The following was written for the AEthelmearc Gazette

Ask Another Laurel - Skyclad warriors.

by Caleb Reynolds

Did the Celts really fight naked?

Bronze statue of a naked Celtic warrior with horned helmet
and torc. Originally from northern Italy, and presently in the
Antikensammlung (SMPK), Berlin

We must understand that language is not constant; it is ever flowing and ever changing, based on the time and place it is uttered. A subsidy used to be an English tax on moveable goods. Now it is a payment from the government to cover in whole or in part the cost of something. Pain is different in English than in French. What was said can have quite different meanings based on context. One of my absolute favorite phrases is from Homer: "The wine-dark sea". Almost 3000 years later and that phrase still evokes imagery. And confusion. There has been this idea, that started in the 19th century, that the Greeks mixed their wine with some kind of alkaline substance that turned their red wine blue; under the assumption that the Mediterranean Sea is a clear blue, therefore "wine-dark sea" must mean blue since the ancient Greeks didn't have an equivalent word to our "blue". But in order to translate from one language to another, it is not only necessary to know both languages, but the context of the text. [1]

Oînops póntos can be literally translated to wine-faced sea, as in the red face of one who has drunk too much wine, or wine-eyed sea, or blood-shot eyed. Homer uses the phrase over a dozen times in both the Iliad and the Odyssey. In context, Homer was either describing rough seas, as like to the reddish face of a drunkard about to explode into rage, or describing the sea at sun-rise or sun-set, where the low hanging sun turns the water red. A wonderful visual of setting sail so early in the morning that the sea is red, or just reaching land as Helios departs for His slumber. Homer also uses it as an metaphor of the bloodshed Odysseus leaves behind as he moves from one island to another: the sea is figuratively stained with blood because of the actions of Nobody.

So, when writers of antiquity say that the Celts fought naked, what did they mean. Did they literally fight wearing only their birthday suits: unclothed? Or did they fight not wearing armor: unarmored? Or did the Celts fight outside of the strict formations the Romans and Greeks used: undressed, as we would say in modern, military terms. Or, did they mean something else, entirely?

We do know from ancient Roman and Greek texts that the Gauls did not fight shoulder to shoulder with interlocking shields, like the Romans or Greeks did, but in loose, open groups that could quickly be deployed from one area to another. A Roman soldier, used to fighting in a phalanx, would most definitely comment on this. A single Roman soldier, even in full armor, would be overwhelmed; their main defense was the mass formation of troops who protected one another. "Look at these barbarians. Too simple to fight in dress formation. Practically naked, out there." Diodorus Siculus wrote that the Celts, "when they are formed for battle, to step out in front of the line and to challenge the most valiant men from among their opponents to single combat, brandishing their weapons in front of them to terrify their adversaries."

The Roman Legions were also pretty unique in the ancient world. Most soldiers did not wear metal armor. Bronze and iron were expensive and turning it into armor was a luxury that most citizen-soldiers could not afford. Most soldiers were part time warriors, and conscripted farmers might have a helmet and a shield issued to them, but little else. While some veterans of war might have kept armor they had looted, most made do with the clothes on the their backs or with cloth armor, like linothorax. People slightly higher up on the wealth ladder might invest in leather armor. Professional soldiers and their commanders might have metal armor as befits their stations. But Rome equipped their Legions with standardized metal armor. From the newest recruit to the generals; the entire army was fully armored in bronze or iron. The Spartans were also fully armored in bronze but they were the exception in Greek culture and the Spartans never really had a huge standard army. [2]

Imagine if you would, you and your buddies do street racing. Y'all have some tricked out Hondas, you might have a '68 Mustang or a '73 Stingray and y'all think that y'all are the best. Then along comes a new team of racers and they all show up driving Bugatti V1100 supercars and they have their own pit crew that follows them around. That would be the the Roman Legon. You show up to fight wearing linen armor and your captain has a leather breastplate and a fancy iron helm but each Roman is wearing more metal than you see in a year and there are 10,000 of them. By comparison, the you would be figuratively naked.

We are told that the ancient Celts charged into battle, against the Roman Legions, wearing only a shield and smile. We have many contemporaneous account of the nakedness of the Celts. Nakedness was not a unusual thing in the ancient world, particularly with the Greeks and Romans, who participated in sports and games sans clothing. Depictions of gladiators represent them as wearing minimal clothing, and those that wore armor were not covered head to toe; there was plenty of skin to show the gathered crowds.

The "Battersea Shield" is a bronze Celtic shield facing from
the 4th - 1st Century BCE. The shield facing is decorated with red
enamel in the La Tene style, and was probably made in Britain. From
the British Museum in London.

But in warfare? In active combat? Do we have any actual first hand accounts?

First, I think we can set aside the statues, friezes, and victory columns of the ancient Greeks and Romans. I think that their representation of naked warriors is an artistic approach that glorifies the human body rather than an actual depiction of combat. While we do have plenty of examples of naked Roman Legionnaires fighting, in artwork, most surviving examples of the stela of dead legionnaires depict the soldier wearing armor. Christopher H. Hallett wrote in "The Roman nude: heroic portrait statuary 200 B.C.-A.D. 300" that soldiers and rulers "were given “heroic” costume (nude with weapons) basically to symbolize “agonal qualities and youthful vigor". Other writers indicate that the Romans often depicted defeated or captured enemies as naked as symbolically defenseless against the might of Rome.

But, what did the Greeks and Romans actually write? What were their contemporaneous accounts?

Plutarch wrote that the Spartans would remove their armor and charge at an enemy that the Spartans wanted to humiliate, although he does not give any exact circumstances where this might have happened. Nor does any other writer from that time period. This might be part of the Spartan myth, or might have been a tall tale invented by Plutarch, since his was the earliest mention of this behavior.

Livy tells of how the Tolistobogii of Galatia fought naked: "They did battle naked, armed with large shields, long swords, and any available stones". ("The History of Rome", Book 38) He also wrote, "The fact that they fight naked makes their wounds conspicuous and their bodies are fleshy and white, as is natural, since they are never uncovered except in battle; so that both more blood flowed from their abundant flesh and the wounds stood out to view more fearfully and the whiteness of their skins was more stained by the black blood." But, in the paragraph beforehand, Livy wrote, "Their shields, long, but not wide enough for the size of their bodies and, moreover, flat, offered poor protection to the Gauls. They had at this time no other weapons than their swords, for which there was no use, since the enemy did not meet them in hand-to-hand conflict. Stones —but not of suitable size, since they had made no preparations in advance, but took each what happened to come to his hand in his hasty search —they did use, but like men untrained in their employment, with neither skill nor strength to add effectiveness to the blow." This sounds more like the Gauls were caught off guard and unprepared than their standard battle procedure. It's backed up by Livy's comment in Book 26 where he wrote that the Tolistobogii soldiers each carried seven javelins into battle. This sounds more like Livy was trying to make a Roman victory over surprised, unprepared, unarmored soldiers a bigger deal than it was.

The Greek historian Polybius wrote about the Gaesatae, mercenaries hired by the Celtic tribes the Boii and Insubres to fight with them at the Battle of Telamon in 225BC. From Book II of "Histories": "This order of the Celtic forces, facing both ways, not only presented a formidable appearance, but was well adapted to the exigencies of the situation. The Insubres and Boii wore their trousers and light cloaks, but the Gaesatae had discarded these garments owing to their proud confidence in themselves, and stood naked, with nothing but their arms, in front of the whole army, thinking that thus they would be more efficient, as some of the ground was overgrown with brambles which would catch in their clothes and impede the use of their weapons. At first the battle was confined to the hill, all the armies gazing on it, so great were the numbers of cavalry from each host combating there pell-mell."

And then a couple of pages later: "The Romans, however, were on the one hand encouraged by having caught the enemy between their two armies, but on the other they were terrified by the fine order of the Celtic host and the dreadful din, for there were innumerable horn-blowers and trumpeters, and, as the whole army were shouting their war-cries at the same time, there was such a tumult of sound that it seemed that not only the trumpets and the soldiers but all the country round had got a voice and caught up the cry. Very terrifying too were the appearance and the gestures of the naked warriors in front, eight all in the prime of life, and finely built men, and all in the leading companies richly adorned with gold torques and armlets. The sight of them indeed dismayed the Romans, but at the same time the prospect of winning such spoils made them twice as keen for the fight. But when the javelineers advanced, as is their usage, from the ranks of the Roman legions and began to hurl their javelins in well-aimed volleys, the Celts in the rear ranks indeed were well protected by their trousers and cloaks, but it fell out far otherwise than they had expected with the naked men in front, and they found themselves in a very difficult and helpless predicament. For the Gaulish shield does not cover the whole body; so that their nakedness was a disadvantage, and the bigger they were the better chance had the missiles of going home."

Polybius is considered one of classical Europe's greatest historians. He traveled as far as he could, visiting battle sites, interviewing survivors, copying down inscriptions and after-action reports. We can take his writing perhaps not as gospel, but as the baseline of accurate reporting. I have no doubt that Polybius used the best information that he could gather. He even joined in on the combat in Carthage, in the company of Scipio Aemilianus, so that he could write effectively of what fighting in a shield wall actually felt like. That being said, eight naked warriors at the, I hesitate to say, tip of the spear, doesn't sound like a normal fighting formation. It sounds more like the behavior of champions. Or, as more modern writers would put it, as ritual sacrifices to the Celtic gods of war. To charge into battle naked, with only a sword and shield, sounds like intentional suicide. A "good death" as the Spartans would say. Some modern writers call these warriors "religious fanatics", but in that time and place, charging into battle with nothing more than a smile would make for a legendary, nay, heroic death. The stuff of legends and would guarantee a place in what ever afterlife one could ask for. It might also convey riches or privileges to one's offspring. And if you survived, you would be treated as a king.

The Greek historian Diodorus Siculus, writing in the 1st century BCE, says the Celts "think so little of death that they fight wearing only a loincloth, without armour of any kind." But he also wrote "Some use iron breast-plates in battle, while others fight naked, trusting only in the protection which nature gives." So, some wore armor and some wore nothing. Writing almost two hundred years after the Battle of Telamon, Diodorus praises the Gauls' quality of armor, shields and swords while at the same time saying that they also fought naked.

Strabo, another 1st century Greek historian, wrote extensively about the Celts north of the Alps and frequently mentioned how lazy they were, while at home, and how few clothes they wore, while at home. But he also wrote, "The Gallic armour is commensurate with the large size of their bodies" and describes the armor in very decent detail.

Celtic warrior`s garments, replicas. In the museum
Kelten-Keller, Rodheim-Bieber, Germany - WikiPedia Commons

Pliny is often quoted as one of the sources for naked soldiers in battle, but while I have found several references to the Celts fighting sans armor, I was unable to find any sources of Pliny describing actual naked people fighting. Victorian translations of Trajan's Dacian Wars tell that the Dacians fought naked, but modern translations use "defenseless" instead. The Victorians also produced plenty of pictures of buff, nude Celts for their history books. I wonder if they used the literal translation for the salacious imagery rather than for the pursuit of historical accuracy.

Both Polybius and Livy wrote about the mercenaries Hannibal employed at the Battle of Cannae. Polybius describes them as fighting completely naked and Livy describes them as fighting bare chested. It must be noted that the army of Hannibal was geared for hit-and-run guerrilla warfare rather than for stand-up fighting. Lightly or unarmored troops would make sense. And there is evidence that Italy was experiencing higher than normal average temperatures during Hannibal's invasion: it is likely that his troops took every opportunity to strip down to stay cool. This might explain why Roman soldiers had such a difficult time trying to corner Hannibal: if there was a heat wave, fully armored Roman soldiers would have been hard pressed to keep up with light infantry who were able to ditch heat retaining, metal armor.

The Picts of Scotland are wildly claimed to have charged into battle naked, but Cassius Dio, one of our best sources of the Picts living North of Hadrian's Wall, never described the Picts as fighting naked, only living naked ([The Caledonians] ...they dwell in tents, naked and unshod.) Cassius describes both the Caledonians and the Maeatae tribes as "They go into battle in chariots, and have small, swift horses; there are also foot-soldiers, very swift in running and very firm in standing their ground. For arms they have a shield and a short spear, with a bronze apple attached to the end of the spear-shaft, so that when it is shaken it may clash and terrify the enemy; and they also have daggers." He also describes the pictish warriors as wearing colorful pants and cloaks with painted or tattooed bare chests.

So, we do have a few contemporaneous sources for some Celts fighting shirtless or completely in the buff, but does that mean that they all did? What examples do we have of Celts wearing armor?

Cassius Dio writing on Boudica's revolt said, "Our opponents, however, can neither pursue anybody, by reason of their heavy armour, nor yet flee; and if they ever do slip away from us, they take refuge in certain appointed spots, where they shut themselves up as in a trap."

Strabo said of the Lusitanians, Celts living on modern day Portugal and Western Spain, "[They] wear linen cuirasses; a few wear chain-wrought cuirasses and helmets with three crests, but the rest wear helmets made of sinews. The foot-soldiers wear greaves also, and each soldier has several javelins; and some also make use of spears, and the spears have bronze heads."

Appian of Alexandria, writing some two hundred years after the battle of Magnesia in the Seleucid War, described the Galatians as "mail-clad."

Gallo-Roman statue of a Gaul warrior wearing Roman clothes
and weapons - WikiPedia Commons.

The Roman historian and linguist Varro describes the word "lorica" as being derived from armor made of leather straps called lori, "but afterwards, the Gallic corselet of iron, an iron tunic made of rings, was included in the same word."

Plutarch wrote in detail about the arms and armor of the enemies of Rome. Of the Cimbri tribe, "They wore helmets, made to resemble the heads and jaws of wild beasts, and other strange shapes, and heightening these with plumes of feathers, they made themselves appear taller than they were. They had breastplates of iron, and white glittering shields; and for their offensive arms, every one had two darts, and when they came hand to hand, they used large and heavy swords." And of King Britomartus, "The king of the Gauls […] with his armour, that was adorned with gold and silver and various colours, shining like lightning. These arms seeming to Marcellus, while he viewed the enemy’s army drawn up in battalia, to be the best and fairest, and thinking them to be those he had vowed to Jupiter, he instantly ran upon the king, and pierced through his breastplate with his lance."

Plenty of ancient writers described the iron and leather armor of the soldiers of Concolitanus and Aneroëstus, the joint leaders of Celtic mercenaries who terrorized Roman settlements in Northern Italy. Diodorus Siculus wrote "For armour they use long shields, as high as a man, which are wrought in a manner peculiar to them, some of them even having the figures of animals embossed on them in bronze, and these are skillfully worked with an eye not only to beauty but also to protection."

The 2nd Century Greek geographer Pausianas wrote of the Gaulish invasion of Greece, "The Gauls were worse armed than the Greeks, having no other defensive armour than their national shields, while they were still more inferior in war experience." Pausianas was writing about "The Other Battle of Thermopylae" which took place in the 3rd century BCE. The above line was written a few paragraphs after, "Hither Brennus sent some ten thousand Gauls, picking out the swimmers and the tallest men; and the Celts as a race are far taller than any other people. So these crossed in the night, swimming over the river where it expands into a lake; each man used his shield, his national buckler, as a raft, and the tallest of them were able to cross the water by wading." This sounds more like an unarmored strike force than a full company of soldiers. Particularly if they had to swim across a river. This might reinforce the idea of naked Celts if this strike force striped down to their ancient skivies in order to swim across the river. Pausianas does not describe the armor of the Celts, during the invasion, in any detail: armor was only mentioned in passing, as in this paragraph about the Celts and Phoncians, who were allies, mistaking each other for the enemy: "So rushing to arms they divided into two parties, killing and being killed, neither understanding their mother tongue nor recognizing one another's forms or the shape of their shields. Both parties alike under the present delusion thought that their opponents were Greek, men and armour, and that the language they spoke was Greek, so that a great mutual slaughter was wrought among the Gauls by the madness sent by the god."

But, equal in number are the references to the clothing worn by the Celts, what we might call plaid, today, and their heavy cloaks of wool. I think that this is keeping with the fact that most soldiers on the ancient battle field were only part time soldiers and farmers don't need fancy armor for the occasional fight they might be involved in. We also have plenty of sources describing how the Celts fought bare chested, showing off tattoos or body paint. In fact, the word Pict comes to us from the Roman Picti, meaning painted one. I think that we can draw the conclusion that without armor, many Celts attempted to use intimidation and bluster to cow their opponents. Think of modern football fans at a game, bare chested and covered in body paint, hooting and hollaring. Or, go on the YouTubes and watch a Haka challenge. Either one from a rugby match or from the Māori themselves: unarmored and covered in tattoos, shouting a challenge at anyone who would dare to stand up to them. You don't need armor if people are too afraid to fight you.

I could possibly write a book about all of the ancient references to ancient Celtic armor, and the various translations of ancient text, so I will end this with one final note. If the Celts regularly fought naked, why didn't Julius Caesar, in his "Commentaries on the Gallic Wars", mention it once? Nine years of observations and not once does he mention naked Celts. He does describe the armor the Gauls wore, and the clothing worn by the unarmored soldiers, but no salacious account of naked people. The closest I was able to find was a mention of how King Teutomarus managed to escape from a surprise attack, wounded and bare chested.

So, I think that we can make the following conclusions:

1) Warriors stripping naked on the battle field was such a rare occurrence that it had to be mentioned.

2) Soldiers surprised in their encampments did not take the time to get dressed before rushing to defend themselves.

3) There were circumstances that required the Celts to remove their clothes, i.e.: extreme heat, swimming across a river.

4) Most Celtic participants on the battle field weren't full-time soldiers and did not have any armor to wear and chose to look menacing by going bare chested and showing off body paint or tattoos, like some uber-macho shirts vs skins game.

5) Language changed over the years and, after a century or two, sometimes exact details were lost or were changed to make for a better story.

6) The underlining sub-text of Greek and Roman artwork was interpreted literally by historians.




[1] I have tried to use, for this article, the very latest English translations of sources that I could get my hands on, under the assumption that modern translators would be better equipped to deal with shifting language and meaning.
[2] Perhaps 9000 able-bodied male citizens at most, in all of Sparta, with about half on active service at any one time. The Spartan Agoge method of training children to be soldiers, and full citizens, was brutal and we really don't know how many children died, or were crippled, each year, but it was enough that female full citizens outnumbered male citizens by two to one. The 292 Spartans captured at Sphakteria (425BCE) were a considerable percentage of Spartan's active fighting force. But, that is a subject for another article.