Ambigatus, King of Gauls

[Rumo]

Celtic dress, habits, fighting styles, were different from Germanic, Roman, etc.

Were they?

Dress = jeans
Habits = barbecue
Fighting styles = hmm, fighting is out of fashion nowadays, let's think of sports - baseball, for instance.

So you're saying this is how "ethnies" get differentiated?

[Ron Andrea]

Modern culture is a poor comparison because it's so homogenized.

But ancient warriors were often opportunistic toward equipment. A sword's design may be distinctive of one culture, but may have been picked up off a battle field and used/transported far away.

Context is significant.

[Alanus]

Modern sports compared to ancient warfare could get ludicrous. hock:
We could have the Boston Celtics running downcourt naked.

[Rumo]

Modern sports compared to ancient warfare could get ludicrous.

Isn't rather ludicrous to believe each ancient tribe/"nation" had its own fighting style, own equipment and always tried to keep that as original as possible, so that future scholars can distinguish them clearly in the record. I know Elfs, Orcs and Klingonians must be clearly differentiated in weapons, armor, fighting style, speech, attitude, habits, everything - but those are fictional characters. Real people manifest their identities in more complicated and sometimes even subtler ways.

Modern culture is a poor comparison because it's so homogenized.

I used an example which I imagined is familiar to most readers. There still are some less "civilized" (even tribal!) corners of this world.

For example:

• In a study of ethnic relations in Thailand, Michael Moerman (1965) asks himself: "Who are the Lue?" The Lue were the ethnic group his research focused on, but when he tried to describe who they were - in which ways they were distinctive from other ethnic groups - he quickly ran into trouble. His problem, a very common one in contemporary social anthropology, concerned the boundaries of the group. After listing a number of criteria commonly used by anthropologists to demarcate cultural groups, such as language, political organisation and territorial contiguity, he states: "Since language, culture, political organization, etc., do not correlate completely, the units delimited by one criterion do not coincide with the units delimited by another". When he asked individual Lue what were their typical characteristics, they would mention cultural traits which they in fact shared with other, neighbouring groups. They lived in close interaction with other groups in the area; they had no exclusive livelihood, no exclusive language, no exclusive customs, no exclusive religion. Why was it appropriate to describe them as an ethnic group? After posing these problems, Moerman was forced to conclude that "[s]omeone is Lue by virtue of believing and calling himself Lue and of acting in ways that validate his Lueness". Being unable to argue that this "Lueness" can be defined with reference to objective cultural features or clear-cut boundaries, Moerman defines it as an emic category of ascription. This way of delineating ethnic groups has become very influential in social anthropology.

But ancient warriors were often opportunistic toward equipment. A sword's design may be distinctive of one culture, but may have been picked up off a battle field and used/transported far away.

Context is significant.

Late Iron Age Dacian elites were using La Tène weapons and armor. Some archaeologists maintain there was a massive Celtic invasion and a subsequent Celtization of this part of Europe, but their argument is entirely circular. The invasion is used to explain the material culture, and the material culture is used to argue for the invasion.

[Ron Andrea]

Very true. :?

[Astiryu1]

Isn't rather ludicrous to believe each ancient tribe/"nation" had its own fighting style, own equipment and always tried to keep that as original as possible, so that future scholars can distinguish them clearly in the record. I know Elfs, Orcs and Klingonians must be clearly differentiated in weapons, armor, fighting style, speech, attitude, habits, everything - but those are fictional characters. Real people manifest their identities in more complicated and sometimes even subtler ways.

Yes...
We are (at least I am not) talking about The Celts being one tribe to rule them all! :lol: But rather a patchwork of similar peoples. The Native Americans fit this pattern as before mentioned. The Sioux and the Algonquin lived differently but are still generalized as Native American and the fighting styles are usually determined by terrain,weaponry,etc. Here there are "Plains Indians" that lived throughout Central and Western North America and also the Eastern Tribes that lived in The Great Lakes/East Coast areas among others. All had Bows and knives and javelins and such but because of lands differed in methodology. Because of the similar terrain and available technology the "Celts" were probably a mash up of many different tribes that shared their knowledge through trade, intermarriage, war, etc. I tend to classify most ancient cultures through the artwork, living methods, physical qualities, and religion/mythologies. These are usually common to different peoples back then but are not the final word. Today with that point of view I would call most of the western world "Euramericans" since we all share similar traits in the artwork, living methods, physical qualities, and religion/mythologies. Barring "ethnic" cultures still prevalent in the U.S. like the Native/Asian/African/Latin Americans that retain the artwork, living methods, physical qualities, and religion/mythologies.
Keep in mind that some of us here in the U.S. don't play baseball but prefer hunting,hiking,martial arts(me), etc. I would love to play a Celtic sport like Javelin throwing, or spear fencing with shields, but that closely resembles Greece and Early Rome and the rest of the world too! :lol: I agree that some things are hard to pin down for certain but the wealth of similar evidence towards a general culture in western Europe during the Bronze Age Early Iron Age is pretty telling. You can call it whatever you want Keltoi, Kelts, Celts, La Tene, Halstatt, etc. those are words which are merely used for description and labeling. All shared similar traits and all "could" be called the same thing. I focus on the artwork, living methods, physical qualities, and religion/mythologies. Other than that I have to question everything until evidence is brought forth not theories. I have plenty of those myself that I question on a regular basis. 8)

[Alanus]

Isn't rather ludicrous to believe each ancient tribe/"nation" had its own fighting style, own equipment and always tried to keep that as original as possible, so that future scholars can distinguish them clearly in the record. I know Elfs, Orcs and Klingonians must be clearly differentiated in weapons, armor, fighting style, speech, attitude, habits, everything - but those are fictional characters. Real people manifest their identities in more complicated and sometimes even subtler ways.

How true, ludicrous as it is. But that's exactly the way modern scholars can now differentiate. For instance, real Celts were known to go into battle naked. No other ethnic group in Europe fought in this style. So just maybe there might be a little truth in what I said. The Alans relied so heavily on their own cataphrats that they neglected their archers to the point that the Huns began to subjugate them. Styles did exist then, just as they do today... the very reason that sumo wrestling is popular in Japanese culture but not at Madison Square Garden.

When it comes to clearly differentiated weapons, the Celts had their own. Anamorphic swords come to mind, and I cannot find them used by any other culture beyond the Celts. Clearly, weapons that were developed by a certain cultural group did spread to others, but we can always pinpoint their origin to a certain group and time-period. The akinakes was developed by the Scythians, then passed on to the Sarmatians, then to the Parthians and even the Saracens... BUT first and foremost it was a Scythian weapon. The two-handed jian, tucked in a flat-bottomed scabbard, can be traced to the Warring States and then the Han Dynasty, then to the Massagetae and Alans. But again, it was originally Chinese. I could go on with other examples, and you know I can, but everyone gets the picture. Distinctive weapons do have an ethnic or cultural origin.

And last. What would an Italian or Mori say if you asked, "Anyone for tossing the caber?" Awe, come-on! Give it a fling. :lol:

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Alan,

I think Rumo meant something quite smaller than 'the Celts' when he said 'each tribe/nation'. But even so...

For instance, real Celts were known to go into battle naked. No other ethnic group in Europe fought in this style. So just maybe there might be a little truth in what I said. The Alans relied so heavily on their own cataphrats that they neglected their archers to the point that the Huns began to subjugate them. Styles did exist then, just as they do today...

I don't think so. Sure, we know of some occasions where Celtic tribesmen went into battle naked, but I'd say thaat was not the rule. To the contrary, we have far more evidence for Celtic warriors fighting fully clothed and even with armour.
Naked warriors by no means belong to what we know as Celts alone. The oldest naked warrior in Europe dates to . 3000 BC (Uktaine). Germanic tribesmen also could be fighting naked. Read this article by Michael Speidel from 2002, or this chapter from Speidel's book from 2004. Interesting stuff.

About the Alans, did did have so many cataphracts? And why would they have neglected their archery? Sassanid heavy cavalry employed mainly armoured cavalry armed with bows and lances, and the Romans copied that later. Alan cavalry, afaik, was not very heavy but spear-throwing - could that explain the Huns being superior? Light archers overpowering heavier spear and javelin cavalry? Anyway, I've never read that this was specific for the lans in the way you suggest?

When it comes to clearly differentiated weapons, the Celts had their own. Anamorphic swords come to mind, and I cannot find them used by any other culture beyond the Celts.

You mean anthropomorphic swords? And is it really something different, or are we talking about a certain style of hilt decoration?

[Alanus]

Back to you, Robert

Yes, I was actually talking about Celtic hilt design, corrected to anthromorphic, aka morphed into human shape. Don't know of any other culture using the human body in this fashion. Then we have a plethora of rectangular shields, usually rounded at the corners, that show up as a trail behind the mercenary activities of the Gauls and Galatians. The shields were adopted by other cultures, but they can be traced back to a specifically Celtic origin. Basically, I was pointing out that certain warriors did use weapons unique to their cultures even though they were later adopted by others (like the Tang Dynasty jian that ended up as the Samuri sword).

We hear about the invading Gauls fighting naked (at least their front line) during the early pre-Cisalpine wars in Etruria. Caesar mentions that the Britons painted their bodies with woad; and although they may have not been entirely naked, they must have stripped themselves enough for Caesar to notice. Then we have the northern Celts, generically called the "Picts" by Roman writers, and they also fought without much clothing. Oops, not exclusive but also the Germans, which had many similar customs with the Celts including the famed "veleda" (in Gallic "ueleda.") and a good old Teutons and Teutates. Of course, we also have naked Mori and Sandwich Islanders. And let us not forget Kira Knightly in her Woad bikini!

To me, the Alans were losing skirmishes with the Huns because they relied too heavily on weapons other than the bow. They had the same bow as the Huns, both symetricals and asymetricals, but the Huns appear to have driven them into forming bilateral relationships with the Greutungi and Tyrfingi for mutual protection... enough to be part of the "Duel People" or Alatheus (the Goth) and Safrax (the Alan). Perhaps they were less "cataphractish" than I stated, but they desended laterally from the Massagetae who invented the game. But basically, it was a non-relience on the bow. (Just my personal opinion, but probably better than Heather's :roll: )

PS: Not too sure how that last paragraph is actually related to Ambigatus, but maybe he owned a bow... or at least knew a guy who once owned a bow. (Pardon me. I'm a dedicated archer and instructor.)