I am a newcomer to this site though, having looked through some of the past threads I note that the subject of the Ancient Britons "fighting naked" has been raised at various times. I have always considered that, when Roman writers refer to the enemy fighting naked they mean "they did not wear body armour". I know that the Greeks fought naked, or semi-naked, but there are obvious climatic differences between Greece and the British Isles. Does anyone else have an opinion on the supposedly "naked" Celtic warriors?
If you rule out the posibilty of propaganda from writing and statues, there are still sculptures by "native Celts" showing nekkid warriors. Below ara just a few examples:
Looking at it practically running around naked in our sort of weather ,not to mention battle, seems a bit extreme. However I would not rule out that a small minority might have fought naked while the majority would have been clad in trousers, tunic and shield. One of the more famous instances of nakedness concerned the Gaesatae at Telamon(225BC). Polybius describes how the Gaesatae went into battle naked, both because of their great confidence and apparently their desire not to get their clothes caught in the brambles. My opinion is that generally,in Britannia,Gaul or wherever else,most warriors would have been clad. However I stand to be corrected and any other views are very welcome.
Quote:running around naked in our sort of weather ,not to mention battle, seems a bit extreme.
Extreme - Isn't that the point? To look totally badass and intimidate the enemy, and seeing how Romans had this sort of trouble with nekkidness?
I'm still unsure on whether I see it being "without armor" or "without clothes" as the meaning of "naked"
there could be more implications to fighting nekkid and why it was such a big deal back then than we realize, cultural viewpoints and such on the body and how it's 'displayed' from ancient times may have faded and lost their full meaning today - and certainly with say here in the States, there is this pervasive "puritanical" feeling of nekkidness, it's this big deal no-no issue with so many people (yet, ironically, "superstars" prance around in practically nothing on and they're praised about it), I don't think our culture could really learn to think outside of this narrow view to better understand it.
I know if I had some hulking guy running me down looking to remove my head from my body would be pretty damn scary, even more so if he was so brazen as to charge at me with no clothes on. I think that's pretty messed up - but then is this a relgio-cultural bias I'm letting dictate how I perceive it? Did the (Romans) do this, too?
Well, I think "they fought naked" means that many of them did not wear body armour. Some understanding of Latin might throw further light on the subject, and in this context it seems to me that the Roman word for naked was probably "nudus". This, however, has several possible meanings, including not only "nude" but also exposed, unembellished, defenceless or "wearing only a tunica". It is also my understanding that fragments of Celtic armour have been discovered by archaeologists - suggesting that some, at least, of the Ancient Britons wore armour.
As for your comment about the climatic differences, last year at Lafe we spent some time shirtless and some people even less clothed. The weather was at most 45 degrees and raining and it was not that bad, adrenaline and anger make you warm pretty quickly. Another thing to think about is the fact that during the campaign season approx. for us barbarians April to October it is much warmer, it may be wet but it warm.
There is plenty of artwork showing unclothed barbarians, though it's certainly possible that some of that was "artistic license". But it does kind of imply that the *idea* of naked warriors was solidly established.
Also, beware of translations. Look at the original language and see if one single word is used for "naked", then you have to find out how that word is generally used in other literature. If it's a word that often describes people in bath houses, for instance, it seems a bit of a stretch to assume it means "wearing all their clothes but not as much armor"! But some ancient references may actually say more, such as "wearing no clothing" or something less ambiguous. In other words, don't just go by what some modern author casually mentions, find the original source and pick it apart.
Since the vast majority of barbarians did not wear armor, I don't think there's any reason for an ancient author to mention one being "naked" unless he meant a lot more than "lacking armor". There are references to people who had armor neglecting to put it on before battle (due to haste or whatever), but they are not described as "naked"--it simply says they didn't put their armor on!
If it has 4 legs and a mane and says "neigh", why think zebra?
Valete,
Matthew
Interesting...I just finished a Cimbri preview in the TWC - Roma Surrectum forum and this was and remains somewhat unclear. Tacitus says the Germani ( Cimbri / Teutones ) fought naked. But later on describes them wearing ' trousers and a short mantle or cloak ' . Naked fanatics were just that..naked. There is also reference to, IIRC, Hittite berserks that went naked into battle after working themselves into a frenzy. That reference mentions that they ' threw off their armour'. So it can mean both.
Well, anybody can believe anything they want, with or without supporting or disproving evidence. As Matthew said earlier, it's important to see what the originals said about it, and what the idiom (if any) meant in other writings. Amongst the Continental "Celts", there was a group of special warriors called Gaesatae who fought with no clothing at all. They had a religious belief that the earth goddess would protect them if they were nude, and performed the proper rituals before the battle. In really cold weather, it would be senseless to march far without at least a cloak. So odds are, they wore whatever was normal, then before the battle, stripped down, and fought with no clothing or armor, just weapons and shield.
I don't know how effective that belief system was, though. Battle accounts that I've read don't make a distinction between the naked dead and the clothed dead. (Somewhat reminiscent of the Plains Indians' belief in their "medicine (ghost) shirts" having the ability to stop bullets. Didn't work so well at Wounded Knee, if we can believe history).
Given the choice, I'd rather have armor, helmet, big old scutum, and a bunch of likeminded fellows on either side of me than attack a group of any kind of warriors in the buff. Yep. Call me faithless in that respect: I don't think the earth goddess knows who I am, let alone offers me any protection, clothed or not. But that's just me.
Fact:
Armor stops or lessens most all hand weapon wounds.
Paint doesn't.
All very true! (Though I believe the original post was questioning whether those Gaesatae you refer to were actually described as buck naked, or just not wearing armor.) However, most warriors back then couldn't afford the armor, and likely they all knew that clothing was no more than a mental defence against weapons. And since warfare was all about display and courage and getting noticed doing heroic deeds, going into battle in the buff was nothing but positive points. Face it, if you and your friends charge naked, and the enemy doesn't even hang around to fight (would you?), you win!
Now, granted, *I* would feel a whole lot safer with even just a layer of linen between my valuables and all those spears and swords, even though I know it ain't going to slow them down a bit...
Matthew
I cannot help noticing that some of those who support the "naked Celt" theory reside in North America, in which case, they may not be fully aware of the nature of the British climate. In this context, I am wondering if any clues can be found in the behaviour of native Americans, some of whom went to war in a semi-naked condition, while others wore trousers and shirts or jackets - was this anything to do with climatic differences, say between New York State and somewhere like New Mexico?
There were various tribes of Indians that lived alongside the English colonists, and some of them wore essentially a pair of leggings and a breech clout, in good weather or bad. Evidently, they had become accustomed to the temperature (it gets pretty cold sometimes, in Virginia, right Matt?) and didn't seem bothered by it, while the Colonists were wrapped in wool greatcoats. Some of the writings of the colonists remark how the Indians seems impervious to the cold.
Obviously, there are limits to that ability to resist cold. Many degrees below freezing, and they'd be in warmer gear. But the Gaesatae didn't *live* naked, they just stripped down for a battle. Those that survived, no doubt got dressed again. I've also read that various of the tribes of "Celts" would frenzy themselves by various means before the battle. This practice naturally raises the body temperature, and is practiced all over the world in hand-to-hand combat societies. Pump up the adrenaline, jump around and shout a while, and the coldness of the air seems secondary to the necessities of battle. Odds are, the battles didn't usually last for hours on end.
I'm sure you didn't mean to sound like we people who live in North America are unaware of climactic conditions in other countries, Euryalus. And remember, the main battle season was late spring to early autumn in ancient times. In winter, most everybody found good quarters, because it's too cold to tramp around in the snow looking for Romans, right?
It's in Spanish:
http://e-spacio.uned.es/fez/view.php?pi ... 970C758319
The title in English is:
The Gaul's and other warriors nakedness. Some compared notes. It's written by Joaquín Muñiz Coello, from the Huelva (Andalousia) University.
He talks about the meaning of the usual nakedness in battle of some ancient European peoples and its psychological relation with the nakedness of the American Indians.
you're not really giving up much protection, if you take your clothes off.
Now, leaving your shield at home would be a placing a far greater belief in your own abilities (or that of any divine being), probably to the point of suicide.
Quote:I cannot help noticing that some of those who support the "naked Celt" theory reside in North America, in which case, they may not be fully aware of the nature of the British climate. In this context, I am wondering if any clues can be found in the behaviour of native Americans, some of whom went to war in a semi-naked condition, while others wore trousers and shirts or jackets - was this anything to do with climatic differences, say between New York State and somewhere like New Mexico?
You must bear in mind that todays climate is not necessarily that of 400BC to AD100.