How the Gauls were so effective against the Greeks?

[Jagu Nolo]

My idea is that the celts weren't has disadvantaged as one might think. They weren't that backward, as we can see by the few archeological digs recently, and they seemed to have an advants metal-work technology, the aristocracy would have worn armor, we're sure of that, and using the trimarcisia system to allow quick replacement on the battle field, they constituted a capable heavy cavalry, and as for the infantry, it seemed to have been mostly made up of hunters, not peasents, who for the right to hunt on the lord's land payed back in blood. Hunting big game in those days was something you'd do with a spear, not a gun, it would have taken days traking down boar, dear or wolf, in groups of 3 to 4 men, I guess it would have been a phisical and tactical kind of training for, well, hunting men.
Lets not forget celts and and greeks or romans were also customers to each other, the salt, tin, coper and pelt often came from northern europe, the romans and gauls sold wine each other, the greeks and romans would have sold the celts manufactured textiles, I read somewhere that an historian has suggested the idea that the pillage of Grece by the Gauls was a revenge act for the increase of taxes on foreign goods by the greek city-states, seem's a little far fetched but who knows, after all people usually go to war for those kind of thing, so why not the Gauls?

[JaM]

Technically, id say Celts were practically fighting like slightly less organized Romans, which also explains why Romans were so effective in the end against Greeks.. We only know about Celts due to Roman historians who had no intentions to be completely unbiased.. yet certain Roman vs Celts battles give clear info they were not some rag tag band of undisciplined barbarians... they were able to form proper formations, fight in support of each other and even capable to handle attack from behind and doubling the battle line - something that was quite challenging even for Romans, and something Caesar was able to pull off once only with very experienced legions... Yet of course, not all Celtic armies were that effective, quality varied a lot.. yet, Romans were much better accustomed to Celtic fighting tactics than Greeks were..

[Ariamanesh]

Indeed.
Victory achieved only by learning and you know romans were so eager to learn from their enemies!
First hellens then celts then iberians then parthian/persian.
The roman doctrine of war was less self flirting(unlike greeks) and more foreign absorbing!
It means they never only relied on what they had and just say:Hey we are great and invincible!!!
Instead they always were after upgrading with no hesitation.
To me roman army never had a proper tradition.
But in the other hand we had greeks a very less flexible war doctrine which relied heavily on its own and never were so eager to learn from the enemies.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

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.

A statue however doesn't say much about reality. This paticular example is conected to the Attalid propaganda program fits perfectly in the overall art of the high hellenistic period. In that time you will find almost no statues showing greeks which are naked and have long hair, which they did have in the classic. However having long hair or styled hair and beeing naked is a barbarian stereotpy at the time. You can make a lot with statues, but it's rarely telling something about reality. Only how the artists wanted the really to be seen.

[ImperatorAndreas]

What I don't understand is where does this idea of the Celts being so effective against the Greeks come from. I am not saying they didn't have any successes but from what I know they didn't do particularly well or anything. This topic is very interesting and I would love to know more so please do tell me if I am completely off or something, (if u can be bothered ).

[Dontfearme22]

A statue however doesn't say much about reality. This paticular example is conected to the Attalid propaganda program fits perfectly in the overall art of the high hellenistic period. In that time you will find almost no statues showing greeks which are naked and have long hair, which they did have in the classic. However having long hair or styled hair and beeing naked is a barbarian stereotpy at the time. You can make a lot with statues, but it's rarely telling something about reality. Only how the artists wanted the really to be seen.

I'll say this much, that one gaul seriously got his cardio in before the battle.

dayum.

[Rex Romanorum]

A statue however doesn't say much about reality. This paticular example is conected to the Attalid propaganda program fits perfectly in the overall art of the high hellenistic period. In that time you will find almost no statues showing greeks which are naked and have long hair, which they did have in the classic. However having long hair or styled hair and beeing naked is a barbarian stereotpy at the time. You can make a lot with statues, but it's rarely telling something about reality. Only how the artists wanted the really to be seen.

This one is part of the same set and it shows the warrior killing himself after killing his dressed wife. You can argue the first one is just a stereotype of classical nudity but in this one the nudity has a role on the statue. The statue was made to commerate the Attalus victory in his lifetime so I would say it depicts how they really fought and not an stereotype. In my opinion it has everything to be accurate: it was a recent battle and not an epic far story, it was a long known enemy by Pergamon, He´s not fully naked and his wife is dressed, so nudity looks clearly intentional and accurate.

[JaM]

What I don't understand is where does this idea of the Celts being so effective against the Greeks come from. I am not saying they didn't have any successes but from what I know they didn't do particularly well or anything. This topic is very interesting and I would love to know more so please do tell me if I am completely off or something, (if u can be bothered ).

They wiped out Macedonian army and killed/executed their king... they were used as cheap mercenary force by Pyrhuss and others afterwards...

[ImperatorAndreas]

They wiped out Macedonian army and killed/executed their king... they were used as cheap mercenary force by Pyrhuss and others afterwards...

Yes but how does this make them "so effective against the greeks". The only precise description I found about this battle is that Keraunos gathered a small strike force and rushed into battle after having killed the ambassadors from Gauls and heavily underestimating his opponents. This defeat, to me, seems more to have been caused by bad leadership rather than particularly effective battle strategies/tactics. (Please let me know if there is a more detailed description somewhere, I'd love to know). Afterwards, what I read suggests the Gauls' expedition ended in military disaster, (some argue that they nevertheless managed to loot Delphi).
As for their increase use as Mercenaries, it might simply be because they just had migrated into Thrace and Anatolia and were well reputed generally, Gaulish cavalry had already been used by Sparta and Syracuse in the Classical/ early Hellenistic period.
But again, if there is something I am missing do point it out

[JaM]

yeah, i had some books about it, but cant remember exact parts now, as i got away from R2 modding in general and im focusing on a bit different project now... but maybe if I will have some time over weekend i will quote some sources

[ImperatorAndreas]

thanks!

[JaM]

This is from book Pyrrhus of Epirus written by Jeff Champion:

In 279 the Galatians, a group of Celtic tribes, had invaded Macedonia. The ancient historians claim that the Celtic invasion was a result of overpopulation. One group, following the omen of a flight of birds, had invaded Illyria. They won numerous victories before settling in Pannonia. Flushed with their success, they then moved south into Greece and Macedonia, laying waste to all before them. Ptolemy Ceraunus, the new king of Macedonia, learning of the approach of the Gauls, hurried to meet them with a small force. An embassy from the Dardanians, an Illyrian people, had offered to ally with him and provide 20,000 men. Ptolemy spurned their offer and insulted the embassy. Justin claims he said that:

The Macedonians were in a sad condition if, after having subdued the whole east without assistance, they now required aid from the Dardanians to defend their country; and that he had for soldiers the sons of those who had served under Alexander the Great, and had been victorious throughout the world.2

The Dardanian king is supposed to have observed that as a consequence ‘the famous kingdom of Macedonia would soon fall as a sacrifice to the rashness of a raw youth.’
The Galatian commander, Belgius, sent ambassadors to Ptolemy to offer him peace if he would pay a ransom. Ptolemy retorted that the Galatians only desired peace because they feared war. He replied that ‘he would grant peace only on condition that they would give their chiefs as hostages, and deliver up their arms; for he would put no trust in them until they were disarmed.’3 The Galatians attacked a few days later, and the Macedonians were heavily defeated. Ptolemy, after receiving several wounds, was captured. The victorious Gauls, as was their custom, cut off his head and stuck it on a lance

When the news of the defeat spread through Macedonia, panic spread and the gates of the cities were slammed shut. Macedonia fell into confusion as a number of claimants to the throne came forward. First was Meleager, an uncle of Ptolemy Ceraunus. Antipater, a nephew of Cassander, drove him out after only a few days rule. He, in turn, ruled for only forty-five days. While the Macedonian nobles bickered, the Galatians ravaged the Macedonian countryside unopposed. Eventually, Sosthenes, a former general of Lysimachus, assembled what troops he could, drove back the Galatians and saved Macedonia from devastation. In gratitude, the army saluted him as king, above the claims of many of the nobles that aspired to the throne. Sosthenes, supposedly of humble birth, refused to take the title of king. Instead, he made the soldiers swear an oath to him as general

in the same book later he states:

The other enemy the Romans faced, from 390 onwards, was the Gauls, a Celtic people. The Celtic method of fighting was again different. According to the ancient writers, it consisted of a mad rush, preceded by a shower of javelins, to bring the Gauls into hand-to-hand combat. They then fought as individuals, slashing at their enemies with long swords. Their size and ferocity intimidated their smaller, southern neighbors. Such a charge could sweep away the inflexible hoplite phalanx. In the Galatian invasion of Greece in 279 the Greek hoplite phalanx could not withstand the fierce charge of the Celtic Galatians. The successes of the Gauls against the Etruscans and Romans in the early-fourth century suggest that they had similar problems.

The Romans, after their experiences fighting against both the Gauls and hill tribes, adapted their tactics and equipment. They broke their infantry up into smaller units of about 120 men, called maniples (handfuls). These were more flexible and could manoeuver to support one another. They also deployed in three lines, rather than the traditional one. The first line was now used to break up the enemy attack. It could then fall back through the gaps in the maniples of the second line, or be reinforced by them. The reserve lines could then renew the assault on the enemy.

in 278 Antigonus had won a great victory against one of the three Galatian bands that had been ravaging Greece and Macedonia. At Lysimacheia, on the shores of the Chersonese, he had induced the Celts into attacking his abandoned camp. Once they were laden with plunder he trapped their army, reputedly 18,000 strong, between his fleet and army, and won a bloody victory.

Justin, 25.1-2



(anyway still looking for the longer description i remember i read some time ago, when i find it, i will post it here)

[Greek Iraklis]

Gauls lost against south Greeks, lost against Antigonus Gonatas, against Seleusid and then against Pergamus. They only beat a bad Macedonian general. Thats all. So the quastion is. Why Greeks was so effective against the Gauls despite the fact that they was always outnumbered?