The Gauls
Of all the numerous and varied enemies that the Romans encountered in their first centuries at a city-state, the people who most of all evoked fear and consternation were the Gauls. The mere rumour of a Gallic incursion; what the Romans came to refer to as a tumultus Gallicus, instantly meant the enactment of a justitium: the most serious state of alarm the city recognized. Under the justitium, all business in the city came to an immediate halt, stores and markets were closed, public affairs put on hold and a mass levy held of every able-bodied man in the state. To lead this large host, a Dictator would be nominated, who possessed for a limited time the supreme and absolute authority of the state. While the army made camp hard by the city and its provisioning was organized, the gates would be shut, the walls manned by those men unfit for active campaigning and messengers sent off in all directions to call in the contingents from the allies. In short, the Gauls almost alone of the cities’ enemies could strike real terror the Romans, and not without good reason. Many a Roman army during the republic was cut to pieces by raging hordes of Gallic warriors, who alone of the cities’ enemies after the 6th century BC were able to storm and sack Rome itself: an event burnt into the city's collective memory.
To the Romans, the Gauls were a completely savage and uncivilized people. They were characteristically tall and physically imposing, while equally foreign and displeasing was their dress, habits and aspect: most of which being foreign to Roman sensibilities. These northern warriors carried great long swords and large shields and were possessed of an excellent cavalry which could do much havoc. In battle, the first raging onset of the Gauls was most dangerous and very hard to withstand. They truly were formidable in battle, and for this the Romans accredited them a healthy respect. Dionysius of Halicarnassus records a speech by M. Furius Camillus to his soldiers before battle in 367 BC, to which he adds after his own digression on their fighting techniques. Although Camillus's pep-talk is likely not genuine, the excerpt, quoted here at length, does bring to light Roman opinions of their Gallic adversary:
Upon learning of this state of affairs the Roman dictator, Camillus, assembled his men and addressed them, using many arguments that incited them to boldness, among which were the following: "Better arms than the barbarians possess have been fashioned for us — breastplates, helmets, greaves, mighty shields, with which we keep our entire bodies protected, two-edged swords, and, instead of the spear, the javelin, a missile that cannot be dodged — some of them being protective armour, such as not to yield readily to blows, and others offensive, of a sort to pierce through any defense. But our foes have their heads bare, bare their breasts and flanks, bare their thighs and legs down to their feet, and have no other defense except shields; as weapons of offence they have spears and very long slashing blades. The tern also in which we shall fight will aid us as we move downhill from higher ground, but will be adverse to them as they are forced to advance from the level to higher ground. And let no one of you stand in dread either of the enemies' numbers or of their size, or, from looking at these advantages on their side, become less confident of the contest. On the contrary, let everyone bear in mind, first, that a smaller army which understands what must be done is superior to a large army that is uninstructed; and, second, that to those who are fighting for their own possessions Nature herself lends a certain courage in the face of danger and gives them a spirit of ecstasy like that of men possessed by a god, whereas those who are eager to seize the goods of others are apt to find their boldness weakened in the face of dangers. Nay, not even their attempts to frighten their foes and terrify them before coming to blows should cause us any dread, as if we were inexperienced in warfare. For what harm can be done to men going into battle by those long locks, the fierceness of their glance, and the grim aspect of their countenances? And these awkward prancings, the useless brandishing of their weapons, the many clashings of their shields, and all the other demonstrations of barbarian and senseless bravado, whether through motions or through sounds, indulged in by way of threats to their foes — what advantage are they calculated to bring to those who attack unintelligently, or what fear to those who with cool calculation stand their ground in the midst of danger? Do you, then, with these thoughts in mind, both those of you who were present in the earlier war against the Gauls and those of you who had no part in it by reason of your youth, the former in order that you may not, by cowardice now, bring shame upon the valour you then displayed, and you others in order that you may not be behind your elders in the display of noble deeds, go, noble sons, emulators of brave fathers, go intrepidly against the foe, having not only the gods as your helpers, who will give you the power to exact from your bitterest foes such vengeance as you have been wishing for, but also me as your general, to whose great prudence and great good fortune you bear witness. A blissful life from this time forth those of you will lead to whom it shall be granted to bring home for your fatherland its most distinguished crown, and a splendid and imperishable renown in place of your mortal bodies those of you will bequeath to your infant children and your aged parents who shall fulfill thus the end of your lives. I know of nothing more that needs to be said; for the barbarian army is already in motion, advancing against us. But be off and take your places in the ranks."
Now the barbarians' manner of fighting, being in large measure that of wild beasts and frenzied, was an erratic procedure, quite lacking in military science. Thus, at one moment they would raise their swords aloft and smite after the manner of wild boars, throwing the whole weight of their bodies into the blow like hewers of wood or men digging with mattocks, and again they would deliver crosswise blows aimed at no target, as if they intended to cut to pieces the entire bodies of their adversaries, protective armour and all; then they would turn the edges of their swords away from the foe. On the other hand, the Romans' defense and counter-maneuvering against the barbarians was steadfast and afforded great safety. For while their foes were still raising their swords aloft, they would duck under their arms, holding up their shields, and then, stooping and crouching low, they would render vain and useless the blows of the others, which were aimed too high, while for their own part, holding their swords straight out, they would strike their opponents in the groins, pierce their sides, and drive their blows through their breasts into their vitals. And if they saw any of them keeping these parts of their bodies protected, they would cut the tendons of their knees or ankles and topple them to the ground roaring and biting their shields and uttering cries resembling the howling of wild beasts. Not only did their strength desert many of the barbarians as their limbs failed them through weariness, but their weapons also were either blunted or broken or no longer serviceable. For besides the blood that flowed from their wounds, the sweat pouring out over their whole bodies would not let them either grasp their swords or hold their shields firmly, since their fingers slipped on the handles and no longer kept a firm hold. The Romans, however, being accustomed to many toils by reason of their un-abating and continuous warfare, continued to meet every peril in noble fashion. (Dionysius 14.9-10)
The year 391 BC is the first time the Gauls appear in the Roman annalistic tradition, although it is well known that Etruscans had been fighting them for some time on both sides of the Apennines. The Gauls who passed the Apennines in 391 BC and at first besieged Etruscan Clusium were Senones, a tribe who, as per Livy (5.33-35) were late comers in terms of Gallic migrations into the Po valley. Due to their relatively short stay in Latium, it is safe to say that this Gallic migration was not in search of land, but rather more concerned with plunder and spoils. Cornell (1995, pg 316) postulates that they were on the way to southern Italy to fight as mercenaries for Dionysius of Syracuse and Rome being along the easiest route was therefore a tempting and opportune target. In any event, they met the Roman army in a pitched battle at the River Allia on July 18, 390 BC and smashed it to the four winds. Following this victory the Gauls, under their King Brennus, entered Rome and subjected it to a thorough sack, so the tradition goes (Livy 5.39-43). While the later annalists have the great Roman general of the day M. Furius Camillus (conveniently absent during the debacle of the Allia), coming to the rescue of the city and driving the Gauls off, an alternative tradition favoured my some modern scholars has the Gauls leaving only after the payment of a sum of gold (Strabo 5.2.3). By the fall of the same year, the Gauls were gone, perhaps south to meet up with the King of Syracuse as Cornell suggests, but this not certain. Rome was left battered and humiliated, but unbowed. The scarred city was able to regroup its scattered but still substantial population, reorganize and rebuild. This the Romans were able to accomplish, even in the face of internal social and political crises made much worse by the effects of the sack. The aggressive Roman foreign policy previously followed was if anything intensified in the following years, something which further Gallic incursions into Latium could not dissipate.
The Gallic invasions into Latium in the following decades after the capture of Rome did not have the same profound impact as previous. The raids caused great alarm and each evoked fear in the Romans, causing them to resort to the harsh mobilizations mentioned previously, but the initial success was never repeated. In 388 BC (Varronian - absolute 384 BC), Diodorus (14.117.7) mentions a band of Gauls returning from the south, where they met the army of Rome’s neighbour Caere in battle on the ‘Trausian’ plain and were worsted. As Cornell (1995, pg 316) states convincingly, these may have been the same Senones of Brennus, now in the employ of Dionysius of Syracuse and acting as the inland pincer of an attack on Caere, as that same season the Italiote King is recorded to have sent a fleet of ships to on a successful expedition to plunder the Caerite port of Pyrgi (Diodorus 15.14.3). In any event, Rome escaped the brunt of the Gallic attack in this occasion, but no doubt an understandable panic would have taken place. Following this second Gallic incursion, no word of Gauls shows in the annalistic tradition for nineteen years, when in 369 BC, Livy (5.42), sourcing from the earlier annalist Claudius Quadrigarius, states M. Furius Camillus met and defeated a Gallic host on the banks of the Anio River nearby to Rome, with the enemy survivors thereafter fleeing far down the peninsula to Apulia. Three years later, Livy (6.1) has reports of the same Gauls returning from Apulia, but in the end they do not make an appearance. This scenario, however, is viewed with skepticism by some modern scholars (Cornell, 1995, pg 325), who see it as Livy once again building up his favourite Roman general, while the episode in general reads suspiciously like an anticipation of events in 361 BC, which Livy admits in the same passage: a not uncommon occurrence in the annalistic tradition, otherwise known as a 'doublet'.
In 361 BC, Livy(7.9) states that another army of Gauls appeared in Latium, marching again to the Anio River where they encamped near to Rome, by the bridge where the Via Salaria crosses the river; thus throwing the city into paroxysms and causing them to name a Dictator: T. Quinctius Pennus. Both armies having encamped on opposite ends of the bridge, the stage is set for the Roman tradition of Manlius Torquatus slaying a Gaul in single combat; an outcome which Livy reports demoralized the Gauls and caused them to move off without venturing a battle. Marching east, the Gallic host then joined in alliance with Latin Tiber, a town who earlier that year had initiated hostilities with Rome. Mysteriously, the Gauls then moved off into Campania, perhaps to raid and plunder, from which they returned in time for the campaigning season of 360 BC. They ravaged the area about the towns of Labici, Tusculum and the Alban mount before marching on Rome itself. There, in front of the Colline Gate and in full view of the city's population watching from the walls, the Gauls went down in shattering defeat to a Roman army led by the Dictator Q. Servilius Ahala (Livy 7.11). The survivors made for Tibur, being harassed all the way, where they were penned up in the town by the advancing Romans. In Tibur’s fighting with Rome in the next year, 359 BC, the Gauls are not mentioned, but they were not yet finished and done with. In 358 BC a Gallic army appeared and camped close by to Pedum, a town in the foothills of the Apennines in between Tibur and Praeneste. Whether these were the same Gauls as those in 360 is not clear, but it is quite possible they were. This time, however, Livy has them allied with Praeneste. The band may therefore have been hiring itself out to whomever would pay for its services and since both Tibur and Praeneste at this time were hostile to Rome, both are good candidates. In any case, neither town is mentioned in the fighting to come. The Roman dictator that year, C. Sulpicious Peticus, led out an army and in a pitched battle in the foothills of the Apennines was able to crush the Gallic horde (Livy 7.14-15). Following this, the Gauls are not heard from for some time, during which Tibur was reduced by the Romans in 354 BC, while the Praenestines remained quiet.
The next episode in Rome’s 4th century wars with the Gauls occurred eight years later in 350 BC, when another Gallic war band marched into Latium and set up camp on the Alban mount, from which it spread much devastation. Some scholars think it a distinct possibility, unprovable however, that these Gauls were in the employ of Dionysius of Syracuse, as in 388 BC. This is based on the notice of a fleet of Greek pirates descending on the Latin coast the following year (Livy 7.25), who spent the summer of 349 BC making plundering raids along the coast; a situation remarkably similar to Dionysius’s previous quite successful raids against Pyrgi. In any case, the success was not reproduced, now that Roman power was rapidly rising. Four legions, 16,000 spears and un-numbered allies met the Gauls on the Latin plain in 350 BC and dealt them a major defeat (Livy 7.23-24), leading the Gauls to retreat into their fortifications on the Alban mount. There they stayed and could not be dislodged, until during the following winter starvation led them down into the plain, where they spread devastation all the way to the coast. For the campaign of 349 BC, with Gauls and Greek pirates plundering and ravaging the length and breadth of Latium, the Romans reportedly raised no less than 10 legions: 40,000 men. Four of them the Romans sent against the Gauls, who again are reported going down in crushing defeat (Livy 7.26). This was the swan song for Gallic incursions into Latium in the 4th century BC and not until the days of the Third Samnite war, at the beginning of the next century are they found again to be threatening Rome.