Ancient Celts vs. Romans - Some Things to Consider
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ต.ค. 2024
- Sources:
Peter Berresford Ellis, A Brief History of the Celts
USA: amzn.to/2n8esWp
Canada: amzn.to/2nripJ9
Susan A. Johnston, Icons of the Iron Age: The Celts in History
amzn.to/2nE1kvW
Nic Fields, Roman Republican Legionary 298-105 BC
USA: amzn.to/2mHcfWx
amzn.to/2nroghl
A forum thread discussing Roman criticism of Celtic swords
myarmoury.com/...
Mike Loades, Swords and Swordsmen
USA: amzn.to/2n86Vqv
Canada: amzn.to/2nmy7nj
Accurate reproductions of Celtic swords by Patrick Barta
templ.net/engli...
********************************************************************************
My favorite online store for buying swords (worldwide shipping):
ww4.aitsafe.com...
Channel-related shirts and stuff:
skallagrim.spre...
My Facebook page:
/ skallagrimyt
Want to help fund future videos?
/ skallagrim
Some recommended knife makers on Amazon:
amzn.to/1qjwMNL
The Celts also had a fun sense of humor, there have been multiple findings of lead balls (ammo for slings) with celtic engravings that read things like "ouch"
Marcus:Hey ruleius look at this sling ball its from one of those filthy Celts
Marcus: *shows ball*
Ruleius:I do not know
Celts: *snickers* tehehehe it says u gay
Interesting fact! A precursor to us painting up our planes and bombs in WW2 and onward. Really gives perspective to how far we've come and yet how little we've changed.
As a celt i have to say i'm not surprised, we still have the same twisted sense of humour today
Shawn nobleki
they were gay lol
And so were the celts
And non monogamous haha
@@CerberusGX EXACTLY!
From tribal warfare with clubs and bows, to medieval warfare with legions of men squaring off, to modern guerilla warfare; weapons have changed but humans remain the same. We are progressing faster than we are evolving.
Rome: Recently voted "Best State Ever" by Everyday Patrician Magazine. Article by Cicero.
Your name might just be perfect, Emperor Palpitoad.
He's is telling you not to talk about patrician matters.
Cicero - the lone reporter ever to win three consecutive "Fair & Balanced" awards.
Good evening...
What a fitting place to find me.
The Gauls were so strong because of their magic potion don't you know that? I watched some very historically accurate documentaries by René Goscinny and Albert Uderzo!!!
GermanCurl i love you
Dries van Esch i love you too
GermanCurl they were strong from their fish fights usually instigated by the blacksmith and unassumingly encouraged by the local bard.
GermanCurl La potion magique!
Par Toutatis!!
Also : the Roman understanding of logistics and lines of communication.... it could be argued that every Roman soldier was a battlefield engineer in one form or another. The battle of Alesia is a perfect example.
I very much enjoyed this one :)
ps: Rom.... ok no I'm not gonna say it....
pps: ROMA INVICTA!!! :D
Metatron ESTI KELTA KRIMUM
390 BCE Brennus disagrees :)
If you didn't say it I was going to. lol
And he said it... WINNERS write history.
I liked the first heroic-fantasy novel of the history, autor was said to be Julius Cesar :)
Didn't wrote tome 2 though, it seems to be Rome had sligth problems with the number 390 or something :)
make a fighting reaction of the fights in shrek movies
I know it would be a goofy mess, but I honestly would not be mad if he made a video like this XD
please
William Enesten Sexy asf
Pleeeeeeaaaaaaaaaase
Do it!!
With the Carthaginians, I would say that the main factor in Rome's win was unity of purpose. Hannibal, although he was a true genius, wasn't supported by his state the same way that Rome supported her armies--Rome considered the second Punic war a death struggle and drafted a massive new army after every major loss. Carthage on the other hand, if you judge by the actions of its leaders in Africa, seemed to take the war a lot less 'seriously', for lack of a better word--they had one of the greatest generals of antiquity on their side and didn't support him anywhere near as much as they should have because of internal politics.
Dagda Mor: To do Carthage justice, the Iberian expansion between the First and Second Punic Wars was essentially a Barcid enterprise, not a Carthaginian one. It's not difficult to imagine an AH in which Hannibal establishes a kingdom of Iberia independent of Carthage.
Dagda Mor they also couldn't really call their people into fighting and raise men into a shared "way of war", since they mostly relied on mercenaries which could grant some form of experienced units avaiable in short time but at the same time some of them may not always meet certain tactic requirements and would also be very expensive.
That is not true, Hannibal was supported by the Carthagians. Problem was that the Carthaginians were not a military empire, but a commercial one, which made very difficult to support Hannibal, which was stuck in the italian peninsula. Also, a great deal of the Second Punic War was fought in Iberia, and not by Hannibal.
They sent his brother in Cisalpine Gaul to help him out, after a previous army couldn't make it through the sea.
But again, the real fight was in Hispania against the Scipios, not in Southern Italy with Hannibal. What Hannibal had to do was to turn Rome allies against them, and thus eroding Rome's power bit by bit. But he didn't manage to do that, so he eventually was forced to withdraw to Carthage when Scipio invaded.
Carthage also orchestrated the treason of Syracuse.
Hannibal could have never won Rome in a pitch battle, expecially because Rome refused to fight him directly after Cannae. And Hannibal also knew that, because he was in constant search for food in miles and miles of enemy territory and in numeric inferiority. And expecially after losing sicily. Rome could have manage to lose other battles, but one victory and Hannibal would have been forced to hide like a bandit.
I remember reading a theory that said that some historians suspect Hannibal's military achievements were greatly exaggerated. I don't remember the names, but many of Hannibal's exploits where told by a Roman historians who happened to be very close to a roman general who became famous for defeating Hannibal. This, and considering that Hannibal did make more that a few glaring tactical mistakes, most notably, trying to cross the Alpes with his elephants and thin linen clothing.
"They had quite a bit of success, but at some point, Rome just steamrolled everything." Is the most beautifully accurate sentence I've heard.
lmao yes
pretty much roman style it went full nuts in the punic wars lost 5 armies to defeats or storms i hear no bell damn punic wait for the next round i bring the salt with me
Told my wife to practice the oral tradition, I was not disappointed
┬┴┬┴┤ ͜ʖ ͡°) ├┬┴┬┴ I see what you did there
I told my wife to practice the oral tradition as well... she is now able to entirely recite 100 tales of early english folklore
So, she finally brushed her teeth!
@@Emanresuadeen The man said English. So obviously not.
Make sure she orally passes down what she knows to your children
This is why I really love ancient Rome, whenever they found something that was good or effective, they took it, adapted it, and made it better. Basically all their weapons, gladius was from Hispania for example. I think the entire empire's ability to adapt is what made it truly great.
I agree, taking ideas from other cultures isn’t always bad (with or without permission), especially when it comes to knowledge and survival. Adapting is a survival technique and it’s likely that every culture does it. If it’s useful, use it. Idk why people nowadays get so angry when other cultures make their ideas better.
Well the thing is you can't really say the Romans "bettered" it. A lot of things we see in medieval warfare didn't come from Romans, rather from things they took, and a lot of the things that are universally used of course were spread by Romans but weren't created. The Romans never officially used chainmail (invented by Celts) until the late Roman era (Some time before the Western Roman decline), and would use plate armour. Though many Romans preferred the Hamata, it was still very expensive and took lots of time to create.
A lot of Roman technology was lost when Rome had collapsed hence is why we call this "The Dark Age." Therefore in short we CAN say that do a lot of medieval warfare weaponry like artillery and other stuff exist because of Rome? yes. But do things like sword weaponry and armoury and all of these other things exist because of Rome? no, as do many other things. Rome spread some big things that we know like Aqueducts, but I feel that when it comes to military history, people do not understand that Rome hardly contributed at all and a lot of the military history that we see originated from old civilizations that the Romans had subjugated, and from what I personally know I'd subject these civilizations as the Celts and Greeks as the Celts had made practical military inventions for weaponry, armour, cavalry, etc, and the Greeks had made revolutionary tactics and naval vessels, although the Romans had inspired their navy off of the Carthagian navy.
@@person8834Because people are unhinged today. Humans have always interacted with other cultures and shared/adopted ideas. For some reason that’s offensive today. I think some people just want something to be upset about honestly.
Same with mail
Please, do more about celts!
Celts suck
And romans swallow
And Normans Spit
@Genuine Weeb and you, licks it back
@@thorbjrnyuzen8501 wat
Why is there no sound in the Intro ? :o
HiddenSkill idk
HiddenSkill Only true warriors can hear it.
It was ended rightly.
lol, i didn't noticed it, my bain played the sound automatically :v
@Malophetus made my day
"Try that as a Roman soldier."
I can't. I can't find a Roman recruiter that will take me.
For anyone into heavy metal, Eluveitie did a concept album named "Helvetios" about on the Gallic Wars (58 - 50 BC) from the viewpoint of the Helvetians.
The album tells the history from the first enounter with the romans, through the slaughter at Avaricum and on to the battle of Alesia
Definitely worth a listen
The Roman empire, when it was expanding, was similar to the Zulu empire under Shaka. When The world was made up of separate tribes and loose alliances, and fighting was typically about local disputes, honour and feuds, and everyone needed to get back to work on the farm as soon as possible. Then one state decides to expand. They develop a full time army that trains together, under a set command structure and they work towards a long term goal. Their equipment is a little bit better, and it is more uniform in style and quality. A small improvement in equipment and a big improvement in organisation combine to give them an enormous advantage on the battlefield. Once the flow of wealth (tribute and plunder) reaches a certain point, it becomes self sustaining because the empire is richer and more powerful than anyone who might resist it. And so it carries on until either they meet someone more powerful, or they simply collapse as they become decadent and fractured.
This is probably the best non-humor TH-cam comment I've ever come across 👏
I would add a little Alexander the great in too. Shaka's new spear design and "bulls horn" tactics of rapid encirclement seemed a game changer on par with the Macedonian phalanx and rabid cavalry charges on the flanks. Nobody around either of them could deal with new style. DISCLAMER I am no historian.
Rome OP plz nerf
tefras14 If you check the Changelogs, the faction was nerfed in the 476 A.D. Update.
Good one!
Rome was only OP because they brought modern tactics (which is somewhat of a circular idea since modern tactics are based mostly off of Roman practice) to a world that was still very much in a victory through numbers mentality. Rome was able to adapt to the circumstances because the had educated and experienced commanders who had studied the art of war. If you had the Romans fight something like the Holy Roman Empire or Late period France, it would be a much more even fight, even despite the 1000 year discrepancy with the technology and the addition of pommels on sword. (Sorry, couldn't resist)
Sokandueler95 Yeah I agree the game was so P2W.
+Low Standards I know, impossible if your were on the wrong tean
Dude, most of your videos are marked as inappropriate. Have you noticed that? It seems ius tube cesorhip got you.
Sure, the racist political agenda, the excessive violence, the lack of diversity and sexual acceptance makes Skal inappropiate. How can you not see that. Shame on you, you misogynistic rightist nazi pig! (Dont take it seriously please)
Its probably because he talked shit on katanas that one time, how xenophobic!
They aren't marked that way for me... Maybe it's just marked that way in your area? I live in US, so if you live there too that probably isn't why, but I figured I would mention it.
It's because he brought back the lost art of pommel throwing. The man doesn't want people to know how to "end him rightly."
he's too erotic
The legend says that if you say I'm first, even if you are, you get ended rightly
Charlys Bonada
*Unscrews Pommel*
And , ho was first ...
*unscrews blade*
...
am I doing it rightly?
Stripes the Cat NO!
*unscrews guard*
haow bout now?
It's because it's a dumbass comment. Useless to be first and claim it.
Talk about slanders against the enemy:
Germans offer to help the romans get across the Rhine
*"THAT IS BENEATH THE ROMAN PEOPLE"*
Seriously though, Historia Civilis is a great channel that I think a lot of people on this channel would like.
You forgot this one: "If my armies land on Spartan shores, your people will fall." "If."
The roman loved crossing rivers with their engineering
@@killerx9009 Romans are so mighty that they make their enemy work for them
@@pesii1452 Ave Caesar
The Celts were not a monolithic culture. There were arguing and feuds between the tribes. It is also true that Rome exploited these divisions, as they did everywhere. Rome had a disciplined and well supplied army and auxiliaries drawn form the lands where they fought. The Celts did have organization but Rome's was better for war.
doesn't help when some Celtic Warriors did not wear anything during battle
Yup the celts and britons/celts often had help from Rome defeating their neighbours then found themselves paying massive tributes
The other aspect is the commanders, manpower etc. Rome suffered a number of pretty bad defeats at the hands of the celts but as was seen during the second Punic War they could suffer immense loses and keep fighting.
@@christiandauz3742 Its not as if this took away from the celtic armies??? I mean having a bunch of maniacs in your army isn't always a bad thing and they were of course a minority
No intro theme felt weird as fuck. Also *generic pommel throwing joke*
both Romans and Celts are weak, their pommels couldn't be unscrewed
why are you being racist over a meme ?
Theortheo lol, you can't be racist against ethnic groups which no longer exist.
They were not men for they could not finish their enemies rightly
Buzdygan Roman taken over parts of Europe and Africa and the middle East the reason they won was not brute strength it was
numbers and strategy
@@aceambling7685 You do realize that the Celts aren't dead, right? Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and Isle of Man are still very entrenched in the Celtic culture. There are still Celts today.
When researching archeology it is important to know that the term "culture" is misleading. It doesn't describe a homogenous group of people, but a group of people that produced similar objects, often classified by ceramics and later also by metalworks.
When looking at ancient military accounts, the thing that often tells the story is timetables and supplies.
HQ: "How goes the campaign?"
Field CMDR: "Oh man, these guys are idiotic savages, etc, etc"
HQ: "Great!, so you're on schedule?"
Field CMDR: "Not quite, um >insert lame excuses< we'll need two more months and another legion" translation: they're giving as good as they're getting
except the romans took the celts with low causalties and basically no reinforcements, what you describe sounds like fighting germans/eastern countries in that time period
@@matthiuskoenig3378 theres a big difference between getting away with low casualties and no reinforcements and winning. also you cant they took the "celts", celtic tribes spanned across most of europe and had vastly different fighting tactics and lived in vastly different terrains. for example, the romans steam rolled the gauls and iberian celts pretty effectively but ran into issues when they left the continent. i mean the romans didn't do well against the picts, or the welsh for a long time, and ran into problems when they tried to cross the rhine. you cant say the celts got steam rolled. some celtic tribes were beaten with relative ease but many others weren't a walk in the park by any chance.
seth bennett oh yes, the Romans steam rolled the Gauls. It’s not like Gauls at one point they had Julius Caesar himself in a fast retreat back to Rome. Not to mention the wars in Gaul took over a decade to conclude.
Also we have no record of the Romans ever actually fighting the Picts. While the legion of the ninth did go missing past the Britannia boarder, we still don’t know what happened to them. For all we know they could have died from exposure. They went missing and we have no record of what happened to them. They just disappeared into the wind.
@@sillwullivan83 no record? Mons graupias? If there was no record then why did Hadrian build a wall? Also by steam rolled I mean that the Romans took less than 20 years to go from the alps to the coast
@@sillwullivan83 also, i need to add. we don't know that the 9th legion went missing over the border between roman britain and traditional pictish lands, they were last recorded in what is now york it is not known where they went from there. and the thing about that rapid retreat you mention, that only happened because for a small amount of time all the big gallic tribes united and fought back against roman occupation. peoples like the picts were able to repel roman occupation entirely, without being united. i could also mention the flop of a failure that the roman attempt to cross the rhein was. i accept your defense of the gallic tribes but you need to add context before you start spitting facts
Skal, IMHO the equipment was a bigger problem than you seem to think. There is no doubt that they had the same armour and sword models as the Romans did. Hell, the gladius hispaniensis was literally a reproduction of a celtiberian sword.
The problem is precisely that they had fewer of them. You already mention the fact that most celtic soldiers didn't actually have a maille shirt. I'd also add though that an estimated only 1 in 10 celtiberian soldiers actually had a sword. Only exactly two armies in Europe had swords for almost everyone, and those were the Romans and the Dacians.
The disparity isn't in equipment models, the difference is in the AVERAGE equipment of a soldier. Heavy shock infantry tends to handily defeat light infantry, and the average Celt was really the latter.
And let's think of the battle tactics, as per Caesar's own account. For light infantry, the scutum was their main defense, and if you could somehow deprive them of that protection, they'd be in huge trouble. And the pilum as exactly an anti-shield weapon. Essentially the whole first rank had to discard their shields after a volley of pila, and that sucks if you're light infantry. And if they somehow didn't discard the shield, the Romans just had to step on the shaft to force the shield off protecting your body.
I'd add, and this again is supported by Caesar's own accounts, getting hit by a pilum was quite a horrible experience anyway, if you didn't actually have a second layer of armour behind that shield. We have the description of pila shafts getting stuck in the ground and warriors being pushed by the rest of the formation towards that deadly point poking through the shield.
Swords were also a very big deal at the time, since basically nobody had invented a 15'th century halberd yet. If you put it in the context of fighting from behind a tower shield, and read about the kind of poking around a shield, or hooking around, and stuff like that, you couldn't really do that with a spear. There's a reason the Romans moved their Hastati (literally meaning: spearmen) away from spears and towards swords a long time before.
So basically IMHO the fact that most Celts couldn't afford one of those maille shirts, nor a sword, was a huge problem.
NegotiatorGladiarius idk if it's European technically but pretty much every thracian had a falx
I think the success of Rome was based especially on the slave system that extracted huge profits for the aristocracy and on taxes of the farmers, plebs, nobiles,equestrians and finally the aristocracy to some extent, which was how the army was paid for by the state, as well as plunder by the armies themselves which would translate into conquering new territory for slaves and lands for the slaves to work on. This also explains Romes decline and civil wars and political conflicts; slavery was no longer profitable and the mass of peasant farmers and landless poor could not bear the high taxation so they fled onto the farms of the aristocracy, to get away from the states recruiters and taxmen as well as the horrible exploitation of labour by the Romans during the fall of Rome, so instead they became peasants who would rely on their lord for protection in return for exploiting their labour surplus. Generals would pay and look after their soldiers instead of the increasingly corrupt and bureaucratic and incompetent state. Eventually the Emperor gave into the all-powerful senatorial class aristocracy and legitimized this and tied the peasants to the land via law. This brought about the proto-feudal type of peasant society during the fall of Rome.
zaco21 pila is the plural of pilum
the whole slave thing has been disporven, rome had very little slavery when we look at actual evidence. also can you give a source for this proto-feudalism as from what i have read they were not tied don to tha land at any time. but i have read tons of books about the 'fall' of rome and how the slavery idea is a myth and that the roman army never had the payment dificulty made out. also there was no fall of rome, there was a fracturing of the roman empire with each fracture running like the empire did in till the lat 700s early 800s when feudalism in its basic form was introduced.
@@mondaysinsanity8193 You mean rhomphaia and it's rather unclear now whether the falx has anything to do with the rhomphaia or the Dacians and Thracians are even that related.
All unearthed rhomphaia blades were rather thin and long, basically more of an "all iron spear" as they were historically described rather than an armor destroying chopping blade. The falx is more effective at that, basically being a war scythe. The blade would still tend to be only 1/3 of the total length. So you'd have for example an 18 inch blade with a 36 inch or so haft on the falx. A long blade would be too expensive and not all that beneficial in the falx's purpose.
Random lesson after 1 year. Enjoy.
But celtic is to broad of a ethno-linguistic group. the Gauls, Picts, Brittonic celts, Goidelic celts, etc are all celtic and are different in one way or another.
ian simmons Picts are not celts
ian simmons Goidelic Celts best Celts.
Bionic Tech They are believed to be celts, but really different celts.
Ducky McDuckface I'm not so sure, they certainly look very different, Pictish people (or People with strong Pictish ancestry) tend to be shorter, broader and have a darker hair, while people with strong Celtic ancestry are taller, leaner and have red hair. am not saying that Picts and Celts didn't intermingle, but Picts are a much more ancient British people than Celts, exactly how ancient on the other hand is a very different matter
Bionic Tech That's really stereotypical mate. And there is a lot of variety in ancient celts. Most acclaimed scholars think they are Celtic people but just really different.
"Celts, good at siege, unique unit the Woad Raider."
A big oval shield like the scutum was used by the Sanniti, another italic tribe that roman fought against in the early period of the republic
there is a debate if the roman take the scutum from them or from the celts of Brenno who pillaged Rome
while the story of the easly bent swords maybe originated by the celts tradition of bending their swords after surrender
doesn't the roman scutum come from the Etruscans, i used to have this very nice book that explained that the scutum is essnially the evolution of the shield used by 2nd and 3rd group etruscan soldiers, which if i remember actually comes from the ilyrians but i could be wrong
Did you just assume my swords metallurgy? - Celtic SJWs
1788468
The great struggle for true social justice permeates all human history and metallurgy!
1788468 underrated
Those Smithing Justice Warriors, amirite?
Lies! SJW's don't have (or want) jobs!
The basic difference was: the typical celtic warrior was a farmer who could only train and go on campaign when the farmwork was done. The typical roman legionary could train and go on campaign all the time, while the bulk of the farmwork was done by slaves. So with multiple times of available training time for the fighting men and bein able to attack when the celts were busy bringing in the harvest, the romans usually had the edge. There were exceptions, but those were, well exceptions from the rule.
Doesn't help that some of them fought without armor
The trap, which Skall seems aware of, with "Why did X happen and not Y" in history is the presumption that the outcome was inevitable. In some cases it may have been, in others it may not. If the Celts had defeated the Romans, we would have historians looking at the same set of preconditions that currently say that the Roman victory was inevitable, and they would declare that the Celtic victory was inevitable. Sometimes, when humans are involved, the humans have something to say about the outcome.
well yeah, but the romans defeated a bunch of country, making them extremely interesting
also 'roman' culture has survived as most cultures from europe were significantly affected by the romans, directlyor indirectly
@Jhoshua Wolfox the answer is easy, the Romans won unnumbered battles against superior enemy numbers due to organization, a legion was a well oiled war machine.
And most importantly, for inventing war engineering. Rome rarely fought on an open field, they've built forts within a few days wherever they went. One of the most clear and detailed account that depict this is Caesar's victory at Alesia.
@@3goats1coat You realize Rome copied numerous things from their neighbors, right?
As a historian, I agree with his intro.
New information comes out that contests the old, we specialize in different things and even with the same info can argue radically different perspectives.
Also as a Historian and teacher, I highly advocate Skallagrim and recommend his videos
Hi Skall, could you possibly do a video talking about people who use weapons in the left hand against someone using a weapon in the right hand?
Yzaias Tf is so special about that?!
+Stitchowi Probably because only around 10%-15% of people in the world are left handed so most right-handers trained exclusively against other righties meaning less experience against lefties whereas lefties would have more experience against righties.
JJ Godbey Im glad to be a leftie!
Now try to form a leftie shield wall. For animals group behavior favors one sided lateralization (the romans) where individualism gives a mix (the celts)
from what few sources I can half remember in cultures that used shield wall left or right handed made little difference to what hand you held the shield in, you might be a little better at manipulating the shield and a little worse at swinging the sword but you'd train to use the same hands for each as everyone else
Oh god, in a few days the German news channel 'N-TV' will air it's new show called something like "Resistance of the Barbarians" one of those "semi-historical-reconstruction-but-with-added-drama-but-still-presented-as-absolute-historical-fact"-shows.
I watched the teaser where they showed several Germanic tribesmen rush a Roman formation, and...
_The more sensitive amongst the readers might want to stop reading here. Final warning_
...rush the formation, and jump up into the air to strike down like Superman.
I saw so many twirls and flips in that fight. The Romans instantly gave up their battle lines and resolved into a man-to-man skirmish.
I don't think I will ever recover from seeing this attrociety
Aha, similar to Asterix and Obelix then.
It is worth remembering that the Romans didn't conquer all of the Celts. There was a small village in Amorica...
Where you think the metals and all there gold came from?
Long live Vercingtorix
Or... You know, Scotland and Ireland. Who the Romans took one look at Scotland after they invaded England, saw a lone buff Scotsman with woad and a claymore on top of a hill, and said "Right, we're building a wall here."
@@spikem5950 some roman guy actually did try to conquer Scotland but failed.
@@camulodunon And they immediately built a wall.
Celtic chieftain : " Form random formation, then run at the enemy carelessly as we've trained so often."
Well it's better than "everyone climb out of your trenches and walk very slowly towards the enemy" init?
That tactic worked fine against the French in the Franco-Prussian war. Nobody was prepared for the machine guns and heavy artillery combined with entrenchment and barbed wire..
You forgot a very important word that makes all your strategies fall appart if you're a celt chieftain.
That word is "please".
@@pavelthefabulous5675 i know the british were slow to adapt against the machine gun though leading to massive losses in life as they stupidly ran towards machine guns or charged on horseback
The vikings couldnt beat irish celts and decided to populate the land instead and learn from them. My city in ireland was founded by the vikings.
Jorge Brennan Dublin?
William stasholm Actually the Norwegian vikings were the ones to go to Ireland
Some of vikings were eventually kicked out of Ireland and settled in England instead.
Jorge Brennan Here too, I'm in Cobh town.
I find the difference between the Gallic and Irish Celts kinda funny, with respect to attempted conquests of them. The Gauls were conquered by the Romans because they couldn't effectively unite as a single fighting force, and were too divided between dozens of tribes. Whereas the Irish were unconquerable to the Vikings, because there were seven high kings and about one hundred petty kings, so defeating one king meant nothing, as he was simply replaced by another, while the Vikings' strength was left weakened.
12:36 Single combat such as this is attested in at least one prominent Celtic tale from Welsh mythology (the mabinogi). After several days of two Celtic armies (the northerly Venedotian and the southern Demetians) fighting but with no conclusion in sight, it's decided the battle will be decided by single combat between the trickster hero of the north Gwydion and the southern king Pryderi. Unlike Pryderi, Gwydion was not only an apt swordsman but also a powerful magician, and cheated a little by using magic to bolster his fighting capabilities. ;)
Pryderi needs to buff his XP and Health points. He may also need an armor upgrade.
For people who like adventure books set in historical times: there is a wonderful series called Eagles of the Empire by Simon Scarrow, that tells a story of two Roman centurions, in large part during Claudius' invasion of Britain. It's really well written, and it's centered about legions' actions, the way the author writes about how the Roman armies operated is just fantastic. Though I have to say that these books are not 100% historically accurate, especially Roman's organization and military proficiency is a little bit overestimated.
The Romans invented the organization like it is intended today. How could it be overestimated?
@@TomSmith-li5se Right, like the Romans "invented" their arms and armor, tactics, culture, and gods, amirite? Let me guess, the Romans also invented theater, astronomy, and civility as a whole.
Rome's organization was taken from its neighbors, they simply took the best ideas that they saw others using.
@@spikem5950 that's not totally true. It was their ability to merge what worked of their neighbors that made the Roman an organized force to be reckon with.
Picts, the ones the Romans never conquered! They really didn't like the Fried Mars Bars.
and the gaels
they won plenty of battles vs them, it wasnt worth the expense to garrison permanently
@@jnes624 like they had to in the South West which also included large bribes not to kick the Romans arses
The problem of Irish sources describing the weapons and equipment of their own time is quite similar to the way medieval manuscripts show biblical and classical figures dressed & armed as contemporary knights
2:11 How would they get milk without agriculture?...
Herding
They just jumped wild animals and jerked them off until they lactated.
@@martijnbakker1277 wtf lol
Their wives were all they needed
You're one of my favorite history TH-camr. I always really liked history but when I came across you're TH-cam channel my interest in history exploded. I started to love history so much my teacher is going to place me in Honors history. I just want to say thank you for being a cool history TH-camr!! Keep up the good work!
Thanks!
Although I wouldn't necessarily call myself a history TH-camr. I'm usually more focused on the practical aspects of modern reproductions of historical stuff. :)
You, Metraton, Shadiversity and Linderbeige are amazing!
Good thing the Romans DID NOT have muskets and cannons, otherwise, they might have conquered all of Germany and the British Isles!
Hmm i noticed something. The pommel joke came from a book that is several hundred years old... which just goes to show
MEMES ARE TIMELESS
If you want additional extremely accurate info on the celts, you can read the series named "Asterix" :)
reading series is my favorite thing to do.
My childhood right there
From what i know i can tell you are right about single combat. The Germanic people especially were obsessed with single combat, and ancient germano-celtic shields are perfectly designed for single combat, straight through the Viking age.
The Celts seem to have fought the best for Hannibal. With Carthaginian training and leadership they performed a masterful fighting retreat at Cannae, which sealed Hannibal's victory.
Celts bad. Celts stinky. Roma big. Roma strong. All land rightful Roman. REEEEEE
Jacob G celts made and used soap the romans use oil
History is not written by the victors. History is written by people who bother writing it. See the Battle of Qadesh, which modern scholars agree the Egyptians didn't win, but they still gave us their biased POV which was prevalent for centuries.
did anyone else have that wierd glitch screen at 2:21
Romans be like: Hey bunch of tribes who hate each other, lets call those celts and hey on the other side of this one river are similar dudes with a different language who do pretty much the same with less iron! call them germans.... And woa there other dudes with a new religion where each god has a fck ton of names and faces call them slavs, even tho they have even more different tribes and languages who all hate each other.
Today people still see those names as some sort of ethnic group names of their proud ancestores.... which is problematik to say the least.
Like what? The further you go back the smaller the gene pool is.... Also there are examples of people with all kind of genetic origins living within the "slavic" culture at some point. You cannot identify cultural traits in genes, for culture is not ethnical bound. Also evidence taken from ancient remains most likely allready represent a mixed genepool.
In genetic studies it has been shown that israeli people have a comparetivly even genepool, since jews are supposed to only marry other jews from medieval times on. Yet they still share all lot relations with all their hated neighbours which shows that even a religion that old does not represent a enthic group.
Well congrats on that, I guess. But that does not really contradict my point friend. A Group of people who live in the same area will certainly share a similar genepool (like the example of israel and their neighbours. But that does not make them one nation, one culture or one specific "race". I don´t know from were you are but If you were lets say from france your ancestors are probably mostly celts, who later adopted and mixed with roman culture and after that mixed and adopted with the frankish german rule that ultimately lead to the founding of the kingdom of france et cetera. Ancestors are nice and all but I still think relating certain traits and patriotism with that is stupid and dangerous.
Cultural groups, are much more relevant in historical terms then
genetics. Eastern germany used to be mainly ruled by slavic culture in
the early medieval periods and they were stil mostly of german ascent
before they again were christinized. Culture destincts most of our social behaviour and even nationalism is always a cultural idea build around a shared ancestry but in the end most of it is cultural constructed. Names like "celts" refer to a large group of people that share some cultural traits and have similar languages and has nothing to say about ethnics even tho a shared ancestry is given.
Race applied to humans is an outdated term, since races can by biological definition not interbreed. It is a term to exclude others and to pretend you are somehow superior to others and that IS dangerours... Look at the germans a hundred years back. Ancestry does not define you. Tradition does and that IS a cultural construct.
Guilt? Assumptions? Really now?
I might have missinterpreted you mentoning of races it seems. However, by one (of several) scientific definition of race used in biology, in order to become it´s own race a group of individuals of a species must be geneticly isolated for so long that they differ enough that reproduction with another race of the same species might not be futile anylonger. That would not apply to any living group of humans I know of. But back to the point.
Ofc you can identify your ancestors (i never claimed otherwise) and can put them in categories like celts. But those categories are what I dont recomend, they are usually bound to rather unprecise stereotypes and old misconceptions that were presented as scientific facts back when and still are at times. That is a problem that ethnologists, anthropologists, historians and archeologists are arguing against for the last 40 or so years. Using ancestry as political arguments (like marx and many others did before) does atleast in my eyes more often then not missrepresent history.
And plenty of people are proud of their heritage without being Nazis. God damn you'd make problematic mountain out of a mole hill.
"Hippity Hoppity, Gauls are property"
- Julius Caesar (52 bc)
“Bippity boppity, try taking Scotland bitch”
-the picts (43 AD(or some shit like that)
Actually, Scutum appeared in Italy a lot sooner, there are tomb painting from 6 century BC, while Gauls started to use it by the 4th century BC.. plus, Roman Scutum was not flat.
Also, roman armies were extremely mobile, far more adept in fortification than any hellenic or barbaric peoples and soldiers were used to hard labor, digging trenches, building towers etc. Unlike any other military of that period
I'm pretty sure "barbarian" warriors were pretty used to hard labor.
"The Celts were defeated by the Romans"
Roman Empire: fell
Latin: died
Ireland, Scotland, Cornwall, Brittany: still here
Gaelic, Manx, Breton: still spoken
@Steve Kelsey yes, Rome is, but the Roman Empire isn't
@Steve Kelsey I would agree
@@dracodistortion9447*Benito Mussolini has entered the chat.*
You dont know about constantinopla
Romance languages: *Am I a joke to you?*
There were many different styles of 'Celtic' swords and there is strong evidence to suggest that bronze was preferred during the early iron-age. Those that didn't like to fight naked preferred leather armour and wooden shields because it was more effective. The ornate metal versions may have been ceremonial. La Tene also seems to have influenced the material culture of the Saxons.
I might be simplifying, but man power was one of their biggest strengths right, everyone who wanted to be anything had to serve "X" amount of years, so basically their birthrate = the manpower available, noone wants to be a hobo for life as a kid
lexion21 I agree. One thing that's astonishing when examining Roman military history is how many battles they lost. But a failed campaign can be turned into a victory if you keep throwing legions at it.
The Roman Republic can sustain losses that would cripple America!
thing is that even when they lost a battle, most of the time, the enemy had suffered considerable losses
Although you may not like For Honor, it's what brought me to your channel and has sparked a big interest in the European history. Love your stuff!
x5 CiNEMA same here lol
To me it was assassins creed, i saw his video about the hidden blade and been a fan ever since
Eduardo Santos i guess it was something like history or something for me, or maybe a rambly video
I was watching ZNA Productions, and he mentioned Skall in some point, so I searched him and I kinda instantly-subscribed
I know this is 2 year old post but play Mordhau! Its a fun (unrealistic & historically inaccurate) computer game. Like a better version of For Honor or Chivalry imo 😬
Celts just seem to get shit on throughout history :(
I remember reading in a French History magazine that it wasn't so much the Celtic sword that was prone to bending as its scabbard which was made of a thin sheet of iron that was rolled up on itself.
Sorry for the possible mistakes, English isn't my first language so please don't hesitate to correct me.
You didn't make any mistakes though... In fact, you wrote better than most native English speakers.
It's good to be humble, but it usually works a lot better to keep the apology for after you make the mistake XD I would try to say it in French, but my French was elementary level before I stopped studying it years ago, so I won't let myself butcher your language when you've used mine so well.
There are many theories as to what Polybius was describing. I have also heard from a history professor that Polybius probably was mistaking sacrificial practices.
But I like the theory skall puts up here, for it is done with ACTUAL testing.
Of course, anything a Roman wrote about enemies of Rome should be taken with as much salt as they allegedly poured on Carthage.
the salt on carthage is a modern story, made in the 1800, there are no roman fonts for that, heck rome rebuilt carthage like around 100 years later
A well reasoned, balanced treatment of some of the misconceptions surrounding the Celts. Thoroughly enjoyed watching this!
0:38 "Plenty of times historians have been dead wrong."
Skall: "Plenty of times historians have been dead--"
Trump: "Wrong."
I don't know why this occurred to me.
Roman power may have been more centralised, but never forget that Julious Caesar conquered the Gaul in an ilegal war without the aouthorisation of the Senate...so...i would not claim that as a key factor in the war
The Celt lost vs the romans because Caesar,that's it.
Caesar is like god mode in skyrim
Mario Rossi ceasar suffered from positive fortuna, nothing. more
Tane Gurnick Not true. You should read about him. He was a very hard worker. His attention to detail when drafting laws was obsessive.
Except Caesar didn't conquer all of the Celts? He didn't conquer the Britons, and Rome as a whole could never get into Ireland, so...
moongirl786 they didn't really want Ireland it was kinda a wast of time effort and money at the time
Elisha Andrew Raley he would never have survived sallla purges without it
I'd say that grouping all cultic groups together as one would be similar to putting all native American groups as one people, really short sighted and inaccurate
Trev VonHiggle very true! massive divides between the Brythonic and Gallic celts, celts in the french alps were very distinct apart from Iberian celts, glad to see someone who acknowledges they can be generalised as a large culture but acknowledges their different sects
Irouqois Confederation
I'd argue the Celts are much more diverse than that, although I know very little about the Native Americans.
TheTaterTotP80 native Americans covered 2 VERY large continents with incredibly varied ecology...they were very diverse from aztecs, cherokee, inuit, etc.
No, Native Americans are much more diverse both genetically and linguistically than Celts. Which only makes sense since they had 15-20,000 years or so to diversify and spread across a much larger territory. Look at it this way, Celts all spoke one of a few dozen languages from the same sub-family (Celtic) of the same family of languages (Indo-European) whereas Native Americans spoke thousands of different languages from at least 40 completely distinct families - languages and families as different from each other as Irish is from Chinese.
It's more like grouping all the Celtic groups together is like grouping all the Slavic peoples together.
Its entirely possible that the celtic tribe's had tactics that differed depending on the tribe which would explain the inconsistency. Or that they used their more traditional tactics against the romans and when thoys failed, they adapted with the shield wall stuff. Or sometimes they used the shield wall and sometimes they formed up. Mentions of them using shield walls are outnumbered by mentions of them fighting individually (though many romans said they were individually quite skilled)
Gnomelord0 The celts being good in single combat compared to the Romans is impressive considering that the actual sparring in Roman training was 1v1
Gnomelord0 The majority of germanic warriors were actually farmers. So probably they would lose to Roman soldiers in single combat. The Roman's were professional soldiers.
Allan Trevisan What Caesar describes of the Germanic tribes in general says that they are part time soldiers, serving every other year or multiple years. The troops of Ariovistus were on campaign and were more experienced than a couple of Caesar's new legions. Caesar never relied on his inexperienced legions much, and they didn't perform nearly as well as his others.
That is not a good argument. Being a farmer doesnt prevent you from knowing how to fight. They were farmers but fighting was a important part of their life. They had to protect their land, had to join wars and raids. Accounting to sources and archaelogical evidence you can assume that at least a part of every household knowed how to fight.
@Gnomelord0, good theory.
Having read some pretty decent history books on Rome and various European cultures, I have noticed one thing that many people tend to forget about Roman success in war: after Rome managed to control central Italy, they had a huge source of manpower (this was one of the most fertile regions of Europe). The were often beaten in battles, in setbacks that would have killed off many of their enemies, but the Romans came back with fresh men, sometimes adjusted their tactics a little, and then won the war.
I think lots of people underestimate how important single combat was for the Romans themselves. The emphasis is always on their military efficiency as an army because, of course, that is what they excelled at. But there are also many examples of duels between Romans and their enemies. Showing your own bravery and prowess, was actually one of the best ways of acquiring fame and status.
"Why were the Celts defeated by the Romans?"
Me: "That depends. How much time do you have?"
Skall could make a fine celt warrior
One of the qualifications to become a Pictish warrior was to do a high-speed jump over a branch as tall as your forehead. I doubt that Skall will ever be in shape to do that.
simo supernova those Celtic scum got the word tattoo of Polynesians
id say hed more fit a germanian warrior. genetically speaking
Monster Maus nope, im part Saxon, part other German, part Celtic but mainly Maori
Lol, dumbass. All your info is wrong. The treaty of waitangi gave joint sovereignty and ownership, have you seen a real Maori? They are no way little or potbelly, and Christchurch or any south island cities have ever been the capital. Lol you crazy, resorting to lies to support your agenda. Thinking calling us cannibalistic is an insult lol. Crazy kid
00:28
"Do your own research."
--Andrew Wakefield
Enjoyed your video and your right on about the aspects of the cultures. The Romans were very well known for adapting armor, weapons and techniques from other forces. They used what worked. Irregular/tribal forces typically vary in how they fight, depending on the Culture/Leader/Commander. You mentioned the shield wall and it reminded me of William trying to break through at Hastings in 1066. Smaller scale production/scavenging equipment would always mean variations in quality. Your reading and knowledge shows in what you present.
I like how the Celts fought naked. Can u imagine having a fight today both of you take your shirts off, then you continue taking off your pants and undies... "Come here boy". Lol
Romans were invincible cause they were prepared, they trained every day for all their military career.
Great video Skall, I hope the Celts become a more popular topic to study and talk about, at least on TH-cam!
You could have mentioned the use of chariots in warfare which the celts (especially from Britain and Ireland) were very skilled at.
I'm sure the Romans invaded Britain because the celts tried to help the Gauls and vercengetorix.
Could have mentioned how Boudicca managed to sack Londonium (london) but her (supposed) 200,000 strong army was defeated by 10,000 romans. Obviously that seems inflated, however, this battle (had Boudicca won) would have convinced Nero to withdraw troops from Britain.
Also the Picts were never conquered by rome.
Wales was not completely ruled by Romans either, still proud of my Welsh celtic heritage, never beaten outrightly, and still remain the most celtic in the Uk today
Owain LLion Kymrys am Bith
Owain LLion That's debatable
her army was far from being all warriors, and there were 20 000 roman veterans facing her, so those numbers aren’t seen as far from reality
also she was a reble and a traitor and the cities she attacked was essentially a roman retirement village so she killed a bunch of oldish unarmed men, their wives and children. then faught a real roman army and lost (but the only reason she got smashed was self impossed no retreat as her wagons blocked the retreat path hence she was defeated in one battle. had she won, then the romans would send more troops as they had their pride and investments in england aswell as a bunch of allies (unlike germany which is the only invasion they ever gave up on, even in scotland where they won all their battles but could never control the locals they were still trieing throught the empire.
Being Irish myself, Im sort of ashamed to know so little of my Celtic ancestory. Nonetheless, great video!
I’m English but have Celt ancestry too
It's not your fault. Our ancestral knowledge was almost completely deleted from history.
You ancestors went to war naked with blue body paint.
Osprey Publishing has great illustrated books of Celts and a horde of other historical armies and cultures. I reckon you know but I’ll mention it.
Here are some reasons why certain people's lost to Rome:
Greeks: Rome had studied and used their tactics in the past. They had a lot of experience fighting the Hoplite and the Pikemen. They Lost miserably to the Celts because of trying to employ those tactics, which caused them to get outmaneuvered by the celts, flanked, and slaughtered, leading to the sacking of Rome. Rome adapted but the Greeks at this point had been using their same tired tactics and their antiquated military organization cost them dearly. Also every man in the Hoplite was forced to supply his own gear and not everyone was able to afford it. In Early Rome this was also the case, but as time went on the state paid for their equipment and so the Romans were always better equipped afterwards.
Celts and Gauls: Did not have discipline or organization unless in the upper social classes like Noblility and Royalty. They fought the same way as one another excluding the Gales who used hit and run tactics rather than outright confrontational charges. Most were extremely lightly armored and fought on an individual basis on the field of battle not have rank and file formations which often led to them being massacred. Their advantage over the Romans was their superior horses and the use of bows but that alone was not enough to save them. Their swords were also rounded and used for slashing, a poor choice when fighting an armored legionaire who's armor was perfectly designed to combat such weaponry.
Carthage: Simply put, Carthage outsourced most of their military and had only a small professional Army guarding their most precious areas of trade. They were more of a maritime power than an actual field deployed fighting force. Large portions of their armies were bolstered with Mercenaries that varied from region to region, and proved to be unreliable much of the time, sometimes having no qualms about changing sides or being bought off. Carthage also had the Numidians to their rear who made an alliance with Rome and helped them fight a two front war. Carthage had an initial financial and naval advantage but lost the initiative and were eventually defeated.
Germans: Constant squabbling coupled with very poor, almost non-existant economies with the rest of the world due to many tribes being landlocked and not being exposed to the Hellenized world during earlier development, which the Romans, Carthaginians, Egyptians, Persians, Thracians, and Arabs, benefited from immensely. Lived in dense woodlands with few natural resources and always suspicious of outsiders and their own. Lacked the necessary equipment to deal with Roman logistics and had no organization to speak of, preferring night raids and surprise attacks and ambushes to pitched battles. On the field of battle they had no response to Rome. They were able to push Rome back with sheer numbers and the element of the home field advantage coupled with the fear their fanatics inspired and the constant night raids and ambushes. Outside of that they had no chance and if it wasnt for the fact that Germania was so poor and underdeveloped Rome may have pushed back East of the Rhine again.
I remember reading years ago that the quality of Celtic sword varied highly based on the warrior's wealth and social status -- at least that's what they thought at the time. Also, that they had a "no ganging-up" rule in their code of honor but probably set it aside for the use of group formations against enemies that used formations.
This is becoming a huge pet peeve of mine when people are talking about the west and stuff they say as far west as Britain or something to that extent like everyone forgetting that tiny country slighter further west
Farraige Eireann an Glas
I'd count Iceland as north and America and Canada have nothing to do with ancient history
Can't blame them. Ireland was veiled behind an invisibility field until the Romans ceased to be a threat.
the romans were actually on good terms with alot of irish tribes, and they sent politicians there multple times, probably viewed the cost of conquest to be too high when they had often friendly irish, there not friendly irish who raided the romans but the romans's irish allies usually got revenge.
Had the Romans had an effective cavalry forces the Celts would've been decimated considering they are only a strong infantry force. Celts aren't particularly effective professional soldiers though. Hardly any different from other Scandinavian and Germanic soldiers. I base the Roman failure to completely subjugate Celtic lands is due to distance (i.e. Frontier territory)
but rome did have an effective cavalry force, but you are wrong the celts did aswell
Padishah I really don't like people misusing the term," decimate" it means the forced execution of troops by their own squad mates, chosen by lot and beaten to death. It was a Roman device used to punish the troops, usually for the errors of their leadership.
The part about the Celtic emphasis on one-on-one duels and personal honor is highly interesting to me. The Japanese went through a similar phase of warfare culture, where battles were highly ritualized (there was usually an exchange of arrow fire before the armies would meet in melee). I think it results from a lot of internal strife between members of the same overarching culture, especially in areas with not that many resources and harsh weather (Japan and Europe fit that bill fairly well), because at that point both warring armies understand that the loss of too many men means neither of them may survive the next winter.
Britons vs Roman's ! Celts learned to fight from when they could walk, Roman's only learned to fight when they joined the army.
If you want a sword, and you have the specs for it... have you tried reaching out to Alec Steele? He's usually up for a challenge, and it could make for some good crossover videos.
The differences between Celts is something Julius Cesar explains very well and insosts over in the de bello gallico
Teamwork, organization, and training make all the difference in battle. Celts tended to fight like a bunch of warriors, Rome fought like one big machine.
It's like a primitive animal vs bacteria
Gallaecia in Iberia, Gallia in France, Galicia in Romania, Galatia in Turkey, PortuGAL, Portuguese galo de Barcelos, French rooster... the celts had kind of a fixation with that bird.
I've read from my own (French) sources that the pre-invasion Celts were overall better metalworkers than the roman, or than any of their neighbours actually, in the same era maybe the only people that had equal or better metalworking skills were in nowadays' southern India. This edge in metalworking was not only shown in weaponry, but also and foremost in jewelry
They did have a technological advantage in metal work from when Paris (senones from la seine) sacked rome in 390 BC to when Toulouse (volcae) raided Greece in 280 BC. They had lot of cheap chain mail which was better than the iron studded linothorax the Greek and Roman wore. But by the time the Caesar conquers All of Gaul in 100 BC the Romans are at no disadvantage. The Romans are making better scale armor and more of it. And the best Metal workers in Gaul are the various Aquitaini cities who are generally in support of Rome
A few points on Ceasar: his records are notoriously bad (even though they are still considered a primary source since we don't have too many other written sources concerning his campaigns). He has made several claims that simply can not be true (like giving the Helvetii a two week waiting period while he sent for message from Rome. That was a 900km distance and then there would the time the senate needed to debate the issue he put before them... or that he built defences in Geneva - which never could be proven archeologically). The numbers of enemies he described also seem to have been exaggerated. He needed to justify his conquests back home and thus the continuation of the war - otherwise he would have ended up in front of a court back in Rome. He only was immune to persecution as long as he held office, so he continued his campaigns as long as he could.
Also the contemporary roman helmet during roman times (the Coolus type helmet) was adopted from the celtic tribes of Gaul.
Ceasar also never fought all of Gaul at once (as Skallagrim pointed out) as the tribes were at each others throats most of the time (just look at Caesars campaign again the Helvetii and the Begiae). Rome stayed out of inter tribal conflict until Caesar used these conflicts in order to further his goals. Vercingetorix is the closest the Gauls came to a king of all of Gaul at that point in time.
Its quite wild claim to say that his commentaries are notoriously bad. Yes there are somethings that were there to spice up story to home. But actually in general his commentaries are pretty damn accurate with many points confirmed by archeology being exactly as written by him
And many points disproven as the defenseces in Geneva. Try reading his Helvetic campaign and the one against Ariovistus. Those two are probably the worst offenders of the bunch. He does embelish and twist things like crazy to justify his continued war effort, does not speak about roman policy not to meddle in the affairs of the tribes of Gaul, does not mention that he was the one who declared Ariovistus a friend of Rome and thus empowered the guy to rise the way he did and so forth. His writings have been considered some of the best for a long ass time simply by the virtue of having been studied for such a long time. The more people question his writings and realy test them the more inconsistencies and outright lies they uncover. His writings are still valuable because we can get closer to seeing through his eyes then through any other document available to us. Also look at how he commanded his battles: he was a gambler, a lucky one and a bold one no doubt about that but a gambler never the less. He left behind his baggage train when pursuing the Helvetii and banked on the Aedui to give him their winter reserves - which they could have flat out refused. Then he willingly gave up a supperior position on top a hill in order to pursue the retreating Helvetii forces and let himself be encircled by more Helvetii forces before beating them back in a desperate pitched battle, banking on the discipline and supperior equipment of his soldiers. Tell me that was not reckless - I dare you. Read his works and you will see how reckless he was and how much he did lie, embelish and twist the truth. He was a great general no doubt but that I would mostly attribute to what he accomplished during the civil war that followed his deeds in Gaul and one also should remember that victors write the history books. The Caesarian party under the leadership of Octavian Caesar aka Augustus won out big time in the civil war. Augustus had a vaunted interest in making his adoptiv father appear as big as possible thus enhancing his own prestige. That is why many people venerate Caesars writings today.
his commentaries weren’t bad. But we must consider the fact that it was sold to the roman people, just like Cicero was selling his texts in large numbers.
and fact is that he didn’t lose. So you can call him reckless but it worked way too many times to be luck. So yeah, he was one hell of a general
Marius Lorson lol where did you learn history? first Caesar wasn't the one to declare Ariovistus king and friend of romans, it was the senate aslo Ariovistus rose to power thanks to the tribes of Gaul the very same tribes that asked Caesar's help against the german king. Second you're saying that Caesar was stupid reliying on the Aedui for supplies but if you studied the Elvetic campaing you would know that the reason the senate approved Caesar's campaing was to protec the Aedui, so they have no reason to refuse to help the romans. I agree with you that Caesar was a gambler but you can't really expect to do great things without taking risk and can you tell what are the inaccuracies and lies that Caesar told in his works?. Last i want you to know that Caesar was already famous among his people and Octavian didn't really need to boost his adoptive father's fame.
Metatron is gonna make a response to this.
i thought the exact same
I only found his channel recently, but I kind of like Metatron. He's knowledgeable about historical stuff, although whenever he does TES lore, he always seems to mess it up. But he seems a lot better with real world history than a fictional world's.
Metatron is just a skinny italian weaboo. Skallagrim is a strong scandinavian man whos cooler
He is from canada man
이치고 Hahahahahhaa weaboo
Roman Soldiers actually had to buy their euquipment by themself, so Therme was a huge difference in Quality, eben though the Design was nearly identical.
I think he had a stronk when he was typing.
No V C, read more about rome ^^
This is completely wrong XD.
I can't thank you enough for emphasizing the importance of societal organization when it comes to analyzing a pre-modern military. Organization and logistics are the unsung determiners of victory; probably because it's not as glamorous as the weapons and the tactics. I'd also emphasize that one of the principal advantages Rome always had over its enemies was that its societal and military organization was very well suited to sustaining losses. Their military institutions could absorb casualties and draw up replacements while other armies such as the Tribal Germans or Celts or the Hellenic levies would generally shatter after some hard losses since they lacked the sort of military system geared for training up new soldiers and officers and dealing with the usual loss of institutional experience and knowledge that comes when an army loses a lot of officers in a brief period of time.
The Romans were, and could afford to be far more persistent even in the face of setbacks than most of their enemies in their phase of conquest. Not only was Rome itself a massive city but as they expanded the criterea of citizenship the manpower pool they had was staggeringly larger than most other empires who did not have this system of mass conscription from such a broad pool of people. While some empires like the Seleucids were of comparable if not actually superior size in terms of population and Carthage also controlled a sizeable empire; they did not have the societal systems to sustain the kinds of wars of attrition that Rome was masterful at winning. It wasn't until the Sassannids I believe that Rome encountered an enemy who could match the empire in attritional warfare (and indeed the Sassanids were probably the Empire's most evenly matched opponent).
The tribalistic and decentralized Celts simply couldn't match Rome in that particular game, especially when as you said; they were divided into tribal lines and they had a more sort of democratic or participatory view of authority in that no one had some sort of unquestionable mandate to lead; nor were they particularly unified in purpose which is a terrible thing to be when "divide and conquer" was basically Rome's religion in as far as diplomacy is concerned. The Germans and Slavs I think largely avoided being conquered the way the Celts were because they were so much further from Rome's center of power and the lands they ruled were much less developed and generally poorer than the celtic lands. From what I remember, the Celts quite often had cities, they had sophisticated agriculture and metallurgy, while they were a tribal people they developed their lands quite extensively.
Meanwhile the lands lived in by the Germanic and Slavic tribes and the other tribes east of the River Rhine and North of the Danube had much more rudimentary settlements and less extensive agricultural development of their territories. It simply wasn't seen as worth the effort to conquer them outright when Rome would need a lot more time to develop them to what they perceived as an acceptable standard. Plus a lot of them lived among vast plains suited for the kind of cavalry warfare that dominated eastern Europe (that Rome found difficult to counter without forcing a siege battle which well; good luck with forcing one of those against tribal people instead of the much more sedentary and rich Parthians) or could melt away into huge forests that made them difficult to root out. So for the romans it was better to just establish the borders on the Rhine and the Danube even though some Romans advocated extending Rome's borders to about the Vistula River and the Carpathian mountains to create a larger buffer zone against barbarians and to shorten the lines they'd need to defend.
And by the time that the eastern tribes became Rome's primary issue in Europe, Rome had already settled into its bad habit of a ridiculous numbers of civil wars for control of the empire and had shifted focus to western Asia to try and conquer the rich lands to be found there; engaging in a long slugging match with the Parthian and later Sassanid Empires for control of the place. The Celts were just kind of unlucky to be rich enough to be worth conquering but not centralized enough to resist a conquest as the Persians did while also facing the usual issue of Rome's enemies of not being able to sustain the kind of losses Rome repeatedly shrugged off. I mean, when Rome lost tens of thousands of men at Cannae (after losing tens of thousands of men in two prior battles) they essentially just called up the draft cards for more soldiers. When the Celts lost tens of thousands of men at Alesia or Watling Street that basically ended those wars right then and there. They had no institutions for replacing those kinds of losses.
Bending swords, spear heads" or warping axes seems to have been ritualistic. Celtic weapons were actually well made. Destroying a weapon meant a lot.
2:29
I was like, "Oh shit, Monika escaped!" haha.
The reason why the Celts were defeated is that the Roman legions were a MUCH better army.
The romans were professional soldiers: they trained regularly, they had iron discipline and standardized equipment and they were quick to respond to the orders of their officers.
The Celts were good warriors, but they lacked the discipline, equipment and unity of the roman legions.
It's as simple as that.
Same with Ostrogoths vs Byzantines
The Carthaginians only lost because Hannibal didn't sack Rome when he had the chance and didn't initially get support from Carthage when he needed reinforcements.
He couldn't have, he didn't have the siege equipment.
Actually, the Romans at that time did not call it Lurica Hamata but Gallica meaningfully.
I would personally say that, the main advantage the Romans had was there building power 2 many walls and forts and they were better at siegeing and repelling sieges. The rest was more up to the leader then anything else. The Galls for example tended to having the better cavalry.
There are some mistakes, mainly at the first part.. The pictures you show comparign roman and celtic warrior are not the better. The first couple didn't coincide in time, and by the way, i believe the called roman are in fact samnites. The armour and banners are copied of archeological and artistical samnite examples. They are high class soldiers, notice the highly decorated armour, and the accurately dyed clothes. The weaponry is far from be similar. Notice that la Tene long swords are for cutting purposes, contemporary italian people used (mainly) greek style swords, which replaced the old atrphied antennas swords.
The shields are also not the same. Scutum does not come from celt people, there is a lot of evidence in art and archeologic record showing the indigenous origin of the scutum, which has a different origin of which that the tall, thin and flat celtic shields had. The word itself comes from (s)kewH- (“to cover”), a protoindeuropean root. There is no evidence, as far as I know, of celtic origin of the word in latin. Nevertheless, it doesn't matter, for weapon origin, archeology is the main source. In fact, the whole defensive panoplia unless the scutum is celtic. The helmets where, as you say, celtic, of various styles, first montefortino, then evolved, but all were celt-based. The coat of mail is also, as you say, of La Tène origin, but lorica hamata is not the roman name for the armour, it's a Reniassance terminology, we don't know the technical terminology of the roman army for each type of armour.
The second couple of pictures neither represent the medium warrior of the time celts fought against the romans, because, on one hand, the celt warrior is a noble one, very few could pay these armour; on the other hand, the roman soldier is an imperial soldier, a bit far from that who fought celts in the s. V to I BC, the four centuries of fight between Rome and celtic peoples from Hispania, Gallia and Britannia.
I recommend for easy display of roman and celtic contemporary armies the book of Peter Conolly (1978), Hannibal and the the enemies of Rome, it's a classical work accesible to the public.
Regards.
nope, the legionary shown with the hamata is definitively a late republican one. He has the coolus helmet and the republican hamata (the imperial one was shorter). An Imperial legionary would have at least the gallic helmet and (perhaps) the segmentata alongside the imperial scutum (rectangular and shorter). It would be possible for him to be a very early imperial legionary but the coolus helmet wouldn’t make sense then
yes but i think he means to say that the romans fought guals through out from the early republic, middle republic, late republic, and early imperial (ignoreing picts and irish who raided the romans constantly later on aswell)