CELTS, SPANIARDS, AND SAMNITES: WARRIORS IN A SOLDIERS’ WAR LOUIS RAWLINGS In the conflict between the Carthaginian and Roman states, conducted on their behalf by appointed citizen generals, and enlisted citizen soldiers, the contribution of warriors produced by the chieftain societies of Spain, Gaul, Northern and Apennine Italy was enormous. Without access to the manpower of these peoples, Hannibal would never have been able to launch his attack on Italy, or to replace early losses. The Spanish theatre became the most decisive of the war because it had enabled Carthage to rival the seemingly limitless manpower which the Roman state enjoyed in Italy. Our sources constantly denigrate the contribution, and appear to undervalue the military worth, of these peoples. I will consider the portrayal of these warriors in our ancient sources and compare this with what can be discerned of their military roles in the War.’ DEFINITIONS: WARRIOR OR SOLDIER? I shall begin by making a distinction between warriors and soldiers. Soldiers are troops enlisted into units under the command of designated officers. They will usually be paid and their equipment will be relatively uniform. Drill often takes up as much time as weapon handling. Warriors, on the other hand, form themselves into warbands, often commanded by a local chieftain whose command will be based on ties of obligation and patronage, or on charisma. There may be little emphasis on drill; indeed the style of fighting may militate against anything more than rudimentary commands and manoeuvres. Soldiers are cooperative creatures; their manner of fighting is often based on a reliance on other members of the unit; discipline and cohesion are stressed. The opposite is true of warriors. Individualism, personal glory, even competition with comrades, are important features of their combat style. One could say that urban-based powers produce soldiers, while less urbanized societies, which could be termed tribal, produce warriors. Modern eyes often see soldiers as professionals and warriors as amateurs, but this is misleading. I prefer the analogy between factory-workersand craftsmen; both can be paid for their labours, but, while factory-workersare employees of a corporation undertaking tasks they are allocated, craftsmen work for themselves and have a choice about the ordering of their tasks, and, often, who their patron will be. This comes down to a political delineation of their role, and position, in society. Soldiers are defined as such because of their relationship to the State. Being a soldier is just one aspect of the network of obligations and privileges which define citizenship.This is a relationship of loyalty not to real individuals, but to the abstract concept of the ‘State’ (although this may be physically embodied by the existence of magistrates and an urban centre). The citizen-soldier subverts his own I have omitted a discussion of other tribal -peoples,such as the Numidians and Moors, simply on grounds of space and knowledge.