Less Civilized Factions

[chenkai11]

I don't seem able to play those factions, well I did tried many times. Factions like Aedui, Arverni, Casse, Getai, Lusotannan, Saba, Sweboz and ... (Romani :wall:)

I mean it's not I dislike them in a sense they are "barbarians", and I do enjoy nomads factions (for ancient and medieval Chinese they are considered barbarians). I just can't seem to help myself play those factions. All of them, after playing a few turns results to quit. May be it's due to their buildings? Or their units are not consider professional army as a whole?

You may ask why the Romans too? I don't know, they still look less civilized to me during 272BC. But I love the AD Romans, especially helping the struggled WRE.

Can anyone give me a reason to play those factions. :yes:

[Kevin]

Same here, I find the less civilized ones not as fun (though Saba's voicemod is funny and awesome :laugh4:) but the Romans? They're one of my favorite factions.:juggle2:

[Beefy187]

I don't really share the same problem. I love playing barbarians as much as I do love civilized faction.

However, my favourite faction is KH by far. And that is because I actually know the ethnicity like Spartan, Athenian, Korinthos, Kretan, Rhodian etc. And that makes the role playing easier.

Perhaps that is why?

[Cyclops]

...Can anyone give me a reason to play those factions. :yes:

You'll accelerate your desire for more historical understanding?

Actually for me the loop runs more th other way. I read something on say silver age Athens and suddenly I feel an urge to RP KH without Rhodes and Sparta.

Or I read something on the Indo Greeks and I'm off playing Baktria.

My most recent RP heavy campaigm was as Carthage, after reading a book on Scipio and Punic War 2 (this time, its personal!). Having read about the authors opinion of typical Carthaginian tactics (they had a few tricks on the bag) I was keen to RP them on the virtual battlefield. Also I had some ideas about likely strategies: eg the main Punic armies tend to go home (ship ahoy) between wars leaving mercs and locals in garrisons which was expensive and had a different flavour to my usual 4 x akontistai garrisons (and their elephanst died off in Italy all the time :sad: so I disbanded them from time to time). Very very satisfying (especially sacking Rome and putting in an Etruscan dictator).

I'm currently playing Pontos because I like the idea of them, and I wanted to get a handle on chariots. However I have no deep knowledge of that mid-late Republican schemozzle in Asia Minor, so the backstory eludes me.

So I'd put your cart before your horse there. Read a nice deep text on the Averni and get into a light green campaign with a few house rules based on your new-found knowledge.

Or dabble in some Getic history, maybe look at the Dacians and project backwards how you'd think they behaved in the EB period. I love those drapani and rhomphaioi: if you think of them as the footsoldiers of a dynamic immortality cult determined to build shrines across the balkans there's a story for you to play out right there.

[Macilrille]

Hear- hear Cyclops!! :2thumbsup:

You can peruse the thread where ATHN asks which faction to play next, here is a link, https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=121382

And here is copied, my reason for my choices and why I think you can get enjoyment out of the Sweboz (and probably other barbs as well).


I am sort of on the "You have not played EB till you have played Roman"- wagon as I love playing them.

However, they are still embroiled in Mediterranean politics and culture. Influenced by Hellas and will have to fight many of the same enemies as you ahve already faced. Using the same H&A tactic against them.

My other favorite faction is IMO a much better choice Raaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!!!!

They are nothing like any civilised faction and face different enemies (I always go for Casse as my first major conquest when I have put my economy in order and created a safe base). The units are different (get Medininkas), the buildings are different, the FMs are different, and you run about in the big northern woods. It is such a different experience from any other faction I have tried (Rome and Macedonia) that it is as starting on EB anew...

That is basically it. Starting EB anew, perhaps your problem is that you simply cannot be bothered to have to adjust to new tactics, buildings and ways of thinking- it is easier to stick to what one knows... Before flaming me for attacking you (if you are the flaming and sensitive kind of person- which I dunno), it is not an attack but a suggestion from my own experience. I have yet to finish a game with the VC cause of CTDs but I have "won" with the Sweboz (owning Germany, Gaul, Italy, the British Isles and part of Luso and invading the Balcans held by Greeks), but when I do I will try and force myself to try something totaly new; a Phalanx faction (Bactria likely) or a HA one. But I will have to force myself to do it and learn anew.

[Cute Wolf]

Looks that you are a really bad non-phalanx infantry general...

Well, it looks like that you forgot their strong points (except Saba)....

Train more SWORDSMEN!!! And don't train too much triarii... train hastati instead.....
Just try to spam more cheap swordsmen and all will be ok.....

But also try to get some spears since we didn't know, when the AS, or Ptolies start spamming hetairoi...

:laugh4:

[chenkai11]

Thanks for the suggestions...It seems that I can't RP those factions as conquerers to an extend of building an empire (with the exemption of Romani... my sig. can explain why I can't play them). May be SABA can be a contender for an early Arabian Empire, but the rest...I mean like Sweboz, conquering and may be sacked Rome :devilish:, then what? I don't want to say it, might offend Sweboz fans, but I just cant imaging how to rule an empire with them. RP as historical as possible might meant just playing EB by clicking end turns and doing nothing.

[satalexton]

Your contempt for the Romaioi is growing healthily, you are seeing them for what they truly are. This is a good sign.

Your desire to sack and pillage Barbaropolis, proves you have good nobility and purity within you. Nurture it by destroying their legions.

Be it the Great Keltoi, the noble Germanoi or the resourceful Lusotanan...Their strength lies in their bravery, valour and eagerness for heroic deeds. Harness that.

[Jebivjetar]

I believe there's no faction in EB which we can describe as "less civilized": every faction (EB one and historical one) had it's own culture and thus they all were civilized in their own way: they all had their culture: religion, language, arts, their table of "Good and Bad": in one word: their own values. I really don't know what measure could we use in order to distinguish "more" and "less" civilized cultures: many cultural anthropologist tried to do that, and the main problem in that kind of approach is that they all toked their own subjective views, their own culture as a measure. That's called cultural centrism, and that ain't good way to approach to phenomenon of culture.

[fleaza]

civilised is a relative term and in "our accepted culture," the celts and germans were barbarians in those times.

i cant seem to play barbarian factions for over a couple of turns either. i just cant seem to stop thinking they are inferior.

[Jormungand]

Inferior eh?

Yes, perhaps in terms of organization and arms and armour - but think about the personal bravery and heroism of the barbarians for a bit. You don't seem to get that out of the Romani, I guess.

RPing does help much......

[Ca Putt]

inferior? tell that the late roman empire^^

play as Sweboz(the most "barbaric" faction afterall) get all VC provinces + rome, that's enough fun in the process and when you still cannot afford spamming Merc generals or after the reforms: heavy infantry^^, go and attack the casse with a fleet of weak and terribely overpriced ships.
non phalanx and non HA factions often are forced to use terrain to their advantage whereas Phalanxes and horse archer tactics work best on open fields with no obsicles whereas "barbaric" spearmen need the cover of the woods to hide or avoid arrows and can still use theri superior speed and mobility to ambush and outflank the foe.

[Andronikos]

I usually can't play factions about whom I know too little. I suggest you to find some book or movie which features that faction. Perhaps when you will know more about their life, war, religion, culture, ideals... you will find there something appealing.

[chenkai11]

play as Sweboz(the most "barbaric" faction afterall) get all VC provinces + rome, that's enough fun in the process and when you still cannot afford spamming Merc generals or after the reforms: heavy infantry^^, go and attack the casse with a fleet of weak and terribely overpriced ships.
non phalanx and non HA factions often are forced to use terrain to their advantage whereas Phalanxes and horse archer tactics work best on open fields with no obsicles whereas "barbaric" spearmen need the cover of the woods to hide or avoid arrows and can still use theri superior speed and mobility to ambush and outflank the foe.

That might just be one of the reason to help me start a campaign with barbarian faction. And yes, I was interested more in histories of those "more civilized" (for me) factions. I can see one of my problem is that I don't have a direction for them, I can't even think of what I want to do if I am going to lead their people. Unlike Hayasdan, I want to create a new Persian Dynasty. Carthaginians, I want to continue the colony and proof to the known world the might of Carthage. Greeks, united again and controlled all their previous colonies. All about changing history...:sweatdrop:

[J.R.M]

I believe that Arverni/Aedui´s reason to exist is unite Gaul and other celtic towns under their rule and then kick roman @ss, however Aedui feels that their are the only rulers of Gaul and the strongest and they should remain ruling it, Arverni alliance feels that the time of the Aedui has passed and they are no longer strong and able to rule Gaul so it´s time for a change. Sweboz just want to lead all german people and make it a European superpower, raiding and pillaging Gauls and Romans in the way (that´s pretty nice,). Getai wants to unite Thrace and make those Greeks fear them once more, conquering and pillaging them, etc (well that´s not cool). And Lusos wants to kick Carthaginians out of their Peninsula, conquering all iberian tribes and taking Ireland in the way also pillaging some north African towns i believe? Oh! i almost forget kick those Roman @sses! they will invade you sooner or later. And last but not less important, Casse tribe feels that all the Tin island should be theirs, some great money there.. Also they want some territory in Gaul. that´s all i believe, sooo CYA.:smash::smash::smash:

[Moosemanmoo]

What I keep thinking of doing is playing Sweboz and taking a horde of Germanic warriors over to Britain to play out the Anglo-Saxon invasion centuries early.

Angleland will be mine! The Casse can have smelly Wales and Scotland :clown:

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Beware with using the term "Unite" for a barbarian faction and its supposed geographic "natural border". There was no supra-national identity between the tribes that made them part of a single "Gaul" or "Thrace", so it is impossible that these can be more than just geographic terms. The correct wording would be akin to "subjugating" or "integrating" all other tribes into one dominant confederacy or a stronger tribe, e.g. the Arverni.

[Ca Putt]

+1 rule(i think if they were more politicized they would say unite ;) ) all tribes which are worthy of being ruled by you(as tribes of your blood and tounge will make less problems - you can build level 1 or 2 govs) and kill all that are not worthy of being ruled provided that they either pose a threat or occupy land which you want to settle on. an other plus on "barbaric" factions is that you CAN increase the difficulty level by invading certain regions(like the steppe or the alps)

imo the "plan" for most "barbaric" factions is basically:
1. "unite" the tribes
2. subjugate your neighbours(celts mostly)
3. ransack Rome or Hellas

after that you should either abandon the campaign or try to conquer the steppes:clown:

[Kevin]

I can't play barbarian factions that much because the game engine makes them feel like a Roman or Macedonian army but with different skins :/ I always felt they were more about ambushes, night attacks, and fighting more of a guerilla war than a conventional one.

[Macilrille]

Kevin, try to google "Arausio" or "Hadrianopolis"...

[Aemilius Paulus]

Yes, perhaps in terms of organization and arms and armour - but think about the personal bravery and heroism of the barbarians for a bit. You don't seem to get that out of the Romani, I guess.

Actually, barbarians were simply reckless, not brave. Most were notorious for wavering quickly, after the initial charge did not break the enemy. Romans were definitely not that in the Republican and Principate - they very rarely ran unless the situation was hopeless, and even then, many units would continue to fight while others fled. And Roman legionaries were by no means elite, upper-class troops equal to the "barbarian" bodyguard units, nobles and such. But yet Romans fought better than most of those upper-crust barbarians.

Hannibal trusted his Gauls the least, and he turned them into cannon fodder, putting them in the centre, where they took the brunt of casualties and almost always ran, enticing the Romans to fall into the trap. Even the Spaniards did better. Of course, then came the cunctatio, which denied Hannibal of his tactical brilliance.

At the same times, the Romans did turn into cowards by the late Roman times. I cannot help but recount when Valentian, (frustrated at the decades of having to deal with potential recruits who cut off their thumbs to avoid military service, despite the laws forbidding very specifically such form of self-mutilation) simply instituted the penalty of death by slow immolation. Then came Theodosius who repealed that, and instead decreed that landowners must supply another recruit for every mutilated one. That stopped it, but the problem did resurface some time later. That is when the Romans turned to the "barbarians" to almost wholly supply their army with soldiers.

Still, just think the desperation of the Romans - to slice off your thumb just to avoid the army... Your opposable appendage, with one that you are enabled to grasp things. Of course, the streaks of defeats, the innumerable hordes of invading nomads and other tribes, the much lower professionalism of the Roman Army, but still... The Romans were indeed decadent and pampered by then.

[gamegeek2]

I believe Hannibal positioned himself just behind the center, to encourage his barbarian troops, yet of course they fell back against the massive roman army that attacked straight on. AFAIK he left 8000 gauls at his camp on the day of the battle.

[Kevin]

Kevin, try to google "Arausio" or "Hadrianopolis"...

Haha, I'm not much of a history guy so whatever I know I got from movies :laugh4: Though those battles were interesting, they happened a while past EB times didn't they? Whatever :juggle2:

[Aemilius Paulus]

I believe Hannibal positioned himself just behind the center, to encourage his barbarian troops, yet of course they fell back against the massive roman army that attacked straight on. AFAIK he left 8000 gauls at his camp on the day of the battle.
Yes, the Gauls were one unreliable lot. Most notoriously, they buckled in the Battle of Trebia, the Romans broke through the centre, and the Gauls' lacking in courage cost Hannibal a victory.

Well, he still won, of course, but most of the Romans escaped - the battle could have been equal to the future victory of Cannae, but it was not, all because of the astounding cowardice and absence of steadfastness in the Gaulish warriors.



EDIT: I wonder what Ranika would say about this, if he was still with us :cry:. But he was a Casse/little-bit-of-Goidilic historian more than he was a Gallic one.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

More accurate would be to say "what Psycho V would speak of this?" since he was nominally in charge of Continental Celts.

Best of course would be to ask to a current EB Celtic Team Member, like Power2the1.

As for Gauls and courage, I believe that EB represents this well. Celts are probably the least steadfast warriors in the field, all other points taken in notice - in fact there's a description saying "despite the Celtic propensity to become easily discouraged when facing determined resistance and to suffer under a hot sun", also not counting that average Celtic morale is also lower than that of the Sweboz and the Getai. Many times I've managed to break an opposite Celtic line with a fierce charge, and you'll be surprised at how much the morale of your soldiers floats with battle, more so than with any other faction I've seen in EB.

The conclusion we can take from, though, is that the Celts were not cowards. They lacked discipline, that's true, and discipline is the deciding factor when the going gets tough and battle eagerness gives on to bitter reality, which would require people to forsake their high bids and stand together at all costs - this is what seems to be lacking in their "ethos", at least from the limited grasp I can take. Else, they are superior warriors, and they are very brave.

The propensity to change sides was really just a mercenary affair than anything within the Celts in particular. It wasn't uncommon for people to switch sides all the time when large numbers of mercenaries were on the field, example being when a large detachment of German mercenaries deserted Sweden after Nordlingen, due to debt, defeat and the likes. It's why mercenaries can be unreliable some times, but that also depends on the commander; we have Hannibal, for example, keeping together a quite heterogeneous bunch of mercenaries for a long time, and many fought to death for him. The advantage of a system of citizen soldiers (continuing our discussion from other thread) is that the citizen soldiers owns more allegiance to the state, and while he may not be the best, IIRC Roman armies had a structure that was far simpler for a run-of-the-mill politician and his subordinates (chosen more for political acumen than military skill) to grasp and conduct than the kind of army Hannibal had to command.

[Aemilius Paulus]

The conclusion we can take from, though, is that the Celts were not cowards. They lacked discipline, that's true, and discipline is the deciding factor when the going gets tough and battle eagerness gives on to bitter reality, which would require people to forsake their high bids and stand together at all costs - this is what seems to be lacking in their "ethos", at least from the limited grasp I can take. Else, they are superior warriors, and they are very brave.

Where are your sources? Because you sound like most people on these forums - speculating, being vague, making up your own interpretations, lacking in any serious scholarly knowledge, except for a few odd books and a number of TV documentaries. It really humours me when i encounter people here who beleive they have the authority to speak on things simply because they have played EB. My sources mainly include: the Punic Wars by Brian Caven and another of the same title by Adrian Goldsworthy, as well as The Ancient Celts by Barry Cunliffe (very long, professional, and informative book, something I rarely see in the books on Celts).

To call the Gauls cowards is too much, it is true, as they were not. But whatever it was, they ran from the battle "faster than you can say blastoff!" (+10 if you get the reference :beam:). That is the truth, the fact. Whther you call that a lack of discipline, determination, or courage, I do not care. The point is, Gauls ran from the battle faster than most equivalent warriors of the nations of their day.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Well one thing is to point sources out of whim, another is to analyze these sources and the facts we have at hand in the right way :clown:. We have examples where the Celts ran, we also have examples where the Romans ran and the Celts won or that a Celtic line of battle was especially brave... You get it. At Arretium the Celts won over the Romans, at Alia ditto.

It seems to be common knowledge though that the Celtic warrior ethos was more focused on a)training a strong professional warrior class, b)valuing individual acts and bravery more over "group work". Equipment, training et all were more focused on individual feats, and it is also true IIRC (from my own readings on the subject) that the average Celtic militia was of lower quality, not only because it lacked the sort of attention the Germans and Romans gave to lower tier troops but because there was never an emphasis in collective training and war-making outside of the *admittedly large* warrior class.

The Romans, on the other hand, adopted the opposite approach - they had no "warrior class" in the sense of the word, rather focusing on giving militias as much collective training as possible and emphasize the "group" aspect of the legion. So a legionary in average spent more time training how to act effectively in formation, while a Gaesatae (rough comparisons, I say) would spend far more time duelling, or training alone, or being told that his own courage alone was enough to win and to earn him glory and fame, and the like.

Fact is though that the Celts seemed more impetuous and more prone to "individual challenges" on the battlefield than the rest. Literally everywhere I've read that touches the subject even remotely agrees. Last time was in a book about the Etruscans (written by Raymond Bloch) that gives a side glance at Celtic warrior ethos and says that it was not uncommon for a Celtic warrior to get off his line and challenge other individual enemies for a duel. Not that hard to imagine since we're all familiar with the Knightly Ethos too.

All in all I can presume that an "ethos" that values collective identity over individual identity would also give far more discipline to the group as a whole, since all the people would need to act in unison for most things. 1 vs. 1, though, my money is on the Celts, and it is not like Celts were completely averse to group work either, or that some Celtic bands did not equal the collective discipline of more "civilized" warriors. It's a rough generalization frankly.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

At the same times, the Romans did turn into cowards by the late Roman times. I cannot help but recount when Valentian, (frustrated at the decades of having to deal with potential recruits who cut off their thumbs to avoid military service, despite the laws forbidding very specifically such form of self-mutilation) simply instituted the penalty of death by slow immolation. Then came Theodosius who repealed that, and instead decreed that landowners must supply another recruit for every mutilated one. That stopped it, but the problem did resurface some time later. That is when the Romans turned to the "barbarians" to almost wholly supply their army with soldiers.


Actually no, unless you can provide credible statements. The Late Roman army was still capable of defeating "barbarians", and the majority of late roman soldiers was never of "barbarian", but of roman origin. Roman armies always had a sizeable amount of foreign auxliaries and that time was no exception.

The cause of the decline of the Western Empire was not military but economical. With the money for self-defense decreasing, there was no way troops could be sustained thus, and the majority of "conquests" at the time by "barbarians" was made not by destroying resistances but by simply occupying what was being constantly neglected or undefended. At Chalôns, however, Atilla got it handed to him and the Eastern Roman Army reached its peak under Narses and Belisarius.



Still, just think the desperation of the Romans - to slice off your thumb just to avoid the army... Your opposable appendage, with one that you are enabled to grasp things. Of course, the streaks of defeats, the innumerable hordes of invading nomads and other tribes, the much lower professionalism of the Roman Army, but still... The Romans were indeed decadent and pampered by then.

Myth, of course. Was the re-institution of Decimation by Crassus a sign of decline and cowardice of all Roman armies?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Actually no, unless you can provide credible statements.
Define "credible"? What use to me to cite my things when I know you will not read it? First read some material, then come back and after that I will cite things. What do you need cited? Tell me, and I will try. I have a stack of books from my Uni library that I have been reading for the past month, so I can even look up the page number, if I had all this evening to myself.


The Late Roman army was still capable of defeating "barbarians", and the majority of late roman soldiers was never of "barbarian", but of roman origin. Roman armies always had a sizeable amount of foreign auxliaries and that time was no exception.
I never said that was not true. Romans lost, but also won even more against barbarian tribes. But the Romans could not afford to lose, and their losses were more numerous and disastrous in a time when their foes were uncounted, coming in waves, one after another.



The cause of the decline of the Western Empire was not military but economical. With the money for self-defense decreasing, there was no way troops could be sustained thus, and the majority of "conquests" at the time by "barbarians" was made not by destroying resistances but by simply occupying what was being constantly neglected or undefended. At Chalôns, however, Atilla got it handed to him and the Eastern Roman Army reached its peak under Narses and Belisarius.
I never meant this to be an argument for the decline of the Roman Empire. Obviously, there were many factors, and it is pointless to debate on it, especially with a regular person like you and me, and not a professor. Do not lecture me, we all know the reasons, and I have never stated that it was the weak military that brought the Romans down. I find it suspicious that you seemingly so grossly misinterpreted my post.

But while we are at it, no, it was not economical. Well, it was, but to say that it was one thing is clearly erroneous. For one thing, why do you say the money was decreasing? What is your source - this is not an obvious statement. Economy indeed was not prospering, but this was a symptom of something instead of the malady itself. Even with the weaker economy, the Romans actually held more troops, which goes directly against what you have said. In fact, it is supposed that one of the causes of the fall of the Western Romans was the fact they had too much troops. Augustus had only about 150,000, and Diocletian particularly greatly increased that amount, thus destroying the treasury, instead of what you said, or the treasury destroying the army.

And did you ever notice that it so happen that the fall of the Roman Empire coincided with momentous Migration Period, with uncounted tribes of barbarians and nomads shifting and ravaging lands, pushed by yet more peoples form the East. At the same time, the Parthians evolved into the Persians, for a time free of civil strife, ready to take on the Romans in maximum efficiency. That really was the single major factor in the fall of Rome. At no other time the Romans had to face so many significant enemies at once, with more foes to come, all driven by the nomadic tribes originating all the way from Mongolia and Eastern-Central Asia.




Myth, of course. Was the re-institution of Decimation by Crassus a sign of decline and cowardice of all Roman armies?
WTH? It is not a myth, but one of the most common problems of the 5th century and later. What makes you think it is a myth?? In what book did you ever read "the saying that Roman recruits cut off their fingers is nothing but a myth"? You do not know if what I said is true or not. What makes you think you are correct? This is ridiculous... It is like saying that decimation was a myth...

This is so obvious, as there is so much clear evidence, and you refute it? Have you actually read anything on Late Roman Times? My sources for the "cutting off thumbs" thing is Pat Southern, The Roman Army: A Social & Institutional History. It is a clear fact that many laws were created to prevent potential recruits from cutting their thumbs off. Many Emperors battled this occurrence, and usually failed. This was a serious problem.


Decimation is one thing. Soldiers always run from battle when things are desperate. If not all, then at least some. Crassus instituted decimation to punish those who shamed themselves in front of Spartacus. Routs always happen. What did not happen, however, (or until Later Dominate), was such unwillingness of people to join the legions. Romans always had plenty of recruits, even in the direst of times, during the Hannibalic War. Some were unwilling during that Second Punic War, but still, they fought. In regular times, there was no trouble recruiting men.

But by the time of Valentinian and Theodosius I, very few wanted to join the army, specifically the limitanei, which was were most fresh recruits are hypothesised to have went. There were dire problems in recruiting of sufficient numbers of men. And face it, to chop off your thumb, you simply have to be more desperate than a cornered rat.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

@AP I won't reply to the whole of your post now... But it seems that the main source of the statements about the "cowardice" of the later Roman army and their relative "inferiority" to Principate forces is Vegetius, who was called more than once by people more well-read than me more of a dubious, armchair source.

Anyway there's a wealth of debate in the matter, especially in TWC. Try to search for their threads, and a similar engagement between the "traditional" view and mine was fought fiercely and in detail, and by people who provided all kinds of sources yet again.

I know we're not professors and all (even though I dream of getting a history degree before my 30's), but nevertheless I stand by my position. There are many things which seem so self-evident that in fact are myth, Roman invincibility and superiority of all of them. Fair enough.

[Aemilius Paulus]

But it seems that the main source of the statements about the "cowardice" of the later Roman army and their relative "inferiority" to Principate forces is Vegetius, who was called more than once by people more well-read than me more of a dubious, armchair source.
Not at all. No, that was not the point I was making. I despise those sorts of arguments myself. Not at least because the Domináte armies were tailored to deal with entirely other threats. And very well too. But once again, that is entirely not what I wanted or did debate about.

Now, I did mention the fact that Romans had a hard time recruiting soldiers, but I will make no judgment on the overall fighting quality of the army itself. Just the state of the Empire.

All this is evidenced by my previous post:

I never meant this to be an argument for the decline of the Roman Empire. Obviously, there were many factors, and it is pointless to debate on it, especially with a regular person like you and me, and not a professor. Do not lecture me, we all know the reasons, and I have never stated that it was the weak military that brought the Romans down.

But being an ardent debater myself, I went ahead and argued anyway:

But while we are at it...

[Kikaz]

I don't seem able to play those factions, well I did tried many times. Factions like Aedui, Arverni, Casse, Getai, Lusotannan, Saba, Sweboz and ... (Romani :wall:)

I mean it's not I dislike them in a sense they are "barbarians", and I do enjoy nomads factions (for ancient and medieval Chinese they are considered barbarians). I just can't seem to help myself play those factions. All of them, after playing a few turns results to quit. May be it's due to their buildings? Or their units are not consider professional army as a whole?

You may ask why the Romans too? I don't know, they still look less civilized to me during 272BC. But I love the AD Romans, especially helping the struggled WRE.

Can anyone give me a reason to play those factions. :yes:
See, I am the opposite. I hate playing as the Hellenes (their phalanxes make things... too easy.)
Those city dwellers with their olive oil bathing and imperial ambitions... THEIR less advanced :viking:

anyway, I do like playing as Pontos and Hayasdan though...

[chenkai11]

Thanks for posting. After I review Sweboz history again, I think I can give this faction a go. Seems they are strong enough to rule the world. I hope I can learn to be a good warlord/general using Sweboz soldiers, just imaging Alexander or Hannibal going to recruit and lead an army of barbarians. :sweatdrop:

[Cyclops]

Oh the Sweboz are an ace faction to play. Their bodyguards fight like lions* and they need too. There's something about infantry generals, you just can't bug out like the horse boys can and with the lack of armoured line troops for the Sweboz you will find FM's getting bloody all the time.

I play on general-cam and you get a strong sense of putting your guys in harms way, again and again. I love the way the chevrons stack up like honourable scars. You need to plough in with the few heavies you have and savagely claw at the enemies flanks with the rest of your poor guys, but don't let your boys get sucked into a slugfest. Its rip and retreat, ambush and fall back, until the enemy are panting and ready to rout.

When you finally get the celto-German reforms c.190 you will be a practiced infantry warrior, and the next phase of tackling foes head on will be juicy revenge time. Sacking Roma is one of this game's great rewards.


...
I never meant this to be an argument for the decline of the Roman Empire. Obviously, there were many factors, ....

No there was one, and it will be summed up in a 2-hour cable TV special consisting of 1 hour 59 minutes of waffling, and some dramatic music.

It can be adduced from a single reference in an obscure source "discovered" by a non-proffessional historian with a bad haircut, and involves fungus on the rye or lead pipes contaminating the water.

Anything more than that is getting needlessly complicated.


*"We do both kinds of combat: hand-to-hand spear and hand-to-hand sword!"

[king of thracia]

As Getai
you have armored falxmen and armored archers with high lethality swords (from the Chersonesos region), and armored lancer/archers. An army that will annihilate cavalry of all kinds. You can roleplay fighting the nomads and the like. And you have pimp cavalry of your own, to dominate infantry.

Thraikian peltasts are almost overpowered, being able to do anything, with Getai being one of only 2 factions able to recruit them without resorting to mercenaries. Getai have other advantages and characteristics, but all factions do, and these are the real reasons I play them.

[Macilrille]

Haha, I'm not much of a history guy so whatever I know I got from movies :laugh4: Though those battles were interesting, they happened a while past EB times didn't they? Whatever :juggle2:

Arausio, greatest Roman defeat ever was inflicted by Cimbri and Teutons in 105 BC. Sort of in the middle of EB timeframe if you keep to historical expansion. Close to the end in a normal game. Hadrianopolis was 378 AD and outside it yes, but let me instead site some other actual battles between Roman armies and German ones within EB Timeframe.

112 BC, Noriea, Cimbrii "confederation" vs Res Publica Romani, Cimbrii victory.
109 BC, Narbonensis and Burdigala, same. Though it can be argued that ambush and feigned retreat tactics played a role in these battles.
105 BC Arausio.
102 BC, Aquae Sextiae, Teutons (part of the "confederation") vs Res Publica Romana, Rome's "new army" wins (Marian Reforms, though he did not in fact reform much).
101 BC, Battle of Vercellae, Cimbrii vs Res Publica Romana, Roman win.

60 BC, Magetobriga, Averni and Sequianii with Suebi support/mercenaries under Ariovistus vs Aedui. Aedui loss. Though it is not a Rome-German battle and we do not know how it was fought, the Germans were apparently decisive in it and when they confront Rome two years later it is as an army ready to do battle, not as ambushers.
58 BC, Battle of Vosges, Suebi vs Caivs Ivlivs Caesar, Roman win.


If you look just after the EB timeframe, there are numerous actual battles between Arminus' alliance and the Romans as Germanicus attempted to resubjugate the lost province, as well as one between Arminus Cherusci + allies and Marbod's Marcomanni + allies of which Tacitus says that the armies were ordered in the same way as the Roman one...

As for getting knowledge from films I sincerely hope you are jesting, for you might as well get no knowledge; ignorance is better than wrong information. And, I might add, by installing EB you have agreed to read more history.


Seek enlightenment!!!

[Macilrille]

Thanks for posting. After I review Sweboz history again, I think I can give this faction a go. Seems they are strong enough to rule the world. I hope I can learn to be a good warlord/general using Sweboz soldiers, just imaging Alexander or Hannibal going to recruit and lead an army of barbarians. :sweatdrop:

No no, imagine Teutobod, Boirax, Ariovistus or Arminus "Turbator Germania"!!! Germany had plenty of competent warlords within EB timeframe.

[fleaza]

ummm, wow this argument started because i said i got the feeling they were inferior.

its simple, i dont get the feeling of grandeur and glory i get when i play with civilised factions. especially the hellenes. i just love the play as the makedonians, the seleukids and the baktrians. parthians, eastern factions and the romans are fun as well. as soon as i pick a barbarian faction i just lose interest.

[Macilrille]

Well... read Tacitus' Annals on the campaign, then read some Sagas and Saxo and you are good to go.

No barbarians are not grand in building cities and infrastructure, nor did they write books...

Barbarians' greatness is in their heroism!!

[athanaric]

As for getting knowledge from films I sincerely hope you are jesting, for you might as well get no knowledge; ignorance is better than wrong information.

Indeed, most films featuring Germanic people(s) are either horrible or totally inaccurate - actually, both.


I imagine that in the hands of a skilled player, the Getai are one of the most fearsome factions. They combine the badassery of the Swêboz with the versatility of the Seleukids.

[chenkai11]

No no, imagine Teutobod, Boirax, Ariovistus or Arminus "Turbator Germania"!!! Germany had plenty of competent warlords within EB timeframe.

I don't really meant Germany don't have great warlords. What I meant was, imaging like you used to lived in big cities, like Las Vegas and you love it. Then you transfer to a farm land in Australia. Although both are nice place. Or if you used and love to goto work with a tie, but then you have to wear jeans with your new job. Or more precise example, ahh... hey Ceasar, a Gaul army just surrendered to our side, and we need all your professional Roman soldiers to reinforce the eastern front, so why not try out the new army, they are all yours... well at least they are twice the size of your original army. If you know what I mean.



Its simple, i dont get the feeling of grandeur and glory i get when i play with civilised factions. especially the hellenes. i just love the play as the makedonians, the seleukids and the baktrians. parthians, eastern factions and the romans are fun as well. as soon as i pick a barbarian faction i just lose interest.

We are on the same boat.

[Bucefalo]

I enjoy all factions, maybe a bit less the steppe factions because i don´t know much about them and i love infantry warfare but hate horse archers.

[Phalanx300]

I don't really meant Germany don't have great warlords. What I meant was, imaging like you used to lived in big cities, like Las Vegas and you love it. Then you transfer to a farm land in Australia. Although both are nice place. Or if you used and love to goto work with a tie, but then you have to wear jeans with your new job. Or more precise example, ahh... hey Ceasar, a Gaul army just surrendered to our side, and we need all your professional Roman soldiers to reinforce the eastern front, so why not try out the new army, they are all yours... well at least they are twice the size of your original army. If you know what I mean.

Actually Ceasar said that the Sweboz force he faced was the most disciplined force he had ever seen, Germanic Tribes most disciplined, and that from a great general with disciplined troops like the legionairries. I think many are underestimating the discipline "barbarians" can have. Its like the Scottish pikemen.

[Cyclops]

Actually Ceasar said that the Sweboz force he faced was the most disciplined force he had ever seen, Germanic Tribes most disciplined, and that from a great general with disciplined troops like the legionairries. I think many are underestimating the discipline "barbarians" can have. Its like the Scottish pikemen.

While I take your general point, that supposedly uncivilised folks can in fact show amazing discipline (eg Zulus disciplined formations vs British, or rather unsophisticated Spartans vs very civilised Persians) I'd take Caesar with a grain of salt. The Gallic wars is an extended self advertisment, designed to make his conquest of Gaul look as impressive as Pompey's conquests in the east. Everyone he fought was the baddest, meanest, tallest, most lime-moustached, most disciplined, most ferocious etc.


I enjoy all factions, maybe a bit less the steppe factions because i don´t know much about them and i love infantry warfare but hate horse archers.

Yes aside from the Romans (who I guess I resent because they won) and the Mako's (who I have played to death) the steppe cultures are my least played option these days.

Is there a decent survey of their culture and military history that might inspire me to try? I must say the way their bulding tree works does baffle me a little, maybe I will give it more of a shot in EB2 when it comes out...

[Dunadd]

can anyone give me a reason to play those factions.

To kill those Roman dogs? :wink:

Seriously, if you don't enjoy playing barbarian factions, don't play them - it's not compulsory. I mainly enjoy Carthaginians and Dacians, but in a computer game is pretty much aesthetics that decide who plays what faction. Pretty much all of them (including 'civilised' factions like the Romans and Greeks) were very barbaric, uncivilised and brutal, much like 9/11 and Abu Ghraib more recently, but without even the modern amount of dissenters against atrocities.

[Kikaz]

Indeed, most films featuring Germanic people(s) are either horrible or totally inaccurate - actually, both.


I imagine that in the hands of a skilled player, the Getai are one of the most fearsome factions. They combine the badassery of the Swêboz with the versatility of the Seleukids.

Being defeated by the Getai is essentially the EB equivalent of rape... They had their way with you and there ain't a thing you can do about it.

[Kevin]

Being defeated by the Getai is essentially the EB equivalent of rape... They had their way with you and there ain't a thing you can do about.

It's the Roman's fault for dressing that way. :no:

[DaciaJC]

Being defeated by the Getai is essentially the EB equivalent of rape... They had their way with you and there ain't a thing you can do about.

This is making its way into my sig... :2thumbsup:

[Kikaz]

This is making its way into my sig... :2thumbsup:

I had the feeling someone would sig it...

[Kevin]

The only faction I would never play are the Sauromatae. They have weak horse archers compared to the other eastern nomads, they're towns are really spread out, they have the worst economy, the least infrastructure, and no infantry (besides some armourless regional barbarians). But, if you want a challenge...

[chenkai11]

The only faction I would never play are the Sauromatae. They have weak horse archers compared to the other eastern nomads, they're towns are really spread out, they have the worst economy, the least infrastructure, and no infantry (besides some armourless regional barbarians). But, if you want a challenge...

I do have a plan for this faction, to eradicate everything in their path. Slaughtering, looting, destroying, leaving nothing behind and move on. Start from homeland traveling west until spain, then down to africa and travel east until India and up to SAKA region then back to homeland. Objective is - a whole map of Eleutheroi, except Sauromatae homeland. Army strategy is - outside homeland region use all mercenaries and regional units in front, keeping every factional units survive the journey as much as the gods wish. Economy strategy is - use all possible resources to upkeep a 3 full stack army without negative income. If necessary will spend sometime in a big city or two before destroying it. Spies and diplomats will play a important role here, as allies and ambushes are necessary for this insane plan. :skull:

[Kikaz]

The only faction I would never play are the Sauromatae. They have weak horse archers compared to the other eastern nomads, they're towns are really spread out, they have the worst economy, the least infrastructure, and no infantry (besides some armourless regional barbarians). But, if you want a challenge...

I haven't played them yet, but they seem to become a "tan-death" quite often and dish out many a nut cracking.

[Jormungand]

Actually, barbarians were simply reckless, not brave. Most were notorious for wavering quickly, after the initial charge did not break the enemy. Romans were definitely not that in the Republican and Principate - they very rarely ran unless the situation was hopeless, and even then, many units would continue to fight while others fled. And Roman legionaries were by no means elite, upper-class troops equal to the "barbarian" bodyguard units, nobles and such. But yet Romans fought better than most of those upper-crust barbarians.

Hannibal trusted his Gauls the least, and he turned them into cannon fodder, putting them in the centre, where they took the brunt of casualties and almost always ran, enticing the Romans to fall into the trap. Even the Spaniards did better. Of course, then came the cunctatio, which denied Hannibal of his tactical brilliance.

At the same times, the Romans did turn into cowards by the late Roman times. I cannot help but recount when Valentian, (frustrated at the decades of having to deal with potential recruits who cut off their thumbs to avoid military service, despite the laws forbidding very specifically such form of self-mutilation) simply instituted the penalty of death by slow immolation. Then came Theodosius who repealed that, and instead decreed that landowners must supply another recruit for every mutilated one. That stopped it, but the problem did resurface some time later. That is when the Romans turned to the "barbarians" to almost wholly supply their army with soldiers.

Still, just think the desperation of the Romans - to slice off your thumb just to avoid the army... Your opposable appendage, with one that you are enabled to grasp things. Of course, the streaks of defeats, the innumerable hordes of invading nomads and other tribes, the much lower professionalism of the Roman Army, but still... The Romans were indeed decadent and pampered by then.


Damn well said - but you'd have to be pretty brave to fight naked. GAESATAE!!

[king of thracia]

The only faction I would never play are the Sauromatae. They have weak horse archers compared to the other eastern nomads, they're towns are really spread out, they have the worst economy, the least infrastructure, and no infantry (besides some armourless regional barbarians). But, if you want a challenge...

Now now,
you really only need the Roxolani riders, and
you start out near the ocean and the greek coasts.

You are close to Rhomphaiaphoroi recruiting grounds; units which can annihilate armored horsemen while standing up to missile fire. You can get by with Drapanai against Hellenic and western armored cavalry. Thureopherontes Toxotai recruited from the Chersonesos region bordering you are armored composite bow infantry archers with high lethality swords. You can recruit the Roxolani riders anywhere you expand, and even if you are driven out of the steppe the coastal cities provide a booming economy anyway.

So you have a dominating cavalry you can recruit anywhere, quality foot archery to mow down all kinds of archer enemies, horse slaughtering infantry, and a booming economy all within close geographical range. My advice is to abandon the steppe and look south.

I don't like the steppe myself. But Sarmatians actually have quite a bit going for them. In fact, I think I will play them next, soon as I'm done promoting civilization ruling from the greatest throne in the world, ARCHE SELEUKEIA

[Raiuga]

Lusotannan are quite fun to play. With the Lusos + Iberians units you will have quite a professional army (maybe because of their mercenary ways). The only downfall is their lack of infrastructure. I currently want to make some building available for them (better roads, schools, maybe mines) to roleplay some influence from celtic and carthagian (if someone can help me with that I would appreciate)

[Apázlinemjó]

Lusotannan are quite fun to play. With the Lusos + Iberians units you will have quite a professional army (maybe because of their mercenary ways). The only downfall is their lack of infrastructure. I currently want to make some building available for them (better roads, schools, maybe mines) to roleplay some influence from celtic and carthagian (if someone can help me with that I would appreciate)

Agreed, those Iberian Lancers are the best cavalry on the west and their heavy infantry is just more than enough to repel anything "civilised" back to the owner. However they have two major faults, the first one is the poor economy, even if you have the whole Iberian peninsula, you can't finance more than two full stacks, the second is the lack of capable missile units.

But my favourite "less civilized" faction is definitely Sweboz. Huge woods, unarmored units, mysterious history, fearsome reputation and Worgozez :skull:.

[Aemilius Paulus]

but you'd have to be pretty brave to fight naked. GAESATAE!!
Perhaps, but not quite so. Most troops of the Antiquity never had any funds for armour anyway. And it is not as if simple clothing actually protect you...

[Raiuga]

Agreed, those Iberian Lancers are the best cavalry on the west

Cataphracts of the West :2thumbsup:

[The General]

Actually, barbarians were simply reckless, not brave. Most were notorious for wavering quickly, after the initial charge did not break the enemy. Romans were definitely not that in the Republican and Principate - they very rarely ran unless the situation was hopeless, and even then, many units would continue to fight while others fled. And Roman legionaries were by no means elite, upper-class troops equal to the "barbarian" bodyguard units, nobles and such. But yet Romans fought better than most of those upper-crust barbarians.

How about Battle of Telamon, where the Insubri, Boii and Taurini fought to death even after seeing their Gaesatae allies perish or retreat from their positions?

It's true, that in general the Celts put much focus on the initial charge, but it's worth noting that the way of Celtic warfare was a lot different from what Rome and other organized states had become used to which were much more organized with clearer and often politically driven motives.

Most of the Celtic warfare were small scale clashes between neighbouring tribes' warrior groups, and just as much focus was put the superiority of invidual over his enemies (which exhibited in the head collecting practises, for example), the battles may have been intended to have been solved quickly - he who won the initial clash, established superiority over the opposing force. In smaller communities/populations, warfare has a more ritualistic nature and it's not unheard of that battles have been fought without a drop of blood being shed, as the value of invidual members of the tribe is greater than in nations whose populations are counted in the millions.

So, when Celtic warriors meet cohensive enemy units whose inviduals do not engage in one-on-one duels but rather push on as one solid mass, bashing with their shields and stabbing with their swords, it's quite possible that the Celts could have been at a loss as to how to defeat such a formation. Seemingly unstoppable, it's no wonder if they would've demoralized a tribal host (at least ones like the Celts' who fought primarily in mêlée and not in skirmisher formations).

[Macilrille]

Most of the Celtic warfare were small scale clashes between neighbouring tribes' warrior groups, and just as much focus was put the superiority of invidual over his enemies (which exhibited in the head collecting practises, for example), the battles may have been intended to have been solved quickly - he who won the initial clash, established superiority over the opposing force. In smaller communities/populations, warfare has a more ritualistic nature and it's not unheard of that battles have been fought without a drop of blood being shed, as the value of invidual members of the tribe is greater than in nations whose populations are counted in the millions.


While you are in general right, this view is couloured by a romanticised view of primitive societies, wrong; and very firmly refuted by Lawrence Keely in,
Keely, Lawrence H.; War before Civilisation, Oxford 1996.

I encourage everybody to read it. It gives great insight in tribal warfare. Warfare that is in effect even more total and horrid than that which socalled civilised peoples fight.

[The General]

While you are in general right, this view is couloured by a romanticised view of primitive societies, wrong; and very firmly refuted by Lawrence Keely in,
Keely, Lawrence H.; War before Civilisation, Oxford 1996.

I encourage everybody to read it. It gives great insight in tribal warfare. Warfare that is in effect even more total and horrid than that which socalled civilised peoples fight.

I did not intend to say ritualistic warfare was the only kind of warfare in tribal communities; I'm aware of more lethal forms of conflict between tribes to the point of conflicts that escalate to the level of war of annihilation.

(It's not that hard to imagine to what lenghts people will go to survive, say, in cases of famine.)

[ARCHIPPOS]

It seems to be common knowledge though that the Celtic warrior ethos was more focused on a)training a strong professional warrior class, b)valuing individual acts and bravery more over "group work". Equipment, training et all were more focused on individual feats, and it is also true IIRC (from my own readings on the subject) that the average Celtic militia was of lower quality, not only because it lacked the sort of attention the Germans and Romans gave to lower tier troops but because there was never an emphasis in collective training and war-making outside of the *admittedly large* warrior class.

The Romans, on the other hand, adopted the opposite approach - they had no "warrior class" in the sense of the word, rather focusing on giving militias as much collective training as possible and emphasize the "group" aspect of the legion. So a legionary in average spent more time training how to act effectively in formation, while a Gaesatae (rough comparisons, I say) would spend far more time duelling, or training alone, or being told that his own courage alone was enough to win and to earn him glory and fame, and the like.

Fact is though that the Celts seemed more impetuous and more prone to "individual challenges" on the battlefield than the rest. Literally everywhere I've read that touches the subject even remotely agrees. Last time was in a book about the Etruscans (written by Raymond Bloch) that gives a side glance at Celtic warrior ethos and says that it was not uncommon for a Celtic warrior to get off his line and challenge other individual enemies for a duel. Not that hard to imagine since we're all familiar with the Knightly Ethos too.

All in all I can presume that an "ethos" that values collective identity over individual identity would also give far more discipline to the group as a whole, since all the people would need to act in unison for most things. 1 vs. 1, though, my money is on the Celts, and it is not like Celts were completely averse to group work either, or that some Celtic bands did not equal the collective discipline of more "civilized" warriors. It's a rough generalization frankly.

that's quite an interesting viewpoint...

This clash between tribal "individual heroism" and the modern "disciplined mass army" model is very evident in Homer's Iliad ...
We have from one side the epitome of the hero warrior Achiles whose life evolves around notions of personal fame, glory and loot ... he's unwieldy, selfish and defies and disrespects the power of his king and army leader ... the cause of final victory is not central but merely peripheral in his lifeview...
On the other side we have the character of Hector... Hector is in fact the "Modern Man" , a product of duty, law, state and family values... he's essentialy a paradigm of the citizen-soldier ideal a soldier if need be but also a statesman, a husband , a father and a son... in short the "civil man" whose life is centered on common good (=Freudian superego) ...
The Homeric allegory is very revealing...

Coming forth from the epic era dominated by raw and primal instincts, Greeks achieved to develop a prevailing second nature, one that was characterized by their sense of rigid self discipline, measure and constraint over their all consuming and potentially destructive passions ...(of course in practice the results of this civil harnessing were not always that succesful)...
The sociopolitical roots of this self-overcoming can be genealogically outlined in a complex, copious and lengthy transformation of the Greek political model: From tribal kingdoms governed by relentless and vigorous hero-warrior-rulers (which were in fact the Mycenean societies) , to decentralized city states dominated by a dignified and dynamic middle-class citizenship. Retrospectively the content of the prevailing ideal has accordingly shifted: The qualities of classic civility, participation and modesty replaced the all domineering, warlike, assertive, traits of epic exploits and violence...

[Aemilius Paulus]

How about Battle of Telamon, where the Insubri, Boii and Taurini fought to death even after seeing their Gaesatae allies perish or retreat from their positions?
Shall we then throw lone events, exceptions that deviate from standard behaviour, as valid arguments? No stand on any issue is impervious to such assaults. There are always plenty of irregularities. I am giving you a trend, and you attempt to refute it with a singular happening?

I am sorry, but that will not cut it. There is the general propensity of Gauls to waver swiftly and then there are isolated groups of Gauls in certain events where they actually make a last stand. One of the skills of a historian or a debater is to be able to differentiate between a peculiar instance and a widespread fact of the matter.

Whatever the truth may be, Republican and Principate Romans do not seem to display similar reputation. Nor do the Classical Greeks. Same goes far Carthaginians. Most civilised nations have steadier, more dependable troops who do not take flight as easily. Exceptions abound as usual, but the general history stays the same.

Gausl simply had less incentive to fight. Their culture was not the same, it was a classic example of a semi-tribal, semi-civilised tradition in transition. They had little in the face of centralised states, and their culture did not focus on the overall outcome of the war as opposed to individual glory-hunting. Romans were one of the few who valued ultimate victory in a war as the sole most important goal.

Other nations, such as Carthage for example, had few such convictions. With Hannibal in Italy, the Council could have easily squashed the Romans with a fraction of expenditure of their vast resources. Yet they were suspicious of Hannibal, their rival, and when the war turned in the other direction, they mainly funded the Spanish Wars, which made sense from an economic perspective, given the resources of Spain, but from a military perspective, Hannibal was holding the wolf by its ears, with his ever-depleted army he nevertheless gained new recruits among Southern Italians and Gauls, continuing to keep the Romans down. With 30,000 reinforcements he could have conquered all of Italy.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

You have not given a "trend", AP. In fact you have done the same thing you're criticising now: quoting a single example of Celtic cowardice on the field as the ruling definition of their battle eagerness. Telamon is not just the single example of Celtic prowess on the field, the same prowess alas which would not be possible if Celts did not have balls, as you are suggesting.

[Aemilius Paulus]

You have not given a "trend", AP. In fact you have done the same thing you're criticising now: quoting a single example of Celtic cowardice on the field as the ruling definition of their battle eagerness. Telamon is not just the single example of Celtic prowess on the field, the same prowess alas which would not be possible if Celts did not have balls, as you are suggesting.
I gave you the battles of Hannibalic wars, which were well-documented, and in all the battles where Gauls were a significant force, they wavered, even when Hannibal was winning, such as Metaurus. Then we have the Cisalpine Gallo-Roman wars, or the Gallic invasion of Greece, where in most documented battles, the Gauls routed prematurely.

In general, the Gauls did not have the same drive to win, unless they were defending their homeland, as in the later stages of the of the wars for their homelands. And those skirmishes were not even documented for the most part, save for Caesar's commentaries. But by that time, the Gauls have changed radically, into a much more cohesive, centralised states.

Nor did their culture place great value on the collective victory - you can be recklessly brave in the beginning of the battle, earn some standing, and then retreat with everyone else, only gaining. But what is there to gain by fighting to death, especially when fighting in faraway lands in battles that do not have much direct effect you? As a Gaul, you do not have the same sense of national pride. you do not have a state and government to answer to. You have your hometown or village, and if needed, you will fight to death to defend it. Otherwise, why bother to fight, save for loot and honour?

[ARCHIPPOS]

hey what's the deal ??? is there an ongoing debating feud between you two ???

[Aemilius Paulus]

hey what's the deal ??? is there an ongoing debating feud between you two ???
Not quite. ATHN is my spamming friend, whose only hobby on this site is to spam and troll, aggravating other people. He follows me around, even in the Backroom, and does his best to appear legitimate, but in truth simply rebuking me for the heck of it. He has no conviction to actually research his statements, so most of his arguments are cardboard dummies. Especially in the Backroom, where he sounds downright pathetic. Unknowledgeable trolling is quite simple to spot there. Go figure... Poor fella' has no life.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Not quite. ATHN is my spamming friend, whose only hobby on this site is to spam and troll, aggravating other people. He follows me around, even in the Backroom, and does his best to appear legitimate, but in truth simply rebuking me for the heck of it. He has no conviction to actually research his statements, so most of his arguments are cardboard dummies. Especially in the Backroom, where he sounds downright pathetic. Unknowledgeable trolling is quite simple to spot there. Go figure... Poor fella' has no life.
What do you know of myself to make such statements, AP :clown:? You want to have a discussion, then have it :P.

[Cyclops]

Nice try. But how strong were the Makedones then?

Not strong enough. Like the Romans. And the Etruscans. And the Hellenes of Asia Minor. In fact the Gauls who founded Galatia were only stopped by several Pachyderms. I read somewhere Elephants are also "wavering" types, so I'm amazed the battelfield wasn't deserted by both sides.


How many other peoples were they fighting?

You tell me, you're the one venturing a interesting claim that Gauls have no staying power.


How many Celts were there against them?

Well there enough Celts that their new homeland was called Galatia, so you tell me?


I read the invasion was immense.

Immense but wavering, of course. "moral power is to physical as three parts out of four..." but what would a Ajaccione know? He was probably a Gaul too.


And notice I said Celts. Not Gauls. Celts were too varied of a nation to generalise.

But the Gauls are not too varied for you to generalise about them :wall:.


I never said Celts were unreliable.

Go on, give it a try. You might catch a few more fishes.:whip:(I'm using this as a fly-fishing smilie)


Your turn.

Well all this provocation and sniping aside, I agree with you thesis in part. Its fair to say non-urban peoples don't stand and fight as much. Tribal societies fight a more skirmishy type of warfare. Its probably even more true of the Germans and Iberians than of the Gauls.

That doesn't mean they lack courage or staying power: the Romans found out how much staying power the Celtiberians and others in Hispania had, those guys fronted up for centuries of skirmishing and ambush warfare which showed unwavering hostility to foreign rule, often to the death.

I don't think its so much a matter of having a state to believe in or not (that smells like a nationalist back-projection to me, no pun intended) so much as a set of economic and cultural circumstances (hehe, a Socialist back projection!). I have a farm, with a timeline for a harvest, so I want a decisive battle now godammit! One way or another lets finish this thing.

Anyway I suspect you're having some fun teasing, and more fun thread-hijacking. I doubt you really believe "gauls=wavering" anymore than your other thesis "Rome rose because they were brave and fell because they were decadent".

Have you enjoyed playing any of the non-urban factions in EB?

[Cyclops]

...In general, the Gauls did not have the same drive to win, unless they were defending their homeland, ...

The Galatians must've known their new homeland was in Asia Minor, otherwise they wouldn't have wavered their way through Makedonia to get there:2thumbsup:.

Sorry AP, this "Gauls were unsteady" doesn't wash (Roman propaganda to the contrary). They either defeated or served in almost every major army after Alexander, and even big Al had to check with them first if he was allowed to go east and conquer.

Keltoi-bitchifying Europe and Asia since 300 BC.

[Aemilius Paulus]

The Galatians must've known their new homeland was in Asia Minor, otherwise they wouldn't have wavered their way through Makedonia to get there:2thumbsup:.
Nice try. But how strong were the Makedones then? How many other peoples were they fighting? How many Celts were there against them? I read the invasion was immense. And notice I said Celts. Not Gauls. Celts were too varied of a nation to generalise. I never said Celts were unreliable.

Your turn.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

that's quite an interesting viewpoint...

This clash between tribal "individual heroism" and the modern "disciplined mass army" model is very evident in Homer's Iliad ...
We have from one side the epitome of the hero warrior Achiles whose life evolves around notions of personal fame, glory and loot ... he's unwieldy, selfish and defies and disrespects the power of his king and army leader ... the cause of final victory is not central but merely peripheral in his lifeview...
On the other side we have the character of Hector... Hector is in fact the "Modern Man" , a product of duty, law, state and family values... he's essentialy a paradigm of the citizen-soldier ideal a soldier if need be but also a statesman, a husband , a father and a son... in short the "civil man" whose life is centered on common good (=Freudian superego) ...
The Homeric allegory is very revealing...

Coming forth from the epic era dominated by raw and primal instincts, Greeks achieved to develop a prevailing second nature, one that was characterized by their sense of rigid self discipline, measure and constraint over their all consuming and potentially destructive passions ...(of course in practice the results of this civil harnessing were not always that succesful)...
The sociopolitical roots of this self-overcoming can be genealogically outlined in a complex, copious and lengthy transformation of the Greek political model: From tribal kingdoms governed by relentless and vigorous hero-warrior-rulers (which were in fact the Mycenean societies) , to decentralized city states dominated by a dignified and dynamic middle-class citizenship. Retrospectively the content of the prevailing ideal has accordingly shifted: The qualities of classic civility, participation and modesty replaced the all domineering, warlike, assertive, traits of epic exploits and violence...
That's an interesting take-on on the subject, even if too slightly Classicist. In my view, primeval societies always had that "heroic" emphasis; compare Medieval Europe with the Celts for example. Both had a fierce warrior ethos which had almost constant emphasis on the individual feats of glory and all the like.

Yet this seems to convene the idea that both periods had an essentially undisciplined mob passing for an army. Both the Celts and later Medieval armies (as well as the early Homeric Greeks) had a developed notion of collective warfare and even collective glory, it was just seen as "honourable" and fit to let strong warriors take the initiative sometimes. This all changes in a "later" period: the Hoplite (which was a soldier forfeiting all personal glory for formation work) replaces old Homeric warfare, while in Europe the old knightly ethos crumbled in favour of mass mercenary armies, although it did survive for much longer in one or other aspect (the systematic practice and organization of duels being one of them). Celtic society might have benefited from a similar shift if they hadn't been erased from the map all too early - most of the old elites were almost dead, and so on.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Well, Unlike you, ARCHIPPOS actually makes a great deal of sense, in addition to being eloquent. "Too slightly Classicist"? Confucius say... Really. The bloke based his entire post on Homer, and you say "too Classicist" - that is painfully obvious. If there was actually anything useful in your posts, ATHN...

Do you read books? If so, mention some stuff from them, so that your posts are more informative, interesting, and well-sourced. Or mention some concrete fact or a valid opinion, and we will knwo you got it from a book. Otherwise, this is merely another YouTube-esque deabte, only with solid grammar and nicer participants.

[Cyclops]

Oooh weird, my reply to AP's post 71 somehow became post 69, even though I typed it after his...

[fleaza]

The Galatians must've known their new homeland was in Asia Minor, otherwise they wouldn't have wavered their way through Makedonia to get there:2thumbsup:.

Sorry AP, this "Gauls were unsteady" doesn't wash (Roman propaganda to the contrary). They either defeated or served in almost every major army after Alexander, and even big Al had to check with them first if he was allowed to go east and conquer.

Keltoi-bitchifying Europe and Asia since 300 BC.

roman propaganda that the kelts were waverers? ridiculous, theyd want to make the kelts the most terrifying beasts on earth to make their star of glory shine brighter.

[kekailoa]

AP, to a certain extent, you're true. The Gauls and other Celtic groups did have somewhat of a propensity to retreat when the fight became brutal, bloody, and decisive.

But, I disagree with your ideas that the Celts (Gauls, Galatians, Celtiberians) were unreliable and poor soldiers. You seem to have this idea that the Gauls were just poorly armed, flighty and largely cowardly warriors and that they were no match for civilized nations. I disagree with that idea. Not only did these unwashed rabble of barbarians handily defeat Rome multiple times, but they also defeated many other 'civilized nations' with their cowardly, flighty, poorly armed warriors.

Take the Etruscans. A civilized, prosperous nation with a strong, organized warrior class (strong enough to dominate every other group in Italy for a time). The Celts ran through them.

The Macedonians. Although battered by the wars of sucession, Macedon still was in possession of a powerful and extremely successful military system. They were defeated and sacked entirely.

The Thracians. Although not quite 'civilized', they still were feared foes by the 'civilized' Greeks, and the Galatians easily dominated this warrior culture.

The Greeks. Although the Greeks drove the invaders out, no pitched battle really decided this. The Greeks used a combination of guerrilla warfare, harsh weather conditions and small-scale conflicts to drive them out. If you want to read my sources, read Barry Cunliffe's The Celtic World, who you quoted earlier on.

The Bithynians, Cappadocians, Phrygians, Karians, Pontics, various Greek cities, and Pergamese (at one point) were terrorized by the Galatians, and apparently only 10,000 migrated over into Galatia! Half were women and children, so for five thousand Galatians to terrorize most of Asia Minor must mean there is a modicum of military skill involved.

Why would Galatians be so popular to recruit as mercenaries? Why would the Ptolemies specially import Gallic mercenaries? Why would the Carthaginian empire grab as many Gallic mercenaries as they could? If they were so terrible as mercenaries, why would Hannibal continue to recruit them time and time again, and rely on them to guard his camp, to be his heavy cavalry, to even fight in his lines? Why would the Ptolemies rely so heavily on their Galatians that they drove their own citizens out to accommodate this mercenary base and their families?

Rome, for all its professional glory, was not always the victor either. Allia, Arretium, the Cimbri and Teutone invasions (yes, I know they are supposed to be German, but a large portion of these Germans were Celts from across the Danube and some that joined the hordes along the way. Also, according to some historians such as Cunliffe, D. Sue Johns of Wales and others believe based on linguistic and archaeological evidence that the Teutones and Cimbri spoke a Celtic language and had a heavily Celtic material culture.), Gergovia, Cenabum, the utter annihilation of Sabinus's legions during the Gallic wars, not to mention the ferocious battle for Celtiberia. (Btw sources are Caesars Gallic Wars, by Kate Gilliver and The Celtic Encyclopedia by Harry Mountain)

Even in defeat, the Gauls and Celts stood their ground. There are many instances where the Celts fought to the last man, not breaking and fleeing. These instances are not just exceptions, either, proving that the Celts had standing power. Caesars battle with the Helvetii and the Nervii, Anglesey, the Celtiberians, Telamon, all instances where the Celts stood and fought. It is also believed that many warriors in the German army of Ariovistus, a force which Caesar claimed to be one of the most disciplined he had ever faced, were of Celtic origin and came from Celtic tribes on either side of the Danube (source: Gallic Wars, Kate Gilliver). Celtiberia does not even need to be explained, with battles such as Numantia and the dread of Hispania Roman soldiers felt.

Celtic warriors were not professional, nor did they have the flexibility, resources and military ingenuity the Romans and other civilized nations had. But they learned fast, even as they were being absorbed into the Roman empire. We see instances of besieging armies building palisades and siege machinery (the siege of Quintus Cicero) and the unification of tribes and tribal structures. Celtic warriors, for all their unsophistication and lack of professionalism, were ferocious warriors and received and deserved the respect of every foe they faced.

[The General]

roman propaganda that the kelts were waverers? ridiculous, theyd want to make the kelts the most terrifying beasts on earth to make their star of glory shine brighter.

The Celts were the boogeymen of Rome for quite a few centuries, downplaying them might've helped motivate troops facing them.

[Macilrille]

That's an interesting take-on on the subject, even if too slightly Classicist. In my view, primeval societies always had that "heroic" emphasis; compare Medieval Europe with the Celts for example. Both had a fierce warrior ethos which had almost constant emphasis on the individual feats of glory and all the like.

Yet this seems to convene the idea that both periods had an essentially undisciplined mob passing for an army. Both the Celts and later Medieval armies (as well as the early Homeric Greeks) had a developed notion of collective warfare and even collective glory, it was just seen as "honourable" and fit to let strong warriors take the initiative sometimes. This all changes in a "later" period: the Hoplite (which was a soldier forfeiting all personal glory for formation work) replaces old Homeric warfare, while in Europe the old knightly ethos crumbled in favour of mass mercenary armies, although it did survive for much longer in one or other aspect (the systematic practice and organization of duels being one of them). Celtic society might have benefited from a similar shift if they hadn't been erased from the map all too early - most of the old elites were almost dead, and so on.

This is my view, and the general idea is accepted by most historians and sociologists. Sociologists especially likes neat models covering all societies. Harste has written extensively on the matter based on Luhman's models of Autopoietic Systems.

kekailoa, the socalled scholars claiming that the Cimbrii and Teutons were Celts are hardly unbiased "Uni of Wales, one of the few remaining Celtic bastions...), in fact Celtic historians shows the same trend as nationalist Germanic and Nordic ones did 100- 150 years ago of wanting to include their own people in any major barbaric and heroic event of antiquity. The Cimbrii and Teutons were from Jutland and the area immediately s of it.
However:
->Their culture was influenced by Celts (from Balcans to France, the Gunnestrup Cauldron is mixed Thracian-Celtic in origin, other cauldrons and the wagon finds are Gallic), just as it was later influenced by Rome when the Romans expanded to become a power, and got close.
->It is unlikely that the entire population left Jutland to relocate, archeology does not show any large decrease in population and in the nature of later migrations (up to Viking ones and the Crusades), it is more likely that only a part of the population went. My own theory is that just like the Vikings, only warriors went, led by charismatic warlords and perhaps with some family and camp followers. These then picked up many followers, hangers-on, camp followers, etc in the land they journeyed through. Including entire tribes, mostly Germanic, but some Celts as well, and since much of the areas travelled through was Celtic, many wifes and camp followers would be Celtic in origin just as many of the original fighters would leave and new ones join (even from back home- like Vikings and Crusaders). Thus creating a mix of culture and bloodlines. The armies that fought the Romans would probably have been Jute-ish at the core, Germanic in nature, but influenced and to some extent full of Celts and half-Celts. But to make them Celtic tribes is a bit far-fetched (I am not saying you are doing that, but many Celt-lovers- especially online- do).

As for Ariovistus, he lead the Suebi confederation, which was by and large made up of Germanic tribes, only the Marcomanni and possibly the Hermanduri would have been in any way of the mixed German-Celtic from the Rhine- Bohemia areas where that mixed culture existed. In fact at least one of his allied tribes was from as far away as Jutland; the Haerudi. But then again, Tacitus mentions the seven tribes of Jutland as part of the Suebi.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Well, Unlike you, ARCHIPPOS actually makes a great deal of sense, in addition to being eloquent. "Too slightly Classicist"? Confucius say... Really. The bloke based his entire post on Homer, and you say "too Classicist" - that is painfully obvious. If there was actually anything useful in your posts, ATHN...

Do you read books? If so, mention some stuff from them, so that your posts are more informative, interesting, and well-sourced. Or mention some concrete fact or a valid opinion, and we will knwo you got it from a book. Otherwise, this is merely another YouTube-esque deabte, only with solid grammar and nicer participants.
All my notions from the Medieval Army come from Verbruggen, Contamine and DeVries; all my notions from the Celtic army come from a prolonged read of the discussions held in the EB forums plus privy conversations with Celtic experts

. I say it is too much Classicist because it portrays them in a too favourable and slightly biased light as "upholders of civic virtue", when in fact we should avoid this kind of judgment too much. Something which you should learn, and something you should know before making brusque patronizing statements like this, AP :thumbsdown:.

[Macilrille]

Pffffffffffffff


Both of you should learn to not get personal and to not embark on measuring penises but keep your arguments objective. Will lend much more validity and more chance of the other guy actually agreeing with you instead of just getting more hateful and stubborn.


BTW, DeVries I do not much lend credence to. At least his book on Harald Hardrada's invasion of England is... somewhat inaccurate and dated.

[Ludens]

Both of you should learn to not get personal and to not embark on measuring penises but keep your arguments objective. Will lend much more validity and more chance of the other guy actually agreeing with you instead of just getting more hateful and stubborn.

Seconded.

Discuss the post, not the poster.

[kekailoa]

kekailoa, the socalled scholars claiming that the Cimbrii and Teutons were Celts are hardly unbiased "Uni of Wales, one of the few remaining Celtic bastions...), in fact Celtic historians shows the same trend as nationalist Germanic and Nordic ones did 100- 150 years ago of wanting to include their own people in any major barbaric and heroic event of antiquity. The Cimbrii and Teutons were from Jutland and the area immediately s of it.
However:
->Their culture was influenced by Celts (from Balcans to France, the Gunnestrup Cauldron is mixed Thracian-Celtic in origin, other cauldrons and the wagon finds are Gallic), just as it was later influenced by Rome when the Romans expanded to become a power, and got close.
->It is unlikely that the entire population left Jutland to relocate, archeology does not show any large decrease in population and in the nature of later migrations (up to Viking ones and the Crusades), it is more likely that only a part of the population went. My own theory is that just like the Vikings, only warriors went, led by charismatic warlords and perhaps with some family and camp followers. These then picked up many followers, hangers-on, camp followers, etc in the land they journeyed through. Including entire tribes, mostly Germanic, but some Celts as well, and since much of the areas travelled through was Celtic, many wifes and camp followers would be Celtic in origin just as many of the original fighters would leave and new ones join (even from back home- like Vikings and Crusaders). Thus creating a mix of culture and bloodlines. The armies that fought the Romans would probably have been Jute-ish at the core, Germanic in nature, but influenced and to some extent full of Celts and half-Celts. But to make them Celtic tribes is a bit far-fetched (I am not saying you are doing that, but many Celt-lovers- especially online- do).

As for Ariovistus, he lead the Suebi confederation, which was by and large made up of Germanic tribes, only the Marcomanni and possibly the Hermanduri would have been in any way of the mixed German-Celtic from the Rhine- Bohemia areas where that mixed culture existed. In fact at least one of his allied tribes was from as far away as Jutland; the Haerudi. But then again, Tacitus mentions the seven tribes of Jutland as part of the Suebi.

No, I agree. The invading Cimbrii and Teutones were most definitely Germanic in origin and nature, but what I was trying to say is that portions of the horde were most likely Celtic, proving that yes, the Celts could fight. They could stand in pitched battles against civilized troops and hold their own, and seeing as they were a part of the hordes that ran roughshod all over Roman territory, I would call that proof. And I agree, some Celtophiles can be a little much. (Even though I really used to be one...)

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Pffffffffffffff


Both of you should learn to not get personal and to not embark on measuring penises but keep your arguments objective. Will lend much more validity and more chance of the other guy actually agreeing with you instead of just getting more hateful and stubborn.


BTW, DeVries I do not much lend credence to. At least his book on Harald Hardrada's invasion of England is... somewhat inaccurate and dated.
Heh, he he, he he he :laugh4:.

EDIT - Sorry, assumed you dismissed all the repertory. I didn't read DeVries on Hardrada so I'll let it pass.

I agree with your remark on getting personal, but... It's AP that strangely wants this to get personal. I try to simply post my opinions, and this thread shows this neatly - which is rather unconvincing because AP seems to have very vague and very biased notions of Celtic warfare.

[Kikaz]

AP, to a certain extent, you're true. The Gauls and other Celtic groups did have somewhat of a propensity to retreat when the fight became brutal, bloody, and decisive.

But, I disagree with your ideas that the Celts (Gauls, Galatians, Celtiberians) were unreliable and poor soldiers. You seem to have this idea that the Gauls were just poorly armed, flighty and largely cowardly warriors and that they were no match for civilized nations. I disagree with that idea. Not only did these unwashed rabble of barbarians handily defeat Rome multiple times, but they also defeated many other 'civilized nations' with their cowardly, flighty, poorly armed warriors.

Take the Etruscans. A civilized, prosperous nation with a strong, organized warrior class (strong enough to dominate every other group in Italy for a time). The Celts ran through them.

The Macedonians. Although battered by the wars of sucession, Macedon still was in possession of a powerful and extremely successful military system. They were defeated and sacked entirely.

The Thracians. Although not quite 'civilized', they still were feared foes by the 'civilized' Greeks, and the Galatians easily dominated this warrior culture.

The Greeks. Although the Greeks drove the invaders out, no pitched battle really decided this. The Greeks used a combination of guerrilla warfare, harsh weather conditions and small-scale conflicts to drive them out. If you want to read my sources, read Barry Cunliffe's The Celtic World, who you quoted earlier on.

The Bithynians, Cappadocians, Phrygians, Karians, Pontics, various Greek cities, and Pergamese (at one point) were terrorized by the Galatians, and apparently only 10,000 migrated over into Galatia! Half were women and children, so for five thousand Galatians to terrorize most of Asia Minor must mean there is a modicum of military skill involved.

Why would Galatians be so popular to recruit as mercenaries? Why would the Ptolemies specially import Gallic mercenaries? Why would the Carthaginian empire grab as many Gallic mercenaries as they could? If they were so terrible as mercenaries, why would Hannibal continue to recruit them time and time again, and rely on them to guard his camp, to be his heavy cavalry, to even fight in his lines? Why would the Ptolemies rely so heavily on their Galatians that they drove their own citizens out to accommodate this mercenary base and their families?

Rome, for all its professional glory, was not always the victor either. Allia, Arretium, the Cimbri and Teutone invasions (yes, I know they are supposed to be German, but a large portion of these Germans were Celts from across the Danube and some that joined the hordes along the way. Also, according to some historians such as Cunliffe, D. Sue Johns of Wales and others believe based on linguistic and archaeological evidence that the Teutones and Cimbri spoke a Celtic language and had a heavily Celtic material culture.), Gergovia, Cenabum, the utter annihilation of Sabinus's legions during the Gallic wars, not to mention the ferocious battle for Celtiberia. (Btw sources are Caesars Gallic Wars, by Kate Gilliver and The Celtic Encyclopedia by Harry Mountain)

Even in defeat, the Gauls and Celts stood their ground. There are many instances where the Celts fought to the last man, not breaking and fleeing. These instances are not just exceptions, either, proving that the Celts had standing power. Caesars battle with the Helvetii and the Nervii, Anglesey, the Celtiberians, Telamon, all instances where the Celts stood and fought. It is also believed that many warriors in the German army of Ariovistus, a force which Caesar claimed to be one of the most disciplined he had ever faced, were of Celtic origin and came from Celtic tribes on either side of the Danube (source: Gallic Wars, Kate Gilliver). Celtiberia does not even need to be explained, with battles such as Numantia and the dread of Hispania Roman soldiers felt.

Celtic warriors were not professional, nor did they have the flexibility, resources and military ingenuity the Romans and other civilized nations had. But they learned fast, even as they were being absorbed into the Roman empire. We see instances of besieging armies building palisades and siege machinery (the siege of Quintus Cicero) and the unification of tribes and tribal structures. Celtic warriors, for all their unsophistication and lack of professionalism, were ferocious warriors and received and deserved the respect of every foe they faced.

as a side-note AP's example was of Keltae playing a MERCENARY ROLE; and mercenaries are, as a rule, typically less reliable than soldiers who would be fighting for their homeland (although Kelts must have been somewhat of an exception, given their popularity.)
If the standard Keltic warrior was as pathetic as AP makes him out to be, they would have never managed to sack Rome in the first place (or terrify the Romans for that matter.)

and now Fleaza will say "Oh, the Keltae being tough powerful opponents was just Roman propaganda"

[Macilrille]

Well, I am no Celtic historian, nor Cel They lost and disappeared from anything but fringes, so I care little. History has its own judgement on cultures/civilisations. It is Darwinism in effect...

However, my intuition as well as professional experience tells me that there is no single answer and that the discussion is moot. Nothing is black and white.

I suspect the truth is somewhere in between. Sometimes celtic warriors fought like tribal warriors with hit-and-run tactics, fierce onsets, but fast retreats, etc. At other times they would likely fight very well and with much "discipline" (as warriors still, not soldiers), fight to the last, etc. I expect that up until the very latest times it depended largely on leadership. Under a charismatic warlord they would fight well, otherwise not. To make broad generalisations across five centuries and across most of Central Europe is moot, it is like judging all German soldiers in WWII from the 1945 Volksgrenadier divisions or the senior Waffen SS divisions respectively- only worse.

It is moot!

Which again makes the participants getting personal the more ridiculous.

[WinsingtonIII]

Well, I am no Celtic historian, nor Cel They lost and disappeared from anything but fringes, so I care little. History has its own judgement on cultures/civilisations. It is Darwinism in effect...

I personally would stay away from the Darwin analogy. Social Darwinism is never a good philosophy to follow as it sort of implies that the loser (in this case the Celts) is somehow biologically weaker and less human than the victor. Many civilizations have fallen throughout history, and just because they have doesn't mean that they are necessarily a lesser version of the species.

Generally, when a civilization falls, it is not because of some inherent biological defect that must be weeded out (as Darwinism implies) it is because of a lack of technology, or economic domination, or the greater military organization (or numbers, or tactics, etc.) of the enemy (the list goes on as well). It doesn't reflect on the biological fitness of an individual in that civilization. So, I don't think it's really fair to imply that the Celts were marked for extinction by natural selection. And after all, isn't EB all about fairly representing cultures?

[Kikaz]

I personally would stay away from the Darwin analogy. Social Darwinism is never a good philosophy to follow as it sort of implies that the loser (in this case the Celts) is somehow biologically weaker and less human than the victor. Many civilizations have fallen throughout history, and just because they have doesn't mean that they are necessarily a lesser version of the species.

Generally, when a civilization falls, it is not because of some inherent biological defect that must be weeded out (as Darwinism implies) it is because of a lack of technology, or economic domination, or the greater military organization (or numbers, or tactics, etc.) of the enemy (the list goes on as well). It doesn't reflect on the biological fitness of an individual in that civilization. So, I don't think it's really fair to imply that the Celts were marked for extinction by natural selection. And after all, isn't EB all about fairly representing cultures?

Corruption plays a major part as well.

[WinsingtonIII]

Corruption plays a major part as well.

Yep. As well as many other societal institutions and processes. Human society is so complex that it is impossible to attribute the fall of an entire civilization to a single event or cause.

[Macilrille]

I personally would stay away from the Darwin analogy. Social Darwinism is never a good philosophy to follow as it sort of implies that the loser (in this case the Celts) is somehow biologically weaker and less human than the victor. Many civilizations have fallen throughout history, and just because they have doesn't mean that they are necessarily a lesser version of the species.

Generally, when a civilization falls, it is not because of some inherent biological defect that must be weeded out (as Darwinism implies) it is because of a lack of technology, or economic domination, or the greater military organization (or numbers, or tactics, etc.) of the enemy (the list goes on as well). It doesn't reflect on the biological fitness of an individual in that civilization. So, I don't think it's really fair to imply that the Celts were marked for extinction by natural selection. And after all, isn't EB all about fairly representing cultures?

Who was so unsophisticated and unenlightened that he was talking about biologi? What I am talking about it the organism that a state is, the autopoietic system of The State. Read some Harste and Luhman and you will know what I mean. Harste has written a fine little treatise on the matter, but it is not easily digestible,

Harste, G. 2002, Krig vs. Fred - en kode i symbolsk generaliseret kommunikation, Institut for Statskundskab, Aarhus Universitet, Århus.

It is divided in both an English and a Danish version, so no worries, you can read it. But it is a challenge to understand if one does not have a background in sociology (which I had not when I had the good fortune to be taught by him back then).

[geala]

I'm with you in this point, Macilrille, and for the rest I don't want to enter the Celts-Weaklings- discussion, because one only has to look to some ancient texts to see that this is not true as a rule.

Just one question that is of interest for me: what makes you sure that the Cimbri and Teutones came from Jutland and were Germanics? Poseidonios searched the case and took them for Celts, Caesar was the first to see them as Germanics as far as I know, but perhaps for a personal reason in combination with his creation of the Rhine as a border and the new feature of the area east of it as "Germania".

I think it's better to be careful and let the case open because it is so difficult for this early time to decide of what culture people were. I personally think (and can of course not prove it) that the Cimbri and Teutones were a mix of people, perhaps some from the north, but mainly Celts from all the regions the trek went on its long way to the south.

To make it not entirely ot, two remarks:
I also have difficulties to play as the "barbarians", I just have the feeling they were not able to create a unified empire that early although they were good fighters.
And I think it is not a shame or arrogant to name some people more civilised (that means just a certain degree of sophisticated organisation with a written and mostly urban culture) than others; it has nothing to do with the worth of the people or culture.

[The General]

To make it not entirely ot, two remarks:
I also have difficulties to play as the "barbarians", I just have the feeling they were not able to create a unified empire that early although they were good fighters.

Roleplay it then not as a unified empire, but as a confederacy of various tribes electing their leader, or a hegemony established by one tribe over others creating a complex web of vassalages, protectorates, allies and subjugated foes, for example.

[IrishHitman]

This entire thread is amusing....

The OP complains about playing certain barbarian factions, when the signature he has states that he plays barbarian factions to begin with!

Carthage and the Hai are not civilised, they are unspeakably barbarian...

[WinsingtonIII]

Who was so unsophisticated and unenlightened that he was talking about biologi? What I am talking about it the organism that a state is, the autopoietic system of The State. Read some Harste and Luhman and you will know what I mean. Harste has written a fine little treatise on the matter, but it is not easily digestible,

Harste, G. 2002, Krig vs. Fred - en kode i symbolsk generaliseret kommunikation, Institut for Statskundskab, Aarhus Universitet, Århus.

It is divided in both an English and a Danish version, so no worries, you can read it. But it is a challenge to understand if one does not have a background in sociology (which I had not when I had the good fortune to be taught by him back then).

My field of study is actually sociology so I am well aware of the structural functionalist view of society as an organism (the state is actually not the entire organism but just one of the social institutions that functions as a part of the greater organism of society). I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you meant, and you are right that Herbert Spencer for one at least utilized Darwin's idea of survival of the fittest in application to the rise and fall of civilizations. However, the fact that he openly used the term survival of the fittest in regards to societies isn't regarded very well these days. Weber and Durkheim, whose ideas were really the beginnings of structural functionalism, didn't necessarily claim that because a civilization fell it was necessarily weaker, they were more concerned with how the institutions and processes maintained the system and reproduction of society as a whole.

Additionally, there are many other theories of sociology that criticize the structural functionalist approach heavily.

I'm not trying to make this personal, I'm just saying that it is my opinion that Darwin is not the correct name to invoke. Durkheim would fit better in my opinion, because then the idea of a "defect" or multiple "defects" in a society leading to its fall are considered in a sociological sense, not a biological one.

Do they print that work in the States? I will look for it if possible.

[chenkai11]

This entire thread is amusing....

The OP complains about playing certain barbarian factions, when the signature he has states that he plays barbarian factions to begin with!

Carthage and the Hai are not civilised, they are unspeakably barbarian...


First, the word "complains" doesn't seem to fit to what I was trying to say in my first post in this thread.

Second, can you explain your post with a more civilized manner? If Carthage and the Hai are barbarians in those time, who the more civilized people then? The Protoss?

[Cyclops]

Very unfair to call the Punics uncivilised, they had an urban culture older than Hellas.

Hai maybe is a semi barbarian province on the fringe of a brilliant urban cultural complex but doesn't that put them in a similar cultural boat as Rome in 272 BC? Certainly not the most savage faction in the game by a long shot.


...who the more civilized people then? The Protoss?

Well they had Archons...maybe they're on a par with KH?

[Macilrille]

Chenkai, I have three people on my ignore list, two of the Roman Haters for being incredible spammers and Irish for being rude enough to call me a liar (even after I defended him from personal attacks), which I am not. You figure if you can get sensible and civilised replies out of him.


Winsington, I am glad to hear it, few people here I guess has read much on such matters. Which is also why referring to Darwin makes sense, for few here would know Durkheim or many other sociologists I suspect; when discussing difficult subjects it is best to keep simple-ish enough that all can understand you.

I suspect harste's little work is not available in the US, but your university library might be able to get it for you. I personally like it.

[IrishHitman]

First, the word "complains" doesn't seem to fit to what I was trying to say in my first post in this thread.

Second, can you explain your post with a more civilized manner? If Carthage and the Hai are barbarians in those time, who the more civilized people then? The Protoss?

Oh dear, you've misunderstood entirely..

Has the sense of humour been sapped entirely out of this place?
I was joking from a Hellenic perspective.

[Ludens]

Oh dear, you've misunderstood entirely..

Has the sense of humour been sapped entirely out of this place?
I was joking from a Hellenic perspective.

:inquisitive:

Irony and sarcasm do not communicate well across the internet. The receiver cannot hear the tone of voice, so it's best to use smileys to make clear you are joking.

[WinsingtonIII]

Winsington, I am glad to hear it, few people here I guess has read much on such matters. Which is also why referring to Darwin makes sense, for few here would know Durkheim or many other sociologists I suspect; when discussing difficult subjects it is best to keep simple-ish enough that all can understand you.

I suspect harste's little work is not available in the US, but your university library might be able to get it for you. I personally like it.

That's a very good point Macilrille, it does make more sense to present the analogy in a way everyone can understand. I didn't think of that aspect of it at all.

I'm always glad to meet someone who has studied sociology though. I'll see if the library can tell me anything.

[IrishHitman]

:inquisitive:

Irony and sarcasm do not communicate well across the internet. The receiver cannot hear the tone of voice, so it's best to use smileys to make clear you are joking.

It's a pretty long running joke on here..

[Weebeast]

What you like about playing civilized factions? You want to conquer the world and built magnificent roads connecting China and Rome for example? You cannot build roads as barbarians but you can always build something else like soap maker. Interest stems from lack of information yet interesting in mysterious way. Expose yourself to some barbarian equivalents of "300" and you'll pick up some interests in barbs in no time..

[eddy_purpus]

I don't seem able to play those factions, well I did tried many times. Factions like Aedui, Arverni, Casse, Getai, Lusotannan, Saba, Sweboz and ... (Romani :wall:)

I mean it's not I dislike them in a sense they are "barbarians", and I do enjoy nomads factions (for ancient and medieval Chinese they are considered barbarians). I just can't seem to help myself play those factions. All of them, after playing a few turns results to quit. May be it's due to their buildings? Or their units are not consider professional army as a whole?

You may ask why the Romans too? I don't know, they still look less civilized to me during 272BC. But I love the AD Romans, especially helping the struggled WRE.

Can anyone give me a reason to play those factions. :yes:
Moar like the graphics of rome are a little outdated...
Clone armies can ruin gameplay (visuals) a little...

That wont happen in EB2

[Kevin]

You might find it hard to play them because of the limitations on the RTW engine and animations. I guess RTW is too old, I always pictured barbarians fighting differently than they are portrayed even in EB. Maybe EB II can use the M2TW engine to its advantage.:juggle2:

[Macilrille]

Just one question that is of interest for me: what makes you sure that the Cimbri and Teutones came from Jutland and were Germanics? Poseidonios searched the case and took them for Celts, Caesar was the first to see them as Germanics as far as I know, but perhaps for a personal reason in combination with his creation of the Rhine as a border and the new feature of the area east of it as "Germania".

I think it's better to be careful and let the case open because it is so difficult for this early time to decide of what culture people were. I personally think (and can of course not prove it) that the Cimbri and Teutones were a mix of people, perhaps some from the north, but mainly Celts from all the regions the trek went on its long way to the south.

If you scroll up a bit or do a Forum Search on "Cimbrii" you will see that my interpretation is that the Cimbric Wars started as parts of two Jutish tribes following charismatic leaders on a raid-migration S in Europe to claim loot and land. Much like the later Vikings, and much like them some warriors would return and others come to join, while others from the cultures they passed through would join too. We know for certain that this happened to the Goths after Hadrianopolis/Adrianople.

Now in addition to the argument you can find on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimbri) for the Cimbrii and Teutons being from Jutland there is the fact that we suddenly find an increase in finds from the Balkans-Black Sea area in Jutland- not least the Gundestrup Cauldron which should be known to anyone with an interest in the area. This to me hints that all of a sudden there was an increase in contact for some reason, if you want a sort of analogue think of the increase in English Silver in Denmark around 1000 AD :2thumbsup: (I like Vikings:help:).

However, what really counts with me is the fact that all our classic sources say they are from Jutland (Cimbrii Chersonesos). Why discount our written sources? Especially when they are in agreeance? What the Celtophiles have to present for them as Celts are the names of two kings. Names that may have been "Celtified" by Romans, by Gallic interpreters in Roman employ or even be Celtic versions of their German names, or Boirix for one may be the result of a political union between Cimbrii father and Celtic mother- such were not unknown amongst German tribes, in fact they were common. The names "work" as well in ancient German as in Gallic too, so I do not know how much "evidence" that is...

As for the German - Celt distinction we see a distinct difference in material culture and society between the areas we label Germanic and Celt/Gallic. One roughly concurrent with the ancient authors' distinction, the difference from them largely being that the border zone in Bohemia and the Rhine area has a mixed culture, we see the same later with the Limes. As I have mentioned elsewhere, Hugh Elton has treated this problem of "Iron Curtain" interpretation and argued instead for a frontier zone with mixed cultures and influences.

You are right that before Caivs Ivlivs many authors did not distinguish between Germans and Celts. However, if Pliny The Elder quotes Pytheas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pytheas) correctly, he made it on his ~325 BC voyage where he might have identified the Gutones (Goths?) and Teutons as the first (it may be Pliny who makes it on his behalf). This however is easily explained by lack of knowledge. When the first Europeans arrived in The New World they did not distinguish much between tribes either, but as knowledge grew they started to.

Thus, IMO; Jutland was populated by people of Germanic ancestry (in fact it seems it is part of the original lands of Germanic culture back in the Bronze Age) and as the Teutons and Cimbrii was from Jutland (or in case of the Teutons might have moved from the Baltic Shore to there), they were originally German too. Scroll up to see my interpretation of how it then developed in a previous post.

[geala]

Ok, I see your points. I will however remain a bit sceptical. :beam: (like not few German scholars)

The archaeological evidence is problematic and not clear. More finds from the balkans on the one side (an area not to be reported as being touched intensively by the trek), no clear signs for a loss of population at the interesting time on the other side. That the Cimbri were recorded to settle in Jutland in the time of Augustus is not of so great help for the question wether the Cimbri and Teutones formed mainly a Germanic army or were in fact a mix of different tribes. Combine this with some of the common problems of archaeology, like the question whether the finding of certain artefacts coincide with people of a certain culture.

The first who recorded "Germanics" was Poseidonios about 100 BC, but he named so the population/tribe in a small northern area, not at all what Caesar made of it. The name was used in the 70s and 60s by others and the Suebes were identified as a Germanic tribe. Probably they were although it is nearly impossible to distinguish Germanic and Celtic elements in a wide area of today middle western Germany.

You cannot simply take conclusions from a behavior of the Goths in the 4th c. AD and transfer it to earlier perhaps-Germanics. The Goths had moved for a long time before and were surely a mixture of different ethnics at least.

Maybe you are right but I would like to put more "may be's" and "could be's" in the discussion. Just the same caution like for questions as these wether Britons or old Irish were Celts or wether Kalkriese has something to do with the Clades Variana or ... :wink:

[Macilrille]

Ok, I see your points. I will however remain a bit sceptical. :beam: (like not few German scholars)

The archaeological evidence is problematic and not clear. More finds from the balkans on the one side (an area not to be reported as being touched intensively by the trek), no clear signs for a loss of population at the interesting time on the other side. That the Cimbri were recorded to settle in Jutland in the time of Augustus is not of so great help for the question wether the Cimbri and Teutones formed mainly a Germanic army or were in fact a mix of different tribes. Combine this with some of the common problems of archaeology, like the question whether the finding of certain artefacts coincide with people of a certain culture.

The first who recorded "Germanics" was Poseidonios about 100 BC, but he named so the population/tribe in a small northern area, not at all what Caesar made of it. The name was used in the 70s and 60s by others and the Suebes were identified as a Germanic tribe. Probably they were although it is nearly impossible to distinguish Germanic and Celtic elements in a wide area of today middle western Germany.

You cannot simply take conclusions from a behavior of the Goths in the 4th c. AD and transfer it to earlier perhaps-Germanics. The Goths had moved for a long time before and were surely a mixture of different ethnics at least.

Maybe you are right but I would like to put more "may be's" and "could be's" in the discussion. Just the same caution like for questions as these wether Britons or old Irish were Celts or wether Kalkriese has something to do with the Clades Variana or ... :wink:

Personally I have believed for a couple of years that Kalkriese is not the Varus defeat, but rather the battle between Caecina and Arminus in 16 or 17 AD.

I will just try to clarify a few things.

You can always say "maybe" or "what if", but if the majority of evidence points to one specific interpretation, then that is likely close to the "truth". If you doubt all, we might as well drop the study of history. Source criticism is good, but as evidence mounts...

Poseidonois is as suspect as Pytheas, for we do not have the original, only the quote by Athenaios, who might have imposed his interpretation on it. Just like Pliny T Elder might have on Pytheas. Caesar, Tacitus and later authors agree and as their interpretation is largely consistent with the remains of material culture we have they may even be right-ish.

The lack of loss of population is not evident in AD 800- 1050 either, and we can agree that there was a large outward energy from Scandinavia then? If one migration did not leave archeological evidence, could another also not have? Especially as I do not "buy" the Ancients' numbers, there probably was only about 300.000 people in Jutland then at most. As I said in the original post I find it more likely that a core of warriors left, gathering followers and allies underway, just like Goths, Vikings and Crusades did. That is three "migrations" of and largely through cultures on the "Chiefdom" level and as they worked that way I find it likely the Cimbrii one did as well.

As for the Celtic element of the migration, it was there- as I said in the original post- I suspect it might have been as high as a third of the total. But the Ancients agree on where the original migration came from, the Balkan-evidence (Noreia is in that corner of the world...), and the population of Denmark then was undoubtedly Germanic, not Celtic... I believe that the core was still Germanic.
If we use another Viking Age analogy, "The Great Army" was mainly Viking (Danish according to our sources) for 33 years at least despite integrating allies (and some infighting) it still appears as such all the way through.


Anyway, this is nitpicking and I am annoyed by a coming cold (only 6 weeks since I had the Pig Flu, I hate Danish weather this time of year), so I will drink some tea instead.

[chenkai11]

Wow, what a ship, I mean boat. :laugh4: And it cost 2000 with an upkeep of 800. :dizzy2:

https://img97.imageshack.us/img97/4876/50845018.jpg (https://img97.imageshack.us/i/50845018.jpg/)

[Macilrille]

Yes, my standard Sweboz tactic of invading Britain is... expensive...

[Phalanx300]

The Cimbri came from the Germanic heartland so them being Celtic. :no:

And Chenkai is that actually ingame? Never seen it.

[king of thracia]

I'm starting to come around to this point of view. Arche Seleukeia is holding my attention far too long.

[chenkai11]

And Chenkai is that actually ingame? Never seen it.

It is ingame. Never seen what? The boat?

[Intranetusa]

Playing the "less civilized" factions is fun since it's usually harder...ie, Saba having to train loads of crap infantry to defend your frontiers against full stacks of phalangites from Silver and Gold Death...

Even playing as civilized factions, I love training mercs and using local levies as the bulk of my armies in the frontiers...I can't count the times when my stacks of barbarian levies got annihilated by enemy elite units...

I find it extremely fun to lose with levy troops, especially after you've been kicking AI arse with your regulars...

[Kevin]

True, I like playing as Saba because it requires a lot of tactics I don't have to use on my Romani campaign.

[IrishHitman]

Yes, my standard Sweboz tactic of invading Britain is... expensive...

There's rich pickings of independent states to the east and south, why the hell would you go mess with the Casse when you can leave them for later?

lol

[Kikaz]

Yes, my standard Sweboz tactic of invading Britain is... expensive...

Speaking of which, I just tried that (used many 4chev Medjinikos, as well as a general mix of Baltic and Celtic units,) hasn't been as challenging as I'd hoped (except Cambria.) Casse had several full stacks of militia (which were mowed down with almost no casualties) pitted against the one full-stack that I sent there, plus my spammed Balroae from Attuaca, and recently my spammed Imannae from Caern-Brigantae. It's a fun experience.


Wow, what a ship, I mean boat. And it cost 2000 with an upkeep of 800.

I'm pretty sure that means you aren't supposed to have a navy... Which is unfortunate once the pirates start showing up in droves.

[Intranetusa]

Speaking of which, I just tried that (used many 4chev Medjinikos, as well as a general mix of Baltic and Celtic units,) hasn't been as challenging as I'd hoped (except Cambria.) Casse had several full stacks of militia (which were mowed down with almost no casualties) pitted against the one full-stack that I sent there, plus my spammed Balroae from Attuaca, and recently my spammed Imannae from Caern-Brigantae. It's a fun experience. I'm pretty sure that means you aren't supposed to have a navy... Which is unfortunate once the pirates start showing up in droves.

800 a turn for worthless rafts? =(

Almost as bad as those frekin 30+ minai stone projectors that are less effective than a single siege tower yet costs 5000 a turn to upkeep... >_<

[geala]

Personally I have believed for a couple of years that Kalkriese is not the Varus defeat, but rather the battle between Caecina and Arminus in 16 or 17 AD.

I will just try to clarify a few things. ...


To the Cimbri etc.: I think we are not far away in the end. :beam:

As for Kalkriese, have you changed your mind? Why? (0k, it's too much ot perhaps) Nevertheless, I don't believe it could be the battle at the pontes longae because it happened when Caecina left the meeting point with Germanicus and went back to the Rhine. The meeting point was in the area of the outer Bructeres, between the Lippe and Ems (don't know the English names of the rivers). It would have been very strange to march to the Rhine from there meeting the Kalkriese dip. There are some other arguments against the connection with Caecina. But also many things are not clear and problematic concerning Kalkriese and Varus, it is better to be very careful. What we can say is only that a bigger fight took place between Germanics and Roman legionary core troops which the Romans with high probability lost. I personally still believe it was a part of the Varus battle; but being not a historian I can be less chary. :scholar:

[Macilrille]

It is probably mostly because I dislike believing what all others do and a quirk of mine ;-)
Geography is against me yes, but the description of the respective battles suits Varus' defeat the least. However, we know little of it in fact, so... I may be wrong, but that is healthy sometimes and it is not often I try that when I actually come out and claim something; if I know little of a subject I usually keep my mouth shot, so if I claim something it is mostly well-founded:book: to be wrong occasionally curbs my arrogance :clown: