The Celts also had a fun sense of humor, there have been multiple findings of lead balls (ammo for slings) with celtic engravings that read things like "ouch"

With the Carthaginians, I would say that the main factor in Rome's win was unity of purpose. Hannibal, although he was a true genius, wasn't supported by his state the same way that Rome supported her armies--Rome considered the second Punic war a death struggle and drafted a massive new army after every major loss. Carthage on the other hand, if you judge by the actions of its leaders in Africa, seemed to take the war a lot less 'seriously', for lack of a better word--they had one of the greatest generals of antiquity on their side and didn't support him anywhere near as much as they should have because of internal politics.

"They had quite a bit of success, but at some point, Rome just steamrolled everything." Is the most beautifully accurate sentence I've heard.

Also : the Roman understanding of logistics and lines of communication.... it could be argued that every Roman soldier was a battlefield engineer in one form or another. The battle of Alesia is a perfect example.

Rome: Recently voted "Best State Ever" by Everyday Patrician Magazine. Article by Cicero.

The Gauls were so strong because of their magic potion don't you know that? I watched some very historically accurate documentaries by René Goscinny and Albert Uderzo!!!

This is why I really love ancient Rome, whenever they found something that was good or effective, they took it, adapted it, and made it better. Basically all their weapons, gladius was from Hispania for example. I think the entire empire's ability to adapt is what made it truly great.

For anyone into heavy metal, Eluveitie did a concept album named "Helvetios" about on the Gallic Wars (58 - 50 BC) from the viewpoint of the Helvetians. The album tells the history from the first enounter with the romans, through the slaughter at Avaricum and on to the battle of Alesia Definitely worth a listen

The Roman empire, when it was expanding, was similar to the Zulu empire under Shaka. When The world was made up of separate tribes and loose alliances, and fighting was typically about local disputes, honour and feuds, and everyone needed to get back to work on the farm as soon as possible. Then one state decides to expand. They develop a full time army that trains together, under a set command structure and they work towards a long term goal. Their equipment is a little bit better, and it is more uniform in style and quality. A small improvement in equipment and a big improvement in organisation combine to give them an enormous advantage on the battlefield. Once the flow of wealth (tribute and plunder) reaches a certain point, it becomes self sustaining because the empire is richer and more powerful than anyone who might resist it. And so it carries on until either they meet someone more powerful, or they simply collapse as they become decadent and fractured.

make a fighting reaction of the fights in shrek movies

"Try that as a Roman soldier." I can't. I can't find a Roman recruiter that will take me.

Told my wife to practice the oral tradition, I was not disappointed

Please, do more about celts!

Talk about slanders against the enemy: Germans offer to help the romans get across the Rhine *"THAT IS BENEATH THE ROMAN PEOPLE"*

As a historian, I agree with his intro. New information comes out that contests the old, we specialize in different things and even with the same info can argue radically different perspectives. Also as a Historian and teacher, I highly advocate Skallagrim and recommend his videos

The Celts were not a monolithic culture. There were arguing and feuds between the tribes. It is also true that Rome exploited these divisions, as they did everywhere. Rome had a disciplined and well supplied army and auxiliaries drawn form the lands where they fought. The Celts did have organization but Rome's was better for war.

When researching archeology it is important to know that the term "culture" is misleading. It doesn't describe a homogenous group of people, but a group of people that produced similar objects, often classified by ceramics and later also by metalworks.

The legend says that if you say I'm first, even if you are, you get ended rightly

When looking at ancient military accounts, the thing that often tells the story is timetables and supplies. HQ: "How goes the campaign?" Field CMDR: "Oh man, these guys are idiotic savages, etc, etc" HQ: "Great!, so you're on schedule?" Field CMDR: "Not quite, um >insert lame excuses< we'll need two more months and another legion" translation: they're giving as good as they're getting

Skal, IMHO the equipment was a bigger problem than you seem to think. There is no doubt that they had the same armour and sword models as the Romans did. Hell, the gladius hispaniensis was literally a reproduction of a celtiberian sword. The problem is precisely that they had fewer of them. You already mention the fact that most celtic soldiers didn't actually have a maille shirt. I'd also add though that an estimated only 1 in 10 celtiberian soldiers actually had a sword. Only exactly two armies in Europe had swords for almost everyone, and those were the Romans and the Dacians. The disparity isn't in equipment models, the difference is in the AVERAGE equipment of a soldier. Heavy shock infantry tends to handily defeat light infantry, and the average Celt was really the latter. And let's think of the battle tactics, as per Caesar's own account. For light infantry, the scutum was their main defense, and if you could somehow deprive them of that protection, they'd be in huge trouble. And the pilum as exactly an anti-shield weapon. Essentially the whole first rank had to discard their shields after a volley of pila, and that sucks if you're light infantry. And if they somehow didn't discard the shield, the Romans just had to step on the shaft to force the shield off protecting your body. I'd add, and this again is supported by Caesar's own accounts, getting hit by a pilum was quite a horrible experience anyway, if you didn't actually have a second layer of armour behind that shield. We have the description of pila shafts getting stuck in the ground and warriors being pushed by the rest of the formation towards that deadly point poking through the shield. Swords were also a very big deal at the time, since basically nobody had invented a 15'th century halberd yet. If you put it in the context of fighting from behind a tower shield, and read about the kind of poking around a shield, or hooking around, and stuff like that, you couldn't really do that with a spear. There's a reason the Romans moved their Hastati (literally meaning: spearmen) away from spears and towards swords a long time before. So basically IMHO the fact that most Celts couldn't afford one of those maille shirts, nor a sword, was a huge problem.

Rome OP plz nerf

The basic difference was: the typical celtic warrior was a farmer who could only train and go on campaign when the farmwork was done. The typical roman legionary could train and go on campaign all the time, while the bulk of the farmwork was done by slaves. So with multiple times of available training time for the fighting men and bein able to attack when the celts were busy bringing in the harvest, the romans usually had the edge. There were exceptions, but those were, well exceptions from the rule.

You're one of my favorite history KZfaqr. I always really liked history but when I came across you're KZfaq channel my interest in history exploded. I started to love history so much my teacher is going to place me in Honors history. I just want to say thank you for being a cool history KZfaqr!! Keep up the good work!

The trap, which Skall seems aware of, with "Why did X happen and not Y" in history is the presumption that the outcome was inevitable. In some cases it may have been, in others it may not. If the Celts had defeated the Romans, we would have historians looking at the same set of preconditions that currently say that the Roman victory was inevitable, and they would declare that the Celtic victory was inevitable. Sometimes, when humans are involved, the humans have something to say about the outcome.

Dude, most of your videos are marked as inappropriate. Have you noticed that? It seems ius tube cesorhip got you.

Why is there no sound in the Intro ? :o

A big oval shield like the scutum was used by the Sanniti, another italic tribe that roman fought against in the early period of the republic there is a debate if the roman take the scutum from them or from the celts of Brenno who pillaged Rome while the story of the easly bent swords maybe originated by the celts tradition of bending their swords after surrender

From what i know i can tell you are right about single combat. The Germanic people especially were obsessed with single combat, and ancient germano-celtic shields are perfectly designed for single combat, straight through the Viking age.

For people who like adventure books set in historical times: there is a wonderful series called Eagles of the Empire by Simon Scarrow, that tells a story of two Roman centurions, in large part during Claudius' invasion of Britain. It's really well written, and it's centered about legions' actions, the way the author writes about how the Roman armies operated is just fantastic. Though I have to say that these books are not 100% historically accurate, especially Roman's organization and military proficiency is a little bit overestimated.

A well reasoned, balanced treatment of some of the misconceptions surrounding the Celts. Thoroughly enjoyed watching this!

don't be so humble. you've been doing this for long enough now to consider yourself a very experienced and reliable source of information on these topics. ily btw

Thank you for ensuring that the audio for your videos is crisp and professional sounding - too many youtubers neglect this vital portion of video making and it definitely shows that you are not one of the amateurs. Keep up the excellent work!

No intro theme felt weird as fuck. Also *generic pommel throwing joke*

"Celts, good at siege, unique unit the Woad Raider."

I'm so glad you're talking about the Celts. it's my favourite history to learn, anything from Greek Celts to Irish Celts. not enough historical youtubers i watch talk about them. i know you could say we don't know enough about them to talk in detail about them. but if talk about what we do know, people may be interested in finding out more in their own personal research

Enjoyed your video and your right on about the aspects of the cultures. The Romans were very well known for adapting armor, weapons and techniques from other forces. They used what worked. Irregular/tribal forces typically vary in how they fight, depending on the Culture/Leader/Commander. You mentioned the shield wall and it reminded me of William trying to break through at Hastings in 1066. Smaller scale production/scavenging equipment would always mean variations in quality. Your reading and knowledge shows in what you present.

Having read some pretty decent history books on Rome and various European cultures, I have noticed one thing that many people tend to forget about Roman success in war: after Rome managed to control central Italy, they had a huge source of manpower (this was one of the most fertile regions of Europe). The were often beaten in battles, in setbacks that would have killed off many of their enemies, but the Romans came back with fresh men, sometimes adjusted their tactics a little, and then won the war.

There were many different styles of 'Celtic' swords and there is strong evidence to suggest that bronze was preferred during the early iron-age. Those that didn't like to fight naked preferred leather armour and wooden shields because it was more effective. The ornate metal versions may have been ceremonial. La Tene also seems to have influenced the material culture of the Saxons.

I think lots of people underestimate how important single combat was for the Romans themselves. The emphasis is always on their military efficiency as an army because, of course, that is what they excelled at. But there are also many examples of duels between Romans and their enemies. Showing your own bravery and prowess, was actually one of the best ways of acquiring fame and status.

I very much enjoyed this one :) ps: Rom.... ok no I'm not gonna say it.... pps: ROMA INVICTA!!! :D

Did you just assume my swords metallurgy? - Celtic SJWs

Oh god, in a few days the German news channel 'N-TV' will air it's new show called something like "Resistance of the Barbarians" one of those "semi-historical-reconstruction-but-with-added-drama-but-still-presented-as-absolute-historical-fact"-shows. I watched the teaser where they showed several Germanic tribesmen rush a Roman formation, and... _The more sensitive amongst the readers might want to stop reading here. Final warning_ ...rush the formation, and jump up into the air to strike down like Superman. I saw so many twirls and flips in that fight. The Romans instantly gave up their battle lines and resolved into a man-to-man skirmish. I don't think I will ever recover from seeing this attrociety

The part about the Celtic emphasis on one-on-one duels and personal honor is highly interesting to me. The Japanese went through a similar phase of warfare culture, where battles were highly ritualized (there was usually an exchange of arrow fire before the armies would meet in melee). I think it results from a lot of internal strife between members of the same overarching culture, especially in areas with not that many resources and harsh weather (Japan and Europe fit that bill fairly well), because at that point both warring armies understand that the loss of too many men means neither of them may survive the next winter.

Actually, Scutum appeared in Italy a lot sooner, there are tomb painting from 6 century BC, while Gauls started to use it by the 4th century BC.. plus, Roman Scutum was not flat.

both Romans and Celts are weak, their pommels couldn't be unscrewed

I remember reading years ago that the quality of Celtic sword varied highly based on the warrior's wealth and social status -- at least that's what they thought at the time. Also, that they had a "no ganging-up" rule in their code of honor but probably set it aside for the use of group formations against enemies that used formations.

As a history student i found this video to be surprisingly erudite, good work skall! Also thanks for posting the sources, sometimes helps me for my own work

It is worth remembering that the Romans didn't conquer all of the Celts. There was a small village in Amorica...

Rome was just like how America is now. Military is impenetrable, yet the likelihood of them falling is from within the government.

If you want additional extremely accurate info on the celts, you can read the series named "Asterix" :)

But celtic is to broad of a ethno-linguistic group. the Gauls, Picts, Brittonic celts, Goidelic celts, etc are all celtic and are different in one way or another.

12:36 Single combat such as this is attested in at least one prominent Celtic tale from Welsh mythology (the mabinogi). After several days of two Celtic armies (the northerly Venedotian and the southern Demetians) fighting but with no conclusion in sight, it's decided the battle will be decided by single combat between the trickster hero of the north Gwydion and the southern king Pryderi. Unlike Pryderi, Gwydion was not only an apt swordsman but also a powerful magician, and cheated a little by using magic to bolster his fighting capabilities. ;)

Hi Skall, could you possibly do a video talking about people who use weapons in the left hand against someone using a weapon in the right hand?

Celtic chieftain : " Form random formation, then run at the enemy carelessly as we've trained so often."

I can't thank you enough for emphasizing the importance of societal organization when it comes to analyzing a pre-modern military. Organization and logistics are the unsung determiners of victory; probably because it's not as glamorous as the weapons and the tactics. I'd also emphasize that one of the principal advantages Rome always had over its enemies was that its societal and military organization was very well suited to sustaining losses. Their military institutions could absorb casualties and draw up replacements while other armies such as the Tribal Germans or Celts or the Hellenic levies would generally shatter after some hard losses since they lacked the sort of military system geared for training up new soldiers and officers and dealing with the usual loss of institutional experience and knowledge that comes when an army loses a lot of officers in a brief period of time. The Romans were, and could afford to be far more persistent even in the face of setbacks than most of their enemies in their phase of conquest. Not only was Rome itself a massive city but as they expanded the criterea of citizenship the manpower pool they had was staggeringly larger than most other empires who did not have this system of mass conscription from such a broad pool of people. While some empires like the Seleucids were of comparable if not actually superior size in terms of population and Carthage also controlled a sizeable empire; they did not have the societal systems to sustain the kinds of wars of attrition that Rome was masterful at winning. It wasn't until the Sassannids I believe that Rome encountered an enemy who could match the empire in attritional warfare (and indeed the Sassanids were probably the Empire's most evenly matched opponent). The tribalistic and decentralized Celts simply couldn't match Rome in that particular game, especially when as you said; they were divided into tribal lines and they had a more sort of democratic or participatory view of authority in that no one had some sort of unquestionable mandate to lead; nor were they particularly unified in purpose which is a terrible thing to be when "divide and conquer" was basically Rome's religion in as far as diplomacy is concerned. The Germans and Slavs I think largely avoided being conquered the way the Celts were because they were so much further from Rome's center of power and the lands they ruled were much less developed and generally poorer than the celtic lands. From what I remember, the Celts quite often had cities, they had sophisticated agriculture and metallurgy, while they were a tribal people they developed their lands quite extensively. Meanwhile the lands lived in by the Germanic and Slavic tribes and the other tribes east of the River Rhine and North of the Danube had much more rudimentary settlements and less extensive agricultural development of their territories. It simply wasn't seen as worth the effort to conquer them outright when Rome would need a lot more time to develop them to what they perceived as an acceptable standard. Plus a lot of them lived among vast plains suited for the kind of cavalry warfare that dominated eastern Europe (that Rome found difficult to counter without forcing a siege battle which well; good luck with forcing one of those against tribal people instead of the much more sedentary and rich Parthians) or could melt away into huge forests that made them difficult to root out. So for the romans it was better to just establish the borders on the Rhine and the Danube even though some Romans advocated extending Rome's borders to about the Vistula River and the Carpathian mountains to create a larger buffer zone against barbarians and to shorten the lines they'd need to defend. And by the time that the eastern tribes became Rome's primary issue in Europe, Rome had already settled into its bad habit of a ridiculous numbers of civil wars for control of the empire and had shifted focus to western Asia to try and conquer the rich lands to be found there; engaging in a long slugging match with the Parthian and later Sassanid Empires for control of the place. The Celts were just kind of unlucky to be rich enough to be worth conquering but not centralized enough to resist a conquest as the Persians did while also facing the usual issue of Rome's enemies of not being able to sustain the kind of losses Rome repeatedly shrugged off. I mean, when Rome lost tens of thousands of men at Cannae (after losing tens of thousands of men in two prior battles) they essentially just called up the draft cards for more soldiers. When the Celts lost tens of thousands of men at Alesia or Watling Street that basically ended those wars right then and there. They had no institutions for replacing those kinds of losses.

So cool to hear Patrick Barta mentioned. Learned of him twenty years ago, a true talent in repro weapons.

Although you may not like For Honor, it's what brought me to your channel and has sparked a big interest in the European history. Love your stuff!

Great video Skall, I hope the Celts become a more popular topic to study and talk about, at least on KZfaq!

did anyone​ else have that wierd glitch screen at 2:21

The differences between Celts is something Julius Cesar explains very well and insosts over in the de bello gallico

I remember reading in a French History magazine that it wasn't so much the Celtic sword that was prone to bending as its scabbard which was made of a thin sheet of iron that was rolled up on itself. Sorry for the possible mistakes, English isn't my first language so please don't hesitate to correct me.

The Celts seem to have fought the best for Hannibal. With Carthaginian training and leadership they performed a masterful fighting retreat at Cannae, which sealed Hannibal's victory.

The picture on the right at 14:37 shows Samnites warriors of IV sec. BC, whose equipment can be reconstructeb by many contemporary depictions and archaeological findings. As seen in the picture, the oval shield and the helmet with hinged cheekplates was in use among several Italic populations, and, if there are doubts for the origin of the Roman helmet, the Romans themself said to have taken the shield from the Samnites and the lorica hamata from the Gauls.

Thanks for adding your sources in the description.

Its entirely possible that the celtic tribe's had tactics that differed depending on the tribe which would explain the inconsistency. Or that they used their more traditional tactics against the romans and when thoys failed, they adapted with the shield wall stuff. Or sometimes they used the shield wall and sometimes they formed up. Mentions of them using shield walls are outnumbered by mentions of them fighting individually (though many romans said they were individually quite skilled)

"Hippity Hoppity, Gauls are property" - Julius Caesar (52 bc)

I am a huge fan of the way that you present ancient history! Thanks for your amazing content! Cheers! -Skaald

Barry cunliffe is one of the best entry authors on the Celts from what I've read. Awesome video, always appreciate when you cover Celts and ancient history.

Picts, the ones the Romans never conquered! They really didn't like the Fried Mars Bars.

The problem of Irish sources describing the weapons and equipment of their own time is quite similar to the way medieval manuscripts show biblical and classical figures dressed & armed as contemporary knights

Very nice video man. Recently been brushing up on Celtic history and stumbled across this little well spoken thought out jem.

Also, roman armies were extremely mobile, far more adept in fortification than any hellenic or barbaric peoples and soldiers were used to hard labor, digging trenches, building towers etc. Unlike any other military of that period

The vikings couldnt beat irish celts and decided to populate the land instead and learn from them. My city in ireland was founded by the vikings.

2:11 How would they get milk without agriculture?...

Great video with very well researched information. I found that the celts had much in comon with some of the greek states. For example the duels between the best fighters, no central government and even the basic equipment of a soldier (short sword, shield and spear) match perfectly. I live in Switzerland and I have helvetic and greek origin. I always thought that the helvetic halberdiers looked like an advanced form of a spartan phalanx.

MORE VIDEOS LIKE THIS PLEASE! really like your historical analysis would love to see more on the same and on different topics if you could, thank you for the great vids!

00:28 "Do your own research." --Andrew Wakefield

2:29 I was like, "Oh shit, Monika escaped!" haha.

Your honesty was very refreshing thank you for not pretending to be like a scholar you have more freedom to explore information they are denied. You are not limited by what you dont know you are limited by what you know for a fact what is true and what cant be. They took test in expensive schools to be able to regurgitate what someone else heard about another scholars word on a discovery...

Osprey Publishing has great illustrated books of Celts and a horde of other historical armies and cultures. I reckon you know but I’ll mention it.

"The Celts were defeated by the Romans" Roman Empire: fell Latin: died Ireland, Scotland, Cornwall, Brittany: still here Gaelic, Manx, Breton: still spoken

Hmm i noticed something. The pommel joke came from a book that is several hundred years old... which just goes to show MEMES ARE TIMELESS

Very nice video Skall, I actually remember commenting on one of your previous videos regarding this exact topic (starting to wonder if I inspired you). I'll admit that last comment was more intended as a joke, however I am well informed that the old Celtic tribes had well versed fighting styles and battlefield tactics and didn't just rush into battle half-naked kicking and screaming (though some did...looking at you Arverni). Even Julius Caesar admitted that when he fought Vercingetorix that their cavalry was better than his own.

Loved the video! Currently working on a Feature film exploring Welsh culture (not historically accurate, for the purposes of craming the culture into the film) - anyway, as a proud Welshman, whenever Celtic history is talked about, aside from the Irish, the Welsh need to be talked about and explored a lot more, our history is very significant in Britain. We've been around since the 1st century, whereas the saxons didn't invade until the 5th century. Unfortunately we are forgotten about a lot - the way I see it anyway, I could be wrong

If you want a sword, and you have the specs for it... have you tried reaching out to Alec Steele? He's usually up for a challenge, and it could make for some good crossover videos.

0:38 "Plenty of times historians have been dead wrong." Skall: "Plenty of times historians have been dead--" Trump: "Wrong." I don't know why this occurred to me.

Good points. I feel the biggest factors were the fact that the Celtic armies simply did not have the amount of steel armor that their Roman opponents did and the fact that the emphasis was so much stronger on individual, one-on-one fighting over and above large scale formation tactics at a time when guerilla tactics would have been and were proven more effective in other regions i.e. The Gallic Invasions/Infiltrations by Julius Caesar where the Romans came out on top due to mostly open field warfare being predominant contrasted to the later Germanic victories over the Roman armies in 9 AD under Arminius. In my opinion I feel the Gauls would have indeed been victorious over the Romans (and almost were) on many occasions if 1 they were more united in Gaul at the time and 2 if the general trend would have been towards guerilla warfare emphasis against the Romans vs. open-field combat emphasis. There seems to be a much greater disdain for the use of guerilla tactics by the Celts as they saw them as generally very dishonorable, whereas with the Germans there was little or no hesitation in using them against Rome. It is something I feel should be looked into much more. The biggest issue I see is the over-generalizations regarding Celtic culture in many discussions.

As a fan of ancient warfare born and raised in Ireland, I'd love to see more about the celts! :D

You could have mentioned the use of chariots in warfare which the celts (especially from Britain and Ireland) were very skilled at. I'm sure the Romans invaded Britain because the celts tried to help the Gauls and vercengetorix. Could have mentioned how Boudicca managed to sack Londonium (london) but her (supposed) 200,000 strong army was defeated by 10,000 romans. Obviously that seems inflated, however, this battle (had Boudicca won) would have convinced Nero to withdraw troops from Britain. Also the Picts were never conquered by rome.

Skall could make a fine celt warrior

As one noted historian pointed out. It's easier to speak of Celtic than Celt. Historically the Celtic Period spanned about 750 BC to about 12 BC. I love Celtic culture and history. However, diversity of Celts was real and Skall covers that very well. One problem is that Celts and Celtic culture have both been widely misunderstood.

I believe you are right on the duelling focus. There was an edict issued during the Republic forbidding acceptance of challenges to single combat with Celts on the battlefield. While there seems to be a lack of mention of Celts winning these challenges, the tone of discussion when Romans won certainly seems to imply it was unusual. Also worth noting that Rome viewed Gaulish cavalry as extremely skilled and effective.

I think the Romans where so effective in their time do to being more of a professional army where as other tribal type peoples armies where more mob like and less structured.

"Why were the Celts defeated by the Romans?" Me: "That depends. How much time do you have?"

Here are some reasons why certain people's lost to Rome: Greeks: Rome had studied and used their tactics in the past. They had a lot of experience fighting the Hoplite and the Pikemen. They Lost miserably to the Celts because of trying to employ those tactics, which caused them to get outmaneuvered by the celts, flanked, and slaughtered, leading to the sacking of Rome. Rome adapted but the Greeks at this point had been using their same tired tactics and their antiquated military organization cost them dearly. Also every man in the Hoplite was forced to supply his own gear and not everyone was able to afford it. In Early Rome this was also the case, but as time went on the state paid for their equipment and so the Romans were always better equipped afterwards. Celts and Gauls: Did not have discipline or organization unless in the upper social classes like Noblility and Royalty. They fought the same way as one another excluding the Gales who used hit and run tactics rather than outright confrontational charges. Most were extremely lightly armored and fought on an individual basis on the field of battle not have rank and file formations which often led to them being massacred. Their advantage over the Romans was their superior horses and the use of bows but that alone was not enough to save them. Their swords were also rounded and used for slashing, a poor choice when fighting an armored legionaire who's armor was perfectly designed to combat such weaponry. Carthage: Simply put, Carthage outsourced most of their military and had only a small professional Army guarding their most precious areas of trade. They were more of a maritime power than an actual field deployed fighting force. Large portions of their armies were bolstered with Mercenaries that varied from region to region, and proved to be unreliable much of the time, sometimes having no qualms about changing sides or being bought off. Carthage also had the Numidians to their rear who made an alliance with Rome and helped them fight a two front war. Carthage had an initial financial and naval advantage but lost the initiative and were eventually defeated. Germans: Constant squabbling coupled with very poor, almost non-existant economies with the rest of the world due to many tribes being landlocked and not being exposed to the Hellenized world during earlier development, which the Romans, Carthaginians, Egyptians, Persians, Thracians, and Arabs, benefited from immensely. Lived in dense woodlands with few natural resources and always suspicious of outsiders and their own. Lacked the necessary equipment to deal with Roman logistics and had no organization to speak of, preferring night raids and surprise attacks and ambushes to pitched battles. On the field of battle they had no response to Rome. They were able to push Rome back with sheer numbers and the element of the home field advantage coupled with the fear their fanatics inspired and the constant night raids and ambushes. Outside of that they had no chance and if it wasnt for the fact that Germania was so poor and underdeveloped Rome may have pushed back East of the Rhine again.

I've read from my own (French) sources that the pre-invasion Celts were overall better metalworkers than the roman, or than any of their neighbours actually, in the same era maybe the only people that had equal or better metalworking skills were in nowadays' southern India. This edge in metalworking was not only shown in weaponry, but also and foremost in jewelry

A few points on Ceasar: his records are notoriously bad (even though they are still considered a primary source since we don't have too many other written sources concerning his campaigns). He has made several claims that simply can not be true (like giving the Helvetii a two week waiting period while he sent for message from Rome. That was a 900km distance and then there would the time the senate needed to debate the issue he put before them... or that he built defences in Geneva - which never could be proven archeologically). The numbers of enemies he described also seem to have been exaggerated. He needed to justify his conquests back home and thus the continuation of the war - otherwise he would have ended up in front of a court back in Rome. He only was immune to persecution as long as he held office, so he continued his campaigns as long as he could. Also the contemporary roman helmet during roman times (the Coolus type helmet) was adopted from the celtic tribes of Gaul. Ceasar also never fought all of Gaul at once (as Skallagrim pointed out) as the tribes were at each others throats most of the time (just look at Caesars campaign again the Helvetii and the Begiae). Rome stayed out of inter tribal conflict until Caesar used these conflicts in order to further his goals. Vercingetorix is the closest the Gauls came to a king of all of Gaul at that point in time.

Romans were invincible cause they were prepared, they trained every day for all their military career.

thanks for specifically pointing out the imperial roman army it's nice to make that distinction when talking about rome, as when you say "roman army" you could be talking about the unified empire, the west roman empire, the east roman empire, or, if we want to go all the way, you could be talking about benito mussolini!

Greek and Roman historiography is a complicated subject, which is why archaeology and especially perhaps experimental archaeology, which HEMA is in a way part of, is so important. They had a lot of ideas about how certain peoples acted in certain ways due to their food and environments. For instance the description by Caesar of the Brits sounds like it has more to do with stereotypical ideas about Celts and Northerners being temperamental types because they ate too much meat, which Romans thought lead to snotty noses, big guts and quickly angered temperaments (even now you can see that idea reflected in how Germans are sometimes stereotyped). An educated man like Caesar would get such notions from earlier Greek works, for instance Hippocrates’ text ‘On Airs, waters, places’. Maybe also, since the Roman empire itself was a fairly new construct patched up of all sorts of Cisalpine Gallic and Latin cities and states that had been conquered along the way, they perhaps tried to explain/define themselves and their success by describing the opponents they faced in certain ways.