How common was armor among the Celts ?

[Darth_Roach]

I am aware that Celts weren't savages, and that they used armor to some extent. The question is, how common was it? What types of armor were used? Were there any types of Celts more keen to use armor than others?

[Ghostmojo]

Here we go again boys ... :wink:

[etrusker86]

I can only quote what I read in a book by Simon James.
That until 300 bc, with the introduction of chain mail, the celts didn't use harnesses.
It also says it might not have been common because of the workload that went into forging one of those and that it was also very expensive so that only the richer ones could effort it.


Patrick D.

[Macedon]

Timeframe? For example, before and during the second Punic war, Polybius has them (Cisalpine and Transalpine Celts) fight in cloaks and trousers or naked. He comments on the adequate protection that these garments offered against the Roman javelins, which, IMO, would mean that they were quite thick. Their shields are also described as relatively small and unable to effectively cover a man from enemy missiles.

[M. Demetrius]

Do we consider Halstedt era peoples "Celts"? They wore armor, but as for how many in the army, probably few, just like other peoples of the day. The chiefs did, the clients mostly didn't, probably for philosophical, agility, and financial reasons.

[etrusker86]

I don't know very much about ancient warfare but I guess, besides the large battles against romans or greeks the celts maybe had a total different kind of warfare.
Considering that they were normally organized in tribes I imagine it was more a one against one situation in difference to phalanxes to phalanx etc. And I for myself would probably trade agility against protection.
The tribe chief functioned as general and maybe used his armor to be more visible for his men,.. as well as the enemy
Maybe it had religious cause.

Patrick D.

[Darth_Roach]

So it was fairly uncommon among the earlier Celts. What about later, La Tene III (Caesar's era)?

[Theodosius the Great]

Yes, it's easier to consider a timeframe but it would help if we narrowed the geography. Some Celts were more savage than others. The Galatians in Anatolia may have been more armored than the Celts of northern Europe based on the sculptures of Pergamon and others. Then there are also Celt-Iberians who were also probably better armored than northerners. At least most of them probably wore helmets of some kind unlike the Gauls.

~Theo

[Darth_Roach]

The Galatians adopted Hellenistic gear in the 2nd century BC, right? The Montvert book about Seleucid reform armies depicts them like this:

[Theodosius the Great]

That's based on one tombstone, yes. Notice his Celtic sword and shield (thureos).

But Galatians brought chainmail (hamata) to the Greeks.

~Theo

[Darth_Roach]

But how common was it to wear armor? Even the Greeks were quite lightly armored for the most part during the period.

[Theodosius the Great]

But how common was it to wear armor?

Based on the carvings of monuments from Asia Minor it would seem that a large minority of Galatians wore armor.

But by the time of Julius Caesar I would say most Galatians were just as much armored as Roman legionaries. The Galatian king, Deiotarus, raised 30 cohorts on his own (about three legions) which fought on Caesar's side during the civil war. When Augustus became emperor he made these Galatians into a Roman legion (very unusual) instead of auxiliaries. So, they must have been almost completely armored as any Roman legion before Augustus, IMO. You can read about them here.

Even the Greeks were quite lightly armored for the most part during the period.

The Greeks were probably more heavily armored after Alexander. More money came into the country from foreign kings trying to buy alliances.

~Theo

[Darth_Roach]

Eh? I was under the impression the Peloponnesian war saw the gradual departure from heavier armor types, hoplites frequently going to battle with open faced helmets, sometimes even without cuirasses. Most Phalangites were generally poorer than hoplites, IIRC, thus couldn't afford what the hoplites could..

[Theodosius the Great]

I'm not sure about the Peloponesian War. Hoplites paid for their own armor. Macedonian phalangites were poorer but the state paid for their armor. Armor for phalangites was not needed as much because they carried long pikes. And they could not carry the big Hoplite shields because both hands were needed to carry the pike.

[jvrjenivs]

That until 300 bc, with the introduction of chain mail, the celts didn't use harnesses.

Hi Patrick, do you have any source for this statement (dating the invention of chainmail into the 4th to 3rd century)?

As for the original question: yes and no. And much has already been said. It seems that amongst most tribes armour (and swords) were for the rich (so for the chieftains on top of their warbands). Armour types differed also. From Hallstad culture we know very ornate armour pieces, where from the lower rhine area, it seems to have more been chainmail.