 What is the truth about Celtic warfare? Did they fight naked? Were the noble savages they were all passion but with little strategy? Or were they actually competent and skilled warriors? In this video, I'll look at the history of Celtic warfare from around the 5th century BC to the 1st century AD, a period where Celtic civilization flourished for a large part, but it was then conquered by the Romans in the later periods. The first point to note is that many of the sources of Celtic warfare come from Greek and Roman sources, who essentially saw the Celts as the enemy, one of the great barbarian civilizations as they would have saw them. So we need to understand that there's a gladiatorial amount of propaganda and stereotypes that's often contained in the descriptions that we'll go through in a second. That being said, there is key insights that are that can be revealed from these Greek and Roman sources. Julius Caesar, for instance, described the Celts as being fierce and savage, but essentially unreliable. Moreover, Strable, a Greek geographer who lived from around 63 BC to 24 AD, described the Celts in the following way. The whole race is madly fond of war, high spirited and quick to battle, but otherwise straightforward and not of evil character. And so when they are stirred up, they assemble in their bands for battle, quite openly and without forethought, so that they are easily handled by those who desire to outwit them. This viewpoint of Celtic warfare, of barbarians that are savages fueled by passion and less so by tactics and organization, is quite a common viewpoint amongst Greek and Roman sources. They often view the Celts as noble savages, essentially natural people that are untarnished by civilization, in the words of Barry Cunliffe, in his book The Ancient Celts, which is one of the main sources used for this video. This framing of the Celts as barbarians as savages is often a way, or was obviously a way, for the Romans and the Greeks to exaggerate the importance of their own civilization. Some Celtic practices were savage, such as head-hunting, and not head-hunting as we use today, in recruitment for instance, which is my day job. Head-hunting in the sense of collecting the severed heads of your foes. The Romans, however, were no angels, even though they often depict themselves as being so, and they essentially committed genocide, or they did commit genocide, in the Celtic world, through Julius Caesar's conquest of Gaul, just as one example of their brutality. Strabo further elaborates on the behaviour of the Celts when angered, and there are numerous interesting details amongst the propaganda in his description. They are ready to face danger even if they have nothing on their side but their own strength and courage. Their strength depends on their mighty bodies, and on their numbers. To the frankness and high-spiritedness of their temperament must be added their childhood boastfulness and love of decoration. They wear ornaments of gold torques on their necks, and bracelets on their arms and wrists, while people of high rank wear dyed garments besprinkled with gold. It is this vanity which makes them unbearable in victory, and so completely downcast in defeat. Now what equipment did Celts use in warfare? Very quickly, if you want to support this work, all the links will be in the description below. You can also pick up this t-shirt and much more in my merch store, top link in the description. Thank you, and now on with the video. The Celts main choice of weapons included a shield and a sword. Celtic shields came in a variety of sizes and designs. The range from being as tall as a man to be quite small sleek designs, and the materials used ranged from wood to some more elaborate designs such as bronze. Decorations of animals on the front of the shields were also quite common as well as various patterns. As far as swords, swords were often fastened to the right hand side of Celtic warriors, but some Celtic tribes would have fastened the swords from behind and then had to draw them from their back over their shoulder for battle. This was the way that the Prissy tribe, the Celtic tribe of the Yorkshire area today in the north of England, would have fastened their sword and would have drew them for battle from behind. Other Celts would have used bows and arrows, slings and throwing clubs. Various other weapons were used by the Celts. Spearheads had been filmed across much of Europe, particularly on the La Tène site in Switzerland, and spears in general were quite common in Celtic warfare. It seemed that swords represented a degree of kind of class, of social status within Celtic society in general, and swords were quite expensive, so some people would maybe only have had a spear for instance, or weapons that were less expensive to produce and to buy. Helmets were often worn, as well as tunics of ring mail. Iron swords were usually covered in sheaths of iron, leather wood or other materials, and these sheaths, these covers of the swords, were often decorated in quite elaborate designs. There was also a vast variation in the quality of Celtic weapons. The Greek historian Paul Abias criticised the quality of the swords used by some Celts in the Battle of Telamon in 2-5 BC, which was a war fought between the Roman Republic and an alliance of Celtic tribes. Celtic swords were good for cutting, but not thrusting, and Paul Abias describes that many Celts had to pause or stop in battle to then restrain their swords, basically had to use their foot to then bend the swords back into shape, as when they were thrusting the swords would often bend. As if you didn't have enough to worry about, an ancient battle against the Romans, you had to straighten out your sword every 2 seconds. It should be noted however that the Celts seemed to have some sort of ritual of bending their swords before discarding them, and Paul Abias may have got mixed up to some degree. He could have observed Celts doing this to their sword before discarding them, and presuming it would have been a result of the battle itself, so some of that may just have been lost in cultural translation if you will. But it does seem that some Celtic swords were made using soft iron, and they wouldn't have been particularly effective, and it would have been the case that as Paul Abias described, some of these swords wouldn't have been fit for purpose. Did the Celts fight Naked? Well it's certainly the case that some Celtic tribes would have fought Naked, with only a sword in their hand and a torque on their neck. In the Battle of Telamon, Paul Abias describes one unit of the Celtic force, probably a Celtic mercenary force, called the Gaiassati, fought Naked. He writes that, very terrifying too, where the appearance and gestures of the Naked warriors in front, all in the prime of life and finely built men, and all in the leading companies richly adorned with gold torques and armlets. This was not an isolated incident as well. Numerous other accounts of Celts fighting Naked are found through the historical record, including in Galatia. Although it certainly was the case that some Celtic units would fight Naked, most Celts did not fight Naked, and as the centuries progressed and Celtic warfare itself evolved and matured, Celts were heavily armoured warriors, and in Julius Caesar's conquest of Gaul, his commentaries on this conquest, he recounts on numerous occasions where the Celts fought in a highly organised fashion. Quite contrary to the notion of disorganised barbarians that Greco-Roman authors usually depicted, or quite often depicted, in the historical record. Paul abides his account, notes a massively important feature of Celtic civilization and Celtic warfare in general, something that Strabo also notes, the torque. Warring around the Naked, Celtic gods were often depicted as wearing the torque as well, and it would have given the wearer, he or she, the feeling that they were protected by the gods, an aura of invincibility. From Ancient Europe, the Celts of Ancient Europe, to Boudicca in Ancient Britain, the torque was worn religiously by Celts in battle and during rebellions. The chariot was also used by the Celts at various points down through time, although there was some regional variation and some variation in dates, as things progressed the chariot seemed to be less and less used, potentially replaced by the cavalry to a large degree. Although Caesar notes in Britain, when he arrived in Britain, that it was in use, the chariot was still quite in use in Britain, but it wasn't so in Gaul, showing the original variation between Britain and mainland Europe, the variation and Celtic practices of war at different times. Warriors would throw javelins and spears at the enemy from the chariot, and then descend to join the battle on foot. When Caesar crossed the channel and fought against the Ancient Britons, he noted the agility and skill of the charioteers in Ancient Britain. In one exchange it was noted that the Britons had around 4,000 chariots, a quite remarkable sight if they were all deployed at the same time. As noted the chariot seemed to be replaced over time, and the rise of cavalry probably was one of the reasons. The Celts were known to be strong on the horse, and during the Second Punic War, between Carthage and Rome, Hannibal made use of heavily armoured Celtic cavalry. After Caesar conquered Gaul, Gaul went on to provide highly effective auxiliary cavalry for the Roman army. Another important point to note about Celtic warfare and the contrast with Roman warfare is about organisation. The Celts were a series of tribes and tribal confederations that were bound together somewhat loosely to a degree, by the likes of language, shared beliefs, culture, and some shared religious beliefs and practices in general. They were not a unified empire, there was never really a Celtic empire to any degree, in contrast with obviously the very regimented Roman empire for a large period. One of the main reasons why the Romans managed to conquer so much of the Celtic world in the ancient world was probably due to the fact that the Romans were highly organised, force, part of a unified empire, economically, politically, that backed up the military power of the Romans. And this level of organisation and this level of unity obviously provided just great benefit for the Romans, even as far as organising supply chains for instance, paying and financing wars, paying soldiers, organising them. I think at different points Roman soldiers would have got land and even pensions at various points in the history of Rome, where as Celts were essentially ununified to a large degree and really struggled to unify at various points. So we can talk about tactics, we can talk about equipment, weapons, materials for weapons, etc. But the unified nature of Roman organisation versus the kind of disparate groups of Celtic organisation or disorganisation to a degree was obviously probably one of the main reasons that much of the Celtic world lost out to the Romans in the end. Other points to note is that it probably was quite common for the Celts to challenge their opponents to single combat before the battle began. The Celts would have also made an incredible racket before battle. Carnixes would be used amongst war chants and various other noises before battle, both to probably amput the Celtic warriors, but also to instill fear. And the noise of the carnixes would have been a fitting prelude to battle, just given the ambience or the noise and the motion of these instruments. Finally the Celts had a small naval presence, with the Veneti tribe of Gaul and modern Brittany having a naval fleet that was eventually defeated by the Romans. So what does all this mean? Although some Celtic warriors would have fought naked, and some were perhaps more led by their hearts than their heads at times, it is clear that there are many skilled warriors amongst or as part of the Celtic civilization. The Romans after all suffered many defeats at the hand of the Celts. Also many Celtic mercenaries were employed by different civilizations, and even parts of the Roman army itself incorporated for instance the Gaul at Cavalry, or large Cavalry contingents from Gaul after it was conquered, after it was Romanised, and incorporated that into the Roman army. So it's clear that many Celts had notable fighting skills, and were skilled warriors to a large degree. In contrast to the barbaric noble savages, image often portrayed by Greco-Roman writers, which obviously was propaganda to a large degree, trying to inferiorise, if that's even a word, the civilization, the barbarian civilization, to emphasise the importance and the prestige of their own civilizations. History is written by the victors however, and the Romans essentially managed to conquer a lot of the Celtic world by the first century A.D. Apart from parts of Britain, and a few other maybe small localised areas, the Romans managed to really wipe out large parts of Celtic civilization, committing genocide along the way, but this victory essentially led the Romans to depict the Celts in whatever way they wished. Speaking of the Romans and the Celts, what is the truth about Hadrian's Wall? To find out, please click here. Thanks for watching, please subscribe and hit the bell to tell your friends and family about this channel. If you'd like to pick up this t-shirt, another one's like it, much more as in the merch store for Celtic history decoded, that'll be the top link in the description below. You can also support my work through Patreon, buymeacoffee.com, as well as PayPal. Thanks for watching and I'll see you next time.