Time commander 18th Sept episode

[ShadesWolf]

Scheduled time commander episode 18th Sept 2003
Thu 18 Sep, 8:00 pm - 9:00 pm 60mins

A re-creation of the battle of Bibracte


Quote[/b] ]The year is 58 BC. Julius Caesar's Roman army is fighting for control of Gaul.

From a 21st century military command centre, using hi-tech real-time graphics, a team of head hunters from London take command of Caesar's army against 60,000 Gallic tribesmen, in an attempt to repeat the victory that cemented Caesar's reputation as one of the greatest military geniuses of all time.

Overseeing the battle are two military experts, Dr Aryeh Nusbacher (Senior Lecturer in War Studies, Sandhurst) and Mike Loades (historical weapons specialist), who will assess the team's tactics.

[ShadesWolf]

Erm this could be an interesting one........ Might it be a battle outside of a great city ?
------------------------------------------------------------

Bibracte, was the capital of the powerful Gallic people of Eduens.

Mount Beuvray rises some 820 m in the Sud Morvan, in the region of Bourgogne. Today the hill is covered with forests, and lies some 4 km from any habitation. In the Late Iron Age, however, it was the setting of Bibracte, capital of the Aedui and one of the most important hillforts in Gaul.

The Aedui and their allies: When the Romans arrived in Gaul in the mid-1st century BC, the region was occupied by about 60 different tribes speaking Celtic languages. While politically autonomous, most were part of Late Iron Age, La Tène culture, and were linked to the Graeco-Roman sphere by economic and military alliances. Three of the most prominent tribes in central Gaul were the Sequani, the Arverni and the Aedui. As early as 125 BC, due to their strategic links with other Celtic tribes, the Aedui were given the prestigious title of "brothers of Rome" by the Roman senate. Aedui alliances with the Bituriges, the Helvetii (Swiss Celts who migrated eastward in 58 BC until stopped by Caesar), and the Boïens (allies of the Helvetii), were supported by Rome to counterbalance the Arverni, a powerful tribe southwest of the Aedui. Bibracte was declared by Caesar in his Commentaries on the Gallic Wars to be the largest and richest of the Aeduan towns. At the time, the Aedui servred as middlemen in trade between the Mediterranean and Northern Europe, as attested by numerous amphorae and other ceramics originating in various parts of the Roman Empire found at Aeduan sites. The Aedui minted their own coins between the 3rd century BC and 50 BC. At first using gold currency, by 120 BC they created a silver coinage aligned with the Roman denarius, facilitating commerce with Rome. Certain Aeduan silver coins can be identified by the inscriptions EDVIS and ORCETIRIX. After 50 BC, native coinages were restricted to local usage and Roman coins were employed for long-distance trade.




The Gallic Wars: In 61 BC, Diviciacus, a member of the Aeduan ruling class, was sent to Rome to ask for assistance against the Suebi, an invading Germanic tribe under the leadership of Ariovistus. While the Senate declined aid, three years later the proconsul Julius Caesar seized upon a similar incident to commence his operations in Gaul. The Helvetii, living north of Lake Geneva, had begun a mass migration across Gaul, burning their homes and extra supplies. Presuming that this migration threatened Roman interests in southern Gaul, Caesar undertook to turn them back. The final battle in the Helvetii campaign took place in 58 BC about 16 miles south of Bibracte, near Toulon-sur-Arroux.

[Fearless]

Pics Monday http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Mak]

http://www.arch.soton.ac.uk/Fieldwork/bibracte/site2_plan_large.jpa

Try this link for a nifty map of area http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Fearless]

Hi Mak you try the link http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

[Sjakihata]

the link works here (http://www.arch.soton.ac.uk/Fieldwork/bibracte/site2_plan_large.jpg)

[Hurin_Rules]

Isn't 60,000 a bit high for the Gauls?

Remember, the only person who actually estimated the numbers of the Gauls was... Caesar himself.

Ever heard anyone say they drank 20 beers?

[Barkhorn1x]

Quote[/b] (Hurin_Rules @ Sep. 18 2003,12:32)]Isn't 60,000 a bit high for the Gauls?

Remember, the only person who actually estimated the numbers of the Gauls was... Caesar himself.

Ever heard anyone say they drank 20 beers?
Agreed and LOL There was no doubt some inflation going on here as Caeasar was playing to the home folks.

Barkhorn.

[Spino]

Quote[/b] ]Ever heard anyone say they drank 20 beers?

Yeah, me.... over a two day period, and actually it was more like 22-24 beers. Although I don't remember conquering Gaul I faintly remember liberating 10 pounds of chopped meat, a bag of onion rings and a box of ice cream bars from a fraternity house's walk in freezer sometime during the early morning hours.

Veni vidi vici

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

EDIT - OK, that was silly and decidedly OTS. My apologies. But seriously, I doubt any embellishment on Julius Caesar's part was as bad as some of the decidedly unrealistic figures put forth by Alexander the Great's historians. We know the young Macedonian king routinely fought outnumbered and thanks to his extremely well led, trained and disciplined army inflicted far more casualties than it sustained but the numbers his historians decided to record for the ages border on the ridiculous.

[TenkiSoratoti]

The team wins, although they don't deserve it. The Roman legionaries must have had a huge honour/valour (Or whatever it will be in the game) bonus. The Gauls were slaughtered by them. Oh well.

TP

[Knight_Yellow]

uhhh it wasnt on in scotland

i was like

"WTF wheres the damn program http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif "




f****** BBC http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif

[ShadeFlanders]

I only saw the last 30 mins but I tought their right flank did pretty well. If their left flank had given better support they would have won even easier.

[Kraxis]

Hey Flanders... you have managed to evade me the last few weeks. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

So, was it good? Better than last time? Ok stupid question... Was it better than the first time?

[The_Emperor]

Well that was an interesting battle... The team Barely won

The battlefield consisted of a large flat plain with a Hill at one side of the Roman army, and a forest on the other.

The Gauls had a small ambush force of Cavalry and infantry away from the main body of the army, in the forest.

The team deployed the army in two groups, with the heavy infantry deployed in the valley, mainly where they started and the Skirmishers, Cavalry and light forces were positioned on the Hill.

The Gauls advanced on the hill and using their skirmishers enticed some of the Romans to come down, the Roman archers & skirmishers were left too far away and were wasted in the battle, they would be routed by enemy Cavalry.

The battle on the hill went badly and ended with them being routed but inflicting heavy casualties on the enemy as they died.

But the team's attention was diverted to the Ambush force that arrived on the other flank, and the Roman Heavy infantry was forced to send three units to fight off the ambush.

When the battle on the hill was over the main army of Gauls advanced on the Roman heavy infantry, the Romans held their formations and were slowly able to turn the tide against the enemy and slowly but surely the battle went Rome's way... As reserve Roman units were sent in enemy units slowly started to rout, and Caesar was victorious.

The Romans did win but paid a heavy price in lives with half their army being slaughtered on the hill by the main Gallic force, but they did tie that force up and prevent it from engaging the Heavy Infantry who won the battle.

It could have been a lot more decisive if they didn't seperate their forces into two groups, and concentrated everything on the Hill... Also the waste of the Archers and Slingers was a real shame.

But overall a good battle to watch, I thought they would lose after seeing the fight on the Hill go bad, but I was surprised when they pulled it back.

Those Roman heavy Infantry were Rock Ard http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ Sep. 18 2003,15:32)]Also the waste of the Archers and Slingers was a real shame.
Slingers??? Where??? Thre were SLINGERS???? SLingers????

[ShadesPanther]

The guy Stephen (General) was the one who saved them. He relised the skimishers were being pulled down from the hill and I think he was the one who discovered the infantry coming through the trees (the cavalry went about 2 minutes before to devastate the skirmishers)

I have to say that without him they would have sunk and they had quite alot of Luck and I agree those cohorts were bad ass http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[ShadeFlanders]

Citaat[/b] (Kraxis @ Sep. 18 2003,21:32)]Hey Flanders... you have managed to evade me the last few weeks. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

So, was it good? Better than last time? Ok stupid question... Was it better than the first time?
Heya Tarrak http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif No, haven't been around much. Just popping in now and then.
Didn't see it the first time but these guys were way better than those muppets that screwed up royally last week. Too bad that presenter annoys me so badly. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif And it seems like the experts say the same thing every time, they are right of course but I'd like a little more detail. They add nothing but the obvious to the program.

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Sep. 18 2003,21:37)]
Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ Sep. 18 2003,15:32)]Also the waste of the Archers and Slingers was a real shame.
Slingers??? Where??? Thre were SLINGERS???? SLingers????
Yeah the Historians said those guys shot lead projectiles at the enemy, not mere stones. Those projectiles could pentrate Horse flesh quite easily.

It is a weapon

[Sir Moody]

the slingers were ballaeric (sp?) slingers they looked small in number compared to the other Roman forces.

While u can say the left flank did badly the reason they folded was they were mainly the romans light infantry (auxillaries) and to be honest did far better than they should have considering the bulk of the enemy was attacking them - had the majority of the roman cohorts been up there and the light on the right it would have been a massacre on the gauls (then again the gauls may then have bypassed the hill bound cohorts)

one good thing i saw was the sword play in use by the cohorts - unlike the "sparticus" over heads that were seen in the last 2 episodes about 50% of the time the cohorts were stabbing in this one so i was very hopeful then

[econ21]

Yes - a fun battle to watch. For the first half of the battle, I thought it was a re-run of last week. They divided their army into two halves too far away to support each other and bizarrely put all the cav + light inf in one half, pure legions in the other. Even within the "light" arm, they were too dispersed to support each other (the missiles were not in range). They did not stick to the high ground. They were lured into attacking when they should have been defending. They threw away their cav. Their ranged troops got run down from the rear. A lot of this was due to ignorance, I think. I agree with those (Cheetah?) who said they should be better briefed for it to be meaningful.

But in the second half, they redeemed themselves. The general who commanded the half with legions seemed talented to me - he was decisive, commanded the camera brilliantly (I liked the way he dispensed with the superfluous board during the battle) and communicated excellently with his lieutenant. He was focused, calm and keen. He had sound military instincts and adhered to them - being well aware of the need to protect his flanks and avoid holes in the line. He even kept a reserve that came in very handy.

One thing I really liked about this episode was the fighting prowess of the legions. They seemed to decisively outclass the gaul infantry, rather like AUM vs other MTW infantry on early.

[o_loompah_the_delayer]

The legions saved their bacon Did JC run a way from the field at one point after the units on the hill had routed?

[econ21]

Quote[/b] ]Did JC run a way from the field at one point after the units on the hill had routed?

That was my impression - he seemed to clear off, despite the human general trying to get him to commit suicide (BTW, could there be a better example of how disjointed the two generals were? the losing general seemed to forget or not care that half of the army under the command of his partner general was still untouched and so just tried to kill off his general rather than get him to join the remaining body of the army&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif.

Caesar's behaviour in choosing the better part of valour reminded me of what the Lord of the Rings director said about the computer program used to simulate the battle of the last alliance - he said they noticed some orcs fleeing the field, deciding to live another day

[econ21]

Quote[/b] ]Yeah the Historians said those guys shot lead projectiles at the enemy, not mere stones. Those projectiles could pentrate Horse flesh quite easily.


I loved the bit the historian said about the slingers in the Spanish Civil War using slings to lob grenades (Wonder why it never caught on?)

[Wellington]

It was fixed.

The Romans were bound to win, as most of the Gauls didn't have any weapons http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[Sir Moody]

Quote[/b] ]Did JC run a way from the field at one point after the units on the hill had routed?

just rewatched it - and its very hard to tell cause yes a general unit ran BUT 2 minslater a general unit (with caeser leading it) is seen behind the cohorts.... so either he ran and reformed at the cohorts OR there were 2 general units one or the other

[Thomas Davie]

Quote[/b] (Hurin_Rules @ Sep. 18 2003,12:32)]Isn't 60,000 a bit high for the Gauls?

Remember, the only person who actually estimated the numbers of the Gauls was... Caesar himself.

Ever heard anyone say they drank 20 beers?
Uhm yes. my friend Fat Mike drank 36 beer in 12 hours back in college. He was in *real bad* shape for 2 days. We had to periodically check on hime and make sure he was sleeping with his head hanging over the bed, so that if he vomited he wouldn't aspirate and die.

Tom

[ShadesWolf]

Greeting Tarrak, Count and panther hope u are all well.

Hope u didnt mind danny I have been sharing my bottle of Gammel Dansk with our fellow ORG members.....

As for last night programme, I was totally amazed after the major mistake with the ranged units on the hill htat they managed to pull the battle around. Those Legions must have had some high honour units to hold their position so well.

It was quite intersting to watch how a line of three deep quite easily held the onslaugh. Nice formation though and it seemed to do the trick.

It appears every week these muppets seem to miss the point of defend the high groound and always want a fight on the plains, even when it is 2v1 or even high odd......

[Swoosh So]

Lol it only lasted two episodes in scotland it was replaced by a gaelic program a language that only 0.000001% of the population speak http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif , Expect it to crash and burn in the rest of the uk too

[frogbeastegg]

Wellington - It looked like the Gauls were armed to me, quite a nasty array of swords, spears, axes, javelins and generally pointy objects But then I was watching the programme with a headache so forgive me if I missed anything http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I think that this programme was the best of the three shown so far; it was nice to see the Romans win for once The team were better, much better. They weren't experts but they still had enough common sense to do a reasonable job, they turned the battle round nicely and it made good viewing. Things are tidying up well, the team seemed to have been briefed before hand as they knew what to do (with regards to giving orders, what each stage of the programme required etc) and were able to go and do it. This was the first team to use the 2D map and blocks effectively.

I was a little fazed by the experts referring to the Roman units as legions or cohorts, with regards to the number of men and the fact they are only one unit rather than a unit made up of other units the units in RTW are centuries. I am sure that the experts meant that each unit represented a cohort of legion on the scaled down version of the battle, if they really think these small units are legions they need to read a history book

Those javelins looked nasty, they caused a lot of damage and seemed to throw a little quicker than the ones in MTW. Maybe this time the AI will be able to use them against us without requiring some modding first.

The in battle music is sounding good; I think it will live up to its ancestors quite easily.

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (ShadesWolf @ Sep. 19 2003,01:08)]Greeting Tarrak, Count and panther hope u are all well.

Hope u didnt mind danny I have been sharing my bottle of Gammel Dansk with our fellow ORG members.....
And salutations to you. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
The bottle was brought to you for the sole reason to be drunk, how you did that was up to you. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Did you manage to see the effects of the slingers?

[Divine Wind]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Sep. 19 2003,05:14)]Did you manage to see the effects of the slingers?
Unfortunately not http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif The generals left the archers and slingers in between the two forces and they were quickly routed by the powerful Gaul Heavy Cavalry. We had some slingers in the first episode too, but they never showed them at all during the battle phase, which is slightly annoying.

[Swoosh So]

Time commanders is on in scotland tonight at 19:30 (friday)

Message for yellow knight

[Shahed]

I JUST WATCHED last night's episode http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

The team was Ok I guess, but very reluctant generals, reluctant to give orders that is. The general with the white shirt actually said something along the lines of "can you pan the camera over there please". I think this was pretty much to the detriment of the team coz he could have been more precise i.e "camera left, stop, right, stop forward, stop...etc" The other general did pretty ok, and controlled the situation reasonably well, considering thye many mistakes that were made. Basically they did not convey their authority or their orders very well, and in the case of the hill team the communications were absolutely demolished.

In the end I think they won, becuase of the superior "stats" of the Legion.

About the graphics, they look great but I think some of the good suggestions already made on this forum should be incorporated before final release, for example:

- tail wagging problem
- irregulars and regulars breaking up into individual runs (not syncronised)
- the horse and rider being separate entities i.e horse dies, rider fights, rider dies, horse runs around (tuff one, I know)

Good program, looks like a good game too look forward to next week's episode.


http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Barkhorn1x]

Quote[/b] (SeljukSinan @ Sep. 19 2003,07:43)]About the graphics, they look great but I think some of the good suggestions already made on this forum should be incorporated before final release, for example:

- tail wagging problem
- irregulars and regulars breaking up into individual runs (not syncronised)
- the horse and rider being separate entities i.e horse dies, rider fights, rider dies, horse runs around (tuff one, I know)
My feelings exactly. That tail wagging in unison thing looks REALLY lame.

In fact, the horses look much worse than the MTW 2D version - go figure.

Barkhorn.

[Barkhorn1x]

Unfortunately, we don’t have TC here in the states (we get “Friends” re-runs instead http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif)

Anyway, I did watch the video of the 2nd show and read all of the wonderful feedback on this forum. It appears to me that the host(s) should start off w/ some Warfare 101 and briefly discuss;
- Concentration of force/mutual support
- How to use terrain on defense
- The inadvisability of attacking when you are outnumbered 6:1
- Combined arms tactics – i.e., use your missile troops and cavalry properly
These concepts are second nature to anyone who plays TW for awhile, but they seem to be totally lost on the contestants.

How the hell do they pick these contestants anyway? It’s like that Monty Python skit where they get the Ladies Auxiliary to recreate the battle of Pearl Harbor. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif Why not get some wargamers, reinactors, or historians to fight these battles??

Barkhorn.

[Shahed]

Good points there Barkho

Actually while the game engine itself looks far better than MTW, I have to agree that the horses are completely disproportional, the head of a mule on the body of an ant, so to speak.

One of the key comments (to me) was when one of the historians described how Caesar dismounted and sent his horse and the horses of the leaders to the rear. In the TV program however the team took exactly the opposite approach, sending the general back, and going almost completely on the defensive (until the Gaul skirmishers withdrew). This is what I really feel happens too often in other games too, not knowing your strength adequately leads you to behave in a manner not cohesive with your true potential.

I think they have taken the more common people (for last night's spot), with little game and/or historical knowledge of that period, becuase this conveys a message to the audience that anyone can be a general. Hmm w8 headhunters are not that common actually, they are in the top 15% of the UK's income bracket, BUT they are common in terms of command ability in a wargaming sense .


Also the more the audience can relate to the blokes on stage, the more involved they feel.

[Mount Suribachi]

I agree with froggy that this was the best episode so far and I agree with Simon Appleton that the roman legionaries were like AUMs Even down to the short sword and big shield http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

From the start I had a good feeling about it - the 4 guys came across straight away as intelligent, confident and aggressive, all good qualities in a leader. The main general really knew what he was doing and was pretty much in control the whole time (unlike the bloke on the left who didn't seem to have much of clue).

Also, did anyone else notice the "victory imminent" claxon was quieter and that the presenter said less? Maybe the beeb editors have been reading here after all...

In fact, the only thing that annoyed me was when they told the generals in the briefing "your cohorts have weak flanks". So then they try and protect their legionaries flanks and the experts are going "they're wasting too much effort protecting their flanks, the cohorts have excellent inherently strong flanks".

AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH

You just told them they had weak flanks, what do you expect?????? They did this the 2 previous weeks as well eg "you can go into the testudo, an excellent defensive formation" so when the team goes into the testudo they go "oooh, you shouldn't have done that". So why tell them???? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

Other than that, great show, really enjoyed it. And a really close, to the wire battle which hung in the balance for a long time - reminiscent of many a TW battle we have all fought - which was lovely to see.

[econ21]

Mount Suribachi - good points about the game advice conflicting the experts. In both cases, I believe the experts but suspect they have no experience playing RTW (or MTW). Does this mean RTW gets it wrong or is just the advice is wrong, but the game ok?

I don't think the video resolves the question as the tetsudo did not seem so disasterous in the second episode and the flanks were pretty well looked after in the third.

Maybe CA should pay the two experts to preview their game and suggest realism tweaks?

[Swoosh So]

When will we see a city battle on time commanders

[Knight_Yellow]

Quote[/b] (Swoosh So @ Sep. 19 2003,13:30)]Time commanders is on in scotland tonight at 19:30 (friday)

Message for yellow knight
yeah i was playing my comp and my dad phoned me from the pub at 20:00 saying it was on

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif


why the hell was it delayed? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

[o_loompah_the_delayer]

Quote[/b] (SeljukSinan @ Sep. 19 2003,07:43)]- tail wagging problem
PErhaps teh synchronized tail wagging and head bobbing is an indication of their discipline

But the horses are indeed hideous

Thinkg back to it, the Gauls first went up the hill, then came back down trying to lure teh Romans off and then went back up again - fought a lot, presumably chasing routers - and then had to go down yet again to take on the fresh legionaries. Perhaps its not just the legions being supermen but he gauls were plain exhausted?

[Orda Khan]

I think I may be the only one who does not want to see so much detail. With so much detail comes other things that only spoil the game for me, for example...a whole army of clones....identical in every way. Ok, ok, I know it's the same now but I can't make out the faces here. When I watched the Gauls advancing, the identical faces just looked freaky to me. Horses..yep they need a lot of work and it's funny really because I've found the horses fine since STW.
I think we should remember our first game before we criticise the contestants too much, however I suppose we could expect a bit of sense, after all, entering a game like this, I would expect them to have at least some interest in strategy.
All in all it doesn't look too different does it? Apart from zoom shots and what good are they to you in the heat of battle? The maps are at last big enough to enable a bit of strategic manoeuvring, or so it seems, that's the most exciting prospect for me

.....Orda

[ShadesWolf]

I think this makes interesting reading, just found it on a forum somewhere


Quote[/b] ]I just joined this group and this is the first message I post. I don't know what is "customary", so please tell me if I do something wrong.

I just finished reading a book about the Gallic wars. The writers analyse some parts of Caesars book very carefully.
In the following part (from that book) the writers tell us about Caesar's battles with the Helvetii.
It is not the complete story, because that would make this post too long.

I had to read Caesars book myself during school. But as the writers of that book say: A lot of things in Caesars books are easily overlooked. I wanted to mention the part of the battle with the Helvetii.
I never really realised how large a part of the Helvetian tribes were actually killed. Caesar mentions some numbers, but not until you add them up you see that he was responsible for the loss of two-thirds of the Helvetii

Most history-lessons depict Caesar much too romanticly as the general who enlarged the Roman empire and brought civilization and peace to Gallia. Most of the time they ignore the bad parts of Caesars actions and his character.

*********
following part is from the book about Gallia:
*********
About the first fight with the Gauls Caesar writes: "When Caesar had heard from informants (spies) that 3/4 of the Helvatians had passed the river Saone he decided to attack them. After nightfall he took 3 legions and attacked the quarter of the Helvetians that had not yet crossed the river."

The largest part of them were killed or sold as a slave, because they had not prepared themselves for battle. Those who survived fled into the neighbouring forests.
Of course the Helvetians were not very impressed by this. Killing people who had not taken up armor and weren't even expecting a fight was no big achievement.
The others weren't able to come to their rescue, because they had already crosse the river, or the battle might have ended in the favour of the Helvetians.

In his book Caesar ignores the fact that the Helvatians called him a coward and accused him of foul play. Caesar however says that the only thing that is important is that they should do what Rome wants them to do.

After this the Helvatians decided to attack the Romans at Bibracte. Caesar describes very
precisely how the battle goes. AND he says that only 130.000 Helvatians survived.
He then mentions that he finds the registers in the Helvatian camp said that there were
originally 368.000 Helvatians who had left Switzerland (Helvetia)

Later, 6000 Helvatians who tried to flee were killed or sold as slaves.

The Boii-tribe were sperated from the main group and another part was forced to return to Switzerland

So now one might wonder: How many Helvatians did survive?

We can illustrate that below;
-----
Helvetii at "start": 368.000

Loss at Saone-river: 92.000 = 25%
Loss at Bibracte: 146.000=39,7%
Battle with Verbigenus:6000=1,6%
TOTAL HELVETTII killed: 244.000 (=66,3%)

Helvetii at "end" : 124.000
-----

So: after their clash with the Romans, only 124.000 of the 368.000 Helvetians survived
That means that more that 2/3 of them were killed or sold as a slave.
Of these people, 14.000 (of the Boii-tribe) was forced to stay. The "friends-and-allies" of the Haedui had asked this and had Caesar agreed.

Helvatians who returned to their homeland: 110.000

So: after leaving Helvetia with 368.000 people, they finally returned with only 110.000

Was this a Roman general trying to defend Roman interests or simply a ruthless act of genocide?
Some say that Caesar only followed his own agenda while he was governer of Gallia and ignored the wishes of the Senate. If a general would kill two-thirds of a nation today, it would certainly cause the indignation of the rest of the world, to say the least.
*****************************

[Barkhorn1x]

Quote[/b] (ShadesWolf @ Sep. 21 2003,03:57)]
Quote[/b] ]Was this a Roman general trying to defend Roman interests or simply a ruthless act of genocide?
Some say that Caesar only followed his own agenda while he was governer of Gallia and ignored the wishes of the Senate. If a general would kill two-thirds of a nation today, it would certainly cause the indignation of the rest of the world, to say the least.
*****************************

Yea it would - but today is not 58BCE Assessing ancient history w/ present day sensibilities is just silly. When you look at it that way ALL ancient generals were genocidal murderers.

And what of the lands that the Helvetti were travelling thru' (taking). I'm sure that the residents there didn't view Roman actions in quite the same way as the Helvetti.

Barkhorn.

[Spino]

Quote[/b] ]He then mentions that he finds the registers in the Helvatian camp said that there were
originally 368.000 Helvatians who had left Switzerland (Helvetia)

Napoleon marched into Russia with a force of 400-500,000 men of which at least 200-300,000 constituted the main force under his direct command. By the time this main force reached Moscow it numbered less than 100,000 The overwhelming causes of this huge attrition were disease, desertion, malnutrition and stress. Far more deaths were attributed to those factors than the comparatively small number of battlefield related deaths. And it was not until Napoleon was nearly out of Russia that 'general' winter made his appearance on behalf of the Russians, effectively destroying whatever semblance of an army Napoleon had left.

I'm not saying the march from Switzerland to the Saone river was as harsh as Napoleon's march into Russia but who is to say that the 368,000 Helvettii were adequately stocked for the journey out of Switzerland or were able to properly feed everyone along the way? I can only imagine that back then, such a huge force of men, women and children 'living off the land' would quickly strip local resources dry and experience horrific losses over a relatively short period of time.

[Kraxis]

Not to forget that some 350,000 men (as they are classed as killed in battle and so on) is a little too much for such a small area. Even the mighty Persian Empire didn't field more than 200,000 troops at any point, and it had a population base of about 70 million, where the Helvetii might only have had 500,000 people in all (including women, children and old). Besides I doubt the Helvetii kep record of everyone going with them. Simply catalogueing such an immense number of men would take too much time for the undertaking to take place (people would become disgruntled with the long waiting).

Ceasar was prone to make himself look a bit better to say the least.

[Barkhorn1x]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Sep. 21 2003,13:10)]Not to forget that some 350,000 men (as they are classed as killed in battle and so on) is a little too much for such a small area.

Actually, an analysis of the relevant sections in Caesar’s Gallic Wars indicate that he probably didn’t inflate the numbers by more than say 10% or so.

First the figure of 368,000 refers to the TOTAL Helvettian population. Here is the passage (Chapter 29):

“In the camp of the Helvetii, lists were found, drawn up in Greek characters, and were brought to Caesar, in which an estimate had been drawn up, name by name, of the number which had gone forth from their country of those who were able to bear arms; and likewise the boys, the old men, and the women, separately. Of all which items the total was: Of the Helvetii [lit. of the heads of the Helvetii] 263,000 Of the Tulingi . . . . . . . . . . . 36,000 Of the Latobrigi .- . . . . . . . . . . 14,000 Of the Rauraci . . . . . . . . . .
. 23,000 Of the Boii . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,000 The sum of all amounted to . . . 368,000. Out of these, such as could bear arms, [amounted] to about 92,000. When the census of those who returned home was taken, as Caesar had commanded, the number was found to be 110,000.” [/b]

The 92,000 who “could bear arms” is a bit high I think, as a bit of figuring yields the following;

368,000 total pop.
40% males (to account for genetics and almost constant tribal warefare)
147,200 total males
85,867 males who “could bear arms” – aged 15 to 50 – assumes a 60 year life span and an even distribution across age groups.
21,467 slaughtered on the Saone (the Tigurine)
64,400 fighting men a t Bibracte

Personally, I think that the whole census concept is suspect and the total number is overstated to begin with – so the total numbers of warriors is therefore very high. I doubt that the actual total was more than 50,000, which means that Caesar (w/ approx. 31,000 men) was outnumbered by about 5:3, odds that could be overcome by superior leadership, training and discipline.

Barkhorn.

[Barkhorn1x]

BTW, the battle of Watling Street – the week before featured 60,000 Britons vs. 10,000 Romans. A close reading of Tacitus (Annals XIV) confirms the # of Roman’s – but does not give us a number for the Briton’s – although he does state that;

“At first, the legion kept its position, clinging to the narrow defile as a defence; when they had exhausted their missiles, which they discharged with unerring aim on the closely approaching foe, they rushed out in a wedge-like column. Similar was the onset of the auxiliaries, while the cavalry with extended lances broke through all who offered a strong resistance. The rest turned their back in flight, and flight proved difficult, because the surrounding waggons had blocked retreat. Our soldiers spared not to slay even the women, while the very beasts of burden, transfixed by the missiles, swelled the piles of bodies. Great glory, equal to that of our old victories, was won on that day. Some indeed say that there fell little less than eighty thousand of the Britons, with a loss to our soldiers of about four hundred, and only as many wounded.”

So 10K Romans vs. 60K Briton warriors and they not only win the battle but only lose 400 men?? That is just absurd. Far more likely is that the Romans were outnumbered, say, 2 to 1 AT MOST (see my example of Bibracte above) as;
1. Why would the Roman general even accept battle in the open w/ a 6:1 deficit in numbers?
2. How could an even poorly handled force w/ a 6:1 advantage lose this battle?
3. How could the Roman’s only sustain 400 casualties if they were beset from all sides?
4. Taticus states that, “Some indeed say…”, meaning he is quoting 2nd or 3rd hand info. and qualifies it accordingly.

Personally, I go along w/ Hans Delbruck in his assessment that the Roman’s were hardly supermen and the barbarians were hardly fodder. The numbers engaged in many of these battles were probably much closer to about even – or w/ a slight advantage going to the barbarians.

Barkhorn.

[Theodoret]

I take all the casualty figures cited by Roman historians with a huge dollop of salt. Caesar's account of the casualties his own forces take during the battles of the Civil War borders on the ridiculous. In fact the only times I've read believable casualty figures are when historians are writing about big Roman defeats such as Suetonnius's brief mention of the legions wiped out in Germany during the reign of Augustus, and Plutarch's account of Crassus's Parthian campaign.
Caesar's books are interesting in their description of the battlefield tactics he used (particularly the amazing use of field fortifications), but when reading the casualty figures one has to remember that his books are written as a political broadcast for the Marian Party.