"Do we get Gauls wrong?" Topic

I've been reading Caesar's Gallic War again. Every time I read it, I wonder if the way many wargames (esp. the WRG-inspired family) depicts Gauls is off base.

From what I can see, Gauls had a somewhat sophisticated system of government and economy. They do not read as wild and uncontrolled barbarians.

Is there a reason to view their citizen militia armies as any different from those of Italy or Greece?

My knowledge of the Gauls stems from my interest inthe Punic Wars. It certainly doesn't make me an expert but,for whatit's worth here is my take on your supposition.

If you are reading Caesar's Gallic War by the man himself then you have to remember that it is a flagrant piece of self aggrandizing propaganda. He bigged up the Gauls to make his victory look even more spectacular – beating up a disorganised bunch of barbarians doesn't carry much kudos.

The Gauls were quite advanced in some respects, including art, economy and (inter tribal) politics but, militarily they were hamstrung from the start by a deep rooted warrior culture. It didn't mean they couldn't operate in large armies or manoeuvre them from one place toanother in a quite organised way, but once in the face of the enemy the Gallic cult of the warrior took over.

This cult gave no credit to 'collective' victory. It was an 'individualistic' culture that almost worshipped personal bravery and feat of arms at close quarters. It took away,to a large extent, any military control from the overall commander – because everyone was hell bent on doing their own thing.

Consequently, in battle, after initial deployments were made, battle tactics were pretty much set. There would be no missilery because there was no 'honour' in it. Once at close quarters the Gauls fought every man for himself – so the individual warrior could brag about what he did afterwards – and this was almost ritualistic bragging, just like their way of war.

The Gauls knew how they would fight, and so did the Romans.It didn't mean the Romans would always win. The Gauls scared the Romans witless. The Gallic charge could be a battle winner. The Gauls were big, loud, fierce and hairier than any man had a right to be.

The Gauls that fought in the Punic wars were roughly 150 years earlier than the Gauls that fought Caesar.

I would recommend reading Adrian Goldsworthy's take on the Gauls in his book on the Roman Army At War 100BC – 200AD.

olicana for the win.

You've got a lot of Gaul bringing this up.

What Olicana said about Caesar.

The main Gallic disadvatage was that Gaul consisted of many polities while Rome enjoyed control of Italy and the provinces. Individual Gallic states could and did fight the Romans but the real test came under Vercingetorix who unified most of Gaul.

Gallic tactics were a bit more than the charge impressive though it was. The use of missiles is well attested even in Caesar's account.

The use of missiles is well attested even in Caesar's account.

My understanding is that they were used from settlements during sieges. In field battles they seldom appeared.

Vercingetorix recruited archers from all over Gaul to support his cavalry.

When the Allobroges(I think) destroyed the best part of a legion from ambush a prolonged period of missilery was interspersed with pinning charges until the Romans were destroyed.

On discipline and the warrior ethos at one engagement Vercingetrix's cavalry took an oath to ride through the Romans three times. That means they charged and rallied on each occasion to charge again. Not bad going for any cavalry at any time.

Its ages since I read this stuff but I think we could find other examples if we looked.

More in your area of interest we read that the Romans were 'appalled at the good order of the Gallic army at Telemon. At the same encounter the Gauls adjust their formation to fight to both the front and rear.

The warrior ethos and the associated cults were real enough in my view how they impacted on battlefield behaviour is an interesting discussion.

All Celtic societies were deeply individualistic but that individualism found expression and social advancement within the context of the individuals polity. Even in late Roman Gaul we find immense attachment to the polity individuals originate from.

The Romans were only interested in invading/conquering the Gauls because the Gaul's economy made it profitable. Once they had developed large towns/small cities (oppida) all the basic infrastructure was in place for the Romans to take over.

As for the tactical inflexibility, just about every Greek City State was in just the same boat – the generals could get the army organised and march it to the battle field, but once the enemy was in sight they lost all control – the main difference was that the Greeks were team players in hand to hand while the Gauls seem to have been more individual – but that didn't stop the Romans from recruiting them.

As it happens there was a lot of gold in Gaul another incentive for the conquest.

Without many written accounts of Gallic society, we're at the mercy of Caesar more than we'd like.

Quality of Gallic warriors: I'm sure you remember Caesar's account of the classes of Gauls: the Druids, the warrior class (he calls Equites), and the all rest, the common people. It's my understanding that Caesar's implication is that many of the fighters were drawn from the common people led by the warrior class; seems like the 'equites' were the leaders and were many fewer in number. Caesar does not do a lot to build up the commoners, who seem to fill the ranks…he states that they had almost the status of slaves and had to do whatever the "equites" ordered them to do. They hardly seem to have any traing. And in peace negotiations with the Belgae (Nervi), the leader, Ambigitorix, tries to convince the Roman leaders that he didn't want the war but the commoners/rabble he was leading forced it on him because they're ignorant and don't know any better. I don't think that he'd try to pass off on the Romans if it wasn't at least somewhat believable. But this is Caesar's account and his rendering of the situation; they don't seems very formidable in training.

Some battles against Gauls in Italy (maybe Telemon and probably Sentinum 295BC, and most likely Hannibal's forces) probably represent better trained forces. Maybe less militia types and more seasoned warriors – traveling mercenaries? That'd be my guess.

Missile Fire: As to missile weapons, the Gauls used them wherever and whenever. The ambush that refers to was by the Nervi, who destroyed the 14th Legion when they lured them into a valley. The legion ended up forming an orbis and took sustained missile fire; several officers are described with missile wounds: Cotta hit in the face with a slingshot, another officer transfixed by a javelin in each leg. When the Nervi couldn't trick Cicero's brother (leading another legionary camp) out of their winter quarters by the same trick, they were shooting constantly on the Romans who were defending their ramparts; Centurion Titus Pullo got a dart stuck in his sheath (Latin: vagina)and could not withdraw his sword (which sent my class into all kinds of hysterics). What I have not come across yet are any reference to bows being used. But surely there were some.

So I'm not sure we have the Gauls all that wrong. There should be some allowances for more disciplined interpretations of troops, but perhaps not too many.

"It's my understanding that Caesar's implication is that many of the fighters were drawn from the common people led by the warrior class; seems like the 'equites' were the leaders and were many fewer in number."

True enough and we must remember he was writing for a Roman audience when he said equites Romans would have understood that as the quite large class below the patricians. People you could not afford to ignore if you wanted to prosper in Roman politics. Their Gallic equivelant were probably the leaders of smaller polities who on mass constitituted the larger named Gallic states.

The description of the common people as nearly slaves would apply just as readily to the citizen small farmers of the late Roman Republic and a patrician audience would recognise that. There though Ceasar is talking about the Gauls closest to Roman power. Further away from that the Gallic world was different and the free farmers and their immediate leaders counted for more.

Closer to Roman power I think this is because the Gallic aristos are responding to the Roman threat by assembling professional warriors who must be supported rather than relying on the mainly part timers who had served before. The commoners would have had to pay for that.

There is nothing in Caesar that comes to my mind to suggest an encounter with Gallic infantry was an easy contest.

Phil Sabin does not view them as uncontrolled crazy barbarians. Gallic infantry are usually depicted as average heavy infantry in Lost Battles.

I tend to agree that WRG and perhaps other games, handle "barbarian" infantry (warbands) wrong. For instance, usually they can go "out of control" and must charge the nearest infantry, usually for the wrong reasons. We do see this at Telamon after the Roman infantry have discharged all of their missile weapons and have routed the Gaestae (sp). The second line charges uncontrollably or perhaps because they don't want to stand there taking missile shots from the Romans.

Most Celtic and Germanic tribes wanted land to farm and raise cattle. If they were warlike, it was probably to raid for riches and gold. The Gallic invasion in 225 that culminated at Telamon is an example of this on a large scale. Usually it is inter-tribe warfare unless some great leader unites the tribes to go after the "hated" Romans or Greeks.

Uncontrolled charges are probably not a feature of barbarians. At Lake Trasimene, Flaminious is egged on by some of Hannibal's raiding troops and allows his army to be drawn into a trap. We see a much more civilized and organized army in the Hundred Years War at Agincourt that advanced uncontrollably after taking a few arrow barrages at long range by English longbowmen.

What seems to be a feature of "Barbarians" is the psyching out of the enemy and psyching up of the tribesmen before the initial charge.

I also think that the "barbarian" armies have a full time soldier component, a seasoned militia component and a general levy. The former two make up the front ranks while the latter add mass to the formation and take up the rear. I suspect the "real" soldiers usually did not outnumber the Romans. So, the battle was probably won or lost with that initial charge. If the enemy formation (Roman/Greek) broke ranks, the battle was over in a Gallic victory. Otherwise, it would be a slugging match that the Romans could easily win.

On a side note, the Greek phalanx (hoplite) had much trouble with the "Barbarian" armies. This was probably because the barbarians could maneuver to the flanks and attack the phalanx where it was weakest. This does not sound like they would go completely uncontrolled now does it?

LOL Hemm! Celtic supporters on a Saturday night after the game ? :D
Cheers and at the chance of been lynched for my rudeness:) #Oh, the Rangers are , Oh the Rangers are #

Caesar's exaggerations are most lijely about numbers, for exampke he claims to have wiped out the Nervii and a little while later they are rebelling again.
It was the Eburones who wiped out a legion by using skirmishing tactics. This is in line with other legionary forces having trouble in woods against lightly equipped opponents.
The Gauls are not wildly individualistic and whether in Zitaly or Gaul we do not read much about them being uncontrollable by their generals so Zi am afraid that much of what olicana says is, unusually, myth. Gallic forces rarely run into battle in an uncontrolled manner. At the Sambre (which was a Society of Ancients battle a couple of years ago) the Gauls run to cross the river, gut this is gecause they have been ordered to so as to catch the Romans on the march and unformed. In most of the battles that they confront he Romans frontally the Gauls stand still on hills, firmed up in close irder with overlapped shields to take the sting out of the Roman pila volleys. True they do not do much in the way of battlefield manoeuvre, but then neither do the Romans.
Where the Aromans have it over the Gauls is in logistics which enables Caesar to move independently of foraging and to outstay a Gallic army and quite lijely to outnumber the Gallic firces he faces , and in kit, particularly armour and the shield/ sword combination. In most of the big set piece battles the Romans win frontally, I rather suppose hat s because the Romans just have a better chance in combat as a man with a wrap around shield, body armour and a helmet can get away with more risks than a chap with shield and spear only.
The rule writers problem is that they have to give the Gauls a chance against the Romans. There is a Rman topos that the first onset of Znorthern barbarians is fierce, but in subsequent attacks they fade so the rules creators have gone for giving Gauls a dramatic chance on first impact and then them being not so good after that. However, reading the actual battle accounts the Romans just don't seem to ever get rolled over at the first charge, but rather skirmished or ambushed. . However, there are Roman defeats where we just do not get accounts of the battle. maybe they are ambushes, maybe successful assaults too embarrassing to merit a write up.

Eburones! Thank you Roy.

Two different issues come up with Gallic Warriors. (1) What we know "historically" about them and (2) How to depict them in wargames.

First I do not agree with the notion that Caesar's Commentaries are propaganda and as such are not to be taken seriously. A first hand account by a commander on campaign that has survived all these centuries is powerful stuff.

Caesar found the Gallic peoples to be tough adversaries that took skill and luck to defeat. The Commentaries are a great read and we are so lucky to have them.

As for Wargaming: Our rules need to depict Gallic armies as a handful for any Roman Army. I always liked Field of Glory interpretation of Legionaries and Gallic warriors as similar in style (swordsmen) … with the difference being Legionaries are drilled and have advantages in maneuver.

Strategically, I would image the lack of a national "presence" by the Gauls (or their tribal makeup) ultimately lead to their defeat.

Mike B

We can take them seriously and be aware that they are propoganda. Try reading Caesar Against the Celts by Ramon Jimenez for an exercise in doing just that.

Oh … Have read it …

I just am not that engaged by revisionist history.

Too many modern historians are critical of the Commentaries and Caesar. I guess I value them more than they do.

Mike B

The tactical differences are small, both sides hid behind their shield, threw spears ect.

Roman probably had an edge in disiplin, and command and control.

Caesar has motive to include bias into his commentaries, but not to beninaccurate about how they fought. He has a motive in exaggerating the degree of threat to the Roman province because he should have gone back to the Senate once he had defeated the Helvetii. His actions in attacking Ariovistus and then the Belgae were strictly illegal as the Republic was not seeking a war of conquest . He has motive to exaggerate his personal achievements and those of his army because he wants to leave a record of his achievements for pisterity (and get suppirt in Rome) and Caesar is very conscious of posterity and fame.
I suppise that Caesar might also be influenced to praise or criticise his officers on the basis that some were allies or later enemies, though he seems fair enough to them and, wherebit all looks as though Julius is everywhere, doing everything, one is reminded of Wellington at Waterloo who does much the same
I do not think that either of the above reasons to exaggerate a bit really affect how the Gauls are portrayed as far as that is relevant to wargamers looking to reproduce the fighting style and abilities of the Gauls on a tabletop..
There is one further area of potential bias and that is a matter of literary style. Caesar has many batles to describe and would not want to write in a way that bored his adience with the repetition of basic details. Thus the description of the battle against the Helvetii contains details of how their shields are pinhed together and encumbered by pika. We can take it as read that this happens in other battles, but it would be dreary to give such detail for each battle. rather it is included to give a reassurance to the aroman reader that the troops were defeating the Gauls in a suitably traditional manner. Again, to cite Waterloo,nthey came on in the same old manner and we dealt with them in the same old manner. It may even ve that the description of the Gauls has to be presented and understood in the traditional manner because it was more impirtant to fit to the preconceptions of the audience than to give detail that might challenge the traditional view, though apai tend to think that if the Gauls did something new Caesar would give details of it and exploit the curiosity value.
So all in all Caesar has his biases, but no one has really shown that these impact on the value of his account for us.

"though apai tend to think that if the Gauls did something new Caesar would give details of it and exploit the curiosity value."

As he did when he reported Vercingetorix was recruiting archers from all across Gaul and, with more impact on his readers, described British chariot tactics.

Caesar as has already been noted would exagerate enemy numbers, seek to finesse political irregularities and downplay anything that hindered him being the hero of his own story.

Some things were added for effect or because of topos now and then there is an outright lie-plainly he could not destroy the Nervi twice. The first false claim was likely needed for politics back home and the commentaries like Dickens were a serial. None of which prevents his work being of immense value.

As an aside a number of Late Roman Gallic Senators claimed descent from JC if that is true then his grasp of Gallic politics may have included the expediency of temporary marriage with ladies from leading Gallic families in order to cement alliances.

Very good discussion.

OK: if rule sets do, indeed, get the Gauls "wrong", what needs to be added/changed?

Maybe have a limited number of professional units. But I think there are many rules that have these. Maybe they should be fearsome to some troop types.

I'm pretty happy with my rules system for them (CoE or WAB if necessary) – I don't think there's a lot wrong. Warbands are not very maneuverable; fierce on the charge til beaten; once broken they're harder to rally. I even think that the small chance of them charging a target not selected by their player is pretty small and could reflect a certain amount of control by their chieftains – it's not that bad.

I've read that Romans fighting Gauls in Northern Italy (Republican period) found their charges hard to deal with. Also read that the shift from maniple to cohort was partly to have bigger, denser formations with which to deal with barbarians [Osprey, Roman Civil Wars book ??-88BC].

I'd be interested to hear changes people think are needed.

I know it's a typo, but this sentence made me laugh out loud:

"how their shields are pinhed together and encumbered by pika"

This is a pika:

They're a lot more dangerous than they look…

In mass numbers, I'm sure. "Quantity has a quality all of its own."

Pikas evolves to tribbles in the 22nd century

Pikas could take out an eye, if you threw enough of them, maybe.

Picture the scene, a roman centurion at the front of his unit, facing a charge by hundreds of screaming Gauls. He hold his ground and yells, "Century – ready pikas!… Throw!"

Followed by the Gauls' cries of "Oooh, so cute!" Chaos ensues.

Pikas – the (justifiably) little known terror weapon of the ancient battlefield.

I laughed long and hard at the Pika picture/post. Thanks.

Off the top of my head I'd say a sizeable minority of fully equipeed warriors with more of those in States closer to Roman power.

Mostly I'd say Gauls wont start running until their social superiors do – then they wont stop.

The exception to this, maybe, is where the Aristos had extorted the small farmers to pay for more fully equipped full time warriors. Said farmers might feel the social contract had been compromised and be less willing for deadly encounters. The latter is what Phil Barker was trying to capture with his revision of Gauls from warband to auxilia.

The full timers would simply be good heavy infantry. The cavalry seem to have enjoyed a good reputation pretty much everywhere.

The ferocity of the Gallic charge seems to have been real enough and so if you like that sort of thing the Gauls are fearsome troops.

Missilery could be significant.

Gallic part timers could not match veteran Roman troops but newly raised Legions were a different matter.

Command and control do not seem to have caused Gallic commanders any more difficulty than other ancient generals. Perhaps that is reflected in the story of the Gallic envoys and Alexander where the latter has his army drill and then asks the Gauls if there is anything they fear? The Gauls reply that they are scared of the sky falling in. Now this could be intended to reflect barbarian hubris or it might be the envoys thought well that was well done but we can do something similar.

I'm using Piquet POB and it can deal with all this as I guess many other rule sets can too.

@ OB

Would you consider a mechanism to mirror the perhaps fragile Celtic morale?

I dont think their morale was particularly fragile rather their conditions of service as it were did not oblige them to stick around if the boss bolted. To reflect this on the table would require individual leaders and that might be over elaborate for some gamers taste.

Training and discipline would trump individual bravery as a morale factor when things are going badly. As someone above said, the Gauls may very well have had a mix of mercenaries/professionals, part-time warriors, and coerced levies. I don't know any of them that are immune to fear for one's life, whatever their terms of service were. Even trained (and sometimes well-trained) legionaries fled against the order of their officers. Sure, if their bosses bolted then all bets are off. But preservation of life would be a stronger instinct/motivator than a contract that's no good if you're dead, no matter what threats your bosses are making at the time.

I'd agree with all of that bar the coerced levies-we have no evidence of that.

Having said that Romans believed that the Celtic doctrine of the transmigration of souls mitigated against fear of death among the Gauls. I'm not sure what to make of that but it cannot be dismissed from the evidence.

loved the pika pic . Sounds like you have sussed how the Romans dealt with elephants.

Is their morale fragile? Caesar has them standing on piles of their own dead to throw javelins at the Sambre and the Helvetii are pushed back fighting for a mile. I suggest their main problem is exhaustion because the Romans drilled and trained under the threat of desth, whereas the Zgauls lijely did a days work or hunting and perhaps a bit of weapon training, not hours of it with a sword heavier than the real thing. If fighting largely consusts if defending yourself then, when you tire, you become more vulnerable and you die. If you have armour you can take a coupke more chances. The better trained Romans hust lasted longer.

Ammianus 12,42
a way the combatants were evenly matched; the Alamanni were stronger and taller, our soldiers disciplined by long practice; they were savage and uncontrollable, our men quiet and wary, these relying on their courage, while the Germans presumed upon their huge size. 48 Yet frequently the Roman, driven from his post by the weight of armed men, rose up again; and the savage, with his legs giving way from fatigue, would drop on his bended left knee and even thus attack his foe, a proof of extreme resolution. 49 And so there suddenly leaped forth a fiery band of nobles, among whom even the kings fought, and with the common soldiers following they burst in upon our lines before the rest; and opening up a path for themselves they got as far as the legion of the Primani, which was stationed in the centre — '
This is Ammianus Marcellinus in the 4th century, but note how the Romans outlast the Allamanni