Jokes1 min ago
celtic military
6 Answers
anyone know of any archaeological evidence to show the celtic miltary weakness against the romans.
thanks in advance
thanks in advance
Answers
1 to 6 of 6
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by lightoftruth. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The infantry tactics of the Roman army are well documented � most notably by uncle Caesar, or perhaps even Seutonius.
Against the fighting men of the legion however, Celts, Gauls and the Barbarian Hoards generally faced a daunting task. Individually, in single combat, the fierce warrior could probably more than hold his own against a Roman. In massed fighting formation however, the Celts rudimentary organisation and tactics fared poorly against the well oiled machinery that was the Legion.
The fierceness of the Celtic charges is often commented upon by some writers, and in certain circumstances they could overwhelm Roman lines. Nevertheless the in-depth Roman formation allowed adjustments to be made, and the continual application of forward pressure made long-term combat a hazardous proposition for any opposition.
Flank attacks were always possible, but the legion was flexible enough to pivot to meet this, either through sub-unit manoeuvre or through deployment of lines farther back. The cavalry screen on the flanks also added another layer of security. The Celts, Gauls and Germanics also fought with little or no armour, and with weaker shields, putting them at a disadvantage against the legion, and their logistics were poor compared to the detailed organisation of the Romans. There was a distinct lack of discipline amongst the Celts.
Archaeological evidence would exist in the forms of weaponry and armour which can be viewed at various museums throughout the UK (superior Roman Legion �vs- Celtic war band), and also in the documented evidence of various military campaigns which were helped along not least by internal feudal wars amongst British tribes.
Against the fighting men of the legion however, Celts, Gauls and the Barbarian Hoards generally faced a daunting task. Individually, in single combat, the fierce warrior could probably more than hold his own against a Roman. In massed fighting formation however, the Celts rudimentary organisation and tactics fared poorly against the well oiled machinery that was the Legion.
The fierceness of the Celtic charges is often commented upon by some writers, and in certain circumstances they could overwhelm Roman lines. Nevertheless the in-depth Roman formation allowed adjustments to be made, and the continual application of forward pressure made long-term combat a hazardous proposition for any opposition.
Flank attacks were always possible, but the legion was flexible enough to pivot to meet this, either through sub-unit manoeuvre or through deployment of lines farther back. The cavalry screen on the flanks also added another layer of security. The Celts, Gauls and Germanics also fought with little or no armour, and with weaker shields, putting them at a disadvantage against the legion, and their logistics were poor compared to the detailed organisation of the Romans. There was a distinct lack of discipline amongst the Celts.
Archaeological evidence would exist in the forms of weaponry and armour which can be viewed at various museums throughout the UK (superior Roman Legion �vs- Celtic war band), and also in the documented evidence of various military campaigns which were helped along not least by internal feudal wars amongst British tribes.
Also, I forgot to mention the well-documented evidence (written as well as carved into walls and building s and monuments) of the military weapons and artillery of the roman army such as the crossbow, ballista, catapult, cheirobalista and the mangonel for example.
Trajan's Column has five separate scenes which show Roman artillery. These relief�s depict one engine in many different contexts. The machine is known today as the carroballista, and was designed to provide a mobile engine employable in battle situations.
The remains of a late fourth-century A.D. arrow-shooting engine was found in the Roman fort at Orsova, Romania. The find consisted of two iron rings joined by two beams and an iron arched rod, forked at either end.
http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/mil_roman_ artillery.htm
Trajan's Column has five separate scenes which show Roman artillery. These relief�s depict one engine in many different contexts. The machine is known today as the carroballista, and was designed to provide a mobile engine employable in battle situations.
The remains of a late fourth-century A.D. arrow-shooting engine was found in the Roman fort at Orsova, Romania. The find consisted of two iron rings joined by two beams and an iron arched rod, forked at either end.
http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/mil_roman_ artillery.htm
Excellent answer Octavius...
As far as archaeological evidence goes there are slim pickings. Certain tactics used by the Roman army, such as making a fortified encampment EVERY night to avoid being surprised (and allowing a substanstial portion of your force to have a hot meal and a sleep) have been proved in a variety of digs, as has the sheer amount of ammunition expended (arrows and stones) in battle by their auxiliaries.
However, as Octavius pointed out, the vast majority of evidence for the battlefield defeat of non-Roman armies comes from first- and second-hand accounts and shows that the Roman army (usually) triumphed because they acted as a mutually-dependent cohesive force (utililising a shield wall and short swords) rather than an army of individuals, however fierce and proficient in hand to hand combat.
As far as archaeological evidence goes there are slim pickings. Certain tactics used by the Roman army, such as making a fortified encampment EVERY night to avoid being surprised (and allowing a substanstial portion of your force to have a hot meal and a sleep) have been proved in a variety of digs, as has the sheer amount of ammunition expended (arrows and stones) in battle by their auxiliaries.
However, as Octavius pointed out, the vast majority of evidence for the battlefield defeat of non-Roman armies comes from first- and second-hand accounts and shows that the Roman army (usually) triumphed because they acted as a mutually-dependent cohesive force (utililising a shield wall and short swords) rather than an army of individuals, however fierce and proficient in hand to hand combat.
Just to add to that, it came down to experience as well. The Romans had been fighting wars for hundreds of years before they came to Britain and were well practised in the art of warfare � their Generals studied the tactics of their successful predecessors. Celtic tribes usually carried out minor raids and skirmishes on their neighbours and were not really prepared for the might, power, discipline and experience of the veteran Roman army (well except Caligula�s campaign in Britain!). That I fear cannot be recorded in an archaeological context other than written records, which were of course nearly always �. Roman. Even the most infamous life of Boudicca is known about, primarily, because of Roman historians like Tacitus and Cassius Dio.
1 to 6 of 6
