View Full Version : The Celtic Legions
Stefan the Berserker
11-29-2004, 23:28
http://www.kriegsreisende.de/antike/kelten.htm
Eine wesentliche Grundlage für den Solddienst der Kelten war immer gewesen, dass sie sich verschiedenen zerstrittenen, aber zahlungskräftigen Mächten anbieten konnten. So gesehen bildeten die langen Kriege in Sizilien, Italien, Griechenland und Kleinasien das ideale Biotop, in dem sie wirken konnten. Je mehr die Römer allerdings jede Konkurrenz ausschalteten und den ganzen Mittelmeerraum unter ihre Herrschaft brachten, kam den Kelten einfach die Kundschaft abhanden. Es blieb eigentlich nur Rom, das zu dieser Zeit aber nur in Ausnahmefällen Söldner beschäftigte. Es ist deshalb eine Ironie der Geschichte, dass die Eroberung Galliens durch Cäsar (58-51) hauptsächlich mit Legionen durchgeführt wurde, die in den Provinzen "Gallia Cisalpina" und "Gallia Narbonensis" ausgehoben worden waren. Es waren also meist keltische Legionäre, mit denen Cäsar die Kelten Galliens unterwarf, die dann ebenfalls für lange Zeit die Reihen der Legionen füllten.
The Celts were widely spread as Mercenaries, and Rome has risen many Legionaires in Gallia (indeed, most of Julius Caesar's Men were Gauls). Also Chartage, Macedon and even Egypt hired the Celts for Mercanaries. To display this properly I would rather say we need two new Units:
Celtic Legionaires
and
Celtic Mercanaries
Celtic Legionaires should be avarible to House Julier after the Gaius Marius Event (As House Julier will capture the named Provinces Gallia Cisalpina and Gallia Narbonensis). They have the same Armor and fighting style as the Romans and serve them, but due to their huge size and warlike Religion they are far better in Combat. They can easyly be made by adding beards to the Legionaires' faces, giving them a diffrent voicetype and of course improove their combat-odds. The combination of barbarian wildness and the Legion's discipline is an almost invincible weapon...
Celtic Mercanaries should be avarible to Chartage, the Greek Factions, Egypt and in northern Italy. They should be a Merc-Variant of Swordsmen made for the Gauls and be quite powerful. As Mediterrainian Tyrants loved that well-trustable Warriors to fight their enemys, I have no doubt that everybody playing Macedon or Chartage will love their Merc-Unit too.
PROMETHEUS
11-29-2004, 23:40
No...
Colovion
11-29-2004, 23:51
The Julii shouldn't be able to train Gaulish units unless they're mercs - if you want Gaulish legionaries then build some Gaulish peasants, disband them in a place that can build Legions, and then build --- it's how it would've happened probably. THen again, I'm a big supporter of the Homeland ideas.
Steppe Merc
11-30-2004, 00:02
I'd have to go no... mainly because their won't really be to much more in the way of "mercanary" units, maily because the normal units will be counted as mercanary. And as for the legion thing, I'm against it mainly because Rome hogs to many troops as it is, and the more interesting factions need them. ~D
I don't see how Gallic legionaries would have been very different from Italians... Celts will be available to many factions as mercenaries. Galatians done by me (cept for the skins of course), some celtic mercenary units will be done by the Gaul, Briton, and Iberia people, I'm sure. Celtic culture was very different in different areas, so this heterogeny should be taken into account. Stefan, you might get more than you bargained for, except the Gallic legion.
I'd have to go no... mainly because their won't really be to much more in the way of "mercanary" units, maily because the normal units will be counted as mercanary. And as for the legion thing, I'm against it mainly because Rome hogs to many troops as it is, and the more interesting factions need them.
You be nice to rome, damn you! ~:cheers:
Remember, there are -4- Roman factions, so the total of unique units will be divided by four in considering how many unit slots are "taken" by Rome rather than more "interesting" factions ;)
Right now, actually, the roman factions are way down on the list of number of unique units defined per faction.
sharrukin
11-30-2004, 00:33
I vote no on the Celtic legion. The Celtic mercenaries idea might be usable, but should be later in the game. Perhaps triggered by the Marian reforms.
eadingas
11-30-2004, 00:35
Nah. What's the difference who you use as recruits? This would mean we'd have to make spanish legionnaires, german legionnaires, greek legionnaires, and so on... any 'barbarian wildness' you could have got suppressed during the legionnaire training. In fact, I think the 'wild' legionnary would be less effective in a warfare like Roman, which required strict discipline. While the religion and morale can be simulated by buildings.
And yeah, what Khel said. Rome has little units now, and could use some more diversity, especially since they've already lost pigs, dogs, gladiators, arcani and who knows what else. But I don't think it should be different kinds of legionnaries. That's not the way to go.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
11-30-2004, 01:08
No and no.
There can be regional specific Celt mercs but not a pan-mediterranean unit...
I have two suggested Celtic mercs in my Briton list, and Pyscho V has suggested plenty in Gaul, I believe. A single 'Celtic mercenary' would not actually represent, at all, the wide breadth of the various Celtic peoples who sold their services to whoever would pay them, considering, depending on where they were from, they used different weapons, had different appearances, different armor, etc. A mercenary from Celtiberia is going to look plenty different from a mercenary from Briton.
As for Celtic legions, what's the difference between a Celt being trained to be a legionarre, than a Roman? Nothing. I mean, if you take a Roman boy, and trained him to fight like a Gaesatae, is he going to be naturally inclined to try and march in a tight formation? Of course not. The only thing like this I could think of were the 'imitation legions' of the Gallatians, and I don't actually know if they existed, just heard some things about them.
PSYCHO V
11-30-2004, 06:38
Afraid I'll have to cast my two votes as No as well
If you go down that track, your going to have a hell of a lot of different types of legionaries. Legions raised in Pontus, legions raised in Greece, Legions raised in Germania etc etc etc ad naseum. I don’t think the benefit warrants the effort even if we had unlimited unit spots..which we don’t.
Ranika, the mercs I’ve done are for the Gauls. To make some historic mercs for the Romans all you would need to do is add the Teutonic Cavalry and (Gallic) Leus Epos unit (as per EB Gaul list) to the .txt as mercs enabled.
Aren't mercs recruitable by anyone in the region though that buys them? Or can they be confined to only a single faction?
PSYCHO V
11-30-2004, 11:47
Aren't mercs recruitable by anyone in the region though that buys them? Or can they be confined to only a single faction?
arr..good point. Not sure
In any event, the AI doesn't seem to buy mercs. It'd be more of a player decision to buy 'historic' mercs, so that shouldn't be TOO big of a worry, but it'd be nice if mercs were confinable to factions, without making them a trainable unit.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
11-30-2004, 22:54
The mercs ARE linked to specific factions.
How so? The trait that makes a unit a merc says that it means it's available to all factions, I don't quite follow. Can units be mercenaries without that trait?
Steppe Merc
11-30-2004, 23:31
I think your wrong... any faction can buy them, but only a few can bribe them, which is what the whole faction owner thing is.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
11-30-2004, 23:43
Haven't you noticed that some merc units aren't available to every faction?
Are you sure even about bribing them? As the Gauls, Greeks, and Germans, I've bribed the Illyrians in Illyria (which had all Illyrian mercs for the force in the city), and they joined my army.
And no, I've never seen any merc not available to everyone. As Parthia, I could could get barbarian infantry in Gaul and such.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
11-30-2004, 23:46
Could you buy Hoplite Mercs or Cretan Archers with them?
I don't recall, actually. I should think so, considering I could get infantrymen from Gaul, which seems stupid to me, especially if mercs can be confined to factions, and I can't get hoplites, which are closer to Parthia. But if they are confinable, then, how is it decided what factions can hire what?
As an aside, will there be different types of Hoplite mercenaries? I'm fairly sure hoplites in Greece would be different than Sicilians.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-01-2004, 00:11
But if they are confinable, then, how is it decided what factions can hire what?
IIRC, one of the txt files is dedicated to describe what units are mercs or not. Then in the units file, the faction that can buy them, has it's name assigned to it, just like any other trainable one.
As an aside, will there be different types of Hoplite mercenaries? I'm fairly sure hoplites in Greece would be different than Sicilians.
Yes.
I don't see how Gallic legionaries would have been very different from Italians...
They would have been much larger in stature mainly. The Romans were known as a very slight people while the Celts were known to be taller and stronger.
That's not necessarily true. For one, I believe a legionarre was required to be around 6 feet tall, wasn't he? Irregardless, some Celts were relatively short. Gauls were not necessarily bigger than opposing Roman soldiers. And in either event, they Celtic legionarre would act and work identically to the Roman on the field. They wouldn't engage in any type of 'wildness', their training would organize them in the manner common to Romans. A Gallic soldier does not instinctively engage in combat in the way they did, they fought that way because it's how they were trained to.
The point is, technically, what would be the difference of a Celtic legionarre to a Roman, in the game? There wouldn't be one. They used same weapons, equipment, and organization as Romans, once conquered.
That's not necessarily true.
Yes it is. Read the histories of the time. The romans were known as a slight people compared to barbarian peoples like the Gauls and Germans. Probably because the barbarians ate a bunch more meat aside from any genetic factors. Caesar actually mentions the disparity in size in several places in his account of his campaigns in Gaul.
I have read the accounts of the time. However, it's notable that much of what Romans, including Caesar had to say about the Gauls, was meant to show them as being a large, beastly people, which would trump up glory in victory over them.
However, from the remains of the Gauls, they were not necessarily larger than Romans. Their armor, their weapons, their clothing, could all fit on a Roman soldier relatively fine. If they were so much bigger than the Romans, that wouldn't happen. They would've been slightly larger than them, on average, over the whole of the populations, but Roman soldiers were large men themselves. A Celtic legionarre would not be distinguisable from a Roman one. They'd both have their faces shaved, their hair cut short, wear the same armor, and look the same relative size on the field. Gauls were not hulking masses of human beings, and Romans were not that small of people. Another example of the lack of any major size disparities, Gauls would take Roman armor off dead enemies, and wear it. If Romans were so much smaller, how would that fit? They would be painfully crammed into it, too much for the armor to do them any good. According to the Romans, the Gauls were also filthy and uneducated, niether of which is true. Roman propaganda doesn't count as actual historical evidence.
However, from the remains of the Gauls, they were not necessarily larger than Romans. Their armor, their weapons, their clothing, could all fit on a Roman soldier relatively fine. If they were so much bigger than the Romans, that wouldn't happen.
Got a source for that? Even Greek historians of the time say that the Celts were of a large stature.
Their size cant be entirely blamed on propaganda. Most propaganda requires a seed of truth.
PSYCHO V
12-01-2004, 06:46
arr, not quite. According to Goldsworthy the average Roman in this period was around 5'7". The average Gaul was roughly 6'1", average German roughly 6'3", based on skeletal remains. There's alos plenty of literary evidence suggesting how much shorter those Italian boys were. The Gauls in the "Gallic War" even make fun of the Romans for their stature..till they put them to the sword. One for the little guys.
...even so, still doesn't warrant the inclusion of Gallic legions imho.
The source I'd say is in armor. And skeletal remains say a lot about average size, but what was the average size of a soldier? And would it look different on the field? And, would it make a viable unit just because of a slight height difference?
Gauls, likewise, were not very kind to the appearance of Romans, including, admittedly, height, but they also commented on the smell of Romans (one of the reasons to leave Rome, it was filthy, apparently, in their eyes), and numerous other things. Even if they were about 4 inches taller, that'd not translated well into the game. Irregardless, their size was not a major enough factor in saying that they should have their own unit.
The source I'd say is in armor.
Thats not what I mean by source. I mean verifiable independent information.
...even so, still doesn't warrant the inclusion of Gallic legions imho.
I think it depends on if theres any evidence that Gauls were concentrated into specific units in such a way that the entire unit would be substantially taller and stronger than the average Legion. I havent seen anything to suggest that.
Polybius does qoute their size as being greater, and while he notes them as being taller, he puts it across as slighter than the truly intimidating portion of their size. Their size was truly greatest in breadth of their shoulders, not their height (though, I will admit the average Gaul was taller then, but that still doesn't seem that important of a factor in determining a new unit to me). Their height would probably be frightening, but their width I would imagine to be more intimidating, and that still doesn't warrant a viable unit, just because of size differences, which would still be slight. 4 inches taller is not very well shown on a unit of tiny men. Nor would it really make much of a difference in the unit itself. They would fight the same way, same equipment, and doesn't warrant a unit.
Gauls were welcomed into the legion after being 'naturalized' as Romans, weren't they? In that vein, wouldn't they just be organized into pre-existing Roman units?
The only Celt of great enough height that I'd imagine would cast a huge disparity between a Roman legion and Celtic legion, would be Britons. They were taller than Gauls. They or Germans I could see, being about half a foot taller than a Roman, but the Gauls just don't seem big enough that they'd look much different once dressed up and marching with Romans.
However, I don't think the Britons and Germans were recruited into the legion, were they? More over, Gallic 'strength', while I'd not doubt impressive, would seem hardly realistic to make a unit for either. The Gauls would be trained in a Roman fashion, that'd include their physical training, diet, etc. Any greater or lesser strength of a Gaul would be lost, he would be strong as a Roman.
However, I don't think the Britons and Germans were recruited into the legion, were they? More over, Gallic 'strength', while I'd not doubt impressive, would seem hardly realistic to make a unit for either. The Gauls would be trained in a Roman fashion, that'd include their physical training, diet, etc. Any greater or lesser strength of a Gaul would be lost, he would be strong as a Roman.
Well I dont really understand why you are still insisting that there werent significant height and size differences when all sources be it ancient historians or modern anthropologists acknowledge the significant height and size advantage of the various Celtic people from the Gauls to the Iberians over that of the slight Italians. This comes from dietary AND genetic factors.
That aside, on the issue of germans recruited into the legion they were recruited by certain emperors as bodyguard units specifically because of their size and their isolation from the culture for loyalty purposes... we see this throughout history in other circumstances like the Varangian Guard in Byzantium and the Swiss Guard in France.
Varangians and the Swiss Guard (who would actually be of Celtic blood, wouldn't they? Had a Helvetii population at one point, didn't it?) don't answer my question though, both of them come later. Were there legions of Germanic or Gallic origin?
I don't see a few inches of height as being significant though for a unit, and since we're talking about a game, that's what should matter. I see it also as little significance even in the real world, if you're talking about Gauls in the legion, because at 100 meters, a line of men standing in formation, if there are any significant number of Gauls in it, aren't going to look that much bigger anyway. More over, the Gauls wouldn't be incorporated into their own unit, they would be incorporated into units of Romans, wouldn't they? And size itself does not necessarily imply a great deal of strength, just the same as a short height does not mean one is a weakling. What I mean by that is, no matter size differences between Gauls and Romans, Gauls are not giants, and Romans aren't midgets, so given the same diet and physical training, which a Gallic legionnare would have with a Roman legionnare, he won't be significantly stronger. The whole height argument was a devil's advocate thing anyway. But irregardless, there's no reason for Celtic legions without proof that there were exclusively Celtic-blooded units. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it just seems unlikely.
As for Germanic bodyguards, were they used in large enough numbers, within the period, to constitute a unit? If they were, I'd have no objections to that as a new unit for Romans maybe, though I'd think there are some other more important additions that could be made for Rome. More types of Auxilia maybe?
I don't see a few inches of height as being significant though for a unit
Get involved in some kind of martial arts. A few inches of height is a significant advantage in any hand to hand combat.
What I mean by that is, no matter size differences between Gauls and Romans, Gauls are not giants, and Romans aren't midgets, so given the same diet and physical training, which a Gallic legionnare would have with a Roman legionnare, he won't be significantly stronger.
Thats assuming a Gallic and Roman legionnare have the same genetics and diet while growing up. Seems like a pretty bad assumption. Also the Celts were known as a race of giants according to ancient sources.
More over, the Gauls wouldn't be incorporated into their own unit, they would be incorporated into units of Romans, wouldn't they?
Thats what I dont know. Where entire legions levied locally or where recruits gathered at central locations and then trained as replacements?
Maybe both depending on the circumstances. It would take some research to find out.
As for Germanic bodyguards, were they used in large enough numbers, within the period, to constitute a unit?
Not sure how many were used in the emperors bodyguard. Would be interesting to find out same thing with Praetorian guard.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-09-2004, 02:17
Forget it, guys. The poll is clear.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.