Training and Practice.

[Gaius Octavius]

Did the Celts and Germans train and practice their soldiers as the Romans did? Did they have a 'Table of Organization and Equipment'?

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

I believe they had muster fields where some form of basic training took place. They probably didn't compare to Roman training, though.

 

Remember, these people hunted to survive, so the they got "practice" almost every day.

[Ursus]

I believe among the nobility training would have started at a very early age, since the chief duty of a tribal noble was to prove their worth through raid and conquest. But this would have been training in the sense of individual combat. I doubt they had the sort of regimented, group training of professional armies like Rome.

[caldrail]

Practice fencing might have been commonplace. A fathers duty may well have extended to teaching his son how to wield a weapon. I remember seeing a saxon sword at Swindon Museum and being struck by the small size of the handle. Then it ocurred to me that this weapon belonged to a youth, possibly following his father on raids to earn experience and manhood. The fact that it was left on the field north of Barbury Castle suggests he never learned quickly enough.

 

I don't believe there was any formal training for fighting amongst these people. They weren't that organised. Then again, they were warrior societies and everyone around a child used these weapons as a matter of course. They grew up with them and observed at close hand how they were used. As youths there may well have been much aggressive contest amongst each other, jostling for position like young men do. So, instead of training, they accumulated experience and received occaisional tips or instruction from their seniors.

[edgewaters]

Seeing as most Celtic societies featured a warrior class whose chief occupation was war, I imagine training in personal combat must have taken place. I'd presume it was mostly in the form of contests and such - not the same kind of training a Roman soldier would receive.

 

As for training in formation, who knows. In the majority of cases, no.

 

But there might have been a few exceptions. Armies of large size do not move rapidly unless there is some form of cohesiveness and a degree of practice in marching, yet Diodorus Siculus writes of Brennus' advance on Rome: "The Gauls flamed into the uncontrollable anger which is characteristic of their race, and set forward, with terrible speed, on the path to Rome. Terrified townships rushed to arms as the avengers went roaring by; men fled from the fields for their lives ... The sheer speed of the Gallic advance was a frightful thing."

 

Untrained armies consisting primarily of infantry simply don't go "roaring by" with "terrible speed". This takes a certain amount of coordination and training, no matter how wild and enthusiastic the forces may be (in fact, the wilder and less disciplined they are, the slower they tend to move). There are similar reports of speedy advances from the attack on Greece, and Pausanius' description of the trimarcisia system in use by the other Brennus indicates some degree of coordination, at least among the cavalry host.

 

Too, anytime a large force is able to move about and be commanded at the direction of a military leader with any efficiency, some sort of discipline is involved. So, I think it is safe to say that among Vercingetorix's men, discipline was instilled by some means, and some sort of rough training is a pretty safe bet, as he is reported to have been able to exercise a good degree of command over his forces (at least, until battle was joined).

 

Then we have the Britons; if they resisted Caesar's landings with large forces of chariots, they cannot have done so without practice; I don't think it's possible to maneuver any great number of chariots together in battle without it.

 

But for the most part, the warriors of Iron Age Europe would have got their skills from their lifestyle and from the endemic warfare which existed between the tribes. There was no need for practice, when the real thing was such a common occurence as it was among these peoples. Any particular Celtic host would likely include a relatively high proportion of veterans, warriors who lived and breathed strife. And with the exceptions noted above - and possibly some Celtiberian forces - I think it's safe to say with certainty that there was no military training (ie in units) in the vast majority of cases, and the exceptions are defined only by questions about how they could have done certain things, which leave room for speculation (rather than any sort of confirmation).

[caldrail]

Seeing as most Celtic societies featured a warrior class whose chief occupation was war, I imagine training in personal combat must have taken place. I'd presume it was mostly in the form of contests and such - not the same kind of training a Roman soldier would receive.

 

As for training in formation, who knows. In the majority of cases, no.

I would say it was possible they trained as a group when powerful personalities rise to the fore, but training in formation? Celts fought individually, formations were alien to them.

 

But there might have been a few exceptions. Armies of large size do not move rapidly unless there is some form of cohesiveness and a degree of practice in marching, yet Diodorus Siculus writes of Brennus' advance on Rome: "The Gauls flamed into the uncontrollable anger which is characteristic of their race, and set forward, with terrible speed, on the path to Rome. Terrified townships rushed to arms as the avengers went roaring by; men fled from the fields for their lives ... The sheer speed of the Gallic advance was a frightful thing."

 

Untrained armies consisting primarily of infantry simply don't go "roaring by" with "terrible speed". This takes a certain amount of coordination and training, no matter how wild and enthusiastic the forces may be (in fact, the wilder and less disciplined they are, the slower they tend to move). There are similar reports of speedy advances from the attack on Greece, and Pausanius' description of the trimarcisia system in use by the other Brennus indicates some degree of coordination, at least among the cavalry host.

Not true. In fact, given the celts weren't worried about formations, it is indeed possible to cover distance as a group much quicker. Think about it. On the one hand you have a roman cohort marching four wide in good order and in step to the orders of a centurion wielding a pace stick. On the other hand, a mob of celtish warriors who can run quite happily in unco-ordinated fashion for some distance. Who gets there first? All it requires is a leader with enough personality to cajole his men onward.

 

Too, anytime a large force is able to move about and be commanded at the direction of a military leader with any efficiency, some sort of discipline is involved. So, I think it is safe to say that among Vercingetorix's men, discipline was instilled by some means, and some sort of rough training is a pretty safe bet, as he is reported to have been able to exercise a good degree of command over his forces (at least, until battle was joined).

Celts weren't worried about efficiency. They were out for personal honour and glory as warriors besides any motivation supplied by their leaders. Discipline amongst vercingetorix's men is illusory. They were not an organised army in any way. In fact, it was down to Vercingetorix's personality that they were able to function as anything resembling a coherent army. Humans have a herd instinct which comes into play, but it requires strong leadership, without which a celtic army (much like any other) would fragment into smaller groups with more popular figures taking the initiative.

 

Then we have the Britons; if they resisted Caesar's landings with large forces of chariots, they cannot have done so without practice; I don't think it's possible to maneuver any great number of chariots together in battle without it.

I do see your point, but perhaps you're thinking of neatly ordered ranks of chariots moving together. Not so. British chariots were used individually, not en masse, although they grouped for mutual effect. Each would make a pass at the enemy but the whole point of chariot fighting is not to confront the enemy directly (fatal!) but to harass and wear down an enemy unit. The brits were using a sort of 'hells angels' approach to warfare on wheels, sweeping past and intimidating their foe with bold abandon.

 

But for the most part, the warriors of Iron Age Europe would have got their skills from their lifestyle and from the endemic warfare which existed between the tribes. There was no need for practice, when the real thing was such a common occurence as it was among these peoples. Any particular Celtic host would likely include a relatively high proportion of veterans, warriors who lived and breathed strife.

Agreed.

Edited March 13, 2007 by caldrail

[edgewaters]

I would say it was possible they trained as a group when powerful personalities rise to the fore, but training in formation? Celts fought individually, formations were alien to them.

 

In the sense of a regimented formation - men fighting in ordered ranks and so forth - this is absolutely true. But, in a few cases, it is evident that some sort of practice in coordination occurred - although it might be possible it developed out of real experience on the field rather than at practice?

 

Not true. In fact, given the celts weren't worried about formations, it is indeed possible to cover distance as a group much quicker. Think about it. On the one hand you have a roman cohort marching four wide in good order and in step to the orders of a centurion wielding a pace stick. On the other hand, a mob of celtish warriors who can run quite happily in unco-ordinated fashion for some distance.

 

The whole purpose of marching in a formation like that is that everybody stays together. Otherwise, you'd spend all your time fetching the fast back and getting the slow to hurry up. And once your elements scatter like that, you can't control them any longer; they might go anywhere, become distracted with other opportunities, and so on. Some level of discipline is essential to moving a large force quickly. It's one thing to keep a horde together when moving slowly, but moving quickly (particularly with a fair number of cavalry, as Brennus had) and remaining a single force is difficult - especially when you're talking about such individualists. Without some sort of military cohesiveness, Brennus never would have reached Rome - there would be Celts busy looting the countryside between Clusium and Rome, but no army per se, just pockets of bandits.

 

In fact, it was down to Vercingetorix's personality that they were able to function as anything resembling a coherent army. Humans have a herd instinct which comes into play, but it requires strong leadership, without which a celtic army (much like any other) would fragment into smaller groups with more popular figures taking the initiative.

 

Sure, but to command an army requires more than charisma - there are practical matters, like a form of communication down to the common foot-soldier. Usually this is a chain of command. When you've got 80 or 100 thousand men, one man cannot hope to command it alone; he can give a speech once in a while (maybe even once a day) but that's not enough to coordinate a force in the field, even just for the sake of movement. Therefore, there must have some kind of rough division of forces and units in a sense; perhaps simply chieftains with war-bands. If so, this particular group at this particular time were disciplined enough that Vercingetorix could, at least sometimes, give orders to the chieftains and expect that they could get almost all the men to follow them. Not, of course, to the degree a Roman commander would be able to do; but to some degree, at least. This is absolutely not typical of Celtic forces! Charisma certainly played a role, but there are some factors involved in getting from A (charismatic leader) to B (large, cohesive force). Namely there has to be some way that the desires of the commander can, at least some of the time, be communicated quickly and efficiently, without distortion, and obeyed. I can't imagine this being possible among such an individualistic people without some ruthless disciplination occurring.

[Gaius Octavius]

It is now more difficult for me to understand how these tribes could fight, let alone win a battle against the Romans.

Edited March 13, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[edgewaters]

It is now more difficult for me to understand how these tribes could fight, let alone win a battle against the Romans.

 

Well, Brennus was not fighting legions, but phalanxes. He got them on open ground and he had a large cavalry contingent and a force of swordsmen. The phalanx was ill-suited to a battle of this nature. And after that, there aren't alot of Celtic victories against the Romans (with the exception of Celts as mercenaries, eg in employ of Hannibal). A couple of battles with Vercingetorix - none of which were terribly disastrous for the Romans - and a few bad losses in the Iberian campaign, mostly due to the astounding fanaticism of the locals and mistakes on the Roman side. Nothing much besides that.

[Kosmo]

Any army has some degree of cohesion, chain-of-command, individual units, logistics etc. This can be related to political units - a tribe has an army made of cavalry, infantry and archers and all of them fight as a unit under their leaders command in a greater army made from several tribes. As in Rome and Athens the army was the nation under arms and the political structure was translated in military structure.

 

A "barbarian" army needed less order that the ones that used the phalanx because the phalanx has to be kept straight while more flexible units can do without rigid order. This also means less need for training. Probably the positions in the line had to do with individual courage, social position and ambitions, friends and kin and not with a preestablished order fixed thru drill.

 

The celts are famed for the overruning of Macedon at his peak, Europe most powerful army was defeated, the king was killed and the country pillaged. That was a bigger thing that what happened to Rome.

 

Generalship for the early period is overrated, before Epaminonda "civilised" armies fought by head-on charge between hoplites. Even the spartans that had many drills and excelent manouvering used this manouvers to create a straight batlle line with the best soldiers at the front and not for flanking and outmanouvering the opponent.

 

Barbarians were effective armies and they remained so even after the legions disappeared.

[edgewaters]

Barbarians were effective armies and they remained so even after the legions disappeared.

 

 

Absolutely - the military organization of most medieval knights, for instance, owes far more to the loose and individualistic, charisma-based organization of the war-band than it does to the legion.

 

However, for some reason, the Celts - after, as you mention, a period of extraordinary military dominance around the 5th century BC - seem to have really dropped out of the race as a military contender by the 1st century BC. It's not just the Romans who begin to consistently defeat them, so do the Germans (quite often, as in Gaul or Noricum, the Celts are actually petitioning the Romans for assistance against rampaging Germanics).

 

I think it comes down to a Roman influence via trade - they were getting quite wealthy by this point and importing a lot of luxuries in places like Gaul and Britain, and those groups seemed to be particularly ineffective militarily. One might suppose that the increased wealth and luxury of the lifestyle in these areas contributed to their military erosion. The fact that the Romans had their hands full in the more isolated areas - for instance, the costly campaigns against the Celtiberians or the repeated failure of expeditions and overrunning of border defences in Scotland - would seem to indicate this.

[caldrail]

In the sense of a regimented formation - men fighting in ordered ranks and so forth - this is absolutely true. But, in a few cases, it is evident that some sort of practice in coordination occurred - although it might be possible it developed out of real experience on the field rather than at practice?

Only where such experience is available. Did the celts raid amongst themselves? If so, this would soon provide the necessary experience.

 

The whole purpose of marching in a formation like that is that everybody stays together. Otherwise, you'd spend all your time fetching the fast back and getting the slow to hurry up. And once your elements scatter like that, you can't control them any longer; they might go anywhere, become distracted with other opportunities, and so on. Some level of discipline is essential to moving a large force quickly. It's one thing to keep a horde together when moving slowly, but moving quickly (particularly with a fair number of cavalry, as Brennus had) and remaining a single force is difficult - especially when you're talking about such individualists. Without some sort of military cohesiveness, Brennus never would have reached Rome - there would be Celts busy looting the countryside between Clusium and Rome, but no army per se, just pockets of bandits.

Discipline isn't as necessary to travel as a group as you think. For the celts, its offset by peer pressure. These were men who placed great store in personal prowess. Imagine what would happen if Cantgetoutofbedix arrived after the fight had finished? His manhood would be held in contempt. Whereas the romans would try to get out of duties, the majority of celts would see it as fundamentally important to be right in there giving it their best. Of course they'd have the occaisional slacker, but the prevailing attitude was to show what you were made of. Hence it would be important to keep up and arrive with the rest. never mind having to face an angry chieftan when he discovered you'd stopped to smell flowers on the way!

 

Sure, but to command an army requires more than charisma - there are practical matters, like a form of communication down to the common foot-soldier. Usually this is a chain of command. When you've got 80 or 100 thousand men, one man cannot hope to command it alone; he can give a speech once in a while (maybe even once a day) but that's not enough to coordinate a force in the field, even just for the sake of movement. Therefore, there must have some kind of rough division of forces and units in a sense; perhaps simply chieftains with war-bands. If so, this particular group at this particular time were disciplined enough that Vercingetorix could, at least sometimes, give orders to the chieftains and expect that they could get almost all the men to follow them. Not, of course, to the degree a Roman commander would be able to do; but to some degree, at least. This is absolutely not typical of Celtic forces! Charisma certainly played a role, but there are some factors involved in getting from A (charismatic leader) to B (large, cohesive force). Namely there has to be some way that the desires of the commander can, at least some of the time, be communicated quickly and efficiently, without distortion, and obeyed. I can't imagine this being possible among such an individualistic people without some ruthless disciplination occurring.

Strong personalities tend to be uncompromising types, so I suppose in that sense there's some informal discipline. Take the example of Shaka, the zulu chieftan. That guy was a total tyrant and had his army go through pain and sacrifice, not to mention executions if he didn't like them! Eventually his family had to bump him off. Now I don't think Vercingetorix was that bad, he relied more on positive leadership qualities. People respected him and followed his orders. Thats the clue with the celts. If a man proved he was fearless, able, willing to take the risks to be a success, and could make other people successful, then he was in a position to lead. If he also had ability, like Vercingetorix, then his talent rises to the fore and without any formal training tends to make the right choices. Spartacus had no training in leadership, but he led an army of amateurs on a two year campaign against the best that Rome could throw at him. Like Vercingetorix, he had talent.

 

However, for some reason, the Celts - after, as you mention, a period of extraordinary military dominance around the 5th century BC - seem to have really dropped out of the race as a military contender by the 1st century BC. It's not just the Romans who begin to consistently defeat them, so do the Germans (quite often, as in Gaul or Noricum, the Celts are actually petitioning the Romans for assistance against rampaging Germanics).

The celts were overrated as warriors in the first place. They were too civilised and fond of human comforts. Read Julius Caesars account of the conquest of Gaul, there's some interesting clues as to the real nature of celts. The germans on the other hand were much harder edged. Not suprising given their tough enviroment.

 

Generalship for the early period is overrated, before Epaminonda "civilised" armies fought by head-on charge between hoplites. Even the spartans that had many drills and excelent manouvering used this manouvers to create a straight batlle line with the best soldiers at the front and not for flanking and outmanouvering the opponent.

Generalship is never overrated. One of the most vital abilities is to inspire men to fight for you. Besides the ordinary day to day organisational ability and a sense of strategy that very few people posess. Also remember that generals of this period didn't command from a comfortable chataeu thrity miles away. They were there - and in some cases, right beside their men in the front line. Drills and practice are all very well, but don't overlook the importance of experience. This is why veterans are so well regarded. They've already learned the hard way what war is all about and how to conduct themselves on the field.

[Kosmo]

If celts invaded Italy and Greece because of germanic pressure in Central Europe then it is not surprising that their power faded away between the german hammer and the hellenistic anvil. Actually, I'm not convinced about the identity between different celtic groups and the celtiness of celtiberians and caledonians but this was debated already and repeatedly at the appropiate forum.

 

Training of a warrior was done in other culters thru a variety of means including stories, myths, songs, dancing, ritual trials, rites of passage. Military experience was completly interwined with culture and political organization. For example ephebia a greek institution resembling modern conscription had visible myhtical connotations especially in Sparta while youth organizations with military attributions but also many others features were widespreaded thru out the world. See Pierre Vidal-Naquet - "Le chasseur noir" - "The Black Hunter" about Ancient Greece.

[edgewaters]

The celts were overrated as warriors in the first place. They were too civilised and fond of human comforts. Read Julius Caesars account of the conquest of Gaul, there's some interesting clues as to the real nature of celts. The germans on the other hand were much harder edged. Not suprising given their tough enviroment.

 

Ah, I wouldn't make any sweeping generalizations based on the campaign in Gaul, and apply retroactively to the Celts of the 5th century BC, or to "Celts" in certain particular areas (eg the Scottish frontier, or Celtiberia). Gaul was one particular case at one particular time.

 

If celts invaded Italy and Greece because of germanic pressure in Central Europe then it is not surprising that their power faded away between the german hammer and the hellenistic anvil. Actually, I'm not convinced about the identity between different celtic groups and the celtiness of celtiberians and caledonians but this was debated already and repeatedly at the appropiate forum.

 

Not sure the invasions of Rome and Greece were spurred by Germanic pressure - as far as I know it wasn't really an issue in that time frame. Germanic pressure on the Celts seems to begin with the Cimbri and Teutones horde in the late 2nd and early 1st century BC (and nobody's really sure if the Cimbri were Germanic or Celtic). As regards the identity, this is very true, but until new groupings are identified and named we're sort of stuck with "Celt".

Edited March 14, 2007 by edgewaters

[DecimusCaesar]

Peter Berresford Ellis mentions in some of his (numerous) books about Celts; that one of the main reasons

the Celts became militarily dominant in their early history was their use of cavalry. Some of the Roman sources, including Caesar, attest to the greatness of Celtic horsemanship. Caesar even employed Gallic cavalry in his wars in the east. Pausanias mentions that the Galatae had their own method of fighting on horseback that they referred to as Trimarcisia :

 

"To each horseman were attached two attendants who were themselves skilled riders. When the Galatian horsemen were engaged, these attendants remained behind the ranks. If the horseman was killed, one of the attenadants would replace him; if injured, the second would help him back to camp. Should his horse be hurt, one of the attendants would bring him a remount."

 

Caesar also mentions the use of this tactic in 'The Gallic Wars'. He even mentions that Vercingetorix made use of cavalry to ambush and kill Roman foragers. These Cavalry formations would even be supported by infantry to increase their effectivness. Despite this, Tacitus tells us that the Celts main strength lay in the use of their infantry, who did not have the skill or equipment of the cavalryman. Another problem with the cavalry was that the Celts would use them in the same manner as the chariots. They would ride their horses into battle, only to dismount, tether the horse with small pegs to the ground, and then engage the enemy in hand to hand combat. Therefore it would seem that the Cavalry's strength would be depleted, what with the warriors dismounting to join the infantry.