Warfare

Greek and Roman writers liked to portray the Celts’ fondness for war as a sign of their irrational and hot-headed temperament. In fact the Celts liked war for the entirely rational reason that it was the surest route for the ambitious chief or warrior to increase his status. The power of a Celtic chieftain or king depended entirely on the size of his warrior following. Warriors expected to be rewarded for their service by gifts of weapons, jewellery and cattle and an honoured place at the feast. Chiefs needed to make war on their neighbours to gain the reputation and the means, by plundering, to attract and retain a warrior band. For warriors war was in some ways a continuation of the feast by other means. A warrior wanted to go to war, not only because of the material rewards, but because it was a chance to indulge in individual heroics that would increase his standing and get him a seat nearer to the chief at the feast by proving that there was more than hot air behind his drunken boasting. Because warriors were competing almost as much with one another as with the enemy, Celtic armies were not highly disciplined like the Roman legion or the Greek phalanx, or even the Germanic shield wall. The long Celtic slashing sword needed space if it was to be wielded efficiently and battles were often preceded by individual contests designed to allow champion warriors to show off. The Romans generally reckoned Celtic cavalry to be superior to their own, but most Celts fought on foot, sometimes using chariots as battlefield transport. Chariots seem to have fallen out of favour on the continent after the third century bc, but they continued in use in Britain up to the Roman conquest. The early Irish epics often refer to the use of chariots in warfare, but this is not substantiated by any archaeological evidence. Celtic chariots were

Plate 8 Wetwang chariot burial

Source: Copyright Humber Archaeology Partnership and BM Photographic Services

Lightweight constructions of wood and wicker, with spoked wheels shod with iron tyres. In the famous statue on Victoria Embankment in London, ‘Boadicea’ (Boudica) is shown heroically charging into battle in a chariot with scythes fitted to its wheel hubs. Sadly for romantics, this is a product of the nineteenth-century sculptor’s imagination and is not supported by any historical evidence. Greeks and Romans often commented on the Celtic

Custom of going into battle completely naked with only a shield for protection. This probably had some ritual purpose and it was not practised by all Celtic warriors. Head-hunting was another ritual practice associated with warfare and it also provided concrete evidence of a warrior’s valour. The lack of formal military discipline meant that sophisticated tactics were impossible. The prelude to battle involved a great deal of shouting, boasting and the raucous blowing of long war trumpets called carnyxes to intimidate the enemy. Battle was joined by a headlong charge that was terrifying in its recklessness and dash, especially for inexperienced opponents who often turned tail and ran. However, if a confident enemy stood his ground and beat off the charge, a Celtic army could very quickly turn into a disorganised shambles that could easily be routed. The Romans formed the opinion that the Celts were fierce in the first onrush but were easily discouraged and prone to irrational despair if checked. This, of course, contrasted unfavourably with the steadiness of the legions, but was only to be expected of barbarians. Roman prejudices aside, this tactic did win a lot of battles for the Celts, the last being at Falkirk in 1746, when a rebel Highland army armed with swords routed a larger government army armed with cannons and muskets. However, against a well-armed and disciplined opponent, the Celts usually fought at a serious disadvantage. Siege warfare was not a Celtic specialism and they were rarely able to capture well-fortified sites except by surprise. During his conquest of Gaul Caesar reported that the Celts were beginning to imitate Roman siege warfare tactics and use them effectively. However, this came too late to change the course of the war.

Tactics apart, the contrast between the Roman and Celtic attitudes to war can be exaggerated. Ambitious Romans like Julius Caesar used war in exactly the same way as any Celtic warrior or chief, as a means to enrich himself, win prestige and a loyal following of legionaries, and seize power for himself. Nor were Roman commanders immune to the appeal of publicly performing acts of personal valour. In 361 bc the dictator Titus Manlius fought an enormous Gaulish warrior in single combat on the bridge over the river Anio while the two armies looked on. After dispatching the giant, Titus beheaded his corpse (a very Celtic thing to do) and removed his tore, which, though it was still covered in gore, he wore proudly as he returned to his own cheering ranks. A similar single combat was fought between another giant Gaul and the tribune Marcus Valerius in 348. The reputations of neither man suffered for indulging in this typically barbarian behaviour. Ordinary Roman soldiers, it is true, fought mainly for pay, but they too sometimes gave in to the desire to show off to their comrades. However, individual heroics were generally disapproved of, as success usually depended on group cohesion.