Celtic Culture Site

The Celts in battle

Polybius, who lived between about 202 and 120 BC, gives a full account of how the Celts fought at the battle of Telamon in 225 BC; it is worth quoting at length because it highlights several recurring characteristics: 'The Celts had drawn up the Gaesatae from the Alps to face their enemies on the rear ... and behind them the Insubrcs .... The Insubres and the Boii wore trousers and light cloaks, but the Gaesatae in their overconttdencc had thrown these aside and stood in front of the whole army naked, with nothing but their arms; for they thought that thus they would be more efficient, since some of the ground was overgrown with thorns which would catch on their clothes and impede the use of their weapons.

'On the other hand the fine order and the noise of the Celtic host terrified the Romans; for there were countless trumpeters and horn blowers and since the whole army was shouting its war cries at the same time there was such a confused sound that the noise seemed to come not only from the trumpeters and the soldiers but also from the countryside which was joining in the echo. No less terrifying were the appearance and gestures of the naked warriors in front, all of whom were in the prime of life and of excellent physique. All the warriors in the front ranks were adorned with gold tores and armlets. The Romans were particularly terrified by the sight of these men, but, led on by hope of gain, they were twice as keen to face the danger.

'... to the Celts in the rear their trousers and cloaks afforded good protection, but to the naked men in front events turned out differently to what they had expected and caused them much discomfiture and distress. For since the Gallic shield cannot cover the whole body, because they were naked, the bigger they were, the more chance there was of missiles striking home. At length, unable to ward off the javelin throwers because of the distance and the number of javelins falling upon them, in despair and distress some rushed upon the enemy in wild rage and willingly gave up their lives; others, retreating step by step towards their comrades, threw them into confusion by their manifest show of cowardice.'

The ancient writers dwelt upon the terrifying effect an army of Celts had on their opponents; their great stature, their wild cries, their gesticulations and prancings, the clashing of arms and blowing of trumpets — all combined to terrify and confuse the enemy. As long as these demonstrations of enthusiasm and bravado struck terror into the foe, the Celts would drive all before them. 'For they were always most formidable while they were fresh.' The whole race is war-mad, says Strabo, high-spirited and quick to fight, but otherwise straightforward and not at all of evil character.

Single combat

When the two armies were arrayed in line, the loud voice of the Celtic chief could sometimes be heard. 'For they were accustomed ... to come forward before the front line and challenge the bravest of the enemy drawn up opposite them to single combat, brandishing their weapons and terrifying the enemy. Whenever one accepts the challenge, they praise in song the manly virtues of their ancestors, proclaiming also their own brave deeds. At the same time they abuse and belittle their opponent, trying by their words to rob him of his boldness of spirit beforehand."

The story of how Marcus Claudius Marcellus killed a Gallic leader at Clastidium (222 BC) is typical of such encounters. Advancing with a smallish army, Marcellus met a combined force of Insubrian Gauls and Gaesatae at Clastidium. The Gallic army advanced with the usual rush and terrifying cries, and their king, Britomartus, picking out Marcellus by means of his badges of rank, made for him, shouting a challenge and brandishing his spear. Britomartus was an outstanding figure not only for his size but also for his adornments; for he was resplendent in bright colours and his armour shone with gold and silver. This armour, thought Marcellus, would be a fitting offering to the gods. He charged the Gaul, pierced his bright breastplate and cast him to the ground. It was an easy task to kill Britomartus and strip him of his armour. These spoils Marcellus offered to Jupiter. This is the only story of its kind in which the name of the Celtic chief is recorded.

Noise

In their attempts to throw the enemy into confusion and terror, the Celts made great use of noise. They yelled their war cries as they advanced, howling and singing and brandishing their spears. Livy, in two different contexts, distant in time and place, vividly depicts the noise accompanying their mad rush into battle. Describing the battle of the river Allia, he says: 'they are given to wild outbursts and they fill the air with hideous songs and varied

Kig. 10. The mouth of a Celtic trumpet from Dcskford (Banffshire. Grampian), wrought in sheet bronze.

shouts.' Of the Gauls in Asia he writes: 'their songs as they go into battle, their yells and leapings, and the dreadful noise of arms as they beat their shields in some ancestral custom — all this is done with one purpose, to terrify their enemies.' In sharp contrast to the wild onset of the Celts, which was evident also during their invasion of Greece, was the silent, orderly advance of the Greek army. When the Gauls defeated the Roman army at the river Allia, they marched on Rome. 'They arrived at the city and entered at first in fear lest there should be some treachery, but then, when they saw that the city was deserted, they moved forward with equal noise and impetuosity.' On another occasion the Romans experienced a new form of noisy warfare: 'for standing up in chariots and wagons, the armed enemies came at them with the great noise of hooves and wheels so that the unfamiliar din terrified the horses of the Romans.'

There was also the noise of trumpets. At the battle of Telamon the number of trumpeters and horn blowers was incalculable. Diodorus Siculus says they had trumpets peculiar to barbarians: 'for when they blow upon them, they produce a harsh sound, suitable to the tumult of war.' The Gauls also had their shouts of victory and triumph. 'They shouted "Victory, Victory" in their

Rg. II. The Gundestrup Cauldron, from Denmark, showing trumpeters, footsoldiers with spears and shields, a soldier with a sword and helmet surmounted by a boar, and two cavalrymen wearing spurs and helmets surmounted by a boar and a bird.

customary fashion and raised their yell of triumph (ululatus)\ and at Alesia 'they encouraged their men with shouts of triumph (clamore et ululatu)\ There are several representations of Celtic trumpets on classical sculpture, most notably at Pergamon in Asia Minor, and on the triumphal arch at Orange in southern France, and a few fragments of actual trumpets have survived.

The mouth of a trumpet shaped in the manner of a boar's head was found in 1816 at Deskford (Banffshire, Grampian), (fig. 10); although the trumpet itself no longer survives, the mouth may be compared with the representations on the cauldron from Gundestrup in Denmark, where the sectional nature of the trumpet construction is clearly shown (fig. 11). The Deskford trumpet may originally have had ears and a mane rather like the Gundestrup examples; when first discovered, however, it retained a movable wooden 'tongue' which may have added vibration to the strident sounds blown from it. The Deskford piece is usually dated to the middle of the first century AD.

Among the earlier representations of trumpets arc those from the temple of Athena Polias Nikephoros at Pergamon in Asia Minor dating to about 181 BC and celebrating the victories of Attalus I over the Galatian tribes in the late third century BC. Trumpets, shields, standards, indeed all the trophies arc set out in a great display of spoils of war on the triumphal arch at Orange (fig. 12). The large number of trumpets shown at Orange underlines the impression of great noise during battle given by the classical writers.

Naked warriors

As already mentioned, Polybius describes a contingent of Gaesatac (sometimes taken as mercenaries, now more often as spearmen), which took part in the battle of Telamon; they came from beyond the Alps to help the Gauls already in north Italy (for example the Boii and the Insubres). The Celts of north Italy wore trousers and cloaks, but the Gaesatac fought naked. At the battle of Cannae (216 BC) Polybius describes the naked Celts and the Iberians with their short linen tunics with purple borders, and Livy speaks of the Gauls naked from the navel up and of the Iberians with dazzlingly white tunics bordered with purple. The Celts in Asia Minor seem to have preserved this custom, for they too arc described as naked in battle with skin white because they were never exposed except in battle. Camillus, trying to raise the morale of the Romans after the siege of the Capitol, pointed to some naked Gauls and said: 'These are the men who rush against you in battle, who raise loud shouts, clash their arms and long swords, and toss their hair. Look at their lack of hardiness, their soft and flabby bodies, and go to it'. Dionysus of Halicarnassus expresses the same sentiments: 'Our enemies fight bare-headed, their breasts, sides, thighs, legs are all bare, and they have no protection except from their shields; their weapons of defence are thin spears and long swords. What injury could their long hair.

l-ig. 13. Ccllic chariot with warrior and charioteer; the reconstructed chariot, now in the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland, Edinburgh, is the result of the amalgamation of evidence from several sources.

their tierce looks, the clashing of their arms and the brandishing of their arms do us? These are mere symbols of barbarian boast fulness.'

Head taking

Another Celtic custom, only very briefly mentioned by Polybius, was the decapitation of their enemies. 'The consul Gaius fell fighting desperately in the thick of battle, and his head was brought to the Celtic king.' After a battle between the Senones and the Romans the consul got no news of the disaster 'till some Gallic horsemen came in sight with heads hanging from their horses' breasts or fixed on spears and singing their song of triumph as is their custom'. On another occasion the Boii killed a Roman leader, cut off his head and bore it off to their most holy temple. Then the skull was gilded and used as a sacred vessel for libations or as a drinking cup by the priest and temple attendants. During the Funic War, a Celtic contingent in the Roman army, believing that Hannibal's prospects were brighter, killed some Romans and, cutting off their heads, departed with them to join the Carthaginian.

'When their enemies fall', writes Diodorus Siculus, 'they [the Gauls] cut off their heads and fasten them to the nccks of their horses. They hand over the blood-stained spoils to their attendants and they carry them off as booty chanting a paean over them and singing a hymn of victory. They nail up the heads on their houses just as certain hunters do when they have killed wild beasts. They embalm in cedar oil the heads of their most distinguished enemies and keep them carefully in a chest: they display them with pride to strangers, declaring that one of their ancestors or their father or the man himself refused to accept a large sum of money offered for this head. They say that some of them boast that they refused the weight of the head in gold.' Strabo repeats these details almost verbatim and claims that Posidonius had seen such heads displayed in many places and had at first been disgusted by the sight but later got used to it.

This head taking and the preservation of the heads of the most distinguished enemies was a practice which had for the Gauls a religious and a magical significance. To the Romans, however, it was a sure sign of inhuman savagery, and Strabo says the Romans put an end to it. Caesar does not mention the custom, and it may nave died out by the time he started his campaigns in Gaul.

Chariots

In the early encounters of the Celts and the Romans, it was the war chariot which most attracted the Roman interest. It appears that the main use of the chariot was for causing panic when the charioteers drove against the enemy lines at top speed, throwing javelins and by mere speed and noise terrifying the enemy. 'Many of the first line were trodden underfoot by the rush of horses and chariots.' Once the initial stage of terrifying was over, the warriors dismounted from the chariots and fought on foot, while their attendants kept the chariot at the ready to effect, if necessary, a speedy retreat. The chariots were then merely a means of transport for the warriors to and from their combats, as in Homeric Greece. A thousand chariots took part in the battle of Sentinum (295 BC), and at Telamon (225 BC) the chariots were stationed on the wings.

'When going into battle,' says Diodorus Siculus, 'the Gauls use two-horsed chariots which carry the charioteer and the warrior. When they meet with cavalry in war, they throw their javelins at the enemy and, dismounting from their chariots, they join battle with their swords . . . They bring also freemen as servants, choosing them from among the poor, and these they use as charioteers and shield bearers'.

As their prowess and agility as horsemen increased, so the Gauls gradually gave up the chariot. Chariots were no longer in fashion when Caesar was conquering Gaul, and he was surprised to find them still in use in Britain. Strabo states that the Britons used chariots as did some of the Gauls, while Diodorus Siculus says that "they used chariots as the heroes of Greece are traditionally said to have done in the Trojan War'.

Caesar's description of the Britons in action gives a good picture of their skill and agility. 'At first they ride along the whole line and hurl javelins; the terror inspired by the horses and the noise of the wheels generally throw the enemy ranks into confusion. Then when they have worked their way between the lines of their own cavalry, they jump down from the chariots and fight on foot. Meanwhile the drivers withdraw a little from the field and place the chariots so that their masters, if hard pressed by the enemy, have an easy retreat to their ranks . . . Their daily training and practice have made them so expert that they can control their horses at full gallop on a steep incline and then check and turn them in a moment. They can run along the chariot pole, stand on the yoke and return again into the chariot very speedily'.

The archaeological evidence for chariots comprises the metal pieces of the vehicle and the harness found in graves or in votive deposits. Representations on sculpture and on coins help to provide information about the wooden or wicker pieces that no longer survive. Harness was richly decorated with bronze ornaments, sometimes inlaid with coral or enamel. The leather does not survive, but the metal parts have been frequently found in burials and in hoards. Bridle bits, or snaffles, often consisted of three main elements: a central bar, sometimes itself jointed, with rings at each end by which the side loops or cheek pieces were attached to the reins. The leather harness was further elaborated at the strap junctions with a series of mountings of a variety of shapes and decoration. In order to allow the charioteer greater control of the horses, the reins were led over the wooden yoke through a series of bronze rings. Such rein rings (or tcrrets) were often decorated, but the wear marks where the reins strained the bronze show that they had a practical function. Several important deposits of metal work of this type have been found in Britain, notably from Llyn Cerrig Bach (Anglesey, Gwynedd)(now in the National Museum of Wales), from Melsonby (North Yorkshire) and from Bawdrip (Somerset) (now in the British Museum).

The technology available to the Celtic wheelwright was the result of the experimentation and knowledge of many earlier generations of European craftsmen. On the continent the wooden rim was usually from a single piece of wood, or felloe, bent to a circular shape with the tapering ends brought together in a long overlapping scarf joint. This was kept in a position by a U-shaped iron clamp, thus keeping the hub and spokes together. The wheel was further strengthened by an iron tyre. A wheel of Celtic type, found in a rubbish pit on the Roman fort at Bar Hill (Dunbartonshire, Strathclyde), had survived because of the damp conditions; the felloe was a single piece of ash, the eleven spokes were of lathe-turned willow and the similarly turned hub was of elm. This careful choice of material shows the craftsman's appreciation of the qualities of the different woods. The iron tyre had been made in one piece and had been set round the felloe when still hot and then shrunk on to it, thus compressing the wood as it cooled. In Britain the more usual type of wheel has several sections to the felloe cut from a plank and joined by tenons; a wheel of second century BC date from Holme Pierrepont (Nottinghamshire) has six sections, with two of the twelve spokes in each, kept rigid by an iron tyre, which has been shrunk round the wooden frame.

The wheels were attached to the axle of a chariot by means of linchpins, often of iron with bronze decoration. Above the axle was tne platform, probably about 1 metre (3 feet 3 inches) square, on which the warrior and charioteer stood, while at right angles to the axle the chariot pole rose from axle height about 0.5 metres 1 foot 8 inches) to the height of the shoulders of the horses, about 1.15 metres (3 feet 9 inches). There was probably considerable variation in the style of the sides of the platform, although lightness would have been important for speed. The use of wickerwork is mentioned in the Irish tales, and Fox favoured semicircular sides filled in with wicker, as shown in the reconstruction on fig. 13. However, a double arcade seems a better interpretation of the coin evidence, and there is an attractive model of this type in the British Museum. The front and back would be open, and the view from the platform looking along the pole (fig. 15) is a telling reminder of the agility of the warriors described by Caesar.

Several classical authors assert that the Celts had 'scythed

Fig. 14. Reconstructed horse harness.

chariots', and this notion har caught popular imagination since 1902, when a statue of Boudica standing in such a chariot was erectcd on Westminster Bridge. No archaeological corroboration for such additions to the hub caps has been found in Europe, though it seems that chariots with some form of hub projections were found in eastern warfare in the second and third centuries BC.

Cavalry

In war the Celts were particularly formidable as horsemen, having a reputation for excellence in mounted warfare. When the chiefs and nobles gave up the use of war chariots, they fought on horseback, using the horse as a means of getting to and from the battle. Polybius tells that the Iberian and Celtic cavalry were not a squadron of horsemen fighting as a unit, but merely mounted warriors who, once they arrived at the battle area, dismounted and fought on foot. German horsemen had trained their horses to remain on the same spot so that they could return to them quickly in case of need. The Celtiberian horsemen had a similar manoeuvre. They had small pegs attached to the horse's reins.

Fig. IS. The view along the chariot pole.

These they fixed into the ground, so that the horses could not stray, until they came back and pulled out the pegs.

Livy, writing of the early migrations, says that the Gauls set out with large forces of infantry and cavalry. At Telamon there were twenty thousand either on horseback or on chariots. Writing of the year 213 BC, after the Roman campaigns in Spain, Livy remarks that the only fact worth recording was that until then the Romans had never had mercenaries in their camp but now they had the Celtiberians. Contingents of Gallic cavalry fought on the Roman and Carthaginian sides during Hannibal's campaigns, choosing the side where the prospects and pay were better. When the Gauls were finally conquered, it was the Gallic cavalry that the Romans recruited for their army.

Describing the Celtic invasion of Greece, Pausanias speaks of the trimarcisia (marca was the Celtic word for a horse, he says); this was a group of three horsemen, one of them a nobleman and the two others grooms. The grooms would stay behind the ranks, ready to supply their master with a fresh horse if his were wounded; one groom would take his place if he were injured or killed, and the other would take him back to camp if he were wounded. The simple idea behind this scheme, it seems, was to keep the initial number of horsemen complete.

In his campaign across the Rhine, Caesar discovered that the Germans thought it shameful to use saddles, and they dared to engage with any number of saddled horsemen, regardless of by how much they were outnumbered. Presumably the Celtic cavalry in Caesar's army did have saddles, but neither the Celts nor the Romans had knowledge of stirrups. A few spurs have, however, survived (see also fig. II). At Avaricum, Vcrcingetorix himself took command of the cavalry and lightly armed infantry (who regularly fought amongst the cavalry) to set an ambush at a place where they expected the Romans would go to forage.

0 0