The Softening of the Gauls

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, guys! I think that TS has a valid point, the same as GO. The degree of "softening " of a nation is totally subjective and unmeasurable, and the argument itself is circular and self-justified; if a nation was defeated, it was "soft" and vice versa. Generally speaking, more organized ("civilized") nations tend to have better armies; "generally", because there are plenty of other factors that could affect their military abilities.

[caldrail]

But that assumes the gauls were a static society, not changing in any way, which to me is nonsense. All societies evolve in one way or another as a new generation shifts emphasis. Rome might have been a supeerpower but remember that caesar was working alone with the legions he had. There was no overt senatorial support nor military support for a campaign in gaul - it was caesar mounting a ten year expedition for military glory on his own cognizance.

 

The gauls on the other hand hardly mounted any resistance at all until it was too late. They were disunited and clearly not spoiling for a fight. I'm reminded of the descriptions given by caesar and tacitus. For instance, caesars gaulish allies, the aedui, were especially fond of their expensive warhorses and wouldn't risk them as when they encountered a smaller group of german raiders who set the gauls to flight by throwing stones. In fact, these aedui had made a living (which paid for these horses) by banditry, extorting tolls from travellers. Not very honourabble for a warrior society, and certainly not the behaviour we see in the 390's BC when the gauls expanded across europe violently. Warrior cultures seem to go through such an expansive phase. Whilst they fight or raid each other, they remain in check by each others rivalry. Once they get organised, either by consent or because of charismatic leaders, then there's little to do but fight someone else, and since everyone else is not as practised in warfare the warrior society expands by conquest. Once they grab the best land it all fizzles out. The vikings, saxons et al all behaved similarly. The gauls of the earlier period were therefore much 'harder' and accustomed to fighting. The gauls of caesars period were settled and less keen to take up arms. Partly this was due to the actions of roman traders, 'seducing' the gauls with luxury goods, but also because without internal conflict the gauls had indeed gone soft.

[Sextus Tempanius]

i dont think that the defeat of the Gauls by Caesar was due to a lessening of the warrior ethos. I think instead that it was a failure to organize into a sustained fighting force utilizing unity of command and a system of supply. Caesar was largely able to take the field at will and maneuver where he wanted through organic and local supply means. He also had his imperium and authority where ever he went in the region. He represented Rome. The collapse of the monarch in Gaulish society and establishment of councils took away that central authority that could mobilize the whole tribe and allies in times of war as well as to provide for a large army in the field. Throughout the Commentaries the Gauls are able to assemble large bodies of soldiers for short times, but unable to effectively bring their numbers to bear or to supply them for long periods of time. Even Vercingetorix is not able to mobilize all the tribes to effectively provide a united front against Roman advances. Throughout the period Caesar is able to divide and conquer while often able to undermine an alliance by claiming that the leaders desired to be kings or cutting a tribal council a better deal.

 

Sex. Tempanius

[ASCLEPIADES]

But that assumes the gauls were a static society, not changing in any way, which to me is nonsense.

Nope, that is an assumption that has not been made, at least by TS, GO or me. "Change" is not synonymous of "softening" (or "hardening", by the way).

In fact, I think you are probably considering the Gauls as an homogenous population; they weren't. All those tribes had in common were that they spoke one of a family of languages ( which could have been as dissimilar as German and English today) and that they inhabited the area between the rivers Po and Rhine. The Senones of Brennus (Adriatic coast, IV century BC) had probably no much more in common with the Nervii that fought against Caesar.

[M. Porcius Cato]

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. ... Yet despite this, they collapse in the face of Julius Caesar. ... 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.... Did the gauls go soft?

 

"Gauls gone soft" seems like a strange way of looking at it. It's not that the Gauls fell apart, it's that the Romans became vastly more efficient, powerful, experienced, and wealthy as they accumulated the experience of building an empire and transmitted that know-how to aspiring leaders. Given how much more powerful the Roman army became over time and how close Caesar came to defeat by the Gauls, I'd say the Gauls were about as tough in 392 as they were three centuries later. Gaul only seems softer because Rome grew while un-Hellenized Gaul stagnated.

[M. Porcius Cato]

But that assumes the gauls were a static society, not changing in any way, which to me is nonsense.

 

The issue isn't whether the Gauls were static, but whether they progressed as fast as Rome did. They didn't. They were barely out of the Iron Age.

[edgewaters]

Given how much more powerful the Roman army became over time and how close Caesar came to defeat by the Gauls, I'd say the Gauls were about as tough in 392 as they were three centuries later.

 

The Gauls of Caesar's time were certainly weaker all-round than they had been in the 3rd and 4th century BC. In that period, they had overrun Italy, Greece, and Spain and on every frontier expanded. They were in demand as mercenaries as far afield as Egypt, renowned for their prowess on the field. By Caesar's time they had been losing ground for a few centuries on every frontier, to Germans, Romans, and Carthaginians. So they were not simply weaker in contrast to Rome, they were weaker in contrast to every neighbour they had. No great hordes swept down on any new territories anywhere; instead, they huddled in their oppidum and sent emissaries to Rome begging for protection from Germanic tribes. Caesar's cassus belli for his campaign in Gaul was, in fact, an invitation from a Gaulish chieftain for such protection. It's a similar story in Britain where the Belgic tribes, a Germano-Celtic group, were overrunning native tribes; in particular, the Catuvellauni had ousted the Trinovantes from their capitol at Camulodunum, and the Trinovantes sent emissaries to Rome.

 

In fact, the very staging ground used for both the campaigns against Greece and Rome by the two Brennuses - Noricum, in present day Austria - became a Roman vassal when they sent emissaries to beg for protection from the Cimbri and Teutones horde, which resulted in a series of military disasters lasting a decade for Rome.

 

These were not the feared masters of war that overran Macedonia only 40 years after Alexander's death and pillaged Rome. Warfare had given way to commerce and agriculture, a fact visible in settlement patterns; their settlements moved away from defensible locations to sites more suited to farming and located along major routes.

 

Not all Celtic groups seem to have so changed though. The Picts seem to have been much like their forebearers, and proved impossible for the Romans to subdue. Antonine's Wall had to be abandoned, and expeditions launched into Pict lands simply vanished. Raiders crossed frequently into Roman territory and pillaged at will necessitating the construction of the Hadrian and Antonine walls, Rome's most fortified border.

Edited July 21, 2007 by edgewaters

[ASCLEPIADES]

Not all Celtic groups seem to have so changed though. The Picts seem to have been much like their forebearers, and proved impossible for the Romans to subdue.

Salve, E!

 

As long as I know, the Picts weren't Celtic.

[edgewaters]

Not all Celtic groups seem to have so changed though. The Picts seem to have been much like their forebearers, and proved impossible for the Romans to subdue.

Salve, E!

 

As long as I know, the Picts weren't Celtic.

 

Well if you want to get technical, neither were the Britons. But if you consider the Britons Celtic or Celt-like, then you must consider the Picts Celtic as well.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The Gauls of Caesar's time were certainly weaker all-round than they had been in the 3rd and 4th century BC. ...So they were not simply weaker in contrast to Rome, they were weaker in contrast to every neighbour they had.

 

So what? Even if you're right and the Gauls were weaker in contrast to every neighbor they had in the 1st century BC, they were still no weaker than they had been in the 3rd century. If you want to make that argument--that the Gauls of the 4th century were stronger than the Gauls of the 1st century--you absolutely cannot bring in evidence of how well Gaul did against her adversaries. The strength of her adversaries was obviously not fixed over time and thus does not provide a standard of measurement.

 

If the armies of Brennus were stronger than the armies of Vercingetorix, the evidence should be apparent in their respective armies alone. Did Brennus raise a greater host than Vercingetorix? Or have better weapons than V-? Or better supply trains than V-? Or better tactics than V-? Or more money ("the sinews of war") than V-? Healthier troops than V-? Any of this would be evidence for your thesis, but I don't think you'll be able to provide it because your thesis is wrong, and the evidence doesn't exist.

[edgewaters]

So what? Even if you're right and the Gauls were weaker in contrast to every neighbor they had in the 1st century BC, they were still no weaker than they had been in the 3rd century.

 

Of course they were. Strength is always relative. Not only that, but archaeological evidence shows alot of change in their settlement patterns, away from defensible locations and onto trade routes and fertile land. They were even building large homes and estates in the Roman villa style.

 

If you want to make that argument--that the Gauls of the 4th century were stronger than the Gauls of the 1st century--you absolutely cannot bring in evidence of how well Gaul did against her adversaries. The strength of her adversaries was obviously not fixed over time and thus does not provide a standard of measurement.

 

It provides the only standard of measurement - that and clear Roman statements about the Gauls and Britons having little will for war by that time.

 

Otherwise you're getting into quite messy anachronisms like this:

 

Did Brennus raise a greater host than Vercingetorix? Or have better weapons than V-? Or better supply trains than V-? Or better tactics than V-? Or more money ("the sinews of war") than V-? Healthier troops than V-?

 

It's like saying Britain today is more powerful than it has ever been, when in fact it is not even a superpower let alone the global hegemon it once was. You're saying that the contrast has to be made in a gratuitously anachronistic way, which is nonsense. They declined, it's that simple. There is no such thing as stasis. One of the biggest factors in warfare, especially pre-modern warfare, is the psychological and morale component. If your warrior culture has lost its impetus and have ceased to be the conquerors and become victims, then the strength of your forces is depleted. Not to mention that if your warriors are getting slaughtered most of the time, you won't have as many veterans. This notion of stasis you have is simply impossible. Succesful warring depends on impetus, at any level of operation, at any scale of timeframe, in any era, whether it's two warbands clashing on a small field in a 15 minute skirmish or entire civilizations coming into conflict over a period of decades. Defeats and loss of territory are not only symptomatic of relative weakness, they also cause absolute weakness.

 

More importantly, Brennus and Vercingetorix were raising hosts for entirely different reasons. Could Vercingetorix have raised a host of the same size for foreign conquest? Probably not. He raised a host of men fighting for hearth and home, which is a much easier thing to do. The two Brennuses, Bolgios, and unknown other leaders raised many different hosts who invaded Italy, Greece, Spain, and even Turkey for no motive other than conquest.

Edited July 21, 2007 by edgewaters

[ASCLEPIADES]

Well if you want to get technical, neither were the Britons. But if you consider the Britons Celtic or Celt-like, then you must consider the Picts Celtic as well.

Salve,E!

Nope and nope.

 

Brytthon were celtic.

 

Picts no.

[edgewaters]

Well if you want to get technical, neither were the Britons. But if you consider the Britons Celtic or Celt-like, then you must consider the Picts Celtic as well.

Salve,E!

Nope and nope.

 

Brytthon were celtic.

 

Picts no.

 

 

Ah but Picts were Brythonic - they spoke a Brythonic language and had the same material culture.

 

The Romans don't distinguish them culturally, but politically (as a confederation of tribes).

 

"Pict" is actually etymologically related to "Briton" via the earliest term, Pretani. It means "the people who paint themselves" in both cases.

[docoflove1974]

Well if you want to get technical, neither were the Britons. But if you consider the Britons Celtic or Celt-like, then you must consider the Picts Celtic as well.

Salve,E!

Nope and nope.

 

Brytthon were celtic.

 

Picts no.

 

 

Ah but Picts were Brythonic - they spoke a Brythonic language and had the same material culture.

 

The Romans don't distinguish them culturally, but politically (as a confederation of tribes).

 

"Pict" is actually etymologically related to "Briton" via the earliest term, Pretani. It means "the people who paint themselves" in both cases.

 

FYI: Brythonic is a branch of Celtic! This site by the Linguistics Research Center at the University of Texas does a good job of breaking down the Indo-European languages.

 

As for Pict as a language, there is much controversy about its relationship. Some would claim that it's an early Celtic language, which was replaced by Scots Gaelic in the 9th century. Others claim that it's not an Indo-European language, and is confused with early forms of Scots Gaelic. I'm not a Celticist, so I don't know much more than that.

[edgewaters]

FYI: Brythonic is a branch of Celtic!

 

Yes, its included in the same language family. However, whether or not the Britons ought to be considered Celtic in other ways has been the subject of much debate. They were never called Celts by the Romans and had a distinctly different culture from most other Celtic groups - including use of the chariot and featuring the druidical religion, which they had begun to export to northern France but was totally unknown throughout the rest of the Celtic world.

 

As for Pict as a language, there is much controversy about its relationship. Some would claim that it's an early Celtic language, which was replaced by Scots Gaelic in the 9th century. Others claim that it's not an Indo-European language, and is confused with early forms of Scots Gaelic. I'm not a Celticist, so I don't know much more than that.

 

The Picts definately spoke a Brythonic language. This is fairly well-attested. However, there is some controversy as there are also traces of a pre-Celtic language in toponymics. The thing is, there are similar trace elements among Briton toponymics (one of the chief reasons for the dispute as to whether or not Britons were Celtic). The prevailing attitude is that Picts and Britons retained elements of a native culture, which is why we see these unusual toponymics, distinctive customs like the druids, and unusual settlement patterns indicating a mix of Celtic and some other style of dwelling and settlement existed contemporaneously.

Edited July 22, 2007 by edgewaters