âCanestrelli clearly has read a lot,3 most of the details are right and most of the errors are small (but some are big, including the central conceit that there is a thing called âCeltic warfareâ that we can discuss)â
âmy focus is mostly going to be on Gallic arms and techniques in the third and second century BC (roughly correlated to the âMiddle La TeĚneâ period)â
âThe bibliography on what we might term here La Tène material culture weapons and warfare is, unsurprisingly, dominated by works in French (while works on Celtic-language speakers in Iberia are almost entirely in Spanish and works on those in the British Isles are in English)â
âThe standard references, though somewhat aged, on Gallic warfare are J.-L. Brunaux, Guerre et Religion en Gaule, Essai DâAnthropologie Celtique (2004) and J.-L. Brunaux and B. Lambot, Armement et Guerre chez les Gaulois (1987)â
âBeyond that, the question goes to archaeology quite quickly, in volumes that are often very hard to getâ
âThe new and definitive work on mail, including La Tène mail is M.A. Wijnhoven, European Mail Armour (2022), staggeringly expensive and worth every bit of it. Probably the best single work on weapons is T. Lejars, La TeĚne: La Collection Schwab (Bienne, Suisse). La TeĚne, Un Site, Un Mythe 3 (2013), a detailed study of roughly a third or so of the total finds from La TeĚne, including some new typologies; there is to my knowledge a single library copy in the entire United States belonging to the Library of Congressâ
âEasier to get and equally technical is Brunaux, J.-L, and A. Rapin. Gournay II: Boucliers et Lances DeĚpoĚts et TropheĚes (1988), notable for advancing the initial typologies for shield bosses and spearheadsâ
âOn the La TeĚne shield, the essential article is Gassmann, P. âNouvelle approche concernant les datations dendrochonologiques du site ĂŠponyme de La Tène (Marin-Epagnier, Suisse).â Annual Review of Swiss Archaeology 90 (2007): 75-88, which doesnât sound like its about shields, but it is. On helmets, note U. Schaaff, âKeltische Helmeâ in Anike Helme (1988); P. Connolly, Greece and Rome at War (1981) also has a really good diagram of helmet patterns, but Schaaff is the best typological studyâ
âGenerally on what we know of culture in this period, the Oxford Handbook of the European Iron Age, C. Haselgrove et al. eds. (?LOL?) is incredibly useful, but also still only available as an ebook via Oxford Academic, a state of affairs that has continued since 2018 (it, in theory, isnât done yet, but many of the chapters are and are already standard citations in the field; you will probably need some kind of library access to get it)â
âthe Handbookâs chapters do a really good job of stressing how much we do not know, how enormous our guesses often areâ
âFinally, on political structures in the La TeĚne sphere, N. Roymans, Tribal Societies in Northern Gaul: An Anthropological Perspective (1990) is a decent start, but be aware how conjectural much of it isâ
âFinally, for a state-of-the-debate on Celtic identity, the recent article, R. Pope, âRe-approaching the Celts: Origins, Society and Social Changeâ JAR 30 (2022) is really valuable, both for the argument it presents but also the âpotted historyâ at the beginning which walks through how this idea has evolved over timeâ
âthere is a pretty big gap between what the Greeks meant by the word keltoi, what the keltoi may have meant by the word keltoi and most important what people today understand by the word âCelts.ââ
âeveryone gets smashed together, with all of the Celtic-language speakers mashed in under the label of âCelts,â a practice that hasnât been acceptable in serious scholarship for at least 30 yearsâ
âCaesar reports that the folks living in what is today France (then Gaul) north of the Garonne and south of the Marne and the Seine called themselves celtae, which he takes to be equivalent to the Latin galli (Caes. BGall. 1.1)â
âStrabo, meanwhile, describes peoples in Spain as both keltoi and also keltiberes (which enters English as Celtiberians, Strabo, Geography 3.2.15) as well as those in Gaul (Geography 4.1ff), but doesnât make the claim that they call themselves thatâ
âCaesar (Caes. BGall 1.1) and Strabo (Geography 4.1.1) go out of their way to stress that the folks theyâre talking about do not have the same languages, institutions or mode of life, even those who are, to Strabo, galatikos â âGallicâ or more precisely âGalatian-likeââ
âGalli, rendered into modern English as âthe Gaulsâ (though the latter is not a descendant of that word, but a wholly different derivation), is likewise trickyâ
âWeâre fairly sure that both keltoi and galli are Celtic-language words, meaning that (contrary to the video) theyâre both probably âendonyms,â (a thing people call themselves) but it is really common for peoples in history to take the endonym of the first group of people they meet and apply it to a much larger group of âsimilarââ
âit was common in both the Eastern Mediterranean and later in East Asia to use some derivative of âFrankâ or âFrankishâ to mean âWestern or Central Europeanâ â the term got applied to the Portuguese in China, and to both Germans and Sicilian Normans during the Crusadesâ
âItâs possible that galli in Latin is connected to the Galatai (Greek) or Galatae (Latin), the Galatians, a Celtic-language speaking La TeĚne material culture group who migrated into Anatolia in the 270s, but a number of etymologies have been proposedâ
âassuming off the bat that all of these different tribal groups that Caesar or Strabo treat as a cultural unity thought of themselves that way is most unwiseâ
âThe most we know is that if you called some of these folks (but not all of them, as weâll see) keltoi or galli, theyâd say, âyeah, I guess that more or less describes me,â perhaps in the same way describe a Swiss person as âEuropeanâ isnât wrong, but it also isnât quite rightâ
âit has been shown linguistically that the various surviving Celtic languages are related to each other and also to the extinct languages of pre-Roman continental Europe that were spoken in Gaul, Noricum and parts of Spainâ
âIrish, Manx, Scottish Gaelic and Welsh are all Celtic languages. But our sources are actually quite clear that at least the Romans and the Greeks did not consider these folks to be galli or keltoiâ
âStrabo explicitly defines the people of Britain against the keltoi as two distinct groups, making it clear he doesnât think the inhabitants of the British Isles were âCeltsâ (Geography 4.5.2); Caesar doesnât either (BGall. 4.21ff)â
âTacitus sees in the britanniae evidence of German, Iberian and Gallic influence, marking them as distinct from all three, but concludes that Gallic settlement is the most likely cause, a point on which we may be quite certain he is wrong, for reasons discussed just below (Tac. Agr. 11)â
âwe have a collection of object types, artistic motifs and archaeologically visible patterns that we associate with some of the areas settled by people who our sources regard as âCeltsâ and who were Celtic language speakersâ
âThe older of these two material culture groupings we call âHalstatt cultureâ after the original type-site in Hallstatt, Austria, though we find Hallstatt culture objects (remember, these are objects, not people, a thing to be relevant in a moment) in a territorial range that forms a sort of crescent shape embracing the northern edges of the Alps, from around 1200 BC to around 500 BCâ
âWe then shift to a material culture pattern which may have developed out of late Hallstatt culture which we call La Tène culture after its type-site of La Tène in Switzerland; it runs from around 500 BC (very roughly) to around 50 AD, with lots of subdivisionsâ
âthe folks in Iberia who were keltoi (according to Strabo) or Celtiberians have some elements of La Tène material culture, but are notably missing othersâ
âThe artistic style in âCelticâ Spain is also different and unsurprisingly thereâs a lot of Iberian borrowing. As a result, archaeologically, the keltoi of south-western Iberia arenât some sort of carbon-copy of the keltoi of central France. Thereâs not no connection here, they are Celtic-language speakers and they have some La Tène stuff, but the Iberian Celtici are quite a bit further from the Helvetii (the folks who probably inhabited the La Tène site) than, say, the Senonesâ
âwe find some La Tène material culture objects in southern Britain, but they donât fully penetrate the Isles (despite the general assumption that all of the people of Britain and Ireland were Celtic language speakers) and many appear to be expensive, high-status importsâ
âMeanwhile, we find tons of La Tène material culture objects in cultural contexts that we know were neither âCelticâ in any cultural sense nor filled with Celtic-language speakers. The clearest instance of these are in Illyria and Thrace, who spoke Indo-European but not Celtic language (so a language as close to Celtic languages as Latin or Greek or German), where itâs clear that folks adopted at least some La Tène material culture, including weapons and armorâ
âwhen it came to militaria, weâd have the same problem with the Romans, who by the end of the Second Punic War, had adopted a La Tène sword (albeit from Spain and with a different suspension system), a variant of the La Tène shield, a La Tène helmet type (domestically manufactured), and La Tène body armor (mail)â
âin the third century, a Greek varient of the La Tène shield, the thureos, begins showing up everywhere in the Hellenistic East, but that doesnât make them Celts eitherâ
âobjects of La Tène material culture arenât the whole of archaeologically visible culture. There are building habits, burial habits, evidence for social organization and on and on. And those vary significantly within the La Tène material culture zoneâ
âwe have Celtic-language speakers who arenât called Celts by our sources and donât have La Tène material culture (Ireland, N. Britain), Celtic-language speakers who are called Celts by our sources but donât have the full La Tène material culture package (Spain, Portugal), non-Celtic language speakers who do have some of the La Tène material culture package but who are clearly not Celts to our sources (Thracians, Illyrians, Dacians, etc.), full La Tène material culture-havers who are explicitly not Celts in our sources (Caesar, specifically) and maybe speak a Celtic-language (the Belgae), and partial La Tène material-culture-havers who do speak a Celtic language but are still explicitly not Celts in our sources (S. Britain)â
âby the second century we also have La Tène material culture-havers who probably still speak a Celtic-language and are called Celts/galli by our sources but write inscriptions in Greek (the Galatians) and seem to have different religious structures and folks identified as Celts in our sources who are in the process of ditching large parts of La Tène material culture and learning Latin (Cisalpine Gaul), who might, Ă la Pope (op. cit.), actually be the direct, local descendants of the âoriginalâ Celtsâ
âCrucially, âthe Celtsâ do not share a military system. Warfare among Celtic-language speakers in the British Isles isnât necessarily based around La Tène material culture, nor is warfare in S. Portugal among peoples identified by our sources as keltoi; both areas seem to have very substantial regional variationâ
âBy contrast, the galli of central France and Cisalpine Gaul do seem to share at least substantial elements of a military system with the â according to Caesar â non-celtae of broader Gaul and as well as with the Galatians who live, I must repeat, in Anatolia (having migrated there in the third century)â
âThere is thus no âCelticâ military system which maps clearly onto either Celtic-language distribution or peoples described as keltoi by our sourcesâ
âOften that will mean finding out that when an author says âCelticâ they mean, âLa Tène material cultureâ or perhaps even more narrowly, peoples who speak Celtic-languages and have La Tène material cultureâ
âthatâs going to be a definition of Celt and Celtic which is going to cause you more than a little bit of trouble if you break it out in a modern social setting in Ireland, Scotland, Wales or Brittany and is going to confuse a whole bunch of other people unless you define those termsâ
âMeanwhile, if you use âCelticâ as an ethnic, cultural, artistic or military signifier (basically anything but language) and include all Celtic-language speakers, thatâs just going to be wrong in quite a few casesâ
âCeltic-language speakers (which covers, surprise, all speakers of a Celtic-language)â
âLa Tène material culture (which is not co-terminus with Celtic-language speakers)â
ââGaulsâ or âGallic.â That latter term I find more useful because it has not experienced the nationalist-inspired drift of âCelticâ and does not imply a huge range of Celtic language speakersâ
âthat captures the âeverything lines upâ groups pretty well: La Tène material culture-having Celtic-language speakers who get called keltoi (or, of course, galli) by our sources. Those are Gaulsâ
âThere are, admittedly, a few âeverything lines upâ groups that donât get captured by this term, most notably the La Tène material culture Celtic language speakers of the Danube region, so it is hardly perfect. But it at least has the benefit of being clearâ
âHistory is complicated and when you are dealing with cultures and peoples rather than states, just about any general statement is going to be some degree of wrongâ
âall of our Gauls share an identifiable La Tène material culture military kit â yes, even the Galatians, half the Mediterranean away (they brought it with them).â
âthe modern perception of these fellows is of unarmored barbarians swinging great big swords in an undisciplined mess. That modern perception comes, in part, from our sources, which often lean on those sorts of tropes (e.g. Polyb. 2.33.3; Plut. Cam. 41.4; Polyaenus, Strat. 8.72)â
âIt is really striking, by the by, that the these tropes are much more common in the Greek literary tradition, but tend to be absent or less extreme in Latin-language sources and one wonders if familiarity is a major factor in that. Livy, after all, grew up in Cisalpine Gaulâ
âin much of the La Tène material culture sphere (and indeed, beyond it in some Celt-language speaking cultures (but not others)) the deposition of weapons (but only infrequently armor) was a common ritual activityâ
âit was the spear, not the sword, which was the mandatory weapon of the Gallic warriorâ
âThat impression is confirmed by artwork from the La Tène material culture sphere (and earlier Halstatt culture artwork too), where when we see infantry in procession they carry spears but swords may or may not be visible. Thus for instance the procession on the Gundestrup Cauldron10 all have spears and this motif of spear-carrying warriors with the distinctive large La Tène shield is not uncommon in La Tène artwork once one accounts for how rare representations of humans areâ
âThe La Tène sword was the next key weapon and these are quite common in deposits too. They occur in ritual deposits somewhat less than spears, but at similar rates in burial deposits, which suggests, to me at least, that while the sword was more expensive than the spear (it would have been, it uses a lot more metal), it was probably no less common and most warriors carried bothâ
âEarly La Tène swords, as noted, come to sharp points; the Iberian variants keep this feature which then passes to the Roman gladius Hispaniensis. But in the broader La Tène cultural sphere those sharp points give way to a more rounded (but still effective) thrusting point in the Middle La Tène (third and early second centuries, roughly) and then to blunter tips and longer cutting blades in the Late La Tène (late second and first centuries)â
âSword length increases steadily over time as well. So what we see is a design drift from early La Tène swords which seem to owe at least some of their size and shape to bronze forebears (all of these swords are in iron), but get longer as Gallic smiths get more confident with their materialsâ
âAt the same time, they shift from multi-purpose cut-and-thrust swords to swords that can thrust but are built for the cut.
That cut-emphasis is often presented as something âbarbaricâ but it makes good battlefield sense in the conditions these would be usedâ
âinside the La Tène material culture sphere, the most likely enemy was another warrior with the La Tène material culture kit. And he was probably not very well armored. A cut against an unarmored opponent is far more likely to disable them â to remove them as a threat â far quicker than a thrust, even if both produce lethal woundsâ
âSo if you think your opponent is going to be unarmored or lightly armored, going for a weapon that cuts well is a smart move. And these La Tène swords would have cut wellâ
âLa Tène swords that have been examined run the gamut from some of the lowest quality swords of antiquity all the way to some of the best of the period. The notion â peddled by Polybius and Plutarch â that Gallic swords bend on the first strike is almost certainly nonsenseâ
âThese swords worked and the Romans adopted them twice (the Roman gladius, as mentioned, is a variant of the early La Tène sword, while the Roman spatha is a variant of the late La Tène sword)â
âhere, as with a lot of La Tène material culture military kit, we see a big impact of social stratification, with a huge gap between the haves and have-nots, both of whom were on the battlefieldâ
âThe La Tène shield sits in the same family as the Roman scutum and the Greek thureos and is probably the progenitor of the other two; this is âdaddy oval shield.â It is flat-faced (unlike the curved scutum) and at c. 110cm by c. 53cm,11 making it a bit smaller than the Roman scutum and a bit bigger than the Greek thureosâ
âUnlike the scutum, which was manufactured via laminated wooden strips (âplywoodâ construction) the La Tène shield was constructed out of two wood planks, glued together, with a hide front facing, a leather strip binding the edges and a metal boss in the centerâ
âThe wooden core had a gap dead-center of mass for the hand; this was then covered by a wooden reinforcing ridge (the Romans call it a spina) that runs down the center of the shield and is nailed into place. It widens to cover the hand-gap at the center and a metal boss (a metal plate) goes over it, and is riveted through the shield to connect to a metal bar on the back side around which is built the handgrip (in wood or leather)â
âCompared to the scutum, this shield would be a bit less useful at dealing with ranged projectiles because you canât place your full body into the curve of the shield; that fact was noted by ancient sources (Polyb. 2.30.3; Livy 38.21.4)â
âit was probably a lot lighter than the scutum (perhaps 7kg instead of the scutumâs 10kg), which would have made it handier in more fluid close-combatâ
âit sure seems like almost everyone who encountered this shield decided in fairly short order to adopt it for at least some of their troopsâ
âThe ubiquitous Hellenistic thureophori âmedium infantryâ were defined by using it12 rather than the indigenous Greek aspis and pelte and the Romans adapted it whole-hog, plus it shows up in all sorts of non-state contexts in Northern/Central/Western Europe. It was a fantastically successful designâ
âthe ânaked Gaulâ was both a literary and artistic trope and it seems clear that Greek and Roman artists and writers blew an unusual cultural practice out of all proportion in constructing a Gallic âotherâ for their audiencesâ
âwe have some reliable reports of naked Gallic warriors too. Polybius reports one of the four tribes at the Battle of Telamon (225), the Gaesatae, fought naked (Polyb. 2.28.4-8). Diodorus reports a range of Gallic clothing when fighting, from nude to clothed to armored; the referent video assumes Diodorus is talking about the Gaesatae in the first case, but he makes no such specification (Diod. Sic. 5.29ff)â
âPolybius also reports at least some of the Gauls in Hannibalâs army to be naked (Polyb. 3.114.4) but Livy, in a rare instance of breaking with Polybius, instead describes them only as naked to the navel (Livy 22.46.6), so they apparently had trousers (the Gauls wore trousers)â
âthis is one of quite a few instances where Latin literary tradition sands down some of the âotheringâ of the Greek literary tradition when it comes to Gaulsâ
âCaesar never describes naked Gallic warriors but does describe naked German warriors, among the Suebi (Caes. BGall. 4.1), but in training, not battleâ
âThe ânaked Gaulâ is a super-duper common visual motif in Greek and Roman artwork, but quite rare in La Tène artwork. Of course the caveat that people in general are rare motifs in La Tène artwork is necessary. That said, itâs not an unknown motif eitherâ
âmost Gauls didnât fight nude, so what sort of armor and protection did they wear? Well, if we mean most Gauls, the answer is ânot much.â But Gallic aristocrats were some of the best armored fellows on the ancient battlefield; the gap in protection and equipment cost is staggeringâ
âLetâs start with the aristocrat. The wealthiest sort of Gaul â typically the kind that could afford a horse â was pretty well armored with a metal helmet and mail armor. La Tène helmets are, in English-language scholarship generally divided into two types, âMontefortinoâ and âCoolusâ types, the former defined by the presence of a knob at the crest of the helmet and the latter by its absence, both of which get adopted by the Romans but at different times. This typology isnât used outside of the English language scholarship very much and thatâs because it isnât very informative and in any case is far better suited to the Roman variants of these helmets than their La Tène originalsâ
âWhat is striking though is that we have fair reason to suppose not every Gallic warrior would have had a metal helmet. Notice, for instance, on the Gundestrup Cauldron; the cavalrymen have the distinctive knob-topped and decorated âMontefortinoâ helmets but the infantrymen do not, instead having a head covering that looks to be the same material as their trousers (perhaps they have wrapped their head in thickened cloth). Thiery Lejars notes, in terms of prevalence, that âthe use of the helmet remains exceptional. It is necessary to wait to the Late La Tène in order to find a significant trace of it.â16â
âIf thatâs true of helmets, it is profoundly more true of mail armorâ
âthe La Tène mail armor is easy to describe and really hard to make. Mail is effectively a metal fabric composed of joined rings; in this case (and indeed all along the European-Mediterranean-West Asian mail tradition) alternating rows of solid rings and rings closed by a rivet.19 The rings are joined in a 4-in1 pattern (each ring intersects four others). Armor rings were exclusively produced in iron (later steel, but in this period, iron). La Tène and Roman mail was constructed (that is, the rings were put together) âin the flatâ without much in the way of shaping. Think of a flat sheet joined to make a rough âtubeâ of fabric rather than a sewn and tailored garmentâ
âThe result was a âtunicâ of mail (with an opening for the head), which extended to just above the knees, generally without sleeves (but sometimes with âfalse sleeves,â which is to say a bit of mail that extended out over the shoulders to offer some upper-arm protection). In some cases, the mail was fastened in tube-and-yoke style, in other cases the shoulder elements were an entire second layer. These look really similar in artwork and it is sometimes very hard to tell them apartâ
âThis armor appears first in the archaeological record in the late fourth or early third centuries BC (dating is hard) and spreads rapidly, probably â but not certainly â from an origin point on the upper Danube somewhere. It reaches southern France by the 220s (if not earlier) and Rome probably around 225.20 Mail is the only preserved body armor associated with La Tène material culture; bronze breastplates were known in the earlier Halstatt periodâ
âMail is really effective armor,21 particularly against cutting weapons. But itâs also really expensive.22 We donât have any good price data from the ancient world, but the medieval comparanda suggests a good mail shirt might be at least as expensive as a specially bred warhorseâ
âThe thing is, good mail is made up of very small links, generally not much larger than a centimeter across and often much smaller. With rings that small, you might need something like 40,000 or so of them to make a complete shirt. Really fancy mail might use even smaller, finer rings and some mail shirts have ring-counts above 100,000. Each of those rings needs to be made individually, by hand, and then assembled, by handâ
âsuch armor was out of reach of all but the wealthiest of people in the La Tène material culture sphereâ
âMail finds are substantially rarer than helmet finds which, as noted, are substantially rarer than weapon finds. A quick page through Wijnhovenâs (op. cit.) catalog â an exhaustive list of all La Tène, Roman and early medieval mail finds, suggests we may have something like 40 finds of pre-Roman mail all told, in all regionsâ
âPleinerâs sword study looked at 1616 La Tène culture flat graves and reports 297 burials with weapons, 33 with helmets and one with mail (the famous CiumeČti burial).â
âThe point here is that Gallic equipment was much more strongly stratified, as best we can tell, than their period-equivalent competitors. Gallic infantry were shock infantry (see below) but apparently often went without mail; indeed the evidence seems to imply they often went without metal helmets. In the settled societies of the Mediterranean, skirmish infantry with bows or javelins might be this lightly armored, but heavy infantry was, well, heavyâ
âThough the Romans will cut it short, I think there is evidence that this a period of consolidating power â the halting, first steps of state formation â in the La Tène material culture zoneâ
âCaesar certainly gives the impression that by the time he is in Gaul in the 50s BC, we are seeing some truly âbig menâ emerge in these societies who can mobilize armies of clients and supporters; thatâs a pretty normal stage in state formationâ
âEventually one of those big men would consolidate power and become king (something Caesar says other Gallic elites are actively worried about, e.g. Caes. BGall. 1.3-4, 7.4) leading to the formation of a stateâ
âlet me suggest that what we are seeing is not the egalitarian opening of the âwarrior classâ but rather that Gallic elites are becoming strong enough to conscript their peasants en masse into tribal leviesâ
âNow that isnât to say that anywhere in the La Tène material culture zone was as stratified as Rome or the Hellenistic kingdoms. They werenât, if for no other reason than no one in the La Tène material culture zone was anywhere near remotely as rich as Hellenistic kings or the sort of Romans who served in the Senate. Rather what we seem to be missing is the sort of broad afluent class â the assidui at Rome or the zeugitai in Athens â who could afford armor and heavier military equipment, but not horsesâ
âIn so far as we can tell, a fighting system emerged around one-handed thrusting spears and large, center-grip shields focused on shock engagements in the fifth century at the latest and was still mostly structured like that in the first centuryâ
âIn the same time, the Romans ditched nearly all of their indigenous Italic equipment and adopted wholesale the Greek (or perhaps Gallic!) cavalry model (Polyb. 6.25.3), a Spanish sword, a Gallic helmet, Gallic body-armor, a Gallic or Italo-Gallic shield, introduced an new kind of light infantry (the velites), created a legion based on maniples before moving to a legion based on cohorts and also formed and perfected a system for the mass recruitment of citizen soldiers before abandoning that system in favor of a system of semi-professionals serving for pay before transmuting that system right at the end of the period into a system of long-service professionals serving as a career. They also adopted complex oared warships and learned to fight with catapultsâ
âGallic warfare may not have been especially static or dynamic but it was not stupid. La Tène weaponry worked and the military system it was attached to worked which is why we see such eagerness to adopt elements of it outside of the La Tène material culture sphereâ
âIn favorable circumstances, Gallic armies â that is, armies with La Tène material culture stuff (remember how weâre defining âGaulâ here) â could and did overwhelm and defeat Roman, Greek and Macedonian armiesâ
âOur sources are actually pretty clear on how Gauls fought. Thereâs a repeated motif of aristocratic display â challenges to one-on-one duels, that kind of thing â which may seem silly but has valuable morale and social cohesion value in these sorts of society (see below on recruitment). But the main action was generally an infanty shock actionâ
âGallic infantry fought in relatively close ranks â Caesar describes the Helvetii formation as a confertissima acies, âa most dense battleline,â before it âmade a phalanxâ (phalange facta, Caes. BGall 1.24, note also Livy 10.29.6-7, 34.46.9-10; 35.5.7, etc.)â
âSo itâs pretty safe to say the main Gallic body of infantry typically fought in close order, though we shouldnât overstate the level of discipline this implies: Greek hoplites also fought in close order and were, in the classical period, almost entirely untutored amateursâ
âA repeated motif is that Gallic armies tended to either win in the first rush or quickly come apart (e.g. Livy 10.29.8-11, but this recurs in a ton of places). That is presented, particularly by Greek authors, as a âbarbariansâ lack of courage but to be frank given how little armor these guys had, it meaks a lot of sense. That first onset of a dense-packed, well-shielded battleline often would just win the battle, but if it didnât and the issue came down to attritional close combat, the guys wearing very little armor were going to be in a bad way. Moreover, âwin at the first onset or fall apartâ is also probably a pretty good description of how hoplite battles might work, though of course no Greek would descibe them that wayâ
âwe can imagine a society whose military activities are organized around a handful of economic, social and military elites who raise military force not through formal institutions but through networks of clientage or even potentially something like vassalage (but please note weâre using that term by analogy; carelessly assuming the Gauls looked like medieval Frenchmen was a common mistake in 19th century scholarship)â
âTo me the most likely organization is one made up of irregular units, organized around individual aristocrats based on personal connections, both vertical (lower-class clients follow their upper-class aristocratic patron) and horizontal (clan, family and friendship ties bond aristocrats and their retinues together) forming a relatively cohesive âtribalâ armyâ
âIt is a system of military organization that shows up a lot when looking at non-state societies which lack formal institutions for conscription or mobilization and what we are told is consistent with that. But we need to be really clear just how dark this room is and how little we knowâ
âSo in conclusion on the one hand I applaud the effort to save the Gauls (and more broadly ancient Celtic-Language speakers) from the âmad barbariansâ tropes, but we must be careful in how we do itâ
âWhat we should not do is reach for every scrap of âevidenceâ no matter how weak or flimsy and pretend that we have built a secure structure out of the evidentiary twigsâ
âLearning new things about Europeâs iron-age Celtic-Language speakers is possible; ever knowing a lot about them â the way we can know things about Greece or Rome or Persia or even late Bronze Age Egypt and Mesopotamia â knowing that kind of âa lotâ is almost certainly forever out of reachâ
Navigation
Backlinks
There are no backlinks to this post.