Celts - do you find it Gauling how rulesets treat them...

[stevenneate]

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!

[Anton]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

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!

[Erpingham]

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.

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?

[Anton]

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.

[Jim Webster]

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.

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

[Imperial Dave]

Is it too much of a stretch to use the pan-celtic umbrella on this one? 

[Tim]

Is it too much of a stretch to use the pan-celtic umbrella on this one? 

Is that a type of PAS standard (for those of you fluent in WRG 6th)...?

[Imperial Dave]

Is it too much of a stretch to use the pan-celtic umbrella on this one? 

Is that a type of PAS standard (for those of you fluent in WRG 6th)...?

absolutely replete with severed heads and innards 

[lionheartrjc]

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

[aligern]

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

[Anton]

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.

[Erpingham]

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?

[Anton]

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.

[lionheartrjc]

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