• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

How Were The Roman Army Superior In Weaponry, Armour And Tactics To The Celts?

Extracts from this document...


HOW WERE THE ROMAN ARMY SUPERIOR IN WEAPONRY, ARMOUR AND TACTICS TO THE CELTS? Sewers, Baths, Toilets, Roads, Theatres and the Cambridge Latin Course are just a few examples of the wonderful and innovative technology brought to this country by a much accomplished and conquering Roman Army. The Roman Army had advanced as far as (Great Britain) conquering along the way Germania (Germany) and Gaul (France) amongst others. However their arrival in Britain was greeted by the native Celts who were 'one of the four great barbarian people (Ephorus 405-330 bc).' The Celtic tactics and fighting techniques were a stark contrast to the Roman military and the Celtic philosophy on weaponry and armour was also different. The battles that emerged were some of the most intriguing in the history of Great Britain and its people. In my essay I will be focusing on why the Celts were eventually beaten by the Roman Army. To do this I will be comparing and evaluating the Romans and Celts under the general headings of Tactics, Armour and Weaponry and by doing this I hope to come to conclusions on the Roman victory over the Celts and how the Romans were superior under those categories. TACTICS Firstly lets start with tactics. Not only will I discuss battle tactics, I will also detail the military setups and organizations within the two societies. The Roman Army was one of the first great civilizations to have an organized and professional military institution. The Roman Army was similar to our modern British army because it had an army of extensively trained soldiers who had been organized and were professionally employed. ...read more.


Roman soldiers had three main weapons. A shield, a sword and two throwing javelins. The Roman shield (Scuta) were very large and covered a lot of the Roman soldiers' body. The shields were actually quite light to enable the soldiers to manouvere easily and to wield their other weapons easily. (as can be seen in the picture) The Roman sword (Gladius) was quite small and was carried on the soldiers' belts to free up their hands to carry the javelins. The sword was Individually designed for each soldier to carry which meant it was very comfortable and enabled the soldiers to use it very quickly in a stabbing motion in the midst of battle. (as can be seen in the picture) The Roman javelin (Pilum) was the biggest and most effective Roman weapon. It was over seven feet long and had a sharpened metal point. When thrown once the Pilum came into contact with a Celtic shield it would Stick and brake at the end. this rendered the Celtic shield useless and meant the Pilum couldn't be returned. Once the Celts threw their shield away they were exposed because of their lack of body armour (see Armour section) If the Pilum came into contact with a Celt it would only take the javelin to be 2 inches inside a man to kill him. (as can be seen in the picture) In comparison the lack of resources and technology available to the Celts meant they only carried a shield and a spear. ...read more.


while in contrast the Celts could only afford swords for wealthy citizens because they were seperate and individual tribes governing a small area and this difference was telling when on the battlefield the Celts were left wielding sub-par weapons because they had never been up against opposition as advanced as Romans while the Romans had years and years to perfect weaponry during their conquest of foreign lands. The Romans had strong armour that enabled them to take some blows from the Celts comfortably before retaliating. However the fabled Celtic bravery was evident as they charged into battle with no armour and though this impressed Romans their lack of armour meant any strong contact the Romans made with their good quality weapons would have caused severe injury or death while Celts would find it very difficult to penetrate Roman armour that was of very high standard (and much superior than that of the Celts) with low quality weapons and this ultimately was the reason for Roman victory. When it came to weaponry and armour the Romans excelled through advanced technology that had been developed and changed from years of battles with people from other countries. The Romans resources and technology was at the end of the day the biggest reason they were victorious and it was in weaponry and armour that the Romans were vastly advanced than Celts however in tactical strength the Romans had met their match against a barbarians who wether by luck or skill had managed to terrify the Romans and win the mental side of a battle because of their bravery and terrifiying barbarian qualities. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE History Projects section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE History Projects essays

  1. Why was the Roman Army so Successful? Rome was one ...

    The recruitment policy was very good, however it wouldn't have worked if any men hadn't come, and the main reason that men came to the roman army was for the rewards. Some of the rewards were not materialistic, however, were still worthy for the cause.

  2. WW1 - technology and trench warfare.

    General Sir Douglas Haig now took over responsibility for the operation and with the help of General Sir Henry Rawlinson, Haig came up with his own plan of attack. Haig's strategy was for an eight-day constant bombardment that he believed would completely destroy the German forward defences.

  1. What are the main differences between Tacitus and Thucydides?

    Thucydides concentrated more on factual history, which does have a tendency to make his work slightly colourless in comparison to that of Tacitus. It could be said that this does make it more valid and accurate, as it shows less bias and opinion.

  2. Who was the real Custer, and to what extent was he to blame for ...

    But the source favours the side of Custer, and there could be many reasons for this. He might want to get back in to the army because we know he is a former major general so may have seen Custer as a way back in.

  1. The Battle of the Little Bighorn.

    Custer's confidence was justifiable because of the 60 battles he had already won, but he was complacent. The Battle of the Little Bighorn was an immense tragedy brought on by inflated egos, confidence and a lot of arrogance.

  2. How was the schlieffen plan meant to work

    Because America was such a big country it also had a big army, which would support the allies. Furthermore because it wasn't in the war from the start it obviously wasn't suffering from shortages or losses like the other countries.

  1. The Roman army

    This therefore meant that the soldier's morale was kept high and mutinies were rare. A key reason for the army's success was the training the legionaries received. The training was so hard that the soldiers became well disciplined and very fit.

  2. What Do Roman Authors Tell Us About The Celts? To What Extent Are Their ...

    It seemed to be a popular Roman belief that the western side of Britain faced Spain, as both Caesar and Tacitus wrote of this, although it is not true. Caesar questioned the natives as to the size of the island and also had Volusenus make a general reconnaissance of the

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work