Why did the Celts enjoy such a bad reputation in the Hellenistic world?
The first major contact between the Celts and the Greco-Macedonian world can be seen as the ‘invasion’ of Greece in 279 BCE. The Celts, otherwise known as Galatians, or Galatai/Keltoi in Greek, had been on the move for generations, with whole societies on the move from their traditional homelands in North Western Europe. This was potentially due to population pressure from home as suggested by Justin or famine as suggested by Memnon. During this time the various Celtic groups, from the La Tene tribal groupings were spreading into the areas around the Adriatic, into Thrace as well as moving as far westward as Britain. From this we see the bad reputation of the Celts highlighted in the work of later writers such as Pausanias as well as inscriptions contemporary to the time. Savagery, barbarism, murder and plunder were all part of the terrible stories told about the Celts.
‘’They butchered every human male of that entire race, the old men and the children at the breast; and the Gauls drank the blood and ate the flesh of the slaughtered babies. ..Any woman and mature virgins with a spark of pride committed suicide as soon as the city fell…’’
As one can see the Celts enjoyed a less than gracious reputation in the Hellenistic world and the invasion of 279 was an event of great importance, highlighted by this extract of Pausanias.
”my description of the council chamber at Athens contains some observations on the Galatian expedition into Greece. I wanted to provide a clearer record of them in my account of Delphi, because these were the greatest of all the deeds which the Greeks accomplished against the barbarians’’
However such a bad reputation can be seen as unjustified, therefore I intend to assess the process through which the Celts gained such a reputation and the idea that the actions of the Celts had little impact on their reputation, that it was pre-determined before the invasion of 279.
Before exploring the process in which the Celts or Gauls were assigned such a bad reputation one must first look at the context of the invasion of 279. In Northern Greece and Macedonia we see a crisis arise around 281 with the death of both Seleukos and Ptolemy Keraunos at the hands of Gaulish invaders. Following this, one band of Gauls, led by Brennus and numbering in the thousands, managed to penetrate Greece as far as the religious centre of Delphi before being repelled by the Aitolians, other Greeks, aided by Apollo who sent a snowstorm to harry the Gallic forces. These events were being thrust into a Greek world that was isolated from ‘barbarians’ or non-Greeks. It is a fragmented and rather chaotic period with dynastic successors warring across the lands previously held by Alexander. However despite this we see a general consensus of negative feelings towards the Gauls, with the perception of them being not dissimilar to that of the Persians in 480, Macedonians at Charaonaiea in 338 or the Romans before the destruction of Corinth. Wherever the Gauls went they provoked panic and fear according to contemporary documents, they were a dangerous non-Greek other, the archetypal barbarians. Due to the strengths of the Gallic forces, shown through their defeat of Keraunos and penetrating deep into Greece, fear would be wholly rational in this period. In the years following the invasion of 279 we see Gallic forces exacting tribute from cities across Greece and Asia minor until being defeated in 270 by Antiochus and being force into Anatolia. however despite this bad reputation and fear the Hellenistic rulers were not slow to take advantage of the warlike nature of the Gauls. Nikomedes invited the Gauls into Asia Minor and assisted them in crossing, where Galatia was founded, together they defeated and killed Zipoetes II, taking control of Bithynia. Throughout this period, and in the years after, we see the Gauls categorised as an aggressive enemy, and while they continued to be a nuisance to the Greco-Macedonians for years to come, we can see that they were not inherently aggressive in their actions, rather as Allen puts it ‘’The aims of the Galatians seem from the beginning to have been settlement and security’’.
Following the context it is easy to see why there was a general consensus of negative feeling towards the Celts following 279, however the point I am exploring is that the bad reputation the celts enjoyed was a pre-ordained and unjustified one, that would have existed regardless of the events of 279 onwards. Going back to the earlier extract of Pausanias (10.12.5) it is clear from this that Pausanias, despite being a non-contemporary writer, viewed the Galatian invasion of 279 and the defence of Delphi as an exemplification of Greek strength when collectively defending freedom, a concept much prized and sought after in the 45 years from Alexanders death to the Galatian invasion.. As previously mentioned the gravity Pausanias assigns to the event is synonymous with the resistance to Macedonia at Chaironeia 338, Antipater in 322 and further back Xerxes’ Persians in 480, the ‘’true tests of patriotic panhellenic spirit’’.
This brings to the fore the ever present ‘us and them’ concept which goes back to the Persians in the 5th BCE. The Gauls were the new threat to the Greek world that they could unify against, bringing the traditional gods and the concept of Greek freedom and survival to the fore in a similar fashion to the Persion invasion of 480. Pausanias describes it in such a fashion ‘’As the struggle was not merely for their freedom, but for their very existence against the merciless barbarian foe’’. However one can see the strength of the threat to have been exaggerated in many accounts, further exaggerated was the reality of the Galatians themselves, their culture and generic traits. The way in which they were presented in both contemporary sources and later accounts held few similarities to the historical reality. We see the Galatians presented as ‘barbarians’ and a ‘merciless barbarian foe’ alongside depictions as thus; ‘’savage, bold, and warlike nation’’ (Justin 24.4), ‘’they found a country abounding with wine and other provisions, had dispersed themselves over the fields’’ (Justin 24.7). These presented the Gauls as being a mass horde of undisciplined savages, terrifying and murderous in contrast to the civilised, steadfast Greeks. However when one considers that they were used as mercenary armies for decades following the invasion, indeed into the Roman period, and that they established the land of Galatia when settled there by the successor kings we begin to see the facade of the brutal barbarian begin to fade away. Especially so when one looks at the treaty between the Gauls and Nicomedes of Bithynia.
‘’The terms of the pact were as follows: the barbarians should always support Nicomedes and his children, and should not enter into alliance with any other state which requested it without the permission of Nicomedes. They should be allies of his allies, and enemies of his enemies. They should serves as allies of the Byzantines, if necessary, and of the inhabitants of Tius and Heracleia and Chalcedon and Cierus, and of some other rulers. On these terms, Nicomedes brought the multitude of Gauls over to Asia. The Gauls had 17 eminent leaders, of whom the most important and distinguished were Leonnorius and Luturius.’’
This passage presents us with a presentation of the Gauls that contrasts strongly, the majority of other works describing the Gallic brutalities and barbarism. Clearly they were disciplined, willing to stick to treaties and capable of negotiation. All under the control of an effective and disciplined social hierarchy with respected and again effective leaders. Far from being the terrifying threat to Greek freedom that they were presented as being, they were a useful and powerful resource available for hire to any of the Hellenistic rulers, giving opportunity in the form of military mercenaries rather than a military enemy. Furthermore the idea presented by Pausanias (12.19.10) that they were a threat to Greek freedom and existence is contrasted in the description by Memnon (11.5) ‘’At first this crossing of the Gauls to Asia seemed to cause only trouble for the inhabitants, but in the end it inclined to their benefit. The kings tried to put an end to the democracies in the cities, but the Gauls strengthened them, by repelling the cities’ oppressors’’, here we see the Galatians as defending, whether purposely or not, the very thing they had a reputation for threatening.
Furthermore Memnon gives us an insight into the motives of the Gallic forces with regards to both the treaty and also the original migration: ’’The Gauls shared the rest of the loot amongst themelves’’ which, although not their only or even foremost objective would still have been important. However we see their main objective as thus ‘’After advancing over much of the country, the Gauls withdraw and chose a section of the land to keep for themselves, which is now called Galatia’’ This highlights and supports the previous suggestion that the actions of the Gauls were not innately aggressive but the actions required when in search of a new homeland. However even this settlement was a positive one for the Hellenistic rulers, or at least Nicomedes, who gained with the creation of Galatia a buffer Kingdom against the Seleukids. And in return the Galatians had access to good agricultural land, with no strong power structure to stop them, easily controlled and maintained. This new Celtic state benefited all of the Hellenistic Kings, with the Galatians serving as mercenaries for almost every ruler and in every major conflict until 31 CE. Far from the dreaded enemy presented by both contemporary and later writers.
A further element adding to the bad reputation that the Gauls enjoyed is that of them being a useful enemy for propaganda purposes. We see it most of all with Pergamon, striving for independence from the Seleucid empire they were beset by Gallic forces, part of the great surging migration that had spread into Macedonia, Greece and Anatolia. Attalus I famously refused to pay the tribute money that many Hellenistic rulers had been paying for years to the Galatians, the first to do so. This therefore provoked a conflict and victory through which Attalus could claim the title of the Saviour King. Attalus took full advantage of the propaganda available in a victory over the Galatians with dedications, sculptures and honorific collections of weapons encased in marble. Foremost among these are the ‘Suicidal Celt’ and the ‘Dying Trumpeter’, both available today due to Roman copies based on the original bronzes from Pergamon circa 230-180. This highlights the use of Gauls as an opportunity to increase and solidify their own Hellenic image, and furthermore secure their own independence under Attalus I after he used the victory the claim the Kingship. The commissioned artwork commemorated Pergamon championing the Hellenic cause against the barbarians. We see this happen with other Hellenistic monarchies, taking advantage of victories over the Gauls to solidify their own kingship or propel themselves into kingship. For example in 277 we see Antigonos assuming the title of saviour, securing his monarchistic ambitions over Macedon, as well as the ‘Battle of the Elephants’ in Asia Minor, the victory of which gave lead to figurines of elephants trampling the Galatian army to be produced in Pergamon, a practice similar to the ‘Dying Trumpeter’ and ‘Suicidal Celt’.
In 277 Antigonos Gonatas defeated an army of 15,000 Celts at Lysimacheia on the European shore of the Hellespont and assumed the title S0″te”r (saviour) for the first time. H e thus sealed his claim to the kingship of Macedonia. Sometime between 275 and 268 Antiochos I rendered a similar service to the communities of western Asia Minor by defeating a Galatian army at the so-called ‘Battle of the Elephants’. The echoes of this victory resonated widely. The terracotta workshops of Myrina near Pergamon produced figurines depicting elephants trampling Galatian warriors Bienkowski 1928: 141-50
Even in Egypt Ptolemy I1 was able to exploit a triumph over the Gauls to enhance his own monarchic prestige. Cdimachus, in his Hymn to Delos, and other poets compared the crushing of a mutiny of 4000 Celtic mercenaries on an island in the river Nile with the victory of the gods over the giants and with Apollo’s recent triumph at Delphi (Strobe1 1994: 78-9). Galatian shieldswere depicted in the decoration of the temple of the Ptolemaic ruler cult at Limyra in Asia Minor.