Nekked Gauls

[Quinn Inuit]

Besides the Battle of Telamon, do we have any evidence anywhere that Gauls not in Galatia fought in the nude? That seems to have been common practice in Galatia, but I haven't run into much evidence of the practice besides Telamon in the west.

[Metaluis90]

Hannibal used a large group of gaesatae (the famous naked fanatics) as mercenaries against Rome...
they were his bodyguards, too, if I remember well

[Quinn Inuit]

I've heard that, but not found the evidence yet. Could you find a citation?

[Metaluis90]

he Gaesatae were said to be a group of warriors who fought for hire and it is they who are described in the most detail. Whereas the Boii and Insubres wore trousers and cloaks which were thick enough to afford some protection from the Roman javelins, the Gaesatae removed their clothes to fight naked, standing in front of their allies and seeking to intimidate the Romans with shouting and gesturing. However, this lack of protection caused their defeat since they apparently carried relatively small shields which did not adequately protect them against the missile fire of the Roman skirmishers. Suffering heavy casualties, the Gaesatae either fled the battlefield or desperately charged headlong into the Roman lines where, outmatched for both numbers and equipment, they were defeated. What position the Gaesatae occupied in Celtic society has been much debated. Early writers assumed that they were a tribe, but later authors have inclined to the view that they may have been groups of unattached young warriors who lived by raiding and mercenary activities like the early Roman iuventes or the semi-legendary Irish fiana
^ Mountain, H. The Celtic Encyclopedia (1998)

Instead of being a tribe, it looks like the gaesatae were a type of mercenary

here is a reference of the galatian regiment that acted as a bodyguard for Herod the Great

[Quinn Inuit]

I've seen that argument about them being just a type of merc, but I discussed it at length with Carados and Remlap and we aren't buying it. "Types of mercs" or youth warbands don't have kings and 30,000 "countrymen." These guys were a tribe of some sort. "Gaesatae" probably refers to the mercenary nature of the group, but they weren't just random mercs.

I'm not surprised Herod had Galatians working for him, but I didn't see anything about the clothing issue in there.

[Mogan]

I remember reading something about it, perhaps in Plutarch?

He claimed that the Gaesatae was a tribe that eventually formed into some kind of pseudo-religious group of fanatics, employing themselves as mercenaries, eventually accepting others into their ranks to reinforce their tribes. That could also be the way I interpreted what he wrote.

Found something. Plutarch mentions them as in the pay of the Boii and Insubres. The Wikipedia article has even more links to Plutarch.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...ius/2*.html#22 <- Mentions their role with the Boii.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaesatae <- check the references to Plutarch here.

[Quinn Inuit]

Nope, wasn't in that particular part of Plutarch. That sounds like a perfectly reasonable theory, but I just can't find evidence for it in the early authors.

Edit: Perhaps I should be clearer. Plutarch does speak of the Gaesatae, but there's nothing in it to support that theory. I find that theory plausible, but rather complex. I'd prefer one that made fewer unsupported (AFAIK) assumptions.

[Carados]

Plutarch mentions the King wearing armour in the Life of Marcellus.

[Mogan]

Yes. But he also mentions that they fought without the common trousers Gauls wore. I'm gonna look around for the sources, but I think the reasons were that they found it more effective in rough terrain and woods. And also to let nature protect them (hence my impression of them being religious).

[Carados]

You sure?
It doesn't mention the Gaesatae not wearing trousers at Clastridium. In fact, it suggests the majority wore armour, at least the ones surrounding the King.

But he, fearing lest this should be taken as a bad omen by the Romans and lead to confusion among them, quickly reined his horse round to the left and made him face the enemy, while he himself made adoration to the sun, implying that it was not p451by chance, but for this purpose, that he had wheeled about; for it is the custom with the Romans to turn round in this way when they make adoration to the gods. And in the moment of closing with the enemy he is said to have vowed that he would consecrate to Jupiter Feretrius the most beautiful suit of armour among them.

Accordingly, as Marcellus surveyed the ranks of the enemy, this seemed to him to be the most beautiful armour, and he concluded that it was this which he had vowed to the god. He therefore rushed upon the man, and by a thrust of his spear which pierced his adversary's breastplate, and by the impact of his horse in full career, threw him, still living, upon the ground, where, with a second and third blow, he promptly killed him.

They might also have worn Etruscan armour (breastplate?).

[Wien1938]

Actually there is a simple way out of this dilemma. The Gaesatae could well be a fierce tribe whose warriors were regularly hired and available for hire to other tribes etc. This would fit with the attempt of Perseus of Macedonia to hire 10,000 cavalry from the Celtic Bastarnai and the same number of supporting infantry.

Carados, be careful with translations. Look for the original word in either Greek or Latin. Plutarch wrote in Greek, so unless we can get a transliterated translation (sic!), we should proceed with caution as the standard word for armour was thorax. This could mean breastplate (thorax), scaled linothorax, half-scaled (hemithorakion) or even simply a linothorax. It's tricky without the exact Greek and even then we might not get an answer.
I would also add that this was the 'king' of the Gaesatae, so he might well have worn a breastplate; however this could simply have been chainmail for which we have ample sources on Gallic armour.

[Wien1938]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar..._of_Amphipolis

[Quinn Inuit]

Interesting point, thanks. Do you suppose the gaesatae could have been the mercenary branch of the Allobroges? They're in about the same place geographically and there's no temporal overlap between them.

[Wien1938]

Interesting thought. I would say the mercenary name of Allobroge warriors is a better fit but the principle stands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaesatae

The Greek historian Polybius says their name meant "mercenaries",[1] which matches Old Irish gaiscedach "champion, armed person", from gaisced "weapons", itself from gáe "spear, javelin",[2] and compare quite closely with the medieval Irish fianna, who were small warbands of landless young men operating independently of any kingdom.[3]
2^ Dictionary of the Irish Language, Compact Edition, Royal Irish Academy, 1990, p. 352
3^ James MacKillop, Dictionary of Celtic Mythology, Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 217-218

They could easily have been from Allobroge territory. The small shields and the disappearance of the fighting style suggests that these were from Gaul proper where older fighting styles may have prevailed for longer.
Apart from the nakedness, they could easily have been Celtic Irish-style warriors (basing on a known Celtic fighting fashion).
We know that the more primative a society, the more likely its warrior-style would be skirmishing. Being naked would confer agility in this role.

[GraaEminense]

[tangent]
Quite frankly, I don't support any of the rationalisations presented of fighting naked. Having no clothes does not add agility when fighting, in fact I'd say it would substract from your practical agility because no protection means more minor cuts and bruises when cavorting about in the bushes. This in turn reduces your ability to go full-tilt without unacceptable risk of hurting your fighting capability.

It was still done, it seems, but not because of any practical considerations (outside the practicality of freaking your enemy out, of course) -at least not any we share. It was done precisely because it is a stupid thing to do, proving bravery and dedication and possibly invoking magical protection. And freaking the enemy out.
[/tangent]

[Irenaeus]

IIRC, I read somewhere that the Gestatae got high on drugs before going into battle so that they wouldn't any pain if they got injured. Although the main reason for nakedness was to impress the enemy as to your bravery.

[Quinn Inuit]

Interesting thought. I would say the mercenary name of Allobroge warriors is a better fit but the principle stands.

So, in other words, an Allobroge member of an organized mercenary group would be called "gaesatae"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaesatae

The Greek historian Polybius says their name meant "mercenaries",[1] which matches Old Irish gaiscedach "champion, armed person", from gaisced "weapons", itself from gáe "spear, javelin",[2] and compare quite closely with the medieval Irish fianna, who were small warbands of landless young men operating independently of any kingdom.[3]
2^ Dictionary of the Irish Language, Compact Edition, Royal Irish Academy, 1990, p. 352
3^ James MacKillop, Dictionary of Celtic Mythology, Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 217-218

I've seen that, but I'm not sure I agree with the interpretation. These guys are much closer to the Ten Thousand than to small warbands of young men. I wouldn't be surprised if the gaesatae army were full of such groups, but it was vastly more organized. And, borrowing a rule from Hari Seldon, the Rhone Valley must have been even more organized, since otherwise they'd probably have killed the locals and conquered it for themselves. The Rhone's on a major trade route down to Massilia, so there'd have been fertile farmland, women, and money from the traders. (Cf. Stephen Colbert's "Gold, Women, and Sheep" plan.) _Something_ kept them from staying where they were.

They could easily have been from Allobroge territory. The small shields and the disappearance of the fighting style suggests that these were from Gaul proper where older fighting styles may have prevailed for longer.
Apart from the nakedness, they could easily have been Celtic Irish-style warriors (basing on a known Celtic fighting fashion).
We know that the more primative a society, the more likely its warrior-style would be skirmishing. Being naked would confer agility in this role.

I have to agree with GA about the nudity not helping or hurting much. Otherwise, I would think that the caetrati tribemen types would have been naked, too, as would the Kurds and light Thracians.

Why do the small shields indicate that they were from Gaul proper? I'm curious, since this may affect how we portray some units.

[tangent]
Quite frankly, I don't support any of the rationalisations presented of fighting naked. Having no clothes does not add agility when fighting, in fact I'd say it would substract from your practical agility because no protection means more minor cuts and bruises when cavorting about in the bushes. This in turn reduces your ability to go full-tilt without unacceptable risk of hurting your fighting capability.

It was still done, it seems, but not because of any practical considerations (outside the practicality of freaking your enemy out, of course) -at least not any we share. It was done precisely because it is a stupid thing to do, proving bravery and dedication and possibly invoking magical protection. And freaking the enemy out.
[/tangent]

I have to agree, at least as far as the Galatians are concerned. The Telamon incident seems to be the only time where Gauls in that area tried fighting naked, and it was a miserable failure even for its stated goals (much less winning the battle).

IIRC, I read somewhere that the Gestatae got high on drugs before going into battle so that they wouldn't any pain if they got injured. Although the main reason for nakedness was to impress the enemy as to your bravery.

I've read that, too, and it appears to be completely baseless. I've been able to find no evidence to support the claim, and the story of the Battle of Telamon cuts (pun intended) in precisely the opposite direction.

EB also claims that Hannibal had a gaesatae personal guard. I've found no evidence in support of this, and actual evidence that Hannibal trusted the Gauls as far as he could throw them.

[Carados]

IIRC, I read somewhere that the Gestatae got high on drugs before going into battle so that they wouldn't any pain if they got injured. Although the main reason for nakedness was to impress the enemy as to your bravery.

I think simple adrenaline as a consequence of fights being a stressful situation would be enough for them to ignore some pain. Of course, having your limb cut off or a javelin piercing your heart is a different matter altogether. You might not die straight away, but the trauma will cause your brain to "shut down". Armour protects you from this "shut down" mechanism by preventing large scale trauma from being so common place.

Of course, this only applies when you're in the "fight" mode. If you turn to "flight" then your threshold descreasing a little bit - mainly because you're running rather than bracing yourself.

[razr19]

Anyone creeped out by this conversation? lol

[I-Alexander-I]

Anyone creeped out by this conversation? lol

yup :p lol

Well there is no evidence to suggest wither they did or they didn't, Its the same with the Greeks i suppose, you see many examples of them fighting in the nude on pots and other crafts however theres no actual evidence to prove that they did fight naked. Suppose it was just a form of heroic propaganda so to speak