The Roman army was the world’s first professional army. It was also one of the world’s most successful armies in history. Their success can be attributed to many things, however one of the biggest contributors was their adaption and adoption of military gear from other cultures. None of the cultures that the Romans interacted with did more for their military prowess than the ancient Celts. The adaption of the well-crafted and innovative Celtic battle gear combined with the brilliant simplicity of Roman fighting style made the Roman soldier into an excellent fighting man capable of performing very well in various situations.
To understand just how much of a difference the Celtic gear made, it is necessary to look first at the gear that an early Roman would have carried in battle. The information about the earliest Roman soldiers comes from warrior burials on the Esquiline Hill (Sekunda, 8). Three Roman breast plates from early Rome (8th century?) have been found. They are rectangular with sides that curve inward and only protect the front. These breast plates are called pectorals. Two helmets have been found. Both are ‘calotte’ style. Calotte helmets resemble bowler hats, much like the ‘Tommy’ helmets worn by the British during World War I. An ornamental shield has also been found. It is round and may have been made by Etruscans (Sekunda, 8). A long and a short sword have also been found, both made of bronze, and many spear heads have been found as well. In later times, the Romans adopted hoplite styles of fighting from the Etruscans. Diodorus Siculus mentions that the Etruscans teaching the Romans how to fight in a phalanx was what would eventually spell their doom (Sekunda, 13). During the 5th and 4th centuries, the Roman army looked very much like a Greek one. (See image on the next page) Greek-style muscle cuirasses would be worn by those who could afford them, as well as the Linothorax (Greek linen cuirass). The Calotte helmets evolved and were replaced sometimes by helmets that more closely resembled Corinthian helmets. Calotte helmets without cheek guards were also used by the Celts in the early 300’s BC (James, 77). Later on in the 300’s cheek guards were added to Celtic helmets, first ones that were very simple, but eventually they evolved into one of the most common Roman helmets in the early republic, the Montefortino helmet. The Montefortino
helmet replaced the Italo-Attic helmet and was adopted along with manipular tactics. The date for this is uncertain (Sekunda, 25)
The Pyrrhic War saw a much
wider usage of the Montefortino helmet (Sekunda, 33). The Montefortino helmet
resembled earlier Celtic helmets in that it had a conical shape and decent neck
protection from downward attacks, but what made the Montefortino helmet
different was the cheek guards. Other Celtic helmets from the 300’s BC had
cheek guards, however what made the possible Celtic prototype different was
that the cheek guards covered more of the face. The other helmets had cheek
guards that were made in the three-disc pattern that can be seen on some early
Roman pectorals, however the Montefortino cheek guards go down the entire
length of the face and are wider at the bottom (James, 77). The Coolus helmet, a
later variation on the Montefortino helmet, was not
as conical and it also had a bigger neck guard. In the beginning of Augustus’
reign, perhaps even during Caesar’s conquest of Gaul, Roman armorers began to
adapt two Celtic helmet types, Port and Agen-types, to be used by Roman
legionaries (Cowan, 42). The Port helmet had wide cheek guards and a lower neck
guard. It did not, however, have ear holes. It resembled the Coolus helmet much
more closely than the Agen helmet did. The Agen helmet (right) was somewhat
conical and had a downward bent brim. It had smaller cheek guards, although it
did allow for better hearing. Neither the Agen nor Port helmet types had very
long neck guards. When the Roman armorers combined these helmets (and made a
few changes, as well), they created the Imperial Gallic type helmet. The
Imperial Gallic helmet combined the ridges to deflect downward blows at the
nape of the neck, the excellent visibility, and the wider cheek guards of the
Port helmet with the downward bent neck guard, and the better defense from
above of the Agen helmet. It made the neck guard longer, added ear holes with
rims to protect the ears from downward blows, and also added decoration. Before
now, Roman helmets were just the bare essentials. Now, they added in a very
Celtic metal working practice, decoration. The Imperial Gallic helmet was,
overall, very high quality. It also was lined with wool to both keep the wearer
warm in colder weather and also, if the fit were right, to provide some
suspension to absorb blows to the head (Cowan, 42).
The Roman army also started
to use mail around the time of the Pyrrhic War. Mail was invented by the Celts
shortly after 300 BC (James, 77). Only the wealthiest of Celtic warriors could
afford it, however, because it was very difficult to make. This new armor,
known as Lorica Hamata to the Romans,
was soon adopted by them. Romans with a property qualification of 10,000
drachmas or more would wear Lorica Hamata
in battle (Polybius, 6.23). The rest of the army still wore pectorals. Later
on, under the first tribunate of Gaius Graccus (123 BC), legislation was passed
issuing arms and armor to all Roman soldiers at government expense. The armor issued was most likely
Lorica Hamata (Sekunda, Republican
Roman Army, 7). Lorica Hamata came as
a long tunic, extending almost to the bottom of the under tunic, and had short
sleeves. A leather jerkin would sometimes be worn underneath earlier on, but
later the mail would be mounted on top of leather. The original Celtic design
had mail around the torso with a small bit of mail resembling a very short cape
draped over the
|
shoulders
and fastened with a brooch in the front (James, 84). The Roman type originally
had this same style (Sekunda, Republican Roman Army, 25), however as time went
on the style slowly changed until the Lorica
Hamata resembled the Greek Linothorax.
The short cape-like shoulder coverings became much more straight-edged and
geometric, and were now essentially armored straps to hold up the torso
coat.
The
long, oval shaped Roman shield which was also adopted from the Celts would be
held by a horizontal grip which attached cross-wise over a hole in the center
of the shield. A boss plate covered the hand, which allowed it to double as a
punching weapon. When the soldier would be moving, he would carry the shield
like a suitcase. There was only one grip, not two like in the Greek Hoplon. For a Celt, who would have
wanted to use both his sword and his shield as a weapon, an arm grip as well as
hand grip would have been better because control of the shield could be lost
very easily if he were only holding his shield by one hand. For a Roman,
however, this sort of grip worked much better. One hand would hold the shield
in place and the other would stab. Very
little movement was required, and as a result the soldiers would tire slower.
The Gladius Hispaniensis (Spanish sword)
came around this time as well. Poseidonius, who is quoted by Diodorus, talks
about how the Celtiberians buried the metal that they would use for swords so
that the rust would eat away all the weak metal and leave only the strongest to
make the sword out of (Diodorus, 5.33). This sword was both a stabbing and
double-sided slashing weapon which made it very useful. Also, because the metal
used was much more refined, it could hold a much better edge. The Spanish sword proved to be quite devastating in the
hands of the Romans. The Macedonians were terrified when they saw the damage
the swords had done to their dead according to Livy (Sekunda, 10). Early
versions show the Celtiberian influence particularly on the hilt. Some show a
pommel that resembles the Celtic pommel and cross guard which was
anthropomorphic to give the bearer special powers. It was not until the later
swords that the Roman style of sword that most associate with the Romans came
into existence.
One
of the most significant pieces of military gear that the Romans adopted from
the Celts was horse furniture. Romans did not have good horses native to Italy.
The only horses that were native were very small for the big, well fed Romans.
As a result, most of their soldiers were infantrymen. The Celts were very good
horsemen and they developed excellent technology to help their cavalrymen be
even better. They invented a four-pommeled saddle which provided as much
stability as stirrups (James, 79), as well as other innovations. The Celts not
only supplied the technology, but also supplied the best cavalry units during
the late republic and the early empire (James, 79).
Celtic
gear worked, in many ways, much better for the Romans than it did for the
Celts. The Roman fighting style required close formations which spent much of
the battle essentially defending. The only strictly offensive action may have
been at the beginning when the soldiers threw their Pila. The rest of the battle the Romans were down behind their
shields stabbing upward at their adversaries. Their armor, as a result, would
need good shoulder protection, as well as good protection for the top of their
head and their neck, and also their shield would have to be big enough to protect
the rest of their body. The Lorica Hamata
gave the Roman soldiers the shoulder protection they needed, and the
Imperial Gallic helmet gave them the back of the neck protection. The long, oval
shaped Roman gave them the body protection they needed, as well as blocked
swinging sword blows and also doubled as a weapon.
In
seeing how many things the Romans adopted from the Celts, one is often inclined
to ask why the conquerors were not the conquered. There are several answers to
this question. First and foremost, not every Celt had all of the best gear. Few
had swords, fewer still had Lorica Hamata. The Celts were also big attention
seekers. According to Simon James, the Celts were “almost as much in
competition with each other for glory as in conflict with the foe” (James, 83).
The Celtic army seriously lacked discipline as a result. Also, Celtic
leadership lacked the strategic ability and understanding of logistics often
times to employ the excellent gear they did have. Finally, most Celts lacked
the tenacity to stick with most battles. The main strategy used by the Celts
was to charge the enemy and scare them into retreating with the noise as much
as with their ferocity. The Romans quickly learned how to defeat this attack,
and as a result taking down the Celts proved much easier because the charge was
often times the only play in their playbook (James, 83). The Romans proved much
more technically and tactically proficient with Celtic gear, and also their
leadership was more educated in their field, and also not as willing to throw
men’s lives away if they could avoid it, and as a result the generals’ men
would be much more willing to fight for them, whereas the Celtic leadership
often times only cared about looking good and would sacrifice as many lives
necessary in order to do so. We see a similar attitude with Hannibal at Cannae.
He used his Celts as cannon fodder in order to defeat the Romans. It worked,
but all his Celts either died or deserted. Overall, the Roman army had much
more discipline and tenacity than the Celtic army.
The
ancient Romans had one of the most successful armies in history. This success
was due in many ways to the ancient Celts’ battle gear. The early Roman army,
while tenacious, lacked good military gear to win all the time. They adapted
hoplite tactics used by the Etruscans into the more flexible manipular style of
fighting, however this style alone was not enough, either. Only when combined
with the protective, strong, and well-crafted Celtic armor and weapons did the
Roman army start to live up to its potential. Armor and weapons without
tactical ability was not enough for the Celts, and the Romans knew this and
changed accordingly. It is this adaptability that made the Roman army great.
Works Cited
Cowan, Ross, and Angus McBride. Roman Legionary: 58 BC - AD 69.
Oxford: Osprey, 2003. Print.
Diodore, De Sicile, and Charles Henry. Oldfather. Diodorus of Sicily: In Twelve
Volumes : [Library of History]. Cambridge
(Mass.): Harvard UP, 1977. Print.
James, Simon. The
World of the Celts. London: Thames and Hudson, 1993. Print.
McBride, Angus, and Nicholas Sekunda. Republican Roman Army: 200 - 104 BC.
London: Osprey,
2006. Print.
Sekunda, Nick, and Simon Northwood. Early Roman Armies. London:
Osprey Pub., 1995. Print.
Walbank, F. W. Polybius.
Berkeley: University of California, 1972. Print.
