The Softening of the Gauls

[docoflove1974]

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.

 

I was under the impression that the Celtic cultures of the Brittish Isles, not just the Britons, were different from the Continental Celts, and that we have little written by the Continental Celts themselves, but (later) documents from those from the Brittish Isles. Is this not correct?

 

I think the question of 'Celtic' culture/language/etc. is so hard to answer. A culture which seemingly did little-to-no documentation of their own, and is left to the devices of its enemies, is never quite represented.

[edgewaters]

I was under the impression that the Celtic cultures of the Brittish Isles, not just the Britons, were different from the Continental Celts

 

Yes ... arguably the Britons were the most continental of all the groups. Gaels and Picts were less influenced by mainland interactions, which is why they do not seem to have undergone the same changes in society seen amongst continental and Briton cultures.

 

Heck, when the Normans invaded Ireland the Gaels were fighting in the same unique (mounted javelineers) fashion Xenophon accords to the Celtic mercenaries used by Greek city-states in the 4th century BC. Strangely enough it was relatively effective; they managed to contain the Normans who had far more difficulty with Ireland than with England.

 

 

and that we have little written by the Continental Celts themselves, but (later) documents from those from the Brittish Isles. Is this not correct?

 

No. There are no documents written by Celts, either from Britain or anywhere else.

 

The Romans give more details about the Britons than they do about the continental Celts. I think this has much to do with their concerns about the difficulty of pacification and cultural resistance to Roman rule in Britain, relative to Gaul. The pacification of Wales was very, very difficult, for instance. Even the fierce Celtiberians did settle down after conquest, but Britain seemed to continue presenting challenges, whether it be Iceni revolts, Welsh holdouts, or Pict raiders.

 

I think the question of 'Celtic' culture/language/etc. is so hard to answer. A culture which seemingly did little-to-no documentation of their own, and is left to the devices of its enemies, is never quite represented.

 

Yes, this is certainly true. The other problem is the poor nature of the term. Someone says "Celt" and what comes into one person's mind is a Danubian raider of 300 BC, what comes into another person's mind is a Celtiberian mercenary employed by Hannibal during the second Punic War, and what comes into another person's is a Bronze Age Briton. All of which were nearly as different from each other as Greeks were from Phoenicians.

Edited July 22, 2007 by edgewaters

[caldrail]

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.

The warrior ethos is entirely the point. Whilst you may be right about the command and logistics of the gauls, the warrior ethos of caesars timewas a tradition rather than a way of life. The gauls no longer lived the warrior ideal but instead used it as a cultural icon. Many of them weren't warriors by that time anyway. Farmers, traders, bandits etc. You could claim that these people were always present in gaulish society - again, thats probably true - but the gauls of caesars time took up the sword somewhat unconvincingly.

 

Caesar was largely able to take the field at will and maneuver where he wanted through organic and local supply means.

Like any other army, including the gauls. In fact, its been noted that Caesar was careless and rash about his campaigning. He was hoever, a charismatic and courageous leader who often fought alongside his men and indeed, had a gift for battlefield tactics.

 

In fact, I think you are probably considering the Gauls as an homogenous population; they weren't.

I accept your point, but I would add that cultural diversification can increase over time. 'Change' in human societies can involve mindset, lifestyles, technology, interaction, all sorts of things.

 

"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.

Romans as a whole weren't so vastly better. They had a considerable advantage in Caesar, who was not without talent for battle and leadership. These qualities in a leader are so important in ancient warfare, I cannot stress that enough. I will concede that roman organisation was considerably better than their gaulish enemies. What must be remembered though is that the roman legions were trained in such a way that they were ruthless and relentless. Even more so with a ruthless and relentless commander. The gaulish stagnation is very much to my liking. A warrior society needs to be dynamic to remain at its peak. The gauls were therefore off the boil, and thats part of what I'm saying.

 

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.

That assumes that a society automatically progresses as Rome did. The gauls were different and weren't likely to progress the same way unless they were taught another mode of lifestyle and mindset, which is what the romans did later. This is why we don't see too many quantum physics professors in Papua New Guinea for instance. Although they adopt western tools and such, they're still PNGinians with the same outlook on life.

 

The main objection to my theory is that of whether the gauls had 'changed'. As I've mentioned, warrior societies evolve. They have to, because the internal divisions will kill each other off otherwise. There is a boiling point at which population pressure and the need for violence erupts outwardly and mass migrations follow. These guys are hard as nails and take what they want in other words. So they are, since they've already been fighting amongst each other for generations. Once they grab their land they tend to settle. There's no-one left to fight. The steam goes out of the violence and the former warriors diversify their culture to exploit their gain. Because they no longer fight, they ain't as tough as they once were. They now have homes and farms to protect, and aren't so keen to wander off in search of a good fight. I see this sort of thing in many cultures around the world. The huns steamrollered across europe and then... what? They all but vanished once they settled here. They weren't steppe raiders anymore. They were farmers. Thats the sort of thing tht happened to the gauls by the time caesar waded in. The gauls weren't looking for a fight, they weren't keen to leave their homes, they were all looking inwardly and reluctant to follow the leader. How far this effect had 'softened' the gauls is a matter for debate I suppose, but I cannot believe the gauls of caesars time were as effective as those that strode into the forum demanding roman surrender.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, E!

 

I'm curious: what is the definition of Celtic for you?

 

Your answer would be much more useful if you can give some of the references (I would prefer it online) that might sustain your claims.

 

Other way, we would be playing the "Nazi game": any "people" would be what we want them to be.

 

Thanks in advance.

[edgewaters]

Salve, E!

 

I'm curious: what is the definition of Celtic for you?

 

You're asking the million dollar question that nobody's been able to answer satisfactorily. I certainly can't resolve it.

 

You really want to know what I think a Celt is? It's purely theoretical. A Celt is the common denominator of Iron Age Europe, that's what a Celt is.