DE BELLIS BOOKSTORE

Sections

Last Updated: August 5, 2000

Contact: Chris Brantley, brant@erols.com.

Special Feature -- Book Reviews

Tim Newark's Celtic Warriors: 400 BC - AD 1600

Reviewed By Paul Rice

Celtic Warriors: 400 BC -- AD 1600, Tim Newark, with illustrations by Angus McBride (out of print)

Any book attempting to tell the story of one culture from Spain to Turkey to Ireland and most places between, and over two millennia, is going to be pretty condensed. Celtic Warriors tells the history of the Celts as much as possible through their own eyes, rather than through the eyes of their more literate neighbors who kept better records. This book also seems to have an agenda, which is sympathetic to the Celtic culture, with preference to the Welsh. Like many history books penned by British authors, this one is heavily weighted to one small geographic area. Of the five chapters, four are dedicated to the British Isles. Only the first covers all the rest of Europe. The book includes many pictures and sketches. Could desperately use some maps!

Chapter I: The Golden Age -- Celtic Europe against the Greeks and Romans 400-52 BC

The author starts the book in Macedonia, 279BCE, in Alexander's homeland fifty years after his death. Tells the story of Brennus and the sacking of Delphi.

The same group of people were called the Keltoi by the Greeks and the Galli by the Romans -- make more sense now? Newark identifies all the tribes as being Celtic mainly by their language and culture, and spends much time trying to overturn the popular image of Celts as it has been passed down the millennia by literate cultures, and present a different image. Newark goes to pains to separate the Germans from the Celts, which the Romans sometimes used interchangeably (one barbarian was as good as the next in Latin eyes).

The Celts had class structures. Yank readers should remember that may have different meaning to British writers.

Often references the Celt sacking of Rome in 390 BCE. The author gives most of the credit to their ability as superior horse warriors, a mixture of light horse and light chariots, a function of geography and time. Chariots were used primarily to transport warriors to and fro battle. Fighting from chariots was a secondary consideration.

The Celtic "Golden Age" only lasted about 100 years before the Romans began to take territory away from them. Even in the first chapter it is readily apparent to the reader why the Celts never rivaled the Romans, Greeks, etc. They fought amongst themselves constantly; even more so than the Romans or Greeks.

Newark quotes Livy, Polybius, Caesar, Appian, and other historical figures with ease. He relates many interesting anecdotes, including one where Insubres chieftain Virdomarus challenged Consul M. Claudius Marcellus to single combat. Marcellus actually accepted the challenge. Both threw their spears which missed. They closed, and Marcellus slew him in seconds, thus Romans beat the Celts at their own game.

Newark discusses the Punic wars and the impact on the Celtiberians. After the Punic wars ended, the Roman war in Spain was a smoldering guerilla war for over 50 years, with atrocities on both sides. [The Spanish countryside must lend itself handily to guerilla warfare.] It ends with a detailed account of the battle of Numantia in 133.

He gives the Cimbri and Tuetones as being German, distinct from Celtic.

Newark wraps up the chapter with several pages discussing Caesar's conquest of Gaul, mentioning various tribes. Again, Newark thinks of Gauls as Celts, whereas the German tribes pressuring them from the east are a different culture altogether. To summarize, Caesar brilliantly played tribes off each other, conquering in parts. [Furthermore, his grasp of logistics and the economics of warfare greatly surpassed the Gauls, and is still studied to this day.]

He tells the tale of Gallic chieftain Vercengetorix and his revolt against Caesar.

For you DBA players, the first chapter can boil down to two words: warbands and chariots. Among the armies listed in DBA which are associated with the Celts: Galatians, Gauls, and various tribes found in the British Isles, Ancient Spanish.

Chapter 2: The Battle for Britain: Celtic Britain against the Anglo Saxons, AD 43-800

The second chapter opens with Cuchulainn, Hound of Ulster, and the story of the cattle raid (Tain Bo Cuailnge). Newark slips into and out of mythology quite easily. Cattle raids were not so much an opportunity to increase the herd as much as a testosterone drenched chance to knock the chip off the other guy's shoulder. Presumably if this hadn't impressed the women they wouldn't have done it. Perhaps not a whole lot different than rival street gangs entering another gang's turf, a silverback challenging the alpha, or Germany invading France.

Author points out the Roman conquest really didn't change Celtic culture or way of life [...just where their taxes went. There were few "Roman" settlers in Albion, thus the Celts weren't displaced.] When Rome "left" in the fifth century, Celtic life picked up where it left off. Author distinguishes the Picts as a non-Celtic tribe. He then devolves into the extremely complex and convoluted history of England.

In this chapter the author tells the story in non-chronological order with many flashbacks -- confusing. I've tried to clean it up.

Touches on a Roman leader from England who seized Roman power, Postumus [ca. 200]. Carusius, a Belgian, built a small base in Britain and proclaimed himself Emperor ca. 296. Carusius got the real emperor's attention and lost. Touches on Magnus Maximus, who proclaimed himself emperor in 383. [These guys really had no grasp of the geographic expanse of the empire, kind of like if Al Capone had seized Chicago and then declared himself President]. Naturally, the Celts finally figured out they were the actual power in western Europe, and eventually broke away from Rome.

One Vortigren, Romano-Celtic leader of south-eastern England, made the mistake of hiring Saxon mercenaries and settling them in his border zones. Hengist, leader of the Saxons, called for reinforcements, and as Machiavelli and Pournelle warned us, the mercs eventually decided to take over. By 440 the Saxons were on the attack against the Britons. "In this devastation by the pagans there was no burial to be had except in the ruins of houses or the bellies of beasts and birds." [Now what kind of whining is that for a good barbarian? Beats dying of old age!] It comes as no surprise that the non-combatants suffered the worst. Within 50 years the Saxons were major players in English history.

Author defines the Bretons as the offshoots of primarily Romano-Gallic warlords and secondarily Romano-British aristocracy fleeing the west from invading Irish. The Bretons fought off the Goths, Franks, and Merovingian and Carolingian dynasties, and Charlemagne.

Book gives the tale of 5th century Breton leader Ecdicius who invaded France.

One of Vortigren's rivals was a chap named Ambrosius. When he died, he "was replaced by an equally competent warlord, a major Romano-British land-owner and expert leader of horsemen: Arthur."

This is one of our first inklings of Newark's partiality towards the Welsh. Newark tells the tale of Arthur as if it is completely factual, thus disagreeing with that research which places the origins of the Arthur tale originating on the continent before it crossed the channel. It is perhaps more likely the Arthur legend was in Celtic mythology for several centuries or longer, perhaps by a different name, when in the fifth century a local warlord decided to align himself with the myth. Newark places Arthur as a Christian, which certainly by the time of Malory's codification several centuries later he was.

Newark refers to the Saxons invaders as Germans. In 603 St. Augustine initiated a war between the English (Anglo-Saxons/ Germans) and the British (Romano-Celts). At the battle of Chester, 1200 Celtic monks were slaughtered [military casualty figures were not provided.]

Along with fighting the Anglo-Saxons, the British had to fight Celtic raiders from Ireland: the Scotti. Author claims these Irish (Celts) were the origins of the Scottish people, who displaced the Picts. [Hence the DBA "Scots-Irish" should probably read "Irish-Scots".]

After stating the "Picts were an ancient race", he confuses matters stating the Picts were descendants of 1st century Caledonians.

Newark often states the superiority of Celtic light horse.

The last great heyday of the Picts was when Angus mac Fergus captured Dalriada in 740. Eventually the Scots forced the Picts into the highlands. In 843, Scots King Kenneth mac Alpin claimed the Pictish throne, and the two were united.

In the sixth century the Gododdin (Celts) in north eastern Britain fought the invading Angles. Newark tells the tale of British warlord Mynydogg in his battles against the Angles. Seems that Mynydogg paid his men in mead and wine. They were loyal, fierce, successful warriors until one time he paid their rations right before a battle. They were so drunk they lost the battle.

Newark integrates contemporary poetry.

By the seventh century the Anglo-Saxons (Germans) were a permanent presence, and owned the better half of the land in Britain. The war fizzled. The Celtic tribes went back to cattle raids and fighting each other. At the end of the eighth century, the Anglo-Saxon vs. Celtic stalemate status quo was shattered by invaders from the north: Vikings.

Chapter 3: The Northern Menace -- Ireland and Britain against the Vikings and Normans, AD 800-1200

Chapter opens with an Ulster chronology listing the burning of this, the pillaging of that, year after year.

More references to the Vikings on horseback, contrary to DBA.

From the book the Wars of the Gaedhil and the Gaill: "There were countless sea-vomitings of ships and boats...They made spoil-land and sword-land...They enslaved our blooming, lively women, taking them over the broad green sea." Generally tells the tale of the Vikings looting Ireland and that little island east of it. [This is a good point to mention that DBA references "Ostmen" and "Gall Gaedhil". Skimming books at the (Springfield) libraries, I found rare references to the former, and no references to the latter other than this book. "Gaedhil" means Irish and "Gaill" means foreigner. However, there were numerous references to the Leinstermen, who simply enough were men from Leinster; and the Galloglas, who were Norse-Scot mercenary heavy infantry.]

First introduction to Wales. Gwynedd was in the north. The Vikings attacked and found victory more expensive than against the English and Irish, so they generally avoided Wales after that [not mentioning for reasons of terrain and geography].

The Vikings built towns and settlements along the Irish coasts, including founding Dublin, and made occasional raids inland and exacted tribute. Norwegian Vikings, Danish Vikings, and different Irish factions all fought each other, alliances shifting constantly. The Irish were far too busy fighting each other to make an effective stand against the Norsemen. The Vikings made no attempt to rid the Irish of their culture [this becomes significant later], although of course they stole their women. Irish armies soon began to resemble Viking armies.

Book then goes into the tale of Brian Boru, agreeing nicely with one of my other sources which I referenced a few months back. Still more references to mounted Vikings at the battle of Limerick. Brian won, and sacked Limerick, raping, enslaving, or killing all survivors, and burning the town down. [Brian had apparently not read Herodotus's tale of Croesus and Cyrus.]

Brian campaigned and slowly built his power base. The O'Neills were the powerful family in the north, and when Brian won them over he pretty much was the top Irish man in Ireland. Author describes the battle of Clontarf, as I've related in detail before: Brian Boru wins but dies, and the Vikings are pushed out of Ireland. Of course by that time much of the blood line in Ireland was Scandinavian.

Newark claims the reason the Vikings established permanent settlements in north and east England, but not in Scotland and Wales was due to the ferocity of the Celtic warriors in the latter two areas, vice the Anglo-Saxons defending England. He fails to state the reason could also be the portion we now call England had the best land.

The Norwegians settled in the Faroe and Orkney islands, and began to attack Scotland. Newark now discusses the historical angle of Macbeth, a local warlord who, after defeating Duncan in the battle of Moray Firth, seized the crown in 1040 and ruled for 17 years. One of Macbeth's wings was commanded by Thorfinn Sigurdsson, clearly a Norse name. This seems to have been a battle of Scots and Vikings vs. Scots and Irish.

In 1054, the English-backed Malcolm -- Duncan's son -- with Anglo-Saxon and Danish armies, attacked Macbeth in the "Birnam Wood do come to Dunsinane" battle. The battle killed 3000 Scots and 1500 English and Danes, but was a draw. In 1057 Malcolm attacked again and this time won decisively, killing Macbeth, and was crowned king. "Far from being a tyrant, Macbeth could be called the last of the truly Celtic kings of Scotland."

Then the Normans arrived, which I won't bother to relate again. One wing of William's army was composed of Bretons (who Newark calls Celts), who settled in Wales. Kite shields seem to arrive the same time as the Normans.

The Welsh then fought a mountain/forest guerilla war against the Normans and their Lords of the Marches. [Good description of Welsh armies starting at page 74. For DBA purposes it's a token knight or two, a token bow or two, and a lot of aux and psi.] Over the centuries various factions allied, and the land changed hands many times. By 1137 the Welsh (Celtic) had regained control of most of the area.

Back to the Scottish frontier, William II established what is still the frontier at Carlisle. The Lowlands started swaying toward the Norman direction -- the Highlands remained Celtic.

In 1166 Leinsterman Dermot MacMurrough abducted O'Rourke's wife, and the island went to war (hadn't these guys heard of Helen and the Trojan Wars?). The Marchers and some Welsh backed Dermot, and invaded Ireland. Army sizes are approaching medieval proportions. This army which invaded was only 30 knights, 60 other horse, and 360 foot. [A thousand years earlier a Roman legion had that many men on latrine duty, and Rome had thirty legions.]

More references to Irish horse. The "English" ran a simultaneous propaganda war against the Irish. The Marcher leader FitzStephen seiged Wexford, and then burned his ships. Seeing this, the next day the town surrendered. The townsfolk then joined Dermot and all went on a rampage throughout the land, collecting 200 heads. [I'm dubious the townsfolk joined so eagerly.] Dermot then took on O'Connor, high king of Ireland, and secured Leinster. Fitzgerald arrived with 140 Norman-Welsh reinforcements, and they took Dublin. After that the war devolved into a guerilla action for a few years.

In 1170 Strongbow arrived with 200 knights and 1000 archers and foot, took Waterford and then retook Dublin [which had since fallen back to the Vikings? -- dubious]. Dermot now went after O'Rourke, who by this time had accepted Dermot's son as a peace hostage. When Dermot attacked, O'Rouke executed his hostage son. Dermot and O'Rouke died, and Strongbow found himself in de facto charge of Ireland. Henry II grew worried at Strongbow's growing strength and froze any supplies or reinforcements to Strongbow.

Meanwhile, Viking Haskulf saw a power vacuum and sixty ships of Norsemen went after Dublin. They lost to the Normans. A Viking fleet and O'Connor's army, with men from Connacht, Meath, Leinster, Ulster, and Wexford, combined to blockade Dublin. After two months of siege, Strongbow and the Normans sallied forth and charged the Irish, who broke and ran. Free again and out of supplies, Strongbow reaffirmed his loyalty to Henry II, and Henry II invaded w/ [what must have been considered a large army at the time] 240 ships, 500 knights, plus archers and light horse. Henry II then paraded through Ireland and all bowed before him without bloodshed.

As soon as Henry left, Strongbow and O'Connor went at it again. The next year Strongbow died so the Irish went back to fighting each other.

In the thirteenth century Norwegian King Magnus attacks Ireland again, but is killed in a wooded ambush, and the Vikings sail back home.

[ Continue to Part II ]

De Bellis Bookstore | Rice's Reviews | DBA Resource Page | Fanaticus