I don't often flag blog posts but this one by Brett Devereaux (https://acoup.blog/2023/05/12/collections-who-were-the-celts-and-how-did-they-some-of-them-fight/) 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.
of course Gaul/Gaulish is in itself a derivative description relating to differences perceived by others
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.
Quote from: DevereauxThe 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".
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
QuoteI 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.
QuoteHe'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.
Quote from: Duncan Head on May 12, 2023, 08:33:28 PMI 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.
Quote from: DevereauxThe 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.
Quote from: Duncan Head on May 12, 2023, 08:33:28 PMAnd 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?
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.)
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 15, 2023, 08:18:28 AMQuote from: Duncan Head on May 12, 2023, 08:33:28 PMAnd 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.
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.
Quote from: Erpingham on May 15, 2023, 11:21:34 AMSpecifically 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?
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 15, 2023, 08:18:28 AMQuote from: Duncan Head on May 12, 2023, 08:33:28 PMAnd 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.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 15, 2023, 12:18:20 PMQuote from: Erpingham on May 15, 2023, 11:21:34 AMSpecifically 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 :)
QuoteSimilarly, 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.
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 weaponsHand-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 weaponsHand-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 weaponsHand-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.
Quote from: DBS on May 16, 2023, 01:38:20 PMPolybius 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.
Bingo. Affordability = equipment = role (or way of war). It's a practical rather than cultural thing.
Re shields, I've wondered about round vs oblong/rectangular shapes. My take is that a rectangular or oblong shape is practical in that it covers the soldier's body but leaves him mobile - he can pull back without the sides of his shield bumping into his neighbours. A round shield makes a solid shieldwall possible: the interlocking shields form a protective front and cannot be easily pushed back. They also have the effect of making it impossible for the soldier to retire: if the chaps behind him have their shields also interlocking then he is there for the duration of the fight. Win or die. Very good for performance.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 16, 2023, 01:46:35 PMBingo. Affordability = equipment = role (or way of war). It's a practical rather than cultural thing.
Affordability relates to the society you find yourself in and your position within it. So even on your own terms, it has its route in culture. I would suggest how a society fights is wrapped in a selection of things e,g. social structure, ideology, economics, weapons technology, and these are interrelated to various degrees.
Quote from: Erpingham on May 16, 2023, 02:08:31 PMQuote from: Justin Swanton on May 16, 2023, 01:46:35 PMBingo. Affordability = equipment = role (or way of war). It's a practical rather than cultural thing.
Affordability relates to the society you find yourself in and your position within it. So even on your own terms, it has its route in culture. I would suggest how a society fights is wrapped in a selection of things e,g. social structure, ideology, economics, weapons technology, and these are interrelated to various degrees.
I suspect that when it comes to warfare practicality is key. Culture can be highly variable for things like art and music but when your life is on the line, you fight as your armament permits you to. Practicality depends on what weaponry your community is able to make and that depends on the size and specialisation of your community. Small tribes cannot specialise enough to support blacksmiths, and larger tribes cannot support enough blacksmiths to create body armour in quantity. You need to be a city state to create the full panoply. After that there is room for a variety of fighting doctrines or ways of war. Accessibility to a lot of horses combined with a culture of horse riding, will make a big difference in how you fight. I think it goes rather like paper scissors stone over a long period of time:
Infantry with shields can beat skirmishers.
Chariots can beat infantry with shields.
Heavier infantry and cavalry can beat chariots.
Hoplites can beat cavalry and any lighter form of infantry.
Legionaries can beat hoplites (they can get past their spear guard and take them out in close quarters swordfighting).
Phalangites can beat hoplites and but not legionaries as they require good ground and flank support, both of which legionaries can deny them.
Heavy cavalry can beat legionaries.
Pikes can beat heavy cavalry.
And so on.
Damn, I thought current thinking was:-
Quote from: Erpingham on May 16, 2023, 02:08:31 PMQuote from: Justin Swanton on May 16, 2023, 01:46:35 PMBingo. Affordability = equipment = role (or way of war). It's a practical rather than cultural thing.
Affordability relates to the society you find yourself in and your position within it. So even on your own terms, it has its route in culture. I would suggest how a society fights is wrapped in a selection of things e,g. social structure, ideology, economics, weapons technology, and these are interrelated to various degrees.
It also relates to whom you expect to fight and at what scale. Hairy barbarians expecting to fight other hairy barbarians will have one set of needs, and are probably focused more on cattle rustling or tribal feuds anyway. Hairy barbarians expecting to raid across the Rhine, Danube or Hadrian's Wall will hope not to fight anyone who can fight back, and thus also have a set of low value needs. Fighting Agricola at Mons Graupius is not something for which your barbarian tribe plans in advance, or develops itself to undertake. The successful barbarian incursions against civilisations (massive generalisation coming but still I think worth making) come from exploiting weaknesses in those civilisations, and/or after a period of partial assimilation (which includes acquisition of some kit and techniques), and/or sheer numbers and persistence. The Amorites and Kassites, on paper (or should that be on clay) should never have come to dominate the Mesopotamian city states, but they did. However, they then seem largely to have carried on with the Sumerian and Akkadian ways of warfare.
Quote from: DBS on May 16, 2023, 04:29:31 PMand/or sheer numbers and persistence.
Good points above but would you put, for instance, the Mongls in the numbers category?
OK, teeny weeny clarification. I was thinking of this lot as following one after the other in time (more or less):
QuoteInfantry with shields can beat skirmishers.
Chariots can beat infantry with shields.
Heavier infantry and cavalry can beat chariots.
Hoplites can beat cavalry and any lighter form of infantry.
Legionaries can beat hoplites (they can get past their spear guard and take them out in close quarters swordfighting).
Phalangites can beat hoplites and but not legionaries as they require good ground and flank support, both of which legionaries can deny them.
Heavy cavalry can beat legionaries.
Pikes can beat heavy cavalry.
So the infantry vs skirmishers comes at the beginning of organised warfare and the pikes vs heavy cav comes in the late Middle Ages. Or something like that.
So now you are removing society and culture entirely.
It's not going to work, forget the grand theories.
Quote from: Ian61 on May 16, 2023, 05:52:19 PMQuote from: DBS on May 16, 2023, 04:29:31 PMand/or sheer numbers and persistence.
Good points above but would you put, for instance, the Mongls in the numbers category?
I don't know enough about the Mongols to offer a meaningful opinion, but would observe that the nomads on the eastern reaches of the steppe had lived in proximity to the Chinese civilisations for centuries, so that surely had some effect, and secondly, the steppe nomads seem to have always been able to have an impact disproportionate to their numbers and kit versus sedentary civilisations until either the nomads ran out of steam or descended into internecine squabbles, or the current generation of sedentary opponents learned, adapted and got the measure of them.
Even so, the steppe peoples seem still to have largely focused on squabbling with other steppe peoples or raiding, rather than conquering, sedentary peoples. Strong leadership was needed to harness that aggression for longer term, more ambitious goals.
Quote from: DBS on May 16, 2023, 09:23:08 PMthe steppe nomads seem to have always been able to have an impact disproportionate to their numbers and kit versus sedentary civilisations until either the nomads ran out of steam or descended into internecine squabbles, or the current generation of sedentary opponents learned, adapted and got the measure of them.
There was a very good 2-part article on the Mongols some time back in Slingshot. The upshot as I recall was that sedentary civilisations never really got the measure of steppe nomads until gunpowder was widely used. Before the musket infantry had no effective answer to an army consisting of highly mobile archers. Muskets were the beginning of the improvement of ranged weapons culminating in the 20+km range howitzers that dominate the battlefield today.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 17, 2023, 07:38:02 AMThere was a very good 2-part article on the Mongols some time back in Slingshot.
Indeed, I remember reading that which may have been in my mind when I asked the question.
Back to Celts?
The weakness of Cunliffe's argument in Celtic from the West is that Celtic culture and artefacts and Celtic language are clearly found in Eastern Europe , probably before they are traceable in the West . I don't doubt the existence of substantial trade in the West and the relative ease of sea based transport compared to land migration. However there is good reason to believe that peoples move West from Gaul into Britain, such as the Parisii to Yorkshire, the Belgae to the South coast. Meanwhile tribes were moving out innan Eastward direction to become the Scordiscii and others in the Balkans and the three Galatian tribes in Anatolia. All these appear to have common language and culture with the Gauls, as do the Celts who moved south to become Celtiberians or those that moved into Italy, the Boii, The Senones, Insubres, etc.
Tribes on the move appear to either be split offs from an original tribe with the same name, or new formations that likely named themselves. Tracing the names and journeys backwards tends to give a central European core starting point that fits with the story that the artefacts mostly tell.
Lastly the Celtic way of war is more properly described as the Celtic way of war against the Romans because the vast majority of descriptions are of battles against Rome. What appears in these fights is that , at first, the Celts start by going head to head against the Romans. They realise that this does not work. They then try standing on hills to get the advantage of height, then they move to ambushes and guerilla tactics as they realise that beating the Romans frontally is difficult, nigh impossible. The Germans follow the same pattern, just later. However, we do not know even whether the original tactic of forming a battle line is what the Celts would do against each other. It may well be that the linear formation was a response to how they thought that tge Romans could best be countered. Perhaps in Celtic internecine warfare tactics fitted more to the social structure with smaller groups of professional warriors gathered around a chief seeking out parallel bands of opponents?
Roy
Quote from: aligern on May 17, 2023, 10:45:15 PMHowever, we do not know even whether the original tactic of forming a battle line is what the Celts would do against each other. It may well be that the linear formation was a response to how they thought that tge Romans could best be countered. Perhaps in Celtic internecine warfare tactics fitted more to the social structure with smaller groups of professional warriors gathered around a chief seeking out parallel bands of opponents?
It would seem that forming a battleline is the natural result of two sizeable groups of men fighting each other, as this fight (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqIAWcTLKx8) between the Russian football supporters of Spartak and Zenit demonstrates.
Those things are a lot better organised in advance than any film on the day would suggest. Not a great example to use
Quote from: Mark G on May 18, 2023, 07:05:38 AMThose things are a lot better organised in advance than any film on the day would suggest. Not a great example to use
What things? Even if they had come for a fight by pre-arranged agreement, you can still see that they start out as two blocks that flatten into lines once the thumpery starts. You can see the same thing here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RWzc1R6pRE). And here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWu-87BG3XY).
Quote from: aligern on May 17, 2023, 10:45:15 PMThe weakness of Cunliffe's argument in Celtic from the West is that Celtic culture and artefacts and Celtic language are clearly found in Eastern Europe , probably before they are traceable in the West . I don't doubt the existence of substantial trade in the West and the relative ease of sea based transport compared to land migration. However there is good reason to believe that peoples move West from Gaul into Britain, such as the Parisii to Yorkshire, the Belgae to the South coast. Meanwhile tribes were moving out innan Eastward direction to become the Scordiscii and others in the Balkans and the three Galatian tribes in Anatolia. All these appear to have common language and culture with the Gauls, as do the Celts who moved south to become Celtiberians or those that moved into Italy, the Boii, The Senones, Insubres, etc.
That argument against Cunliffe relies on defining the Celts by their artefacts. What he is arguing is that the ethnicity may have arisen from linguistic commonalities on the western seaboards as early as the Neolithic, certainly Bronze, Ages, and spread east. He is in no way arguing against later diffusion from east back to west, with Hallstadt and La Tene artefacts, nor possible population movements in the same direction - some of which have sound historical bases, some of which, eg the Celtiberian legend, unproven.
It is worth noting, for example, that even if one relies on "artefacts equal ethnicity", there is good evidence of "Celtic" presence in northern Italy long before the supposed migration of the Boii and friends...
The problem is whether one wishes to accept "Celts" as defined by Romano-Greek history, which only starts being written in the 5th Century, and only really starts taking an interest in the Celts/Gauls from the 4th C, and arguably only becomes reasonably reliable in the 3rd C. (After all, Livy is of questionable value even for the history of Rome itself before, say, the late 4th C, let alone what might have been happening around the Alps...)
From memory wasn't Innis Mon (Anglesey) described as the chief cult centre of Druidism? Druidism was a key component of the cultural package.
Quote from: Anton on May 18, 2023, 10:05:54 AMFrom memory wasn't Innis Mon (Anglesey) described as the chief cult centre of Druidism? Druidism was a key component of the cultural package.
Good question. Anglesey/innis Mon/Mona has been considered a Druid centre for the British Isles (quite centrally located with good sea links), I don't know about the whole druidic set up - if there was a single set up. Were the insular druids separate from the Gallic druids? Having said that, do we have evidence of druidism across the whole "Celtic" range?
Quote from: Erpingham on May 18, 2023, 10:46:59 AMQuote from: Anton on May 18, 2023, 10:05:54 AMFrom memory wasn't Innis Mon (Anglesey) described as the chief cult centre of Druidism? Druidism was a key component of the cultural package.
Good question. Anglesey/innis Mon/Mona has been considered a Druid centre for the British Isles (quite centrally located with good sea links), I don't know about the whole druidic set up - if there was a single set up. Were the insular druids separate from the Gallic druids? Having said that, do we have evidence of druidism across the whole "Celtic" range?
I have no idea of the answer to this, but was Anglesey actually a significant Druid centre or was it simply where Druidism made its last stand, having withdrawn there in the face of the Roman invasion? I know that Roman writers describe it as a centre for the religion, but is this a case of history being written by victors who may not be too fussy about getting the details right?
Caesar regarded Britain more generally as the intellectual/spiritual heartland of the druids, but obviously he would have had no knowledge of Anglesey, it suited his narrative to link the druids with Britain, and druidism seems to have been a feature of Britain/Gaul anyway, not necessarily part of the broader Celtic mien. There is no mention of druids, as far as I am aware, amongst the Galatians, the Italian or Balkan Celts, or the Celtiberians. Maybe they were there, but not perceived by the relevant historians or geographers, though one might think the likes of Strabo would have been on the lookout for them given their prominence in Caesar.
Personally I suspect the druids were an English Channel thing, possibly a late development as a distinctive group. Everyone will have had tribal wise men and priestly types, Tacitus makes reference to them amongst the Germans of course, but only Britain and northern Gaul seem to have druids by that name.
So I don't think one can say that druids are part of the "Celtic package", just part of the British/North Gallic package of 1st centuries BC and AD for sure.
Quote from: Denis Grey on May 18, 2023, 11:24:59 AMwas it simply where Druidism made its last stand,
Good question. This is what I recall from my schooldays - the Druids had fled as far away from the Romans as they could, to an island in the far west. But take a less Anglo-centric view and a centre for Druidism in the Irish sea, serving Ireland, Western and North Britain and the Western Isles makes sense.
Quote from: Erpingham on May 18, 2023, 10:46:59 AMQuote from: Anton on May 18, 2023, 10:05:54 AMFrom memory wasn't Innis Mon (Anglesey) described as the chief cult centre of Druidism? Druidism was a key component of the cultural package.
Good question. Anglesey/innis Mon/Mona has been considered a Druid centre for the British Isles (quite centrally located with good sea links), I don't know about the whole druidic set up - if there was a single set up. Were the insular druids separate from the Gallic druids? Having said that, do we have evidence of druidism across the whole "Celtic" range?
It's patchy in the sources Druids in Gaul,Britannia,among the Irish and Picts too. No specific mention of Galatian Druids but our sources were not focussed on their socio/religious practices. The Galatians were Gauls and the sources seem clear that Druidism was a pan Gallic thing. No exceptions noted, had they existed it should have been noteworthy.
Nothing comes to mind about the Celtiberians. Maybe that was a feature of being Celtiberian? Or maybe we just don't have the evidence.
I'd go for Druids being a key part of the Celtic cultural pacakge.
Caesar had to do with enough Druids to have picked up an idea about how they operated. He may have been reporting their view of Mona as the cult centre.
If you buy Celtic From the West then Mona as the Druidic cult centre isn't a stretch.
What did Druids do? They were an intelectual class with a range of powers and functions. Nothing particularly jars in their various historical mentions from place to place. I think they all were in the same business.
The "Celts from the west" theory posits diffusion eastwards during the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and early Bronze Ages. Yet 2000 years later, Caesar reckons druidism spread from Britain to Gaul, in other words sometime in realistic memory or tradition. Strabo for one would have been interested in druidism amongst the Galatians or indeed other non NW Europe Celts. There is simply no mention of druids in any surviving source before Poseidonius, ie early 1st century BC, and of course even for him we have no extant text, just references in and influence on the likes of Strabo, Diodorus and probably Caesar.
So the evidence is compatible with druidism being a development within insular and northern Gaul Celtic culture, but just conjecture to push it back further in time or more broadly in geography.