Celtic overpowered!

[Casuir]

They usually get destroyed fairly early in the campaigns I've played, though the Aedui hang in for longer due to rebellions in central and eastern europe.

[Boyar Son]

The stats for EB are not designed for any difficulty level other than medium for battle. The reason that the celtic units appear overpowered to you is because of those bonuses. If you don't play on medium battle difficulty, we can't really help with any complaints.

Foot

this really does answer alot of questions

[Frostwulf]

This is the way I look at it. ROMANS
1.a: We all agree that the Roman martial prowess was greater post Marius.
b: According to Watchman and Psyco Celts were at there strongest pre-Marius.
c: This being the case why is it that the pre-Marius (weaker) Roman troops defeated the pre-Arverni-Aedui war(stronger) Celts. Most historians say that on equal terms the Romans of this period defeated the Celts most of the time. The time frame Iam talking about is starting from 250 b.c. The battles Iam referring to are stated in historical writings. There were times when the Romans outnumbered the Celts and vice versa. There were times when one ambushed the other and other events which take place in warfare. With all these things taken into account, the Romans bested the Celts the majority of the time. Im not talking about the ultimate victory here, Im talking about individual battles, not just the whole war. By 200 B.C. the romans had occupied all northern Italy and had started into southern Gaul. You even have leader vs. leader in that M. Claudius Marcellus defeating Virdomarus in a duel.
Pyco you said: There was a reason why the Romans had not succeeded in conquering Transalpine Gaul in the previous 300 years of conflict. It cold be because of the other wars going on like with carthage.

2. Post Marius: Not all Celtic tribes were involved in the Arverni-Aedui war. These Celts were defeated by the Romans as well. They didnt lose their most experienced troops in this on going war, yet they were defeated just as the Arverni and Aedui were. You even have the Britons who were off the mainland and they were defeated just as well. These Celts that Caesar faced were NOT green, ill-equipped, untrained troops. Sure some could have been, but the Celts were a warlike people and they most certainly trained their children in the arts of war. Again when Caesar fought the Arverni, they had well trained cavalry and foot soldiers who were mail-clad. The battle of Gergovia and others of this time will show these were not green, ill-equipped, untrained troops. Most troops get their experience in war thus becoming veterans. With all the infighting between the Arverni and Aedui there had to be many veterans as shown in the aformentioned battles. Vercingetorix had plenty of soldiers and there had to be many that were experienced from the infighting of the tribes, they werent all just wiped out and then suddenly a new crop of green soldiers appear.
Again I dont have the time to continue, but I will another time and Im sure there will be comments to this .

[Watchman]

I'm under the impression the Roman/Celtic front in Northern Italy was something of a stalemate for a rather long time. You win some, you lose some, sometimes one side held the upper hand and sometimes the other (especially if someone from beyond the Alps stuck his nose in). Didn't the Romans eventually first subjugate the Cisalpine Gauls into allies and later fully "Romanize" them or something ?

But outside containing the nasty hairy trouser-wearing barbarians in the north (not always succesfully) Roman interests for a long time were focused on the Mediterranean region - Iberia, Sicily, Africa, the Balkans etc., that much is true. Transalpine Gaul was pretty low on their list, partly as they had no pressing reason to get stuck there (the Alps doing a decent job as a barrier, and the major players there were busy fighting each other) and partly because they weren't too keen on adding their heads to some hairy nutjob's trophy collection.

[PSYCHO V]

… why should they use a primitve club ?

The club is not a primitive weapon perse. Ie the design of the weapon may be primitive but it is a major error to then infer the same of it’s user. Remember, the club was the weapon of choice by many of Europe’s most powerful and wealthy during the Medieval period.

The facts of the matter is that a good solid club, as already mentioned by others here, is an effective weapon, especially when one if facing heavily armoured troops. I believe that rather than the Germans displaying their “primitive” nature by employing clubs, they were actually doing the opposite. They were demonstrating their willingness to adapt to circumstances, ie fighting armoured Gauls, Ligurians, Rhaetians and Romans.

Now, to all of you who say the Celtic units arfe overpowered, Just reach the Polybian reforms not even Marians are needed. If you play historically, you'll see a big diference. If you're not, well, you'll se a big diference as well. Basically, your Polybian Princeps are as good as they come and can shred most Gallic infantry to pieces no time. Now, when you reach Marian, you won't even have a chalenge. By the time you field Legions, the Naked fanatics are no match for the Roman army. And if you're able to reach imperial and still have Gauls messing around, you'll win most batles with litle to no casualities. Check the trading card game and you'll find that for you to have Celtic units compared to a post Marian legion, you'll need a level 4~5 MIC. Also they'll come out in units of 60 whilst the Legions com in the 100s.
I've been a "civilised" faction player for a long time however, once I discovered some Gallic mercs, I tried the Avernii and after reading this topic, again even greater respect for the so called "Barbarians". I believe from what I've read that EB is pretty accurate save for some minor discrepancies that is. But nothing that'd affect the balance of the gameplay.

BTW, try playing with the Celts and see if you still think they are over powered. You'll have a tough time trying to reach your most advanced units!

Cheers...

Yup, exactly. One can’t project one’s understanding of late Republican / Imperial Rome on the 3rd C BC

This is the way I look at it. According to Watchman and Psyco Celts were at there strongest pre-Marius.

Strength is relative. The Celts were relatively stronger in the 5th, 4th and very beginning of the 3rd C BC.. as previously stated.

This being the case why is it that the pre-Marius (weaker) Roman troops defeated the pre-Arverni-Aedui war(stronger) Celts. Most historians say that on equal terms the Romans of this period defeated the Celts most of the time. The time frame Iam talking about is starting from 250 b.c. The battles Iam referring to are stated in historical writings.

For the record, “most historians” do not claim that the Romans were victors “most of the time”, what they do state is that according to Roman records, we are told that was the case. As I’ve previously stated, there has been many Roman battles / defeats not recorded / lost (giving the benefit of the doubt) to us.

Further the battles you refer to involve Cisalpine Gauls, who by the mid 3rd C BC (250 BC) were already on the back foot. The Romans had waged a brutal war of attrition for over 150 years prior. The Cisalpine Gauls could not sustain their looses as the Romans could and once they reached a critical point the Cisalpine Gauls collapsed. Much celebrated Roman victories like the Battle of Minicio (196 BC), Battle of Bonnonia (191 BC), etc bear this out as they were no more a battle than the massacres of plains Indians at the likes of the ‘Battle of Wounded Knee’. The Romans in a genocidal blood lust, wiped out whole towns, tribes and nations.

The Romans bested the Celts the majority of the time. Im not talking about the ultimate victory here, Im talking about individual battles, not just the whole war.

No, we can’t say anything of the sort. We just don’t know

By 200 B.C. the romans had occupied all northern Italy and had started into southern Gaul.

And your point?

You even have leader vs. leader in that M. Claudius Marcellus defeating Virdomarus in a duel.

I’m sorry to be a kill joy, but the account of M. Claudius Marcellus defeating Virdomarus is pure fiction. Again, this is not my opinion but rather that of the world’s leading scholars on this subject.

Pyco you said: There was a reason why the Romans had not succeeded in conquering Transalpine Gaul in the previous 300 years of conflict. It cold (sic) be because of the other wars going on like with carthage.

I’m sorry but the Carthage hypothesis / excuse just does not stand up critical analysis. The Romans managed to expand their empire throughout the 3 Carthaginian Wars .. the last being little more than an excuse to plunder. If the Gauls were such a walk over as you seem to suggest, Gaul would have been a temptation too great to resist.

Post Marius: Not all Celtic tribes were involved in the Arverni-Aedui war. These Celts were defeated by the Romans as well. They didnt lose their most experienced troops in this on going war, yet they were defeated just as the Arverni and Aedui were.

Well, I have stated time and time again that the underlying cause for the complete Gallic capitulation was the civil war. All the tribes in Gaul were involved in this war as they sided with one or the other or in some isolated cases, sought to profit from circumstance ..incurring bloody / devastating reprisals (eg. Ossimii, Turoni, Venelli, Lingones, etc). It was into this internal loathing/ hatred and blood shed that Caesar came, playing on old hatreds and using Gauls to continue killing Gauls now for Rome’s / his benefit.

It is true however, that the likes of the Belgae (whom I was not originally referring to) had not been as involved in the Gallic civil war as the Gauls proper..and they were to prove a shock to the likes of Caesar. Remember Caesar was very nearly bested by one remote and primitive tribe the Nervii. The Nervii, who had little to no weapon producing facilities within their lands / having to import from the south, who had no equestrian knowledge or heritage … only had their courage, skill and training. Unlike the Romans, they had never fought their new enemy prior and yet gave a notable account of themselves.

The ultimate defeat of the Belgae was due in part to the prior defeat of the powers to their south. This caused great consternation within the loose Belgae confederation, causing it’s leading and most powerful tribes (eg Remi ‘Premier ones’, Suessiones ‘Six clans’, etc) to side with the Romans. Thus the Romans / Caesar was able to avoid facing a united Belgae force in battle (something he obviously wished to avoid) and instead use his new Belgae forces to ravage lands and strike at the heart and soul of his enemies…their women and children, .. only employing Roman arms to mop up any remaining tribe that continued to resist.

You even have the Britons who were off the mainland and they were defeated just as well. These Celts that Caesar faced were NOT green, ill-equipped, untrained troops.

The Britons were a different kettle of fish. Again I was talking about Gauls. The Britons succumbed for much the same reason as the continental Belgae.

The battle of Gergovia and others of this time will show these were not green, ill-equipped, untrained troops. Most troops get their experience in war thus becoming veterans. With all the infighting between the Arverni and Aedui there had to be many veterans as shown in the aformentioned battles. Vercingetorix had plenty of soldiers and there had to be many that were experienced from the infighting of the tribes, they werent all just wiped out and then suddenly a new crop of green soldiers appear.

One can’t assume, “Well they beat the Romans so they must have been supermen”. All that demonstrates is one’s attempt at trying to fit facts within a pre-conceived paradigm / world view. Yes the Gauls at Gergovia defeated Caesar, and yes they probably had had some experience / rudimentary training by this point in the campaign, unlikely for a leader like Vercingetrix to have over looked this. But the fact remains that these guys were only recently mobilised and thus inexperienced. As much as you may wish it otherwise, this wasn’t a trained / experienced force of veteran troops.

This is not only born out in the material record (eg. Thigh bones of Gallic youth, etc) but by other examples. Eg the fact Vercingetrix mounted all his most experienced / well equipped troops and when they were in turn defeated, the whole army (some of whom were apparently young boys) naturally lost heart.


my2bob

[Thaatu]

I really don't know which sources to trust about these things, but is it generally accepted that Celts had a more individual fighting style, while Romans acted as a unit and that while Celts might have generally been better fighters, the Roman tactics hampered their ability to fight one-on-one? If this is true then it would justify stronger stats to Celtic units. Damn, I hate to generalize...

[Watchman]

Well, the Roman method stemmed from the highly collectivist phalanx tradition albeit with fair bit of modifications AFAIK. They relied more on sustaining unit-level cohesion and wearing down that of the enemy, a perfectly viable approach particularly if you can't afford to train every soldier into a mighty warrior (drill and discipline being way faster to instill in fresh recruits). While the Celtic tradition produced cohesive enough battlefield formations I understand its focus and reliance was more on the fighting skill of the individual, an approach that certainly has its perks but also certain problems as discussed above - particularly if you're short on fully trained and experienced warriors for some reason.

The club is not a primitive weapon perse. Ie the design of the weapon may be primitive but it is a major error to then infer the same of it’s user. Remember, the club was the weapon of choice by many of Europe’s most powerful and wealthy during the Medieval period.

That would be maces, and a mace is not the same thing as a wooden club already per definition. Commanders' paraphenelia commonly included some sort of baton as a sign of their rank, a very ancient affectation from which royal sceptres also stem from AFAIK and still around as late as WW2 (if not today), but those would only have been used for combat in a dire emergency if the officer in question hadn't had time to draw his sword or something.

When people had to go into battle with wooden percussion weapons, usually in the context of peasant revolts or suchlike, they tended to make a point of adding all kinds of metal reinforcements and nasty pointy bits to improve the terminal effect. Among the examples I can name off the top of my head are the (somewhat obscure) godendags of High Medieval Flemish urban militias, the flails of the Hussite rebels that swiftly saw the addition of spiky metal bands and suchlike added to their business ends, and the spiky clubs of the peasant rebels in the 1500s "War of Clubs" uprising in Finland.

[PSYCHO V]

That would be maces, and a mace is not the same thing as a wooden club already per definition. Commanders' paraphenelia commonly included some sort of baton as a sign of their rank.....

Effectively the same blunt force weapon. One fashioned out of wood, the other metal. The same could be said if we depicted Germanics wielding primitive malets / hammers. The weapon doesn't by nature infer a primitive state on the user.

my2bob

[Rex_Pelasgorum]

Interesting what you say about gamply. With no Gaesatae, Celts seem fairly easy to defeat (i laways play battles on hard and campaing on medium for the sake of roleplaying).

If you say that Celts are too strong, just try a custom battle or fight a campaign with anything against the Romans or the Macedonoans.. those are damn strong !

[Watchman]

Effectively the same blunt force weapon. One fashioned out of wood, the other metal. The same could be said if we depicted Germanics wielding primitive malets / hammers. The weapon doesn't by nature infer a primitive state on the user.

The main difference is that a wooden club isn't nearly as good a "mass" weapon for smashing stuff as a metal-headed mace (although the earliest specimen I know of are Neolithic stone-headed ones; whether they were used for seal-hunting, to keep the valuable skin intact, disputing hunting rights with competing groups, or both, is unknown). Wood just isn't all that hard and heavy, and the use of actual wooden clubs would seem to imply rather low overall standards of equipement.

'Course, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if what the sources call "clubs" were actually some kinds of maces or hammers. For example I recall reading that at one battle Palmyrene cataphracts were attacked in the flank by auxiliary troops from the Judea/Syria region, whose "clubs" were remarked to be very effective against their armour - quite certainly a somewhat confused reference to maces, known in the region since at least Late Bronze Age and also popular among the Parthian-style cataphract cavalry that had become common there.

[Orb]

You even have the Britons who were off the mainland and they were defeated just as well. These Celts that Caesar faced were NOT green, ill-equipped, untrained troops. Sure some could have been, but the Celts were a warlike people and they most certainly trained their children in the arts of war.

Yes, and they were facing Marian legions, not Camillan ones. I suspect that the majority of players attempt to take on Gaul proper before the Marian reforms. Also note that large numbers of the 'barbarians' were actually on the Roman side, having agreed to being clients of Rome, expecting fair treatment. Large numbers of these had their weapons taken away and were thus ill-equipped when they actually girded themselves into rebellion.

Also, IIRC (I use that abbreviation a lot, it's been a while since I read anything connected), the Romans had to use a disproportionate number of men just to garrison Britain. If the Britons (as Celts) were such poor warriors, they wouldn't have needed to.

[NeoSpartan]

.....

Also, IIRC (I use that abbreviation a lot, it's been a while since I read anything connected), the Romans had to use a disproportionate number of men just to garrison Britain. If the Britons (as Celts) were such poor warriors, they wouldn't have needed to.

Ok here ur talking about keeping law and order, or in this case preventing a rebellion to flare up. That is COMPLETELY different than facing an army in battle. One of the things nessesary to prevent a rebellion is a good size garrison. It doens't matter that the rebellios citizenry only has knives, pikes and shovels to fight. They will still loot, burn gov't buildings, assasinate leading gov't officials, destroy economic infrastructure, etc.

Mantaining a conquered people under control is not the same as defeating them in a conventional battle. For a recent example just look at Iraq....

[Frostwulf]

Ok Im tired of not knowing how to put down peoples quotes, how is this done? i.e the "originally posted by..."

[Fondor_Yards]

At the bottom of a person post there's a big quote button.

[Frostwulf]

Im not blind, really Im not! Thanks fondor

[Frostwulf]

Ok Im not blind just stupid and impatient. How do I get a single sentence from someones quote?

paste it the place you want to quote

Thanks k_raso :)

[-Praetor-]

Ok Im not blind just stupid and impatient. How do I get a single sentence from someones quote?

like this?

Ok Im not blind just stupid and impatient.

You simply delete the part from the other quotes that`s unuseful to your post.

Or, you could just:

1º Select the text you want to quote
2º copy it
3º paste it the place you want to quote
4º Add at the quoted phrase the [/QUOTE] command, and at the beginning of it, the [QUOTE=[I]type here the name of the guy you are quoting from[/I]] command.

Easy peacy, japaneasy.

PS: JUST ONE MAYOR WARNING, DON`T EDIT or ALTER QUOTATION, there have been some problems, bitter fightings and flamings, that have originated from that. Just a healthy advice.

[L.C.Cinna]

"When appeals of peace where ignored and Roman greed again drove them on, it so happened that a nobleman of the Boii went with his sons to the camp of the Consul Lucius Quinctius Flaminius, imploring the protection of the Roman people. The Consul was partying with a boy prostitute, and he enquired of the boy if he would like to see a man being killed. The boy nodded, and straight away Flaminius drew his sword and slew the unfortunate nobleman and then proceeded to rape the nobleman's son over his father's carcass" - (The Celts, Defeat of Cisalpine Gaul; D'O Hogain)


my2bob

Sorry this is a bit off topic but I just had to say something when I read this quote. As much as I enjoyed your posts in this thread so far I'm a bit surprised to see something like that. You seem to have read quite a lot on the topic, so why back up your arguments with something as stupid as this? Sorry nothing against you but you talk about bias in Roman sources and then post a quote which is surely biased and completely unscientific. Is that taken from a novel?

No offence here. BTW great discussion.

[Casuir]

He gave the source at the end of the story "The Celts, Defeat of Cisalpine Gaul; D'O Hogain" Daithi O'Hogain/Daithí O hOgáin is the authors name and he looks to be a fairly respectable authority on the celts. As to it being unbalanced and completely unscientific, hate to burst your bubble here lad but such acts did take place, similar ones sparked a famous rebellion in Britain in later years. Reality can be a lot more ugly than history books.

[NeoSpartan]

He gave the source at the end of the story "The Celts, Defeat of Cisalpine Gaul; D'O Hogain" Daithi O'Hogain/Daithí O hOgáin is the authors name and he looks to be a fairly respectable authority on the celts. As to it being unbalanced and completely unscientific, hate to burst your bubble here lad but such acts did take place, similar ones sparked a famous rebellion in Britain in later years. Reality can be a lot more ugly than FICTION books.

I think thats what you meant to say... Fixed it for ya

[Casuir]

No, its not, in fact it makes no sense like that, well done.

[L.C.Cinna]

Oh I know that such things happened. It is the way it is written. for example "Roman greed". A completely unscientific statement. As if all Romans were greedy and Roman expansion was driven by greed. I haven't read this specific author but he sounds biased and unprofessional in this quote, and I guess he is. Many people pretend to be an authority, or are called such by some people, but this kind of bias and sentimental involvement and message disqualifies him. Using nationalistic prejudice is not welcome in science and is unprofessional.



Sorry maybe let's just stop this and continue with the initial discussion.

[Casuir]

Maybe he does have a bias, hard to tell from three sentences though. I'd put money down that you're a fan of the romans though.

[SaFe]

As it seems this thread will not go back to its original topic...
i throw in my thoughts:
Naturally authors are biased. It depend totally on the sources the use, as they have to use information from ancient writers.
Here starts the problem:
We have neither celtic or germanic written account during this timeframe and so we have to stick with romans and greeks. Along with their totally unrealistic numbers they show the romans usually in better light than their opponents, BUT in modern times we should know the following:

Romans behaved very badly in new conquered - or better romanized celtic or germanic regions if the tribes didn't exactly do what romans wanted them to do. They crucified, enslaved, killed for "sport" and raped and...

Germanics behaved real badly when raiding roman or celtic territories or in later times conquering them. They nailed the heads of their enemies at trees, hung them from trees, throw them in moors, cut their sinews, so they can't run away...

Celt behaved very badly when conquering or raiding foreign lands. They raped, murderers and likely sometimes even tortured their enemies too...

So, what do we learn - all those cultures did those things and they did those things even to their "relatives" - other culturally related tribes or other political roman factions - too.

Point is:
Neither romans nor celtic or germanic people were angels, but they weren't devils either.

[Kralizec]

Interesting discussion.

Thanks for the interesting info, Psycho. If you don't mind, could you tell a thing or two about who the Galatians were and why they migrated?

[L.C.Cinna]

Maybe he does have a bias, hard to tell from three sentences though. I'd put money down that you're a fan of the romans though.

No I wouldn't call myself a "fan" of the Romans. I didn't deny they often behaved in a brutal and cruel way as described in that quote. I'm studying ancient history at university and I think a modern historian should try to avoid any kind of bias or steroetypes like "greedy Romans", "uncivilised barbarians" and so on. That was all I wanted to say. I fully agree with what SaFe said, that's why I didn't like the "greedy, evil Romans vs innocent, poor Celts" mood of the quote. A historian should not mark events as good or bad out of personal preference.

sorry again for hijacking the thread.

[NeoSpartan]

As it seems this thread will not go back to its original topic...
i throw in my thoughts:
Naturally authors are biased. It depend totally on the sources the use, as they have to use information from ancient writers.
Here starts the problem:
We have neither celtic or germanic written account during this timeframe and so we have to stick with romans and greeks. Along with their totally unrealistic numbers they show the romans usually in better light than their opponents, BUT in modern times we should know the following:

Romans behaved very badly in new conquered - or better romanized celtic or germanic regions if the tribes didn't exactly do what romans wanted them to do. They crucified, enslaved, killed for "sport" and raped and...

Germanics behaved real badly when raiding roman or celtic territories or in later times conquering them. They nailed the heads of their enemies at trees, hung them from trees, throw them in moors, cut their sinews, so they can't run away...

Celt behaved very badly when conquering or raiding foreign lands. They raped, murderers and likely sometimes even tortured their enemies too...

So, what do we learn - all those cultures did those things and they did those things even to their "relatives" - other culturally related tribes or other political roman factions - too.

Point is:
Neither romans nor celtic or germanic people were angels, but they weren't devils either.

Through out history this has been the most NATURAL thing to do. Everybody did it.

HOWEVER, the problem is that the general public is not told about this horrid acts with this amount of DETAIL.

[L.C.Cinna]

That's true. The problem is that we have only very very few sources and non of them is without bias. It's a pitty we don't have more things from the celts, parthians, germanics and so on. Of course they would contain the same things the Romans wrote just the other way round when it comes to cruelty and such but it would make things much easier for us.

[Teutobod II]

Germanics behaved real badly when raiding roman or celtic territories or in later times conquering them. They nailed the heads of their enemies at trees, hung them from trees, throw them in moors,...

Wasn´t that a sort of offering to the gods ?

[Kralizec]

That's true. The problem is that we have only very very few sources and non of them is without bias. It's a pitty we don't have more things from the celts, parthians, germanics and so on. Of course they would contain the same things the Romans wrote just the other way round when it comes to cruelty and such but it would make things much easier for us.

The Parthians weren't conquered by Rome or any other power (basicly a coup by a former Persian satrap)
Their problem was that they weren't real Persians, the Sassanians were and they neglected the historical legacy of the former and changed certain parts of historical accounts to better fit certain Zoroastrian prophecies.