Q : Galatia - Gallic factions

[Ower]

I am curious, just been going through the RV of 1.1. and I noticed that none of the gallic factions can recruit Gaesatae in Galatia (which was possible in 1.0) or their Galatian counter part the Galatikoi Tindanotae.
Can I as as to why were the naked wariors removed from the Gallic recruitment?

[beatoangelico]

:inquisitive: my RV tells me that "Galatian "Wild Men" Infantry" can be recruited in galatia with a lv 4 regional MIC

[Ower]

:inquisitive: my RV tells me that "Galatian "Wild Men" Infantry" can be recruited in galatia with a lv 4 regional MIC

Do you have the 1.1 version? And which faction? I am talking about Aedui, Arveni and Casse.
And as i went through it again, as well as the other factions, I am suprised that the Gauls cant recruit any Galatian unit except the swordsmen. while factions like Ptolies, the AS, Pontus, Hai and even Saba can atleast 2 units from said tribe, which i find a bit wierd.

[brymht]

REcruitment is so easy to change, lets just change this small issue on the client side, and not request a 1.2 for this.....

[Korlon]

I checked it earlier. It would appear that you are right. Perhaps it's just an error in the RV rather than it being reality as it would seem insane to not include the Galatian wild men in the unit roster of the celtic factions.

Edit: A quick run through in the EDU appears to say that only Arche Seleukeia, Pontos, and Ptolemaioi can recruit them, no one else.

[Ower]

REcruitment is so easy to change, lets just change this small issue on the client side, and not request a 1.2 for this.....
I am just asking if this is intentional (I doubt it), or an error in the RV or recruitment?
Oand if it is by chance intentional, I am curious as to why did the team decide to do it?

[Jaywalker-Jack]

This was a problem in 1.0, I asked about it and I think I remember MiniMe saying he'd take a look at it after 1.1 was out.
Before 1.1's release he made a quick fix to give the Ptolies a few Arab regionals, among other recruitment changes; so these Galatian woes may well be sorted in the near future. But don't quote me on that. :beam:

[Khazar_Dahvos]

technicaly the the gestae (sp) and the galatian wildmen are the same unit and use the same skeleton or something else or another that they use the same for. the same goes for the galatian heavy spearmen and either the neitos or the arjos (cant remember which). But the celtic factions should be able to recruit geastea (sp) in galatia (well they did in 1.0 anyways):beam: .

[V.T. Marvin]

IIRC Gaesatae were not a TYPE of unit, but a specific TRIBE. As such it would make sense NOT to change their AOR, but rather leave in Galatia the Galatikoi Tindolatae (sp. - the "Wildmen") - direct equivalent of Gaesatae - as a regional unit available to anyone who owns the province of Galatia, of course including the Gallic factions.

Making Gaesatae proper recruitable in Galatia would represent that this tribe somehow resettled in this region, which is in my opinion rather unralistic. :2cents:

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

The Gaesatae and the Tindolatae share the same model, so it is impossible for one faction to be able to get both (unless there is the merc trick, but I don't know if that is used on this model).

The Gaesatae AoR was reduced for v1.1 to prevent the AI spamming them (leading to threads complaining about how hard it is to fight Gaesatae). Galatia must have been removed from the AoR at that time. I suppose they should probably be able to get them there, though, since they can't get Tindolatae.

[Watchman]

There's a merc version of the Tindanotae, so the Gauls could use that just fine. Brihentin/Lavotuxri, OTOH...

IIRC Gaesatae were not a TYPE of unit, but a specific TRIBE.Well, one Roman author talks about them as if the matter was so. Personally, I'm rather convinced he's either talking out of his ass or using "Gaesatae" as an umbrella name for all Transalpine mercenaries...

[Elmetiacos]

What was the reason for giving the Gaesatae such "kewl powerz" anyway? They fought two battles against the Romans and were routed in both. How were they any different from the Britons' or Gauls' fighting nudists?

[blacksnail]

Fair warning, this is the equivalent of asking why the Romans don't all wear lorica segmentata. It's something that people argue about frequently but that we just aren't going to change in EB1.

We should really put this in the FAQ if we haven't already, as it is a frequent flashpoint for long, involved, pointless threads that only end in tragedy.

EDIT: I stand corrected. "Read the FAQ." ~:)

[cmacq]

Well, one Roman author talks about them as if the matter was so. Personally, I'm rather convinced he's either talking out of his ass or using "Gaesatae" as an umbrella name for all Transalpine mercenaries...

Not to draw too fine a point, but overall the Med types did appear to have used that term, Gaesatae as an umbrella to denote all large groups of Keltic warriors employed by local states, paid in land and/or swag and bound by feudal obligations. Technically, after the 4tn century they appear to have been the engine or physical expression of Keltic cultural expansion in Spain, Italy, the Balkans, and Anatolia. Now, when I write Gaesatae I'm not implying the near 'Naked Fanatics (shock troops).' While the fanatics appear as companys amoung the ranks of Gaesatae, they did not define the Order or Class.

As far as EB is concerned, the game seems to have it right, as only a relatively small element of most Keltic field formations consist of the 'Naked Fanatics.' To me its a case of the Rose by another name; or the numbers are right so it dosn't matter.

[Tellos Athenaios]

It IS part of the FAQ. We might as well put an entry in the FAQ "Read the FAQ!".... :shrug:

[Tellos Athenaios]

Okay here we go again:

EB dictionary - your guide to all lingo in EB:

Gaesatae - noun
1) Tribe of transalpine Celts, or catch all for 'Celtic mercenary'. Used by ignorant authors from back in the day. (Like: all Chinese are the same, despite the fact there are over 1 billion distinctly different Chinese...)
2) Unit in EB: drugged up, naked men fighting with a longsword. Considerably skilled at it too. Drop like flies under missile fire; but in melee it will be your boys dropping like flies.

Tindanotae - noun
1) Galatian equivalent of the European Gaesatae EB unit.

:bow:

[cmacq]

Was just making a note about the historical aspect, as I don't think that the Gaesatae were providing a free service. As they seemed to often been paid in land, they solidified the Keltic presence within a given district while at the same time could in fact be seen as mercenaries. For example, because information is so fragmentary, its possible that the vanguard of Keltic expansion into Italy, in the 4th century, may have actually been lead by Gaesatae, that were employed by native northern rulers, to fight against the Etruscans. I've even read that there is some evidence of a Keltic military presence in northern Italy in the early 5th century. The traditional Roman view of the timing and reason why the Kelts moved into northern Italy is a little weak, at best.

[Urnamma]

What was the reason for giving the Gaesatae such "kewl powerz" anyway? They fought two battles against the Romans and were routed in both. How were they any different from the Britons' or Gauls' fighting nudists?

By being different? You probably ought to read the secondary literature.

[Elmetiacos]

I can't find them in the FAQ... can anyone help me with a page number?

[blacksnail]

6th question from the bottom talks about fighting them. I don't think there's anything in there specifically related to the controversy and why we aren't changing that for EB1. Tellos?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Oww.... Where are our FAQ wizards, when you need 'em? ~:)

Anyways, it does state that we are quite happy with the way they are now, and aren't going to change it. That's for the moment, sufficient answer to the faq. :shrug:

[cmacq]

Not that I will ever have a say, but with all things considered, I don't see any good reason to change them.

[Watchman]

Was just making a note about the historical aspect, as I don't think that the Gaesatae were providing a free service. As they seemed to often been paid in land, they solidified the Keltic presence within a given district while at the same time could in fact be seen as mercenaries. For example, because information is so fragmentary, its possible that the vanguard of Keltic expansion into Italy, in the 4th century, may have actually been lead by Gaesatae, that were employed by native northern rulers, to fight against the Etruscans. I've even read that there is some evidence of a Keltic military presence in northern Italy in the early 5th century. The traditional Roman view of the timing and reason why the Kelts moved into northern Italy is a little weak, at best.By what little I've read of it, the Celts had a practice of dealing with local overpopulation by a considerable part of the populace packing up their stuff and moving somewhere else, such as now northern Italy or south-southwest the Balkans eventually into Anatolia. The peculiar Gaesatae warrior-cult and other wandering bodies of mercenaries were apparently at least partially linked to this phenomenom, as the ones the Romans fought in Italy were apparently footloose warriors repulsed from the Balkans front who had wandered westwards along the Alps before taking up service in the Northern Italian Celts' squabbles with the Romans (or that's what the book argued anyway). The surplus adult male warrior demographic out in search of adventure, fortune and, perhaps, a nice little plot of land to lay claim to basically, not really unlike the "knights errant" and other freelance soldiery of the Middle Ages.

[cmacq]

Very good research Watchman. I think this Gaesatae phenomenon was linked to private land redistribution after the death of the holder and individual male birth order. As a result of a relatively rapid population growth each generation of the Ruling Ethnos produced a larger number of potentially landless males on reaching adulthood. Given the nature of the culture, to have them remain within the realm of the society that produced them would have been madness. It seems one big difference with the Medieval model was that they collected in huge groups around their own war leaders.

[Watchman]

"Have shield, will travel." What to do with the excess population, particularly young males of the warrior class where such existed, once the decently available land started running short has been a constant headache to quite a few societies in general. Heck, "excess of dispossessed young males = trouble" seems to be an equation still perfectly valid today as well...

[Elmetiacos]

All intriguing... wonder if there's a way of modelling this possibility in the game...

[blacksnail]

Somewhat. I think we can do it better in EB2 due to some of the newer options available. With EB1 the answer is pretty much unrest and rebel stacks.

[cmacq]

Right,
thats why I posted that they effectively became the engine of Keltic cultural expansion. You'll also note a similar phenomenon in the late 2nd and 1st centuries in Italy, among the land holding class, that helped fuel the late Roman expansion and move to imperial rule. However, in reverse this was not causality, rather it occurred as a direct result of their wars of conquest and the inability the vast majority of small-farmers to cope with the very small minority of wealthy large-landholders engorged with dirt cheap labor.

[Watchman]

All intriguing... wonder if there's a way of modelling this possibility in the game...Arguably, the way every faction makes war on everything in the immediate vicinity the second an opportunity shows up achieves the effect pretty well...

[cmacq]

I agree with Watchman, you may not see them gears a'turn'n, but its already there.

[Watchman]

Plus what blacksnail said. Thas' yer domestic trouble roight 'ere, lad. :beam:

[paullus]

Did the Celts practice primogeniture? Or shall I be terribly anachronistic and wonder whether they divied up lands among sons like the Merovingians? Non-successor sons certainly make great manpower for military endeavors--the Ptolemies populated a good many units through military sons who didn't inherit a land estate, and in a slightly different way, military obligation was the price for gaining a landed estate in the Spartan population drives of the late 3c.

Cmacq, I'll recommend a book to you, N. Rosenstein's Rome at War, which argues that the era of real Roman expansion, which is from the late 3c to the mid 2c, was fueled by the large small-farm population and the ability of these small-farm families to produce enough mature sons to sustain the viability of the farms. I don't agree with everything Rosenstein says, but he argues that the end of the major wars and settlements led to overpopulation in the late 2c. I hope I'm not misrepresenting his argument by trying to condense it to a couple of sentences, but the point is that we find a population link to expansion.

[Elmetiacos]

I'm not sure whether individuals owned land at all or whether it was the property of the family collectively, but with one person as its head. Nevertheless population pressure could be created if the land couldn't support everyone, or perhaps if a family feared a young man bringing home a new wife and the ensuing little bundles of joy might be too many mouths to feed, they would send him away to join the Gaesatae...?

[cmacq]

Right...

Timing,
Farms, Families, and Death in the Middle Republic. Yes, Rosenstein and another look at an old issue. Please, don't take this personally as I think its extremely important to get several points of view on a subject. Yet, a quick review of the causes of the three Servile wars BC 135-71, combined with the reasons for both the Marsic/Social War and Marian Reforms, and one may not be inclined to except Rosenstein's argument, per se. These all occurred within the time frame of the late Mid. or early Late Republic. Collectively, they seemed to have directly fueled the various Sullian and Caesarian Civil wars, in the Late Republic.

A little Servile and/or Social War, two, or thee for any successful EB faction would be nice.

[cmacq]

Based on Ceasar's notes from the 1st century, land was inherited by both males and females, yet a single adult male seems to have received the lion's share. Its these relatively larger landholders with their feudalistic authority that made up the back-bone of various local senates. Ceasar seemed very adapt at using familia relationships in Gaul and Britain to consummate his ultimate goals.

[cmacq]

paullus,

the following is from Rosenstein's Rome at War; which was preceded by an outline of the view that I presented herein.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Although this reconstruction is internally consistent, supported by ancient literary evidence, and explanatory of much that caused the fall of the Roman Republic, doubters have increasingly questioned whether the growth of vast, slave-run estates in fact led to a crisis among smallholders during the early and middle decades of the second century. As early as 1970 Frederiksen placed the problem on an entirely new footing when he observed that although the archaeological record for the Italian countryside in the second and first centuries B.C. ought to reflect some trace of this massive decline in the number of small farms and their replacement by large estates worked by slaves, surveys of the remains of rural habitations in this period have strikingly failed to detect evidence that would confirm this hypothesis. Instead, the surveys have uncovered a complex situation that resists blanket characterization and cautions against monocausal explanations for declines where these occurred. Although evidence for small farmsteads is scarce in some areas, it abounds in others and may therefore indicate that independent farmers continued to work these holdings. On the other hand, few villas of the type associated with the new plantation agriculture appear in the literary or archaeological record before the mid-second century at the earliest. Evidence for their existence only becomes widespread more than a half century subsequently, in the age of Sulla.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Here, Rosenstein plays a little slight of hand when he 1) argues that the conventual view places the rise of large landholdings in the early and middle 2nd century. Actually, from the literary sources it has been very clear for a long time that the change from small to large occurred in the Marian period, or late 2nd century. 2) He cites evidence from archaeological surveys as an anecdote (no numbers provided), that supports his first argument. First, depending on who conducts the survey and the very nature of survey data (surface evidence), this information may not provide an accurate temporal picture. Secondly, as you see above the survey evidence in fact supports the claims of the literary sources that the change took place in the late 2nd century.

Overall, Rosenstein claims that because the changes didn't occur in the early and middle 2nd centuries, then the causality has to due to a factor other that Roman military expansion. Of course one would simply counter his argument by pointing out that the numbers of slaves dumped on the market in the late 2nd to the middle 1st century, part due to the wars of conquest, dwarfed anything seen before. I think this work was the result of a dissertation that was not properly vetted.

[blitzkrieg80]

wasn't Sulla an Optimate, and thus a proponent of his own Optimate allies? I think the Social Wars and the Gracchi are directly related to this (your nicely laid out argument just posited, Cmacq) and to the further rise of factionalism and later Caesar(s)? I am hardly a well-read Roman historian, but I find this timeline vastly interesting. I must admit it would be a great timeline for the Late Period Project :grin:

[cmacq]

Yes indeed,

I use this Optimate line, mixed with a little bit of Ned Flanders from the Simpsons, to put my so-called liberal friends in their proper place, when they get too upitdee. Right, my friends, but I so hate upitdee self proclaimed liberals. I point out that Sulla was a Optimate (traditionalist-somewhat akin to a modern American Republican), and Marius, Pompey, and Caesar were Populares (liberals-somewhat like a modern American Democrat), and it was Caesar that destroyed the Republic. And the punch line is after Homer says, 'you Flanders?!' Then in the voice of Ned, as the Donut Devil I say, 'Ya see Homer, sometimes its the ones, ya least expect.'

If you want to read something really good from this general period, try Pro Milone. Here, you'll find the famous, Silent enim leges inter arma (as arms enter, laws fall silent), which strangely goes uncited today.

[Watchman]

Not really, AFAIK. Although, obviously, the popularity of that little chestnut may also have dwindled a bit as a side effect of the century plus that people have been coming up with honest-to-Dog legislature to curb the worst savagery from organised warfare (albeit with mixed results), as well as the establishement of the modern Westphalian state a few centuries back - it being readily enough admitted that the continued ability of the state to actually enforce the laws protecting its citizens (in practice mostly from each other) ultimately derives from the Monopoly Of Legitimate Violence, in practical terms, that should it come down to that it can bring an overwhelming amount of raw force to bear on any (internal) troublemaker trying to rock the boat...

Anyway, back to topic and the issue of Roman land ownership patterns, there's a few bits in that critique of Rosenstein's model I'm curious about. For example, what does it actually mean that "evidence for small farmsteads is scarce in some areas, it abounds in others and may therefore indicate that independent farmers continued to work these holdings" - what are these areas, in general, like ? I can think of quite a few reasons why the "agribusiness" would be happy enough to leave some regions alone, starting with poor logistical situation - eg. no nearby waterways suitable for actually shipping off the high-bulk low-value agrarian produce economically - and similar purely practical considerations. This, then, hardly affects the "R-model" if the lands left to the smallholders away from the latifundia system are second-rate and out-of-the-way enough to not be interesting to its profit-maximising ambitions - one would assume such leftovers could hardly support too large numbers of well-armed militia manpower in the first place...

Similarly, the bit about "villas of the type associated with the new plantation agriculture appear in the literary or archaeological record before the mid-second century at the earliest" - has it been considered that the "central villa" model of plantation organisation may simply not have been used or known in Italy before, and been developed and/or adopted to improve the organisation and efficiency of already long established large-scale "industrial" agriculture later ? After all it's not all that difficult to buy up a lot of real estate and start gearing it for cash-crop cultivation; but it's probably going to take a while before such great landowners figure out the most cost-effective ways to organise the production, and for that matter buy the last smallholder holdouts out of the way of the necessary changes...

[cmacq]

I think R. isolates on TS Gracchus and his reforms in 133 BC. Again, this occurred in the late 2nd century. He proposes that the levy conscripted from rural households during the second century BC actually caused a population increase during the first half of that century. He tosses out some numbers and cites a few studies and voila. Missing household members directly translates into dramatic population increase??? If I remember correctly, didn't some greek historian provide a huge number for the potential late 3rd century Roman levy, which was overwhelmingly taken from the rural population. Wasn't it 700,000 or something like that? I think that R. may not understand that the rural Italian population was already very large by the 2nd Punic War.

[abou]

Yes indeed,

I use this Optimate line, mixed with a little bit of Ned Flanders from the Simpsons, to put my so-called liberal friends in their proper place, when they get too upitdee. Right, my friends, but I so hate upitdee self proclaimed liberals. I point out that Sulla was a Optimate (traditionalist-somewhat akin to a modern American Republican), and Marius, Pompey, and Caesar were Populares (liberals-somewhat like a modern American Democrat), and it was Caesar that destroyed the Republic. And the punch line is after Homer says, 'you Flanders?!' Then in the voice of Ned, as the Donut Devil I say, 'Ya see Homer, sometimes its the ones, ya least expect.'

If you want to read something really good from this general period, try Pro Milone. Here, you'll find the famous, Silent enim leges inter arma (as arms enter, laws fall silent), which strangely goes uncited today.I could certainly challenge the assertion that it was Caesar that destroyed the republic. In fact, I would argue him a reformer that was attempting to pass much needed reforms to prevent drastic concentrations of wealth, limitations in social mobility, and a decline in the ability of the average Roman citizen to participate in the process. I don't see what Caesar did that was so bad compared to the likes of Sulla with his proscriptions - or by extension Cato and the other Optimates/Boni.

I also don't see what specifically "so-called liberal friends" has anything to do with this argument.

[Ower]

There's a merc version of the Tindanotae, so the Gauls could use that just fine. Brihentin/Lavotuxri, OTOH...

Call me stupid but what does OTOH mean?
And how would I make the merc version availible to be trained in Galatia?
So I hope this will return the thread to the original topic.- As I dont care, about the Gaesatae being ovepowered topic:thumbsdown: , but I find it just weird that the ragion had Gallic inhabitnats, who fougt in that stile, and a Gallic faction could not use them, but a helenistic yes.:dizzy2:
Although I find the issue of Roman land ownership interesting It is really not to the topic of this thread:book:

[cmacq]

Please, read the part about the Gaesatae, mercenaries, and Keltic cultural expansion above. It seemed that this tread had run its course. And to the other, not to worry, its a typical reaction when a nerve is struck.

[blacksnail]

Call me stupid but what does OTOH mean?
Online shorthand for "On The Other Hand."

[abou]

And to the other, not to worry, its a typical reaction when a nerve is struck.
A glib comment does not a response make.

[lobf]

Please, read the part about the Gaesatae, mercenaries, and Keltic cultural expansion above. It seemed that this tread had run its course. And to the other, not to worry, its a typical reaction when a nerve is struck.

Way to be a douche.

[blitzkrieg80]

I could certainly challenge the assertion that it was Caesar that destroyed the republic. In fact, I would argue him a reformer that was attempting to pass much needed reforms to prevent drastic concentrations of wealth, limitations in social mobility, and a decline in the ability of the average Roman citizen to participate in the process. I don't see what Caesar did that was so bad compared to the likes of Sulla with his proscriptions - or by extension Cato and the other Optimates/Boni.

I also don't see what specifically "so-called liberal friends" has anything to do with this argument.

I totally agree with this. It's funny how Sulla was much more brutal and he died a relatively peaceful death compared to Caesar who spared some of his political enemies and thus gets stabbed to death. History lesson: kill them all? Caesar WAS trying to save the republic because the system was already broken with Optimates and pretensious elitist 'holes monopolizing a 'representation' system. Similar the the US, imo, how many Republicans OR Democrats are seriously trying to remove money from the government in terms of their salary/wages (which are already too high considering what they get for free) or removing business interests / assorted contributions? not to get off topic, but nobody in power is trying to seriously reduce their power / benefit from the system. nobody. lot's of BS and rhetoric for manipulation, similar to being 'green' while still having wasteful watershows at the Bellagio in Vegas, draining the Colorado river and trying to settle more people in a desert which cannot support ANYTHING and thus why it wasn't an older settlement! that's why I continuously don't vote for Democrat or Republican, they are the same broken system... I suppose I should wait for Caesar :grin: then when he dies in a myserious 'car accident' along with his allies, it's time to march on Washington.

I can't think of anything else to take us off topic for now ~:)

[Frostwulf]

Some of the comments on this thread piqued my interest so I figured I would make some comments myself and ask questions.

As far as the Gaesatae being a tribe there are very few historians that go along with that thought, most believe them to be mercenaries.


What was the reason for giving the Gaesatae such "kewl powerz" anyway? They fought two battles against the Romans and were routed in both. How were they any different from the Britons' or Gauls' fighting nudists?I agree completely with you on this, and I don't believe there was any difference between them as far as combat is concerned.


Now, when I write Gaesatae I'm not implying the near 'Naked Fanatics (shock troops).' While the fanatics appear as companys amoung the ranks of Gaesatae, they did not define the Order or Class. I'm curious where you received this information?


I've even read that there is some evidence of a Keltic military presence in northern Italy in the early 5th century. The traditional Roman view of the timing and reason why the Kelts moved into northern Italy is a little weak, at best.To my knowledge this has been verified by the digs done in northern Italy. V. Kruta and some others go into some of the things found.


By being different? You probably ought to read the secondary literature.This is the one that I'm most interested in, what secondary literature are you referring to? From the authors I have read when they mention the Gaesatae in historical records there are very few. I must be missing some, if you wouldn't mind please provide these secondary literature sources.

Ill go no further on this subject as it has been discussed many times, I'm just hoping to get more information on the subject of the Gaesatae.

[cmacq]

Way to be a douche.

אהיה אשר אהיה

I am, that I am.

[Justinian II]

אהיה אשר אהיה

I am, that I am.



....Hebrew or Aramaic?


In all seriousness guys, this thread is degenerating fast, despite the interesting arguments that were going on.....Mods? Might I suggest the :dancinglock: ?