Gauls and Brawls

[Patrick Waterson]

By popular request, herewith a thread to look at Gallic armies, weapons, tactics and general methods of fighting.  Please feel free to be the first to contribute. 

[Justin Swanton]

Thanks Patrick.

First question: when moving into close contact with enemy, were Gallic warriors impetuous? i.e. would they not bother about gaps in lines but just run into them pell mell to get at the Romans, or would they keep the phalanx-like formation intact which they did adopt in several historical battles? Primary sources in either direction?

[aligern]

Well here is Livy's description of the Allia which is sometimes cited as an example of impetuosity overwhelming the Romans, but reads to me more like a flank attack by the Gauls and a subsequent Roman panic. Livy bk 5 ch 38
Roy
[5.38]The consular tribunes had secured no position for their camp, had constructed no entrenchments behind which to retire, and had shown as much disregard of the gods as of the enemy, for they formed their order of battle without having obtained favourable auspices. They extended their line on either wing to prevent their being outflanked, but even so they could not make their front equal to the enemy's, whilst by thus thinning their line they weakened the centre so that it could hardly keep in touch. On their right was a small eminence which they decided to hold with reserves, and this disposition, though it was the beginning of the panic and flight, proved to be the only means of safety to the fugitives. For Bennus, the Gaulish chieftain, fearing some ruse in the scanty numbers of the enemy, and thinking that the rising ground was occupied in order that the reserves might attack the flank and rear of the Gauls while their front was engaged with the legions, directed his attack upon the reserves, feeling quite certain that if he drove them from their position, his overwhelming numbers would give him an easy victory on the level ground. So not only Fortune but tactics also were on the side of the barbarians. In the other army there was nothing to remind one of Romans either amongst the generals or the private soldiers. They were terrified, and all they thought about was flight, and so utterly had they lost their heads that a far greater number fled to Veii, a hostile city, though the Tiber lay in their way, than by the direct road to Rome, to their wives and children. For a short time the reserves were protected by their position. In the rest of the army, no sooner was the battle-shout heard on their flank by those nearest to the reserves, and then by those at the other end of the line heard in their rear, than they fled, whole and unhurt, almost before they had seen their untried foe, without any attempt to fight or even to give back the battle-shout. None were slain while actually fighting; they were cut down from behind whilst hindering one another's flight in a confused, struggling mass. Along the bank of the Tiber, whither the whole of the left wing had fled, after throwing away their arms, there was great slaughter. Many who were unable to swim or were hampered by the weight of their cuirasses and other armour were sucked down by the current. The greater number, however, reached Veii in safety, yet not only were no troops sent from there to defend the City, but not even was a messenger despatched to report the defeat to Rome. All the men on the right wing, which had been stationed some distance from the river, and nearer to the foot of the hill, made for Rome and took refuge in the Citadel without even closing the City gates.

[Patrick Waterson]

And here is Dionysius' account of Camillus trying to get some backbone into the Romans so that they would face the Gauls again:

9. Upon learning of this state of affairs the Roman dictator, Camillus, assembled his men and addressed them, using many arguments that incited them to boldness, among which were the following: "Better arms than the barbarians possess have been fashioned for us — breastplates, helmets, greaves, mighty shields, with which we keep our entire bodies protected, two-edged swords, and, instead of the spear [logkhes], the javelin [hussos = pilum], a missile that cannot be dodged — some of them being protective armour, such as not to yield readily to blows, and others offensive, of a sort to pierce through any defence. But our foes have their heads bare, bare their breasts and flanks, bare their thighs and legs down to their feet, and have no other defence except shields; as weapons of offence they have spears and very long slashing blades. The tern also in which we shall fight will aid us as we move downhill from higher ground, but will be adverse to them as they are forced to advance from the level to higher ground. And let no one of you stand in dread either of the enemies' numbers or of their size, or, from looking at these advantages on their side, become less confident of the contest. On the contrary, let everyone bear in mind, first, that a smaller army which understands what must be done is superior to a large army that is uninstructed; and, second, that to those who are fighting for their own possessions Nature herself lends a certain courage in the face of danger and gives them a spirit of ecstasy like that of men possessed by a god, whereas those who are eager to seize the goods of others are apt to find their boldness weakened in the face of dangers.  Nay, not even their attempts to frighten their foes and terrify them before coming to blows should cause us any dread, as if we were inexperienced in warfare. For what harm can be done to men going into battle by those long locks, the fierceness of their glance, and the grim aspect of their countenances? And these awkward prancings, the useless brandishing of their weapons, the many clashings of their shields, and all the other demonstrations of barbarian and senseless bravado, whether through motions or through sounds, indulged in by way of threats to their foes — what advantage are they calculated to bring to those who attack unintelligently, or what fear to those who with cool calculation stand their ground in the midst of danger?  Do you, then, with these thoughts in mind, both those of you who were present in the earlier war against the Gauls and those of you who had no part in it by reason of your youth, the former in order that you may not, by cowardice now, bring shame upon the valour you then displayed, and you others in order that you may not be behind your elders in the display of noble deeds, go, noble sons, emulators of brave fathers, go intrepidly against the foe, having not only the gods as your helpers, who will give you the power to exact from your bitterest foes such vengeance as you have been wishing for, but also me as your general, to whose great prudence and great good fortune you bear witness.  A blissful life from this time forth those of you will lead to whom it shall be granted to bring home for your fatherland its most distinguished crown, and a splendid and imperishable renown in place of your mortal bodies those of you will bequeath to your infant children and your aged parents who shall fulfil thus the end of your lives. I know of nothing more that needs to be said; for the barbarian army is already in motion, advancing against us. But be off and take your places in the ranks."

10. Now the barbarians' manner of fighting, being in large measure that of wild beasts and frenzied, was an erratic procedure, quite lacking in military science. Thus, at one moment they would raise their swords aloft and smite after the manner of wild boars, throwing the whole weight of their bodies into the blow like hewers of wood or men digging with mattocks, and again they would deliver crosswise blows aimed at no target, as if they intended to cut to pieces the entire bodies of their adversaries, protective armour and all; then they would turn the edges of their swords away from the foe.  On the other hand, the Romans' defence and counter-manoeuvring against the barbarians was steadfast and afforded great safety. For while their foes were still raising their swords aloft, they would duck under their arms, holding up their shields, and then, stooping and crouching low, they would render vain and useless the blows of the others, which were aimed too high, while for their own part, holding their swords straight out, they would strike their opponents in the groins, pierce their sides, and drive their blows through their breasts into their vitals. And if they saw any of them keeping these parts of their bodies protected, they would cut the tendons of their knees or ankles and topple them to the ground roaring and biting their shields and uttering cries resembling the howling of wild beasts.  Not only did their strength desert many of the barbarians as their limbs failed them through weariness, but their weapons also were either blunted or broken or no longer serviceable. For besides the blood that flowed from their wounds, the sweat pouring out over their whole bodies would not let them either grasp their swords or hold their shields firmly, since their fingers slipped on the handles and no longer kept a firm hold. The Romans, however, being accustomed to many toils by reason of their unabating and continuous warfare, continued to meet every peril in noble fashion. - Dionysius of Halicarnassus XIV chapters 9 and 10

[Erpingham]

Very contrasting accounts.  The description of the Allia doesn't give much of an impression of how the Gauls fight but, contrary to the second passage, does suggest the Gauls have a battleplan - they are going to secure their flank then steamroller the Romans on the plain.

Stripping away the hyperbole, the second passage seems very clear that the Romans are to exploit the weakness of slashing sword tactics, which expose the attacker.  The author ridicules the way the enemy use their swords, slashing and using their whole strength in blows as if it is evidence of their wild nature, contrasted against the cool, economic Roman style but doesn't seem to have thought through the implications of using a slashing sword against an armoured enemy - you wont make much impression poking delicately.  It may be the Gauls were showy fighters, with lots of swash buckling moves designed to demonstrate their prowess.  Or they may have belonged to the "hard blows" school that Roy has ascribed to the Vikings before - relatively few massive blows, which if they connect smash shields, helmets, skulls.  It is less clear on how the barbarians use their spears - have they "chucked and charged" or perhaps there has been some exchange of throwing weapons (Roman pila aren't mentioned in Ch. 10 either).

[aligern]

Very interesting cite indeed Anthony..... I feel a Society book on Celts or generic wild barbarians coming up!
The Celts of Dionysius are not mentioned as charging in uncontrollably. They chant, leap and beat rhythmically on their shields as  Plutarch describes in the life of Gaius Marius, but nothing implies that they run forward in a disorganised and wild manner or that they cannot manoeuvre because they are too ill disciplined. As Anthony so wisely says Dionysius (or his source) makes no allowance for how a man with an edged but not pointed sword must fight.  I would cite Rome's long development of neck and shoulder protection in legionary helmets and armour as evidence that the Romans took this threat seriously.

The quote als provides evidence of another couple of threads of thought, one is the exhaustion of the barbarians who become tired and sweaty through over exertion, this is also a tops, but clearly the Romans had a tactic for dealing with great blows from giant Celts of allowing the opponent to exhaust himself whilst the Roman defends and then stabbing at the worn opponent. The other point reflects upon the interesting question that Patrick raised about  tiredness. If you cannot replace the front rankers they will become exhausted.  There is a description of Ariovistus' Germans becoming too exhausted to resist and that would give a consistency to the accounts.

Perhaps what scholars have taken to be the impetuous gallic charge is really more about the style of their fighting once the two lines have closed and that Gauls don't really rush in, they advance more cautiously and then go wild when attempting to batter down the Roman defence??

Roy

[Justin Swanton]

Perhaps what scholars have taken to be the impetuous gallic charge is really more about the style of their fighting once the two lines have closed and that Gauls don't really rush in, they advance more cautiously and then go wild when attempting to batter down the Roman defence??

Roy

I noticed that. The Gauls seem to indulge in a lot of pre-fight posturing: yells, shield-banging, and the rest, followed by an attempt to quickly hack their opponents to pieces, armour and all, in hand-to-hand combat. I'm not sure I see anything adding up to a frenzied charge.

Fighting between primitive tribes like those in the Amazon and New Guinea generally seems to involve a lot of display and not too much bloodletting, rather like male animals that avoid causing too much injury to each other when they fight over the females . The Gauls were perhaps similar, wanting to frighten their opponents into a retreat rather than indulge in a reckless and costly all-out assault in which both sides would suffer heavy casualties. When it came to the actual fighting they seem to have wanted to get it over with as soon as possible.

Any other sources on the subject?

[Patrick Waterson]

Dionysius also suggests out that the Gauls were drawn into Italy by the delicacies of the region:

10  The reason why the Gauls came into Italy was as follows. A certain Lucumo, a par of the Tyrrhenians, being about to die, entrusted his son to a loyal man named Arruns as guardian. Upon the death of the Tyrrhenian, Arruns, taking over the guardianship of the boy, proved diligent and just in carrying out his trust, and when the boy came to manhood, turned over to him the entire estate left by his father. For this service he did not receive similar kindness from the youth.  It seems that Arruns had a beautiful young wife, of whose society he was extremely fond and who had always shown herself chaste up to that time; but the young man, becoming enamoured of her, corrupted her mind as well as her body, and sought to hold converse with her not only in secret but openly as well. Arruns, grieving at the seduction of his wife and distressed by the wanton wrong done him by them both, yet unable to take vengeance upon them, prepared for a sojourn abroad, ostensibly for the purpose of trading.  When the youth welcomed his departure and provided everything that was necessary for trading, he loaded many skins of wine and olive oil and many baskets of figs on the waggons and set out for Gaul.

11 The Gauls at that time had no knowledge either of wine made from grapes or of oils such as is produced by our olive trees, but used for wine a foul-smelling liquor made from barley rotted in water, and for oil, stale lard, disgusting both in smell and taste. On that occasion, accordingly, when for the first time they enjoyed fruits which they had never before tasted, they got wonderful pleasure out of each; and they asked the stranger how each of these articles was produced and among what men.  The Tyrrhenian told them that the country producing these fruits was large and fertile and that it was inhabited by only a few people, who were no better than women when it came to warfare; and he advised them to get these products no longer by purchase from others, but to drive out the present owners and enjoy the fruits as their own. Persuaded by these words, the Gauls came into Italy and to the Tyrrhenians known as the Clusians, from whence had come the man who had persuaded them to make war.

and once they had what they wanted they became soft and unfit (a similar process is said to have affected Hannibal's men wintering in Campania in 216/215 BC).

The Gauls, having made an expedition against Rome for the second time, were plundering the Alban district. There, as all gorged themselves with much food, drank much unmixed wine (the wine produced there is the sweetest of all wines after the Falernian and is the most like hone-wine), took more sleep than was their custom, and spent most of their time in the shade, they gained so rapidly in corpulence and flabbiness and became so womanish in physical strength that whenever they undertook to exercise their bodies and to drill in arms their respiration was broken by continual panting, their limbs were drenched by much sweat, and they desisted from their toils before they were bidden to do so by their commanders. - Dionysius XIV.8

This might be why the vaunted Gallic charge was not in evidence in Dionysius' account of Camillus' battle.  On the other hand, Livy's account states:

[Camillus] then drew up his line, as well as the ground permitted, on the naturally uneven surface of the half-ruined City, and saw to it that his soldiers had every advantage in choice of position and in preparation which the art of war suggested. [5] The Gauls were taken aback; they armed, and, with more rage than judgment, charged the Romans. - Livy V.49.4-5

This is more like what we would expect: a jolly good charge with plenty of rage behind it.  Dionysius may simply have omitted the charge from his retelling in order to concentrate on the details of the bloodletting.  If so, he definitely missed a chance to promote a 'topos' (literary stereotype), which rather argues against the 'topos' school of thought.

I am not sure that Dionysius 'ridicules' the Gallic method of fighting: he simply describes it.  Granted that one can read in a tacit assumption that the 'civilised' Roman way is better, but if the Roman way was indeed better for the reasons given then the historian would be doing his subject a disservice were he not to point this out.

Patrick

[Erpingham]

I would cite Rome's long development of neck and shoulder protection in legionary helmets and armour as evidence that the Romans took this threat seriously.

Roy

Gallic forms of helmet with good protection for the neck and the mailshirt with the reinforced shoulder pieces suggest that blows from above were a threat both cultures were aware of.  It is tempting to relate this to slashing sword armed opponents.

[Erpingham]

I am not sure that Dionysius 'ridicules' the Gallic method of fighting: he simply describes it.  Granted that one can read in a tacit assumption that the 'civilised' Roman way is better, but if the Roman way was indeed better for the reasons given then the historian would be doing his subject a disservice were he not to point this out.

Patrick

Maybe it's the translation but the tone I am hearing is one of racial or cultural superiority.  Our enemies are animals, fierce and dangerous, but incapable of real skill at arms.  He is a good enough historian to use his source material to describe the two combat styles (and I think his basic description is credible) but his analysis starts from a point of not being able to credit his opponents' skills or tactical choices, so any reason behind their battlefield behaviour is lost on him.

[Patrick Waterson]

Dionysius regrettably degenerates into fragments just as he is getting interesting, so our next piece comes from Livy, narrating a Gallic incursion in 359-358 BC.

At first the Gallic leaders supposed that the Romans would not come down into the plain; then, when they saw that they had suddenly begun to descend, they also, being themselves eager for the combat, rushed into battle, and the fighting began before the signal could be given by the generals. - Livy VII.14.10

Eagerness and rushing into combat seems to be characteristic of Gauls in this period when left to their own default mentality.  Their impetuosity is confirmed by the next sentence:

The right wing of the Gauls attacked fiercely, and it would have been impossible to stop them, if the dictator had not happened to be there. - Livy VII.15.1

A combination of Roman courage and timely commitment of cavalry saw off this particular attack once the dictator had delivered an impassioned oration to his quailing troops (at least Livy would have it this way, though how the troops would have heard their leader's pretty speech amid the din of battle is not explained).

At Sentinum in 295 BC:

The Romans with Fabius were rather defending themselves than attacking, and were trying to prolong the struggle to as late an hour in the day as possible.  This was because their general was persuaded that both Samnites and Gauls fought fiercely at the outset of an engagement, but only needed to be withstood; when a struggle was prolonged, little by little the spirits of the Samnites flagged, while the physical prowess of the Gauls, who could least of all men put up with heat and labour, ebbed away, and, whereas in the early stages of their battles they were more than men [plus quam virorum], they ended with being less than women. - Livy X.28.2-4

The initial impact of the Gauls is contrasted with the rapid waning of their stamina in a prolonged fight.

These extracts all seem consistent with a preferred Gallic style of battle that involves a furious rush and mighty weapon strokes - and which also seems nonplussed about what to do if this fails to cause the enemy to collapse.

[Erpingham]

These extracts all seem consistent with a preferred Gallic style of battle that involves a furious rush and mighty weapon strokes - and which also seems nonplussed about what to do if this fails to cause the enemy to collapse.

And yet there seem to be other battles where this doesn't happen.  Looking at battles covered by the Battles thread elsewhere, the Gauls at Bibracte don't seem to do anything impulsive - they plod around in big close-order phalanxes or skulk on hills.  The battle of Mons Graupius, the British infantry skulk on a hill then slowly descend.  I remember there are other examples where the gauls (or maybe Galatians, or Celt-Iberians) are much less inclined to throw themselves into a screaming charge.  Why might this be?  Could we be seeing an attempt to match tactics against Roman activity, which would suggest an understanding of the military art.

[Patrick Waterson]

At Telamon in 225 BC the Gauls suffered a serious defeat and seem never to have been the same again afterwards.  Telamon is also the last time (in the west) that we encounter Gauls clad for combat in their birthday suits (their eastern cousins, the Galatians, maintain this naturist battlefield sartorial approach until they themselves are decisively smitten in similar circumstances in 189 BC).

The Telamon campaign saw (according to Polybius) a more impressive lineup than the Romans had ever faced before.

These arguments made the leaders so eager for the expedition, that there never at any other time came from that part of Gaul a larger host, or one consisting of more notable warriors. - Polybius II.22

The Romans concentrated two main armies against the Gallic incursion.  As fortune or destiny would have it, one army ended up ahead of the Gauls and one behind them.  The Gauls, unsure what to do, concentrated on some rising ground (a more sensible course of action would have been to commit rapidly and weightily against one of the Roman forces).

The Celts had stationed the Alpine tribe of the Gaesatae to face their enemies on the rear, and behind them the Insubres; on their front they had placed the Taurisci, and the Cispadane tribe of the Boii, facing the legions of Gaius. Their waggons and chariots they placed on the extremity of either wing, while the booty they massed upon one of the hills that skirted the road, under the protection of a guard. The army of the Celts was thus double-faced, and their mode of marshalling their forces was effective as well as calculated to inspire terror. The Insubres and Boii were clothed in their breeches and light cloaks; but the Gaesatae from vanity and bravado threw these garments away, and fell in in front of the army naked, with nothing but their arms; believing that, as the ground was in parts encumbered with brambles, which might possibly catch in their clothes and impede the use of their weapons, they would be more effective in this state. - Polybius II.28

The Gauls' problem was that they were facing two opponents in two different directons and in addition were losing a cavalry fight on one of their flanks.  This seems to have dampened their enthusiasm for their usual have-at-em charge.

Telamon had been preceded by an action near Faesulae a few days earlier.  Here the Gauls had the initiative and behaved in characteristic fashion once committed to battle.  Note however the care they took to lead the Romans into an ambush.

The two armies came in sight of each other about sunset, and encamped for the night a short distance apart. But when night fell, the Celts lit their watch fires; and leaving their cavalry on the ground, with instructions that, as soon as daylight made them visible to the enemy, they should follow by the same route, they made a secret retreat along the road to Faesulae, and took up their position there; that they might be joined by their own cavalry, and might disconcert the attack of the enemy. Accordingly, when at daybreak the Romans saw that the cavalry were alone, they believed that the Celts had fled, and hastened in pursuit of the retreating horse; but when they approached the spot where the enemy were stationed, the Celts suddenly left their position and fell upon them. The struggle was at first maintained with fury on both sides: but the courage and superior numbers of the Celts eventually gave them the victory. - Polybius II.25

One gets the impression that where the Gauls felt they were at an advantage they would fall on enthusiastically without let or hindrance.  When things looked trickier, they seem to have been hesitant and indecisive.  This seems to have happened at Telamon and much more after 225 BC.

[Erpingham]

Thanks again Patrick.  Three points of note to me :

Another army skulking on a hill.  If I remember correctly, Galatians had a similar tendency to make stands on hills (a battle is won by velites pelting them with javelins IIRC).  Is this because hills are an obvious place to defend (and for that matter rally to in a time without OS maps and GPS) or is there more to it?

Secondly, the ambush has both sides fighting furiously - I'm guessing here we have a short, sharp action, in which the Roman long game for which they trained doesn't come into play.

Thirdly, the pragmatic explanation for men "getting naked" (as the modern idiom has it).  True, or is our author rationalising the irrational and there is some ritual purpose here?  That's a whole other debate of course (I'm not suggesting we set about it now) but my purpose for raising it is that we do lack anthropological insight into how the Gauls work.  To go back to our Isandhlwana example (which I suspect was in another thread), if we didn't have the knowledge of Zulu society, would we see the British as being outmanoeuvered or just swamped by a tide of "savages"?  While I think that the topos of the fierce onset, lack of staying power has some truth in it (not least in that the Romans seam to have made efforts with economic combat technique, endurance training and line relief to be able to play the long game - you don't take real steps to counter a literary salon invention), the gloss about animal like behaviour and lack of military art is a failure to understand how Gallic military organisation worked.  Anyway, looking forward to more examples

[aligern]

Patrick generally has an adventurous humour in this sort of debate.  I see that we advance from some Gauls charging to  them fighting fiercely and that both types of citation are used to characterise the Gallic eagerness to charge and 'impetuosity.'  However, I suggest that Anthony has some good logic here in that we are seeing a Roman Or Greek< account that  misunderstands the Gauls  and is then bought into by the wargaming myth makers.
Firstly, Gauls are not the only people who make fierce charges. The Romans seem to do the same, sometimes resulting in an inability to throw pila.  Against Ariovistus for example.
The cite where the Romans move down the hill and trigger a Gallic charge is just as likely to reflect a Gallic commander seizing an opportunity when he thought that the Romans had been disordered by their descent and only the commanding presence of the dictator  saves the Romans and converts the action to a victory.
Secondly, ambushes don't work if you cannot control your troops. In the case patrick cites and at the Sambre and in some of those defeats by Gauls that we get very little detail about that occur in the North of Italy, one rather expects that the Gallic general has waited until the point of advantage to release his men.
Thirdly, seductive though Patrick's argument is, we should not confuse fierce fighting with an impetuous charge.  Are we to believe that the Samnites are fierce and uncontrolled chargers?  I think not and I don't think that the proponents of Gallic impetuosity think that that Samnites are the same, yet the quote that has both of them fighting fiercely at first is often used selectively to justify a penalising effect on Gauls.
Lastly , Patrick and Anthony have both pointed us to the likelihood that Gallic tactics develop , or at least are modified by, time and the lessons of defeat, though interestingly they never abandon their long swords and inadequate shields. maybe their fighting style is just too wedded to their culture, maybe it is a matter that mostly they fought other Gauls or tribes that they were not so disadvantaged against?/

Patrick, any chance of lumping into this thread the examples from Plutarch's life of marius and your comments upon those descriptions?/
Roy