09-22-2011, 01:26 PM
Bryan,
This thread may be of interest to you. http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat.html?fu...826#146558
There you'll find a link to a scholarly article written by fellow RAT member Fernando Quesada (aka thersites) about the nature of Iberian warfare. The Iberians, including the Celt-Iberians, fought in close order formation not unlike the Romans.
Had they really fought as disorganized hordes that wouldn't explain why it took over 200 years to conquer the whole peninsula.
To address the larger question, I think some barbarians were much more sophisticated than others. Generally speaking the more north the Romans expanded the more primitive the warfare became. Hence it took only eight years to conquer Gaul and less than that to conquer Britannia. In south-east Europe the Dacians formed a large, sophisticated kingdom.
Twenty years of intermittent warfare with Rome doesn't suggest the Dacians fought as disorderly bands, especially since they were allied with the Sarmatians who provided heavy cavalry support. This brings up the issue of external influences. The Dacians being neighbors of the Greeks probably couldn't help but become more sophisticated in warfare, however gradual the process may have been. Same for the Iberians who also had contact with the Greeks but also, especially, the Carthaginians and, later, the Romans. The peninsula was a giant playground for all these advanced civilizations which partly explains why the northern Celts, being cut off from Mediterranean influence, lagged behind. The Gauls of the East - the Galatians- were more formidable, having carved out a Hellenistic kingdom of their own in the heart of Anatolia which lasted into Roman times. Again, this fact doesn't suggest these barbarians simply charged and fled at the first sign of trouble.
~Theo
This thread may be of interest to you. http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat.html?fu...826#146558
There you'll find a link to a scholarly article written by fellow RAT member Fernando Quesada (aka thersites) about the nature of Iberian warfare. The Iberians, including the Celt-Iberians, fought in close order formation not unlike the Romans.
Had they really fought as disorganized hordes that wouldn't explain why it took over 200 years to conquer the whole peninsula.
To address the larger question, I think some barbarians were much more sophisticated than others. Generally speaking the more north the Romans expanded the more primitive the warfare became. Hence it took only eight years to conquer Gaul and less than that to conquer Britannia. In south-east Europe the Dacians formed a large, sophisticated kingdom.
Twenty years of intermittent warfare with Rome doesn't suggest the Dacians fought as disorderly bands, especially since they were allied with the Sarmatians who provided heavy cavalry support. This brings up the issue of external influences. The Dacians being neighbors of the Greeks probably couldn't help but become more sophisticated in warfare, however gradual the process may have been. Same for the Iberians who also had contact with the Greeks but also, especially, the Carthaginians and, later, the Romans. The peninsula was a giant playground for all these advanced civilizations which partly explains why the northern Celts, being cut off from Mediterranean influence, lagged behind. The Gauls of the East - the Galatians- were more formidable, having carved out a Hellenistic kingdom of their own in the heart of Anatolia which lasted into Roman times. Again, this fact doesn't suggest these barbarians simply charged and fled at the first sign of trouble.
~Theo
Jaime
