Celtic siege abilities

As to Celts and Germans being no good at attacking walled cities, I'm sure the occupants of Rome during the Gallic invasion by Brennus would beg to differ, not to mention the denizens of Rome present for Alaric's party some centuries later!

The exclamation point is misplaced. In both cases, the gates were unlocked. In the latter case, the walls kept out the barbarians long enough that the Romans were starving.

The exclamation point is misplaced. In both cases, the gates were unlocked. In the latter case, the walls kept out the barbarians long enough that the Romans were starving.

There was no city wall when Brennus attacked, the Servian wall was built afterward.

Even better for my point! BTW, did anyone find anything in the Gallic Wars about the Celts possessing siege works?

The exclamation point is misplaced. In both cases, the gates were unlocked. In the latter case, the walls kept out the barbarians long enough that the Romans were starving.

 

There was no city wall when Brennus attacked, the Servian wall was built afterward.

With a nod to my more learned colleagues, archeological evidence suggests the Servian walls extended and strengthened existing walls. In the case of Alaric, the point was that the skill of the northern tribes in taking advanced fortifications has several historic proofs.

Even better for my point!

That's why I posted.

did anyone find anything in the Gallic Wars about the Celts possessing siege works?

No, but it's a slow day today.........I will bend my PC to the task.

From the Gallic wars :-

Seige of Noviodunum - Indicating the Gauls were amazed at the Romans seige works, having never seen the like before.

The vineae having been quickly brought up against the town, a mound thrown up, and towers built, the Gauls, amazed by the greatness of the works, such as they had neither seen nor heard of before, and struck also by the dispatch of the Romans, send embassadors to Caesar respecting a surrender

From the Gallic wars :-

 

Seige of Noviodunum - Indicating the Gauls were amazed at the Romans seige works, having never seen the like before.

 

The vineae having been quickly brought up against the town, a mound thrown up, and towers built, the Gauls, amazed by the greatness of the works, such as they had neither seen nor heard of before, and struck also by the dispatch of the Romans, send embassadors to Caesar respecting a surrender

Perfect! That's what I'm talking about!

In the case of Alaric, the point was that the skill of the northern tribes in taking advanced fortifications has several historic proofs.

Then provide the proofs. Until then, I don't buy it at all. They didn't have siege works, so as long as the Romans could call in reinforcements, the northern tribes had to stick to their typical raiding campaigns.

...

With a nod to my more learned colleagues, archeological evidence suggests the Servian walls extended and strengthened existing walls. In the case of Alaric, the point was that the skill of the northern tribes in taking advanced fortifications has several historic proofs.

I'm not sure what the proof is. Although it can be guessed that the Goths of the 5th century were able to lay siege to smaller cities with lesser defensive works perhaps, just after Adrianople they marched on Constantinople and on seeing the city walls promptly turned around realizing they didn't couldn't lay siege to it and later in the early 5th century in Northern Italy they couldn't take Milan in a siege

Alaric's "sack" of Rome, during his fourth "siege", was because the Salarian Gate was opened for him by an inside job of one sort or another. It should be noted that by this time it wasn't even the seat of the emperor, Ravenna was. Rome was undermanned so much so that during one of the earlier sieges by Alaric 6,000 Roman soldiers had tried to fight their way into the city to help man the defensive works.

Just thought this could be a separate thread. Go on....please.

From the northern people is sure that dacians had good siege abilities in the times of Caesar as they razed several greek colonies in western and northen Pontus/Black Sea (Histria, Olbia and another one?) and controlled the rest when they were ruled by Burebista.

I believe that dacians were the most advanced of "barbarians" because they recevied influence from greeks, south tracians, celts and scyths and later from the romans. Several campaigns in the area by macedonians gave them modern tactics knowledge. This added to ample natural resources made them quite good warriors.

I don't believe that gauls had, at any time, siege weapons and tactics.

From the northern people is sure that dacians had good siege abilities in the times of Caesar as they razed several greek colonies in western and northen Pontus/Black Sea (Histria, Olbia and another one?) and controlled the rest when they were ruled by Burebista.

Any evidence that these Greek colonies were defended by fortified walls?

Dacia, I would not clssify as backwards in any means. Just because Romans used the term barbarian does not mean they were backwards. Bulgarian archeologists just unearthed a string of mounds rewriting early European history of goldworking. Thriacians were well known for their metal works and were far ahead of the Romans in this. The time ranges of the findings were fin 4000 BC thru 800 AD and the caliber and abundance of the finely wrought work suggest the region was a center in ancient Europe. Unexpected technical expertise and a cache of 15,000 gold artifacts so meticulously crafted that the seams are invisible to the naked eye.

January 2006 Discover magazine

...

With a nod to my more learned colleagues, archeological evidence suggests the Servian walls extended and strengthened existing walls. In the case of Alaric, the point was that the skill of the northern tribes in taking advanced fortifications has several historic proofs.

 

I'm not sure what the proof is. Although it can be guessed that the Goths of the 5th century were able to lay siege to smaller cities with lesser defensive works perhaps, just after Adrianople they marched on Constantinople and on seeing the city walls promptly turned around realizing they didn't couldn't lay siege to it and later in the early 5th century in Northern Italy they couldn't take Milan in a siege

 

Alaric's "sack" of Rome, during his fourth "siege", was because the Salarian Gate was opened for him by an inside job of one sort or another. It should be noted that by this time it wasn't even the seat of the emperor, Ravenna was. Rome was undermanned so much so that during one of the earlier sieges by Alaric 6,000 Roman soldiers had tried to fight their way into the city to help man the defensive works.

This is all well after Caesar's time at least, when the Celts were still a power of some degree. Even so, the Goths or any barbarian in these later days for that matter, could potentially hire mercenaries from civilized lands to do the siegecraft for them.

This is all well after Caesar's time at least, when the Celts were still a power of some degree. Even so, the Goths or any barbarian in these later days for that matter, could potentially hire mercenaries from civilized lands to do the siegecraft for them.

But is there any evidence that they actually did?

I must confess to my lack of knowledge on the subject at hand, though general knowledge of the time tells me that in terms of seige warfare and its sophistication, the celtics were just about as "primitive" or "advanced" as any other culture in the world (the eurasian world anyways)

The only thing majorly different with tactics is

A. a lack of extensive stone fortifications of the "barbarian" tribes and entities which consequently lead to trouble sieging citys that used such fortifications, and also a lack of knowledge on how to defend these, considering they didn't have the experiance to develop things such as boiling oil and also the advanced metal plated seige towers of the mediteranian (or in motzart's words, the Merdeteranian)

B. A different Fighting style and warrior armorment.