The Softening of the Gauls

[caldrail]

There's something that I'm curious about regarding the gauls. I read about them in their glory days when they stormed into the city of Rome in 392BC and left with a hefty roman bribe. When they pushed into spain, greece, and the balkans. I read of fierce men who came of age at fifteen with a gift of a sword and shield from their father which they must not lay down until they die. Of people inured to extremes of weather and totally indifferent to death.

 

Yet despite this, they collapse in the face of Julius Caesar. Now we also read of Caesars campaigns in which the gaulish chieftan Vercingetorix is besieged at Alesia, and to be fair, we have to acknowledge Caesars skill and ruthlessness in defeating the gauls.

 

But I'm a little suspicious. Somehow the gauls of the 1st century BC don't seem to have the vigour and coherence of those who strode into town three centuries before. The account of the gallic war by Caesar hints that some were adopting easy lives. In particular I refer to the love of fine horses by some gauls, expensive animals that they clearly don't wish to risk in battle. Or that some were acting as bandits, extracting tolls from travellers by intimidation. Neither of these examples are typical of the fierce warrior mould.

 

I therefore open this subject to discussion - Did the gauls go soft? Was their life increasingly easy and plentiful? Were they turning away from warrior existence for a more settled agrarian way of life?

[Andrew Dalby]

There's something that I'm curious about regarding the gauls. I read about them in their glory days when they stormed into the city of Rome in 392BC and left with a hefty roman bribe. When they pushed into spain, greece, and the balkans. I read of fierce men who came of age at fifteen with a gift of a sword and shield from their father which they must not lay down until they die. Of people inured to extremes of weather and totally indifferent to death.

 

Yet despite this, they collapse in the face of Julius Caesar. Now we also read of Caesars campaigns in which the gaulish chieftan Vercingetorix is besieged at Alesia, and to be fair, we have to acknowledge Caesars skill and ruthlessness in defeating the gauls.

 

But I'm a little suspicious. Somehow the gauls of the 1st century BC don't seem to have the vigour and coherence of those who strode into town three centuries before. The account of the gallic war by Caesar hints that some were adopting easy lives. In particular I refer to the love of fine horses by some gauls, expensive animals that they clearly don't wish to risk in battle. Or that some were acting as bandits, extracting tolls from travellers by intimidation. Neither of these examples are typical of the fierce warrior mould.

 

I therefore open this subject to discussion - Did the gauls go soft? Was their life increasingly easy and plentiful? Were they turning away from warrior existence for a more settled agrarian way of life?

 

As to that last point, I believe they'd been farmers for a long time already -- you can't live permanently by war. But, yes, I understand (partly from reading Barry Cunliffe on the subject) that Gaulish/Celtic tribes were becoming a bit too attracted to Roman luxury products, e.g. wine. They were softened up by trade well before Caesar's conquests. I seem to think that Strabo, Caesar himself, and Tacitus all give indications of this. Perhaps others will have some quotations to hand.

[Publius Nonius Severus]

As Andrew said, Caesar himself said it in Book I, Chapter 1 of De Bello Gallico:

 

"Of all these, the Belgae are the bravest, because they are farthest from the civilisation and refinement of[our] Province, and merchants least frequently resort to them and import those things which tend to effeminate the mind"

 

I am sure that this is part of the "softening". It also seems that a lot of the Gaul's early successes (specifically the sack of Rome and the incursions into Greece and Asia) were achieved under a strong leader who was able to focus the Gauls on the task at hand. Obviously Vercingetorix tried to do this again, but, I think that by that point Rome was just too strong having control of most of the Med by then.

 

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened had Orgetorix been succesfull in his plan to rule with Dunmorix and Casticus. Would all of their peoples rejected these ambitions like the Helvetii did, leaving the Gauls divided for Rome to conquer...or would their consolidated power been enough to repel Caesar?

[Ursus]

The tribes living closest to the Mediterranean were sucked into the "consumer culture" of classical society. That did tend to soften their banditry lifestyles and make them allies and trading partners rather than enemies.

 

But consider this: for the Celts, fighting was all about the individual. A way to gain honor through a display of courage - and bring home booty! They never had the firm, cold blooded, geopolitical committment to war that the Romans had.

 

When the Romans first encountered the Celts, they were terrified of these tall, colorful, smelly people who made insane charges. The Romans fled, and the Celts cut them down as they retreated. But the Romans soon learned that if they held their ranks, the Celts could be worn down with superior Roman organization and tactics. Caesar remarked the Celts gave up the fight quickly if it became obvious victory was not attainable. Victory to the Celt was about honor and booty, not geopolitical goals - and if honor and booty was not to be had easily it wasn't worth fighting.

 

I think there was always a certain cultural disparity between the Romans and Celts when it came to warfare. What changed between the sack of Rome and the conquest of Gaul is that the Romans had finally learned to match their strengths against the enemy's weakness. The Celts were good for quick raiding and sacking. For prolonged geopolitical conflict, not as much. Once the Romans realized this, the Celts were doomed.

[Gaius Octavius]

If the 'easy life' was responsible for the Celtic losses, shouldn't this apply exponentially to the Romans?

[Publius Nonius Severus]

If the 'easy life' was responsible for the Celtic losses, shouldn't this apply exponentially to the Romans?

 

You make an interesting point, Pater, but I think we should not look on "soft" as "hard life" and "easy life", rather "warlike" and "peaceable" to achieve means. Before Rome's dominant presence in Gaul, if the Gauls wanted to prosper, they needed to fight for the things they needed. Now that the Gauls that had easier access to "those things which tend to effeminate the mind" as Caesar calls them, they needed to fight less to achieve their means and this became "softer".

 

But as I said earlier, I think that is only part of the equation. By your argument, the Romans should be even "softer" because obviously they had even more access to luxury and ease of life. But there are two factors that counter this. 1) The head count army did NOT have an "easy life" and 2) The Romans had strong cohesive leaders (which the Gauls lacked) to overcome any complacency and focus their military prowess.

[DecimusCaesar]

I think the individualism of the Gauls was their downfall, rather than their 'softening' through wine and easy life - although that was a large contributor. Consider the Britons, who, at the time of Caesar's invasion in 55/54 BC had none of the luxuries of the mediterranean thrust on them. They were still defeated by Caesar's Legions becuase they shared the Gauls 'warrior' attitude of individual glory rather than the superior tactics of the Romans.

 

Interestingly, Caesar says that the Gauls were easily defeated by the Germanic tribes because they had been softened by luxury, while the Germans had not.

The Romans conquered the Gauls because they had a reason to - revenge for past injustices as well as thirst for the Gauls' wealth. The Germans on the other hand had none of these, and so a a war of conquest waged against them would have been undesirable, as it would have yeilded little. Perhaps it was the Roman attitude towards the Gauls that became their downfall. Afterall, the Romans had more of a desire to pursue a war with them rather than the Germans and Britons - which might explain why the Gauls were defeated so quickly.

[Andrew Dalby]

Consider the Britons, who, at the time of Caesar's invasion in 55/54 BC had none of the luxuries of the mediterranean thrust on them. They were still defeated by Caesar's Legions ...

 

Caesar can make it look like that in his Commentaries. No doubt he had the odd victory. He cleared off rather quickly, though, didn't he? It was a hundred years afterwards, when Roman culture and economy was spreading all across conquered Gaul -- just across the Channel -- that Britain actually was conquered. By that time Britain, in turn, had been "softened".

Edited March 31, 2007 by Andrew Dalby

[caldrail]

If the 'easy life' was responsible for the Celtic losses, shouldn't this apply exponentially to the Romans?

 

I think it did in a way. Not during the pax romana-because soldiers were not allowed an easy life. However, the later empire might be a different matter because the old standards were nolonger adhered to,and thats something Vegetius moans about.

 

Regarding the gauls, the points about trading and the insidious (and possibly intentional?) effects of luxury goods are interesting. But I think there's another side to it. Cultures that raid on a traditional basis but don't conquer territory (native american and maori for instance) tend to last, whereas those that raid and do conquer have an expansion period then come off the boil. Like the vikings for instance. Thats really what I was getting at.

[Western]

Regarding the gauls, the points about trading and the insidious (and possibly intentional?) effects of luxury goods are interesting. But I think there's another side to it. Cultures that raid on a traditional basis but don't conquer territory (native american and maori for instance) tend to last, whereas those that raid and do conquer have an expansion period then come off the boil. Like the vikings for instance. Thats really what I was getting at.

 

 

I think I would class the Vikings in a different league to the Gauls. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland and the Faroe Islands are still here today, and Norse culture, language and trade had a huge influence on the development of Finland, Russia (the Rus), France (the Normans) and England (the Danes and Normans), and they founded most of the towns in Ireland.

[edgewaters]

If the 'easy life' was responsible for the Celtic losses, shouldn't this apply exponentially to the Romans?

 

 

No. Different societies organized in entirely different ways, so different forces acted upon them in different ways.

 

Celts did not have an organized military or soldiers - they had a warrior caste comprised of the elites. The luxuries and lifestyle imported from Meditteranean culture impacted on them strongly, since they were the foremost consumers of it. Something akin to how European nobility evolved from a warrior class of mounted fighting men, to a more cerebral and degenerate aristocracy.

 

Imagine sending Roman patricians and Senators and philosophers and orators to fight wars! This was not what the Romans did. Roman armies were largely comprised of plebian recruits from the working classes and the poor of Roman society. So, they did not lead the life of luxury as Celtic chieftains and their retinues did.

[edgewaters]

Consider the Britons, who, at the time of Caesar's invasion in 55/54 BC had none of the luxuries of the mediterranean thrust on them.

 

Not true! The major reason for the invasion of Britain was precisely because it was so active in trade. Britain had been trading with Meditteranean cultures since long before Rome even existed. It was one of few sources of tin in the ancient world, which was necessary for the production of bronze. Bronze was of course highly prized right into the Roman era, because ironworking was not as sophisticated and could not always match the qualities of bronze yet. Often, iron was simply a cheap and plentiful substitute for bronze - only a few of the most skilled ironworkers, such as the Norici, were able to produce iron goods which were better than bronze. Also, bronze did not rust and was therefore vital in many applications, such as shipbuilding. It has other properties which continued to make it superior to iron well into the iron age; it was easier to cast, it was not as subject to metal fatigue, it is less brittle, and it is more elastic (so better for springs).

 

Britain also had many other commodities, including wool, manufactured metalwares, and so on. On the southern coasts of Britain, there are even villa-like dwellings featuring Roman motifs which predate the invasion, and there are whole hoards of pre-Roman coins which feature Hellenic motifs such as centaurs and satyrs.

 

Not all Britain was so affected - which is why the subjugation of Wales took much longer, and why the Romans met only with disaster in the far northern parts.

Edited June 7, 2007 by edgewaters

[Primus Pilus]

Imagine sending Roman patricians and Senators and philosophers and orators to fight wars! This was not what the Romans did. Roman armies were largely comprised of plebian recruits from the working classes and the poor of Roman society. So, they did not lead the life of luxury as Celtic chieftains and their retinues did.

 

From the Roman perspective, this is entirely dependent on the time frame, though. While there is clear evidence of the existence of slave and lower class citizen voluntarii in the Punic Wars and other such crises, the bulk of the army until Marius was made up of landed citizenry (the first five classes as the sixth was generally excluded).

[edgewaters]

From the Roman perspective, this is entirely dependent on the time frame, though. While there is clear evidence of the existence of slave and lower class citizen voluntarii in the Punic Wars and other such crises, the bulk of the army until Marius was made up of landed citizenry (the first five classes as the sixth was generally excluded).

 

Small independant farmers were not the elites of Roman society and had access to very limited quantities of luxury goods.

 

Celtic chieftains and members of the warrior classes, on the other hand, were the elites of their society and - at least in Gaul - quite wealthy, even by Roman standards. They did not match the wealth of Rome's richest, but they far exceeded that of the small Roman farmer.

[TaylorS]

The notion of "going soft" belongs right up there with "decadence" is one of those stupid moralistic arguments that are WAY overused as an explanation for historical events IMO.

 

The Rome of Caesar's time was an emerging superpower with the world's most powerful millitary machine while back when Rome was sacked by Brennus & Co it was a ho-hum city-state that, IIRC, was still using Greek-style phalanxes; big difference. Also, the individualistic fighting style of the Gauls, as one of the posters already stated, was no match to the collectivist, fraternal, disciplined way of warfare that was perfected in the Graeco-Roman world (And Western Civilization, as it happened, inherited).