WI Cimbren and Teutones sticked together

Lets not forget that the Cimbri-Teutones had dealt numerous brutal defeats on the Romans consistently for seven years before until Marius took charge of the situation during his fourth consulship. Now you blame that on the manpower shortage or the animosity of the Roman commanders if you want. But even sources from Caesar mentioned the Gauls and even the Suebi as fighting in something akin to a phalanx formation, while Polybios speaks of the Romans as being "intimidated by the fine battle order of the Celtic host" at the Battle of Telamon. So it is an inaccurate assumption that northern European tribal societies consistently fought in unplanned headlong rushes.

and thats true:D

didnt know about the Phalanx part though..only about shield walls
heey...I just learned something..thanks:D
 
Don't get carried away by the word.
Historians, both greek and roman alike, tended to refer to the classical greek historians (Thucidides, Xenophon, etc.) and use their terms to describe things, to give a proper glint to their own account and make it sound as the "old masters" ones.
In this context "phalanx" means just "a body of men in more-or-less close formation".
The same word is used to describe hosts of romans from the legions, germans raiders, celt warbands, celthiberian hosts, libyan infantry units.
 
Don't get carried away by the word.
Historians, both greek and roman alike, tended to refer to the classical greek historians (Thucidides, Xenophon, etc.) and use their terms to describe things, to give a proper glint to their own account and make it sound as the "old masters" ones.
In this context "phalanx" means just "a body of men in more-or-less close formation".
The same word is used to describe hosts of romans from the legions, germans raiders, celt warbands, celthiberian hosts, libyan infantry units.

I wont;)
I was familiar with the loose meaning, I just wassnt aware it aplied to the people you just named
 
Its easy to see how a shieldwall could be seen as a phalanx by Mediterranean. Military discipline is not something that was only practiced by the militaries in the Mediterranean societies. If "northern tribes" did war among themselves frequently, then there is no reason to think that innovation wouldn't have taken place in their methods. No doubt, people like the Celts had stronger leanings toward chivalry than either the Romans or Greeks thought was necessary, but there were reasons why Celts were widely employed as mercenaries, and were feared by people whom lived close to them. And personally, I don't think it has much to do with the "noble savage" thing. If individual prowess was what really defined their way of warfare, they wouldn't have have won as many battles as they did nor have enjoyed their reputation with the Greeks, Romans or Carthaginians.
 
Last edited:
Its easy to see how a shieldwall could be seen as a phalanx by Mediterranean. Military discipline is not something that was only practiced by the militaries in the Mediterranean societies. If "northern tribes" did war among themselves frequently, then there is no reason to think that innovation wouldn't have taken place in their methods. No doubt, people like the Celts had stronger leanings toward chivalry than either the Romans or Greeks thought was necessary, but there were reasons why Celts were widely employed as mercenaries, and were feared by people whom lived close to them. And personally, I don't think it has much to do with the "noble savage" thing. If individual prowess was what really defined their way of warfare, they wouldn't have have won as many battles as they did nor have enjoyed their reputation with the Greeks, Romans or Carthaginians.

true, true;)

So I cant see anny reason why it woudltn apply on the Cimbren and Teutones, mostly because crossing half the "Celtic" world would at least leave som marks on your fighting style.

didnt the Gauls have heavy cavalry. I have read somewhere even Ceasar wassnt very happy facing the gallic cavalry
 
Top