Gaesatae Question

[lobf]

This was brought up briefly at the end of the Ugly unit topic, but that was closed for other reasons before anyone could shed any light.

Anyways, I was wondering if anyone currently on the EB team knew where the claim for the Gaesatae's drugs use comes from? I'm certainly not questioning that there were naked badasses in that day, I was just curious as to that particular feature of the unit. Thanks for your time.

[abou]

Please use the search function. This topic has been answered several times before and the information is easily found.

[Metalstrm]

Thing is as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) only Polybius mentions the Gaesatae. And I've looked at what he wrote. Nowhere does he mention drugs, so the information must come from another source, if it exists at all. And the search function does not help with this question either.

[lobf]

I searched here and Google.

[General Appo]

Then you are inept at searching. And please, let it stop at that, don´t take these... investigations any further, or we may have to take action to... prevent unwanted facts from surfacing. *shifty eyes* *tries to wink to Hax, but can´t stop the shifting* Ah, it´s happening already!!

[abou]

I searched here and Google.I didn't know that something had to appear on Google in order for it to exist.

[lobf]

Me neither. My point is just that normal methods of obtaining this information have failed, so I figured I'd ask you guys.

[Hax]

*shifty eyes* *tries to wink to Hax, but can´t stop the shifting*

Ah..yes..


=====

Did you know that with some spiders, the penis is located on one of their legs?

[Elmetiacos]

I didn't know that something had to appear on Google in order for it to exist.
Nothing is "on Google". Google searches the web, it isn't a collection of registered sites like you used to get in the mid 1990s.

[Midnj]

You could, you know, point him to the "Celtic Overpowered!" thread rather than being a douche about it.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1825398

Link probably won't load. It wouldn't load for me and I had to view it in Google cache.

EDIT: of course, in the end that thread doesn't seem to answer the specific question asked by the OP in this thread... nor did any of the other search results I perused.

[General Appo]

Ah..yes..

Dammit Hax, havn´t you read the New Faction thread lately. I suggest you go and so right now, or else... *shifty eyes*

[Primative1]

Loads fo me ok using Opera, and Frostwulf makes some good points.

[lobf]

Did you miss the part in the description of the Greeks vs. Celts bout in Thermopylae ? The part where some Celts are claimed to have pulled out javelins from their own wounds and thrown them back ? For that matter, IIRC the description also seemed to suggest they were rather difficult to convince to lie down and die of their wounds too, and seemed to fight in some sort of berserk fury... and the way the account flows sort of associates this stuff with the naked warriors.

So this seems to be the basis. Can anyone tell me which account this is?

[Frostwulf]

So this seems to be the basis. Can anyone tell me which account this is?This is from the battle of Thermopylae when the 'Celts' invaded Greece. Brief description of the battle from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae_%28279_BC%29

The part Watchman is bringing up is from here:
http://www.theoi.com/Text/Pausanias10B.html

You will not find any sources,citations or any other form of information as to the basis of the EB Gaesatae.

Here is one thread with Ranika on the Gaesatae:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/archive/index.php/t-58846.html

He talks of the Gaesatae but no where mentions the sources.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Nothing is "on Google". Google searches the web, it isn't a collection of registered sites like you used to get in the mid 1990s.

Still to appear on means something different from to be on. In any case if you want to search for something like that you might be better off by a combinating of a meta-crawler and regexp searches? :beam:

[Fenrhyl]

I searched too for the source, because this "magic potion stuff" also appears in a french "comic strip" series Called "Alix" which setting is the Caesar/pompeius war. In one of those, vercingetorix escapes from his jail and has a shot of this potion in an attempt to kill caesar.
It is commonly rfered to in Gaul history but i can't find any indication about it, be it in french or english.

[NeoSpartan]

:wall:

[Metalstrm]

Yes the question was pure and simple: On which sources did the team base the claim? Nobody needs to hear something like "use the search button", especially when the reply is not there. Furthermore, we are not out to hurt anybody's feelings. Moreover, if one wants to be scientific about it, he would immediately reply with the proper proof if someone doubts his claim, and not act all pissed off. Even if it has to be done a thousand times. Or well, if it's bugging me that much I would sticky it to be visible by everyone.

Ok, maybe I got a bit carried off there, and I'm not referring to anyone in the EB team (I don't even know who all the EB members are), but to those persons that answered curtly with the typical search reply. The answer is not in the previous posts.

[Fenrhyl]

The "brew" used by gaesatae is used in Asteric & Obélix, Alix, EB and other creative work. I can't imagine all those creators took the idea from nowhere. There IS a source.

Where ?

...

[Metalstrm]

The "brew" used by gaesatae is used in Asteric & Obélix, Alix, EB and other creative work. I can't imagine all those creators took the idea from nowhere. There IS a source.

Where ?

...

Probably old wives' tales. I repeat, as far as I know, only Polybius talks of the Gaesatae. And neither does he mention any drug, nor that they fought with the others at Thermopylae. I have the impression from reading the last bit of that 20 page long thread that this double hitpoint/berserk drug thing is based on some Galatians (not Gaesatae) who would continue fighting after being struck by javelins. There are two false conclusions there..

Edit: I found a mention in Plutarch. But it's only a tale of Roman success and the physical attributes of the Gaesatae are not mentioned, except that they were tall.

Polybius says "Very terrifying too were the appearance and the gestures of the naked warriors in front, all in the prime of life, and finely built men." That they frightened the enemy is a given.

But look here: "But when the javelineers advanced, as is their usage, from the ranks of the Roman legions and began to hurl their javelins in well-aimed volleys, the Celts in the rear ranks indeed were well protected by their trousers and cloaks, but it fell out far otherwise than they had expected with the naked men in front, and they found themselves in a very difficult and helpless predicament."

And to top it all off, "Thus was the spirit of the Gaesatae broken down by the javelineers; but the main body of the Insubres, Boii, and Taurisci, once the javelineers had withdrawn into the ranks and the Roman maniples attacked them, met the enemy and kept up a stubborn hand-to‑hand combat."

This implies that the Gaesatae reacted as expected to a volley of javelins: they simply died. You could say that maybe Polybious is twisting the facts, but there are no other facts to go by. This is the only direct mention of the Gaesatae behaviour in battle.

[paullus]

wow, that's amazing how you just twisted the account to fit your purposes. you quote two sections from a passage like its one quotation. here's the actual text, from Polybius 2.30, part left out by metalstrm in bold:


30 But when the javelineers advanced, as is their usage, from the ranks of the Roman legions and began to hurl their javelins in well-aimed volleys, the Celts in the rear ranks indeed were well protected by their trousers and cloaks, but it fell out far otherwise than they had expected with the naked men in front, and they found themselves in a very difficult and helpless predicament. For the Gaulish shield does not cover the whole body; so that their nakedness was a disadvantage, and the bigger they were the better chance had the missiles of going home. At length, unable to drive off the javelineers owing to the distance and the hail of javelins, and reduced to the utmost distress and perplexity, some of them, in their impotent rage, rushed wildly on the enemy and sacrificed their lives, while others, retreating step by step on the ranks of their comrades, threw them into disorder by their display of faint-heartedness. Thus was the spirit of the Gaesatae broken down by the javelineers; but the main body of the Insubres, Boii, and Taurisci, once the javelineers had withdrawn into the ranks and the Roman maniples attacked them, met the enemy and kept up a stubborn hand-to‑hand combat.

I wonder why you'd leave out that bit? Hmm...

A few things to notice:

1) The Romans refused to engage in hand-to-hand combat at first, but seem to have kept up a longer-than-usual period of ranged attack (see "at length"), perhaps out of hesitation to engage the gaesatae, who were, in fact, intimidating. The only other times I know of that the Romans used prolonged ranged fire to break an enemy was in Vulso's campaign against the Galatians and after denuding the Seleucid phalanx of its flanks at Magnesia.

2) not very helpful for your case to include that mention of the rage-filled Gaesatae rushing wildly and suicidally into the ranks of the Roman army. plenty of sane people do that every day. i know that when I'm in traffic jams I regularly see people leap from their cars and charge into the still-moving, oncoming lanes. yeah...anyway, some of Polybius language there is traditional language for the Gauls, but let us recall that what is traditional language for us was Polybius participating in the active shaping of how the ancient Greco-Romans understand the Gauls. All the references to passion and wildness are really directed mainly at the Gaesatae in the passage, not at the Gauls in general.

3) Also worth noting that, while Polybius says that many of the javelins struck home, he doesn't really talk about Gaesatae dying, he talks about them spending a looong time trying to run down the skirmishers, failing, returning to the ranks, taking more and more fire, and then eventually retiring into the other ranks or charging into the front lines of the waiting legions.

As far as being upset about no mentions of Gaesatae among the Galatians, get over it. Many of the leading Galatian warriors were, as far as we can tell, of the sort that we might label Gaesatae: powerful, wild warriors who preferred to fight nude and showed little regard for their own safety. There's no reason the Greeks should have known whether the front-line troops of the Galatian armies may or may not have been Gaesatae--how would they? What they did know is what they looked like and how they behaved in battle, and lo and behold, it matches really really well with what we know of the Gaesatae at Telamon. Our best depictions of what the Gaesatae might have looked like come from Egypt and Asia Minor, after all.

[Primative1]

The Gaesatae are EB's fantasy unit. Pretend supermen that never existed.

[Tellos Athenaios]

To begin with they aren't really supermen in battle, you know. True they do nicely in melee - but not exactly exceptional. One gets faaar better bang for the buck in Thrakia or India. Or just stick with about every (elite) phalanx unit...

EDIT: In any case they are outclassed by Kuarothoroi or Solduros or various Champion units from the Casse also.

[Metalstrm]

wow, that's amazing how you just twisted the account to fit your purposes. you quote two sections from a passage like its one quotation. here's the actual text, from Polybius 2.30, part left out by metalstrm in bold:

I wonder why you'd leave out that bit? Hmm...



No. I did separate them, and I had no intention of twisting anything, like you are saying, both directly and by implication. Read below.



A few things to notice:

1) The Romans refused to engage in hand-to-hand combat at first, but seem to have kept up a longer-than-usual period of ranged attack (see "at length"), perhaps out of hesitation to engage the gaesatae, who were, in fact, intimidating. The only other times I know of that the Romans used prolonged ranged fire to break an enemy was in Vulso's campaign against the Galatians and after denuding the Seleucid phalanx of its flanks at Magnesia.

2) not very helpful for your case to include that mention of the rage-filled Gaesatae rushing wildly and suicidally into the ranks of the Roman army. plenty of sane people do that every day. i know that when I'm in traffic jams I regularly see people leap from their cars and charge into the still-moving, oncoming lanes. yeah...anyway, some of Polybius language there is traditional language for the Gauls, but let us recall that what is traditional language for us was Polybius participating in the active shaping of how the ancient Greco-Romans understand the Gauls. All the references to passion and wildness are really directed mainly at the Gaesatae in the passage, not at the Gauls in general.

3) Also worth noting that, while Polybius says that many of the javelins struck home, he doesn't really talk about Gaesatae dying, he talks about them spending a looong time trying to run down the skirmishers, failing, returning to the ranks, taking more and more fire, and then eventually retiring into the other ranks or charging into the front lines of the waiting legions.

As far as being upset about no mentions of Gaesatae among the Galatians, get over it. Many of the leading Galatian warriors were, as far as we can tell, of the sort that we might label Gaesatae: powerful, wild warriors who preferred to fight nude and showed little regard for their own safety. There's no reason the Greeks should have known whether the front-line troops of the Galatian armies may or may not have been Gaesatae--how would they? What they did know is what they looked like and how they behaved in battle, and lo and behold, it matches really really well with what we know of the Gaesatae at Telamon. Our best depictions of what the Gaesatae might have looked like come from Egypt and Asia Minor, after all.

The part that I left out only leans towards my case, if anything. It mentions several things: 1) Some rushed the enemy madly. Something that we both know and was implied by ancient writers to be common to all Celts, but maybe especially so with the Gaesatae. I don't see how it helps your case because my case is not about them not going berserk. 2) Some retreated "faint-heartedly" (oh, where's the huge morale), even disturbing their comrades. 3) Their nakedness was a disadvantage against missiles, as common sense tells you.

As for the claim that Polybious does not mention them dying, you can safely assume that if you take a javelin to the carotid artery you will be down in a matter of seconds. The neck, upper chest, and head too for that matter. As for the other parts, I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) that there exists a drug that will allow you to both fight effectively and energetically, and at the same time not feel the bite of a javelin as you tear it out of your gut with half of your abdomen hanging out. By the way, I'd expect someone like Polybious to mention it if something of the sort actually happened. It would only have added to the general Roman depiction of how barbaric a people the Celts were. The fact that he doesn't, only serves as evidence that they were nothing but ordinary men.

Back to the three points I mentioned above with respect to the part which I left out, all I can say is that I'm seeing this image of their almost-superhuman power of invincibility being worn away. Finally, my case has nothing to do with who and what the fighters at Telamon were. All I care about is the question that was posted initially, that is, where was the drug information obtained from. Hell, I'd accept it, even if you told me you were fantastically extrapolating between the gaps, but to present it as fact is something else.

[Primative1]

They trounced my Hastati 1:4 like supermen.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

They trounced my Hastati 1:4 like supermen.
Hastati are a very weak unit. They are young relatively untrained concripted men.

[Primative1]

Hastati are a very weak unit. They are young relatively untrained concripted men.

I dont buy it tho'. I read the thread about this and thought that the guy challenging the celt's stats won the arguement (Frostwulf?).

The only historical docs that mention the G's note that they lost. Telemon etc

ps I am of Celtic origin so would like it to have been different.

[cmacq]

Please, this is from another thread...

--------------------------------------
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 companies among the ranks of Gaesatae, they did not define the Order or Class, per se.

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 doesn't matter.

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

I don't understand why this topic returns so often? Also, the translations of Polybius used above are actually not all that good. And I will not address the drug issue as I do not deal well with fantasy.

[Primative1]

Do the Casse have a naked, Blue woad fanatic?

[Metalstrm]

Please, this is from another thread...

--------------------------------------
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 companies among the ranks of Gaesatae, they did not define the Order or Class, per se.

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 doesn't matter.

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

I don't understand why this topic returns so often? Also, the translations of Polybius used above are actually not all that good. And I will not address the drug issue as I do not deal well with fantasy.

I guess because the unit as a whole is quite esoteric in nature and the fact that the drug claim is unsubstantiated does not help it... Especially for inquisitive people (who happen to gravitate towards mods like these).

[Primative1]

I edit them to 1 hit point, dont like having to kill someone twice.

[lobf]

wow, that's amazing how you just twisted the account to fit your purposes. you quote two sections from a passage like its one quotation. here's the actual text, from Polybius 2.30, part left out by metalstrm in bold

snip

You didn't address the drugs issue.

[cmacq]

Right, one may note that there have been a number of cultures that understood the importance of sociological warfare. On the battlefield with confusion, noise, and spectacle the Kelts seemed particularly adept at employing this technique as an art form, to help break the enemy's will to fight, before a tassel had even begun.

No drugs.

[paullus]

Hey listen Metalstrm, you're the one that brought up that passage and gaesatae behavior in battle, don't start acting like I'm diverting the purpose of the thread.

You said "they reacted as expected to a volley of javelins: they simply died" which we can all see from looking at the passage is the exact opposite of the truth. What is remarkable is that they didn't die. And whether part of them eventually retreated into the main body of troops or not, they apparently spent quite a while exposed to fire (like an afternoon at the park right? how long would you last butt naked under javelin fire?) and a good many of them rushed wildly into the Romans. Forgive me for correcting your mistake and including a very important part of the passage which you saw fit to omit.

You also said that rushing madly upon the enemy is a common Celtic action. But you don't really get that sort of essentialization of Celtic behavior by the Greeks until later than Telamon and Polybius. Celts/Galatai are supposed to be less organized, ferocious fighters, but you're essentializing the Celts in a way that even the ancients didn't do, not in histories at least.

edit: sheesh y'all post quickly. Lobf, I don't see why I have to deal with the drugs issue, I was addressing a particular post. I'm not a Celtic expert, someone has already noted that the use of drugs of some sort is a very common part of contemporary discourse about the Celts, so it likely has a basis in something (though of what era I don't know). That's all I know.

[Primative1]

I assume you mean psychological warfare. Recent documentry proposed that they used huge trumpets to that end.

As for drugs, they have a long history, including the present day, in warfare.

[Primative1]

Lets keep it civilised & friendly people.

[lobf]

Hey listen Metalstrm, you're the one that brought up that passage and gaesatae behavior in battle, don't start acting like I'm diverting the purpose of the thread.

You said "they reacted as expected to a volley of javelins: they simply died" which we can all see from looking at the passage is the exact opposite of the truth. What is remarkable is that they didn't die. And whether part of them eventually retreated into the main body of troops or not, they apparently spent quite a while exposed to fire (like an afternoon at the park right? how long would you last butt naked under javelin fire?) and a good many of them rushed wildly into the Romans. Forgive me for correcting your mistake and including a very important part of the passage which you saw fit to omit.

You also said that rushing madly upon the enemy is a common Celtic action. But you don't really get that sort of essentialization of Celtic behavior by the Greeks until later than Telamon and Polybius. Celts/Galatai are supposed to be less organized, ferocious fighters, but you're essentializing the Celts in a way that even the ancients didn't do, not in histories at least.


Again, this is all irrelevant to the original question.

[paullus]

haha, i like how you jump on me when i'm replying to someone else's post. very decent of you, bud.

[Primative1]

Lets not fight over naked men, leave that to the ladies.

[lobf]

haha, i like how you jump on me when i'm replying to someone else's post. very decent of you, bud.

I'm not jumping on you. It is not an insult to say something is irrelevant to a discussion.

You just seem to be missing the point. He posted a description of the Gaesatae and noted the lack of drug references. You began to argue over his alleged selective quoting. My point is that all your proof for how badass they were doesn't answer whether or not they did drugs.

[Metalstrm]

:laugh4: Ok Paullus, first of all don't take it personally.

Secondly, I honestly did not include that part of the text for the reason you claimed before.

And I did not say I believed that Celts were a disorderly mass. I think I made it clear enough when I said that many of the writers (Romans) tried their best to give the Celts a barbaric nature. I'm not a Roman writer :laugh4:

Now, it's physically impossible not to die if struck by a javelin in the correct place. Drugs or no drugs. Arms and legs can do with some abuse, but not the chest. I would even go as far as saying a gut wound would immediately incapacitate you. And technically, in that part Polybius mentions neither that they died after being hit, nor that they lived. We can safely assume that those that remained alive only did so by hiding behind their large shields. I think that's plausible enough, isn't it?

[Primative1]

They probably got pissed or stoned, like modern soldiers.

[Metalstrm]

They probably got pissed or stoned, like modern soldiers.

Something like that is probably true. It was noted that they liked their alcohol...

As for the berserk nature, I'd attribute it to their pre-battle religious frenzy.

[craziii]

man, they got no range attacks of their own? talk about going to a fight with one arm tight behind your back.

[Primative1]

They have javelins iirc

Just too smashed to know where to throw them.

[Primative1]

[QUOTE=Metalstrm]Something like that is probably true. It was noted that they liked their alcohol.../QUOTE]

I remember reading somewhere that they loved wine and traded for it big time.

[cmacq]

There are some problems with the Paton translation (too many words unrelated to the text). It may prove little help to cite Polybius if the translation is not that good. While my rendering may not be perfect, it may be a bit closer that the other two.

Polybius’ Histories, chapter 29, book 2, line 7-9.

εκπλὑκτικὑ δ᾿ ὑν και τὀν γυμνὀν προεστὀτὀν ανδρὀν ηὑ τ᾿ επιπηανεια και κινὑσισ· ηὀσ αν διαπηεροντὀν ταισ ακμαισ και τοισ ειδεσι, παντεσ δ᾿ ηοι τασ πρὀτασ κατεψηοντεσ σπειρασ ψηρυσοισ μανιακαισ και περιψηειροισ ὑσαν κατακεκοσμὑμενοι, προσ ηα βλεποντεσ ηοι Ρηὀμαιοι τα μεν εχεπλὑττοντο· τα δ᾿ ηυπο τὑσ του λυσιτελουσ ελπιδοσ αγομενοι διπλασιὀσ παρὀχυνοντο προσ τον.

my rendering
Shocking were the gestures and gyrations of unclad warriors in the front ranks, upon which were expressed chiseled-forms, and foremost amongst these men were sowed those wearing only gold torcs and armlets. The Romans whom witnessed this were unnerved by the commotion, yet spurred on to action by redoubled expectations of the plunder due.

Paton Translation
Very terrifying too were the appearance and the gestures of the naked warriors in front, all in the prime of life, and finely built men, and all in the leading companies richly adorned with gold torques and armlets. The sight of them indeed dismayed the Romans, but at the same time the prospect of winning such spoils made them twice as keen for the fight.

E. S. Shuckburgh Translation
Not less terrifying was the appearance and rapid movement of the naked warriors in the van, which indicated men in the prime of their strength and beauty: while all the warriors in the front ranks were richly adorned with gold necklaces and bracelets. These sights certainly dismayed the Romans; still the hope they gave of a profitable victory redoubled their eagerness for the battle.

[paullus]

well, here's what a couple of us have found out:

1) Decorated lead plates or cauldrons showing apparent drug use. Ranika referred to several, the only thing I know of that might depict such a thing is one scene on the Gundestrep cauldron, but I'm not a Celtic expert, so that may not be what the scene depicts, and there may be other depictions I've never seen. Cmacq or someone else with more knowledge of Celtic finds, any thoughts?

2) References in oral tradition to drug use by warriors, conjectured to be a possibility for ancient warriors with berserker tendencies, like the Gaesatae.

3) Traces of drugs in bog burials and various grave good drinking vessels. Most interestingly, the Grauballe man (a bog find, presumably executed) had taken a last meal with sufficiently large quantities of the hallucinogenic drug ergot to put the man into a stupor or perhaps a coma. Does not seem to be an instance of drug-taking for warfare, but drug-taking to dull pain for ritual sacrifice. Perhaps smaller doses could be used as pain-killer in battle?
See: Helbaek, H. (1950). Tollund mandens didste maaltid. Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Histoorie, 311-41.
Helbaek. (1958). Grauballemandens Sidste Maltid. KUML. 1958: 83-116.

Looking at that, I agree with Abou, who suggested to me that the description express the possibility of some form of drug use by the champions of the Gaesatae. Back when a lot of EB descriptions were first written, the style was different from what we use these days. While I think the writing may have been higher quality, the descriptions tended not to express possibilities and places where we're making guesses. Those sorts of things are being and will be addressed as we work on EB2.

[cmacq]

Bravo, I like that champions of the Gaesatae. Given the nature and purpose of this order, its either that they were the champions, or the fodder of the Gaesatae. Personally, I try to stay away from the drug issue, as it seems to provoke more curiosity from the tonic crazed moderns than an interest in the ancients. In truth many of these were of duel use. I might suggest that this issue is in part born from rationalization, primarily foisted on a trusting public by some educators, with a need to legitimize a mighty hankering for unsaid substances? I simply classify the naked fanatics under my; Human Nature Rule Number Three.

Never underestimate the power of Stupid. If in fact they did use drugs before battle, this serves only to bring my Rule Number Three into sharp relief.

[paullus]

You know, I agree. But as I've said, I'm no Celtic expert, and I come from a field where, rather than eagerly trying to make out subject look wilder, we try awfully hard to imagine them as the historical personification of our dreams of rationality, intellect, and moderation. I think its possible there was some sort of drug involved, but I also think they were just a little bit pscyhoT, which those of you who watch college bball will understand.

And yes, any of the EB Celtic experts would tell you that they see the Gaesatae in EB as the warrior champions from among the Gaesatae. There were a few attempts to figure out some hiring scheme for the Gaesatae that would see a faction hiring a Gaesatae army, with a couple of the EB Gaesatae accompanied by several units of regular soldiers.

[Parallel Pain]

So yes drugs of some kind and yes they deserve their melee stats and their 2 hit points as they can and did kick butts of green troops in melee.

Good, confirmed yet again.

[cmacq]

Right,
for the EB Gaesatae, the stats, yes. As far as drug use, its a game.

As the historic counterpart, these represent relatively small groups of fanatics common within the much larger formation of Gaesatae (spearmen; the term used as the spear was the most common weapon). These fanatics seemed to have been used as psychological shock troops. Drugs used among the fanatics possible or possibly not. Drugs used among the troops of the larger Gaesatae formations, other than wine, most likely not. Remember, that the ancient Kelts believed that their soul was immortal and among some religious orders, if killed in battle they would simply be reborn into another life. Those who were convinced that their soul would live forever and that if killed they would be reborn in an instant were indeed these naked fanatics. Most likely they were naked to demonstrate the last full measure of their devotion, which in turn would scare the holy B-jesus out of their enemy. More so, if their enemy understood that they were not drugged. Yes, yet another...


...this is madness, moment.

[General Appo]

As far as I´m concerned, there really isn´t a problem at the moment. Paullus has admitted that the Gaesatae ddescription isn´t the best one out there, and that it´s being looked into for EB2.
As for the Gaesatae´s comabt abilities in EB, I at least don´t have a problem with them. They die pretty easily from missiles, especially javelins, but kicks normal units ass in melee. And by normal, I mean just that. Against elite units they aren´t actually all that good, a unit of Pedites Extraordinarii can pretty much defeat them all by itself. Of course, if you´re playing on VH all that changes, but hey, it´s VH, what do you expect?

[Elmetiacos]

well, here's what a couple of us have found out:

1) Decorated lead plates or cauldrons showing apparent drug use. Ranika referred to several, the only thing I know of that might depict such a thing is one scene on the Gundestrep cauldron, but I'm not a Celtic expert, so that may not be what the scene depicts, and there may be other depictions I've never seen. Cmacq or someone else with more knowledge of Celtic finds, any thoughts?
Certainly none on the Gundestrup Cauldron, but that's not a good choice, being a bit of a multi-cultural affair; there are Celtic bits, like the picture of (a rather odd looking) Cernunnos and the warrior plunged Mabinogion style, into a cauldron or vat, but there's more besides.


2) References in oral tradition to drug use by warriors, conjectured to be a possibility for ancient warriors with berserker tendencies, like the Gaesatae.
I don't think there are any 2200 year old oral traditions to rely on.


3) Traces of drugs in bog burials and various grave good drinking vessels. Most interestingly, the Grauballe man (a bog find, presumably executed) had taken a last meal with sufficiently large quantities of the hallucinogenic drug ergot to put the man into a stupor or perhaps a coma. Does not seem to be an instance of drug-taking for warfare, but drug-taking to dull pain for ritual sacrifice. Perhaps smaller doses could be used as pain-killer in battle?
See: Helbaek, H. (1950). Tollund mandens didste maaltid. Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Histoorie, 311-41.
Helbaek. (1958). Grauballemandens Sidste Maltid. KUML. 1958: 83-116.
The traces of plant material found in the body's intestines have been proven to be the results of plant roots penetrating the body after burial. Please stop bringing up ergot! I'm serious here: it causes extreme pain, nightmares and is frequently fatal. It is not a "warrior drug" and I really don't want to read that some stupid kids poisoned themselves in the hope of becoming Viking berserkers...

[Metalstrm]

Thanks for the replies Paullus. That was basically what I wanted to know. I don't personally believe drugs were involved but given how you went about it, I think it's a fair addition to the game. Obviously adding that it is all hypothetical somewhere in the unit notes would have helped the cause.

As for the stats, I'm somewhat unsure of them. I think they fairly depict the gaesatae as the elite celtic unit, but the double hitpoint... I don't know, seems a bit too much at times. I think reducing the hitpoints to 1 and somehow compensating with a very good attack skill and enemy morale effects would be more accurate. But anyway, things aren't bad as they stand.

Parallel Pain, don't take stuff for granted.

[Metalstrm]

On second thought, if what Elmetiacos said is true (and I don't have a reason to doubt it), than the historical basis for the Gaesatae unit must have been somewhat rushed..

[Foot]

Regardless, all sources will be better documented in EBII. As EBI has had its final reincarnation it is foolish to divert our attention from EBII. We hope that the question has largely been answered, if not to everyone's satisfaction, then at least to a level where everyone can understand the rationale behind it.

Obviously when we conceptualise this unit for EBII we will take into account discussions like this and also return to older sources. As it is we are more heavily focused on constructing EBII than defending EBI so we hope you understand if some questions are not answered to your satisfaction. Hopefully we will be able to open up our wiki project at somepoint after EBII is released (something that I would hope for) as an encyclopedia of what we have tried to achieve.

F
O
O
T

[General Appo]

How so? He says he don´t believe they used drugs, not that he doubts their existence and prowess in battle. I don´t see what you want Paullus to do, he´s not an Celtic expert nor the guy who wrote the description or determined the stats, and he has sayed that the Gaesatae is being looked over for EB2, what more do you want him to do? Make a patch that just adds a maybe before every sentence in the Gaesatae description and possible reduce them to 1 hitpoint? You can do that yourself is it´s such a big deal that it can´t wait for EB2.

Edit: I agree with Foot, wait for EB2 until you start bashing the team, for now just try to be constructive, not say things like "they´re just a big fantasy unit".

[Digby Tatham Warter]

Hastati are a very weak unit. They are young relatively untrained concripted men.
I like to have an exotic inf unit in my Seleukid armies, originally I was planning on one of those Elite Thraikon Rhomba wielding noblemen units(I thought the 2 handed weapon was the Falx though?). But now I have tried a custom battle with these against the Galatian Wild Men that I can also now build.

On huge setting, medium difficulty, the 120 Galations wooped the 160 well armoured Elite Thraikons. I only let the Galations I was controlling get off 1 volley of Javs. The ground was flat, straight fight, no flanking, equal chevrons and upgrades.

Does this suggest that the armoured Elite Thraikons(with the double handed nasty weapon) are weaklings, or that the 2hit points of the Naked Galations gives an unfair advantage?

Anyway after the results, the Elite Thraikons are going to be replaced when I can get a few silver chevrons on my Galatian Wild Men, before they join my strongest army.

[Metalstrm]

Ok Foot, I understand completely. And thanks.

General Appo, I don't know if that is intended to me. If it is, I couldn't understand what you're trying to say with the first sentence. Secondly, I didn't want Paullus to do anything. I told him I was more or less satisfied with what he said in his last few posts in this thread, and that's basically it. The rest is all my opinion, which as far as I know, I did not impose on anyone.

And I am not bashing anyone. Doubting one's claims is far from bashing, at least within my scientific circles. And you know what, in the end it is constructive. Foot said that these discussions will be taken into consideration, so rather than calling people "inept at searching" and making other derogatory remarks, the doubters actually are helping the team form their mod.

[Ludens]

Does this suggest that the armoured Elite Thraikons(with the double handed nasty weapon) are weaklings, or that the 2hit points of the Naked Galations gives an unfair advantage?
Thracian Rhomphaiaphoroi are a specialist anti-armour unit. Their huge blades are meant to smash armour, but cumbersome to wield so they are easily dodged (relatively speaking), especially when you are not weighed down by armour. Hence they don't perform well against unarmoured units, let along elite ones like the gaesatae.

[paullus]

Ludens is right. For example, I'm pretty sure the Rhomphaiaphoroi do better against, say the Seleukid elite thorakitai, than the Tindanotae do.

And as far as our representation, I don't feel like 1 HP is going to be enough. With our stat-ing, they wouldn't last quite long enough under missile fire. Missile fire is supposed to be the way to kill them, but its not supposed to be a simple task either. Rather than removing 1 HP, I might argue that the shield value is too high, because right now I think its impossible to kill them with missile volleys from the front.

[bovi]

I think its impossible to kill them with missile volleys from the front.
Certainly not, I'm massacring them with horse archers, normally they only reach the position were my skirmishing line originally stood before breaking. HA have a decent 6 attack though, but regular archers are very good against them too with twice the number of attacks at 4.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Yup. One. v. one missile units don't kill much other than the most lightly armoured opponents without a shield worth mentioning (aka: akontistai; sphedonetai etc.).

However having a couple of archer units or slinger units will ensure that the enemy unit gets attacked from multiple angles --> end of your Gaesatae. It's all in the effective deployment of your skimishers; and really when it comes to that the Gaesatae or Tindanotae simply don't cut it as your super unit.

One would rather have Hypaspistai for that job.

[Elmetiacos]

Thracian Rhomphaiaphoroi are a specialist anti-armour unit. Their huge blades are meant to smash armour, but cumbersome to wield so they are easily dodged (relatively speaking), especially when you are not weighed down by armour. Hence they don't perform well against unarmoured units, let along elite ones like the gaesatae.
Be careful here - this post contains two long-held myths; firstly that the way to use a two handed weapon is to swing it around over your head, like the villain in a "teen slasher" horror film and secondly that armour slows movement. Check out various websites of organisations that build their own armour and weapons to fight with, such as ARMA. Most aren't concerned with the Roman era, but the same facts apply.

[Hax]

I've wore chainmail.

No, it doesn't exactly slow your movement, but it tires you faster.

[russia almighty]

^Same, plus scale.

All the weight is on your shoulders; a belt helps reduce it somewhat, but, it can't beat full plate.

[Frostwulf]

Here is a simple question in which still has not been answered.
Where anywhere in any classical text or otherwise does it state anything about the Gaesatae being so great in martial ability?
You don't see it at Telemon, Clastidium or anywhere else! Lets pretend they were hopped up on drugs, so what. The Gaesatae were destroyed fairly easy. If you look at the texts of these battles when they did get engaged they were killed off.


Also worth noting that, while Polybius says that many of the javelins struck home, he doesn't really talk about Gaesatae dying, he talks about them spending a looong time trying to run down the skirmishers, failing, returning to the ranks, taking more and more fire, and then eventually retiring into the other ranks or charging into the front lines of the waiting legions.He mentions that the other Celts were well protected by trousers and cloaks and the Gaesatae were reduced to the utmost distress and perplexity. He also doesn't mention that they were ripping out the javelins and throwing them back, which he most certainly would have if that would have been the case. Also if the didn't die then why didn't they hold their ground?
If the Gaesatae were chasing the skirmishers for so long, why didn't they just engage the regular infantry?

My view of what happened is simple, the Roman skirmishers threw javelins killed some Gaesatae, some charged and died, and the others ran into the better protected Celts. Why the high armor class of the Gaesatae?


Now, when I write Gaesatae I'm not implying the near 'Naked Fanatics (shock troops).' While the fanatics appear as companies among the ranks of Gaesatae, they did not define the Order or Class, per se. So what is the difference between the two and what are you basing this on? Where is this written, what are your sources?


Looking at that, I agree with Abou, who suggested to me that the description express the possibility of some form of drug use by the champions of the Gaesatae.

And yes, any of the EB Celtic experts would tell you that they see the Gaesatae in EB as the warrior champions from among the Gaesatae. There were a few attempts to figure out some hiring scheme for the Gaesatae that would see a faction hiring a Gaesatae army, with a couple of the EB Gaesatae accompanied by several units of regular soldiers.
Where any where can I find any information of the "champions" of the Gaesatae?





Right,
for the EB Gaesatae, the stats, yes. As far as drug use, its a game.

As the historic counterpart, these represent relatively small groups of fanatics common within the much larger formation of Gaesatae (spearmen; the term used as the spear was the most common weapon). These fanatics seemed to have been used as psychological shock troops. Drugs used among the fanatics possible or possibly not. Drugs used among the troops of the larger Gaesatae formations, other than wine, most likely not. Remember, that the ancient Kelts believed that their soul was immortal and among some religious orders, if killed in battle they would simply be reborn into another life. Those who were convinced that their soul would live forever and that if killed they would be reborn in an instant were indeed these naked fanatics. Most likely they were naked to demonstrate the last full measure of their devotion, which in turn would scare the holy B-jesus out of their enemy. More so, if their enemy understood that they were not drugged. Yes, yet another...


...this is madness, moment. I agree with you on the drug use and perhaps the psychological shock troops, but what are you basing the stats on? What battles have taken place that would show this?

Now please understand my post here, its as with the others on this thread. I'm not picking on anyone or trying to be disrespectful, but when people make these claims I would like to know where the sources are.

To me the two biggest factoids in EB are the Gaesatae and the "Devastating Civil War". I have a feeling that these were perpetuated by the same person for whatever reason.

@Foot,
Thanks for that information on EB2

[chairman]

Elmetiacos: if you feel that swinging a two-handed weapon around your head is an incorrect way to use it, how do you think it should be used. The way you say this reminds me of the long-held myth about Landsknecht two-handed swordsmen, the Dopplesoldners who used the zweihander/beidhander, which claimed that they swung the swords around their heads to cut the heads off of enemy pikes. This myth happens to be untrue, as these swordsmen used the great length of their swords to jab at opponents from within the great mixed-pike formations of the Landsknecht mercanary core. However, the rhomphaia is a very different weapon, and its use continued for over a thousand years into the Byzantine empire, where it is said to have been a favorite of the Varangian guardsmen. How exactly the rhomphaia was used is not fully known, but from what we know about its cousin the falx, overhead slashing may not be completely out of bounds. Indeed, as the rhomphaia is a cutting/slashing weapon and not a stabbing weapon like the zweihander, it seems reasonable that at least some of the time it was used overhead. Also take into account other single edged swords like the falcata and the saber. These are known to have been used in an over-arm, over-the-head slashing motion to cut through armor or clothing. While these weapons are small enough that they do not suffer agility penalties, the rhomphaia is a much bigger weapon, even bigger in some cases than the falx, though admittedly not as big as the zweihander.

From this, I would say that the Rhomphaiaphoroi might need to have their attack or lethality checked/raised (funny that even the lowly Thrakioi Peltastai have higher lethality than the Rhomphaiaphoroi [probably just something that was overlooked]) while the Gaesatae and Tindanotae should have their shields' defence value lowered (AFAIK the only other units to have a 4 in this catagory are hoplites etc.).

Also, as several others already mentioned, the Rhomphaiaphoroi are an AP unit, designed for cracking open heavily armored elite units, like a can opener. Against unarmored units, they are not nearly as effective; this is the way it has always been in TW games and was how it was in history: the mighty can-opening hoplite of the Greek city-states floundered incredibly easily against completely unarmored Thracian peltasts until the ekdromoi was invented and used.

I hope this clears some things up.

Chairman

[cmacq]

So what is the difference between the two and what are you basing this on? Where is this written, what are your sources?

Where any where can I find any information of the "champions" of the Gaesatae?


Frostwulf encore une fois, moue déjà lu en déjà vu? This was not a simple question; it was in fact several simple questions, as is your nature, that have all been answered many times before. Still, I figure its my turn in the barrel.


Πολύβιος
Histories, book 2

The Romans had been alarmed by the advance of the Gauls, and a legion was on its way; but, on hearing of the Gauls' self-inflicted losses, they returned home. 7 Five years after this alarm, in the consulship of Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, the Romans divided among their citizens the territory in Gaul known as Picenum, from which they had ejected the Senones when they conquered them. 8 Gaius Flaminius was the originator of this popular policy, which we must pronounce to have been, one may say, the first step in the demoralization of the populace, as well as the cause of the war with the Gauls which followed. 9 For what prompted many of the Gauls and especially the Boii, whose territory bordered on that of Rome, to take action was the conviction that now the Romans no longer made war on them for the sake of supremacy and sovereignty, but with a view to their total expulsion and extermination.

The two largest tribes, therefore, the Insubres and Boii, made a league and sent messengers to the Gauls dwelling among the Alps and near the Rhone, who are called Gaesatae because they serve for hire, this being the proper meaning of the word. 2 They urged and incited their kings Concolitanus and Aneroëstus to make war on Rome, offering them at present a large sum in gold, and as to the future, pointing out to them the great prosperity of the Romans, and the vast wealth that would be theirs if they were victorious. 3 They had no difficulty in persuading them, as, in addition to all this, they pledged themselves to be loyal allies and reminded them of the achievement of their own ancestors, 4 who had not only overcome the Romans in combat, but, after the battle, had assaulted and taken Rome itself, 5 possessing themselves of all it contained, and, after remaining masters of the city for seven months, had finally given it up of their own free will and as an act of grace, and had returned home with their spoil, unbroken and unscathed. 6 When the kings had been told all this, they became so eager for the expedition that on no occasion has that district of Gaul sent out so large a force or one composed of men so distinguished or so warlike.

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

As I noted above this translation is not that good. You need to get the greek copy to actually understand what he wrote.

[Elmetiacos]

Elmetiacos: if you feel that swinging a two-handed weapon around your head is an incorrect way to use it, how do you think it should be used.
I never said that; I only mean that swinging it over your head is not the only way it can be used and that therefore it is an unfavourable situation if you cannot swing the weapon because your opponent is not encumbered by heavy armour and can dodge your slow, clumsy overhead blows.

[Ludens]

I never said that; I only mean that swinging it over your head is not the only way it can be used and that therefore it is an unfavourable situation if you cannot swing the weapon because your opponent is not encumbered by heavy armour and can dodge your slow, clumsy overhead blows.
True, but in such a case the blows would lack momentum and be insufficient to pierce armour. Unfortunately, this cannot be statted in the R:TW engine. The weapon is either always or never armour piercing. In any case, such two-handed weapons are unwieldy compared to one-handed weapons, so they are not the weapon of choice when facing unarmoured enemies.

You are right about armour not slowing one down. My bad.

[Elmetiacos]

Although I've no experience with a rhompaia or a falx and don't know anyone who has, come to that, when I look at the weapon I don't get the impression that it's unwieldy. I do agree with the idea that it's not necessarily more effective than a spear or a gladius, and so the only way to model this in RTW is to make it AP to simulate it's notorious ability to cut right through a legionary's helmet. I don't think, though, that's it's necessarily worse either, so a lowered attack might not be as good a solution as greater spacing between troops in the unit.

Returning to the Gaesatae, I can't find any evidence for drugs, either. All we have on them is that one Roman account. I'm not terribly bothered by them being tough; the only problem I have really is that when the Britons get their own version, they don't have the same stats as the Gaesatae: I see no justification for making one set of howling, naked nutters different from another, except perhaps game balance?

[Megalos]

Pausanias


INVASION OF THE GAULS, HISTORY

[10.19.5] I have made some mention of the Gallic invasion of Greece in my description of the Athenian Council Chamber.31 But I have resolved to give a more detailed account of the Gauls in my description of Delphi, because the greatest of the Greek exploits against the barbarians took place there. The Celts conducted their first foreign expedition under the leadership of Cambaules. Advancing as far as Thrace they lost heart and broke off their march, realizing that they were too few in number to be a match for the Greeks.

[10.19.6] But when they decided to invade foreign territory a second time, so great was the influence of Cambaules' veterans, who had tasted the joy of plunder and acquired a passion for robbery and plunder, that a large force of infantry and no small number of mounted men attended the muster. So the army was split up into three divisions by the chieftains, to each of whom was assigned a separate land to invade.

[10.19.7] Cerethrius was to be leader against the Thracians and the nation of the Triballi. The invaders of Paeonia were under the command of Brennus and Acichorius. Bolgius attacked the Macedonians and Illyrians, and engaged in a struggle with Ptolemy, king of the Macedonians at that time. It was this Ptolemy who, though he had taken refuge as a suppliant with Seleucus, the son of Antiochus, treacherously murdered him, and was surnamed Thunderbolt because of his recklessness. Ptolemy himself perished in the fighting, and the Macedonian losses were heavy. But once more the Celts lacked courage to advance against Greece, and so the second expedition returned home.

[10.19.8] It was then that Brennus, both in public meetings and also in personal talks with individual Gallic officers, strongly urged a campaign against Greece, enlarging on the weakness of Greece at the time, on the wealth of the Greek states, and on the even greater wealth in sanctuaries, including votive offerings and coined silver and gold. So he induced the Gauls to march against Greece. Among the officers he chose to be his colleagues was Acichorius.

[10.19.9] The muster of foot amounted to one hundred and fifty-two thousand, with twenty thousand four hundred horse. This was the number of horsemen in action at any one time, but the real number was sixty-one thousand two hundred. For to each horseman were attached two servants, who were themselves skilled riders and, like their masters, had a horse.

[10.19.10] When the Gallic horsemen were engaged, the servants remained behind the ranks and proved useful in the following way. Should a horseman or his horse fall, the slave brought him a horse to mount; if the rider was killed, the slave mounted the horse in his master's place; if both rider and horse were killed, there was a mounted man ready. When a rider was wounded, one slave brought back to camp the wounded man, while the other took his vacant place in the ranks.

[10.19.11] I believe that the Gauls in adopting these methods copied the Persian regiment of the Ten Thousand, who were called the Immortals. There was, however, this difference. The Persians used to wait until the battle was over before replacing casualties, while the Gauls kept reinforcing the horsemen to their full number during the height of the action. This organization is called in their native speech trimarcisia, for I would have you know that marca is the Celtic name for a horse.

[10.19.12] This was the size of the army, and such was the intention of Brennus, when he attacked Greece. The spirit of the Greeks was utterly broken, but the extremity of their terror forced them to defend Greece. They realized that the struggle that faced them would not be one for liberty, as it was when they fought the Persian, and that giving water and earth would not bring them safety. They still remembered the fate of Macedonia, Thrace and Paeonia during the former incursion of the Gauls, and reports were coming in of enormities committed at that very time on the Thessalians. So every man, as well as every state, was convinced that they must either conquer or perish.

[10.20.1] XX. Any one who so wishes can compare the number of those who mustered to meet king Xerxes at Thermopylae with those who now mustered to oppose the Gauls. To meet the Persians there came Greek contingents of the following strength. Lacedaemonians with Leonidas not more than three hundred; Tegeans five hundred, and five hundred from Mantineia; from Orchomenus in Arcadia a hundred and twenty; from the other cities in Arcadia one thousand; from Mycenae eighty; from Phlius two hundred, and from Corinth twice this number; of the Boeotians there mustered seven hundred from Thespiae and four hundred from Thebes. A thousand Phocians guarded the path on Mount Oeta, and the number of these should be added to the Greek total.

[10.20.2] Herodotus32 does not give the number of the Locrians under Mount Cnemis, but he does say that each of their cities sent a contingent. It is possible, however, to make an estimate of these also that comes very near to the truth. For not more than nine thousand Athenians marched to Marathon, even if we include those who were too old for active service and slaves; so the number of Locrian fighting men who marched to Thermopylae cannot have exceeded six thousand. So the whole army would amount to eleven thousand two hundred. But it is well known that not even these remained all the time guarding the pass; for if we except the Lacedaemonians, Thespians and Mycenaeans, the rest left the field before the conclusion of the fighting.

[10.20.3] To meet the barbarians who came from the Ocean the following Greek forces came to Thermopylae. Of the Boeotians ten thousand hoplites and five hundred cavalry, the Boeotarchs being Cephisodotus, Thearidas, Diogenes and Lysander. From Phocis came five hundred cavalry with footmen three thousand in number. The generals of the Phocians were Critobulus and Antiochus.

[10.20.4] The Locrians over against the island of Atalanta were under the command of Meidias; they numbered seven hundred, and no cavalry was with them. Of the Megarians came four hundred hoplites commanded by Hipponicus of Megara. The Aetolians sent a large contingent, including every class of fighting men; the number of cavalry is not given, but the light-armed were seven hundred and ninety, and their hoplites numbered more than seven thousand. Their leaders were Polyarchus, Polyphron and Lacrates.

[10.20.5] The Athenian general was Callippus, the son of Moerocles, as I have said in an earlier part of my work,33 and their forces consisted of all their seaworthy triremes, five hundred horse and one thousand foot. Because of their ancient reputation the Athenians held the chief command. The king of Macedonia sent five hundred mercenaries, and the king of Asia a like number; the leader of those sent by Antigonus was Aristodemus, a Macedonian, and Telesarchus, one of the Syrians on the Orontes, commanded the forces that Antiochus sent from Asia.

[10.20.6] When the Greeks assembled at Thermopylae34 learned that the army of the Gauls was already in the neighborhood of Magnesia and Phthiotis, they resolved to detach the cavalry and a thousand light armed troops and to send them to the Spercheius, so that even the crossing of the river could not be effected by the barbarians without a struggle and risks. On their arrival these forces broke down the bridges and by themselves encamped along the bank. But Brennus himself was not utterly stupid, nor inexperienced, for a barbarian, in devising tricks of strategy.

[10.20.7] So on that very night he despatched some troops to the Spercheius, not to the places where the old bridges had stood, but lower down, where the Greeks would not notice the crossing, and just where the river spread over the plain and made a marsh and lake instead of a narrow, violent stream. Hither Brennus sent some ten thousand Gauls, picking out the swimmers and the tallest men; and the Celts as a race are far taller than any other people.

[10.20.8] So these crossed in the night, swimming over the river where it expands into a lake; each man used his shield, his national buckler, as a raft, and the tallest of them were able to cross the water by wading. The Greeks on the Spercheius, as soon as they learned that a detachment of the barbarians had crossed by the marsh, forthwith retreated to the main army. Brennus ordered the dwellers round the Malian gulf to build bridges across the Spercheius, and they proceeded to accomplish their task with a will, for they were frightened of Brennus, and anxious for the barbarians to go away out of their country instead of staying to devastate it further.

[10.20.9] Brennus brought his army across over the bridges and proceeded to Heracleia. The Gauls plundered the country, and massacred those whom they caught in the fields, but did not capture the city. For a year previous to this the Aetolians had forced Heracleia to join the Aetolian League; so now they defended a city which they considered to belong to them just as much as to the Heracleots.

Brennus did not trouble himself much about Heracleia, but directed his efforts to driving away those opposed to him at the pass, in order to invade Greece south of Thermopylae.

[10.21.1] XXI. Deserters kept Brennus informed about the forces from each city mustered at Thermopylae. So despising the Greek army he advanced from Heracleia, and began the battle at sun-rise on the next day. He had no Greek soothsayer, and made no use of his own country's sacrifices, if indeed the Celts have any art of divination. Whereupon the Greeks attacked silently and in good order. When they came to close quarters, the infantry did not rush out of their line far enough to disturb their proper formation, while the light-armed troops remained in position, throwing javelins, shooting arrows or slinging bullets.

[10.21.2] The cavalry on both sides proved useless, as the ground at the Pass is not only narrow, but also smooth because of the natural rock, while most of it is slippery owing to its being covered with streams. The Gauls were worse armed than the Greeks, having no other defensive armour than their national shields, while they were still more inferior in war experience.

[10.21.3] On they marched against their enemies with the unreasoning fury and passion of brutes. Slashed with axe or sword they kept their desperation while they still breathed; pierced by arrow or javelin, they did not abate of their passion so long as life remained. Some drew out from their wounds the spears, by which they had been hit, and threw them at the Greeks or used them in close fighting.

[10.21.4] Meanwhile the Athenians on the triremes, with difficulty and with danger, nevertheless coasted along through the mud that extends far out to sea, brought their ships as close to the barbarians as possible, and raked them with arrows and every other kind of missile. The Celts were in unspeakable distress, and as in the confined space they inflicted few losses but suffered twice or four times as many, their captains gave the signal to retire to their camp. Retreating in confusion and without any order, many were crushed beneath the feet of their friends, and many others fell into the swamp and disappeared under the mud. Their loss in the retreat was no less than the loss that occurred while the battle raged.

[10.21.5] On this day the Attic contingent surpassed the other Greeks in courage. Of the Athenians themselves the bravest was Cydias, a young man who had never before been in battle. He was killed by the Gauls, but his relatives dedicated his shield to Zeus God of Freedom, and the inscription ran:–

Here hang I, yearning for the still youthful bloom of Cydias,
The shield of a glorious man, an offering to Zeus.
I was the very first through which at this battle he thrust his left arm,
When the battle raged furiously against the Gaul.

[10.21.6] This inscription remained until Sulla and his army took away, among other Athenian treasures, the shields in the porch of Zeus, God of Freedom. After this battle at Thermopylae the Greeks buried their own dead and spoiled the barbarians, but the Gauls sent no herald to ask leave to take up the bodies, and were indifferent whether the earth received them or whether they were devoured by wild beasts or carrion birds.

[10.21.7] There were in my opinion two reasons that made them careless about the burial of their dead: they wished to strike terror into their enemies, and through habit they have no tender feeling for those who have gone. In the battle there fell forty of the Greeks; the losses of the barbarians it was impossible to discover exactly. For the number of them that disappeared beneath the mud was great.

[10.22.1] XXII. On the seventh day after the battle a regiment of Gauls attempted to go up to Oeta by way of Heracleia. Here too a narrow path rises just past the ruins of Trachis. There was also at that time a sanctuary of Athena above the Trachinian territory, and in it were votive offerings. So they hoped to ascend Oeta by this path and at the same time to get possession of the offerings in the temple in passing. <This path was defended by the Phocians under Telesarchus.> They overcame the barbarians in the engagement, but Telesarchus himself fell, a man devoted, if ever a man was, to the Greek cause.

[10.22.2] All the leaders of the barbarians except Brennus were terrified of the Greeks, and at the same time were despondent of the future, seeing that their present condition showed no signs of improvement. But Brennus reasoned that if he could compel the Aetolians to return home to Aetolia, he would find the war against Greece prove easier hereafter. So he detached from his army forty thousand foot and about eight hundred horse. Over these he set in command Orestorius and Combutis,

[10.22.3] who, making their way back by way of the bridges over the Spercheius and across Thessaly again, invaded Aetolia. The fate of the Callians at the hands of Combutis and Orestorius is the most wicked ever heard of, and is without a parallel in the crimes of men. Every male they put to the sword, and there were butchered old men equally with children at their mothers' breasts. The more plump of these sucking babes the Gauls killed, drinking their blood and eating their flesh.

[10.22.4] Women and adult maidens, if they had any spirit at all in them, anticipated their end when the city was captured. Those who survived suffered under imperious violence every form of outrage at the hands of men equally void of pity or of love. Every woman who chanced to find a Gallic sword committed suicide. The others were soon to die of hunger and want of sleep, the incontinent barbarians outraging them by turns, and sating their lust even on the dying and the dead.

[10.22.5] The Aetolians had been informed by messengers what disasters had befallen them, and at once with all speed removed their forces from Thermopylae and hastened to Aetolia, being exasperated at the sufferings of the Callians, and still more fired with determination to save the cities not yet captured. From all the cities at home were mobilized the men of military age; and even those too old for service, their fighting spirit roused by the crisis, were in the ranks, and their very women gladly served with them, being even more enraged against the Gauls than were the men.

[10.22.6] When the barbarians, having pillaged houses and sanctuaries, and having fired Callium, were returning by the same way, they were met by the Patraeans, who alone of the Achaeans were helping the Aetolians. Being trained as hoplites they made a frontal attack on the barbarians, but suffered severely owing to the number and desperation of the Gauls. But the Aetolians, men and women, drawn up all along the road, kept shooting at the barbarians, and few shots failed to find a mark among enemies protected by nothing but their national shields. Pursued by the Gauls they easily escaped, renewing their attack with vigor when their enemies returned from the pursuit.

[10.22.7] Although the Callians suffered so terribly that even Homer's account of the Laestrygones and the Cyclops35 does not seem outside the truth, yet they were duly and fully avenged. For out of their number of forty thousand eight hundred, there escaped of the barbarians to the camp at Thermopylae less than one half.

[10.22.8] Meantime the Greeks at Thermopylae were faring as follows. There are two paths across Mount Oeta: the one above Trachis is very steep, and for the most part precipitous; the other, through the territory of the Aenianians, is easier for an army to cross. It was through this that on a former occasion Hydarnes the Persian passed to attack in the rear the Greeks under Leonidas.36

[10.22.9] By this road the Heracleots and the Aenianians promised to lead Brennus, not that they were ill-disposed to the Greek cause, but because they were anxious for the Celts to go away from their country, and not to establish themselves in it to its ruin. I think that Pindar37 spoke the truth again when he said that every one is crushed by his own misfortunes but is untouched by the woes of others.

[10.22.10] Brennus was encouraged by the promise made by the Aenianians and Heracleots. Leaving Acichorius behind in charge of the main army, with instructions that it was to attack only when the enveloping movement was complete, Brennus himself, with a detachment of forty thousand, began his march along the pass.

[10.22.11] It so happened on that day that the mist rolled thick down the mountain, darkening the sun, so that the Phocians who were guarding the path found the barbarians upon them before they were aware of their approach. Thereupon the Gauls attacked. The Phocians resisted manfully, but at last were forced to retreat from the path. However, they succeeded in running down to their friends with a report of what was happening before the envelopment of the Greek army was quite complete on all sides.

[10.22.12] Whereupon the Athenians with the fleet succeeded in withdrawing in time the Greek forces from Thermopylae, which disbanded and returned to their several homes. Brennus, without delaying any longer, began his march against Delphi without waiting for the army with Acichorius to join up. In terror the Delphians took refuge in the oracle. The god bade them not to be afraid, and promised that he would himself defend his own.

[10.22.13] The Greeks who came in defence of the god were as follow: the Phocians, who came from all their cities; from Amphissa four hundred hoplites; from the Aetolians a few came at once on hearing of the advance of the barbarians, and later on Philomelus brought one thousand two hundred. The flower of the Aetolians turned against the army of Acichorius, and without offering battle attacked continuously the rear of their line of march, plundering the baggage and putting the carriers to the sword. It was chiefly for this reason that their march proved slow. Futhermore, at Heracleia Acichorius had left a part of his army, who were to guard the baggage of the camp.

[10.23.1] XXIII. Brennus and his army were now faced by the Greeks who had mustered at Delphi, and soon portents boding no good to the barbarians were sent by the god, the clearest recorded in history. For the whole ground occupied by the Gallic army was shaken violently most of the day, with continuous thunder and lightning.

[10.23.2] The thunder both terrified the Gauls and prevented them hearing their orders, while the bolts from heaven set on fire not only those whom they struck but also their neighbors, themselves and their armour alike. Then there were seen by them ghosts of the heroes Hyperochus, Laodocus and Pyrrhus; according to some a fourth appeared, Phylacus, a local hero of Delphi.

[10.23.3] Among the many Phocians who were killed in the action was Aleximachus, who in this battle excelled all the other Greeks in devoting youth, physical strength, and a stout heart, to slaying the barbarians. The Phocians made a statue of Aleximachus and sent it to Delphi as an offering to Apollo.

[10.23.4] All the day the barbarians were beset by calamities and terrors of this kind. But the night was to bring upon them experiences far more painful. For there came on a severe frost, and snow with it; and great rocks slipping from Parnassus, and crags breaking away, made the barbarians their target, the crash of which brought destruction, not on one or two at a time, but on thirty or even more, as they chanced to be gathered in groups, keeping guard or taking rest.

[10.23.5] At sunrise the Greeks came on from Delphi, making a frontal attack with the exception of the Phocians, who, being more familiar with the district, descended through the snow down the precipitous parts of Parnassus, and surprised the Celts in their rear, shooting them down with arrows and javelins without anything to fear from the barbarians.

[10.23.6] At the beginning of the fight the Gauls offered a spirited resistance, especially the company attached to Brennus, which was composed of the tallest and bravest of the Gauls, and that though they were shot at from all sides, and no less distressed by the frost, especially the wounded men. But when Brennus himself was wounded, he was carried fainting from the battle, and the barbarians, harassed on all sides by the Greeks, fell back reluctantly, putting to the sword those who, disabled by wounds or sickness, could not go with them.

[10.23.7] They encamped where night overtook them in their retreat, and during the night there fell on them a “panic.” For causeless terrors are said to come from the god Pan. It was when evening was turning to night that the confusion fell on the army, and at first only a few became mad, and these imagined that they heard the trampling of horses at a gallop, and the attack of advancing enemies; but after a little time the delusion spread to all.

[10.23.8] So rushing to arms they divided into two parties, killing and being killed, neither understanding their mother tongue nor recognizing one another's forms or the shape of their shields. Both parties alike under the present delusion thought that their opponents were Greek, men and armour, and that the language they spoke was Greek, so that a great mutual slaughter was wrought among the Gauls by the madness sent by the god.

[10.23.9] Those Phocians who had been left behind in the fields to guard the flocks were the first to perceive and report to the Greeks the panic that had seized the barbarians in the night. The Phocians were thus encouraged to attack the Celts with yet greater spirit, keeping a more careful watch on their encampments, and not letting them take from the country the necessities of life without a struggle, so that the whole Gallic army suffered at once from a pressing shortage of corn and other food.

[10.23.10] Their losses in Phocis were these: in the battles were killed close on six thousand; those who perished in the wintry storm at night and afterwards in the panic terror amounted to over ten thousand, as likewise did those who were starved to death.

[10.23.11] Athenian scouts arrived at Delphi to gather information, after which they returned and reported what had happened to the barbarians, and all that the god had inflicted upon them. Whereupon the Athenians took the field, and as they marched through Boeotia they were joined by the Boeotians. Thus the combined armies followed the barbarians, lying in wait and killing those who happened to be the last.

[10.23.12] Those who fled with Brennus had been joined by the army under Acichorius only on the previous night. For the Aetolians had delayed their march, hurling at them a merciless shower of javelins and anything else they could lay hands on, so that only a small part of them escaped to the camp at Heracleia. There was still a hope of saving the life of Brennus, so far as his wounds were concerned; but, they say, partly because he feared his fellow-countrymen, and still more because he was conscience-stricken at the calamities he had brought on Greece, he took his own life by drinking neat wine.

[10.23.13] After this the barbarians proceeded with difficulty as far as the Spercheius, pressed hotly by the Aetolians. But after their arrival at the Spercheius, during the rest of the retreat the Thessalians and Malians kept lying in wait for them, and so took their fill of slaughter that not a Gaul returned home in safety.

[10.23.14] The expedition of the Celts against Greece, and their destruction, took place when Anaxicrates was archon at Athens, in the second year of the hundred and twenty-fifth Olympiad, when Ladas of Aegium was victor in the footrace. In the following year, when Democles was archon at Athens, the Celts crossed back again to Asia.

[Elmetiacos]

Pausanias does not use the word "Gaesatae" at all. Once again, we have only that single Roman reference to go on. They are described as living near the Alps and in the Rhone valley, as if they're a tribe, but then the word is translated as meaning mercenaries, which would be an odd name for a tribe to adopt... and by the time Caesar arrives a century and a half later, there is no trace of them in Gaul whatsoever. I agree with the people who say they weren't a tribe, but some sort of fianna type institution.

[cmacq]

To demonstrate so that Frostwulf may better understand.

Polybius, Histories

Book 2, chapter 22
[1] διόπερ ευτηεὀσ τα μεγιστα τὀν ετηνὀν· το τε τὀν Ινσομβρὀν και Βοιὀν· συμπηρονὑσαντα διεπεμποντο προσ τουσ κατα τασ Αλπεισ και περι τον Ρηοδανον ποταμον κατοικουντασ Γαλατασ· προσαγορευομενουσ δε δια το μιστηου στρατευειν Γαισατουσ; ηὑ γαρ λεχισ ηαυτὑ τουτο σὑμαινει κυριὀσ.

[6] ηὀν ακουοντεσ ηοι περι αυτουσ ηὑγεμονεσ ηουτὀ παρὀρμὑτηὑσαν επι τὑν στρατειαν ηὀστε μὑδεποτε μὑτε πλειουσ μὑτ᾿ ενδοχοτερουσ μὑτε μαψηιμὀτερουσ ανδρασ εχελτηειν εκ τουτὀν τὀν τοπὀν τὑσ Γαλατιασ,

my rendering̣
[1] Accordingly, the greatest of this nation, the Insubres and Boii, agreed to send [word] by different routes towards the Rhone River, yet to enter among the Gauls, and call the Gaesatae by means of the wage to serve in war, this well said as to indicate authority.

[6] This in due course their leaders heard, and thus were spurred on upon an expedition, inasmuch as never had more men fit for battle nor held in such high esteem come out of this part of Gaul.

Paton Translation
[1] The two largest tribes, therefore, the Insubres and Boii, made a league and sent messengers to the Gauls dwelling among the Alps and near the Rhone, who are called Gaesatae because they serve for hire, this being the proper meaning of the word.

[6] When the kings had been told all this, they became so eager for the expedition that on no occasion has that district of Gaul sent out so large a force or one composed of men so distinguished or so warlike.

E. S. Shuckburgh Translation
[1] Accordingly the two most extensive tribes, the Insubres and Boii, joined in the despatch of messengers to the tribes living about the Alps and on the Rhone, who from a word which means "serving for hire," are called Gaesatae.

[6] These arguments made the leaders so eager for the expedition, that there never at any other time came from that part of Gaul a larger host, or one consisting of more notable warriors.

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

One will note that the Greek text in line 1, there is no mention of the Alps and nowhere does Polybius claim that the meaning of the word Gaesatae was, 'they served for hire.' Indeed what Polybius wrote was that word (they did not form an alliance) was sent by different routes to the Gauls (not tribes) in the area of the Rhone (not the Alps), that called the Gaesatae to war for pay, saying this in an authoritative manner; so that they would understand the offer was legitimate. However, this in no way means that Polybius did not indeed see the Gaesatae as Mercenaries.

In line 6 Polybius suggests that this wasn't the first time that Gaesatae had come to Italy, but rather that it was quite common. However, herein he indicates this was the largest contingent, particularly from this part of Gaul. He also points out that within this particular group of Gaesatae there were many high status individuals.


And, yes some kind of a Paladinic or Fenian Order may be somewhat of a good analogy.

[Megalos]

Pausanias does not use the word "Gaesatae" at all. Once again, we have only that single Roman reference to go on. They are described as living near the Alps and in the Rhone valley, as if they're a tribe, but then the word is translated as meaning mercenaries, which would be an odd name for a tribe to adopt... and by the time Caesar arrives a century and a half later, there is no trace of them in Gaul whatsoever. I agree with the people who say they weren't a tribe, but some sort of fianna type institution.


I think you misunderstand. I should have been a little clearer. I was posting that, to show where the reference for the "pulling out of spears" probably came from.

Pausanias does say this though "and few shots failed to find a mark among enemies protected by nothing but their national shields". Now can we deduce that they were naked from that? I guess it's a matter of interpretation.

However Pausanias does mention in the first few chapters, that these Gauls campaigning in Greece were enticed to do so, by the stories they heard from the men on the fist campaign who were very rich after returning, and by the promise of even greater reward upon their completion of the second campaign. Sound familiar to the way the Gauls enticed the Gaesatae in Polybius? Again I guess it's a matter of Interpretation.

We also know from Various archaeological sources, Livy and DoH, that there were the "naked warriors" living in asia minor, and these guys came direct from this same branch of Gauls attacking Greece. Also the three tribes instigating this attack on Greece would have frequented the lands that the Gasatae came from accoring to Polybius' description from where they hailed...also those lands are also on, or very near the direct marching route the Gauls would have taken on their way to greece...make of that what you will I suppose?


... and by the time Caesar arrives a century and a half later, there is no trace of them in Gaul whatsoever. I agree with the people who say they weren't a tribe, but some sort of fianna type institution.

BTW, Caesar probably doesn't mention them due to the fact that their lands described in Polybius, were already Roman at this point. So probably they had either moved on, or they were subjugated.

[Atilius]

It was this Ptolemy who, though he had taken refuge as a suppliant with Seleucus, the son of Antiochus, treacherously murdered him, and was surnamed Thunderbolt because of his recklessness.Yeah, those guys name Keravnos are no good.

[Frostwulf]

Frostwulf encore une fois, moue déjà lu en déjà vu? This was not a simple question; it was in fact several simple questions, as is your nature, that have all been answered many times before. Still, I figure its my turn in the barrel.https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1904283&postcount=70


To demonstrate so that Frostwulf may better understand.I thank your for your posts, but I do believe I understand this situation. I am familiar with the Boii,Insubres and even the Roman allies the Cenomanes(They did turn on the Romans at one time). I have read multiple authors and have also posted on this situation, so my understanding is fine.

I have read the texts(several times over the past year) in which you have posted here but you have repeatedly failed to answer my questions. I will ask the same questions and hopefully ask them in a way you will understand what I am after.


Now, when I write Gaesatae I'm not implying the near 'Naked Fanatics (shock troops).' While the fanatics appear as companies among the ranks of Gaesatae, they did not define the Order or Class, per se.Where is it written or where are you getting your information on the difference between the 'naked fanatics' and the Gaesatae?
Where does it say or where is your information on the "'naked fanatics' appearing among the ranks of Gaesatae"?


As the historic counterpart, these represent relatively small groups of fanatics common within the much larger formation of Gaesatae (spearmen; the term used as the spear was the most common weapon).Where is it written or where did you get your information on there being a small group of fanatics among the Gaesatae?

I think the questions I asked here are all supposition on your part as there is no writing to support what your saying. If there is please let me know where that is. Just about all the historian who write on the Gaesatae say about the same thing, they are semi-professional mercenaries. None of the historians I have read, nor anywhere in the texts I have read(this would of course include the ones you put on your post) say anything about a small group of fanatics among the Gaesatae.


Returning to the Gaesatae, I can't find any evidence for drugs, either. All we have on them is that one Roman account. I'm not terribly bothered by them being tough; the only problem I have really is that when the Britons get their own version, they don't have the same stats as the Gaesatae: I see no justification for making one set of howling, naked nutters different from another, except perhaps game balance?I agree with you on this. Again looking at the battles the Gaesatae where involved in there is nothing at all to justify their stats with the exception of a good(not high) morale, intimidation and vulnerability to missile weapons.


Right,
for the EB Gaesatae, the stats, yes.You agree with the stats of the Gaesatae, based on what; Clastidium, Telemon?

@anyone
Where can I find any information that would support the high stats for the Gaesatae? For those that point out the battle of Thermopylae in 279/8 BC you have to remember no Gaesatae was mentioned. The ones who were mentioned was the Tectosages, Trocmi, Tolistobogii and some others. Even if we were to pretend that the Gaesatae were present, this still doesn't bode well for them. While it was a narrow pass you still would have had roughly the same numbers of combatants facing off against each other. If the Gaesatae were so tough why did they get defeated so badly at Thermopylae? The Celts outnumbered the Greeks and the reason the Greeks went back home was that they were about to be flanked just as their ancestors were against the Persians. Overall the Celtic foray into Greece was a disaster for the Celts.

Ill state as I have in other posts that the Gaesate would have the intimidation ability and the vulnerability to missiles, other then that their amour,attack rating and moral should be reduced. I base this on their performance at Clastidium and Telemon.

[Flying Pig]

The Romans refused to engage in hand-to-hand combat at first, but seem to have kept up a longer-than-usual period of ranged attack (see "at length"), perhaps out of hesitation to engage the gaesatae, who were, in fact, intimidating.

Didn't want to close in? After seeing the proud sons of Italia massacred by the...gaesatae, I don't wonder why. 3:1, historical composition of the romani for camillan era, and 4 gaesatae. As for Thermopylae, the Achmeniad (sp?) persians used them in 480, Herodotus says that some of the persians were naked, and while Proffessor Tom Holland calls that a metaphor for their light armour I believe that the force included Galatian gaesatae, and they, when called in, won the battle. The first two days of the battle were given to the Immortals and the medians., but on the third day Xerxes ordered the 'general advance'. Also, a wall of bronze death in a pass is not much fun to charge at. And we don't know the greek motives, the Hellenes SAY that they went out bbecause they were worried about a flank attack, but perhaps they were afraid of the Galatikoi. We don't know that the Telemon 'Gaesatae' were the real McCoy, but that they fought naked. Many Keltoi words have also degenerated for war units, take R&#237;glach (irish Gaelic), originally Hippeis, Machimoi etc, later veterans, now old people. If you say that the R&#237;glach at Stoke (150~) prove the superiority of the English, in fat they are not the R&#237;glach we know. Same for Gaesatae, in my opinion. I think the romans misinterpreted the word.

Gaesatae as I know it means a group of warriors, from a caste, that fought with just a large shield and a helmet (sometimes). They acted as heroic berserkers, but had discipline: Hannibal (the great discipline-worshipper) took them as bodyguards. They had a ceremonial drink made of some kind of drug (Polybius) and at least most of them used spears. They were the masterless (alliance in Keltoi implies servitude). Some warriors may have imitated them for psychological reasons. The analogy with Fi&#225;nna is a good one. I am even unsure if they had tribes, or were a military cult, though maybe godless.

This may have later degenerated, but that, I think, is EB's understanding as well.

[Elmetiacos]

Didn't want to close in? After seeing the proud sons of Italia massacred by the...gaesatae, I don't wonder why. 3:1, historical composition of the romani for camillan era, and 4 gaesatae. As for Thermopylae, the Achmeniad (sp?) persians used them in 480, Herodotus says that some of the persians were naked, and while Proffessor Tom Holland calls that a metaphor for their light armour I believe that the force included Galatian gaesatae, and they, when called in, won the battle.
Impossible: there were no Galatians in 480BCE. This was the late Halstatt era and no Celts had ventured East of Austria in significant numbers.

[Ludens]

Although I've no experience with a rhompaia or a falx and don't know anyone who has, come to that, when I look at the weapon I don't get the impression that it's unwieldy. I do agree with the idea that it's not necessarily more effective than a spear or a gladius, and so the only way to model this in RTW is to make it AP to simulate it's notorious ability to cut right through a legionary's helmet. I don't think, though, that's it's necessarily worse either, so a lowered attack might not be as good a solution as greater spacing between troops in the unit.
I don't have any experience either, but its curved point would make it less suitable for thrusting than a spear, and the long handle inhibits the ability for parrying and fast strikes because the wielders body would get in the way. You also don't get the momentum you would when you would swing it, hence it wouldn't be AP. That's why it's got a low attack value. Perhaps a bit too low, but the AP should compensate for that. A wider spacing would be more realistic, but do soldiers still obey the spacing rules when in combat? To my knowledge the engine does not give troops a penalty for being to close together.

I cannot answer the gaesatae question.

[cmacq]

I thank your for your posts, but I do believe I understand this situation. I am familiar with the Boii,Insubres and even the Roman allies the Cenomanes(They did turn on the Romans at one time). I have read multiple authors and have also posted on this situation, so my understanding is fine.


If your understanding is fine then I can no longer help you, and on your part there should not be a need for further questions on this topic? If indeed your understanding is not in fact fine, please read Miklos Szabo and Andre Rapin. Then get a greek copy of Polybius' Histories and translate it for yourself so that you may better understand the mistakes in the English copies you are now reading.

[Frostwulf]

If your understanding is fine then I can no longer help you, and on your part there should not be a need for further questions on this topic? If indeed your understanding is not in fact fine, please read Miklos Szabo and Andre Rapin. Then get a greek copy of Polybius' Histories and translate it for yourself so that you may better understand the mistakes in the English copies you are now reading.I have read both Szabo and Rapin and no where do they support your claims. I,m not trying to insult you but I have noticed this is your way of avoiding a losing argument. I asked you some simple questions and you have chosen not to answer them. I will try once more:

1. You claim that "As the historic counterpart, these represent relatively small groups of fanatics common within the much larger formation of Gaesatae (spearmen; the term used as the spear was the most common weapon)."

Again I ask you where is it written any where of this? Where is it written that there was a small group of fanatics within the Gaesatae? Now either you have writings on this or you don't, you made this claim how about backing it up?

2.You claim that the EB stats for the Gaesatae are fine, what are you basing this on?

Nothing you have posted addresses either of these questions, you simply put down what most historians say, that the Gaesatae are mercenaries. Why don't you show me where Szabo or Rapin support your claims or anyone for that matter?

[cmacq]

It is difficult to measure a response...

So that I may better understand why these questions continue, can you please tell me; are you young, old, or in between? Also, what is your level of education in general terms? I assume you are a native English speaker as you use these translations of Polybius. Overall, this will greatly aid in designing a proper reply.

I've just returned from the field, I'm very tired, have several sherd counts to record, and don't have much time, but I'll help if your questions are indeed sincere.

[lobf]

Pretend he's as smart as you.

[mcantu]

I don't have any experience either, but its curved point would make it less suitable for thrusting than a spear, and the long handle inhibits the ability for parrying and fast strikes because the wielders body would get in the way. You also don't get the momentum you would when you would swing it, hence it wouldn't be AP. That's why it's got a low attack value. Perhaps a bit too low, but the AP should compensate for that. A wider spacing would be more realistic, but do soldiers still obey the spacing rules when in combat? To my knowledge the engine does not give troops a penalty for being to close together.

I cannot answer the gaesatae question.

i would treat it as a 2-handed sword...

[cmacq]

As you have it...

Rapin

Weaponry

Combat Techniques

In the 3rd century BC, the Macedonian phalanx, which succeeded those assembled by Philip of Macedon and Alexander the Great, had became an academic model for Mediterranean armies. This apparently invulnerable block several rows deep, bristling with spears, proved increasingly static due to the complex maneuvers needed for facing the enemy on all sides. The ploy the Celts adopted to confuse and destabilize this compact mass of men was the dynamic onslaught of their foot soldiers, whose effectiveness lay in the sheer force of their initial attack. The violence of this onslaught was crucial to the success of the operation and justified the need to be able to dash unimpeded into the enemy lines. The rapid expansion of the Celts into eastern Europe is sufficient proof of the success of this assault tactic, which was even effective against the heavily armed hoplite solders. However, the tactic cost many lives and much energy, and could rarely be performed more than once. Hence the cliches in battle accounts, which stress the Gauls apparent indifference to death, or their sudden despair when their frontal attack was not immediately successful.
-------------------------------
As this was a synthetic work, Rapin did not provide the citation for each assertion. Yet, it is clear the evidence for Rapin's claims can largely only come from Polybius and Pausanias. Thus, Rapin's claim relates to the tactics employed by some elements within the Gaesatae (from Gaulish gaesum or those of the throwing-spear) formations. Not the entire contingent. These formation-breakers were the fanatics.

Turning to...
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Szado

Mercenary Activity

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Although only mentioned by name once, much of this chapter is actually about the Gaesatae. This chapter points out that the Mediterranean world saw them as mercenaries, whereas they appear to have been largely landless young adult males recruited in relatively large groups.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andreae

The Image of the Celts in Etruscan, Greek, and Roman Art
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In this chapter you'll note many depictions of Celt warriors as nearly naked. These are the Roman and Greek stereotypical Celt warrior, the character they most feared, none other than the battle field bogyman, or the naked fanatic; aka the formation-breakers. They were feared because, without their formations the Mediterranean type armies were not well matched.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Right, the Romans were very aware of Celtic battle field tactics (see Battle of Faesulae). Thus, at Telamon as the formation-breakers were forming up, the Latins countered with light missile infantry, so the attempt to rush the Romans and break their formation only partly materialized. If you still do not understand how this fits together you need to retranslate Polybius. With a more accurate translation all your questions should be answered.

[Power2the1]

There is one encounter in which the Romans lost to a Gaulish army containing Gaesatae.

Leading up to Telamon, the Gaesatae and crew (warriors from the Boii, Taurisci, and Insubres) apparently ambushed and defeated a force of Romans at Faesulae. 6,000 Romans were said to have died in that battle. The Roman survivors were forced to retreat atop a hill, which the Gaesatae and allies besieged until they recieved news of a large Roman force heading their way, thus causing them to head back to their homelands.

While on their way back on that road is where get the events that lead up to the famous Telamon battle.

[the_handsome_viking]

Here is a simple question in which still has not been answered.
Where anywhere in any classical text or otherwise does it state anything about the Gaesatae being so great in martial ability?
You don't see it at Telemon, Clastidium or anywhere else! Lets pretend they were hopped up on drugs, so what. The Gaesatae were destroyed fairly easy. If you look at the texts of these battles when they did get engaged they were killed off.

He mentions that the other Celts were well protected by trousers and cloaks and the Gaesatae were reduced to the utmost distress and perplexity. He also doesn't mention that they were ripping out the javelins and throwing them back, which he most certainly would have if that would have been the case. Also if the didn't die then why didn't they hold their ground?
If the Gaesatae were chasing the skirmishers for so long, why didn't they just engage the regular infantry?

My view of what happened is simple, the Roman skirmishers threw javelins killed some Gaesatae, some charged and died, and the others ran into the better protected Celts. Why the high armor class of the Gaesatae?

So what is the difference between the two and what are you basing this on? Where is this written, what are your sources?



Where any where can I find any information of the "champions" of the Gaesatae?




I agree with you on the drug use and perhaps the psychological shock troops, but what are you basing the stats on? What battles have taken place that would show this?

Now please understand my post here, its as with the others on this thread. I'm not picking on anyone or trying to be disrespectful, but when people make these claims I would like to know where the sources are.

To me the two biggest factoids in EB are the Gaesatae and the "Devastating Civil War". I have a feeling that these were perpetuated by the same person for whatever reason.

@Foot,
Thanks for that information on EB2

Hi, I'm not sure if you can remember me from the old Germanics thread a while ago but I remember you, it's nice to see you are still on the forum.

To be totally honest, the consistent trend from my research has been the the Gaesatae were something of an organization of mercanaries, they most likely had quite a number of weapons, and fighting styles, which would include the berserker like fighting of the famous naked Gaesatae, possibly their numbers and diversity in terms of arms and methods of combat could be what led Classical writers to assume that they were a tribe, this is however obviously not the case, they were mercenaries.

They saw a lot of action in the Po-Valley and probably throughout Europe. They made quite an impact on the Romans in the various conflicts they engaged in, obviously they were good, some of them fought naked, if they did take drugs I've not really seen much in the way of physical evidence for it, I could be wrong though, I know that obviously things like alcohol were wide spread amongst the Celtic world and there is apparently Halstatt period evidence of Cannibis being used, but this could just be an Indo-European thing in generanl for example the Scythians smoked it, the ancient and later Germanic peoples smoked it, or at least did something with it, so it is't all that far fetched that these types of early forms of PCP could have existed, I just personally have seen little evidence for it.

I personally feel the best way to represent the "livishly equipped" Gaesatae would be as quite a diverse group of mercenaries, some very well armed and armored, some exhibiting the shock troop status, I know drugs were used in war but I can't specifically say that the Gaesatae deserve their 2 hit point etc stuff.

For the record, I know for a fact that you don't always need drugs to be extremely brave, religion and extreme conviction can often create people who are like this, for example the Knights Templar often believed that dying in battle against the enemies of Christiandom gave them an automatic place in heaven, or at least bolstered the chances of giving them an automatic place in heaven, I recall reading one account where a Knights Templar seemed genuinely very excited and happy that he was going to go out a Muslim enemy who out numbered him because this would grant him an automatic place in heaven, this is very psychologically close to the older styles of berserkers and really to berserk is a psychological thing, not so much a specific product of a specific religion, some human beings as a general rule can work them up into this extactic frenzy, the biology of it could be discussed but I don't feel it really has to.

I persoanlly feel that the Naked Gaesatae should be represented as elite berserker shock troops, not so much super men, just very physically capable elite shock troops, they should scare the pants off their enemies (no semi-pun intended) and should have extremely high moral, as for being super soldiers? no. only 1 hit point required.

And lets face it, even if they did have these drugs that made it hard for them to get killed, they would die from their wounds later on once the drugs wore off.

On the subject of the civil war, from what I last read we seemed to agree. There was indeed a devistating civil and Roman accounts do seem to make this clear, but I think that there is a whole number of factors which contributed to the decline of Celtic power in Gaul.

I will list a few(including the obvious).

1)It wasn't really a civil war as it was a war between seperate polticial entities, only on the cultural and possibly semi-Ethnic level was it a civil war, and even then possibly not.

2)There was indeed a power struggle for a sort of centralization attempt in Gaul at the time, this had exhausted forces on both sides of the war, which is why they ultimatly started to bring in foriegners which was for them a major mistake and an all too common one in the history of Civilization.

3)Julius Caesar was as skilled a general as he was a politician, the Romans were experts at dipolamacy, alliances making and alliance breaking, this contriubted to the conquest of Gaul.

4)Though it is most likely that at one point some Germanic peoples had been under the administrative control of a Celtic elite, which isn't that far fetched as Celtic culture, especially in terms of weapons technology was extremely successful and far ranging, it is clear that the Germanic peoples had become exceptionally tough despite having something of a constant resource crisis(which arguably could have contributed to the rise of their famous levels of discipline)and when they entered the conflict, especially under the form of elite mercenaries, it was going to be an exceptionally hard fight for many Celtic people to engage in, at least for those within close proximity to this large group of mercenaries turn pseudo-settlers, as for whether or not Ariovistus, if he had not conflicted with Caesar would have dominated Gaul? I personally doubt it as the Instability was somewhat isolated, more self sufficient tribes would have most likely been able to repell them or at least check their advance and once wind had been taken out of the sails of Ariovistus if he was to attempt empire, he would have been forced to really settle, reform the organization of his army and people, make alliances with surrounding tribes and ultimatly would have just produced another tribe in Gaul. The Celtic response to the Cimbri(whether they were Celtic or German, though they were possibly a mixture of both be it ethnic, linguistic or cultural) is what sort of motivates my opinion here as many Celtic tribes seemed to be totally capable of repelling the Cimbri from their lands, the nature of the old Celtic way of life probably was a bit more self sufficient and geard for warfare than the later.

5)The decline in use of hill forts, and a less aggressive view of foriegners probably made their decline more likely, Caesar himself says that the Gauls had become quite soft whereas groups like the Belgae who were not unfamiliar with regular warfare, were much more up for a fight, the resserection of Celtic aggressive attitudes for the Gauls seems to have come too little too late.

6)The fact that the Cimbri really, for a lack of better words, gave the Romans some very firm defeats forced the Romans, or perhaps we should say, Marius, to revise and reform the Roman military, this reformation was successful, and turned the Romans into arguable the premiere fighting people of earth at least in terms of military consistency, which contributed to their successes in Gaul and against the Germans(though the Armies of Ariovistus were arguably a total match for the Romans, being technically professional, organized in Germanic fashion, well equipped from their conquest and successes and well experienced, perhaps this being one of the most vital factors).

7)Roman society, possibly as a result of georgraphical location had been almost in a constant state of warfare, they had suffered horrendous defeats and they had attain extremely amazing victories, their very survival depended on their capacity to fight viciously, ruthlessly and efficiently, and by the time of the Gallic wars, they were definitely seasoned experts in war economy, organization, they had land, men and resources to draw from, so really, they were a major force to be reckoned with.

I could probably name more reasons for it but I would say that I don't think the "civil war" was the major reason for the defeat, but obviously in a few areas in Gaul there was genuine fatigue setting in that the Germans and Romans capitalized on, but was this the only reason for the Roman conquest of Gaul? no, of course not.

[Elmetiacos]

Which Romans wrote about this supposed "devastating civil war" between the Gauls?

[Power2the1]

Which Romans wrote about this supposed "devastating civil war" between the Gauls?


I do not think theres a specific mention of the Aedui/Arverni/Sequanni situations being mentioned in Roman records, other than Caesar saying that their was some conflict over river tolls leading to and from their areas. The Civil war idea was put forth, I think, by Ranika?

The overall idea iirc is that the constant infighting in Gaul coupled with this "civil war" type atmosphere between the Aedui and allies vs. the Arverni/Sequani and allies helped contributed to the Arverni/Sequani looking to the Germans and their warriros for help. One of the main argument is that Germanic help would not have been needed at all were the Gallic military alive and well.



Heres an interesting tidbit from the book The Celts (A History) by Daithi O'Hogain p. 138-139:


There was, of course, little the Celts in Cisalpine Gaul could do, and Transalpine Gaul was at the same time being seized with a panic of insecurity. This derived largely from the Roman threat, which was giving rise to civil wars between the inhabitants of that region. The Aedui had begun to challenge the weakened Arverni and their allies, the Sequani, and around 71 B.C. these two tribes brought in some Germanic mercenaries to assist them. The result was that the king of the Germanic Seubi, Ariovistus, got a foothold among the Sequani, who came more and more under his control. He occupied all their towns, and began to settle large numbers of Germans in their territory.

The Aedui mustered as many of their neighbors as they could, and spearheaded resistance against Ariovistus. In 61 B.C., however, Arivistus scored a massive victory over a united force of several Celtic tribes at Admagetobriga (In Alcase), after which he began to penetrate further into Celtic territories in Switzerland and eastern France. He now demanded as hostages the children of the Gaulish leaders, and began to issue commands to thee leaders at will. Refusal to obey these commands resulted in torture or death. The Aedui, who he saw as the major stumbling block to his ambitions, had lost many of their best warriors and virtually the whole of their national council. In their hour of desperation, one of the leaders of the Aedui, Divicaicus, went to Rome requesting aid against the Germans, reminding them of the alliance contracted between them two generations before and promising that his tribe would be loyal to the Roman interest. The wolf was at the door, and Celtic Gaul was beginning to doubt its own resources for survival.


The author goes on to describe the pressure from the Romans, Germans, and in the east, Dacians under Burebista, helped to contribute to the takeover/decline of Celtic regions across Europe, each in their own way.

[Strategos Alexandros]

Although I've no experience with a rhompaia or a falx and don't know anyone who has, come to that, when I look at the weapon I don't get the impression that it's unwieldy. I do agree with the idea that it's not necessarily more effective than a spear or a gladius, and so the only way to model this in RTW is to make it AP to simulate it's notorious ability to cut right through a legionary's helmet. I don't think, though, that's it's necessarily worse either, so a lowered attack might not be as good a solution as greater spacing between troops in the unit.

Returning to the Gaesatae, I can't find any evidence for drugs, either. All we have on them is that one Roman account. I'm not terribly bothered by them being tough; the only problem I have really is that when the Britons get their own version, they don't have the same stats as the Gaesatae: I see no justification for making one set of howling, naked nutters different from another, except perhaps game balance?

Seeing as no - one has noticed this, the Casse don't have a version of the Gaesatae.

[lobf]

The Civil war idea was put forth, I think, by Ranika?


'Nuff said.

http://will.incorrige.us/facepalm/picard.jpeg

[Elmetiacos]

Seeing as no - one has noticed this, the Casse don't have a version of the Gaesatae.
That's what I said on the previous page - there are British naked berserkers (Ranika has called them "Uirodusios") but they don't have the same stats as the Gaesatae.

[paullus]

you dont think, elmetiacos, that the "prime of life, finely accoutred" fearsome Gaesatae of Polybius' description, or the visually comparable nude Galatian berserkers of terracotta and sculptures, should be treated separately from run-of-the-mill non-professional Celtic warriors who still fought nude in the old way?

[Foot]

'Nuff said.

Do you perhaps think we are stupid? Try any more remarks like that, that attack EB members, past or present, and I'll be closing this thread down.

Foot

[the_handsome_viking]

Which Romans wrote about this supposed "devastating civil war" between the Gauls?

Julius Caesar, De Bello Gallico, Book 1


After these had been violently struggling with one another for the superiority for many years, it came to pass that the Germans were called in for hire by the Arverni and the Sequani. That about 15,000 of them [i.e. of the Germans] had at first crossed the Rhine: but after that these wild and savage men had become enamored of the lands and the refinement and the abundance of the Gauls, more were brought over, that there were now as many as 120,000 of them in Gaul: that with these the Aedui and their dependents had repeatedly struggled in arms - that they had been routed, and had sustained a great calamity - had lost all their nobility, all their senate, all their cavalry.

It is evidently clear that there was indeed a power struggle at the time which had taken it's toll on both sides of the conflict, this is what provoked these very powerful Celtic tribes seeking foreign assistance.

Also watch your tone in future when posting to me.

[the_handsome_viking]

'Nuff said.

Hey handsome viking: That's all nice, but you haven't said "according to this source, where they say [x], the Gaesatae's stats are justified" or said "according to this source, they did drugs."

If you had bothered to read my post, you would have seen that I was actually arguing against their stats, you simpleton.


It seems like such a clear question.

Very little in ancient history is clear, especially not when concerning groups such as the Celts, the matters are complex, convoluted and often require constant cross studies and cross referencing.



Don't even bother answering if all you've got is speculation and conjecture.

A troll like yourself, especially one who evidently struggles with basic reading and comprehension skills, is not in the position to tell anyone to basically stay off the thread. You're at the bottom of the intellectual food chain on this forum from what I've observed and heard and really you are not doing "your side" any favors.

[the_handsome_viking]

Seeing as no - one has noticed this, the Casse don't have a version of the Gaesatae.

As far as the British Isles go their was possibly the proto-Fianna of Ireland. They though Mercenaries were a little more, and quite similar to the Gaesatae.

[Elmetiacos]

you dont think, elmetiacos, that the "prime of life, finely accoutred" fearsome Gaesatae of Polybius' description, or the visually comparable nude Galatian berserkers of terracotta and sculptures, should be treated separately from run-of-the-mill non-professional Celtic warriors who still fought nude in the old way?
I disagree with the question...
"run-of the mill non-professional" implies that the Gaesatae were professional soldiers in the modern sense, in contrast to any of the Britons. Can we say that they were and that their insular counterparts were not? "Still fought nude in the old way" implies that fighting nude had once been the default tactic for all Celtic warriors, but that this practice was limited to a small number of warriors in Gaul in the late 3rd Century BC, whereas it continued to be generally of the Britons. Again, why do you feel we can say this?

[Elmetiacos]

It is evidently clear that there was indeed a power struggle at the time which had taken it's toll on both sides of the conflict, this is what provoked these very powerful Celtic tribes seeking foreign assistance.
The Aedui and Sequani calling in German allies to defend them from the Arverni is a long way from the whole of Gaul being devastated by a "civil war". Sounds like normal tribal politics backed up by a little extra muscle.

[the_handsome_viking]

The Aedui and Sequani calling in German allies to defend them from the Arverni is a long way from the whole of Gaul being devastated by a "civil war". Sounds like normal tribal politics backed up by a little extra muscle.

That was exactly it, but those tribes happened to be extremely powerful and influential tribes, this is what my point in my post to frostwulf. The "civil war" as many call it, which Isn't that fair as Gaul wasn't considered a single political entity really at the time by the Celts, was obviously not a civil war but a conflict in the region of Gaul between, as I have said, several very powerful tribes, not everyone was necessiarily effected by at the start but they undoubtably got effected by it by the end it would seem.

The reasons for the Gauls losing the conflict is very complicated, and I have listed quite a few, what I feel are valid reasons, as to how and why they lost.

[paullus]

the uirodosios are not limited only to britain, elmetiacos. they're also available in boii territories, and several other areas (i think).

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Do you perhaps think we are stupid? Try any more remarks like that, that attack EB members, past or present, and I'll be closing this thread down.

Foot
Instead of closing the thread getting rid of the offensive party might be a wiser choice. It is not the first time and he has been warned before too.

[lobf]

snip

I really don't know how I did that. I completely misunderstood your post, and I really apologize for responding like I did. Foolish.

In regards to Ranika: I haven't been warned before, but I'm sorry for bringing it up.

[the_handsome_viking]

I really don't know how I did that. I completely misunderstood your post, and I really apologize for responding like I did. Foolish.

In regards to Ranika: I haven't been warned before, but I'm sorry for bringing it up.

Is snip sarcasm or an insult?

If not then: It's no problem, we all make mistakes. Apology accepted.

[Fenrhyl]

As far as civil war between gauls goes, recent archeological findings point towards constant fights in ancient gaul. This, and the writings of caesar, tend to prove that global fighting was the rule in Gaul from the 2nd century BC to the roman conquest.

I'd recommand reading J-L Bruneaux "Les religions gauloises" to any person willing to understand the concepts and beliefs of warfare among the gauls (the author strongly suggests the whole affair was primarily religious). Such beliefs led the construction of huge trophé were the dead bodies (heads excepted, they were taken by the victors) and weapons of the defeated army were exposed and left to rot as an offering to the pagus' god of the victors. I know 2 of those were found, indicating large battles were fought between neighbours, some of the tribes identified thanks to the remains of the tropé (sorry, my greek is awful). There may be more.

[lobf]

Is snip sarcasm or an insult?

If not then: It's no problem, we all make mistakes. Apology accepted.

"snip" just means that I didn't want to quote everything you said, so I snipped it from the quote to simply refer to the entire post.

Yeah, that was a terrible mistake, I'm glad you understand.


A troll like yourself, especially one who evidently struggles with basic reading and comprehension skills, is not in the position to tell anyone to basically stay off the thread. You're at the bottom of the intellectual food chain on this forum from what I've observed and heard and really you are not doing "your side" any favors.

This is still really insulting, though.

[Elmetiacos]

There's something about heaping up the equipment of defeated enemies and leaving it all to rot in the Tain Bo Cuailgne isn't there? Do you know where these two Gaulish sites are?

[cmacq]

As far as civil war between gauls goes, recent archeological findings point towards constant fights in ancient gaul. This, and the writings of caesar, tend to prove that global fighting was the rule in Gaul from the 2nd century BC to the roman conquest.

I'd recommand reading J-L Bruneaux "Les religions gauloises" to any person willing to understand the concepts and beliefs of warfare among the gauls (the author strongly suggests the whole affair was primarily religious). Such beliefs led the construction of huge troph&#233; were the dead bodies (heads excepted, they were taken by the victors) and weapons of the defeated army were exposed and left to rot as an offering to the pagus' god of the victors. I know 2 of those were found, indicating large battles were fought between neighbours, some of the tribes identified thanks to the remains of the trop&#233; (sorry, my greek is awful). There may be more.

Very good post, I briefly touched on this religious aspect a bit, above. Very well done. About 5 years ago I remember reading about one of these sites, with a wooden temple at I believe Ribmont scr Ancr????, found in northeast france??? Several hundred posed and/or beheaded bodies found therein or round a bout? Plus, given what is known about the development of weapons and tactics, why would these warriors go into battle naked? Actually, Polybius tells us why.

[cmacq]

My mistake, the site name is Ribemont-sur-Ancre.

http://www.ribemontsurancre.cg80.fr/images/vue3.jpg

http://www.ribemontsurancre.cg80.fr/

Don't look here if you are weak of heart.
http://www.ribemontsurancre.cg80.fr/images/histoss8.jpg

This may be Belgy?

My French is not good, yet here in English...

This assumption was amply confirmed by the work of students from the University of Amiens directed by Jean-Louis Cadoux, which explored the different loci revealed by aerial photography from 1968 to 1987: the great temple, theatre, a spa and a craft area.

In 1982, Jean-Louis Cadoux discovered a strange structure made of human bones, since called the "ossuary," which indicated that the Gallo-Roman sanctuary was of Gaulish origin. The following years revealed that it was a large quadrangular enclosure bounded by a ditch. This and the adjacent area was strewn with human remains and iron weapons. By 1987 the identification of a vast and intricate burial of human remains confirmed the infeasibility of continued exploration with the available means and time, thus an investigation using academic standards was planned.

The necessary prerequisites (a multidisciplinary team with technical support, access to the property, permission to store and study the archaeological artifacts and research data) were collected and a new excavation program was begun by Jean-Louis Brunaux in 1990. This was due to the concerted efforts of the General Council, served by Alain Gest, the local representative, the CNRS, superintendent Ecole Normale, with financial support from the Culture Ministry, which made possible the new excavation program, with the creation of the Regional Archaeological Center and plans to develop the site.

Twelve additional years of excavations demonstrated that this site was not a typical Gallic temple, rather it was a memorial that commemorated (with trophies) an important battle that took place on the banks of the Anchor River, in the first decades of the third century BC. In this place the victors brought all the remains of their enemies and deposed them within a "sacred grove" (the quadrangular enclosure whose interior space was abandoned to the vegetation).

This place was respected and honoured by the Gauls for two and a half centuries. Only in the year 30 BC, as the Gallic Ambiani (after the region of Amiens), who had served in the Roman army, carefully dismantled the outdated facilities of their ancestors and replaced it with one inspired by the Roman temple. This place, was likely dedicated to public worship, which was improved until the 3rd century AD.

[Elmetiacos]

Fifty dead warriors, according to the site, in a sort of Gaulish war memorial.

Going off at a tangent slightly, I suppose this is the "Hero Cult Shrine" equivalent for Gauls and Britons. I'll try and conjure up a suitable name unless someone else has an idea.

[lobf]

edit- didn't mean to post here

[blitzkrieg80]

My mistake, the site name is Ribemont-sur-Ancre.

http://www.ribemontsurancre.cg80.fr/

Don't look here if you are weak of heart.
http://www.ribemontsurancre.cg80.fr/images/histoss8.jpg

This may be Belgy?

:ahh: Bones! ~:mecry:

Why I Never! How dare...

You mean living creatures die!?!? my world is upside down. :uhoh2:

next I suppose I might learn that the Earth changes temperature, 'warming' and 'cooling' as it revolves around the sun in an elipse!?

[cmacq]

:ahh: Bones! ~:mecry:

Why I Never! How dare...

You mean living creatures die!?!? my world is upside down. :uhoh2:

next I suppose I might learn that the Earth changes temperature, 'warming' and 'cooling' as it revolves around the sun in an elipse!?

That was for the very young and those that may honour and respect the dead.

That may be another topic altogether, yet without your elipse, one may call this a year, and as each season follows another, it may indeed warm and cool. This, as night follows day a temperature change may occur, as we know little of how the sun expends its fuel. A quick burn, a slow burn, or a cyclical burn???

[Havok.]

Why you wanna know where do getai drugs come from? curiosity or something.....else?....lol:laugh4: :laugh4:

[cmacq]

Fifty dead warriors, according to the site, in a sort of Gaulish war memorial.

Going off at a tangent slightly, I suppose this is the "Hero Cult Shrine" equivalent for Gauls and Britons. I'll try and conjure up a suitable name unless someone else has an idea.

My French is not good, but I think the 50 may be from another nearby locus excavated in 2001?

[Frostwulf]

Well I guess indirectly you answered my questions. There is no specific writing that says "As the historic counterpart, these represent relatively small groups of fanatics common within the much larger formation of Gaesatae (spearmen; the term used as the spear was the most common weapon)."This is as I figured, complete supposition on your part.


Thus, Rapin's claim relates to the tactics employed by some elements within the Gaesatae (from Gaulish gaesum or those of the throwing-spear) formations. Not the entire contingent. These formation-breakers were the fanatics.Not true, if you look at Celtic tactics from the 4th century to 50BC in almost every battle had the same tactic, which involved all of the infantry, not just the elite Gaesatae you claim to exist.

Adrian Goldsworthy-“Roman Warfare”-“ Tactics were simple, and relied on a headlong charge by a screaming mass of warriors. The first charge of a Gallic army was a dreadful thing, but the Romans believed that if they could withstand this onslaught then the Gauls would steadily tire and become vulnerable. Classical literature claims that the barbarians were poorly conditioned and easily tired by strenuous activity and heat. But probably the main reason why the Romans were likely to win a prolonged combat was their triplex acies formation that allowed them to reinforce threatened parts of the line. Individually the Romans were better equipped and armoured than the majority of Celtic warriors, but there is little indication of the great superiority which Caesar’s troops in the first century BC would display against similar Gallic opponents.” pg.88
As you can see this has no real bearing on the Gaesatae situation. This was used before and after the Gaesatae and whether they were present or not. Your conjecture doesn't work.
Rapin

Weaponry

Combat Techniques

In the 3rd century BC, the Macedonian phalanx, which succeeded those assembled by Philip of Macedon and Alexander the Great, had became an academic model for Mediterranean armies. This apparently invulnerable block several rows deep, bristling with spears, proved increasingly static due to the complex maneuvers needed for facing the enemy on all sides. The ploy the Celts adopted to confuse and destabilize this compact mass of men was the dynamic onslaught of their foot soldiers, whose effectiveness lay in the sheer force of their initial attack. The violence of this onslaught was crucial to the success of the operation and justified the need to be able to dash unimpeded into the enemy lines. The rapid expansion of the Celts into eastern Europe is sufficient proof of the success of this assault tactic, which was even effective against the heavily armed hoplite solders. However, the tactic cost many lives and much energy, and could rarely be performed more than once. Hence the cliches in battle accounts, which stress the Gauls apparent indifference to death, or their sudden despair when their frontal attack was not immediately successful.
------------------------------- Nothing in this quote of Rapin supports an elite group among the Gaesatae. It was a dynamic onslaught of their foot soldiers, a mass charge of all the infantry as both Rapin and Goldsworthy say. Nowhere do they say anything of specialized, hand picked or elite units being the main charge, its the mass of the warriors charging. This tactic was used by all the infantry.


Szado

Mercenary Activity

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Although only mentioned by name once, much of this chapter is actually about the Gaesatae. This chapter points out that the Mediterranean world saw them as mercenaries, whereas they appear to have been largely landless young adult males recruited in relatively large groups.Ok, all this says is what I have said also, they are mercenaries. But you will notice they were recruited(Gaesatae) in large groups. No where does Szabo say anything about a small group of elite among the Gaesatae. I have no qualms at all with what Szabo says; it is what most historians say who the Gaesatae were.

This Celtic "industry" of professional warmongering was one of the most important markets in the north, with its constant turnover of Alpine and Cisalpine Gauls, and would seem to explain the etymology suggested by Polybius for the name of the Gaesatae, who reached Italy in 225BC. "They are called Gaesatae because they are mercenaries, which is the meaning of this word." Actually, it involved the "negotiated migration" of certain tribe called in to bolster the resistance of the Cisalpine races against the Roman Rebublic.Szabo The Celts, pg.354 Again this certainly doesn't support your claim of a small group of elite among the naked fanatics.


Andreae

The Image of the Celts in Etruscan, Greek, and Roman Art
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In this chapter you'll note many depictions of Celt warriors as nearly naked. These are the Roman and Greek stereotypical Celt warrior, the character they most feared, none other than the battle field bogyman, or the naked fanatic; aka the formation-breakers. They were feared because, without their formations the Mediterranean type armies were not well matched.Again I have no problem with this, as mentioned Telemon the Romans where apprehensive. But again the majority of the Celts were unarmored. You notice the "stereotypical Celt warrior" and not the elite specialized killing machines we are to believe the Gaesatae are. Again this doesn't support your argument in the least. The Greeks and the Romans viewed all the Celtic warriors this way, battle mad. When he says formation breakers it goes right back to what Goldsworthy,James, Connoly and others have said; the mass charge. They aren't talking just of elite warriors,they are talking of the mass of Celtic warriors as a whole making the charge, the whole mass is the formation breakers not just a group of elites.

Right, the Romans were very aware of Celtic battle field tactics (see Battle of Faesulae).I'm familiar with the battle of Faesulae:


John Drogo Montagu- "Battles of the Greek & Roman Worlds"-"At daybreak the Romans spotted the cavalry and advanced against them, while the cavalry, following instructions, withdrew toward Faesulae with the Romans in pursuit. At the site of the ambush the Gauls sprang up and charged. In the ensuing fight the Romans were outnumbered and lost 6,000 men. The rest fled to a hill which the Gauls tried to seize but without success, and so they put a cavalry guard on it, determined to have another try next day. Meanwhile the consul Lucius Aemilius Papus, in charge of a second Roman army near the Adriatic, had heard of the invasion of Etruruia and had hurried south, reaching the battlefield at the crucial moment. He camped near the enemy and lit camp fires. When the Gauls saw the flames, they realized the truth of the situation and decided to pull out before dawn and make for home." pg.176At Faesulae they were ambushed and the ones that survived made it to a hill. Are you saying the Romans are aware of ambush tactics? There is no mention of tactics at Faesulae, there is of course those mentioned at Telemon.

Thus, at Telamon as the formation-breakers were forming up, the Latins countered with light missile infantry, so the attempt to rush the Romans and break their formation only partly materialized.The formation breakers is the typical Celt warrior, not just the Gaesatae. You are reading way to much into this.

If you still do not understand how this fits together you need to retranslate Polybius. With a more accurate translation all your questions should be answered.I understand what your saying, and its all speculation and most, if not all fail to support your argument.
Nothing you have posted shows directly of elites among the Gaesatae, in fact most of what you posted goes against that.

And for the last part, there is still no justification for the stats of the Gaesatae as shown by their battlefield performance. Even if you want to claim they were involved at Thermoplyae, they were not successful there either.


There is one encounter in which the Romans lost to a Gaulish army containing Gaesatae.

Leading up to Telamon, the Gaesatae and crew (warriors from the Boii, Taurisci, and Insubres) apparently ambushed and defeated a force of Romans at Faesulae. 6,000 Romans were said to have died in that battle. The Roman survivors were forced to retreat atop a hill, which the Gaesatae and allies besieged until they recieved news of a large Roman force heading their way, thus causing them to head back to their homelands.

While on their way back on that road is where get the events that lead up to the famous Telamon battle.Unfortunately we don't know much except what you said. But what is interesting is that the Romans being outnumbered prior to the ambush and then being even more outnumbered where still able to hold the hill. Of course the hill did provide some natural defense but this battle is difficult determine what really happened as it didn't go into the same detail as Clastidium and Telemon.


Hi, I'm not sure if you can remember me from the old Germanics thread a while ago but I remember you, it's nice to see you are still on the forum.Of course I remember you, and its nice to finally see you writing again.
As far as the rest of your post on the Gaesatae I agree that they were a form of mercenary, I haven't deviated from that. The problem is the high stats for the Gaesatae is wrong in my opinion due to their battlefield performance, there has been nothing to contradict this yet.
As far as the supposed "Devastating Civil War" I will address this on the proper thread.

@everyone Where is the battlefield performance of the Gaesatae that supports their stats? I still don't see any proof of an "elite" Gaesatae, just those that are off base and wishful thinking.

[cmacq]

Still you have your finely stereotypical understanding? So you think that a Gaulish army of the era under consideration consisted entirely of 'the tip of the spear?' And that the naked Greek and Roman art depicted the typical Gaulish foot? Have you gotten a greek copy of Polybius' Histories and translated it for yourself yet? Do you want me to do for you, what you are unwilling to do for yourself? Please, continue frost-wulf, thrill me with your acumen.

[Fenrhyl]

Ribemont sur Ancre (Ribemont near the Ancre river) is in France. Since this topic sounds interesting to some of you, i'll read again the book and give you more details.

If you found sources in french, i can translate them for you. That's my current job.

[russia almighty]

Still you have your finely stereotypical understanding? So you think that a Gaulish army of the era under consideration consisted entirely of 'the tip of the spear?' And that the naked Greek and Roman art depicted the typical Gaulish foot? Have you gotten a greek copy of Polybius' Histories and translated it for yourself yet? Do you want me to do for you, what you are unwilling to do for yourself? Please, continue frost-wulf, thrill me with your acumen.


He's a classicist; which, is a polite way of calling him a Romanophile.



Why don't you guys like, I don't know, ignore him? He's a trouble maker; he doesn't bring up any good points except to troll.

[cmacq]

In part I just assume he is very young and for other reasons not able to process large amounts of information. I understand the problem is that he can’t conceptualize the abstract, yet very real convergence of tumult, spectacle, chaos, escalating fear, unexpected speed, and a thunderous impact; followed by the perception of impeding pain, a sudden horrid dead, and total uncontrolled feelings of panic. If he could, I'm sure he would also have more of a problem fitting this into the stats of a game piece. Yet above all else he appears unable to get a grip on the possiblity that not everyone can be the disposable foci of collision, as this is a task best saved for the callow, dim witted, and inexperienced; after spending great energy to destabilize, the majority follow on, slower yet better armed and protected to exploit. Thus, armed with the vast insights he professes, for him I’m sure the issue of battle field tactic vs individual ablity is indeed very simple.

[Frostwulf]

Still you have your finely stereotypical understanding? So you think that a Gaulish army of the era under consideration consisted entirely of 'the tip of the spear?' And that the naked Greek and Roman art depicted the typical Gaulish foot?As Bernard says the stereo typical Celt in there eyes was the naked warrior. In some of the classical writings they also considered those non armored to be naked. You are simply reading to much in to Benards statement as you were with Szabo and Rapin. You are welcome to show me where it says that the 'naked fanatics' were the 'tip of the spear'.


He's a classicist; which, is a polite way of calling him a Romanophile.You forgot to add Germanophile and now probably Grecophile.


Why don't you guys like, I don't know, ignore him? He's a trouble maker; he doesn't bring up any good points except to troll. I really don't think this is a fair statement. I'm not to much into supposition like most of those who disagree with me, but I prefer to have professional opinion that can be checked on. So now because I don't agree with the "Devastating Civil War"(and used professional opinion) and with the Gaesatae and voice my opinion that makes me a troll?


In part I just assume he is very young and for other reasons not able to process large amounts of information. I understand the problem is that he can’t conceptualize the abstract, yet very real convergence of tumult, spectacle, chaos, escalating fear, unexpected speed, and a thunderous impact; followed by the perception of impeding pain, a sudden horrid dead, and total uncontrolled feelings of panic. If he could, I'm sure he would also have more of a problem fitting this into the stats of a game piece. Yet above all else he appears unable to get a grip on the possiblity that not everyone can be the disposable foci of collision, as this is a task best saved for the callow, dim witted, and inexperienced; after spending great energy to destabilize, the majority follow on, slower yet better armed and protected to exploit. Thus, armed with the vast insights he professes, for him I’m sure the issue of battle field tactic vs individual ablity is indeed very simple. Your last statement is in contrast to what Goldsworthy and Connoly and other historians said. They say the better armed leaders and their contingents lead first as is to be expected for that kind of society. Again this is complete speculation on your part, and I'm sure you will have nothing to back it up with other then conjecture.
I haven't professed any sort of vast insights, that would be you reading into things again. I fully admit I'm just a guy who enjoys and reads history. The only reason I may disagree with something is from said readings and then I will state as to why, and try to back it up with professional opinion.

So far you have proven nothing. You have put down both Szabo and Rapin to show your point of an elite among the Gaesatae and have most assuredly failed there. The only point you somewhat have is that of Andraee Bernard, and thats tenuous at best. The only thing I have seen from you on this thread thus far is statements you cant back up, attempts to demean me, quotes that in no way conform to your supposition and one statement from Bernard that you extrapolated (weakly at that) to support your point.

[blitzkrieg80]

this is not appropriate conversation... is it all your will to have this thread locked and/or worse consequences? please try to behave like adults. :bow:

I don't agree at all with the personal attacks being made, Frostwulf has an excellent point- these things are very interpretative, thus why evidence is useful...

OT- Cmacq, you shouldn't be talking shit- for the record, you totally misinterpreted that essay you referenced concerning How (non)Indo-European is the Germanic Lexicon? by Salmons(?)... if you really think that the evidence used proves a non-IE element, it makes me wonder... the writer himself pretty much states the evidence available proves the opposite.

what i don't agree with is that Germanic or Celtic kings sacrificed themselves on the frontline on every battle possible and thus never won a single battle because the general died far too early: 'leading first' is in relation to more cowardly nobility/commanders who hide behind the ranks. this by no means implies they are the front line... ancient peoples have a common sense concerning probability and sharp objects flying at them, esp. when no armor invented to date can protect a person from a random shot into the eye 100% esp. if one wants to have vision... even mechanical tanks have openings to see... it is possible that a war-leader might be at the front during a charge late in the battle, but never at the beginning when they knew to expect shots fired. sv&#237;nfylking and ord formation elaborated on by non-Roman literary sources (since not being a coward is seen as frontline to 'civilized') concerning Germanic warriors and their wedges imply that the king is behind 'able warriors', beside 'loyal bodyguards' and generally flanked by supporting troops. If the youth stood behind, it would be much easier to run away (fight or flight is a well known animal behavior- it would be unnatural NOT to experience it- and unnatural not to recognize that one has to worry about it, EVEN in heroic culture... bards' very existence is to reinforce the behavior of the warrior! OT- exactly why modern nations promote cowardice!)... thus, primarily worthless people stood in front if not at the baggage train (Germanic bowmen), the young and generally less useful would fight with make-do weapons (Greek levy skirmisher anyone?) at the frontline as human-'shields' or 'targets' and benefit as receivers of experience which earns them a place among the 'Proven' where they prob won't be killed in later life. The youth can be given advice by older veterans behind them in this way, besides motivating them to do well before their eyes. it may seem too similar to Roman velite / hastati / principes / triarii but its a cross-cultural common sense that older and experienced troops are nice to keep around rather than cowardly youth.

visual aid:
https://img458.imageshack.us/img458/7763/wedgexr8.th.jpg (https://img458.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wedgexr8.jpg)

btw, how would Ariovistus row across the Rhine (nonetheless survive) from the frontline of battle when he lost against Caesar?

[Anthony III]

I tend to agree with cmacq. Frostwulf doesn't appear to offer a tenable argument in reply...certainly with no supporting data.


mere seems to
My mistake, the site name is Ribemont-sur-Ancre.

http://www.ribemontsurancre.cg80.fr/images/vue3.jpg

http://www.ribemontsurancre.cg80.fr/

Don't look here if you are weak of heart.
http://www.ribemontsurancre.cg80.fr/images/histoss8.jpg

This may be Belgy?

Yes, I believe this was the site of a significant battle between the invading Belgae and the group of maritime Gauls known as Armoricans. The Belgae appear to have been victorious and impaled the beheaded enemy leaders and elite. I believe they have found several hundred bodies at the site, giving evidence of the scale of the conflict. The Belgae appear to then have overun the Western seaboard until their expulsion across the Seine by the Carnutes and the Aedui confederacy.

[Parallel Pain]

Simply put Frostwulf:

1) Don't call your opinion the professional opinion while using Roman-focused authors, and at the same time denouncing all other points that use Gallic-focused authors as "reading too much into it."

2) Romans exaggerate the number of their enemies.

3) Gaesatae in EB represents the elites of the Gallic army. All detailed accounts of armies from all places at all times have elites and they will eat levies for breakfast, so why assume that a roughly-described army like a Gallic one would be any different?
Personally I had never got the chance to fight them with my own elites, having only played Romani a bit in 0.81 and having beaten them with levies only (in VH/VH). But from what I hear they certainly don't do as well as other elites (specialists not withstanding). So from the point of view of balancing the game according to history, it's accurate.

4) Battles are decided by a lot more than numbers and the quality of your elite units.

5) There are theses two things in studying history called "extrapolation" and "reading between the lines". They are not perfect, but they are the best we've got until archeology (or time travel) can prove or disprove them.

6) Be more open-minded. There could be other interpretations to the works of authors and ancient sources other than your own. Unless you can phone up these authors (or invent a time machine to talk to those ancient authors) and ask them directly what they meant, accept that it is possible you can be wrong and others can be right.

On a totally separate note. From the terracotta army of the (not really) first emperor of China are front rank warriors that wore VERY LIGHT armor, or simply their THIN ROBES, who had NO SHIELDS and used IRON BARS or BARE HANDS as their weapons. From their placement and battle stances, military historians deduced that they were most likely used as shock troops to mess up the enemy ranks.
While this does not prove naked elite shock warriors existed in Gaul, it does prove that they could have, as the feat could be accomplished by such lightly armed and armored troops.

[Frostwulf]

what i don't agree with is that Germanic or Celtic kings sacrificed themselves on the frontline on every battle possible and thus never won a single battle because the general died far too early: 'leading first' is in relation to more cowardly nobility/commanders who hide behind the ranks.I should have gone more in depth on my response, but you seem to have taken care of it. I didn't mean my statement to come off as the leader being at the pinnacle of the charge, it would be as you and the book said. There are to many instances of leaders escaping for them to be personally at the head of the charge.


1) Don't call your opinion the professional opinion while using Roman-focused authors, and at the same time denouncing all other points that use Gallic-focused authors as "reading too much into it."
I didn't say that, I said this:

I'm not to much into supposition like most of those who disagree with me, but I prefer to have professional opinion that can be checked on.


2) Romans exaggerate the number of their enemies. No disagreement here, I have said it multiple times in different threads.

3) Gaesatae in EB represents the elites of the Gallic army. All detailed accounts of armies from all places at all times have elites and they will eat levies for breakfast, so why assume that a roughly-described army like a Gallic one would be any different? The army wouldn't be different, the Gauls had some very good troops. The problem lies with the Gaesatae and their stats, if you look at the battles they participated in, they were sub-par.

Personally I had never got the chance to fight them with my own elites, having only played Romani a bit in 0.81 and having beaten them with levies only (in VH/VH). But from what I hear they certainly don't do as well as other elites (specialists not withstanding). So from the point of view of balancing the game according to history, it's accurate.Do custom battles with one unit of Gaesatae and one unit of whatever you choose, that is the best way to judge an individual units power.

4) Battles are decided by a lot more than numbers and the quality of your elite units.Agreed, but during those battles you can see how certain units perform, such as the Gaesatae.

5) There are theses two things in studying history called "extrapolation" and "reading between the lines". They are not perfect, but they are the best we've got until archeology (or time travel) can prove or disprove them.I have no problem with this, but it does matter how much of a stretch the extrapolation is.

6) Be more open-minded. There could be other interpretations to the works of authors and ancient sources other than your own. Unless you can phone up these authors (or invent a time machine to talk to those ancient authors) and ask them directly what they meant, accept that it is possible you can be wrong and others can be right.I have been proven wrong several times, and when I am I freely admit it(though its not much fun being wrong :beam: )As far as the authors and ancient sources I agree with you. On another thread I had to use three different versions of Caesar's "The Gallic War" to show the intent of Caesar.

As far as there being an "elite" among the Gaesatae I would have no real objection to it in the confines of them being the bodyguard of Concolitanus and Aneroëstes. These "elite" would have been better because they would have been hand chosen(most likely) just like any other bodyguard. The problem still remains the same though, their battlefield performance.

[Parallel Pain]

I should have gone more in depth on my response, but you seem to have taken care of it. I didn't mean my statement to come off as the leader being at the pinnacle of the charge, it would be as you and the book said. There are to many instances of leaders escaping for them to be personally at the head of the charge.

Charging first only mean the possibility of becoming a casualty is increased by something like 5%. And when you have like 300 bodyguard ready to give you his horse or take a hit for you, it only really increase by 1% or something. (Proven again at the other side of the world. During the Three Kingdoms era (and not from RoTK) while the commanding general often did not charge first, the subordinate generals did, and that's where people like Lu Bu and Zhao Yun got their fame. All those generals always charge first, and still came out very much alive most of the time even when they were defeated. It was also the same during the Sengoku Jidai Japan with only a handful of exceptions.


Do custom battles with one unit of Gaesatae and one unit of whatever you choose, that is the best way to judge an individual units power.
Agreed, but during those battles you can see how certain units perform, such as the Gaesatae.

Eh, no. That is the WORST way to judge an individual unit's power. The BEST way is to go online with either two accounts or a friend. Both get one general, with one side one Gaesatae and the other whatever. For map choose the grassland plain thingi where it's totally flat grass. Then when the battle starts, both take their general off to the side somewhere and let the two other units duke it out head on.

Even then, it doesn't take into account the specific tactical functions units are designed for either. Some units are just not designed to hold their ground in melee, some specialize in taking out armored units, some (like the Gaesatae) are designed to kick ass in a forward, infantry line battle, and they suck at all other jobs. Then there are some that's designed to be a jack-of-all-trade but can't really stand out in any area and are just used as fodder to wear down the enemy. So really, it would only make sense if you do the online-game test I mentioned with Gaesatae vs some other unit designed to kick ass in straight melee (armor-breaking specialists not withstanding). In which case, a lot of people have mentioned that Gaesatae gets easily defeated by these other units.

And even with all that, it's only unit power, not campaign balance, which is what the balancing is supposed to be based on.
I believe someone already told you in another thread that one on one in custom battle counts for nothing in unit balance. For one it doesn't take into account the cost and availability during campaign. For another the unit get a huge morale boost by having the general. The first time you complained, you haven't played a campaign with or against them. If you still haven't go play a campaign before coming back to complain any further.


I have no problem with this, but it does matter how much of a stretch the extrapolation is.

They were deemed to be an acceptable level by historians (indeed done by one), so I don't see why you're complaining about it.


I have been proven wrong several times, and when I am I freely admit it(though its not much fun being wrong :beam: )As far as the authors and ancient sources I agree with you. On another thread I had to use three different versions of Caesar's "The Gallic War" to show the intent of Caesar.

So let's see you throw out all books focusing on Romans start pulling out some books focusing on Celts to source your complains.


As far as there being an "elite" among the Gaesatae I would have no real objection to it in the confines of them being the bodyguard of Concolitanus and Anero&#235;stes. These "elite" would have been better because they would have been hand chosen(most likely) just like any other bodyguard. The problem still remains the same though, their battlefield performance.

That's what I'm talking about. The others have pulled out a lot of examples in which the Gauls won, as well as talked about ones that the Romans didn't write down but proved by archeology and others that the Romans just manipulated the story. The EB team has decided to take this as evidence that the Celts doesn't suck, but were quite good. But you systematically rejects everything the team says as "misinterpretation" and refuse to accept there's a possibility the team could be right. Please be more open minded.
And again, if I can beat them with levies, they then most certainly don't stand up well to other elites (just like what other members said). So the stats most certainly is very balanced according to history.

[blitzkrieg80]

Charging first only mean the possibility of becoming a casualty is increased by something like 5%. And when you have like 300 bodyguard ready to give you his horse or take a hit for you, it only really increase by 1% or something. (Proven again at the other side of the world. During the Three Kingdoms era (and not from RoTK) while the commanding general often did not charge first, the subordinate generals did, and that's where people like Lu Bu and Zhao Yun got their fame. All those generals always charge first, and still came out very much alive most of the time even when they were defeated. It was also the same during the Sengoku Jidai Japan with only a handful of exceptions.
Now you're just being argumentative and antagonistic. Try reading the discussion you commented on "1%." You also might try using some mathmatical/empirical skills, because 1% is a lot, especially on the battlefield. Unless you claim to be a veteran of several wars, you and I both don't have a clue about how 'battle fatigue' would wear down even the bravest of warriors in a hero culture to the point that the instrinct of self-preservation cannot be suppressed. It is a fact that even 'berserkr'-type warriors want to kill as much as possible, have as much victory/glory/fame as possible, and therefore need to live, recognize that and desire to do so. The idea that they aren't afraid to die doesn't touch this. I am not afraid to die, but that doesn't mean i am going to walk in front of a moving car who has no chance to avoid me due to physics/obliviousness... and i still don't back down to vehicles on foot when i know they see me.

Your point on this does not need to be made because nobody is holding a strong opinion. Frostwulf already admitted he wasn't talking about this. If you want to disagree on other points, go ahead. Otherwise, save yourself some face.

[Parallel Pain]

Eh, if that 1% is 1 battle out of 100, then na it's not tha big. If it's 1 person in 100, yes it's quite big. But I was saying the former.

As for the rest of that. I was just saying that the huge amount of times leaders got away from battles they lost can happen even if they charged first, so the rest of those is umm...not even on the argument?

[blitzkrieg80]

true- ''leading the way" and carrying victory isn't the same as holding the line... prob. why cavarly had a function distinct from uber-knights... i shouldn't be generalizing ~:doh:

[Anthony III]

Frostwulf ....Frostwulf ....Frostwulf ...Frostwulf ...Frostwulf already admitted he wasn't talking about this...save yourself some face.

Are you frostwuf?

[SaFe]

I will not say anything about the battle display of the 2hitpoint warriors from gaul, as i'm not able to play EB anymore, because of a very bad pc, but i think it is sadly common these days here to attack members for their views.
I agree with Blitzkrieg considering not to agree with Frostwulf on all aspects of germanics, celts and romans in comparison, but at least he gives us every time the data he quotes from without reinterpreting it for his personal position.

Quotes like "why don't we ignore him" are just laughable and this is perhaps one of the reasons some "oldtimers" like Handsome Viking and me (still more pre-historical than him i think:laugh4:) doesn't give much input these days.
I really miss the days we could discuss in a very fine matter (a nice Hello to Teleklos and blitz b.t.w.)

Perhaps calling respected modern authors "romanophiles" is a little over the top also.

About Berserkers and drug-driven elite warriors:
As far as i know these are not presented in EB except the Gaesatae and rightly so. (Arguing that the display of Wolf-Warriors and Bear-Warriors is missing in the germanic roster, the current Wargoz are not correctly displayed as mercenary elite, as Blitzkrieg will agree i think) Still i would never suggest giving them these incredible stats or even 2 HP.

Concluding this, we should never forget who came up with the uber warrior from Gaul on this boards, perhaps then we can reconsider our thought on them.

[Parallel Pain]

1) Every single historian ever lived has reinterpreted his sources for his personal position

2) Elite, yes, but I have yet to see someone prove to me that Gaesatae are uber supermen in the game or that there is anything incredible about their stats.

3) Even if not by you, he obviously was a member of the team well respected by others.

On this whole argument:
Everyone is trying to interpret history, and both sides have evidence to back their view. So as long as you accept that "there is a high enough possibility the EB team can be right" (which doesn't need to reach 50%, considering the lack of information we have about these people, 20~30% in your view is fine) then you have to accept why the team designed it this way. Yes, they could be wrong, but so could you. If in your view the possibility is so low it's not worth mentioning, then go fix the stats yourselves. If you refuse to accept there is a possibility at all (which, from all the "these are fantasy units", seems often to be the case) then there's no point debating as you wont' accept anything.

[SaFe]

1) Every single historian ever lived has reinterpreted his sources for his personal position

2) Elite, yes, but I have yet to see someone prove to me that Gaesatae are uber supermen in the game or that there is anything incredible about their stats.

3) Even if not by you, he obviously was a member of the team well respected by others.

On this whole argument:
Everyone is trying to interpret history, and both sides have evidence to back their view. So as long as you accept that "there is a high enough possibility the EB team can be right" (which doesn't need to reach 50%, considering the lack of information we have about these people, 20~30% in your view is fine) then you have to accept why the team designed it this way. Yes, they could be wrong, but so could you. If in your view the possibility is so low it's not worth mentioning, then go fix the stats yourselves. If you refuse to accept there is a possibility at all (which, from all the "these are fantasy units", seems often to be the case) then there's no point debating as you wont' accept anything.


I think you responded to me with your answer, so i will try to answer.

1) You're right, but there is a difference in a modern day historian with access to all available data and a historian in the ancient times with mostly "mouth to mouth" knowledge. Look for example what we learned these days about the battle in Teutoburg Forest comparing the knowledge our grandfathers had.
2) I already said it is not possible to give a answer about the unit's perfomance in battle as i can no longer play EB, but after all we know about those elite unit, 2 HP in comparison to most other elite units seems not right in my opinion. To be honest it is not the stats of the unit that is disturbing, but rather the way of discussion in this thread.
3) Sadly Ranika(the celtic expert and i learned a lot during our many discussions from him) is not around anymore, he would give you the better answer.
I can surely respect other views, but i can and never will respect a person's view backed up by quotes from a book that never existed. Perhaps you know what i mean, but i will not going deeper into this sad example of "scholarship".

[Parallel Pain]

All right, I am now REALLY confused, and I ask all the complainers to help me out.

Since lately I had read so much complains about how Gaesatae are overpowered supermen, I thought I'd give it a try myself.

So I turned to the really unrealistic custom battle and pit one polybian principate against one Gaesatae. The map is grassy flatland and obviously medium difficulty.
My only tactics were 1) to put my men with fire at will on to get both javelin off before melee 2) put them in five ranks deep as I usually do with infantry on huge 3) put them in guard formation and wait until the Gaesatae are at "Tired" before turning it off and attacking them.

The result? Gaestae won, but only 37 Gaesatae are left at the end of the day (I had 3 principate left). I am already here wondering, a polybian principate cost 1647 minai while a Gaestae cost a whopping 3457. Something's wrong here. I mean I can do a lot better if I just wait until they are exhausted and not turn guard mode off.

And sure enough, this time Gaestae won after killing my general, but I had 40 guys left to Gaestae's 67 (after healing) and I already found out the longer the fight dragged on the more casualties the Gaestae would take. And I figured if I don't chase after it every time it pulls back but only when it's about stationary or close, I could do even better.

And sure enough, this time my principate gave the Gaestae a complete thrashing, killing its general and routing it at 30 men with 63 left.

And I repeated it. This time we both lost our general (I lost it a bit later than he did) the Gaestae won with 60 men left and I only had 6. I went "hey! this must be what those complainers are talking about!"

Saddly, I was mistaken. On the next try, I won with 72 men remaining and the Gaestae routed with 47 men left, its general having died. But even if he didn't I would have won.

And again it was repeated. I won with 70 men remaining and the Gaestae again routed at 47 men.

So I am here thinking: There must be something wrong. Surely a unit that can't even readily beat a polybian principate would not be called "uber supermen".


So I decided to try pitting the camillan principate against it. Unfortunately after pressing the random button for about 300 times (seriously I spent like half an hour clicking) and after seeing every single recruitable Romani unit EXCEPT the camillan principate, I decided to go for the next best thing.

And the unit I chose was Allied Samnite Medium Spearmen, at 15xx minai (forgot to write it down, you guys can go check). It's stats is very close to that of the camillan principate and it uses a spear like the camillan principate

I tried it three times. Sure enough the Gaestae won all three times. But the remaining men were: first time 94 Gaestae to 56 Samnite, second 84 to 8, third 71 to 11. With one single Allied Samnite Medium Spearmen at less then half the cost (and it using spear which isn't that good against infantry), I readily took down average about 25~35 men from the Gaestae unit.

I look at the statistics and thought "with two units of samnites I can beat one unit of Gaestae." I tried, and sure enough, the surrounded Gaestae was beat with me having a total of 158 samnites left to 22 fleeing Gaestae (and I haven't killed his general yet).

So now I am really confused. Gaestae can't even readily win against polybian principate in guard mode, and when fighting with both units I had more than enough time to run another heavy infantry to its rear to throw stuff at it or charge it. Give me two units of half-decent swordsmen each with cost at about 1500~1600, which is less than half of the Gaestae's cost, and I'll kick its ass.

So now I am really confused. If anything, for its cost, Gaestae is a unit of slightly-underpowered swordsmen. So why are so many people complaining that its overpowered? I can't even classify this unit as elite. If this is the elite of the Gallic faction, I'd hate to see what their levies are.

[Parallel Pain]

As for the book that never existed, I suppose you meant
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=89631&highlight=cycles

Well just so you know after reading through the entire bloody discussion for two hours from 4~6 in the morning, Riadach failed MISERABLLY at convincing me that Ranika is wrong. If only all of you just take into account Ranika is not here to defend himself and the team has had to defend him from things they remember he having said.
Riadach on the other hand blindly attacked the person right near the start and refuse to accept some of them are placeholders, others are attempts at making the language sound old, while even more are just trying to fit stuff into the game engine
Even the choosing of the word "cycle" had to be explained, and since I was just talking to my brother about it yesterday, I'll use it as an analogy. My mom asked me what manga is. I told her it's Japanese comic book. My brother jokingly said that if I said that to any manga fan they'll strangle me. I shrugged and laughed with him. Well that's exactly what Riadach did. He tried to strangle Ranika for using the wrong term that really has a similar level of mistake (and if Riadach comes and read this I bet he'll try to strangle me).

Not to mention Urnamma pretty much threw most of his argument out the window with proper research, which Riadach on the other hand either interpret them and push them as his own arguments, or just flatly refuse to acknowledge them. Then he tries to go out like a martyr.

I'm sorry but the impression I get is an arrogant ass twice as close-minded as Frostwulf in the other thread (sorry Frostwulf, it's 6:30am and while there are lots of people I know personally who are a lot worse than you I can't think right now) with an undergrad under his belt and thinks he's the know-it-all in his field. Even a PHD in English Literature would not make such a claim and make a mess of a debate about English Literature that he did.

The thread preceded like every other thread. First it was genuine. Then the OP degenerated into attack. Some of the wise guys caution him but he ignores them. Then they debate and it gets hotter and hotter, with half of his opponents dropping out half way through because they found out he would never accept anything short of a signed statement by a PHD and they obviously had not the time. Meanwhile, the more sensitive half, continued to defend their friend but the OP refuse to believe any word of it as he has already established himself as the know-it-all of the subject (to himself obviously), and finally one of the friends of the accused had enough and closed the thread.

[blitzkrieg80]

About Berserkers and drug-driven elite warriors:
As far as i know these are not presented in EB except the Gaesatae and rightly so. (Arguing that the display of Wolf-Warriors and Bear-Warriors is missing in the germanic roster, the current Wargoz are not correctly displayed as mercenary elite, as Blitzkrieg will agree i think) Still i would never suggest giving them these incredible stats or even 2 HP.
Hi, Safe.

Actually the wolf-warriors ARE statted as elite mercenaries... but using the stat-system which is systematic and equally applied, they simply can't be compared to mail-shirt battle-worms. It's sad, but that's the case- this is a result of the very definition of those wolf-warriors who are on the fringes of society and not partaking in deep Celtic trade and cannot be said to have been successful on conscription appearance with the gear they might acquire through conquest later. OT- Warg means one who deserved strangulation, interesting, which is better to think of as their name origin, imo, than previously thought as stranglers.

have i told everyone that the Proto-Germanic voice mod isn't going to happen? why? because it's Pre-Germanic Indo-European, baby! :7fortuneteller: and it's very close to completion, pretty crazy to look at with only 2/3 stages of Grimm's law, but anyhoo, just like to tell people my new name which I think is very apt, as opposed to Pre-Proto ~;p


I really don't agree at all that anybody has 'quote' work that doesn't exist... or did i miss something? DONT RESPOND TO THIS BECAUSE I KNOW WHERE YOURE GOING. My point is that nobody has proof of such an accusation so riding that trendy-train is not cool.


and it REALLY makes sense that i am Frostwulf, because i like to purposely argue with myself? ha. i supposed i am not a German-hater like some people who know who they are, who have made statements and work to that effect.

[Tellos Athenaios]

So now I am really confused. If anything, for its cost, Gaestae is a unit of slightly-underpowered swordsmen. So why are so many people complaining that its overpowered? I can't even classify this unit as elite. If this is the elite of the Gallic faction, I'd hate to see what their levies are.

There are a numer of reasons for that:
1) The Gaesatae are often overestimated. Heck, I reckon they'll be toast when pitted against Pantodapoi Phalangitai. And those aren't exactly the most uber-phalanx unit around either, now are they?
2) The real use of Gaesatae is as a mobile reserve to plug a hole or two. They aren't as effective in an all-out charge; nor are they really exceptional fighters. But they do cause a morale drop for infantry units nearby, and they do pack some serious punch with their javelins. That makes them excellent second-line units: the main, easily to replace bulk of your army holds the enemy; the gaesatae treat 'em on some javelins and intimidating gestures (or sth?). Then when the main line get's in a difficult position or when it is about to break through you give the Gaesatae a go. You can also deploy them on the flanks; especially if the flanks are two units deep.

Still: if the Gaesatae get caught in melee too early; or worse yet: are targeted by Peltastai and similar nasty skimirshers -- then it's over with the nudism and fanatism (see the AAR fora... :wink: ).

[Taneda Santôka]

:bow: Yea, in a battle (not a 1vs1 unit test) they have nothing of supermen, and I've been cought more the once overestimating their prowess, as I've been also cought kicking their nudist ass more then once...

[Flying Pig]

Impossible: there were no Galatians in 480BCE. This was the late Halstatt era and no Celts had ventured East of Austria in significant numbers.

Probably not then! But there must have been some similar subcultures somewhere in Asia, no? Or mercs from Austria that had travlled through Hellas?

[NeoSpartan]

All right, I am now REALLY confused, and I ask all the complainers to help me out.

....

Hehehehehe

I decided to stay away from this thread... but to Help Parallel of Pain out of his confusing I wil post here the same thing I and others have posted in other places.

1st re-read what "Tellos Athenaios" said. A LOT of people give too much hype to the Gaesatae. And this gets in head of people who say Gaesatae are too strong (no they are not, they are just stong like all other elites).

2nd. Don't test in Costum as u already know, get in MP and test there :yes:

3rd. Frostwolf argues that Gaesate (along with Soldurus and Cornute, maybe Neitos too) have their stats too high because:
.... "drum roll"....

They preform well in EB battles, as they come very close to beat/could beat Cohortes Imperatoria (although they are not "elite" per say they are really good infantry), Hypaspistai, Dorkim Afrikanim Aloophim (Elite African Infantry), Thorakitai Agematos Basilikou (Hellenic Elite Spearmen), etc.

Now the REASON why the Gaesates should NOT preform so well in battle is beacause:

..."drum roll"....

1. In 50some BC Celts ALWAYS got beat by Ceasar and the German General guy (forgot his name).
2. In Telemon the Gaesatae did not preform well. The battle before it (forgot the name) was an ambush so it doesn't count.
3..... in case my memory fails me.

In other words, what this means in regards to EB:
A. Gaesate should get manhandled by Cohorts (pre & post marian), and all other elite infantry-non-phalanx units in the game.
B. Gaesate should preform in hand to hand combat like a good mid-range unit... like Pricipes, Hoplies, Pezetaroi (sp) without phalanx mode.

-----------
Also don't forget, Unit Cost, where they can be trained, and availability (which will be shown in EBII thanks to MTWII recruitment pool system) are not considered in the argument against Gaesate.
-As frost, Safe, and maybe somebody else said: "Costs are Irrelevant" (praphrasing a bit), causing me to go creazy saying "**** No" in the Germans & Celtic thread.

I hope this clears ur consusion. :beam:

[Elmetiacos]

As for the book that never existed, I suppose you meant
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=89631&highlight=cycles

Oh, not this again! "Like the Parthian boot, eh?"

[Flying Pig]

I have read both Szabo and Rapin and no where do they support your claims. I,m not trying to insult you but I have noticed this is your way of avoiding a losing argument. I asked you some simple questions and you have chosen not to answer them. I will try once more:

1. You claim that "As the historic counterpart, these represent relatively small groups of fanatics common within the much larger formation of Gaesatae (spearmen; the term used as the spear was the most common weapon)."

Again I ask you where is it written any where of this? Where is it written that there was a small group of fanatics within the Gaesatae? Now either you have writings on this or you don't, you made this claim how about backing it up?

2.You claim that the EB stats for the Gaesatae are fine, what are you basing this on?

Nothing you have posted addresses either of these questions, you simply put down what most historians say, that the Gaesatae are mercenaries. Why don't you show me where Szabo or Rapin support your claims or anyone for that matter?

Right. 1, If you have fanatics, and the word means spearmen, then obviously not all spearmen are fanatics and so some are a distinct group.

2 is an opinion. No challenges acceptable.


I may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend till death your right to say it

[paullus]

as for the 480 bc, they're certainly not in xerxes' army, but Herodotus does describe that one little tribe that migrated into Anatolia from beyond Thrace, had light hair and big bodies, and carried heavy spears. Anyone remember that? I can't find the reference on a brief search.

Neospartan, that seems like a good summation of most of the argument. The one thing I would add is the use of drugs, which I hope we've moved past by rewriting part of the unit description.

edit: just for fun...an etruscan gaesatus merc?

https://img134.imageshack.us/img134/4108/etruscangaesatusqu9.jpg

[Elmetiacos]

as for the 480 bc, they're certainly not in xerxes' army, but Herodotus does describe that one little tribe that migrated into Anatolia from beyond Thrace, had light hair and big bodies, and carried heavy spears. Anyone remember that? I can't find the reference on a brief search.

The Phrygians? The Cimmerians? A lot of people in earlier decades fell down the big trapdoor of pseudo-science, assuming that "Cimmerian" must be related to "Cymru" and so they were the ancestors of the Celts, but Cymru is the modern Welsh form of *Kom-mrog- meaning someone from the same country - contrast the Gaulish tribe the Allomroges, the "foreigners", who although they'd become Celts by Caesar's time were presumably regarded as having non-Gaulish origins.

[chairman]

Paullus: I'm going to postulate that it is just an Etruscan, sans-clothes. The helmet is more Phrygian-Thracian which doesn't strike me as something a Gaul would wear, especially not in the Etruscan time period. Also, the sword looks more like a xiphos or kopis weapon based on the handle and the way he holds it. I think the shield is just an aspis that is in perspective, making it look taller than wide, given the angle. He is also wearing Greek style greaves, which would seem strange even on a mercanary if he was Gallic. Also, AFAIK, alot of Etruscan art show men wearing very little clothing, except for a cloak, like this guy. I think it was an aesthetic choice by the artists rather than an accurate reflection of RL, similar to the nude pezhetairoi and other greeks on the Alexander Sarcophogus (sp?).

That's just my opinion.

Chairman

[paullus]

everyone around the soldier is wearing full armor, and in spite of the Etruscan style aspis, helmet, sword, and greaves, he wears a woad-colored cloak in the Celtic tradition and--a tell-tale detail--a chain link belt.

And no, Elmetiacos, its a much smaller tribe than either of thus. Some tiny people in Anatolia near the Trallians.

[chairman]

Hmm... I'm kinda stumped then, but my gut tells me that aside from the characteristic blue cloak (yeah, I know it's the obvious clue in that direction, but...) and the chain link belt (which is hard to see, and I don't what to make of) he doesn't seem very Gallic. All of his equipment is within the traditional range of Greco-Hellenistic-Roman military equipment, which would only make sense on a Gaul either in Massilia or another Greek colony (though the phrygian helmet would seem rather odd at that point) or as a Galatian mercanary in Egypt or Syria (but only at a later date than the painting and far away from Etruria). Also, the way he wears his cloak reminds me of the Royal pages of Alexander's court (or just the way that Hellens in general wore their cloaks). I don't claim to be an expert so... I don't know. You definitively know more about the galatians in Greek lands, so in that sense the blue cloak would point straight to a Celtic origin, but my gut feeling still says native Etruscan. Maybe someone else with a better knowledge of ancient Italy can help.

Chairman

[the_handsome_viking]

I feel we must be very objective about this so this thread doesn't sort of go off the beaten track too much.

Did the Gaesatae exist? yes.

What were they exactly?: Quite an elaborate group of mercenaries and soldiers possibly similar to the Fianna(now though this is Irish keep in mind that a lot of cross studies between continental sources and Irish sources show a common theme repeating throughout the Celtic world)

Were they well equipped?: Yes
23 The Gaesatae, having collected a richly equipped and formidable force, crossed the Alps, and descended into the plain of the Po in the eighth year after the partition of Picenum.

Did some of them fight naked?: yes.
Very terrifying too were the appearance and the gestures of the naked warriors in front, 8 all in the prime of life, and finely built men, and all in the leading companies richly adorned with gold torques and armlets.

Was there a religious reason for them fighting naked?: Possibly, but there are possibly other reasons for this and the Celts were not the only one to use naked warriors. There could have also been simply practicality reasons for this.


but the Gaesatae had discarded these garments owing to their proud confidence in themselves, and stood naked, with nothing but their arms, in front of the whole army, thinking that thus they would be more efficient, as some of the ground was overgrown with bramblesa which would catch in their clothes and impede the use of their weapons.

Did all Gaesatae fight naked?: Probably not as the nature of Mercenary life, especially in the form of a fairly large and complicated organization of Mercenaries who didn't come under the administrative rule of any local tribe would have to be quite versatile, they definitely had money and resources and as I've said before probably were very equipped as a general rule.

Were the Gaesatae elite?: By definition yes, as the very nature of such sought after professional soldiers requires an elite status, they also seemed to have quite a high degree of relative freedom from the social obligations of their neighbours, historically speaking it would seem that their allies contacted them expected positive results, so yes in that sense they were elite, if they were anything comparable to say, the Fianna then yes they were elite.

Were the Gaesatae capable of pulling javelines out of themselves and throwing them back at their enemies?: It is possible for men to do this, there are accounts of Celts doing this, was it a general rule? it is unknowen but Celts full stop were known for their battle fanaticism.

Did the Gaesatae use special drugs that were similar to PCP?: Drug use was common throughout the ancient world but there is no conclusive evidnece of this, berserker studies have been conducted to see if battle frenzy was aided by drugs like Alcohol or Mushrooms etc, and some have concluded that it was more along the lines that the warrior worked themselves up into a psychological frenzy that allowed them to perform above and beyond the regular man and what most people would expect from a human being, the Celts definitely had soldiers like this, they possibly did exist amongst the Gaesatae, especially if there was a religious element within the organization, the existance of naked warriors within their ranks would make this highly likely, but as for the drugs they used or whether or not they even used drugs? this is unknown.(unless someone can provide evidence)

[blitzkrieg80]

fair hair and complextion is hardly a Celtic or Germanic exclusive trait ~:) in fact, we can be guaranteed that all Indo-Europeans have the strain to some degree.... but i am inclined to agree that the mail is particularly interesting clue pointing in that direction. of course one doesn't need to be Indo-European at all to be pale and ruddy too

let's keep in mind the powerful and highly unknown peoples of the area which could easily be in the background, such as Lusatians! as well as Raetians.

[Elmetiacos]

What the Handsome Viking said.

I don't worry too much about the Gaesatae stats; what I do question is some naked Celtic berserkers being better than other naked Celtic berserkers, but that's possibly for another thread.

[Ibrahim]

I agree with Blitzkreig. Actually not just indoeuropeans have that kind of complexion. Arabs too. My uncle is an Arab, and he has arab ancestry all the way through, but he is blande haired and blue eyed. my other uncle has a fair complexion too (only dirt blond and blue eyes) only Dad has a rudy complexion and hazel eyes out of the brothers. (I myself have light brown hair and dark eyes, both not on my mom's side-though I'm not rudy).
there was also a legend about an arab named zarqaa' al-yamaamah. she lived in a now extinct tribe, and she was famous for her deep blue eyes, and piercing sight (she was before Europeans were even heard of in Arabia), hence her name, Zarqaa'

[the_handsome_viking]

What the Handsome Viking said.

I don't worry too much about the Gaesatae stats; what I do question is some naked Celtic berserkers being better than other naked Celtic berserkers, but that's possibly for another thread.

Well, they were lavishly equipped professional warriors who were either fully or semi independant, people did seem to know quite a lot about them and if they were anything like the Irish version of them the Fianna, then they probably were pretty darned good, but this argument can go the other way, a mercenary may not be as inclined to go full berserk as they are wanting to make money in the end of the day, a tribalistic naked berserk on the other time wouldn't be as interested in the material reward and probably would be motivated by something a bit higher, loyalty to friends family and loved ones and/or religion.

Berserkers are a pretty complex subject believe it or not, for a bunch of often naked men.

[Frostwulf]

Eh, no. That is the WORST way to judge an individual unit's power. The BEST way is to go online with either two accounts or a friend.I agree with you that the two accounts is the best way, but otherwise playing one unit against the other is very good. The only problem is for units under the control of the AI tend to do irritating things, such as the Gaesatae running away to throw javelins again. When they do this they suffer casualties. I tend to play 3 rounds as the Gaesatae vs. whatever unit, then I play 3 rounds as the whatever unit vs. the Gaesatae.


In which case, a lot of people have mentioned that Gaesatae gets easily defeated by these other units.I only recall one and he only played from some kind of bodyguard. Later after my post he tried the Gaesatae against that bodyguard unit and the Gaesatae won. Generally on a unit to unit battle the player on equal terms will beat the AI. When I do these battles the only thing I do is click on my unit and then click attack, thats it the AI does the rest.


And even with all that, it's only unit power, not campaign balance, which is what the balancing is supposed to be based on.
I believe someone already told you in another thread that one on one in custom battle counts for nothing in unit balance. For one it doesn't take into account the cost and availability during campaign. For another the unit get a huge morale boost by having the general. The first time you complained, you haven't played a campaign with or against them. If you still haven't go play a campaign before coming back to complain any furtherIf you have read this the you must know my reasons, but just in case you missed it I will state them again. In EB they try to be as historically accurate as possible. I believe you should make the units historically accurate first then change things for game balance, to me the units come first. You can always make the unit cheaper or more expensive or adjusting things other ways, but accuracy of the units I believe was the first purpose of EB.

They were deemed to be an acceptable level by historians (indeed done by one), so I don't see why you're complaining about it.
The extrapolation came from one on the forum, not the historian.


So let's see you throw out all books focusing on Romans start pulling out some books focusing on Celts to source your complains.
I did make a response to this(and your other questions) on another thread but was told I could get banned for it. Look under threads started by me and you will see it, it was locked. But I will answer this question since you did put it down here.
The first set of books listed are from the EB suggested books and the ones I quoted from will have an * by them:
Warfare in the Classical World-John Warry*/, Warfare in the Ancient World-multiple authors/,Warfare in Antiquity-Delbruck/, The Roman Army at War 100B.C-AD 200*/The Complete Roman Army-Goldsworthy/ Warhorse: Cavalry in Ancient Warfare-Sidnell*/, Greeks, Romans, and Barbarians: Spheres of interaction-Cunliffe*/, The Extraordinary Voyage of Pytheas the Greek-Cunliffe/, In the Name of Rome-Goldsworthy*/,Caesar(life of a colossus)-Goldsworthy*/, The Prehistory of Germanic Europe-Schutz/,The Ancient Celts-Cunliffe*/, The Celtic Empire-Ellis*/, The Celts-multiple authors(edited by Kruta)*/, Celts and the Classical World-Rankin*

These are some of the others I read which would hardly be "Roman-focused authors" such as Romans and Celts-Ellis*, The Celts-Kruta(different then the one mentioned above)*,Lords of Battle-Allen*,The World of The Celts-James*,*Atlas of the Celts-Dr. Barry Raftery; Dr.Jane McIntosh, Clint Twist*, Celtic Chiefdom, Celtic State-multiple authors*,France(Cambridge Illustrated History)-Jones*, The Celtic Atlas-multiple authors*,European Iron Age-Collis* and more.

That's what I'm talking about. The others have pulled out a lot of examples in which the Gauls won, as well as talked about ones that the Romans didn't write down but proved by archeology and others that the Romans just manipulated the story.If your talking about this thread Faesulae is the only one mentioned that I recall. But this is a good example of what I was saying on the other thread(locked one) Someone says there is some archaeological evidence and instantly you assume it to be true, so lets see.

As far as civil war between gauls goes, recent archeological findings point towards constant fights in ancient gaul. This, and the writings of caesar, tend to prove that global fighting was the rule in Gaul from the 2nd century BC to the roman conquest.
Where can I read about this?


@the_handsome_viking
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1909284&postcount=151
Very well said. I would like to address further but this post is already to long and I am short of time.

[Parallel Pain]

Did you read that I beat the Gaestae with Polybian Principate in guard mode?

That pretty much settles everything, especially when in history Principate made up about 2/7 of a maniple when the elite naked fanatics only made up like less than 1/10 of the Gallic army, it being the "elite" and all.

You know what that means? That means in a 3000 Gaul vs 2200 Roman battle in the game, there will be less than 300 Gaestae against about 300 principate and 300 allied troops of slightly lesser quality. On top of that, there will be 300 velite and 300 allied skirmishers. Now if, besides the AI general and his bodyguard, the rest of their army are levies, and the AI also played historically (or at least according to how so many books you stated said they just charged head on) that would mean Gaestae gets its ass kicked to the moon. With the Gaestae gone, the rest of that Gallic army is good as dead. It quite heavily outnumbered the Romans too. But then I guess it was able to do that from the low quality levies.

It seems pretty accurate to me.
So I don't know why you are arguing for the Gaestae to be nerfed and not arguing for the team to crack the game code and design a new AI for the Gauls.

Ok, so the team doesn't know how to do that, and now the AI has an army not following history and don't fight like the Gauls did in history, well the player often doesn't either. Most players are running skirmishers around the flanks to shoot rears when in history they would never get the chance, and not using the triple checkers, and having more cavalry than the Romans used, etc. So it's fair.

And really, have you gone and played a campaign yet? The campaign is supposed to be historically accurate, not custom battles. The huge morale boost of the general unit alone is enough to throw everything off.

You know, the conclusion I have reached right now is that you are a terrible tactician who don't know how to beat the Gaestae at all, and therefore you try to run to history to justify your idea that they should be nerfed. For elite units, thanks to low armor, they suck.
And as for you and all others complaining about 2 hp, I'd rather have more men than 2 hp. I'm sure we've all swarmed generals in the original RTW before and killed them, and THEY had 2 hp.

As for all the other things, the only ones worth answering to are:
1) There are qualified historians on the EB team.
2) As they have qualified historians on the team, I give them the benefit of the doubt just as I do to scientists proposing stuff like string theory, and I accept that while they could be wrong, they could also be right. While the same can be said for your sources, it certainly can't be said for you.

[PershsNhpios]

Hmmm.. I could swear I read this thread was clo.. OH!

Oh this is the Gaesatae Overpowered thread, I though I was reading the Celtic Overpowered thread!

Can someone explain to me the difference between the two?

Bahahahaha!

"Come, have a seat - and let us seriously discuss the nature of these big, wild naked men with luscious, huge swords!"

Tell me, Parallel Pain, have you got a sword?

[Ibn-Khaldun]

:weirdthread:

I think that this thread should be locked because it was started with another question ...

Does anyone remember WHY this thread was created?
I think not .. because no one looks the FIRST post and they just think this is just another gaesatae owerpowered thread ..

Also .. I thought that people in the org are friendly but recent posts here have made me think otherwise ...

:weirdthread:

[Parallel Pain]

Actually I do, whether or not the Gaestae used drugs.

But heck someone brought up it was overpowered again, so I answered, with hard game test statistics too.

As for my sword, it's in my brain somewhere.