The Celtic Warrior
'The whole race…is madly fond of war, high spirited and quick to battle, but otherwise straightforward and not of evil character. And so when they are stirred up they assemble in their bands for battle, quite openly and without forethought, so that those who desire to outwit them easily handle them.'
– Strabo provides this classis image.
Sources of information
The Graeco-Roman world had many opportunities to observe Celtic armies in action. Their viewpoint was usually, though not invariably, that of opponents, and those recorded the confrontation did so to communicate more than just ethnographic observations and the facts of history.
Many classical historians wrote of these people, including Pausanius, who wrote of the Celtic attack on Greece in the third century BC. Other authors included Timaeus, Menodotus of Perinthus and Agathsrchides of Cnidus.
One of the key figures in the Roman historical tradition was Polybius who presented the Celts as a formative influence that developed Roman military power. 'While the Romans are steadfast, levelheaded, well led and achieve victory by dogged determination, the Celts are volatile and unpredictable and, though fierce in the initial onslaught, can easily lose heart and panic.'
The narrative history of Polybius was continued by Poseidonius for the period 145-82 BC. He travelled widely in the Alps, Gaul, Spain and possibly even Britain, observing for himself different Celtic societies in different states of development. His description of the Celts has survived only in the works of other writers, notably Strabo, Diodorus Siculus, Athenaeus and Caesar.
Julius Caesar probably used Poseidonius as a source, but he also had the unique opportunity of observing a variety of Celtic tribes from close hand during his eight years of campaigning, however his war commentaries are, by their very nature biased sources.
The Warrior and his equipment
The weapons carried by the warrior were a sword, usually fastened on the right side, and a spear. Some used bows and arrows, slings or throwing clubs. The normal means of protection was the shield, but sometimes helmets were worn and less often tunics of ring mail. All these pieces of equipment are reflected in archaeological record and in surviving iconography., though it is sometimes possible to detect regional variations. Iron swords in sheaths of iron, bronze, wood or leather were the symbol of the warrior and as such were often personalised by elaborate decoration applied to the sheath or by stamps beaten into the blade.
Throwing and thrusting spears were equally important, and a considerable variety of spearheads have been found, the different weights and shapes suiting them to different purposes.
Bows and arrows are not often mentioned and are rare in archaeological records. This reflects that archery never achieved much favour in the Celtic world. The sling is also only mentioned in passing and does not feature in any set-piece battle. However, it is believed that they were used as a defensive weapon at hill forts. They were also used in attacks upon hill forts as specifically mentioned by Caesar in describing Gaulish warfare, in which the missile volley was employed to drive defenders from the ramparts.
The principal form of personal protection used by the warrior in battle was the shield, described by Diodorus as man sized and decorated in individual fashion, some with projecting bronze animals of fine workmanship. The most effective form of shield was made of leather or wood or a combination of the two. Bronze helmets were a feature of warrior equipment. Diodorus mentions that some posses ‘long projecting figures, lending the appearance of enormous stature to the wearer. In some cases horns form one piece with the helmet, while in other cases it is relief figures or the forepart of birds or quadrupeds.
One of the features of Celtic warfare which impressed itself upon the classical mind was the fact that some warriors fought naked except for the sword belt and a gold neck torc. In his description of the battle of Telamon in 225 BC – Polybius distinguishes a particular detachment – the Gaesatae – that fought in this way. The vision of the naked Celt is a recurring theme in Graeco-Roman art.
The Celtic war chariot impressed a number of observers. Diodorus describes how ‘for journeys and battle they use two-horse chariots, the chariots carrying both charioteer and chieftain. When they meet with cavalry in battle they cast their javelins at the enemy and then descending from the chariot join battle with their swords. The absence of any reference to chariot warfare in Gaul during Caesars campaigns suggests that as a means of fighting it was no longer of significance. However, in Britain the chariot was much in evidence. In Britain Caesars chief opponent was cassivellaunus , who was able to muster 4,000 chariots, which, if used together, must have been a formidable sight.
The Battle
As Celtic forces faced the armies of the Mediterranean states, fighting tactics must have changed. The general onslaught became the norm and the fierceness and power of the Celtic charge became legendary.
One of the recurring themes in the classical sources is the noise of the Celts in battle. The Celts who faced Manlius preceded the combat with a war dance and battle chant, which almost certainly had a magico-religious significance. Similarly the war trumpets – carnyxes – used in the opening stages of conflict were probably employed as much for ritual reasons as to strike fear into the enemy.
The strength of the Celtic attack lay in the ferocity of the first onslaught. It was a power generated by many things, a belief in an afterlife, a desire to gain glory, the battle hysteria created by the building crescendo of noise and chanting, often enhanced still further by alcohol.
But the fury, by its very nature, lacked control: it was impetuous but without any forethought or planning. Thus, when the onslaught was held and turned, there was no strategy in reserve to cope, and desperation set in. The misery of the Celts in defeat was recorded on a number of occasions.
The unpredictability and unreliability of the Celts who could at one moment be fierce and bombastic and at another flee in a deranged panic were part of the stereotype which classical writers chose to perpetuate, but that there were many occasions of steadfast heroism is not in doubt.
Celtic warfare evolved in different places at different times. Boudica and Calgacus were using methods and equipment abandoned in the more central areas of the Celtic world several centuries earlier. Similarly, the Nervii who so bravely opposed Caesar would have developed their fighting methods against neighbours and the Germans, in contrast to the Volcae Tectosages of southern Gaul, who ancestors were conversant with the hoplite army of the Greeks.
Although Celtic warriors equipment remained remarkably similar across areas subtle changes can be detected. By the third century BC the stand panoply became increasing heavy. The Celts at this stage was a heavily armed infantryman. The shield had developed a more elaborate and efficient umbro, and the chain by which the sword was slung from the belt had become a heavy complex structure brilliantly designed to keep the sword in place.
During the third century cavalry began to play a significant part in Graeco-roman warfare, and the Celts familiarity with the horse, which was long established, made them a sought-after addition as specialised mercenaries. Hannibal was to make good use of heavy armed Celtic cavalry during the Second Punic war. The growing importance of cavalry is reflected in a marked increase in the length of the sword.
The battle of Telamon in 225BC in many ways marks a turning point. It is the last battle on the continent of Europe in which chariots appear and one in which Celtic cavalry, separately deployed, was to play a significant part. Thereafter, as cavalry became increasingly important, it is likely that the chariot began to decline.
During Caesars campaigns in Gaul, detachments of Gallic cavalry were widely used on both sides, and after Romanization Gaul provided some of the most effective cavalry auxiliary in the roman army.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks