Celt warband make up

[Black Cavalier]

What was the makeup of the Celtic War bands allied with the
early imperial romans?  I have a mix of the warlord figures with shirtless, fully clothed, and chainmail figures. And both swords and Spears.

Were all types all mixed together throughout the warband? Or the armored types at the front or the shirtless crazies all at the front?

Or would the armored types be in a completely separate unit?

Just trying to figure out how to arrange them on bases.

Thanks in advance

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

Celtic warbands being tribal clans for organization, probably had no set formation.  I expect the stronger/wealthier took their places of honour but where they stayed it would be very hard to say.  I doubt armoured troops stayed up front if just because a warband charging is going to get a little spread out as the lighter, faster men out run the armoured types.

[Cubs]

Records are pretty patchy, but personally I'd follow something based on organisation lists from various rulebooks, which usually have a measure of research.

One way to organise would be to have the main body of your force (2/3 maybe) being Warriors with only light or no body armour and a mix of weapons, organised into large units, with those with the most armour being up front where you would expect the higher class warriors to be.

Then you could have a small force of naked or shirtless Fanatics (historically dubious, but fun) with tattoos and wild expressions.

Another small unit of Elite warriors - your Warlord's bodyguard - with the heaviest body armour.

Then a smattering of skirmishers with slings and javelins - younger men and older hunters, not in their prime.

For me, I wouldn't be able to resist a few Light Chariots and maybe Light Cavalry as well.

[Red Orc]

I don't think anyone really knows how the Gauls (or whoever else) organised their warbands, but if they were auxiliaries, their leaders would be given citizenship (possibly educated in 'romanitas') and they'd be expected to have some discipline.

For wargaming purposes, go for whatever makes the most sense. If fielding bases of one armour-type and one weapon-type makes sense, do that, I reckon.

Conceptually at least I think you're looking at 'levies' (just normal guys from the farm in their normal clothes, with a spear and shield or whatever), 'fanatics' with no shirts on (something like viking berserkers, at least by analogy), and 'nobles' in chain who may be leader-types, heroes fighting individual combats, or possibly a kind of bodyguard for an army leader.

If you want to field mixed units, can you just put three different bases next to each other?

If that doesn't work, same armour but different weapons? Just on general organisational principles, keeping bases of the same troop types just makes sense, doesn't it?

You might need cavalry as well.

[dadlamassu]

From what you say you are looking to incorporate Celts into a Roman Force. 

At the start of Early Empire Period (Julio-Claudian, Flavian, Nerva-Antonine dynasties) 27BC to 192 AD the Celts in Roman service would be recruited from sympathetic or conquered tribes.  They would likely be the kind of troops that the Roman Legions lacked - cavalry, light infantry, scouts etc.  They likely fought under their own leadership but under Roman command.  Unfortunately their contribution to the actual battle is seldom recorded.  Augustus started the process of forming them into regular units armed and equipped in the Roman way - cavalry, spear and javelin infantry and archers (oddly though there is considerable archaeological evidence of slingers I have not found mention of an actual auxiliary unit of funditores). It is very likely that a considerable number of legionaries and auxiliaries were proficient with slings before they joined the army and used them in battle.  All that said, client kings could and did sent contingents of tribesmen to fight alongside and, commonly, to act as scouts for the Legions. 

Attached to my Legio VI Victrix serving in northern  Brittania and Caledonia I often use a couple of units of locals based on the Warlord figures.  I don't actually have separate units and just use tribal warriors as light javelin, spearand sword infantry (mixed shirts and bare chests with armored leaders and units of light slingers (conversions) with unarmoured leaders and of cavalry each with a Roman officer.  To distinguish them on the table I have made "allied" command groups to add to the tribal one consisted of a better dressed or armoured tribal leader, bodyguards and a vexillifer with Roman shields.  Some get a Roman Prefect or Centurion figure attached.

The rest of my Celts are from the standard Auxiliaries box all armed and equipped in Roman style.  The exception are my Exploratores and Speculatores who are indistinguishable from the opposition as befitting their role. 

So I see no reason to stop you having units all armed the same or mixed.  I'd concentrate more on light javelin skirmishers, light spear, swors and javelin close combat troops and sling armed skirmishers.  The Celts were famous cavalrymen so you can have them too.

Really we don't know - it's your legion so recruit what you want and writec your own "Commentaries".

[SJWi]

As has been already said the Romans tended to recruit auxiliaries to complement areas where they were "weak".  Hence we know of Hamian archers from Syria being posted on Hadrian's Wall. I would certainly have some Gallic cavalry as although the example is pre-Imperial, one of the better attested example of Gallic Auxiliaries in Roman service are cavalry serving with Crassus during the disastrous Carrhae Campaign. 

[dadlamassu]

You may be interested in:
Reassessing the Proficiency of Celtic Military Forces c. 100 BC-100 AD this study which (quote) reassesses the long-held belief that ancient Celtic military forces were of inferior quality compared to their Roman counterparts. Through a critical examination of primary sources, particularly Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico and Tacitus' De Vita et Moribus Julii Agricolae, and a reconsideration of biases within Greco-Roman narratives, the research posits that Celtic military capabilities in strategy, tactics, training, and discipline were more sophisticated than traditionally perceived. The findings challenge the portrayal of Celtic forces as disorganized and lacking cohesion, highlighting a more nuanced understanding of their military effectiveness during the period from 100 BC to 100 AD.

https://www.academia.edu/27052244/Reassessing_the_Proficiency_of_Celtic_Military_Forces_c_100_BC_100_AD

[cadbren]

Best to consider that you're dealing with humans and that they were coming from a society just as stratified as the Romans. Meaning that yahoos wouldn't be running out in front of their social superiors.
It would be akin to a medieval feudal levy. A lord and his household troops, retainers and their troops, lower ranks leading commoners. Depending on the number of troops needed it may be better equipped than your standard tribal levy with a heavier emphasis on the upper ranks. I assume the tribes were constrained in their abilities to wage war so joining the Romans would likely be the only way to get military service, meaning that places would be contested.

When Julius Sacrovir revolted in 21, his army was 20% armed in Roman fashion. The Aedui were the closest tribe to the Romans so perhaps their auxiliaries were armoured like legionaries too. That the crupellarius was a regional gladiator type seemingly inspired by the heavily armoured legionary would suggest that some Gauls had been become firm believers in the benefits of strong armour. It seems suggestive that the Roman armed soldiers of the Aedui were legionary like. The rest though sound like rabble armed with boar spears and light weapons with reference being made to hunting. Such troops likely never appeared in warbands but it would be interesting to think that the Aedui may have fielded legionary like units for service alongside actual legionaries.

[cadbren]

Reassessing the Proficiency of Celtic Military Forces c. 100 BC-100 AD this study which (quote) reassesses the long-held belief that ancient Celtic military forces were of inferior quality compared to their Roman counterparts.
https://www.academia.edu/27052244/Reassessing_the_Proficiency_of_Celtic_Military_Forces_c_100_BC_100_AD

It's a good article, certainly better material than in many of the older books calling themselves "Celtic Warriors" which are often just rehashed histories with pretty pictures. Cassius Dio's quote about Celts crossing the Medway is possibly an error on his part. The Batavii were famous for such water crossings in armour and were in Britain. It's probably them but we can't be certain.

[Black Cavalier]

Thanks all for the great info.  For some reason I thought I remembered something about the young warriors wanting to distinguish themselves in battle so were out front.  But as was said, those might be classed better as lights or fanatics instead of the front tanks of a warband

[Red Orc]

I think that's a reasonable gloss you can put on it. We're talking about a 'heroic' society in which you can get noticed by a social superior and secure patronage. Young warriors seeking to 'prove' themselves to their chief indeed.

On the battlefield (or rather, the wargames table) I think the motivations of the individual participants are fairly unimportant. If you want to have a unit or a front rank of half-naked berserker shock troops who rely as much on intimidation as actual fighting prowess, that's fine. If you decide between battles that *that one*, *that one* and *that one* were recruited into the inner circle of their chief's warband and given better kit (to replace dead veterans, let's say), while being replaced by similar-looking young braves in the 'half-naked fanatics unit', that's also fine. There would be I'm sure an endless supply of young men keen to make a name for themselves and conceptually at least a conveyor belt of survivors up the ranks.

The thing is, we don't really know how it was done. Our records are from Roman and Greek writers (or much later from monks recording legends, or from places far away in the early medieval period) and I think it's safe to say that at best they misunderstand the societies they describe and at worst just invent and romanticise (interesting word that) what they purport to describe. In the case of analogies with the Kingdom of the Scots in the 7th century AD, it's debatable how much relevance it has to say Central Europe 900 years earlier.

We have some archaeological information too (for instance, though the Irish tales go on about chariots, archaeological evidence doesn't show chariots as being part of Irish warfare in the Iron Age - it's almost like the monks read Caesar talking about Boudicca in Britain and assumed that Ireland must have them too), but not about individuals.

What we know for definite is that Celtic/Gaulish cavalry was used by the Romans (so cavalry should probably be a component you're looking to include); some Gaulish troops were outfitted like or somewhat Romans (so we can be sure there were relatively-heavily-armoured individuals or units); when Caesar arrived in Britain he was surprised by chariots because he hadn't encountered them in Gaul, there doesn't seem to be a chariot tradition in Ireland, and in Central Europe it seems to have died out by the 5th century BC or thereabouts, so depending on when and where this Celtic contingent is raised, it's unlikely to have chariots; and some commentators do describe warriors going into battle naked or semi-naked, so it's reasonable to include numbers of these in your force, though whether they're fanatics or young warriors seeking to make a name for themselves or something else is open to interpretation.

I think what we can also posit is that the bulk of any historical force would be effectively 'peasant levies', neither heavily-armoured veteran warriors, nor half-naked fanatics/young braves, but 'guys with a spear and a shield who were there because their lord or chief called for them to assemble'.

So I think any reasonably-accurate 'Celtic'(Gaulish?) force would have four components (at least, without getting into small units of slingers or whatever): the 'elite' with heavy armour (leaders, maybe units of veteran troops as bodyguards or whatever), unarmoured levy troops (the guys with spear and shield), naked 'fanatics' (however you decide they should be used on the battlefield - as shock troops or skirmishers or whatever), and cavalry (probably, 'elite' or relatively-elite cavalry makes most sense).

[dadlamassu]

As said above, apart from the warlords household warriors (brothers, sons, cousind, picked warriors etc.) all well armed and equipped and, depending on location, probably mounted on ponies, horses or chariots.  Ancient European horses were smaller than modern ones.  The warbands would be tribal and comprise a few armoured warriors, some reasonably equipped warriors and the rest, as noted before, tribal levy.  The warband leadership generally fought in the front rank so in a wargame once commiitted to battle they would have difficulty on changing direction or orders.  So all manoeuvre would be before the charge. 

Going back to your origal question:
As you are using the Warlord Celtic Warriors, then every one of them is useable in one allied warband.  If you want to have just light infantry i'd suggest a mix of sword and javelin and spear and javelin warriors, some with shields and a few amoured leader types.  Maybe even some with Roman shields.

The Romans copied a lot of their equipment from the Celts - gladius, mail shirts , helmets etc.

[cadbren]

Thanks all for the great info.  For some reason I thought I remembered something about the young warriors wanting to distinguish themselves in battle so were out front.  But as was said, those might be classed better as lights or fanatics instead of the front tanks of a warband

The Romans did this, they were the velites. Probably a common European tradition of younger warriors acting as skirmishers and then retreating when the main lines joined combat. I forget the names but a couple of well known Romans charged the enemy sword in hand during their younger days when serving in the velites. They usually acted as a screening force with javelins but sometimes the more intrepid ones engaged with swords.

Celtic warriors were known for asking for single combat before battle but these were seasoned warriors with loot worthy equipment, there are a couple of instances of this recorded because the Romans won these duels - presumably there were others where the Romans didn't.