How common was armor among the Celts ?

[etrusker86]

As said I just quote what I have read in the book. The title of the english original was "Exploring the World of the Celts" published by Thames and Hudson author James Simon.
It is already 18 years old but I just recently found a reprint in a local bookstore.

Patrick D.

[Joze Noriker]

Well, we have in Novo mesto (also in the museum) in timeframe la Tene II and la Tene III Lt B 2 - > Lt D1 108 celtic swords. We have some helmets, too but we don't have any hamata (armor). The Galatians aren't "clear Celts" - the Celtiberians aren't "clear Celts," too.

Joze

[Dan Howard]

So it was fairly uncommon among the earlier Celts.

We know that the Celts in northern Italy fought as mercenaries for the Greek tyrants in southern Italy. There is no reason not to think that they fought as hoplites with all of the equipment of hoplites, including their armour.

[Macedon]

So it was fairly uncommon among the earlier Celts.

We know that the Celts in northern Italy fought as mercenaries for the Greek tyrants in southern Italy. There is no reason not to think that they fought as hoplites with all of the equipment of hoplites, including their armour.

Mercenaries most usually fought in their traditional manners. Unless specifically stated by a source, I would not easily see them equipped as hoplites fighting as Greek spearmen.

[Robert Vermaat]

The Galatians aren't "clear Celts" - the Celtiberians aren't "clear Celts," too.

Ah, that's a VERY difficult debate which you are touching now - who were the Celts? If you would want to seprate 'Celts' into [cultural] or [linguistic] groups, this debate would become much more difficult. perhaps we should ask the originator of this thread: Roach, who do you mean by asking this question? Hallstatt Celts, or all groups dating from, say, 500 BC to the lastest Welsh and Bretons? Perhaps we should redifine this, or else the discussion hardly makes sense.

For myself, I understood this debate to concentrate on the western European Celts ca. 200BC to caesar's time, which is quite a long period already.

[Darth_Roach]

For myself, I understood this debate to concentrate on the western European Celts ca. 200BC to caesar's time, which is quite a long period already.

That is roughly what I had in mind when I posted this, but if there is interesting discussion to be had not too far off-topic, I am not opposed.

[Joze Noriker]

Yes, i mean it very clearly. Wich time, wich area, wich cemetery: how many warriors were there. Who where the Celts is another theme, indeed. The same problem is in the theme: Red ochre by the Celts and the members wrote about the Picts (and Britons) .... :o
One little suggestion: in Styria&Carinthia in south Austria and in Slovenia (here; i mean the whole land) we don't speak about the Celts (Celtic people) before they were comming back from the Greece (batlle for the Delfi), that mean here we speak about the Celts since ab. 300 - mostly ab. 270/250 BC! But we have here very strong native Hallstat culture, very important old iron age cultural settelments of the Hallstattic cheeftains - we don't speak here that they were the "Celts." In other nord parth of Austria (Dürrnberg f.e., in south Germany, Rhine-Mailand area, Switzerland and in the part of Bohemia the archeologists speak about the origins of the Celtic-culture's centre in parallele time - but our native Hallstatic culture is very very&similar with it, but is not a Celtic culture.

Joze