Allia River

[caldrail]

One of the fascinating things I find is the sack of Rome by Gauls in 390 BC. Now why did the Romans lose? Many point out that they panicked and ran at the site of the barbarians. It was said even though Rome did not have the military system we know today at that time, they were still a lot more organized than the Gallic army. If they lost their composure at that battle how did they become so dominant over the once 'superior' Gauls? Did they learn from their mistake, or did they just become more organized?

 

The way I see it is if the Romans had a better army, better equipment, and organization they majorly lacked something. The question is what?

 

Firstly this was early in Roman history. Their legions (They had no national army and recruited a militia as required) were as capable as any of that period, given that the Romans developed that system from their tradition as tribal raiders combined with Etruscan and Greek ideas. Whilst they might have lacked the overbearing discipline (and lax enforcement of it) of later times, they were much more 'patriotic' and motivated toward protecting their homes and families, plus they weren't quite 'civilians' as recruits of later times might have been. Instead, think of them as advanced 'barbarians' attracting civilised ideas.

 

Secondly, the gauls in question were in their expansion period, moving across Europe into the Balkans and Asia Minor. The gauls of Caesars time were more settled, less warlike, and a lot lazier. They had lost the keen edge of the warriors who strode into Rome's senate and demanded tribute.

 

You suggest that if Rome had a better army at the time, perhaps history would be different? Yes, naturally, provided the army is properly equipped, motivated, and well led. But warfare in those times wasn't quite the same deal as that of the Empire. It was much smaller in scale, much more focused on singular columns of militia, and the concept of a professional soldier was two hundred years away.

[barca]

 

Secondly, the gauls in question were in their expansion period, moving across Europe into the Balkans and Asia Minor. The gauls of Caesars time were more settled, less warlike, and a lot lazier. They had lost the keen edge of the warriors who strode into Rome's senate and demanded tribute.

 

You suggest that if Rome had a better army at the time, perhaps history would be different? Yes, naturally, provided the army is properly equipped, motivated, and well led. But warfare in those times wasn't quite the same deal as that of the Empire. It was much smaller in scale, much more focused on singular columns of militia, and the concept of a professional soldier was two hundred years away.

 

 

Did these Gauls have any lessons of war for the Romans? Were they similar (in their warlike nature) to the Galatians who created havoc in Greece and Macedonia about 100 years later?

 

It is generally believed that the early Roman army formed up in a phalanx, similar to the Greek Hoplites. It is not clear to me when they actually switched from the Hoplon to the Scutum. Did the reforms of Camillus have anything to with that?

It is also not clear to me when they developed the manipular system with 3 lines. I suspect that it slowly evolved sometime between that Battle of Allia and the Samnite wars.

[caldrail]

Inasmuch as the Romans were unable to stop the gaulish advance you would think the Romans would have learned from that. They actually wanted to abandon Rome and resettle at Veii, a move that Cammilius spoke out against, though it isn't entirely certain that Camillius was responsible for the reforms of the early 4th century.

 

The Galatians were gauls who settled in the region around Phrygia (whose local population couldn't stop them either) and yes, there would have been cultural similarities. We know that both gaulish populations had a system of tribal judges that would later form the foundation of the Druidic movement in the west. We also know that the druids oversaw and moderated human sacrifice which was a gaulish custom of the time. It was said of the galatians that you should never surrender to them. So yes, there must have been a warlike streak in these celtic peoples.

 

The exact moment of change from abandonment of the phlalnx and adoption of the consular legion isn't clear. However, the scutum, as a rectangular shield, was a later design. Most Romans used oval shields after the phalanx was dropped, a design that lasted until the end of the Roman West because it was the best compromise between utility and protection. I'm not aware of rectangular shields being used before the Reforms of Marius, but I will check that.

[caldrail]

Okeedokee. Square shields are Augustan in widespread use. There are however examples recovered that are dated up to a century earlier, suggesting it began as a somewhat rare alternative. There are rectangular shields in use during late republican times.

 

The thing is though that 'slightly rectangular' shields, either with rounded corners or bulging edges, date back to around 400BC. That might sound like an interesting coincidence except I should point out that republican shield design varies considerably. It might not have any historical significance.

[Trethiwr]

... We also know that the druids oversaw and moderated human sacrifice which was a gaulish custom of the time.

 

Hey easy now, we Kelts hardly ever sacrificed anybody, well at least FAR less than your Julius Caesar made out.

And what about you feeding innocent people to lions and making them fight to the death. At least the people we sacrificed were willing, umm sometimes.

Just because we never wrote anything down you can't go taking the word of some megalomaniac general.

And stop with the illiterate thing as well. We COULD write, we just didn't WANT to OK?

[caldrail]

Well you see the celts were always a bit bloodthirsty. The gauls ahd quietened down by Caesars time. In any case, the first descriptions of druids emerge in classical literature (some of which now lost but mentioned in other sources) around two or three hundred BC. This would be something like two centuries after the movement began in Britain and even then, it was an organisation of tribal judges that were doing the same things independently as part of celtic tradition, which I note involved the enthusiastic practice of headhunting, which has been corroborated archaeologically. The 'witches cauldron' is a fairy tale descendant of real world iron age rites for instance.

 

As for throwing innocent people to the lions, the Romans didn't do that. Shock horror. Executions by animal attack were reserved for criminals, or at least those condemned as criminals by Roman law or perhaps imperial whim in certain cases, but then again, there is some doubt about how innocent some of those victims were.

 

But then again, if you celts can't write, it's your own silly fault for resisting civilised Roman rule