A Brief History of the Celts (11 page)
Read A Brief History of the Celts Online
Authors: Peter Berresford Ellis
Contrary to all expectation the Celts did them [the people of the countryside] no harm, nor took aught from their fields, but even as they passed close by their cities,
shouted out that they were marching on Rome and had declared war only on the Romans, but the rest of the people they regarded as friends.
This scarcely accords with the general view of the mindless barbaric horde which swept down on Rome. The Senones defeated the Roman army at the Allia, 18 kilometres north of the
city, in a classic battle and moved on to Rome itself. They occupied the city for seven months before extracting an apology and a ransom in gold. They then withdrew. They did not want to form any
empire over the Romans, simply to punish them for a transgression of accepted international behaviour.
So the image of the Celts as making war for the sake of making war is one we can dispense with. However, classical writers, particularly Roman writers or Greeks in Roman employ or patronage,
loved to talk about Celtic savagery, the qualities of being fierce and uncivilised. By Rome’s own
bloodthirsty standards, any Celtic cruelty seems to have been quite
mild.
Like all the Indo-European societies, the Celts did have a warrior caste – the equivalent of the Sanskrit
kshatriya
, the Roman
equites
and the Greek
hippeis
,
which we generally tend to translate as ‘knights’. The Celts were no different from other Indo-Europeans in that they had gods of war; their aristocracy or warrior caste had
ostentatious weapons and armaments and took pride in individual heroism.
We also learn that they had special élite warrior bands which we will discuss shortly.
It is lucky that archaeology often acts as an antidote to the prejudices of the Roman writers. As Dr P.F. Stary pointed out: ‘When the Romans described the Celts in terms of war, they did
their best to disparage and degrade not only their abilities as fighting men but even their weapons.’ Ironically, the Etruscans and then the Romans learned a great deal from the advanced
weaponry of the Celts. Their own weapons, war helmets and shields, and even their tactics, owed much to Celtic innovations. Dr Stary emphasises that the Celtic weapons were ‘a major influence
on the Etruscan and Roman military systems’.
He also says: ‘Fortunately, many Celtic weapons are known from graves, mainly in eastern and northern Italy, which give a good picture of the Celtic warrior’s equipment and point to
a longer occupation in the regions. Further, several Etruscan representations of Celtic warriors are known and form the basis for a better understanding of the Celtic influences on the
“superior” Etruscan and Roman military systems.’
When the Celts first emerged into the Mediterranean world, iron helmets had generally ousted the weaker bronze war helmets. From graves we find these iron helmets appearing in the fourth century
BC
. Some are exquisitely rich, such as the mid-fourth-century
BC
helmet from Amfreville, France, with repoussé gold and inlaid with red glass,
or the Agris helmet decorated with gold and coral inlay. Many of these helmets
had fabulous decorations, often with extraordinary crests, hinged cheek pieces, internal neck
guards and other embellishments. According to Diodorus Siculus:
On their heads they wear bronze helmets which possess large projecting figures of enormous stature to the wearer. In some cases, horns form one part with the helmet, while
in other cases, it is relief figures of the fore parts of birds or quadrupeds.
According to Dr Stary, the helmet bearing a round cap surmounted by a knob with neck and cheek guards was a Celtic invention. The Celts brought this design with them to Italy and it was rapidly
adopted by the Etruscans and then by the Romans. The knob helmet was very suitable for flexible warfare. Whereas the initial Celtic design has cheek guards of three rounded discs in the form of a
trefoil, the Etruscans added a sickle-shaped cheek piece.
The Celts also had better shields than the early Romans, large shields which were a better protective covering for the body. They were often carried by a central handle but no forearm strap. The
Celtic shield doubled as an offensive weapon because it not only protected the holder from blows of the enemy but could be turned to strike the opponent as well. Examples of shields in early La
Tène have been found around 1.1 metres tall but others have been depicted in reliefs as around 1.4 metres, which was the size adopted by the Romans. Diodorus Siculus observed:
They have man-sized shields decorated in a manner peculiar to them. Some of these have projecting figures in bronze skilfully wrought not only for decoration but for
protection.
It is very likely that the Latin word for shield,
scutum
, has its origin in the Celtic word which provides the basis of the
Irish
sciath
and its Welsh
equivalent
ysgwyd
, meaning both shield and shoulder. The word
scutum
was used by the Romans particularly for the Celtic-style man-sized shield, which they did not develop until
after their first encounters with the Celts. Attempts to explain
scutum
from the Latin root
obscurus
or even a more removed Greek root are not convincing.
The use of body armour by the Celts has been confirmed by archaeological finds and even by Roman representations of Celts in battle. Indeed, yet another Celtic technical innovation was the
invention of chain mail around 300
BC
. Diodorus Siculus mentions this, and shirts of interlocking iron rings have been found at Celtic sites. These were labour-intensive
products and so only leading chieftains or kings probably wore them. Such shirts could weigh as much as 15 kilograms. The chain mail shirts became highly prized as spoils of war among the Romans
who later adopted the idea in their own army. The Latin word
cataphractes
for a chain mail shirt has been argued to come from the Celtic root
cat
, war or battle, rather than the
Latin
catena
, a fetter or chain. The word
caterva
, first used for a company of Celtic ‘barbarian’ soldiers, uses the same root.
Plutarch admits that the Romans soon learned that the Celtic power in battle lay in their swords, and that the Romans had to develop the new-style helmets, the longer shields and the technique
of using their javelins to come under the enemy’s swords when raised for the downward stroke, during their encounters with the Celtic warriors.
At the same time, Polybius, apparently quoting Quintus Fabius Pictor, claims the Celtic swords were inferior to the Roman swords, ‘the Celtic sword being good only for a cut and not for a
thrust’. Yet the very word
gladius
, the short Roman sword, is claimed to be of Celtic origin. Certainly, we find this short sword in use among the Celtiberians. The word is cognate
with the Irish
claideb
and the Welsh
cleddyf
, a sword.
We learn from F. Vegetius Renatus (fourth century
AD
) that the Romans had to learn new methods to combat the tactics and equipment of the Celtic
warriors. The ancient Romans, he says, had to be taught not to cut but to thrust with their swords. We hear much on the inability of the Celts to thrust with their swords but many of the Celtic
swords have been found to have prominent points as well as long parallel cutting edges.
The Celts also gave to the Romans words for a variety of spears and javelins which, had the weapons been inferior, would not have been adopted by the Romans. The word
lancea
, describing
a light spear, has remained in English as lance. The
mataris
, from which come
matara
and
materi
, a pike, was also adopted from Celtic. A
gaesum
was a strong
heavy javelin, and the root
gae
for spear is still easily recognisable in Irish. There was also a
tragula
, a light javelin, which Pliny says was also the name for a Celtic sledge.
Spears from the La Tène period have been found as long as 2.5 metres, together with spear heads whose serrated edges would have been deadly. It is attested that the Celtic warriors also had
bows and slings but used them merely as defensive weapons. If their cavalry had to fall back, archers, who had been strategically placed, would support them and cover their withdrawal.
Perhaps the Celtic ‘secret weapon’ was their use of war chariots and cavalry. The Celtic armies were highly mobile and had developed the use of transport and a transport system, as
we shall discuss in Chapter 10.
Martial spoke of the
covinus
, a war chariot, which eventually became the Latin
covincarius
or travelling cart. But the Celtic word
covignos
actually implied a shared
transport. As war chariots were ‘shared’ by the warrior and his charioteer, this is quite acceptable. Martial, however, has the chariot’s axles fixed with scythes, deadly
falces
or blades.
Chariots in battle were something new to the Romans.
Chariots as war machines had fallen into disuse in the ancient world centuries before the Roman–Celtic
collision. The Celts had retained them or redeveloped them in the light of their innovations with working iron. With stronger wheels and the Celts’ ability to open up a transport system, it
was easy to move the chariots to where they were needed. As a weapon of war they were used mainly on the flanks with cavalry. In the initial stages of a battle they would drive against the enemy at
speed for the purposes of causing panic. A thousand Celtic chariots took part in the battle of Sentium (295
BC
) and also at Telamon (225
BC
).
Diodorus Siculus comments:
When going into battle, the Celts use two-horsed chariots which carry the charioteer and the warrior. When they meet with cavalry in war, they throw their javelins at the
enemy, and, dismounting from their chariots, they join battle with their swords . . . they also bring freemen as servants choosing them from among the poor, and these they use as charioteers
and shield bearers.
Livy admits that, in battle, often the first Roman lines would be trodden underfoot by the rush of cavalry and chariots. Once the lines were broken the Celts used their chariots
as a means of transporting the warriors to their combat positions as foot soldiers, just as chariots had been used in Homeric Greece.
After the battle of Telamon the chariot as a war machine fell into disuse among the Continental Celts who came to rely on cavalry and the staying power of infantry. When Julius Caesar, nearly
200 years after Telamon, took his Roman legionaries to Britain, he seemed surprised to find that war chariots were in use there. He wrote:
In chariot fighting the Britons begin by driving all over the field hurling javelins, and generally the terror inspired by the
horses and noise of the
wheels is sufficient to throw their opponents’ ranks into disorder. Then, after making their way between the squadrons of their own cavalry, they jump down from the chariots and engage on
foot. In the meantime their charioteers retire a short distance from the battle and place the chariots in such a position that their masters, if hard pressed by numbers, have an easy means of
retreat to their own lines. Thus they combine the mobility of cavalry with the staying power of infantry; and by daily training and practice they attain such proficiency that, even on a steep
incline, they are able to control the horses at full gallop, and to check and turn them in a moment. They can run along the chariot pole, stand on the yoke, and get back into the chariot as
quick as lightning.
Caesar confesses that the soldiers of his VII Legion were unnerved by the British chariots.
From early Irish documentation and archaeological remains we find that chariots were also in use in Ireland. Irish mythological texts give fine descriptions of chariot warfare, individual heroic
episodes as well as warfare on a greater scale, such as the descriptions of the
Táin
war.
The other powerful weapon of the Celtic armies was their cavalry. They even won begrudging admiration from the Romans, who adopted the Celtic horse goddess Epona as an accepted deity of the
empire as well as recruiting cavalry regiments from the Celts. This was the only Celtic deity they adopted and her feast day was held in Rome on 18 December. According to Strabo the best cavalry in
the Roman army were Celtic. He says of the Celts: ‘Although they are all fine fighting men, yet they are better as cavalry than as infantry and the best of the Roman cavalry is recruited from
among them.’
Like the chariots, Celtic cavalry combined mobility and staying power for the cavalryman would not only unnerve the enemy by shock charges but also dismount and fight on foot
when the need arose. The Celtiberians were noted for having small pegs attached to their horses’ reins so that they could ride into a battle, dismount and fix the pegs into the
ground to prevent the horse from straying while they fought as infantry.
Pausanias, in describing the Celtic cavalry at the battle of Thermopylae in 279
BC
, has this description of a Celtic cavalry formation:
To each mounted warrior were attached two servants, who were themselves skilled riders and, like their masters, had a horse. When the Celtic cavalry were in battle, the
servants remained behind the ranks and proved useful in the following way. Should a horseman or his horse fall, the slave brought him a horse to mount; if the rider was killed, the slave
mounted the horse in his master’s place; if both rider and horse were killed, there was a mounted man ready. When a rider was wounded, one slave brought back to the camp the wounded man,
while the other took his vacant place in the ranks . . . This organisation is called in their own language
trimarcisia
, for I would have you know that
marca
is the Celtic name
for a horse.
