Salah

By "barbarian" I am implying Germanic, and to a lesser extent Celtic, tribes of Western/Central Europe in the days of the Roman Republic and Principatal Empire (say 300 BC - AD 300).

Caesar, De Bello Gallico 1:25

By throwing down spears from their commanding position the troops easily broke the enemy's phalanx, and then drew their swords and charged. The Gauls were much hampered in action because a single spear often pierced more than one of their overlapping shields and pinned them together; and, as the iron bent, they could not pull them out.

This is part of Caesar's account of his victory over the Gaulish Helvetii, Boii, and Tulingi. It serves as a good description of the pilum's intended effect on enemy shields - later in this passage Caesar describes how the Gauls preferred to drop their shields and fight unprotected then lug around shields impaled with heavy javelins. But Caesar also - quite casually - calls the Celtic formation a "phalanx". Modern-day stereotypes of ancient Celtic warriors suggest that they were independent glory-seekers who fought as an unruly mob, not as an organized formation. Marching in a "phalanx" with "overlapping shields" would suggest otherwise.

Caesar, De Bello Gallico, 1:52

By quickly adopting their usual phalanx formation the Germans were able to withstand the sword thrusts, but many of our soldiers actually threw themselves on the wall of shields confronting them, wrenched the shields out of the enemy's hands, and stabbed them from above

This is an excerpt from Caesar's account of the route of Ariovistus and his Suebi. Note how he describes the "phalanx" as the "usual formation" of the Germans! Perhaps this is the earliest reference to the formation the "Vikings" (for lack of a better term) described as a skaldborg - a shieldwall?

Tacitus, Germania, Chapter 30

They [the Chatti] appoint picked men to lead them, and then obey them. They know how to keep rank, and how to recognize an opportunity - or else postpone their attack. They can map out the duties of the day and make sure the defences of the night. They know that fortune is not to be relied on, but only valour; and - the rarest thing of all, which the gods have vouchsafed only to a military discipline like the Roman - they place more confidence in their general than in their troops.

All their strength lies in their infantry, which, in addition to its arms, is burdened with entrenching-tools and provisions. Other tribes may be seen going forth to battle; the Chatii come out for a campaign. They seldom engage in swift rushes or in casual fighting - tactics which properly belong to the cavalry, with its quick successes and quick retreats. Speed suggests something very like fear, whereas deliberate movement rather indicates a steady courage.

Hardly the military traits of "barbarian" people - it would seem these Chatti had learned a lot being neighbors of the Romans - or maybe they simply weren't that barbaric from the onset?

Belisarius

Fair point, but the word phalanx also meant "dense mass of men", not necessarily drilled.

Zeno

And the word "barbarian" was a linguistic denomination at first, iirc. A non Greek, later a non-Roman. China was a barbarian empire, but less civilized?

Salah

I'm fully aware of this; you'll note at the beginning of my first post I stated that this thread is specifically about the Germans and to a lesser degree the Celts.

Sargon of Akkad

I think the use of the shieldwall is probably quite old amongst the Germans.

Watcher

I have always thought the word "Barbarian" to be misleading.

As pointed out above, many called others from a different culture "barbarian". Both the Greeks and Persians called each other barbarians.

I feel the more correct terminology should be "Tribal".

Salah

"Tribal" could imply at least as many people groupings throughout history as "barbarian". As I've already explained, I am referring to Gauls and Germans in this thread.

Salah

Would be interested to see what some of Historum's current members might think of this subject.

Diviacus

I cannot answer about the Germans.
But as far as the Gauls are concerned, we can say that at the time of the Roman conquest they had already learnt to fight as an organized formation.
That was certainly one of the reasons why they expanded in the 4th and 3th centuries.
But the Romans outdid them as they had a better weaponry, more disciplin, an established chain of command, a team spirit and the moral strength of their civilization.

Guaporense

They certainly considered all barbarians to have been less civilized. Indeed, the Greeks considered all the cultures inside the Persian Empire to be less civilized. And the Romans, given the small quantity of information they had about Sinae (China) they certainly considered it to be less civilized, by default.