Celtic siege abilities

[Primus Pilus]

Now all the above are techniques of siegecraft being expertly applied against experts. You think they just picked that up overnight from some prisoners that were taken by another tribe a considerable distance away? And then promtly forgot it? (Except of course at Alesia).

 

I think that is precisely the reasoning for doubt (the Alesia issue). If such techniques were known, why then did they not apply them when they were perhaps most applicable at Alesia. Its just the sort of subtlety that makes one question Caesar. Personally I believe him, because I don't quite correlate the Gauls using siege weapons with over glorifying the enemy for personal gain, though there is perhaps some dramatization involved with the use of such terms as 'expert'.

 

At any rate, there are a couple of mentions of Trajan's Column as evidence of Celtic siege warfare. To my recollection and correct me if I'm wrong., there is only a depiction of Dacians using battering rams against a Roman fort, and all other references to siege weapons are from the Roman perspective.

 

Trajan's Column Overview

 

Secondly were Dacians actually considered Celt? I'm sure there is a close relation as there is with all Indo-Europeans, but I am under the impression that the Dacians or Getae were Thracian and not necessarily Celt? Perhaps someone who is more inclined to this sort of thing can provide more detail?

[Furius Venator]

Perhaps I was unclear. They didn't forget them at Alesia, Caesar regarded the town as impregnable and Vercingetoric waited for him to be caught 'between hammer and anvil'. So there was no assaulty on the town.

 

When the relieving force arrived Caesar says, 'they prepared a great quantity of fascines, ladders and grappling hooks...and drove the Romans from the rampart [with missiles and] employed every other method of assault' VII 80.

 

Also the beseiged 'lost much time in bringing out the implements that [they] had prepared...and in filling up the first section of trench.' VII 82

 

When the relief force assault the weakest section of the defences, 'Vercingetorix sallied out with the fascinmes, poles, sapper's huts, grappling hooks and other implements...' VII 84

 

The Gauls even use testudo at one point 'advancing with shields locked above their heads' whilst constructing a ramp to overcome the fortificationsVII 85

 

Later they 'filled trenches with earth and fascines, and tore down tyhe pallisade and breastwork with their hooks'. VII 86

 

I only really mentioned the Dacians because they had been cited above. Personally I'm not that keen on the broad grouping of 'Celts' to describe a huge number of different tribes who had some cultural features in common but also large differences. Even within Gaul, many tribes were quite Germanic in culture. I do however think that the expertise of these peoples is often underestimated by Romanophiles.

 

I'll see if I can dig out some references for the Trajan's column thing. It might take me a wee while though.

 

Lastly, the Gauls were very likely expert miners, after all they'd been mining metals for many many years.

Edited March 8, 2006 by Furius Venator

[Pantagathus]

Secondly were Dacians actually considered Celt? I'm sure there is a close relation as there is with all Indo-Europeans, but I am under the impression that the Dacians or Getae were Thracian and not necessarily Celt? Perhaps someone who is more inclined to this sort of thing can provide more detail?

 

In the general sense the answer is no, Dacians were not considered Celts.

 

However, folks displaying Celtic cultural affinities (i.e. tribes of Celts) did appear to have migrated eastward during the main series of Celtic movements and there is ample archaeological evidence of their cultural presence along parts of the Danube & along the coast of the Black Sea to Crimea.

 

How much of this evidence is just proof of heavy trade of prestige goods between the Dacians, Thracians & Celts and how much was brought by migrating bands of Celts into these eastern territories is a bit fuzzy.

 

One thing is for certain, at a very early period (pre-Halstatt, late Bronze-early Iron age) the cultural affinities between even Scythians & people who would become Celts was suprisingly homogeneous.

 

Just look at the "Beauty of Loulan" (Caucasian mummy in China) who was probably Scythian... red hair, tartan plaid...

Edited March 8, 2006 by Pantagathus

[Pertinax]

and the striking similarity between Iranian nomads and Brythonic types .

[M. Porcius Cato]

Most of siegework is actually very basic stuff. Forget all that nonsense about towers and catapults - they were very rarely used anyway and only if an assault on a large scale was taking place. Getting the doors open was the easiest way of getting in. If you can't bribe a disgruntled enemy, then slip a few men over at night. It happened a lot more than people realise. Other than that, sit tight and wait for the food to run out like Caesar did in Gaul. The big impressive stuff requires a lot of manpower and engineering which wasn't always within the romans capabilities, never mind their enemies. But they might get over the wall.....

 

This simply doesn't jibe with my recollection of the campaign. Caesar took city after city by smashing down fortifications with massive siege engines--more massive than usually required because the Gallic fortifications were less susceptible to catapault attack than to the stone walls used by other neighbors of Rome.

[M. Porcius Cato]

All of this evidence merely shows that the Celts put up a fight, not that they were able to breach Roman walls with enough of an army remaining to pose much threat to the Roman camp.

 

When the relieving force arrived Caesar says, 'they prepared a great quantity of fascines, ladders and grappling hooks...and drove the Romans from the rampart [with missiles and] employed every other method of assault' VII 80.

Driving defenders from a rampart is a long way from breaching the wall.

 

Also the beseiged 'lost much time in bringing out the implements that [they] had prepared...and in filling up the first section of trench.' VII 82

So what? They lost [/i]time--some strategy the Celts had: irritate the Romans into giving up!

 

When the relief force assault the weakest section of the defences, 'Vercingetorix sallied out with the fascinmes, poles, sapper's huts, grappling hooks and other implements...' VII 84

Very nice that he sallied out with all this iron age equipment, but to what benefit?

 

The Gauls even use testudo at one point 'advancing with shields locked above their heads' whilst constructing a ramp to overcome the fortificationsVII 85

"To overcome" is not the same as "overcame".

 

Later they 'filled trenches with earth and fascines, and tore down tyhe pallisade and breastwork with their hooks'. VII 86

Sounds impressive, but if the fortifications were anything like the ones used by Trajan, this simply means that the Gauls tore down the timber palisade that wrapped around another line of fortification.

 

Look, let me see if we agree on one proposition: The Celts had no siege engines, and what siege equipment they did have (if you're counting grappling hooks and ladders) were insufficient to defeat any fortified force of Romans.

[Pantagathus]

Most of siegework is actually very basic stuff. Forget all that nonsense about towers and catapults - they were very rarely used anyway and only if an assault on a large scale was taking place. Getting the doors open was the easiest way of getting in. If you can't bribe a disgruntled enemy, then slip a few men over at night. It happened a lot more than people realise. Other than that, sit tight and wait for the food to run out like Caesar did in Gaul. The big impressive stuff requires a lot of manpower and engineering which wasn't always within the romans capabilities, never mind their enemies. But they might get over the wall.....

 

This simply doesn't jibe with my recollection of the campaign. Caesar took city after city by smashing down fortifications with massive siege engines--more massive than usually required because the Gallic fortifications were less susceptible to catapault attack than to the stone walls used by other neighbors of Rome.

 

I've seen a model reproduction of one of Caesar's circumvallations based on archaeological evidence and it's an extremely heavy duty set up...

[Furius Venator]

Just in case anyone was thinking that the assault on Cicero's camp could be put down to the expertise of Roman prisoners and that the Gauls of the Alesian campaign had learnt from them:

 

'[The Gauls] offered stout resistance...then tunneled in the direction of the siege terrace...the Aquitanai excel at this work as there are copper mines and quarries in many parts of the country.' Gallic War III 21.

 

Mining siege towers is hardly a rudimentary technique. Neither incidentally is the use of ladders which must be made long enough to top the wall but not so long that enemy poles can easily dislodge them. Try calculating the height of a wall 400 yards distant to within a couple of feet without the aid of multiplication...

 

Equally, grapples were not for swarming up walls hand over hand but rather for pulling down wooden towers or pallisades. Clearly it is no easy matter to get them fixed in the first place (in fact I'm slightly puzzled as to haw it was managed. Regardless, the gauls lacked only engines such as onagars or ballistae as far as I can tell. As you can gather from reading the bits of Caesar that I've quoted.

 

 

And Cato, Sure the Romans won. But the Gauls were using seige weapons and techniques that the Romans used also (the Roman did not despise the ladder and grapple as you do- look at Trajan's column). That is my point, the Gauls had the ability to use siege equipment where necessary and did so several times against Caesar. They never beat Caesar in open battle either- does that mean they had no effective weapons? Of course not.

Edited March 8, 2006 by Furius Venator

[caldrail]

Most of siegework is actually very basic stuff. Forget all that nonsense about towers and catapults - they were very rarely used anyway and only if an assault on a large scale was taking place. Getting the doors open was the easiest way of getting in. If you can't bribe a disgruntled enemy, then slip a few men over at night. It happened a lot more than people realise. Other than that, sit tight and wait for the food to run out like Caesar did in Gaul. The big impressive stuff requires a lot of manpower and engineering which wasn't always within the romans capabilities, never mind their enemies. But they might get over the wall.....

 

This simply doesn't jibe with my recollection of the campaign. Caesar took city after city by smashing down fortifications with massive siege engines--more massive than usually required because the Gallic fortifications were less susceptible to catapault attack than to the stone walls used by other neighbors of Rome.

 

I've seen a model reproduction of one of Caesar's circumvallations based on archaeological evidence and it's an extremely heavy duty set up...

 

The gallic 'Oppidum' forts evolved to fend off roman siege techniques, yet Caesar had little problem disposing of hundreds. We know the gallic defenses were fairly good. Therefore Caesar either used a great many siege engines, not to mention rope, nails, and several forests worth of timber, or he cheated and used other methods as well. I've always said that subterfuge and negotiation are perfectly usuable methods for completing a siege, and I don't believe every oppidum fought to the last man. A roman herald arrives at the gates, tells them their neighbours are conquered, and that they'd do themselves a favour by surrendering before it all got a little bit nasty. Caesar for his part would have exaggerated and claimed he brought the whole lot down in rubble. Clearly he didn't, although I do accept he made some astonishing progress if he really did defeat that many gallic forts. Also, remember that you only need to get in to bring the assault to a head. Did Caesar demolish every oppidum? Thats an extraordinary amount of work even for the romans. More likely a great many were left in a state of ruin, others burned and abandoned.