In another thread it was posted
'
I have always loved the Celts but their complexity is usually matched by the stereotyping many rules give them. Is this right or wrong or can they have the best, or worst, of both worlds? In my hands they are loved yet doomed.....
'
To protect the guilty I won't mention that it was Steve Neate's post. Are Celts sterotyped by rules writers? Should we treat the La Tene cultures the roughly the same as the Galatians in Asia Minor hundreds of years later? Would you be able to recreate the Battle of the Allia (in any of the versions in the ancient sources or the modern interpretations) using wargames rules? Or is it just that some people don't know how to get the best out of them...?
Which leads to the question: exactly how good were they? They made mincemeat of the Etruscans and initially the Romans, and they fought their way right into the middle of Anatolia, hellenistic armies notwithstanding. But then Caesar beats them with relative ease. Could it be that the earlier Gauls were a good deal more deadly than the later ones? Or did it have something to do with the equipment, training and fighting technique of Marian legionaries?
Caesar does something of a Cortez on the Gauls, beating themin part due to their disunity and the use of local allies. He also talks about the state of Gaulish society in terms which are sometimes thought to indicate a change from earlier times:
Quote from: Caesar BG VI 13-15Throughout Gaul there are two classes of persons of definite account and dignity. As for the common folk, they are treated almost as slaves, venturing naught of themselves, never taken into counsel. The more part of them, oppressed as they are either by debt, or by the heavy weight of tribute, or by the wrongdoing of the more powerful men, commit themselves in slavery to the nobles, who have, in fact, the same rights over them as masters over slaves. Of the two classes above mentioned one consists of Druids, the other of knights (equites).
...
The other class are the knights. These, when there is occasion, upon the incidence of a war — and before Caesar's coming this would happen well-nigh every year, in the sense that they would either be making wanton attacks themselves or repelling such — are all engaged therein; and according to the importance of each of them in birth and resources, so is the number of liegemen and dependents (ambactos clientesque) that he has about him. This is the one form of influence and power known to them.
Loeb note to "ambactos": This is probably a Celtic word. The service of the ambacti (cf. VII.40) seems to have been similar to that of the soldurii among the Aquitani (III.22); both stand in a somewhat higher relation to their lords than the clientes.
This doesn't sound like a setup that is going to produce a large force of enthusiastic "warband" infantry.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 27, 2020, 11:39:49 AM
Which leads to the question: exactly how good were they? They made mincemeat of the Etruscans and initially the Romans, and they fought their way right into the middle of Anatolia, hellenistic armies notwithstanding. But then Caesar beats them with relative ease. Could it be that the earlier Gauls were a good deal more deadly than the later ones? Or did it have something to do with the equipment, training and fighting technique of Marian legionaries?
Far more to do with their inability to coordinate into large forces under a single command in my view. When Roman organisation reached the point they could reliably put enormous multi-legion armies in the field, and come back after losing battles, the Celts were doomed. Caesar beat them with relative ease in my view, because he outnumbered them, there was no such thing as a unified resistance to him, Celtic tribes allied with Rome against their Celtic rivals, and his logistics were better. I don't think there is any need to find a further reason.
Quote from: DougM on May 27, 2020, 12:20:23 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 27, 2020, 11:39:49 AM
Which leads to the question: exactly how good were they? They made mincemeat of the Etruscans and initially the Romans, and they fought their way right into the middle of Anatolia, hellenistic armies notwithstanding. But then Caesar beats them with relative ease. Could it be that the earlier Gauls were a good deal more deadly than the later ones? Or did it have something to do with the equipment, training and fighting technique of Marian legionaries?
Far more to do with their inability to coordinate into large forces under a single command in my view. When Roman organisation reached the point they could reliably put enormous multi-legion armies in the field, and come back after losing battles, the Celts were doomed. Caesar beat them with relative ease in my view, because he outnumbered them, there was no such thing as a unified resistance to him, Celtic tribes allied with Rome against their Celtic rivals, and his logistics were better. I don't think there is any need to find a further reason.
Whilst not disagreeing with your points Doug, we accept considerable changes in the Roman army (And society) between Allia and Caesar. There is no reason that Gallic society and warfare had stayed unchanged over the same period
The problem with the descriptions of Gallic warfare is we have a strong literary topos (topoi, I can never remember plural/singular in a language I never learned :-[ ) and writers keep referring back to it.
After all it's a bit embarrassing to finally lay the ghosts of Allia and have to confess that the modern Gauls weren't a patch on the men their great great etc grandfathers were
One question I would have is , if we follow Caesar's ideas of a warrior class and followers supported by serfs/slaves, how do we explain the large armies of Celts in our classical sources (including Caesar)? Are the large numbers not fighting men but some kind of peasant horde?
There may be no reason not to suppose changes in Gallic society but Roman politics was in constant ferment in the mid to late Republic, which created dynamic societal change. Do we have any evidence that Gallic society was anything other than conservative and fairly static till the Romans upset the apple cart.
Quote from: Erpingham on May 27, 2020, 12:56:37 PM
One question I would have is , if we follow Caesar's ideas of a warrior class and followers supported by serfs/slaves, how do we explain the large armies of Celts in our classical sources (including Caesar)? Are the large numbers not fighting men but some kind of peasant horde?
There was an article in Slingshot on that.
plus....just to chuck in the curve ball.....are all Gauls equal? I mean its a vast area and multi-tribal. I cant for one moment believe they were all armed, trained etc to the same standard
I expect that there is a difference between settled Northern Barbarians and migrating forces. Although the ties of dependence for a migrating society will be much the same the need for mobilisation is much greater. Thus, if you are the Cimbri and Teutones marching from Southern Denmark to Gaul and Spain the majority of adult males are lijely to be available to fight. If you are the Aedui sitting in Central Gaul in 60BC then there is less need to call out the whole hst. Lets assume that all free men have arms and can be called up to defend the oppidum, its less lijely that the whole mass marches off to dona little cattle raiding and then back for boasting and feasting. We shoukd expect warfare in settled tribes to become more of a professional thing. One wonders if the Gauls had a system lije the Anglo Saxon select levy which restricted the numbers required but demanded better equipment.
Doug makes good points, it takes the forces of several tribes, allied, to take on Caesar, one is not enough, whereas the Romans have mastered mass recruitment and training. Probably it was a matter that one could raise a lot of Gauls , but not of high quality.
Roy
Quote from: aligern on May 27, 2020, 01:56:34 PM
I expect that there is a difference between settled Northern Barbarians and migrating forces. Although the ties of dependence for a migrating society will be much the same the need for mobilisation is much greater. Thus, if you are the Cimbri and Teutones marching from Southern Denmark to Gaul and Spain the majority of adult males are lijely to be available to fight. If you are the Aedui sitting in Central Gaul in 60BC then there is less need to call out the whole hst. Lets assume that all free men have arms and can be called up to defend the oppidum, its less lijely that the whole mass marches off to dona little cattle raiding and then back for boasting and feasting. We shoukd expect warfare in settled tribes to become more of a professional thing. One wonders if the Gauls had a system lije the Anglo Saxon select levy which restricted the numbers required but demanded better equipment.
Doug makes good points, it takes the forces of several tribes, allied, to take on Caesar, one is not enough, whereas the Romans have mastered mass recruitment and training. Probably it was a matter that one could raise a lot of Gauls , but not of high quality.
Roy
exactly my point and in fact the Teutones and Cimbri are to a lesser or greater extent 'gallicised' Germanic tribes
Quote from: DougM on May 27, 2020, 01:20:43 PM
There may be no reason not to suppose changes in Gallic society but Roman politics was in constant ferment in the mid to late Republic, which created dynamic societal change. Do we have any evidence that Gallic society was anything other than conservative and fairly static till the Romans upset the apple cart.
The shift from rule by kings in the earlier accounts, to rule by squabbling aristocrats in the 1st century BC (Caesar is always going on about "the leading men" of such-and-such a state, and their rivalries; Strabo say sthat the pre-Roman governments were mostly aristocratic).
Incipient urbanism, fuelled presumably by Meditarranean trade (https://www.academia.edu/36845658/Chapter_1_Pre-Roman_Gaul).
There are certainly changes going on, but their military impact (let alone how it can be modelled on the table) is less clear.
Quote from: Duncan Head on May 27, 2020, 02:12:12 PM
Quote from: DougM on May 27, 2020, 01:20:43 PM
There may be no reason not to suppose changes in Gallic society but Roman politics was in constant ferment in the mid to late Republic, which created dynamic societal change. Do we have any evidence that Gallic society was anything other than conservative and fairly static till the Romans upset the apple cart.
The shift from rule by kings in the earlier accounts, to rule by squabbling aristocrats in the 1st century BC (Caesar is always going on about "the leading men" of such-and-such a state, and their rivalries; Strabo say sthat the pre-Roman governments were mostly aristocratic).
Incipient urbanism, fuelled presumably by Meditarranean trade (https://www.academia.edu/36845658/Chapter_1_Pre-Roman_Gaul).
There are certainly changes going on, but their military impact (let alone how it can be modelled on the table) is less clear.
could go either way.....a rise in urbanism and confederacy between tribes could have raised the general level of training and tactics to something near a standard OR could have fuelled even greater stratification of the population and thus the military
Quote from: Holly on May 27, 2020, 02:21:44 PM
could go either way.....a rise in urbanism and confederacy between tribes could have raised the general level of training and tactics to something near a standard OR could have fuelled even greater stratification of the population and thus the military
We perhaps ought to be cautious with the word "training". If we take examples from British and Irish contexts (with caution), our socio-professional warrior group practiced fighting skills (and showing off). To what extent would the artisans in the urban centres or the peasants in the field have done this? To what extent would oppidum dwellers have had arms? Enough perhaps to defend the place but not conduct expeditionary warfare?
A matter of individual tribes, perhaps, but the Nervii or was it the Atuatuci were able to surrender enough arms to convince Caesar that they had dis arned and then next day tobrearm themselves from hidden stovis.
Roy
It's very simple for the Celts - they rolled dice like I did and were soundly thrashed. Using WRG 6th, it took me nearly 20 games before I beat that slippery Ptolemy Keranos and I only because I used Imitation Legionaries. The Galatian Irregular A "fanatics" were always caught at the halt by impetuous Macedonian Regular C pikemen and wiped out on contact. Bizarre system! What I find galling (or Gauling) is that if the Celts didn't win on first contact they got crushed. That literary topos of no staying power always brought even winning Celts undone. For the Gauls against Caesar it was the same as in politics, "disunity is death". But earlier they were on a roll so was this a measure of their opponents lack of organisation, fewer numbers, Etruscan disunity or shock at Celtic heavy-drinking and nudity?
But my Galatians are still much loved!
Where JC describes specific details of Gallic society we can usually find something very similar in the Irish Law texts. Scholars remark on it now and then but only in passing. It would be worth investigating properly and maybe someone has already done so. I'd suggest the basic societal building blocks were the same with variants and developments depending on local circumstances. From JC's commentary clientship was at the heart of it as it was subsequently. Just like Rome really.
All Celtic societies were aristocratic but the aristocracy was quite broad. None of the Celtic societies in our period seem to have had any difficulty in turning out large sections of the less prestigious population to fight. Nor were they bad at it. I'd take the view that for a free tribesman fighting and the ability to fight was an obligation and a right.
Quote from: stevenneate on May 27, 2020, 03:05:18 PM
It's very simple for the Celts - they rolled dice like I did and were soundly thrashed. Using WRG 6th, it took me nearly 20 games before I beat that slippery Ptolemy Keranos and I only because I used Imitation Legionaries. The Galatian Irregular A "fanatics" were always caught at the halt by impetuous Macedonian Regular C pikemen and wiped out on contact. Bizarre system! What I find galling (or Gauling) is that if the Celts didn't win on first contact they got crushed. That literary topos of no staying power always brought even winning Celts undone. For the Gauls against Caesar it was the same as in politics, "disunity is death". But earlier they were on a roll so was this a measure of their opponents lack of organisation, fewer numbers, Etruscan disunity or shock at Celtic heavy-drinking and nudity?
But my Galatians are still much loved!
big deep pikeblocks...the bane of all Irreg A!
QuoteAll Celtic societies were aristocratic but the aristocracy was quite broad. None of the Celtic societies in our period seem to have had any difficulty in turning out large sections of the less prestigious population to fight. Nor were they bad at it. I'd take the view that for a free tribesman fighting and the ability to fight was an obligation and a right.
But just reading Caesar as quoted by Duncan immediately creates complexity. Are all tribesmen free? - Caesar says most are like slaves The fighting is done by the aristocrats and their clients (who are presumably the lesser free tribesmen). So, forgive me for jumping periods, the set up is a bit let bastard feudalism. Aristocrats with a power base of clients and then some tenantry that can be stirred up from their fields to make up the numbers. I'm reminded of the "D" class infantry rant in Slingshot - to get a large Gaulish force, are the rear ranks filled with peasantry of doubtful fighting skills who are not sure whether this is the place for them?
Most Roman plebs were also probably "like slaves" from JC's perspective they still provided the bulk of the Roman army.
I cannot think of any evidence for anything but a society in Gaul based on free tribesmen who fought in the tribal array. We don't find references to huge estates worked by slaves or serfs.
There is nothing to suggest the bulk of the farming folk were tenants at that point. I'd have thought they were mainly on their own land. The Gallic rich were getting richer but at the same time Rome lowered so it was not the time for the self preservation via demilitarisation of the lower orders.
When the fighting really starts there seems no shortage of Gallic infantry and no problem with their motivation either according to their opponents.
Just like Rome the top aristocrats made the decisions. They have clients. Those clients also have clients all the way down the line to the individual tribesman. That would be my take on it. From JC's perspective the individual tribesman does as he is obliged as does a Roman pleb, "like slaves" and unlike aristocrats. I wouldn't read more than that into it.
Quote from: Erpingham on May 27, 2020, 04:38:23 PM
QuoteAll Celtic societies were aristocratic but the aristocracy was quite broad. None of the Celtic societies in our period seem to have had any difficulty in turning out large sections of the less prestigious population to fight. Nor were they bad at it. I'd take the view that for a free tribesman fighting and the ability to fight was an obligation and a right.
But just reading Caesar as quoted by Duncan immediately creates complexity. Are all tribesmen free? - Caesar says most are like slaves The fighting is done by the aristocrats and their clients (who are presumably the lesser free tribesmen). So, forgive me for jumping periods, the set up is a bit let bastard feudalism. Aristocrats with a power base of clients and then some tenantry that can be stirred up from their fields to make up the numbers. I'm reminded of the "D" class infantry rant in Slingshot - to get a large Gaulish force, are the rear ranks filled with peasantry of doubtful fighting skills who are not sure whether this is the place for them?
At this point I was reminded of
77. SCOTS ISLES AND HIGHLANDS 1050 AD - 1493 AD
Best of the Islesmen - Irr Bd (O) @ 5AP 32-56
"Worser sort" of Islesmen - Irr Bd (I) @ 4AP 0-28
Highland ally-general - Irr Bd (O) @ 10AP or Irr Bd (F) @ 10AP *1-2
Highland warriors - Irr Bw (O) @ 4AP *4-12
Highland scouts - Irr Ps (O) @ 2AP *1-4
Highland rabble - Irr Hd (F) @ 1AP 0-12
Then there is
16. SCOTS COMMON ARMY 1124 AD - 1513 AD
Highland warriors - Irr Bw (O) @ 4AP 4-12
Highland scouts - Irr Ps (O) @ 2AP 0-2
Highland rabble - Irr Hd (F) @ 1AP 0, or 1 per Highland Bw
It does strike me that this is one 'window' onto the issue
Is it too much of a stretch to use the pan-celtic umbrella on this one? :P
Quote from: Holly on May 27, 2020, 07:52:09 PM
Is it too much of a stretch to use the pan-celtic umbrella on this one? :P
Is that a type of PAS standard (for those of you fluent in WRG 6th)...?
Quote from: Tim on May 27, 2020, 08:15:32 PM
Quote from: Holly on May 27, 2020, 07:52:09 PM
Is it too much of a stretch to use the pan-celtic umbrella on this one? :P
Is that a type of PAS standard (for those of you fluent in WRG 6th)...?
absolutely replete with severed heads and innards :)
Quote from: Anton on May 27, 2020, 06:09:01 PM
Most Roman plebs were also probably "like slaves" from JC's perspective they still provided the bulk of the Roman army.
I cannot think of any evidence for anything but a society in Gaul based on free tribesmen who fought in the tribal array. We don't find references to huge estates worked by slaves or serfs.
<snip>
Roman society very clearly distinguished between "free" and "slave" status. This didn't mean a free Roman citizen was necessarily better off than a slave. Caesar might own and use gladiators but they would never be part of a Roman legion. Both Gallic and German societies had slaves, but certainly not in the vast estates that the Romans had.
I think it is a mistake to think of all Gallic (or indeed German) tribes as identical. Some had elected officials rather than monarchies.
I agree with the basic premise, that rule sets on the whole treat Gauls badly. The idea of the wild charge seems to me to be just plain wrong, reinforced by movies. On occasions, Gallic armies seem to have been able to perform quite disciplined manoeuvres and I can find more examples where "regular" troops perform an uncontrolled advance than "barbarian" examples.
It is also important to remember a lot of Roman military technology and experience was obtained from the Gauls. They fought them for over 350 years before Gaul became part of the Roman empire.
Richard
Were the Gauls like migration period Germans? They had Lords , Free men, Half Free and Slaves. The Free Men and Lords form the Optinates. They really are the tribe . There are lots of Half Free and relatively few slaves . The Half Free are tied to the free who, as Stephen says are tied to their social betters by the need to belong in a society where, unless you have local patronage you will get bullied, in particular, pushed off your land. If we compare this with the Scots clans, then a clansman has a relationship with his clan elders and chief that is outside the straight legal status if is he free or not.
As we have discussed before freedom can involve many things, can you sell or give land away, can you marry whom you choose, can you refuse to turn out for war? Are you 'forced' to plant certain crops at certain times ? Can you leave your land and go take up a trade in a town without permission to leave and permission to set up in a new place? In a world of many restrictions freedoms can be very circumscribed.
Celtic tribes appear to have been organised into cantons. How was that structured and commanded? How did it muster for war. Were the senates of the Gallic tribes representatives if cantons. Its particularly interesting as to how a supposedly huge tribe like the Helvetii takes its decision to move. There is definitely persuasion involved, but the strong impression is given that if the top players agree then the move is on. Orgetorix, who is the main mover of migration plots to become king. This is discovered and he faces trial and a death sentence. To combat this he assembles all his slaves and freedmen, allegedly 10,000 people, plus all his clients and persons indebted to him. Allowing for Caesar's bias, Orgetorix was a very powerful man, based Caesar's figures Orgetorix controlled something like one in ten of the Helvetii, a powerful aristocrat.
Caesar reckoned that the military potential of a tribe was one quarter of the population which would argue for extensive participation in warfare, but then the Helvetii lived close to the Germans and fought them frequently, a frontier lifestyle that likely involved most of the able bodied in defence. The population structure was skewed to youth, there cannot have been many over 59s, too old to fight , so perhaps Caesar has slaves and the unfit in his non combat figure? Rather than have liw grade Celts as units I wonder if they shoukd. not perhaps have front ranks that are as good as legionaries , but back ranks that are much poorer fighters. Rules that give a bonus in the impact phase replicate this by giving a plus on first contact.
Roy
I think it is worth keeping in mind that JC's primary purpose in writing was political.
He tells us much to ponder on but it's written with an aim in mind and with a Roman perspective. The divide between monarchies and elected officials has always intrigued me. In later Celtic societies we find the king is always elected by an aristocratic electorate and ratified at a tribal assembly of free men. Sometimes the position was contested and no agreed king was in place until an outstanding contender came forth. It's possible that this is what JC is describing in Gaul or maybe some tribes functioned as an aristocratic republic where the power balance was carefully maintained.
The other thing that comes to mind is that for JC and his peer group monarchy was a loaded term. When he wrote of kings what came to the minds of his original readers? Despotism and tyranny and the denial of aristocratic rights seem likely to me.
I haven't read JC for decades because of this thread I'd like to do so again. If anyone can recommend a good edition of his commentaries I'd be grateful.
By coincidence Roy I also had a thought about the Scottish Clans. Very late in the day and in desperate straights we find Rob Roy and the other gentlemen of his clan covertly meeting to elect a Chief. Mainly landless and hunted they performed their legal duty. The Scots clans are pretty much at the end of free Celtic societies and it's something I've been paying attention to recently. They seem to be operating under Brehon Law but so far I've not found late evidence of Brehons. Justice seems to have been in the hands of the clan chiefs. All the relationships so far as I can see are legal and transactional ones. Blood might get you a better deal but that's it.
There isn't a half free status in Celtic societies that I can discern. You were either free or not. Clientship was transactional and regulated in return for services and support you got protection and goods. You seem to have been able to change patrons sometimes under penalty sometimes not depending. Mobility seems to have been within the tribe unless you were elite. Rights were tribal rights.
We should be cautious here about pan-Celtism, a rather romantic late notion about "golden thread" from the Celts of antiquity to the 18th century and beyond. There is no direct link between 17th century Scots clans and 1st century BC Gauls and Scottish clans had been interacting with other cultures (Vikings, Anglo-French) for centuries.
I am happy enough to bury Caesar and say there was no great serf class. But does the existence of free peasantry giving their freely transferable allegiance to an aristocracy really mean an homogenous crowd of highly motivated, skilled warriors? Or are we again looking at similar societies in the Early Middle Ages, with a war fighting upper class and a mass hosting of rather basicly armed farmers? Perhaps we might look at the evidence of the medieval Welsh, with their teulu/llu split, for a model?
I agree there is no golden thread or one size fits all. That said when things appear to be similar we should acknowledge it and note it. Then we can think about what it implies. The best way to do this I think is to focus on one period at a time.
I had not thought to bury Caesar but only to contextualise him.
Looking at the Welsh evidence would be very interesting I think.
There is an interesting 2011 paper by Francois Malrain & Gertrude Blancquaert on Functioning and Hierarchy of Farms in the Gallic Society from the 3rd Century BC to the Roman period (published on researchgate.net). It is an analysis of 300 farms (which Caesar describes as aedificium) excavated for rescue archaeology. The farms show clearly defined divisions between social classes. Interestingly, weapon finds are rare (3% of all finds) and tend to be on high status sites. Between 3rd century BC and the Roman period, extensive de-forestation occurred and many more farms appear on hilltops. The appearance of the scythe in the 2nd century BC is accompanied by an increase in the number of cattle. The introduction of the rotary quern for grinding grain improved productivity and a growth in salt production supported better preservation of food. This corresponds to the growth of Gallic oppida at the end of the 2nd century BC.
So in Gaul we see population growth during this period. If the trend followed other patterns (such as in Germany in the 2nd - 4th centuries AD) then wealth would start to be concentrated in the aristocracy. This may start to explain the difference between the Gallic armies that invaded Italy which may have had larger numbers of warriors and were more aggressive from the Gallic armies of Caesar's time which may have relied more on the aristocracies and their followers.
A problem with Caesar's account is that he was writing for a Roman audience so inevitably described Gallic society in terms the Romans would understand. Caesar describes the kin-group as a pagus, but it is not clear if this represents a single family-group or and coalition of extended families dominated by an aristocrat. He uses the term civitas for an group of pagi, what we typically refer to as a tribe. He uses the Gallic term vergobret to describe magistrates. This suggests some tribes were moving from kin-based leadership to formal institutions of state. Some tribes had what Caesar describes as a senate. These institutions would still have been dominated by the aristocracy.
Other tribes retained a monarchy, the Gallic word touta referred to people ruled by a king. A ruler would have had a retinue and Caesar uses the Gallic term ambactus, which was adopted into Latin and is the source for our word ambassador. These were probably grew larger between the 3rd and 1st century BC.
The retinue of Gallic leaders were sometimes known as soldurii (the origin of our word soldier). The largest group desribed by Caesar was 600 soldurii led by Adcantuannus, the ruler of the Aquitanni. Soldurii is actually a proto-Basque word, not Gallic. Gallic leaders could also employ mercenaries.
Caesar also mentions a Gaulish council made up of members of the senates of several tribes. This seems to have mediated disputes between different tribes.
Richard
Excellent overview Richard. Thanks.
So, bottom line. There seem to be three types of Celtic foot: soldurii, straight warband and we can include Gaesati. How do each of these rate against -
Citizen hoplites
Elite trained hoplites like Spartans
Early Spanish
Etruscan
Italic tribes like the Volsci
Livian Roman
Polybian Roman
Macedonian
Seleucid
Quotestraight warband
But what does this mean? Warband is a bit of a wargamer fantasy at best but if we take its most obvious meaning of topos-Celts, fierce charging, long sword wielding, start-off-well-but-fade, are these the mass of tribesmen or the soldurii class and their mercenary equivalents? Or do the soldurii class fight mainly as cavalry?
Quote from: Erpingham on May 28, 2020, 04:49:15 PM
Quotestraight warband
But what does this mean? Warband is a bit of a wargamer fantasy at best but if we take its most obvious meaning of topos-Celts, fierce charging, long sword wielding, start-off-well-but-fade, are these the mass of tribesmen or the soldurii class and their mercenary equivalents? Or do the soldurii class fight mainly as cavalry?
We can define them as tribal warriors, called out for a seasonal campaign and not part of any notable's retinue or mercenaries for hire.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 28, 2020, 05:24:43 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on May 28, 2020, 04:49:15 PM
Quotestraight warband
But what does this mean? Warband is a bit of a wargamer fantasy at best but if we take its most obvious meaning of topos-Celts, fierce charging, long sword wielding, start-off-well-but-fade, are these the mass of tribesmen or the soldurii class and their mercenary equivalents? Or do the soldurii class fight mainly as cavalry?
We can define them as tribal warriors, called out for a seasonal campaign and not part of any notable's retinue or mercenaries for hire.
A bit like early 3rd century BC Roman Legionaries then ;)
Quote from: Jim Webster on May 28, 2020, 07:03:00 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 28, 2020, 05:24:43 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on May 28, 2020, 04:49:15 PM
Quotestraight warband
But what does this mean? Warband is a bit of a wargamer fantasy at best but if we take its most obvious meaning of topos-Celts, fierce charging, long sword wielding, start-off-well-but-fade, are these the mass of tribesmen or the soldurii class and their mercenary equivalents? Or do the soldurii class fight mainly as cavalry?
We can define them as tribal warriors, called out for a seasonal campaign and not part of any notable's retinue or mercenaries for hire.
A bit like early 3rd century BC Roman Legionaries then ;)
I actually had something like this in mind...
(https://i.imgur.com/tZvvltI.jpg)
Quote from: Anton on May 28, 2020, 12:37:24 PM
I had not thought to bury Caesar but only to contextualise him.
very good.... :)
Et tu Dave? Thank God someone got it.
Quote from: Anton on May 29, 2020, 11:30:52 AM
Et tu Dave? Thank God someone got it.
I'm sure many lent an appreciative ear .
Quote from: Erpingham on May 29, 2020, 11:36:09 AM
Quote from: Anton on May 29, 2020, 11:30:52 AM
Et tu Dave? Thank God someone got it.
I couldn't possibly comment. After all we are all honourable men.
I'm sure many lent an appreciative ear .
Incidentally, have just watched the toofatlardies live youtube broadcast about the upcoming Infamy, Infamy ruleset. Bit concerned that Rich appears to be taking Livy, Procopius, Caesar etc at face value. More numerous barbarian trope alert.
So Doug, can we expect to see you left Livyed by the new ruleset...?
Quote from: Tim on May 29, 2020, 12:45:19 PM
So Doug, can we expect to see you left Livyed by the new ruleset...?
Bilious perhaps.. no actually I'm quite looking forward to it as an opportunity to put some 28mm ancients on the table.
I didn't see Rich as taking Caesar et al. at face value. Many of the references in Caesar are in his descriptions of Gallic politics, they neither advance nor retard his political objectives which ( if we can assume that the commentaries are written as he goes along) are to tell folks innRome why he felt compelled to attack out of the Province
, start a war and add new areas to Rome's dominions which was not his original brief. A lot of the societal information is accidental to his purpose, so its highly believable. As to whether when he speaks of the 'senate' of a Gallic tribe it is something that meets regularly, has members that include wise men and Druids ,or is mainly aristocrats with military power, we do not know.
Something that suggests a fairly broad involvement is the attempts by such as Orgetorix to become kings. That implies a large body of men who can be appealed to over the heads of the aristocrats and threatens their power, hence why they are so against it and have anti regal policies enshrined in law.
Roy
I think Doug is suggesting if we take Caesar et al literally around his social structure/political writing, it implies we should do the same with his numbers and he thinks this is unwise.
Quote from: aligern on May 29, 2020, 01:06:50 PM
I didn't see Rich as taking Caesar et al. at face value. Many of the references in Caesar are in his descriptions of Gallic politics, they neither advance nor retard his political objectives which ( if we can assume that the commentaries are written as he goes along) are to tell folks innRome why he felt compelled to attack out of the Province
, start a war and add new areas to Rome's dominions which was not his original brief. A lot of the societal information is accidental to his purpose, so its highly believable. As to whether when he speaks of the 'senate' of a Gallic tribe it is something that meets regularly, has members that include wise men and Druids ,or is mainly aristocrats with military power, we do not know.
Something that suggests a fairly broad involvement is the attempts by such as Orgetorix to become kings. That implies a large body of men who can be appealed to over the heads of the aristocrats and threatens their power, hence why they are so against it and have anti regal policies enshrined in law.
Roy
I think you missed the point. It's not about the political framework. In the cast, Rich talks about Caesar's accounts of the actual battles. Which are highly suspect, I think we can all agree. So for example, as per the recent Slingshot article, the numbers at the Sambre are highly suspect. Any conclusions drawn, for example on relative fighting strength, are very dodgy if you are basing your conclusions on Caesar's propaganda.
Quote from: DougM on May 29, 2020, 01:25:49 PM
Quote from: aligern on May 29, 2020, 01:06:50 PM
I didn't see Rich as taking Caesar et al. at face value. Many of the references in Caesar are in his descriptions of Gallic politics, they neither advance nor retard his political objectives which ( if we can assume that the commentaries are written as he goes along) are to tell folks innRome why he felt compelled to attack out of the Province
, start a war and add new areas to Rome's dominions which was not his original brief. A lot of the societal information is accidental to his purpose, so its highly believable. As to whether when he speaks of the 'senate' of a Gallic tribe it is something that meets regularly, has members that include wise men and Druids ,or is mainly aristocrats with military power, we do not know.
Something that suggests a fairly broad involvement is the attempts by such as Orgetorix to become kings. That implies a large body of men who can be appealed to over the heads of the aristocrats and threatens their power, hence why they are so against it and have anti regal policies enshrined in law.
Roy
I think you missed the point. It's not about the political framework. In the cast, Rich talks about Caesar's accounts of the actual battles. Which are highly suspect, I think we can all agree. So for example, as per the recent Slingshot article, the numbers at the Sambre are highly suspect. Any conclusions drawn, for example on relative fighting strength, are very dodgy if you are basing your conclusions on Caesar's propaganda.
yes completely agree.....reliance on ancient authors is beset with problems even 'eyewitness' accounts
Except that with so few sources we have to be careful of editing down ancient sources until they become so skeletal that we are left with nothing. I am quite happy with the idea that barbarian armies are smaller than is alleged by the sources, but and here is a point Patrick would have made, there is a difficulty when there is no other source or means of logic to arrive at a different number. Patrick's is not a mantle I particularly wish to take on as I am susceptible to the argument that armies that we do know about such as Caesar's itself top out at say 50 or 60,000 men, possibly a lot less than that as we would expect given the attrition rate of the tenth legion over the years of combat ( and we don't, of course , know the initial strength. Marching around Gaul with many more than that looks difficult. Tge roads are not great , though the country is agriculturally productive .
However, I recall the Patrician argument on Gallic strength:
A fair assumption for Gallic numbers is four to five million souls. In the time of Louis XIV there were supposedly twenty million inhabitants with a farming system not that greatly improved. Using an assumption that one person in four is a warrior then the military potential of the country is a million or a million and a quarter men. The discussions so far support a case that free status and military activity are quite widely spread. On that basis the Belgae might well have 250 or 300,000 men that they could only move a short distance as happened when Caesar was approaching and the Belgae concentrated then decided to go home. If as this discussion suggests there are various grades of Celtic troops and the bulk are not of the grade of the leaders then Caesar's massacre might be better taken as a slaughter of the 'professional' troops and the rest running off and losing men as the cavalry pursue. So the body count will look impressive. but might only be a third of the number engaged. Of course, the likelihood is that Caesar did not know the numbers and that the Gauls themselves may not have known the numbers that turned up. Trouble is, if we don't have Caesar's account of the Sambre we have no account of the battle.
Roy
I'm instinctively wary of numbers that simply couldn't be supported by logistics. How did these 300000 feed and water themselves for more than a couple of days?
Quote from: DougM on May 29, 2020, 04:55:49 PM
I'm instinctively wary of numbers that simply couldn't be supported by logistics. How did these 300000 feed and water themselves for more than a couple of days?
That would worry me.
They would have to be considerably superior logistically to the Romans to keep that army in the field for any length of time.
There is a limit to how much each man could carry.
Thinking about it, it does make sense to assume that you have the soldier and his servant. The latter carries food for both of them, in the case of a horseman looks after the horse etc. The 'servant' who is just a lowly client, takes his place in the back rank with a spear and shield when the fighting starts. But even so, that doesn't solve the logistic problems of huge armies
They didn't Doug. But we should remember the medieval troops who were due to turn up with supplies for 40days .
If the Gauls had such a system then everyone could bring supplies for a defined period and go home when they ran out. c.f. the behaviour of the Gauls who. mustered to fight Ariovistus' Germans, but did not fight. Logistics was a major deficit for the Gauls when facing Caesar. He worries constantly about the grain supply and Vercingetorix' main period of success against him is when he operates a scirched earth policy.
Jim, the Cektic cavalry are said to have operated in trimarcisia, a three man unit with two mounted servabts and a proper warrior, a but lije a medieval lance.
https://www.persee.fr/doc/adh_0066-2062_1998_num_1998_1_2162
You will enjoy, but it comes to no conclusion
Roy
The "one in four" argument would be the top limit, given the rule of thumb that an ancient population is 50% 15 or under, and half the population are women (unless we assume large number of female combatants, for which I think we lack evidence). It assumes every able bodied adult male can get to the fight. No home guard, no slaves, no artisans in the oppida., no exempted Druidic class . So maybe 1 in 5 is the real upper limit. Again, we hit the fundamental question of whether we are talking "every free man a fully effective warrior" or whether a lot of them are actually basically equipped and untrained and suitable only in home defence or at the back of a great migrating horde.
Doug's point on logistics is a fair one. We may suggest that the entire country had a military labour force of a million available, but how many could be assembled together and supported?
Quote from: aligern on May 29, 2020, 05:46:05 PM
They didn't Doug. But we should remember the medieval troops who were due to turn up with supplies for 40days .
If the Gauls had such a system then everyone could bring supplies for a defined period and go home when they ran out. c.f. the behaviour of the Gauls who. mustered to fight Ariovistus' Germans, but did not fight. Logistics was a major deficit for the Gauls when facing Caesar. He worries constantly about the grain supply and Vercingetorix' main period of success against him is when he operates a scirched earth policy.
Jim, the Cektic cavalry are said to have operated in trimarcisia, a three man unit with two mounted servabts and a proper warrior, a but lije a medieval lance.
https://www.persee.fr/doc/adh_0066-2062_1998_num_1998_1_2162
You will enjoy, but it comes to no conclusion
Roy
the mounted lance makes sense because we forget that the Cavalryman was, almost by definition, a gentleman, an aristocrat, wealthy enough to own horses. Of course he'll travel with servants, and I suppose they rode 'spare horses' which he would ride if his warhorse needed resting
i don't know about the 1 in 4, 1 in 5 as a multiplier for actual military potential . Not very many men would live beyond military age and there would be some exemptions as Erpingham says, but military age probably starts at 15. Most infants die in the first years if life so I would expect there to be less than 40% of the population aged 0-15. We need an anthropologist here.
The Helvetii are a special case because they have a wagon train loaded with food that they had planted in increased amount in previous years.
We might indeed query how many Gauls could be assembled in one place , but to be fair to Caesar....only his due...he does not say that the Gauls assemble a million or anything lije that in one place. They make a supreme effort to relieve Alesia, but that army shows every sign of logistic collapse, retiring when it coukd have maintained the pressure if it had the resources.
Roy
Personally, I'm just wondering how an individual brings supplies for 40 days? Meat, grain, water... that's about 120kg minimum. Exclude water and assume you're marching by a river large enough, it's still a huge load, that assumes your locally available supplies are readily portable. What are you doing if you're a dairy farmer? Or a shepherd?
So we are back to discussing numbers.
Understand that it is possible that Gaul could support more men than the lands of Greece, Asia Minor and the Fertile Cresent combined but take Ipsus. The survivours of the Diadochi bring everything they can muster for the final confrontation. On one side you have the Antigonids, the other side the Seleucids, combined with the rulers of Macedon and Thrace. Even these great leaders cannot bring much more than 150,000 men to the battle BETWEEN THEM despite combining the resources of Macedon, Greece, the Balkans, Asia Minor and the Persian Empire. Do we really believe that the Gauls could on their own logistically support twice that many men in one place? At Wagram the combined armies of France, her Allies, and the Habsburgs totalled approximately 300,000 men. Napoleon and Berthier, probably the greatest general and the greatest staff officer combination ever, could not bring 200,000 men into one place. If Vercingetorix could get anything like 300,000 men armed and supplied in one place to fight the Romans, then Clauswitz should have been writing about how he conducted war.
Quote from: DougM on May 29, 2020, 08:27:34 PM
Personally, I'm just wondering how an individual brings supplies for 40 days? Meat, grain, water... that's about 120kg minimum. Exclude water and assume you're marching by a river large enough, it's still a huge load, that assumes your locally available supplies are readily portable. What are you doing if you're a dairy farmer? Or a shepherd?
I'm reminded of Boudicca's last battle against Suetonius. She brought a very large force to the battle which is credible as the Britons also brought a large baggage train along with them, big enough to block the retreat of Boudicca's army:
| At first, the legionaries stood motionless, keeping to the defile as a natural protection: then, when the closer advance of the enemy had enabled them to exhaust their missiles with certitude of aim, they dashed forward in a wedge-like formation. The auxiliaries charged in the same style; and the cavalry, with lances extended, broke a way through any parties of resolute men whom they encountered. The remainder took to flight, although escape was difficult, as the cordon of wagons had blocked the outlets. The troops gave no quarter even to the women: the baggage animals themselves had been speared and added to the pile of bodies. - Tacitus: The Annals, 14.37 |
It is easy enough to conceive that the Gauls, no less capable than the Britons in logistics, would have supplied their warriors in the same way.
On logistics, Nathan Rosenstein, in Military Logistics from the Web Essays on the Landmark Julius Caesar, gives the following figures. He gives Caesar 8 legions of 4,000 men each. "Eight legions required four thousand mules plus more for officers and centurions, and several hundred muleteers. Allies, too, needed pack animals. And officers and other aristocrats, reenlisted veterans, and of course the cavalrymen all rode horses" We can assume that the needs of a Gallic force of roughly the same size would be similar. (Probably more horses and less mules.) The question then is, how big of an army can the Gauls sustains and for how long. Given these numbers, a considerable number of Gauls would be required as much, if not more, for supplying the army as for the actual fighting.
"The amounts of food required by an army of 20,000–40,000 men, its entourage,
and animals quickly reached staggering totals. Roman (and presumably allied) soldiers,
being shorter and lighter than their modern counterparts, needed somewhat less food.
One estimate puts their daily caloric needs at around 3,300, supplied by about 2.64
pounds/1,200 grams of various foodstuffs. At that rate, 32,000 legionnaires needed
about 42.43 U.S. tons (38.5 metric tons) of food daily, 15,066 tons (13,677.5 metric
tons) each 355-day year. A pack mule might eat 4.4 pounds (2 kilograms) of grain and
12.12 pounds (5.5 kilograms) of green fodder or hay daily, so that these legionnaires'
4,000 or more mules would require at least 33 tons (30 metric tons) a day, 11,740
(10,650 metric) per year. Horses ate even more. If 4,000 cavalrymen each had a pair of
mounts, these would need 84 tons (76 metric tons) of grain and hay daily, 29,740
(26,980 metric) in a year. Add the food requirements of other personnel and animals, and
the total might easily exceed 66,000–77,000 tons (60,000–70,000 metric tons) annually.
Nor does this exhaust the list of what an army needed."
My conclusion is that Roman annalists 300,000 is much more likely to be 15,000.
We did assemble some resources on ancient logistics here (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=3383.msg42593#msg42593)
In terms of comparing medieval and Celtic logistics, we should remember that the contingents with their 40 days were usually in organised groups and could invest in transport for the group, so Celts may have done likewise. We might also consider peaceful passage rather than living off the land. If we take the Carolingian system, there were strict limits on what an army could take for free in friendly territory (essentially water and fodder). To assemble a multi-tribal army, agreements to allow passage of allies, what supplies they could expect to source and what they needed to carry would need to be agreed.
Many of the questions in recent posts were considered in my article on the Crusaders' approach to the Battle of Arsuf, including:
- How many days can a man survive on the food he can carry?
- What is the impact of non-combatants and remounts on the army's logistics?
- How does local supply and foraging affect logistical transport?
- What is the impact of cavalry on logistics?
I attach a copy of the article for those whose eyes glazed over the first time. 8)
It's probably very familiar to the classicists, but I found this article (https://www.persee.fr/doc/adh_0066-2062_1998_num_1998_1_2162) on Gallic numbers interesting.
In fact so interesting that I linked to it ten posts or so ago. Its problem is that it compares expect a definitive and contrasts the biases, methodologies and outcomes, but does not come to a conclusion. Now we wouldn't expect a definitive number , but a winnowing down to an order of magnitude would be useful. After all. if the population of Gaul s two million then Caesar deserves a thorough Douging, if its ten million then his numbers are easily achieved . Either end of the spectrum would have consequences for military participation levels.
Roy
It's good thing Anthony repeated it, though, because I missed it the first time. (Repetition, after all, is the mother of all learning.)
Don't have time to more than glance at it right now, but I already like Ibn Taghribirdi.
Quote from: Tim on May 29, 2020, 09:47:24 PM
So we are back to discussing numbers.
Understand that it is possible that Gaul could support more men than the lands of Greece, Asia Minor and the Fertile Cresent combined but take Ipsus. The survivours of the Diadochi bring everything they can muster for the final confrontation. On one side you have the Antigonids, the other side the Seleucids, combined with the rulers of Macedon and Thrace. Even these great leaders cannot bring much more than 150,000 men to the battle BETWEEN THEM despite combining the resources of Macedon, Greece, the Balkans, Asia Minor and the Persian Empire. Do we really believe that the Gauls could on their own logistically support twice that many men in one place? At Wagram the combined armies of France, her Allies, and the Habsburgs totalled approximately 300,000 men. Napoleon and Berthier, probably the greatest general and the greatest staff officer combination ever, could not bring 200,000 men into one place. If Vercingetorix could get anything like 300,000 men armed and supplied in one place to fight the Romans, then Clauswitz should have been writing about how he conducted war.
I was also thinking of a comparison
Let us compare Gaul and Italy
Now France and Italy have similar populations 67 million to 60 million (not that that means a lot)
But in 225 Polybius gives an estimate of manpower for central and southern italy at 750,000
These figures have been discussed and debated and the feeling is that they are the pool to be drawn from.
Now in all candour Gaul, culturally and socially, probably wasn't that different from Italy. Fewer cities, more rural dwellers perhaps? So a figure for total Gallic manpower of a million, including Provence.
I finally got round to reading that piece, so thanks for providing the link.
I think the parallel between Italy and Gaul is a good one. One other consideration is the diet. So if you have a grain based diet you can have a much higher population density than a meat based diet. Then if Gaul also has a horse breeding culture, great tracts are set aside for that. In any case, it's all speculation. I will continue to disbelieve Ceasar et al. The numbers are simply not credible. If nothing else, the archaeology of a burial site or pyre for hundreds of thousands would sort be detectable.
If Central and Southern Ital is oroductive of 750,000 potential sokdiers, then I would go a bit higher than the Million fir Gaul as it is much more productive than the rather rocky South of Italy. Italy's big populationon an agricultural basis is the Po valley , which is hugely fertile, a mini Nile delta with all that alluvium.. I would be betting on a million or more excluding the Province? Either way we are looking at a Gallic population of 4-5 million. However, seem to be in agreement that if there is a mass army raised the quality and armament level of much of it will not be great..
In the levying of troops to relieve Alesia one of the tribes sends 2,000 rather than the hoped fir 10,000. Would that give us a clue as to the ratio between men in a comitatus relationship with a lord abd the general levy of a small tribe ?
Roy
Quote from: DougM on May 30, 2020, 12:49:50 PM
I finally got round to reading that piece, so thanks for providing the link.
I think the parallel between Italy and Gaul is a good one. One other consideration is the diet. So if you have a grain based diet you can have a much higher population density than a meat based diet. Then if Gaul also has a horse breeding culture, great tracts are set aside for that. In any case, it's all speculation. I will continue to disbelieve Ceasar et al. The numbers are simply not credible. If nothing else, the archaeology of a burial site or pyre for hundreds of thousands would sort be detectable.
I have to agree with you Doug....I just dont believe the ability of disparate tribes raising, mobilising and feeding vast quantities of troops without a highly organised central authority and even then actually putting them in the field all at once.....
But again, you are taking those numbers from Caesar who we already know tells lies. And how was he to know what the commitment was? It could have been 20 men instead of a hundred. Or he could have just made the whole thing up.
Apologies Roy for not following your link - I assumed it was about gallic cavalry organisation and set it aside to read later.
Yes, it is annoying that no conclusion was made. However, it bit of googling suggests that modern scholars are tending to see a figure in the range of 10-15 million more probable than 5 million. But using my demographic rule of thumb as a minimum and Roy's as a maximum, this gives us a manpower pool of 2-4.5 million. I don't think therefore the absolute figure is an issue in supply of armies terms. Societal organisation becomes critical in determining how many men would be routinely put in the field and logistics governs how many could be moved a long way beyond their borders or concentrated in one place for any length of time (a moving army could live off the land more effectively than a static one, for obvious reasons).
Quote from: Erpingham on May 30, 2020, 01:50:05 PM
Apologies Roy for not following your link - I assumed it was about gallic cavalry organisation and set it aside to read later.
Yes, it is annoying that no conclusion was made. However, it bit of googling suggests that modern scholars are tending to see a figure in the range of 10-15 million more probable than 5 million. But using my demographic rule of thumb as a minimum and Roy's as a maximum, this gives us a manpower pool of 2-4.5 million. I don't think therefore the absolute figure is an issue in supply of armies terms. Societal organisation becomes critical in determining how many men would be routinely put in the field and logistics governs how many could be moved a long way beyond their borders or concentrated in one place for any length of time (a moving army could live off the land more effectively than a static one, for obvious reasons).
I'd be interested to know how those modern scholars reached that opinion. Figures of 15 million seem very high to me. What is the evidence for settlement patterns and density? Or have they done as the linked article suggests and just multiplied out by tribes, Caesars numbers and a demographic multiplier?
It is hard to tell from just snippets of information - it would need some more in depth digging. But revised estimations of numbers of settlements detected archaeologically seems to have pushed the numbers up.
Quote from: aligern on May 30, 2020, 12:55:17 PM
If Central and Southern Ital is oroductive of 750,000 potential sokdiers, then I would go a bit higher than the Million fir Gaul as it is much more productive than the rather rocky South of Italy. Italy's big populationon an agricultural basis is the Po valley , which is hugely fertile, a mini Nile delta with all that alluvium.. I would be betting on a million or more excluding the Province? Either way we are looking at a Gallic population of 4-5 million. However, seem to be in agreement that if there is a mass army raised the quality and armament level of much of it will not be great..
In the levying of troops to relieve Alesia one of the tribes sends 2,000 rather than the hoped fir 10,000. Would that give us a clue as to the ratio between men in a comitatus relationship with a lord abd the general levy of a small tribe ?
Roy
Italy's population could well have been kept up by grain imports. We know that Sardinia and Sicily became important
the 2000 to 10,000 might be a pointer, certainly is suggests a complexity in raising men that we don't know the details of.
But in other societies of this period, because fighting was something reserved for those wealthy enough to be able to afford it, I suspect the idea of massed levies is probably the wrong way to go.
Agricultural history was never my strong point, but I seem to recall that in pre-medieval times, the tech wasn't there to realize the potential of the heavier soils of central Europe, and France/Gaul was effectively less fertile than Italy.
again...we go back to the logistics of maintaining a large army in the field (regardless of whether you could raise large numbers in the first place).
I think that is now discredited Andreas ( That earlier farmers could not cope with heavy soils,) I read some time ago that the indicator of this, the Celtic field systems on higher, lighter, chalky soils only survive because they represent the farming of marginal land, by a larger population) and that the heavier soils were farmed, but traces of that farming have been lost under subsequent tilling because the alluvial soils were richer and were in constant use from the iron age onwards. Its probably part of the upward revision of populations in this period.
I expect Jim will tell us.
Roy
It is certainly true that in one of the things I looked at trying to answers Doug's question, the authors noted that the old view Gallic heavy clay soils were not settled has been overturned by better detection methods. Roy's idea of continuous cultivation leaving less fossilised landscapes goes along with this.
According to that very reliable source Wikipedia, the population of France in 50 BC was 2.5 million. Their source is "Population totale par sexe et âge au 1 er janvier 2017, France métropolitaine−Bilan démographique 2016 - Insee". Insee.fr.
For those wanting to look at Tim's source, it is on the Demographics of France (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France#Historical_population_figures) page. It gives the population at 1 A.D. as 5.5 million, a huge increase in 50 years.
The long time series no longer seems to be available at insee.fr - things seem to start at 1901 now - so I can't check the basis of the figures.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on May 30, 2020, 03:54:14 PM
Agricultural history was never my strong point, but I seem to recall that in pre-medieval times, the tech wasn't there to realize the potential of the heavier soils of central Europe, and France/Gaul was effectively less fertile than Italy.
not sure, the problem is that Italy became a net grain importer but then their agriculture moved away from staples into supplying Rome with other stuff and importing grain
But I think that 225BC is before major importing started although Roman armies were often supplied not from Italy but other places
This thread grew quickly.
It reminds me of the discussions regarding Herodotus' Persian millions and what's the appropriate skepticism to apply to a unique literary history.
Quote from: Dangun on May 30, 2020, 10:43:03 PM
This thread grew quickly.
It reminds me of the discussions regarding Herodotus' Persian millions and what's the appropriate skepticism to apply to a unique literary history.
I did a lot of reading as a result of that thread and came away from it all agreeing with the saying that's often attached to the Peninsular war, "small armies are defeated and big armies starve"
Quote from: Dangun on May 30, 2020, 10:43:03 PM
This thread grew quickly.
It reminds me of the discussions regarding Herodotus' Persian millions and what's the appropriate skepticism to apply to a unique literary history.
It follows many similar lines. We have discussed the overall military capacity, based on demographic estimates. We have shown in absolute terms that there were no shortage of men. However, absolute numbers are not a major part of the puzzle. We still stuggle with the capability (organisational, logistical, political) question. In this case, we cannot fall back on "the most highly organised empire the world had ever seen" argument to make up for the gaps. Here we have loose temporary alliances, a lack of co-ordinated long term logistical planning, an uncertainty about what proportion of the hypothetical manpower would be expected to, or be capable of, fighting. We might also note that field armies in this area rarely reached more than 50,000 before the 17th century and even this was a great advance on the Middle Ages, where keeping a force of 25,000 in one place was an achievement. So, a certain amount of scepticism is certainly warranted.
Scepticism is indeed warranted, though we do have to beware of relying entirely on the idea that 50,000 was a large army in 1650 ir in 550 and that constrains the numbers that might be fielded throughout earlier history.
The debate about Persians brings back the argument that the army was fed by sea and there were enough ships to accomplish this and that extra grain had been planted and stired three years ahead and so on. The line tgat never was pursued back tgen was the size of Indian and Chinese armies. I wonder if anyone expert in those areas might shed light on army sizes?
Some at least of Caesar's numbers stand independent of tge logistics argument. If tge Gallic relieving army at Alesia all brought their own food tgen a campaign for as long as the food lasts is fair enough, they just coukd not stay concentrated beyond that. That there were 420,000 Usipetes and Tencteri looks an impossible number, unbeleivably large and uncountable . However, that the Helvetii and their allied tribes held a census before setting out is entirely pkausible...its the total number that seens high. If there were around 40 tribes in Gaul and 4 million peopke that woukd be an average tribal size of 100. thousand souls and that does sound a lot.....an awful lot . But if we took Jim's comparison with Southern Utaly, its not outlandish and if they have a million man potential then some of the numbers, for a major national effort or an alliance of several tribes might not be such an exaggeration?
Roy
All seems highly implausible this supposed census in a society with no written records.
Gauls do have written records; Caesar says that the druids write down their teachings using Greek characters. And he explicitly says that he knew the Helvetian numbers from captured census records written in Greek. You can doubt the numbers, but doubting the existence of some sort of written record is a big step further.
Edit:Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaulish_languageAccording to the Recueil des Inscriptions Gauloises, nearly three quarters of Gaulish inscriptions (disregarding coins) are in the Greek alphabet.
QuoteScepticism is indeed warranted, though we do have to beware of relying entirely on the idea that 50,000 was a large army in 1650 ir in 550 and that constrains the numbers that might be fielded throughout earlier history.
Wouldnt dream of using it as our only evidence of the constraints but it does help to contextualise the numbers.
Diesn't Caesar say that Vercingetorix orders a register of 'all' the archers in Gaul to create a force that can operate with the Gallic cavalry. Tgat sounds to me like a list made up by tribe that can be counted and levied?
Gaul has quite a lot of trade going on. by implication everywhere south of the Belgae is importing Roman goods. so are the Southern British tribes, to the point where martial spirit was diminished. Writing is not absolutely necessary for trade, but its likely that many merchants were literate and, more importantly numerate.
Roy
Interesting, the Spanish quote. Large armies starve, small armies get beaten. Indeed, but I wouldn't be surprised if both the allies and the French had something like a half million men each engaged in Spain. That's an awful lot of troops if my guess is right. Well probably too many, the Spanish aimed at 500,000, but must have delivered far less. There were of course 90,000 Brits and Portuguese. Tge French possibility had 500,000 men there but not all at obe tine. However, bringing more than 100,000 of them to one place was a major effiort..
Roy
Quote from: Duncan Head on May 31, 2020, 04:00:13 PM
Gauls do have written records; Caesar says that the druids write down their teachings using Greek characters. And he explicitly says that he knew the Helvetian numbers from captured census records written in Greek. You can doubt the numbers, but doubting the existence of some sort of written record is a big step further.
In the article it there was a comment along the lines of 'how many wagons were used to carry the wax tablets with all the information on.
I suspect that the census records could well have been somewhat less detailed than ours. I can see that the Helventian census was something like in Numbers 26 where you get the tribe, the names of the major clans within the tribe and the total number of men over 20 in the tribe. The whole thing comes to less than a thousand words and tells you pretty much what you need to know 8)
Obviously you could, for example at the total number of women and children (which would include males under 20) and that would give you a figure that might be useful logistically)
But at this level each tribe is probably barely a full wax tablet.
I can imagine no point in recording names of individuals.
Quote from: aligern on May 30, 2020, 05:09:10 PM
I think that is now discredited Andreas ( That earlier farmers could not cope with heavy soils,) I read some time ago that the indicator of this, the Celtic field systems on higher, lighter, chalky soils only survive because they represent the farming of marginal land, by a larger population) and that the heavier soils were farmed, but traces of that farming have been lost under subsequent tilling because the alluvial soils were richer and were in constant use from the iron age onwards.
I'm happy to believe the idea is outdated, but my inner pedant can't resist pointing out that farming heavy soils isn't quite the same as getting higher yields from them than from thinner Mediterranean ones.
The other point is while you may have a million men of fighting age capable of bearing arms, you simply cannot send everyone to fight, but more importantly, how do you concentrate them. So if we assume Gaul has 1 million available, (reduced because we're excluding the Province), slightly reduced again for the critical occupations that can't be spared for a general callout, the next step is? Sure, nominate a date and location, but if you're coming from the Atlantic Coast or the Ardenne, you have a long way to travel, you have to bring your own supplies, because wherever you go, the locals have taken it. If you can, carry 40 days of supplies, hope that the weather isn't too wet or too dry, that sources of water aren't polluted by large bodies of men travelling to the assembly point, your horses need to find grazing, that there isn't an outbreak of disease.
I'm more or less visualising that the percentage of men who could or would reach an assembly point is attenuated by distance, so you want it to be in as densely populated a region as you can find, healthy, away from mosquitos, plenty of grazing and fresh water, and then wait and see. As a commander, you would have to know how large a force was sustainable and for how long. After all, crops must be tended, harvests gathered, animals slaughtered for winter etc.
I think we did a study in the Persian logistics thread of how much food a wagon can carry and thus how many men it can feed and for how long. I'll try to dig it up.
We might usefully look at Doug's post in a bit more detail? The siege of Alesia takes place in September 52BC. The grain harvest in France takes place in July and August , so the harvest is in. Alternately one can probably ask the old, women and boys to get the crops in as they undoubtedly help anyway and so have the skills.
As to slaughtering animals for the winter etc. that is not a consideration for us in September. The campaign is disruptive, but given the constant raiding between tribes is disruptive.
As to how far the recruitment net can be cast, lets assume a 20 mile a day march ( long days in September) . and a six week campaign. Two weeks to get there, two weeks to beat Caesar two weeks to get back. Thats a radius of 300 miles , a circle of 600 miles diameter. Cavalry could come from further away . Its a huge recruitment area. We might also doubt that there are no supplies en route that can be purchased or gifted or even coerced.
Of course you are right that weather makes a difference, but its September, not February. Of course there will be didease, problems watering, clogged roads etc. , all the strategic friction that reduces armies, but the contingents are not marching through hostile territory .
Inthink the size ofbthe relief army is meant to be 250,000. Of course there is no easy cross check, but it does apoear feasible if the Gauls have a military system that can deliver in the proportions that Jim suggested that Southern Italy could.
😉 Roy
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 01, 2020, 09:02:39 AM
I think we did a study in the Persian logistics thread of how much food a wagon can carry and thus how many men it can feed and for how long. I'll try to dig it up.
for wagons you need roads. Even after the Roman conquest the main arteries of commerce in Gaul were actually the rivers. The Rhone north and then short trips to get to the rivers flowing to the Atlantic
I have wondered whether Caesar's campaigns were linked to the rivers or not
You don't need roads as such. Look at the performance of the Biers on the Great trek. You do do need hard flat ground which the Veldt has. In my recollection France has plenty of upland plateau, often with chalky soils that would be good for a wagon train. That said I suspect that the assembling army would use packhorses rather than wagons. Perhaps the wagons could follow up after the army had passed.
And yes, Jim you are right about Caesar and rivers. Isn't tgat why he is so keen to get to Vesontio?
Roy
The problem with river transport is you follow the rivers. If you are concentrating people on a fixed point chosen for reasons other than its river links, you will have problems.
On wagons, Justin, you could try using Roman wagons as a basis (Celtic influence on Roman wheeled transport was significant) which would give you a heavy goods wagon around 1-1.5 tonnes capacity. On the very rough basis of 1kg of cereals a day, that 1000-1500 person days. For Roy's 250,000 strong army over 40 days, you'd need 6700-10000 carts. Given they are advancing from many directions, they may be able to cut enough fodder as they march (with the usual caveats of time cost). It is possible, using arrangements with tribes en route to provide some supplies, this number could be reduced. Again, this is "order of magnitude" stuff, not an accurate assessment.
Quote from: aligern on June 01, 2020, 10:16:39 AM
You don't need roads as such. Look at the performance of the Biers on the Great trek.
The Beers also had an impressive bottoms up performance, even naming their home-brewed Castle Lager after their well-known defensive formation. ::)
Quote from: Erpingham on June 01, 2020, 10:35:56 AM
The problem with river transport is you follow the rivers. If you are concentrating people on a fixed point chosen for reasons other than its river links, you will have problems.
On wagons, Justin, you could try using Roman wagons as a basis (Celtic influence on Roman wheeled transport was significant) which would give you a heavy goods wagon around 1-1.5 tonnes capacity. On the very rough basis of 1kg of cereals a day, that 1000-1500 person days. For Roy's 250,000 strong army over 40 days, you'd need 6700-10000 carts. Given they are advancing from many directions, they may be able to cut enough fodder as they march (with the usual caveats of time cost). It is possible, using arrangements with tribes en route to provide some supplies, this number could be reduced. Again, this is "order of magnitude" stuff, not an accurate assessment.
Seems feasible. Again, I'm minded of Boudicca's wagon train that was so big it impeded the flight of her huge army.
Oh BTW, all hail the new Global Moderator!
QuoteSeems feasible. Again, I'm minded of Boudicca's wagon train that was so big it impeded the flight of her huge army.
Big wagon trains at the back of armies also feature a lot in Caesar. The nature of these wagon trains might be explored by the Caesar experts but many seem to have many women and children. This may distort appreciations of the size of forces
QuoteOh BTW, all hail the new Global Moderator!
Sounds like something out of Star Trek :) But then, moderator is one of those jobs even Daleks can do. Mod-er-ate! Mod-er-ate!
Have we considered depots and caches of supplies? Presumably tribute in Gaul was collected for the tribal elite and so used for emergencies as well?
Is the 'national' leadership strong enough to impose the kind of discipline required for one tribe to create a cache for others? I don't know.
We should also consider that Vercingetorix had been operating a scorched earth policy wherever Caesar's army went.
I think Doug alluded to this.
Roy
Also to Andreas, Whatever soils the Gauls were using their population was probably a fifth or so of the popukation size at the maximum of unimproved agriculture. France has very productive soils and good clinate. That suggests tgat tge Gauls had plenty of choice of land for agriculture and would have used the best. That is a good argument for tge use of fertile alluvium.
Roy
Quote from: Erpingham on June 01, 2020, 10:35:56 AM
On the very rough basis of 1kg of cereals a day, that 1000-1500 person days. For Roy's 250,000 strong army over 40 days, you'd need 6700-10000 carts. Given they are advancing from many directions, they may be able to cut enough fodder as they march (with the usual caveats of time cost). It is possible, using arrangements with tribes en route to provide some supplies, this number could be reduced. Again, this is "order of magnitude" stuff, not an accurate assessment.
I understand this wasn't the point of the post... but please forgive some satire.
10,000 carts Parkes arse to nose, would single file, be about 80km of baggage, and the troops would eat 12% of the supplies before the rear cart got to the front. God knows what the baggage animals would eat of the carts contents...
Quote from: DougM on June 01, 2020, 01:28:25 PM
Is the 'national' leadership strong enough to impose the kind of discipline required for one tribe to create a cache for others? I don't know.
absolutely. If such cache's existed they would have been set up for local use but its surprising how persuasive 10000+ spears turning up on your door can be to share these especially when the alternative is Messer Caesar burning and looting the area anyway
Quote from: Dangun on June 01, 2020, 01:36:57 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on June 01, 2020, 10:35:56 AM
On the very rough basis of 1kg of cereals a day, that 1000-1500 person days. For Roy's 250,000 strong army over 40 days, you'd need 6700-10000 carts. Given they are advancing from many directions, they may be able to cut enough fodder as they march (with the usual caveats of time cost). It is possible, using arrangements with tribes en route to provide some supplies, this number could be reduced. Again, this is "order of magnitude" stuff, not an accurate assessment.
I understand this wasn't the point of the post... but please forgive some satire.
10,000 carts Parkes arse to nose, would single file, be about 80km of baggage, and the troops would eat 12% of the supplies before the rear cart got to the front. God knows what the baggage animals would eat of the carts contents...
I remember us covering this in the Achaemenid thread. 10,000 carts don't all advance together in single file. They are divided up between different tribes and different contingents of those tribes and the wagons of a single contingent don't necessarily all travel in single file. I suspect we often have Napoleonic corps in mind when visualising an army travelling cross-country on a single road, but keep in mind that Napoleon split his army into corps precisely so they
wouldn't travel together.
Maybe the economic cost of logistics in the classical period is so high, that logistics is the under appreciated economic incentive for a professional soldiery?
As the cost of logistics rises, it will make increasing sense to invest in skills instead.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 01, 2020, 01:53:37 PM
I remember us covering this in the Achaemenid thread. 10,000 carts don't all advance together in single file. They are divided up between different tribes and different contingents of those tribes and the wagons of a single contingent don't necessarily all travel in single file. I suspect we often have Napoleonic corps in mind when visualising an army travelling cross-country on a single road, but keep in mind that Napoleon split his army into corps precisely so they wouldn't travel together.
All true.
But the big-number advocates don't seem to worry very much about that at a certain size, its just a logical necessity an army will spend its entire time walking into and out of the camp for water.
Quote from: Dangun on June 01, 2020, 01:58:11 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 01, 2020, 01:53:37 PM
I remember us covering this in the Achaemenid thread. 10,000 carts don't all advance together in single file. They are divided up between different tribes and different contingents of those tribes and the wagons of a single contingent don't necessarily all travel in single file. I suspect we often have Napoleonic corps in mind when visualising an army travelling cross-country on a single road, but keep in mind that Napoleon split his army into corps precisely so they wouldn't travel together.
All true.
But the big-number advocates don't seem to worry very much about that at a certain size, its just a logical necessity an army will spend its entire time walking into and out of the camp for water.
Not if you camp along the length of a river (also looked at in the Achaemenid thread).
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 01, 2020, 02:00:20 PM
Not if you camp along the length of a river (also looked at in the Achaemenid thread).
I remember, and t=hat doesn't change anything either.
Quite apart from the fact that your movement or even existence in a single location is limited by the driest step along the route...
Pick whatever shaped water source you like, maybe a Pacific Ocean full of fresh water. There is still a maximum size because an army still has to move to water and back and still allow time in the day for something useful like movement.
Quote from: Dangun on June 01, 2020, 02:04:46 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 01, 2020, 02:00:20 PM
Not if you camp along the length of a river (also looked at in the Achaemenid thread).
I remember, and t=hat doesn't change anything either.
Quite apart from the fact that your movement or even existence in a single location is limited by the driest step along the route...
Pick whatever shaped water source you like, maybe a Pacific Ocean full of fresh water. There is still a maximum size because an army still has to move to water and back and still allow time in the day for something useful like movement.
I remember us working out how many bodies one can reasonably cram into a km
2 and then calculating the dimensions of a camp for 5 million Persians along each reasonably-size river between the Hellespont and Thermopylae they would need to stop at and, IIRC, nobody would have to walk more than half an hour to reach water. For 250,000 Gauls it really shouldn't be a problem (and there are plenty of rivers in Gaul).
Justin is perhaps remembering the Persian thread differently to me, but the failure to understand the nature of watering operations led to flights on fancy on the parts of some. Also a huge preparatory army had to strip vast areas and make fodder dumps in advance of the army. One thing that doomed the idea of a large army was the shear logistic impossibility of it. But this proposed army is much smaller, it is not limited to a single axis of approach. So, there are a number of differences.
Quote from: Erpingham on June 01, 2020, 02:25:00 PM
But this proposed army is much smaller, it is not limited to a single axis of approach. So, there are a number of differences.
True. You are probably looking at contingents that individually don't number above the low tens of thousands, so water shouldn't be a problem (however one looks at the Achaemenids ;) )
Vercingetorix
you lot, you lot and you lot, meet me at such and such and bring lots of food and clobber for a shin-dig with the Romans in 2 weeks time
Quote from: Holly on June 01, 2020, 08:31:36 PM
Vercingetorix
you lot, you lot and you lot, meet me at such and such and bring lots of food and clobber for a shin-dig with the Romans in 2 weeks time
And we do need to keep in mind the Gallic appetite...
(https://i.imgur.com/tyY2qt9.png)
nearer reality than previously given credit for I suspect ;D