How the Gauls were so effective against the Greeks?

[HuangCaesar]

I am reading about the Gallic invasion of the Balklands and always amazed how they were so effective against the Hellenistic armies. Its not surprising how they defeated early Rome and sacked it, but watching them steamroll a well reformed military dating back to Phillip II, Alexander and Antipater so surprising. They killed 1 Macedonian King in a major field battle, defeated another, sacked their way through Greece, routed another Greek expedition in Thermpolye before being put down.(many Gauls left Greece with plundered Gold BTW) and still Gauls found a settlement and was later used as prized mercenaries by the Greeks.

Just imagining a whole bunch of naked Gauls massacring a Macedonian field army is hard to imagine. The Macedonian army at this time was still very combined arms unlike the later vs. Roman era armies. How to the Gauls win in battle you think? Sheer numbers? I'm surprised a Companion cavalry charge is unable to route them. Plus the Pikes would butcher an army who was undisciplined and individualistic.

[Archimonday]

What dates does the book take place in? Because depending of the dates, there was a period in later Greek history, after the death of Alexander where, despite the army being maintained in status, its internal command structure became increasingly toxic and destructive of itself. If your commanders are fighting one another for position, it becomes hard to fight an enemy as vast as Gallic tribes.

[riskymonk]

That's interesting but I suppose, in my mind, it makes sense. The Hellenic people were advanced and civilised with proper sanitation and safety and lots of their needs were given to them so long as they worked for it however the Gauls most likely had to fight for everything with their neighbours and were moving around like a pack of wolves. I could be talking gobbledygook as I don't know anything about this part of history.

[HuangCaesar]

279 was when the Invasion began. It is just amazing how the Gauls defeated 2 Macedonian Royal field armies, killing a king in the process only to be stopped by city states. Yet still the invasion made the Gauls rich, they gained settlement in Greek lands, and now recruited as mercenaries.

[Caligula's_Horse]

Macedon during the barbarian invasion wasn't exactly at the height of its power. Years of colonizing the east and conflict among the successor states left it depopulated and exhausted. Greek city states were a different matter, which I'll discuss bellow.

The barbarians were a lot more advanced then most people give them credit for. They may not have been as sophisticated at things like construction and theater as the Greeks, but they did know iron working just fine, and were often better organized militarily.
Remember that the Greeks didn't have much in the way of standing armies back then (except Sparta, but it was in sharp decline by the barbarian invasion), therefore it wasn't uncommon for armies to be composed almost entirely of green recruits. Even the general might have been an amateur. By comparison, warlike tribal societies would often have a much larger pool of professionals and veterans to draw from.

The barbarians also didn't fight naked any more then the Greeks did. Unlike Rome, which started outfitting its soldiers from the national treasury after Marius' reforms, Greece largely relied on soldiers buying their own equipment. This meant that their armies as a whole may have actually been less well equipped then the barbarians, as only the rich could afford proper equipment, never mind a horse for the cavalry arm.

Remember that barbarian originally meant anyone who wasn't Greek. They weren't dumb brutes, they simply didn't live in large cities and spoke a different language.

[RGA]

Just as 5000 extremists being able to rout the 200,000-strong, US-armed Iraqi army. Psychological factor might play a crucial role. Imagine hearing about rumors of villages burnt to ashes by the huge horde of barbarians, men slaughtered, prisoners tortured or even worse, children and women sold to slavery. Meanwhile your king is weak and impotent, your best warriors busy fighting somewhere in Asia. Nah, I will throw down my pike and run at my very first opportunity.

[daelin4]

What I read about the Gauls fighting the Romans, even well into Marius's time, they were known for being ferocious warriors that relied heavily on impetus and shock and just getting rough and dirty up close, with some luck and numbers they can crash through or slug ut with a Greek phalanx or maniples of legionaries. The cohort system that really just clumped multiple maniples into a single block of troops was meant specifically to allow the Romans to handle their changes better, as maniples, like the hoplite phalanx, was generally too shallow a line to absorb any concentrated charges.
This is not to mention that the invasions involved larger numbers of Celts than the Greeks and other Balkan peoples were used to fighting at any one time. Greek hoplites for most cities were used to fighting other hoplites and perhaps light infantry, skirmishers and cavalry forces from neighbouring enemies like Illyrians Thracians and the occasional Persians, but the invasions involved rather large confederations at a time. I would also hazard a guess of political or otherwise internal weaknesses that allowed the Celts in that time to succeed where otherwise they may have failed. The Greeks fought Celts and other barbarians before that time and were doing fine; this was around the time that Alexander died and his kingdom fractured into several warring empires, a chaotic situation that would have favoured any invading host from Europe.

I doubt it was a matter of some over-generalized "Celts better than Greeks" maxim.

[Anna_Gein]

Two defeats enough to makes one people warfare superior to an other ? And without any contextual considerations ?

Some food for thoughts : Antigonos Gonatas was the first Helen to defeat a strong detachment of Gauls during their invasion. He did it during an ambush ...
Doesn't it raised some question on the common view of Hellenistic Warfare ?

I don't see any particular weakness of Hellenistic warfare against Gaulish/Galatians warfare. Antiochos I utterly defeated the Galatians. Latter Antiochos hiearax defeated his brother Seleucos II Callinicus near Sardis with an army mainly composed of Galatians yet the same Galatians were successfully contained and defeated by Attalus I and his army based on the Macedonian model. Eumenes II and his army could easily claim a title "Killers of Galatians".

[HuangCaesar]

Two defeats enough to makes one people warfare superior to an other ?

Who said that? We are just wondering how can a bunch of naked barbarians can overrun two national field armies and cause so much trouble. Other battles like Arausio and Teutburg amaze me too.

[Knight of Heaven]

I am reading about the Gallic invasion of the Balklands and always amazed how they were so effective against the Hellenistic armies. Its not surprising how they defeated early Rome and sacked it, but watching them steamroll a well reformed military dating back to Phillip II, Alexander and Antipater so surprising. They killed 1 Macedonian King in a major field battle, defeated another, sacked their way through Greece, routed another Greek expedition in Thermpolye before being put down.(many Gauls left Greece with plundered Gold BTW) and still Gauls found a settlement and was later used as prized mercenaries by the Greeks.

Just imagining a whole bunch of naked Gauls massacring a Macedonian field army is hard to imagine. The Macedonian army at this time was still very combined arms unlike the later vs. Roman era armies. How to the Gauls win in battle you think? Sheer numbers? I'm surprised a Companion cavalry charge is unable to route them. Plus the Pikes would butcher an army who was undisciplined and individualistic.

There is alot of myths about the gauls, or other barbarians at the time. They werent as uncivilized as one might think.
Or disorganized military.
Remember the greeks though of Persians the same way, if not worse... and we know they were everything but primitive.
To resume Gaulic armies, as a bunch of rable, naked gauls, its laughable at best as well. Imo.
They had better armor, and weapons then Greeks, or Romans, they were much more advanced technologicaly, in the manipulation of metals for instance, they invented, chain mail, and the use of montefortino helmets, wich the romans later on adopted for their legions.. i mean lets give the gauls a bit of credit here, there is a reason they were prized mercenaries as well.
Also the celts invented soap

Also i would recon, their armies, were much more mobile then greek phalanxes, and phalangytes, its not hard to imagine them outmaneuver this troops. They were also capable of forming shieldwalls when necessary, wich is basicaly a phalanx.
They deserve more credit, then they get imo historicaly. I mean the celts were able to expand troughout Europe and into anatolia, that means something.

I mean does this dudes look like it cant take on macedonian, or Greek troops?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Not all of them fought naked... in fact a selected few did...

[daelin4]

We'll probably never know for sure, at least not without looking very in-depth and relying on conjectures. No one can doubt the fact that the circumstances, ie geopolitical dispositions, likely played an important part as to how and when it occurred; until Caesar Roman Italy was constantly under threat of Gallic raids and invasions, and their presence and potential for trouble also played a part in the second Punic war where Hannibal's original plans included relying on them as a bulwark as he marched into Italy.

It would be wrong on many levels to try to come to some sort of essentialist conclusion, ie "Because Gauls were better/inferior to Roman troops".

[HuangCaesar]

There is alot of myths about the gauls, or other barbarians at the time. They werent as uncivilized as one might think


Not all of them fought naked... in fact a selected few did...

On the contrary. Not all of them wore armor..in fact a selected few did. Armor was super expensive especially chainmail. Only elite nobles could afford it. Although the naked theory is overexaggerated, Celtic armies were definetley not well armored and didn't have the capability to do so.
Swords were reserved for those who could afford it.

Here is a sculpture of a Gaul defeated in combat.

[daelin4]

I believe, at least for some of the warriors, fighting naked was uncommon as the warriors were part of a sort of fraternity/ cult that replied upon divine protection, and their purspose for fighting naked (usually topless) was to intimidate the enemy. I believe most troops involved were neither dedicated warriors or were the nobility that could afford the armour and had already establised themselves as respected peers- one of the primary purposes of fighting naked, I believe, was that it was a way for "entry-level" warriors to establish their persons into the armies they were part of. Many of the levy forces participated out of necessity.

I am sure that after a battle where a naked warrior has not only survived but has proved himself, he'd help himself o some looted armour and never fight naked again. We're not talking about some widespread institutionalized method of fighting here. Celts among Greeks and Romans were known for their ferocity, and they probably knew that half the battle was frightening the enemy. The Parthians at Carrhae for one thing, so says Plutarch, were disturbed by the Romans' lack of reaction to their psychological warfare.

From what I remember about Romans fighting Gauls, the latter were reliant quite heavily on breaking the former's lines for ictory; if this was not accomplished the charge frequently falters and the Celts shaken by their inability to drive the enemy off the field. Part of the reason why Celtic armies were not as organized compared to the Romans was because few Celtic tribes can assemble such large numbers for a campaign, and this knowledge the Romans and Celts likely had and counted on. Once large confederations were formed the Greeks and Romans can expect real trouble, as this was very unusual and as such not something they are prepared for. IMO the time when the Celts invaded the Balkans and eventually into Anatolia, Alexander's empire was crumbling and the Celts happens to also have formed into powerful groups. Nothing is truly random in this world. The Celts did not do this during Alexander's lifetime probably because of then-prevalent conditions that favoured co-existence, not to mention Macedon had quite an army to respond to incursions.

[HuangCaesar]

Armor was dedicated for those who could afford them rather than sheer military elitism or fighting capablity. Caesar mentions how Gallic horsemen, although wearing shinning armor often were afraid to risk their expensive mounts in combat and routed instantly to Germanic cavalry who wore no armor.

My opinion is battlefield roles. At the Battle of Telamon, most the Gauls were reported to have worn clothes and the Elites wore armor(probably in the rearguard or on horseback). However the vanguard stripped down. These were probably shock troops. Also it was for religious purposes.

The Celts were super religious as Caesar says the Druids were very powerful. They believed in mystical symbols and magical weapons.

Most of Britain is marshland... the barbarians usually swim in these swamps or run along them, submerged up to the waist. Of course, they are practically naked and do not mind the mud because they are unfamiliar with the use of clothing... They also tattoo their bodies with various patterns and pictures of all sorts of animals. Hence the reason why they do not wear clothing, so as not to cover the pictures on their bodies.
Herodian

Either way, Celtic armies were not well armored. There is no doubt about that. I am just shocked how they can destroy 2 Hellenistic field armies(head on charges seem to be a reflection of the culture and a common tactic used in many battles.)

[Caligula's_Horse]

On the contrary. Not all of them wore armor..in fact a selected few did. Armor was super expensive especially chainmail. Only elite nobles could afford it. Although the naked theory is overexaggerated, Celtic armies were definetley not well armored and didn't have the capability to do so.
Swords were reserved for those who could afford it.

Thing is though, the Greeks were much the same.

Very few people on the Greek side could afford proper armor or weapons, because equipment was by and large purchased by the individual soldiers. The majority of Greek soldiers of the day would be either pletasts, or hoplites with an incomplete kit (usually forgoing the armor, the most expensive item). It doesn't help that the vast majority of them were levies or militia recruited for the conflict; not only were they not professional soldiers, but they weren't a cohesive unit either.
Weapons and armor aren't any cheaper or more available just because you're Greek as opposed to a Gaul, and commoners on both sides were equally dirt poor.

I can't stress this enough. These so-called barbarians aren't primitives. They simply lived in a way deemed not Greek/not Roman, and were regardless quite formidable militarily.

[neoptolemos]

Two defeats enough to makes one people warfare superior to an other ? And without any contextual considerations ?

Some food for thoughts : Antigonos Gonatas was the first Helen to defeat a strong detachment of Gauls during their invasion. He did it during an ambush ...
Doesn't it raised some question on the common view of Hellenistic Warfare ?

I don't see any particular weakness of Hellenistic warfare against Gaulish/Galatians warfare. Antiochos I utterly defeated the Galatians. Latter Antiochos hiearax defeated his brother Seleucos II Callinicus near Sardis with an army mainly composed of Galatians yet the same Galatians were successfully contained and defeated by Attalus I and his army based on the Macedonian model. Eumenes II and his army could easily claim a title "Killers of Galatians".

This actually and IIRC the Galatians after settling in Galatia, Asia Minor, probably copied the Hellenistic model by creating a phalanx themselves.In any case I merely find the following analysis to the point:

From the aforementioned attitude of the Peloponnesians and Ptolemy Keraunos (part I), it seems that until then the Greeks in general did not esteem the Celts as warriors and regarded them as mere barbarian bandits, who could easily be defeated by their phalanxes. This attitude appears also in the aforementioned ironic commentary of Alexander on them (part I). Besides the Celtic military success in Macedonia is rather due to the foolish decisionsof Ptolemy Keraunos. As we shall see, Brennos after his attack at Thermopylae refrained on fighting a pitched battle against the southern Greek hoplites and when later the Gauls finally were forced to confront the organized Greek combatants in the battle of Lysimacheia (277 BC), they were killed en mass after falling in their ambush. However, the warriors of Greece were impressed by the flexible Gallic tactics which caused them heavy losses (during the Celtic invasion in southern Greece). These flexible tactics were supported by analogous light military equipment. Most researchers believe that this influence is responsible for the gradual abandonment of hoplite military equipment by the mainland Greeks after the Galatian invasion, and their rearmament with thyreos shields (Italo-Gallic scuta) and Celtic mail armor. My opinion is that they were probably influenced by the much similar Italian warfare of the Romans and the Samnites. Pyrrhus’ campaigns in Italy at the same time, where although he was not defeated, his army had very heavy losses because of the flexible Roman tactics (Pyrrhic victory) and the metropolitan Greek contacts with Italy, were probably responsible for this effect. The main reason, however, was the new political and socio-economic conditions in southern Greece which was facing serious economic and social problems: the new arms and armor were quite cheaper and the new tactics did not require as strong social cohesion as the hoplite tactics did. This socio-economic situation, which was combined in time with the Italian and Gallic influence, brought about the end of hoplite warfare and the hoplite.

http://periklisdeligiannis.wordpress...ctics-part-ii/

[HuangCaesar]

Thing is though, the Greeks were much the same.

Very few people on the Greek side could afford proper armor or weapons, because equipment was by and large purchased by the individual soldiers. The majority of Greek soldiers of the day would be either pletasts, or hoplites with an incomplete kit (usually forgoing the armor, the most expensive item). It doesn't help that the vast majority of them were levies or militia recruited for the conflict; not only were they not professional soldiers, but they weren't a cohesive unit either.
Weapons and armor aren't any cheaper or more available just because you're Greek as opposed to a Gaul, and commoners on both sides were equally dirt poor.

True and not true. Its like saying the Gauls were just as well armored and had the capbility to be well armored as a Republican Roman army(which was a Militia army). Yes Hoplites had to provide for their own equipment. Greeks had the trade and the artisans to import the metals and metal technology and make quality armor in large quantities. This is why we see every Hoplite/Greek with a nice shield and a Linothorax. Large cities where the armor and weapons can be manufactured were available. The Gauls were not heavily urbanized and influenced by international trade till they came in contact with Massalia and then the Romans. Also, Greek armies were limited to land owning citizens(making quality over quanity) while every Gaul is expected to be levied and expected to live by a proud warrior status.

[daelin4]

Do we know for sure that, as a rule, all male Gauls throughout history and the land had to serve in the armies? Do we even have concrete proof of that for specific places accounted by historians?

[HuangCaesar]

Did I say they had to? I said the Gauls whether from what social structure where expected to live up to the Warrior culture whether fisherman, hunter, farmer or trader. The Greeks on the other hand, if you were a poor peasant worker who lived on the street, or a slave, you couldn't even join the front ranks of the Pike Phalanx, let alone be a cavalryman or hypaspis.

Interestingly enough, Late Hellenistic Pikemen were recruited from lower class militia who could barley afford land. Alexander's method was to recruit from middle class Pezheteroi. Now Pezheteroi were more common with the Romanized troops like Theuros and Thorax. Even the Selucids began making Silver shields their elites.

[daelin4]

Did I say they had to? I said the Gauls whether from what social structure where expected to live up to the Warrior culture whether fisherman, hunter, farmer or trader.

Yes, you just said that they have to.