The Celts - a load of Gauls?

[Erpingham]

I don't often flag blog posts but this one by Brett Devereaux about "Celtic" armies of antiquity is rather good.  It treats you to an introduction explaining why "Celtic" is not a useful term in this period, settles down to a definition and then discusses the evidence.  Along the way, he delivers the usual criticisms of Pen & Sword. 

There is plenty of scholarship behind the article, despite it being written in a fairly informal manner. His thoughts shouldn't surprise folks who have read debates here but a good antidote to "wargamer history" about these armies.

[Imperial Dave]

of course Gaul/Gaulish is in itself a derivative description relating to differences perceived by others

[Duncan Head]

I do get a bit fed up with this sort of "no such thing as Celtic warfare" line. I can see that it is, strictly, correct. It just seems a bit prissy. And in any case we've heard it all before.

The example I use with my students is 'Frank;' – it was common in both the Eastern Mediterranean and later in East Asia to use some derivative of 'Frank' or 'Frankish' to mean 'Western or Central European' – the term got applied to the Portuguese in China, and to both Germans and Sicilian Normans during the Crusades.

And yet no-one, AFAIK, objects to discussions of "Frankish warfare".

[Mark G]

You could do worse than trying Dan Carlins pod episode on the Celtic Holocaust for a good overview.  At the very least, you will be entertained.  And he is almost certainly a wargamer

[Justin Swanton]

I do get a bit fed up with this sort of "no such thing as Celtic warfare" line. I can see that it is, strictly, correct. It just seems a bit prissy. And in any case we've heard it all before.

He does argue for a Gallic way of war that applies at least to central and northern Gaul, the Alps and Cisalpine Gaul. I find him interesting though I agree his style of writing is prissy. He's trying a little too hard to connect with his reader, possibly because he has a book to promote.

The reckless courage of Gallic warriors, which translates into impetuosity in rulesets, seems to come from the fact that they were shock troops with very little body armour. Primitive tribal warfare seems to have consisted largely of missile exchanges - spears or arrows - with a low casualty rate even after hours of combat. It's very ceremonial - a lot of gesturing and prancing around. This is probably what annoyed Shaka who realised that effective warfare meant destroying the enemy army, not swopping spears with them. He turned his Zulus into the Bantu version of Gallic warriors and adopted double envelopment to prevent an enemy from resorting to flight. A Zulu Hannibal if you like.

Once the transition is made to contact fighting, the problem of lack of protection comes to the fore. The only way a tribal society that lacks the resources to manufacture protective armour in quantity can deal with the problem is to inculcate an ethos of reckless courage in its warriors. They must not be afraid to die. I think that's what lay behind the tendency of warriors like the Gaesati to fight naked - they were simply putting that courage on display which helped reinforce it.

But to prevent catastrophic losses from a drawn-out battle the tribal warriors must make the fight as short as possible by a furious initial assault that panics their opponents into a rout. If that didn't work then any victory would be pyrrhic with the tribe losing much of its limited manpower. Common sense really.

[Erpingham]

He's trying a little too hard to connect with his reader, possibly because he has a book to promote.

This is his normal style, not just reserved for book promotion. It may help to know, though, that he has a financially significant Patreon following, so his posts have to maintain their interest.  It also explains why he can churn out long and detailed blog posts or even series - its work, not hobby.

As to wargaming credentials, he is certainly a gamer but his thing is computer games.

Like Justin, I think he did make a case for a widespread "Gallic" warfare style (equally artificial but at least defined).  What I don't think he did was explore it very far. We know, because we have discussed it extensively, there is a lot of Roman and Greek source material.  Obviously, it needs some winnowing to remove the cliches and topoi but there it still the only source for battlefield behaviour, an important element of war culture of any ancient society.

[Anton]

I do get a bit fed up with this sort of "no such thing as Celtic warfare" line. I can see that it is, strictly, correct. It just seems a bit prissy. And in any case we've heard it all before.

The example I use with my students is 'Frank;' – it was common in both the Eastern Mediterranean and later in East Asia to use some derivative of 'Frank' or 'Frankish' to mean 'Western or Central European' – the term got applied to the Portuguese in China, and to both Germans and Sicilian Normans during the Crusades.

And yet no-one, AFAIK, objects to discussions of "Frankish warfare".

Just so Duncan.

Also, as Anthony observes this is work for him, promoting himself and developing income streams.  He's desperate for tenure for fully understadable reasons.  I've often thought he was pitching himself as historical adviser to Computer Game Design outfits. Everyone has to make a living.

[Justin Swanton]

And yet no-one, AFAIK, objects to discussions of "Frankish warfare".

Is there such a thing as Frankish warfare? I mean, can you find common denominators between Clovis and Crusading knights?

[Andreas Johansson]

Ignoring the question whether anything could or should be called "Celtic warfare", I thought there was a lot of interest in the piece, in particular on the  distribution of La Téne gear and on which groups classical writers did and did not call "Celts", "Gauls", or "Galatians". (Nothing of it may have been new to Duncan, but some of it was to me.)

[Erpingham]

And yet no-one, AFAIK, objects to discussions of "Frankish warfare".

Is there such a thing as Frankish warfare? I mean, can you find common denominators between Clovis and Crusading knights?

A reasonable question.  The Byzantines tended to clump Western heavy cavalry armies as Frankish over a long period and weren't very specific about who they applied it to.  I suspect a similar imprecision applied when Islamic sources were talking about Western crusaders.  One difference in comparison with "Celtic" warfare is the "Franks" are a very literate bunch, so we know how they defined themselves in relation to each other and know very few thought of themselves as Franks.
Specifically around a "way of war", we might take the important role of a socio-professional heavy cavalry elite as a common factor in a broad sense, although the structures that elite fitted in varied over time and geography.

[Justin Swanton]

One thing about the video that I partially took exception to: the idea that warfare in Britain was frozen in time in that Britons used chariots long after the Gauls had abandoned them. This is put across as a cultural thing whereas IMHO it was just practicality. Horses were initially used to pull chariots simply because they were too small to work as effective cavalry, but once horse breeds had become big enough and they could carry a rider then cavalry naturally trumped chariots. In Britain horse breeds remained small so the Britons were stuck with chariots long after they had been abandoned on the continent.

The Britons did however have a unique use for chariots: transporting warriors to one point where they dismounted to fight as infantry and then carry them to another point to fight there, which confused and disorganised their opponents.

[Justin Swanton]

Specifically around a "way of war", we might take the important role of a socio-professional heavy cavalry elite as a common factor in a broad sense, although the structures that elite fitted in varied over time and geography

When exactly did the Franks make cavalry their principal arm? Under Charles Martel or before?

[Duncan Head]

And yet no-one, AFAIK, objects to discussions of "Frankish warfare".

Is there such a thing as Frankish warfare? I mean, can you find common denominators between Clovis and Crusading knights?

My point, I think, was that such commonalities, across the whole chronological and geographical range of Frankishness, are not required; that writers can happily discuss the charge of European knights, say, using the term "Frankish", without implying that Clovis, let alone 16th-century Portuguese Feringhi, fought the same way. Similarly, discussing "Celtic warfare" doesn't necessarily imply any resemblance between Cú Chulainn and the Galatians. Devereaux and those who argue similarly seem to be requiring greater precision in the use or avoidance of "Celtic" than we do with any similar terms.

[Erpingham]

Specifically around a "way of war", we might take the important role of a socio-professional heavy cavalry elite as a common factor in a broad sense, although the structures that elite fitted in varied over time and geography

When exactly did the Franks make cavalry their principal arm? Under Charles Martel or before?

I think current consensus is post Charles Martel. If you are the Bacharachs, cavalry never is the principal arm of course 

[Erpingham]

Similarly, discussing "Celtic warfare" doesn't necessarily imply any resemblance between Cú Chulainn and the Galatians. Devereaux and those who argue similarly seem to be requiring greater precision in the use or avoidance of "Celtic" than we do with any similar terms.

I think the problem he is trying to tackle is the pan-Celtic tendency where early Medieval Irish and Galatians are the same.  The reinvention of the "Celtic" heritage was an important Romantic notion of the 18th century onwards and it can back project onto the history almost sub-consciously. However, he might have done better to separate the two bits - his problems with the term "Celtic" and his discussion of the commonalities in war gear and warfare in his self-defined "Gallic" culture zone.