through. Including entire tribes, mostly Germanic, but some Celts as well, and since much of the areas travelled through was Celtic, many wifes and camp followers would be Celtic in origin just as many of the original fighters would leave and new ones join (even from back home- like Vikings and Crusaders). Thus creating a mix of culture and bloodlines. The armies that fought the Romans would probably have been Jute-ish at the core, Germanic in nature, but influenced and to some extent full of Celts and half-Celts. But to make them Celtic tribes is a bit far-fetched (I am not saying you are doing that, but many Celt-lovers- especially online- do).

As for Ariovistus, he lead the Suebi confederation, which was by and large made up of Germanic tribes, only the Marcomanni and possibly the Hermanduri would have been in any way of the mixed German-Celtic from the Rhine- Bohemia areas where that mixed culture existed. In fact at least one of his allied tribes was from as far away as Jutland; the Haerudi. But then again, Tacitus mentions the seven tribes of Jutland as part of the Suebi.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Well, Unlike you, ARCHIPPOS actually makes a great deal of sense, in addition to being eloquent. "Too slightly Classicist"? Confucius say... Really. The bloke based his entire post on Homer, and you say "too Classicist" - that is painfully obvious. If there was actually anything useful in your posts, ATHN...

Do you read books? If so, mention some stuff from them, so that your posts are more informative, interesting, and well-sourced. Or mention some concrete fact or a valid opinion, and we will knwo you got it from a book. Otherwise, this is merely another YouTube-esque deabte, only with solid grammar and nicer participants.

All my notions from the Medieval Army come from Verbruggen, Contamine and DeVries; all my notions from the Celtic army come from a prolonged read of the discussions held in the EB forums plus privy conversations with Celtic experts

. I say it is too much Classicist because it portrays them in a too favourable and slightly biased light as "upholders of civic virtue", when in fact we should avoid this kind of judgment too much. Something which you should learn, and something you should know before making brusque patronizing statements like this, AP .

[Macilrille]

Pffffffffffffff


Both of you should learn to not get personal and to not embark on measuring penises but keep your arguments objective. Will lend much more validity and more chance of the other guy actually agreeing with you instead of just getting more hateful and stubborn.


BTW, DeVries I do not much lend credence to. At least his book on Harald Hardrada's invasion of England is... somewhat inaccurate and dated.

[Ludens]

Both of you should learn to not get personal and to not embark on measuring penises but keep your arguments objective. Will lend much more validity and more chance of the other guy actually agreeing with you instead of just getting more hateful and stubborn.

Seconded.

Discuss the post, not the poster.

[kekailoa]

kekailoa, the socalled scholars claiming that the Cimbrii and Teutons were Celts are hardly unbiased "Uni of Wales, one of the few remaining Celtic bastions...), in fact Celtic historians shows the same trend as nationalist Germanic and Nordic ones did 100- 150 years ago of wanting to include their own people in any major barbaric and heroic event of antiquity. The Cimbrii and Teutons were from Jutland and the area immediately s of it.
However:
->Their culture was influenced by Celts (from Balcans to France, the Gunnestrup Cauldron is mixed Thracian-Celtic in origin, other cauldrons and the wagon finds are Gallic), just as it was later influenced by Rome when the Romans expanded to become a power, and got close.
->It is unlikely that the entire population left Jutland to relocate, archeology does not show any large decrease in population and in the nature of later migrations (up to Viking ones and the Crusades), it is more likely that only a part of the population went. My own theory is that just like the Vikings, only warriors went, led by charismatic warlords and perhaps with some family and camp followers. These then picked up many followers, hangers-on, camp followers, etc in the land they journeyed through. Including entire tribes, mostly Germanic, but some Celts as well, and since much of the areas travelled through was Celtic, many wifes and camp followers would be Celtic in origin just as many of the original fighters would leave and new ones join (even from back home- like Vikings and Crusaders). Thus creating a mix of culture and bloodlines. The armies that fought the Romans would probably have been Jute-ish at the core, Germanic in nature, but influenced and to some extent full of Celts and half-Celts. But to make them Celtic tribes is a bit far-fetched (I am not saying you are doing that, but many Celt-lovers- especially online- do).

As for Ariovistus, he lead the Suebi confederation, which was by and large made up of Germanic tribes, only the Marcomanni and possibly the Hermanduri would have been in any way of the mixed German-Celtic from the Rhine- Bohemia areas where that mixed culture existed. In fact at least one of his allied tribes was from as far away as Jutland; the Haerudi. But then again, Tacitus mentions the seven tribes of Jutland as part of the Suebi.

No, I agree. The invading Cimbrii and Teutones were most definitely Germanic in origin and nature, but what I was trying to say is that portions of the horde were most likely Celtic, proving that yes, the Celts could fight. They could stand in pitched battles against civilized troops and hold their own, and seeing as they were a part of the hordes that ran roughshod all over Roman territory, I would call that proof. And I agree, some Celtophiles can be a little much. (Even though I really used to be one...)

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Pffffffffffffff


Both of you should learn to not get personal and to not embark on measuring penises but keep your arguments objective. Will lend much more validity and more chance of the other guy actually agreeing with you instead of just getting more hateful and stubborn.


BTW, DeVries I do not much lend credence to. At least his book on Harald Hardrada's invasion of England is... somewhat inaccurate and dated.

Heh, he he, he he he .

EDIT - Sorry, assumed you dismissed all the repertory. I didn't read DeVries on Hardrada so I'll let it pass.

I agree with your remark on getting personal, but... It's AP that strangely wants this to get personal. I try to simply post my opinions, and this thread shows this neatly - which is rather unconvincing because AP seems to have very vague and very biased notions of Celtic warfare.

[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.