Roman Army's Superiority to the Celts
Sewers, Baths, Toilets, Roads, Theatres and the Cambridge Latin Course
are just a few examples of the wonderful and innovative technology
brought to this country by a much accomplished and conquering Roman
Army. The Roman Army had advanced as far as (Great Britain) conquering
along the way Germania (Germany) and Gaul (France) amongst others.
However their arrival in Britain was greeted by the native Celts who
were 'one of the four great barbarian people (Ephorus 405-330 bc).'
The Celtic tactics and fighting techniques were a stark contrast to
the Roman military and the Celtic philosophy on weaponry and armour
was also different. The battles that emerged were some of the most
intriguing in the history of Great Britain and its people.
In my essay I will be focusing on why the Celts were eventually beaten
by the Roman Army. To do this I will be comparing and evaluating the
Romans and Celts under the general headings of Tactics, Armour and
Weaponry and by doing this I hope to come to conclusions on the Roman
victory over the Celts and how the Romans were superior under those
categories.
TACTICS
Firstly lets start with tactics. Not only will I discuss battle
tactics, I will also detail the military setups and organizations
within the two societies.
The Roman Army was one of the first great civilizations to have an
organized and professional military institution. The Roman Army was
similar to our modern British army because it had an army of
extensively trained soldiers who had been organized and were
professionally employed. In other words they got paid and were very
well trained. ...
... middle of paper ...
...ts however in tactical strength the Romans had
met their match against a barbarians who wether by luck or skill had
managed to terrify the Romans and win the mental side of a battle
because of their bravery and terrifiying barbarian qualities.
Bibliography
Here are the books and websites I got my information from
Books
Greece and Rome at War by Peter Connoly
The Conquest of Gaul by Julius Caesar
Agricola and Germania by Tacitus
Websites
www.Museums.ncl.ac.uk/reticulum/northernfrontier/thewretchedbrit…/celticwarfare.htm
www.Omega.cohums.ohio-state.edu/classes/cla506.w99.mlm/military/military.htm
www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/mil_roman_soldiers.htm
www.lisp.wayne.edu/jamesmaclean/roman.htm
http://www.celticgrounds.com/chapters/writers.htm
http://www.ibiblio.org/gaelic/celts.html
In 476 AD, centuries of amassed knowledge in science and philosophy, literature and the arts lay in peril of destruction alongside the physical Roman Empire. Thomas Cahill's book How the Irish Saved Civilization sheds light upon the role of the Irish people in the conservation and rebirth of civilization and the Western tradition after the fall of the Roman Empire. It is here that Cahill opens his book and after a brief description of classical civilization, that we are given a look at another people, far different from the Romans and Greeks- the vibrant and intriguing Celts. How these people came in contact with the civilized world and how they assisted in pulling the West out of the Dark ages is, then, the paramount of Cahill's argument.
In this paper, it will tell and describe almost everything about Celtic warriors. This paper will show the different weapons and armor that the Celtics used in combat. Also, there will be information about the different fighting tactics that they use on the battlefield. And you cannot know these things without knowing the origin of the Celtic cross and how it came about. In conclusion, this is what this essay will be teaching.
First came the advanced weapons, the Greeks didn't have very many weapons but the ones that they did have were very powerful. Take their spears for example, they were very sturdy and sharp. And because they knew how to use them they succeeded in many of their battles. The Romans on the other hand had quite a variety of weapons. They had short swords, spears, giant darts, bows and flawless armor. This made them quite the force to be reckoned with, and anyone that stood in their way was crushed. The Greeks were very famous for their navy while the Romans didn't really have one. Most of the ancient navy's were made up of giant ships that would ram and then sink each other. But the Romans preferred hand to hand combat so they used swords more than they did spears. The Greeks had more of a frontal attack with large shields that protected them while they stabbed. Greek Armor was very weak, so they wore very little if they wore any at all. But Roman Armor had to be impeccable at all times according to Philopoemen. “Bright armour inspired dismay in the enemy” pg.6.
A question that must first be addressed is whether or not Rome actually fell. There are two main theories which have lead to this conclusion. One is that the Roman Empire continued in the form of the Byzantine Empire until the rise of Islam in the seventh century. The other theory states that Rome’s cultural ideas spread out across Europe and Asia, and formed the basis of medieval culture. While there is much evidence for these theories (Prienne and Heather) and against them (Havighurse), they essentially only argue the definition of “fall”. The fact remains that the Roman Empire declined dramatically, split into two pieces, and that its capitol city was sacked on numerous occasions. Therefore, the rest of this essay will not deal with the largely semantic question of whether or not Rome fell, but why it fell.
The strength of the Roman military was the string that held the Roman Empire together for as long as it lasted. The military was made up of strictly disciplined men whom were ready and willing to serve their emperor.
There are many political, economic, sociological causes to the growth and expansion of the Roman republic and later the Roman Empire, but one major factor of expansion that the Romans are most famous for is there Army. There Army was famous for their harsh discipline amongst their own ranks and there mercifulness brutality amongst their enemies. According to our text Roman warfare was characterized by great ferocity and the Roman pursuit of victory was relentless. The Romans had a pragmatic view towards atrocity and massacre that viewed almost any act as justifiable if it eased the path of victory (Goldsworthy 2000) p. 24. The hoplite phalanx which originated by the Greeks and later adopted by the Roman army, demanded great discipline and adherence to orders in order for this group of soldiers...
In the darkest hour of the Roman Republic, an army was led against all odds to reign supreme on the Italian peninsula. Led through sheer military genius, the Carthaginian Army laid waste to everything the might of Rome could muster. For years on end, Italy was the stage for the greatest military orchestra the world had yet seen, conducted by a master of strategy and warfare. Hannibal, son of Hamilcar Barca, laid siege to the very idea of Rome’s military prowess. Despite absolute dominance of the Italian peninsula for several years, his success can not be credited to his brilliance and mastery of strategy. Hannibal’s success can be primarily attributed to Rome’s failure to respond at key points of his advance into Italy.
There were several strengths of the Roman Empire which enabled it to survive for more than four hundred years. These strengths included a strong foundation, having been built off of the Roman Republic; the standardization across the empire of many aspects of life, such as language, law, and especially the extension of citizenship, which made the empire more cohesive and easier to rule; and strong leaders, who were able to utilize the manipulation of the upper class and Senate, and the management of the military.
Recruits were taught to march and performed parade drill twice a day. They were taught how to build a camp, swim and ride. A Roman was half a soldier from the start, and he could endure discipline which soon produced the other half (Adcock 5).
“This account I have given the reader, not so much with the intention of commending the Romans, as of comforting those that have been conquered by them, and for the deterring others from attempting innovations under their government. This discourse of the Roman military conduct may also perhaps be of use to such of the curious as are ignorant of it, and yet have a mind to know it.” –excerpt from “Description of the Roman Army,” by Josephus
The Roman army is the representation of the empire’s strength, responsible for the creation, conquests, and glory of the ancient Roman Empire. It is no secret the might of the roman army came from the superior training, experience, and equipment of its individual soldiers. There were many brilliant and no so brilliant generals that owe their success and accomplishments to their battle hardened armies, but the unsung heroes are the advanced medical practices and innovations that allowed the soldiers to recover from their wounds and return to the fight. Roman military medicine was vastly superior to their enemies and is largely responsible for making sure the Roman army efficiently recovered from their wounds and returned to their duties on the battlefield.
Another sizeable contributing factor to the expansion of the Roman Empire was the sacking of Rome by the Gauls in 390 B.C.. “The Romans were completely dumbfounded by the wild and undisciplined charge of the howling Gauls. The Roman’s tightly packed phalanx, a military formation they had adopted from the Greeks of southern Italy, collapsed, and the Romans fled” (Kidner, 129). The sacking left the Romans determined to prevent and avoid any similar outcomes in the future.
Undeniably, Caesar was a great general who found out early in his military career that his strength was in leading and executing his plans. Moreover, his most memorable battle was against the Gaul. Adrian Goldsworthy suggests that “Caesar was as much- or even more- a politician as he was a general” (Goldsworthy 1). His political connections helped him climb the ladder, but his military expertise had his name on every Romans lips. However, Caesar was ruthless to his enemies, but due to his fearlessness and slow advances on the battlefield, he single-handedly doubled the size of Rome with the defeat of Gaul. The author Miriam Greenblatt advocates that in Julius Caesar and the Roman Republic “ he discovered that he was very good at warfare,” (Greenblatt 18) and she continues that Caesar was so skilled in his ability that he knew just when and where to place his soldiers to defeat his enemies and that he could obtain the money and taxes from those that he subjugated that he very rapidly bailed himself out of debt, and put the money back into Rome (Greenblatt 19) Greenblatt also suggests that because of the Gallic Wars , “Rome had almost doubled the size of the Roman Empire and brought Roman culture- including good roads an Roman system of laws- to northwestern Europe,” (Greenblatt 24). Due to his great skills as a general, he had the unwavering support of his soldiers. Additionally, Greenblatt proposes that
The political system of both Roman empires was based on virtue and the republic was founded with the Senate as the center. The magistrates were elected annually and also had control of the armies. The key to Roman superiority was the patriotism and training and drills.
The Roman Empire was one of the largest and most influential empires in history. It spread far beyond Italy and Northern Africa, all the way to Britain. Britain was part of the Roman Empire for almost four centuries, from AD 43 to around AD 410. Just like in modern times, London, also known as Londinium, was Britain’s capital and the most influential city in Britain for the Romans. The history of Roman London can be seen throughout the city, especially in The City of London.