SoA Forums

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on May 15, 2023, 08:49:52 AMIgnoring 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.)

He gets the La Tene distribution wrong.  He might have a look at Jim Mallory's maps as a corrective.  I suppose it didn't fit his self defined "Gallic" culture zone.

As Duncan notes there is a sort of special pleading at play here.

Quote from: Anton on May 15, 2023, 06:44:25 PMHe gets the La Tene distribution wrong.

How, specifically?

Also, not everyone now works on the basis that La Tene is the definition of "Celtic".  Barry Cunliffe (who must still rate as the greatest living Anglophone authority on the ancient Celts) does not buy into it and seems to favour linguistics much more as the defining factor - a good example of refuting the old doctrine that archaeological artefacts are a reliable guide to ethnicity.

Ireland Andreas. There were two zones of La Tene in Ireland.  Also does he not exclude what is now Northern England?  If so that would be wrong too.

Yes, David using La Tene in this way strikes me as very curious as is the use of archaeological artefacts as a reliable guide to ethnicity. I'm sure the author is aware of that.  Indeed, I'm minded to think he has dismissed such arguments in other things he has written about other topics.

Cunliffe and Koch see Celtic culture as emerging out of the Bronze Age or maybe even a bit earlier. They also envisage it as a trading culture. Language is the key signifier of what constitutes Celtic or not.

Quote from: Anton on May 16, 2023, 06:44:46 AMIreland Andreas. There were two zones of La Tene in Ireland.

Thanks. 

QuoteAlso does he not exclude what is now Northern England?  If so that would be wrong too.

He excludes "N. Britain", which I'd normally assume to include parts of England, but might just be a fancy way of saying Scotland.

Regarding the definition of "Celt", I normally take the reference to be primarily linguistic - the Celts are those who speak Celtic languages - but that's not very useful for discussing warfare.

Quote from: Anton on May 16, 2023, 06:44:46 AMIreland Andreas. There were two zones of La Tene in Ireland.  Also does he not exclude what is now Northern England?  If so that would be wrong too.

Yes, David using La Tene in this way strikes me as very curious as is the use of archaeological artefacts as a reliable guide to ethnicity. I'm sure the author is aware of that.  Indeed, I'm minded to think he has dismissed such arguments in other things he has written about other topics.

Cunliffe and Koch see Celtic culture as emerging out of the Bronze Age or maybe even a bit earlier. They also envisage it as a trading culture. Language is the key signifier of what constitutes Celtic or not.

Agreed. Koch especially favours this interpretation. Makes sense too if you take that the cultural influence migrate with trade and trading

Cunliffe is inclined towards the idea that Celtic, as a language group, goes back to Neolithic times and Atlantic trading, acting as a lingua franca on the Lisbon to Hebrides arc.  He is careful to stress that what a trader speaks to other traders may not be the same tongue as when he is speaking to his wife back home of course, so that does not mean that proto-Celtic was necessarily a monolithic linguistic bloc along the Neolithic and Bronze Age Atlantic coasts.

While agreeing with the notion that it is rather old fashioned to attempt to align excavated material culture with culture in a wider sense, as Andreas suggests, trying to talk about "ways of war" based on, say, linguistic similarities is extremely difficult. Starting from "this group of people with similar equipment" may be more useful in this regard.  That said, does the ownership of similar weapons sets imply a similar way of war? 

Quote from: Erpingham on May 16, 2023, 10:52:53 AMWhile agreeing with the notion that it is rather old fashioned to attempt to align excavated material culture with culture in a wider sense, as Andreas suggests, trying to talk about "ways of war" based on, say, linguistic similarities is extremely difficult. Starting from "this group of people with similar equipment" may be more useful in this regard.  That said, does the ownership of similar weapons sets imply a similar way of war? 

How many ways of war are there? Equipment should determine that, at least to some extent. Let's give it a shot:

1. No body protection. Missile weapons.
Skirmishing from a distance = primitive tribal warfare. Characterised by prolonged combat with low casualties.

2. Little or no body protection. Spears, swords, some missile weapons
Hand-to-hand combat of brief duration; if prolonged then heavy casualties. Skirmishing a secondary concern.

3. Moderate or ample body protection. Pikes, Spears, some missile weapons
Hand-to-hand combat that can be prolonged. In the case of Greek hoplites, othismos makes hand-to-hand fighting of brief duration. Skirmishing a secondary concern.

4. Moderate or ample body protection. Swords, some missile weapons
Hand-to-hand combat that is prolonged. Skirmishing a secondary concern.

What needs to be fixed in this? Any other ways of war that can be included? Fertile Crescent armies?

You're very protection focussed there Justin.

Quote from: Erpingham on May 16, 2023, 12:07:49 PMYou're very protection focussed there Justin.

Just throwing out ideas. Protection does seem to play an important part in how one fights though.

How many ways of war are generally recognised?

You don't get equipment and then figure out a way to put it together.

You start with how you will fight, and then add equipment to assist that.

So your premise is wrong Justin, equipment does not determine fighting methods.  At best you can use common equipment to identify a common method, maybe.

equipment comes from conflict especially in regards to evolution of equipment

Quote from: Mark G on May 16, 2023, 12:30:39 PMYou don't get equipment and then figure out a way to put it together.

You start with how you will fight, and then add equipment to assist that.

So your premise is wrong Justin, equipment does not determine fighting methods.  At best you can use common equipment to identify a common method, maybe.

How about this:

You're part of a small primitive tribe, say San in the Kalahari or Aborigine in the Australian outback or a tribe in the Amazon basin. You can arm yourself only with what you can make yourself and you can't do metalwork. As a hunter you are skilled with missile weapons like javelins or bows but you have no time to become familiar with any other weapon. Naturally when it comes to warfare you transpose your hunting skills to the battlefield and you become a skirmisher.

You're part of a larger tribe that can do some metalwork and can make spears and shields. Helmets however and swords are at a premium since they use more metal and require more skill. And forget about body armour like mailshirts. With your protective shield you can rush enemy skirmishers so they adopt shields themselves and meet your charge head-on. But both sides are vulnerable in hand-to-hand combat. You compensate for this by a cult of courage but morale is still brittle and in a clash one side or the other gives way quickly.

You're part of a city state that has the means to make a variety of weapons plus good shields, headgear and body armour. In hand-to-hand combat you are more confident and, being more protected, you can fight for some time without risk of serious injury. In some cases (Greece) you are so well armoured that traditional sparring will take a long time achieve any real effect, so you resort to physically shoving your opponents backwards and getting them to rout that way. You improve on this by making your spears so long that you can physically shove them backwards with the now-pikes without your opponents being able to do anything to you.

Plausible?

Affordability/access.  I suspect for anyone expecting melee, a shield is the highest priority, followed by a helmet of some type, unless you are using a very big pointy stick (which might skewer Chummy before he gets close enough to whack you).

Body armour is the most expensive and least available item unless you are on the winning team at Trebbia/Trasimene/Cannae.  I have never bought the implied suggestion that warriors could only use a specific type of shield; their normal style might mean a preference for a scutum or thureos, but I am sure any of Hannibal's lads, for example would do almost as well with aspides or cavalry shields if that was all that was immediately available. And looting mail is a no brainer except maybe for a Balearic or Numidian, and possibly even they would not pass it up.

Polybius is very clear that body armour for the legions was an issue of personal cost, not role. Velites don't not have armour because of their role, but because their relative poverty and youth means that they cannot afford to be hastati, and THAT defines their role.