Celtic overpowered!

[NeoSpartan]

......To bad you can't read all the interesting posts of the EBHQ. Cause thier posts are much more interesting then most books or tv programmes.

Is there any way.... you guys can publish those old forums so we can read them.... u know, it would be really nice :shame:

[Watchman]

Betcha you could make a pretty good "Short Introduction To Ancient Celts" type book out of it with some editing. :balloon2:

[the_handsome_viking]

Hi, I'm just downloading your mod just to give it a go. i'm also heartened by the fact that you realism and wanted to add to your debate for the Celts.

Celtic history is being rewritten as far as Britain is concerned with the 'Celtic History' in Britain being mostly a fantasy the proposed slaying of Celts by the Saxons being one of the myths plus others. A few books are released on the subject and of which i am studying one. Francis Pryor also has done some extensive research on this.

Basically it is now thought that before Britain became an Island 9,000 - 10,000 years BC Celts from Northern Spain came to Britain. Then as Britain became an Island these Spanish Celts were the Ancient Britons and although traded with European Celts and shared a similiar language were quite seperate.

I wondered in the future would your mod reflect this?

Genetics supports this theory also, as well as texts like the much later Jordanes who pointed out that the Silures were a people most definitely from the Iberian Peninsula. That said I also believe that the red hair of the Caledonians was probably something that evolved in isolation either on the isles themselves or what would later become the isles, or was something that was prominent amongst a root population that acted as the founder population of what would become the Caledonian population. The spread of R1b and its predominence in the British isles is something of an indication of a strong genetic connection to the Iberian Peninsula, but its also a very Western European thing in general.

[the_handsome_viking]

From my armchair, I had thought the Romans were typically outnumbered when fighting the Celts? The siege (or rather attempted relief of) Alesia springing to mind. The numerical disadvantage reported in some of the fights against the Britons (e.g. the defeat of Boudicca) was also extreme.

In fairness to the Celts, Vercingetorix retreated to the Alesia after basically losing a fight to Julius Caesar, and the second army that came up was hard to coordinate because of this while they were under siege. Numerical superiority especially in the form of two armies isn't always something that is going to give you a victory in the end of the day, because really if the enemy don't know their arse from their elbow, coordination becomes very difficult.

I shouldn't compare computer game victories to actual historical victories but to put it his way I once bascially had three opposing armies pinned down and getting ruined by me due to the simple fact that I had basically gone a nomadic steppe faction broken down into three basic sections, two cavalry archer groups and one heavy cavalry attack group that would force the enemy to always face them while the other two flanked and harassed.

Despite their numerical superiority and superior fighting capacity when it got into close combat the simple mobility and coordination of my army made it pretty much impossible for them to get to grips with me and actually beat me, so in short two of the armies just decided to go hiding in forests while the other waited around for me and just got shot at.

Though it wasn't mobility that the Romans had on their side, they did have extensive defencive works around Alesia, understandably Julius Caesar wasn't going to give Vercingetorix even a sporting chance at defending himself, seeing as he had been successful in defeating the Romans before duing sieges. So an all out attack and invasion would have been problematic for the Celts, and the relief army would have very well understood the delecate times that they were in and would not have just opted for an all out gusto charge at the Romans, it had to be a coordinated effort and that coordiantion just wasn't there, and when time becomes a factor on the battlefield so does logistics, and the Romans logistical advantage was undoubtably, and the Celts knew this, hence Vercingetorix's scorched earth policy, he essentially attempted to sever the veins of the Roman army, and almost bloodywell achieved it.

[the_handsome_viking]

Not only Gaels from Gaelicia went to Ireland but also the Belgae. They even founded the greatest port of ancient Ireland back then, Menapia IIRC.

If you search a bit about Ireland with the search option in top menu, you'll find many interesting old topics in which Ranika writes almost complete books about stuff like this. You'll also find great posts written by Anthony. Both are experts on the history of Ireland, Celts, etc,... To bad you can't read all the interesting posts of the EBHQ. Cause thier posts are much more interesting then most books or tv programmes.

What ever happened to old Ranika? does he no longer mingle with the plebs?

[The Celt]

What ever happened to old Ranika? does he no longer mingle with the plebs?
RL got to hectic for him so he had to let his cousin Anthony take over.(I actually prefer Anny over Ranika. He's got a much better sense of humor.)

[the_handsome_viking]

RL got to hectic for him so he had to let his cousin Anthony take over.(I actually prefer Anny over Ranika. He's got a much better sense of humor.)

Yeah, all due respect aside there were a few times I made jokes or sarcastic comments around Ranika and he seemed to take quite serious offense to them to the point that I had to explain I was just joking.

[blitzkrieg80]

if we assume that Antoine is not an avatar of Ran ~;) he does use the same name on MSN... maybe we are all avatars :7fortuneteller:

[the_handsome_viking]

So are Celtic cavalry getting a stats boost?

[The Celt]

@blitzkrieg80:I think Anthony said Ranika lended him his PC and MSN address as he said he wasn't going to use them anymore. I believe him, since their personalities are too different to be the same person.(But then again, I've been known to have double-accounts hehehehe...)


So are Celtic cavalry getting a stats boost?
Or perhaps different models? Besides the Leuce Epos and Taramonos, the Brihentin, Remi, and Galatian Latuvakoi(sp?), all have the same model! Atleast give one of them barded horses.(*hin*Kataphractoi-Keltikoi*hint*)

[the_handsome_viking]

@blitzkrieg80:I think Anthony said Ranika lended him his PC and MSN address as he said he wasn't going to use them anymore. I believe him, since their personalities are too different to be the same person.(But then again, I've been known to have double-accounts hehehehe...)


Or perhaps different models? Besides the Leuce Epos and Taramonos, the Brihentin, Remi, and Galatian Latuvakoi(sp?), all have the same model! Atleast give one of them barded horses.(*hin*Kataphractoi-Keltikoi*hint*)

Or both?

[Frostwulf]

well, 50BC is a very different time than 270BC, just like 270AD is much different than 50AD... so while the debate on "strength" and represenation can continue concerning the Late Period Project, the rest of EB hardly has enough evidence for any change.

According to written records the Celts lost the majority of the time to the semi-militia/conscript Romans prior to Marius. If there was any weakening to the Celts during Caesar's time it was because of the Germans which Caesar himself alludes to. Even Ignoring the Aedui,Sequani/Arverni and their clients it still doesn't settle that the Belgae and some of the other tribes were not touched by the "civil war",these other Celts wouldn't have been weakened.Of the authors I have read only two say something of this conflict. It seems of no consequence to them. The two that do say something is James and Goldsworthy which as you know contradicts the belief of the weakened Celt theory.
So my question Blitz is what evidence does the rest of EB have to contradict this?

[blitzkrieg80]

Nothing to contradict... 100BC is still not 270BC... do we have any evidence of Germans/Celts at 270BC? No... the description of Gallic or Germanic peoples at a time much earlier than recorded simply cannot be attributed or associated with the particular circumstances of a later time, especially when we have no evidence.

As mentioned, for the Late Period Project, if any Celtic faction people want to argue for them being weak in general, or strong, but much more strong than Germanics, I'll point them to these threads where you have ample evidence that the internal politics were hardly the single reason they succumbed to Germanic aggression.

[Frostwulf]

Thanks for the info Blitz.

[PSYCHO V]

Suffice to say, if you took the time to actually read all the material / consider all the data and see the bigger picture, you wouldn't keep making all these ridiculous statements.

To disagree and say so is one thing, but making judgements that you have no authority on is inappropriate.


Authority?

Admittedly the tone may have been a little curt (apologies Frosty) but the content is far from “inappropriate”.
If an individual came to you and started remonstrating about how the sky was red, it’d be entirely appropriate to encourage such an individual to consider the full body of scientific evidence / data before committing to such conclusions… even at the risk of appearing conceited or lacking in some ethereal sense of “authority”. ~;) :book:




Frosty.. I commend you on your labours but I'm sorry mate, this and much of the other material you cite in defence of your argument is just so contextually wrong. Trying to take select points out of any semblance of context and extrapolate that to support some hypothesis is just bolox!

I have to admit Im a bit disappointed at your response to this. In the past … there hasn’t been any real disparaging remarks. You.. have been very logical in posting but we just disagree.

Disappointed? .. I’m sorry if you have taken that personally, that wasn’t my intent. I’ve intended to address your position, not your person. I have no personal beef with you .. quite the contrary.
I’m also sorry that I haven’t had the time (or desire) to return and make amends / respond.
Having to deal with recent death and mayhem in RL, hasn’t left me the time or patience to deal with this in a manner I would have preferred…again sorry.

Re: Response. Without more ado…

Frosty, whilst no one would argue that both the Germans and Romans enjoyed a noticeable advantage over the Gauls of the 1st C BC, we do differ when one tries to claim that that aforementioned difference is an innate superiority in isolation of any regard for geo-political changes and circumstances that occurred over several centuries.



You said I should read up on these subjects and I have. I even read some of the others you quoted from. I even quit quoting from Newark because you didn't find him credible, and also from Ellis with the exception Marcus Claudius Marcellus vs. Viridomarus duel, and this was just to show that he wasn't quoting from livy.

And I highly commend you for your endeavours thus far.



The only reason I'm posting is to get a historical perspective and enjoy a game thats supposed to be as historical as possible.

Again, I commend you.



I put down authors,books and page numbers so I wouldn't be accused of using quotes out of context. These are books anyone can get.

I believe you’re confusing citation / source with context. Citing author, title and page number doesn’t prevent one from still taking things out of context, misinterpreting or misunderstanding the content if one suffers from a preconceived perceptual paradigm, which may or may not be the case here.



Others can read these books and they can decide who is right, that's the main reason I have the author, book and page numbers..

Just for the record, it’s not a matter of “who”, but what is right.



You have made this claim that I have used these quotes out of context and extrapolate that to support some hypothesis. I completely disagree with you.

Of course. The situation reminds me of an interesting story about 5 blind men and a White Elephant. Each was led to a different part of the beast (ears, tail, trunk, legs, belly) and asked to explain what an Elephant was. Excited by the challenge they were all quick to return their findings. Not surprisingly, each came to a different conclusion and the endeavour ended in a farce with inflamed tempers and some nearly coming to blows. The problem was of course that all of them, whilst sincere and correct in their analysis, were all incorrect in their conclusions. Whilst all per convinced of their own beliefs and passionately defended these beliefs, none had actually taken the time to gain an understanding of the full picture.

History, particularly ancient history, is our white elephant and we the blind men trying to find out what the hell it is all about. We need to take the time, have the patience and keep an open mind to ascertain as much of the beast as we can / all available data before jumping to the most “obvious” / simple conclusions. We need to address the study of history in a holistic manner.

Neither you nor I have the full picture. Gaining an understanding of ancient history, esp pertaining the so-called barbarians, is like trying to put together a huge jigsaw. Having studied this culture / geographically specific socio-political period / people for some 8+ years, I’ve discovered one can’t take a few chosen quotes from the likes of Jame’s ‘Exploring the World of the Celts’ in isolation and try and deduce some sort of comprehension from it. Especially when the aforementioned is a rather simple albeit informative picture book / historical candy.
It’s worth noting that to date there is no definitive work on the Celts. To get a good understanding one must not only read all the available public works but the published papers, research, archaeological findings and analysis of the material culture, etc from literally dozens upon dozens of scholars from several universities throughout Germany, France, Ireland and the UK.. to stand any chance of making sense of the different pieces of the puzzle.



I believe things to be like this:
Infantry: Romans>Germans>Celts
Cavalry: Germans>Celts>Romans
Siege: Romans>Celts>Germans.

Here-in lies the problem. This is extremely simplistic and ignores significant variations, changes and situational circumstances over almost Six Hundred Years of history, what Psychiatrists call the perceptual shortcut. One can’t take a few select pieces of data in isolation and draw an informed conclusion.



I would say that the Germans outclassed the Celts..regardless of the territory.

The Celts were not as good as the Romans nor the Germans.

I believe the German warrior to be superior.

The Germans should be superior to them (Gauls).

I do hope this is due to the aforementioned unconscious condition and not a conscious out flow of some ethno-cultural pride issue?
Throughout this debate you have endeavoured to increase your knowledge but appear to have only used data that supports your hypothesis. Data either carefully selected or taken out of context.



Goldsworthy “Caesar”-"Throughout the Gallic campaigns German warriors consistently defeated their Gallic counterparts, each success adding to their fierce reputation". Pg.274.

This has apparently become your mantra, having posted it several times in several threads. True, we would all be inclined to agree with Adrian on this account. But should we ignore several hundred years of events / changes and extrapolate events in the mid 1st C BC to those in the early 3rd C BC? Note that Adrian states “Throughout the Gallic campaigns”. It appears you have little problem with this, (nor using Tacitus’ accounts 150 years post Gallic subjugation). Are you seriously happy to assume Gallic / Celtic society was stagnant / unchanging over several hundred years of history?



Caesars cavalry while in Gaul were attacked by 800 German cavalry. The 800 Germans charged the 2000-3500 Roman (Gallic) cavalry, routed them and chased them all the way back to Caesars base camp 2 miles away. The German cavalry was better then the Gallic cavalry.

You have continually cited (ad naseum) this example from Caesar’s De Bello Gallico as evidence of the German’s superiority. It’s interesting to note that you have failed to take account of a similar / more impressive event of 400 hundred Gallic cavalry routing a larger contingent (4,000) of the same Roman (Gallic) cavalry (De Bello Gallico; I.XVI.VI). This Gallic cavalry being better than the other Gallic cavalry, why? …funnily enough the victorious 400 Gauls came from a nation that managed to avoid involvement in the great Gallic civil war.

The point here is not some innate genetic supremacy of a Germanic master race but rather the disparity in quality of a seasoned, veteran force of warrior elite to what amounts to the mobilised noblesse oblige and conscripts of a citizen militia. The later having recently survived the most devastating civil war in Celtic History. A war you apparently choose to deny / ignore / play down.

As far as citing Michael P. Speidel – “Riding for Caesar”, pg.12 and his account of “huge, unbelievably bold and expert fighters ..astonishing men making such a huge difference, etc”, I’m afraid he’s getting a little carried away in his dramatisation, an overt attempt to lay a foundation for his whole subsequent work / subject matter, ie Elite Germans in Roman employ. Drama sells.



15,000 German warriors(Suebi) were dominating several Gallic factions and thats why they called for Caesar. The Germans were outnumbered and still managed to win. There should have been at least that many elites from the Gauls.

A rather gross misrepresentation I’m afraid.
Ariovistus did not “dominate several Gallic factions” with just 15,000 men. The 15k were the first contingent to cross the Rhine and provide support to the Sequani. Ariovistus had not acquired hegemony over these central Gallic factions until he was reinforced by some 105,000 Seubi, Marcommanni, Vangiones, Triboci, Eudusii, Nemetes and 24,000 Harudes and then defeated what must have then been a pitiful force of Gauls at the Battle of Magetobriga. This purported 120,000 - 144,000 army of Ariovistus would have vastly outnumbered anything the Aedui confederacy could have fielded at the time, little loan what the beleaguered Sequani were capable of.

What you also failed to note is that this force of 120,000 - 144,000 veteran Germans were defeated by 6 Roman Legions whilst 80,000 Gallic levys ("beggars and outcasts" - Caesar) defeated 10 Roman Legions. Do you see anyone making ridiculous claims about the superiority of Gallic arms, no!



Caesar talks of the valor and ferocity of the German troops. The Battle of Magetobriga in which the Aedui were to come to an end was a pitched battle. It was the 15000 German merceniaries that won the battle. From here the Germans go on to subjugate the Sequani.

Nope ..sorry

Again, if you are so happy citing Caesar, why ignore his statement regarding the aforementioned battle. “If anyone is alarmed by the fact that the Germans have defeated the Gauls (Battle of Magetobriga) and put them to flight, he should inquire into the circumstance of that defeat. He will find that it happened at a time when the Gauls were exhausted by a long war” (De Bello Gallico; I.XL.XIII). The Civil War you deny / dismiss.



Simon James "The World of the Celts"-" Certainly, the Gaul described and conquered by Caesar showed no signs of exhaustion by internal wars-it was a rich and prosperous land-so means were evidently found for limiting the damage war could cause.

Another favourite. This again is a case where it’s important to have a holistic understanding of the history in question.

Yes!!.. Gaul was extremely prosperous (both fiscally and population wise), this is one of the main reasons why Caesar was so keen to pillage / conquer it! He did after all have huge personal debts.

Gaul was extremely prosperous because the Gauls did NOT engage in total war. The very work you are so eager to cite (ie James …as does every other scholar) states this and I’m surprised you appear to ignore this significant fact and appear to prefer to project a 21st C Ad paradigm when rationalising data. The major trade centres remained untouched. The very war was over this wealth / trade / money / power. Archaeology only shows a burning / pillaging of minor settlements of no major value.

The devastation spoken of was to the Gallic armies, the warrior elite, the professional soldiery. This is what Caesar was referring to (De Bello Gallico; I.XL.XIII) when he stated that the Gauls were “exhausted by a long war”. He (Caesar) also mentions several times throughout his commentary how the Gauls were forced to mobilised their militia (farmers, craftsman, etc) and train them to fight. Why was this necessary in a warrior culture? … because the majority of the warrior elite were dead. The Great War spoken of by James (amongst others) had temporarily drained the coffers and the Gauls of trained fighters BUT all the major infrastructure remained intact. Caesar was an opportunist taking advantage of a wealthy but weaken proto-state.



Take a look at some of the battles between the Germans and the Celts. The Germans destroyed the Menapii, The 800 cavalry already talked about routing the 5000 Roman/Celtic cavalry.

Please. For the record, the Menapii were not “destroyed” and the account proves nothing. Firstly, it is little surprise that any given group taken by surprise and unable to muster a force in defence would likely be slaughtered. Secondly, most of the tribe had already fled the continent years prior (57-56 BC) due to Caesar. Interestingly enough, they could only muster / mobilise 9,000 troops against Caesar and when they were at full strength. Even if they could have mustered against the Germans, they would have been at a significant numerical disadvantage. Thirdly, if the previous wasn’t enough, the Menapii were a maritime tribe with little martial heritage to this point. I cite your own quote;


Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"In 55 BC …they (Germans) scored an early success when their cavalry demonstrated the great stamina of their shaggy little mounts by making what would normally have been a three-day march in one night. The Gallic Menapii were taken by surprise and slaughtered."pg.230

Far from some demonstration of supreme martial prowess, the only thing worthy of note here is the “stamina of their shaggy little mounts” and the German’s eye for opportunity.

I’m surprised you have cited this obscure reference in defence of your hypothesis that all Germans were superior to all Gauls regardless of period or location. If one didn’t know better, one could be inclined to believe that such a move was born more out of desperation to substantiate a pre-conceived idea rather than a seeking a conclusion from objective analysis.

…already addressed your example of 800 cavalry.



If you have something that conflicts with what Simon James.. says I would love to read about it. I just believe the conflict is being exaggerated.

You can start by reading the rest of what James says…then diversify your reading.



Of the authors I have read only two say something of this conflict. The two that do say something is James and Goldsworthy which as you know contradicts the belief of the weakened Celt theory.… I just haven't read anything to the contrary of Simon James or A. Goldsworthy…. James and Goldsworthy are the only one's who mention things of this subject

Not even close I’m afraid.



Irregardless it wouldn't be all of Gaul was subjected to this as some have stated. The Germans when they came in would still be fighting the "stronger" Celts, not to mention tribes like the menapii who were not part of the "Civil War". Even Ignoring the Aedui,Sequani/Arverni and their clients it still doesn't settle that the Belgae and some of the other tribes were not touched by the "civil war", these other Celts wouldn't have been weakened.

Ok, for starters… I’m sorry but you’re wrong about the Belgae. Most of the Belgae were drawn into the Civil War. They just didn’t suffer nearly as much as their southern cousins.

I have to say I’m surprised by this claim. You wouldn’t have made it if you had done a little checking … I believe even James acknowledges this!
Secondly, the Germans did fight “stronger” Celts, those that had defeated them for several centuries prior the 1st C BC / Great Civil War and even during the 1st C BC (eg Nervii, etc).



I believe if anything that Ariovistus may have superseded the Celtic limiters and therefore bringing both the Aedui and Arverni (and supporters) down. I don't think it was the infighting but the external force that may have brought them low…. If there was any weakening to the Celts during Caesar's time it was because of the Germans which Caesar himself alludes to..

Caesar does nothing of the sort! Quite the contrary in fact (see my previous quote). And regarding this hypothesis that the Germans “brought them (Gauls) low” / brought “both the Aedui and Arverni (and supporters) down”, out of curiosity, how do explain away all the evidence to the contrary? Explain the events, contemporary accounts, material data and the works of notable experts in the field. Do you seriously believe that belying the Germanic failure to make any advance against Celtic Gaul until the mid 1st BC that the Germans must have suddenly spontaneously appeared out of nowhere or was it that they just didn’t eat their spinach prior the mid 1st C BC? :wall:



When it comes to the Germans, where were they most of the time? Historically we don't really hear about them till around 200 BC. Before 200 BC did they meet up with the Celts and if they did what happened? Why there were no other incursions I don't know why. It could have been the German migrations hadn't reached this area yet.

The Germans prior the 2nd C BC were generally beholden to the Celts.






De Bello Gallico.

This may also validate some theories or reinforce some arguments that the Celts had fallen into decadance slightly or that the Germans were tougher fighters in general.

Quote:
"caes.gal.6.24": [6.24] And there was formerly a time when the Gauls excelled the Germans in prowess, and waged war on them offensively, and, on account of the great number of their people and the insufficiency of their land, sent colonies over the Rhine. Accordingly, the Volcae Tectosages, seized on those parts of Germany which are the most fruitful [and lie] around the Hercynian forest, (which, I perceive, was known by report to Eratosthenes and some other Greeks, and which they call Orcynia), and settled there.


I'm going to do some supposition here and really don't have much to back this up with.. I just think the Romans and the Germans were tougher.

Here-in lies a problem. It appears one is far too ready to make suppositions on what one thinks / wishes to be true, rather than what actually is.



I don't have a problem believing the Celts could have more prowess and valor over the Germans.

I don’t understand…then what is the problem? You state this then deny it?



The problem would be when and which Germans. I do not believe JC was talking of recent years when he made this statement. The reason I believe it to be long ago is from the things that happened in the history of this area. If you start with the TCA(around 120BC), for the most part the Gauls couldn't stop them (Boii repelled them and the Celt-Iberians after a few years repelled them). Therefore I don't believe the statement of the Celts prowess being greater would apply here.

Again you are ignoring key points here. Firstly, the Germans (TCA) didn’t enter Gaul in 120 BC, it was some years later. Secondly, the Germans had with them significant contingents of Gauls with them, so again it proves nothing. Thirdly, the Gauls did actually manage to repel the aforementioned. Finally and most significantly, you’ve ignored the fact that the very Civil war in question began in 121 BC after the Arverni hegemony over Gaul was critically weakened by the defeat of King Bituitis and his Arverni alliance at the Battle of Vindalium by the Consular armies of Cnaeus Domitius and Quintus Fabius Maximus. It was this blow that struck the death knell to Gallic liberty. From the ensuing civil war, the Germans and Romans pounced.



You could consider this statement to be pre 120 BC, but then you would have to deal with the Belgae. I believe the Belgae arrived in northern Gaul around 200-250 BC and therefore forcing their way into northern Gaul and eventually being "Celticized". So it is my assumption that the Celts that JC was referring to were before 250 BC and they were attacking the Germans that would have lived in the Rhine area at that time.

The very notion that the Belgae (‘furious ones’) were Germanic so that their feats can be explained away / so they can fit into a preconceived paradigm… is ridiculous. They were not “Celticized”, they were Celtic.. long before their move west. The evidence for this is compelling and I haven’t the time to detail it all here. Suffice to say, if the Belgae were “Celticized” on their arrival as you suggest, then their resulting culture would have been a reflection of those they usurped. This was just not the case.



Again I'll state at the moment I don't really have anything to back this up with.

At least we can agree on something



.. But as far as the Celtic prowess over the Germans I'm thinking this had to be well before his time. We certainly know that the Germans of this time were superior in valor and prowess.

What time are you talking about? 1st C BC, after a bloody civil war that even Caesar acknowledges, then yes.






And (After these had been violently struggling with one another for the superiority for many years) the Arverni had to bring in germans to fight for them. Which can speak for the damage they suffered from the Aedui.

I'm not sure I would agree with this. It sounds to me like the Germans were brought over to break a stalemate.

Yes! ..and understanding the way Celtic power / clientage worked you would understand that being forced to seek help outside one’s ‘tuath’ was a huge blow to one’s prestige. Things must have be dire indeed.


Some are saying that the "Civil War" with the Sequani, Arverni vs. the Aedui (there were others involved) in 70-60 BC was devastating and nearly brought all these tribes to ruin. I am disagreeing with this on the basis of the findings of Simon James ... My point about the in-fighting in the earlier years is that they didn't have the same kind of claims as being catastrophic as the one in the 70-60BC.
Have not the Celtic peoples been raiding, in-fighting and fighting since the 4th century BC? Yet there is no cry of "these are weaker Celts" or "spent" Celts. What makes this "civil war" time period different what so ever from any in previous era's?

Again, you are ignoring that fact that Gallic society was dynamic rather than static. Huge socio-political changes occurred in the several centuries we are discussing here. You wouldn’t judge 2nd C BC Imperial Rome by the standards of the 4th C BC Roman Republic, so why do it for the Gauls.
The reason for the severity of the last great civil war was due to the evolution of Gallic society. The population was booming and there were no more frontiers that could be easily exploited. Power was becoming more centralised, clientages more extensive. Wealth / largess, rather than martial feats in raiding had become the main source of social prestige and advancement in Gallic society since the major campaigns / migrations of the 5th to 3rd C BC (eg. The account of Lovernios “The Fox”). Production and trade was so lucrative that raiding well-prepared neighbours was of limited value. One’s prestige, power (retainers) depended more on what you could pay rather than what you could provide through petty thievery. So when you suddenly have huge political instability, large numbers of restless youth, constrained avenues for advancement and huge sums of money involved, the scene was set for the tragedy that unfolded.



Even though the Germans were not well equipped for the most part they managed to defeat the Celts consistently.
The Germans consistently beat the Gauls during this period, but the Celtic units are much more powerful then the Germanic units because of this exaggeration that the Germans were fighting "weaker" Celts. I'll restate that the Germans are being diminished because of this exaggeration..

Seriously, what have you based this on? Again, the Gauls had been defeating the Germans for centuries prior the beginning of the 1st C BC. Is was only relatively late in the period where the balance of power had shifted.



I would base the German cavalry similar to the Remi Mairepos but I would give them a stronger charge and attack factor as well as higher morale… I would give their defense at least on par with the Remi Mairepos if not higher. Caesar says his Gallic cavalry were as good as the Belgae.

Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"Learning that the combined Belgic army was approaching the River Sambre, he crossed and fortified a strong position on the far bank to await their attack. Greatly outnumbered by enemies (Belgae) with a 'great reputation for bravery', Caesar began tentatively by sending out the cavalry to test them and 'soon found that his troops were as good as theirs'" pg.221

Again you have missed the wood through the trees. The very reason why Caesar found that “his troops” / Gallic cavalry was “as good as theirs (Belgae)” is because Caesar happen to have at this juncture significant contingents of Remi in his employ.. the finest Celtic (Belgae) cavalry to ever have existed.

As far as your complaints that the Celts are too powerful, I suggest you revisit the stats. Both the German & Roman units generally have better stats than the Celts. The weakest Sweboz skirmisher (intended to be an inexperienced youth) does very well against what was supposed to be the experienced Celtic warrior class (eg Botroas / Bataroas, etc). When you add the additional advantage of missile stats, etc I fail to see how you can still have a problem?

Admittedly I believe the German Cavalry to be a little weak in melee (I’ve seen one unit of German skirmishers destroy 4 units of surrounding Cav) but the same can be said for all the Celtic Cav as well. EB’s Gallic cavalry are completely useless except for chasing down routers. Greeco-Roman skirmishers not only chew them up in melee but they can often beat Regular Celtic infantry. Read the reports of those who have actually played the game and they will tell you that the game is almost too easy when playing the Greeco-Romans against the Celts. The only unit that will really offer a challenge is the Gaesatae.

Frosty, I have to say that you have a tendency to grab one event and post several quotes of the same event devoid of any context. Like our discussion on the Romans, you may well believe the Roman story of Romulus and Remus, Livy’s claim that a raven pecked out the eye of a Gallic chieftan during battle, that over half a million Gauls and Samnites were defeated in a few hours by only four Roman legions, or Plutarch’s claim that Roman legions jogged half a mile in mid summer and fought for a day against the Cimbri but “were so tough that not a single Roman was seen short of breath or had a bead of sweat” … but a little objectivity will better serve you in distinguishing fact from fiction. It doesn't matter how many times you post it, fiction will remain fiction.


my2bob

[LusitanianWolf]

Hum, I dont see the reason for this topic... I'm Playing actualy in vh/h with Sweboz and SPQR and mostly general view cam... With sweboz I'm fighting both celts and raiding italy at same time.... And its not that much hard since celtic wars made them pretty weak...
With Romani I want to go historical and only invade them after ending with Quartadashin (almost done) and have some control in mediterranium zone...

[burn_again]

I agree, the celtic factions are by no means overpowered - in terms of gameplay that is. I've played many campaigns and I have to say that the gaulic factions are usually destroyed before their second reform in 120 BC. Even when I gave them all reforms from the beginning, so that they had all the better units, it didn't help them at all. They're beaten up by each other, the Romans, the Sweboz and sometimes even the Carthagians or Lusotanni. In the game the Sweboz and the Romani have a much better economy and expand a lot, while I have rarely seen a gaulic faction own much more than northern / middle Gaul.
No matter how good their units are - it's economy that counts for the AI.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Betcha you could make a pretty good "Short Introduction To Ancient Celts" type book out of it with some editing. :balloon2:
I would buy that book :2thumbsup:

[mcantu]

I wonder if have so many units at 240 (on huge) is the reason for the bad economies. This is a big drain on the tax base for the cities...

[burn_again]

It has nothing to do with unit size, I usually play large, but have also played on normal, it's not that much difference.
The Sweboz have the advantage of being surrounded by rebel provinces and can expand in all directions without much resistance, the Romans have a lot of money because they have rich provinces in Italy and expand around the mediterranean which means a lot of money through sea trade. The gauls are busy fighting each other plus the Romans and the Sweboz and do expand rather slowly. So they can't make that much money.

[SaFe]

It has nothing to do with unit size, I usually play large, but have also played on normal, it's not that much difference.
The Sweboz have the advantage of being surrounded by rebel provinces and can expand in all directions without much resistance, the Romans have a lot of money because they have rich provinces in Italy and expand around the mediterranean which means a lot of money through sea trade. The gauls are busy fighting each other plus the Romans and the Sweboz and do expand rather slowly. So they can't make that much money.

Then the EB-team should do something about the rebels surrounding the Sweboz or the money of the Romans and still give realistic stats.
Just because of gameplay reasons the stats shouldn't be tweaked!

[burn_again]

Well, I don't have the impression that there are any stats tweaked. I had no problems fighting the Gauls as Sweboz or Romans and the AI doesn't seem to have any problems either (I suppose because of economic reasons).
I would like to see the AI-Sweboz and AI-Romans expand a bit slower, but I don't think there's very much that can be done about it in RTW. A faction that starts expanding 100 years after the start date is doomed, I see that with the Getai very often. Scripted Eleutheroi armies like the one in Numantia could be an idea perhaps.

[Frostwulf]

Disappointed? .. I’m sorry if you have taken that personally, that wasn’t my intent. I’ve intended to address your position, not your person. I have no personal beef with you .. quite the contrary.
I’m also sorry that I haven’t had the time (or desire) to return and make amends / respond.
Having to deal with recent death and mayhem in RL, hasn’t left me the time or patience to deal with this in a manner I would have preferred…again sorry.
Np at all. I also figured you would be busy for all the work you have been doing, even though we may disagree I am thankful for all the time you guys put into this mod. I'm also sorry to hear of your RL situations.


Frosty, whilst no one would argue that both the Germans and Romans enjoyed a noticeable advantage over the Gauls of the 1st C BC, we do differ when one tries to claim that that aforementioned difference is an innate superiority in isolation of any regard for geo-political changes and circumstances that occurred over several centuries.
If you wouldn't mind elaborating on this, I'm not sure what your getting at.


I believe you’re confusing citation / source with context. Citing author, title and page number doesn’t prevent one from still taking things out of context, misinterpreting or misunderstanding the content if one suffers from a preconceived perceptual paradigm, which may or may not be the case here.
This is not the case, the citations are relevant and in context. I put them there so people can check them out and see for themselves.


Here-in lies the problem. This is extremely simplistic and ignores significant variations, changes and situational circumstances over almost Six Hundred Years of history, what Psychiatrists call the perceptual shortcut. One can’t take a few select pieces of data in isolation and draw an informed conclusion.
Of course this is simplistic, these are generalities. As far as EB it is difficult to include the Germans prior to 200BC. When it comes to the Germans what else can you do? You only have information from certain time periods and until the time of Caesar we have very little knowledge of their tactics and numbers. You take the information you have and apply it the best you can. How would the German fare against the earlier Celts, quite well I believe, as I do not believe in the devastating "Civil War" theory.


I do hope this is due to the aforementioned unconscious condition and not a conscious out flow of some ethno-cultural pride issue?
Throughout this debate you have endeavoured to increase your knowledge but appear to have only used data that supports your hypothesis. Data either carefully selected or taken out of context.
Nope I'm neither of German(Germanic) nor Italian ancestry. I'm not taking things out of context but I think you should read the books I have listed. I have listed the books and the authors and I know that other people have read these books and have not challenged me. There are a few who already said they read Goldsworthy's "Caesar:Life of a Colossus" and none have said anything to the contrary. In case you haven't noticed most of the authors I'm using are the ones you put down as your resources.


This has apparently become your mantra, having posted it several times in several threads. True, we would all be inclined to agree with Adrian on this account. But should we ignore several hundred years of events / changes and extrapolate events in the mid 1st C BC to those in the early 3rd C BC? Note that Adrian states “Throughout the Gallic campaigns”. It appears you have little problem with this, (nor using Tacitus’ accounts 150 years post Gallic subjugation). Are you seriously happy to assume Gallic / Celtic society was stagnant / unchanging over several hundred years of history?

What changes the exaggerated devastating "Civil War"? As far as “Throughout the Gallic campaigns” he says this because of his subject. Do you think the Germans had problems with the Celts later on? If your talking about before this we only have the instances of the Belgae, Bastarnae and TCA. For the Belgae about the only thing we know of them is they intermingled early on with the Celts in now northern France. The Bastarnae we know a little about their beginnings. They were known to have had a reputation as excellent warriors and Appian called them "the bravest nation of all". The TCA we know about their arms and armor and how they fought the Romans. As far as their conflicts with the Gauls we only know that they were deflected by the Boii and the Scordisci but we don't know if they were trying to attack a oppida(doubtful) or up a hill (like the Teutons when fighting Marius) or the numbers of the Boii or Scordisci. We know the situations when they fought the Romans but not when the TCA went into Spain for a couple of years or when they were in Gaul for awhile. It would be hard to compare Germans and Gauls prior to Ariovistus because of the lack of information, you would have to do it by proxy. The Romans beat the Gauls pre-Marius, the Germans beat the Romans, the Romans under Marius beat the Germans. Yes this is simplistic but it could be done that way by comparing the different units of the time.


You have continually cited (ad naseum) this example from Caesar’s De Bello Gallico as evidence of the German’s superiority. It’s interesting to note that you have failed to take account of a similar / more impressive event of 400 hundred Gallic cavalry routing a larger contingent (4,000) of the same Roman (Gallic) cavalry (De Bello Gallico; I.XVI.VI). This Gallic cavalry being better than the other Gallic cavalry, why? …funnily enough the victorious 400 Gauls came from a nation that managed to avoid involvement in the great Gallic civil war.
So my assumption I made in the "Sweboz underpowered" thread is correct. The 400 were the Helvetii(who authors say were under pressure from Germans to leave) defeated Caesars Gallic cavalry. First off Caesars cavalry had to be warriors of age, are you suggesting they forgot how to fight? The cavalry were the elites, these guys would have been trained well as Kruta says https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1656696&postcount=219 .
Caesars 4,000 were ambushed over extended(Sidnell) and were rolled off the field. If you read the situations with the Germans this is not the case, the Germans fought pitched battles and won.
Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-" The convoys of the Helvetii moved onwards, and Caesar followed them, sending his 4,000 cavalry out in advance. Amongst them was a sizeable force of Aedui led by Dumnorix, the same chieftain who had allied with Orgetorix and then aided the Helvetii. Advancing too carelessly, the allied cavalry were ambushed and beaten by a force of Helvetion cavalry a fraction of their size." pg.215



The point here is not some innate genetic supremacy of a Germanic master race but rather the disparity in quality of a seasoned, veteran force of warrior elite to what amounts to the mobilised noblesse oblige and conscripts of a citizen militia. The later having recently survived the most devastating civil war in Celtic History. A war you apparently choose to deny / ignore / play down.
When Caesar met the 800 and others his cavalry had been with him nearly 3 years and fought many battles, thats plenty of time to be veterans. The Gauls went about their business as usual raiding and etc. getting more battle experience. Again the "Civil war" is exaggerated.


As far as citing Michael P. Speidel – “Riding for Caesar”, pg.12 and his account of “huge, unbelievably bold and expert fighters ..astonishing men making such a huge difference, etc”, I’m afraid he’s getting a little carried away in his dramatisation, an overt attempt to lay a foundation for his whole subsequent work / subject matter, ie Elite Germans in Roman employ. Drama sells.
I agree and not to mention that he is German writing on a German subject. That being said he knows his material and his saying of expert fighters are readily agreed upon by other authors and the Celts themselves.There was a reason they used Germans for their elite corps, its because they were the best at the time. If you read Speidel's books you will see that he is not of the mold of Ellis,he is much more even handed and does well to provide source information.
William H. Mael-"Germany in Western Civilization"-"What earned the admiration of the Romans was the raw fighting quality of the German". pg.11
I'm sure your aware of what the Gauls said to Caesar of Ariovistus and his Germans.


A rather gross misrepresentation I’m afraid.
Ariovistus did not “dominate several Gallic factions” with just 15,000 men. The 15k were the first contingent to cross the Rhine and provide support to the Sequani. Ariovistus had not acquired hegemony over these central Gallic factions until he was reinforced by some 105,000 Seubi, Marcommanni, Vangiones, Triboci, Eudusii, Nemetes and 24,000 Harudes and then defeated what must have then been a pitiful force of Gauls at the Battle of Magetobriga. This purported 120,000 - 144,000 army of Ariovistus would have vastly outnumbered anything the Aedui confederacy could have fielded at the time, little loan what the beleaguered Sequani were capable of.


I believe your misunderstanding the numbers mentioned. The 120,000 Germans encompasses tribal peoples, not just warriors.
Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"About 15,000 of them crossed the Rhine in the first instance; then, when those fierce barbarians had got a liking for the farmlands, the civilization,and the wealth of the Gauls, more were brought over, and at the present time there are about 120,000 of them in Gaul." I:31
These people were brought over gradually not all at once.
John Warry puts the Germans at 6,000 horse, 6,000 footmen and 16,000 light infantry. These are the troops that fought against Caesars troops.This many troops were not there at Magetobriga, though there may have been more then the 15,000 I said.
I can't find my other resources but Mommsen(not sure about his sources) claims that the Suebi waited in the woods till some of the Gallic tribes (Aedui,Sequani etc.) dispersed then Ariovistus offered battle to the remaining Gauls. Even though the Germans were outnumbered they still won destroying the nobility of the Aedui in the process. I'm very hesitant to use Mommsen as he has had some credibility problems, but this particular statement I have seen something similar by modern scholars.
"Unknown site of a military engagement fought in 61 BCE between the Gallic tribes of the Aedui, Averni and Sequani on one side and the Germanic Suebi, under their King Ariovistus. The Suebi had moved into the region of Gaul comprising modern Alsace and had emerged as a powerful rival to the Gauls on the Rhine. Hoping to evict the unwelcome Germans, the local peoples, headed by the Aedui, confronted Ariovistus in the field. The resulting battle was a display of the martial superiority of the Suebi, for the tribes were crushed. Ariovistus established his rule over much of eastern Gaul. By 58 BCE, Rome was willing to listen to the pleas of the Gallic chieftains, and war erupted once again."
Citation Information:
Text Citation: Bunson, Matthew. "Magetobriga." Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 1994. Facts On File, Inc. Ancient History & Culture.


What you also failed to note is that this force of 120,000 - 144,000 veteran Germans were defeated by 6 Roman Legions whilst 80,000 Gallic levys ("beggars and outcasts" - Caesar) defeated 10 Roman Legions. Do you see anyone making ridiculous claims about the superiority of Gallic arms, no!
If your referring to Ariovistus's 120,000 then I just finished explaining it. I dont know which battle your talking about for the 80,000 Gauls and 10 legions, please elaborate on this.


Far from some demonstration of supreme martial prowess, the only thing worthy of note here is the “stamina of their shaggy little mounts” and the German’s eye for opportunity.

I’m surprised you have cited this obscure reference in defence of your hypothesis that all Germans were superior to all Gauls regardless of period or location. If one didn’t know better, one could be inclined to believe that such a move was born more out of desperation to substantiate a pre-conceived idea rather than a seeking a conclusion from objective analysis.

…already addressed your example of 800 cavalry.
Well I'm tired of trying to find where that quote I made is. I thought it was to show another aspect of the German cavalry such as their swimming and in this case the endurance. If I did use it as a show of martial prowess then that was unfair of me.

I'm skipping the comments on the supposedly devastating "Civil War to keep it grouped together.


Here-in lies a problem. It appears one is far too ready to make suppositions on what one thinks / wishes to be true, rather than what actually is. I clearly state that this is supposition, but you are guilty of this.


I don’t understand…then what is the problem? You state this then deny it?

At some time in the past prior to the Belgae arrival the Gauls might have had more martial prowess, after this time frame the Germans were.
Again you are ignoring key points here. Firstly, the Germans (TCA) didn’t enter Gaul in 120 BC, it was some years later.
I didnt say the TCA entered Gaul at 120BC. I was emplying that they started their movements around that time frame.


The very notion that the Belgae (‘furious ones’) were Germanic so that their feats can be explained away / so they can fit into a preconceived paradigm… is ridiculous. They were not “Celticized”, they were Celtic.. long before their move west. The evidence for this is compelling and I haven’t the time to detail it all here. Suffice to say, if the Belgae were “Celticized” on their arrival as you suggest, then their resulting culture would have been a reflection of those they usurped. This was just not the case.

There are plenty of authors who do say the Belgae were of Germanic origins. I have already stated my opinions on this post.https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1556124&postcount=143


Seriously, what have you based this on? Again, the Gauls had been defeating the Germans for centuries prior the beginning of the 1st C BC. Is was only relatively late in the period where the balance of power had shifted.
Im basing this on mostly Goldsworthy and others, what are you basing your claim that the Gauls had been defeating the Germans for centuries on?


Again you have missed the wood through the trees. The very reason why Caesar found that “his troops” / Gallic cavalry was “as good as theirs (Belgae)” is because Caesar happen to have at this juncture significant contingents of Remi in his employ.. the finest Celtic (Belgae) cavalry to ever have existed.

Exactly my point! How could you miss it? The 800 German cavalry defeated/chased off 5,000 of these troops! This is why that at the minimum the German cavalry should be stronger then the Remi Mairepos. Not to mention its Caesar who praises the German cavalry, not the Remi nor any other Gauls. As far as the Gauls Caesar faced they may not have been as good as the Remi, but they gave them a hard time in battle. That is of course till Caesar threw in his Germans.https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1660128&postcount=223

Now for the Civil war:



Again, if you are so happy citing Caesar, why ignore his statement regarding the aforementioned battle. “If anyone is alarmed by the fact that the Germans have defeated the Gauls (Battle of Magetobriga) and put them to flight, he should inquire into the circumstance of that defeat. He will find that it happened at a time when the Gauls were exhausted by a long war” (De Bello Gallico; I.XL.XIII). The Civil War you deny / dismiss.
It could be because Caesar was referring to the battles with the Germans. For some reason I cant find that quote, is it in the 1st chapter? It sounds like when he would be addressing his troops and this quote isn't there.

Another favourite. This again is a case where it’s important to have a holistic understanding of the history in question.

Yes!!.. Gaul was extremely prosperous (both fiscally and population wise), this is one of the main reasons why Caesar was so keen to pillage / conquer it! He did after all have huge personal debts.

Gaul was extremely prosperous because the Gauls did NOT engage in total war. The very work you are so eager to cite (ie James …as does every other scholar) states this and I’m surprised you appear to ignore this significant fact and appear to prefer to project a 21st C Ad paradigm when rationalising data. The major trade centres remained untouched. The very war was over this wealth / trade / money / power. Archaeology only shows a burning / pillaging of minor settlements of no major value.


The devastation spoken of was to the Gallic armies, the warrior elite, the professional soldiery. This is what Caesar was referring to (De Bello Gallico; I.XL.XIII) when he stated that the Gauls were “exhausted by a long war”. He (Caesar) also mentions several times throughout his commentary how the Gauls were forced to mobilised their militia (farmers, craftsman, etc) and train them to fight. Why was this necessary in a warrior culture? … because the majority of the warrior elite were dead. The Great War spoken of by James (amongst others) had temporarily drained the coffers and the Gauls of trained fighters BUT all the major infrastructure remained intact. Caesar was an opportunist taking advantage of a wealthy but weaken proto-state.
Did you miss the part when James said "Probably most Celtic warfare was on a small scale, involving no more then a few score men on each side. The population was growing and states were developing in late Iron age Gaul, and this may have led to an increase in the scale of warfare. But it is clear that the vast armies commanded by Vercingetorix and others were assemble only as a response to the great threat from Rome" You are taking James out of context, not I. What about this part "Caesar says that the Druids were involved in disputes and in the decision to wage war, providing some evidence for the existence of limiting social mechanisms". Are you going to tell me these social mechanisms were only for land and property and not for the nobility and warriors? I hardly think so, but more on this later.

Ok, for starters… I’m sorry but you’re wrong about the Belgae. Most of the Belgae were drawn into the Civil War. They just didn’t suffer nearly as much as their southern cousins.


I have to say I’m surprised by this claim. You wouldn’t have made it if you had done a little checking … I believe even James acknowledges this!
Secondly, the Germans did fight “stronger” Celts, those that had defeated them for several centuries prior the 1st C BC / Great Civil War and even during the 1st C BC (eg Nervii, etc).
James mentions the Bellovaci, but were there others? As far as the Germans being defeated for several centuries, there was raiding going on but to my knowledge there was no real major incursions(other then the Germanic Belgae). There were certainly raids and the Belgae had dealings with them but I would like to see some citations on the Germans being defeated by the Gauls. The Nervii did claim to help defeat the TCA if I remember correctly, but they also say, and proudly so that they were of German decent. What ancient writers tell these stories? Where did you get this information about the Celts defeating the Germans for several centuries prior?


Caesar does nothing of the sort! Quite the contrary in fact (see my previous quote). And regarding this hypothesis that the Germans “brought them (Gauls) low” / brought “both the Aedui and Arverni (and supporters) down”, out of curiosity, how do explain away all the evidence to the contrary? Explain the events, contemporary accounts, material data and the works of notable experts in the field. Do you seriously believe that belying the Germanic failure to make any advance against Celtic Gaul until the mid 1st BC that the Germans must have suddenly spontaneously appeared out of nowhere or was it that they just didn’t eat their spinach prior the mid 1st C BC?
What evidence, you put down one quote from Caesar and then you say all this evidence. You don't put anything down. Sorry I'm not going to simply believe what you say because you say so. How about this for a similar situation https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1656585&postcount=218

Finally and most significantly, you’ve ignored the fact that the very Civil war in question began in 121 BC after the Arverni hegemony over Gaul was critically weakened by the defeat of King Bituitis and his Arverni alliance at the Battle of Vindalium by the Consular armies of Cnaeus Domitius and Quintus Fabius Maximus. It was this blow that struck the death knell to Gallic liberty. From the ensuing civil war, the Germans and Romans pounced.The Germans prior the 2nd C BC were generally beholden to the Celts.
[/quote]

D.H. Green “Language and History in the early Germanic World”-“Although the earlier view that the Celts established a political hegemony over Germanic tribes may no longer be acceptable, the cultural flow, as revealed by archaeological finds, is clearly from the Celtic south to the German north." Blitz I believe you have this book or read it, is this quote out of context?


Finally and most significantly, you’ve ignored the fact that the very Civil war in question began in 121 BC after the Arverni hegemony over Gaul was critically weakened by the defeat of King Bituitis and his Arverni alliance at the Battle of Vindalium by the Consular armies of Cnaeus Domitius and Quintus Fabius Maximus. It was this blow that struck the death knell to Gallic liberty. From the ensuing civil war, the Germans and Romans pounced.
I thought the Aedui were the most powerful Gauls during this time. If I'm not mistaken the Sequani became the prominent partner in the Sequani/Arverni alliance because of this situation. So how did the Aedui get hurt by the Arverni getting defeated by the Romans?


Again, you are ignoring that fact that Gallic society was dynamic rather than static. Huge socio-political changes occurred in the several centuries we are discussing here. You wouldn’t judge 2nd C BC Imperial Rome by the standards of the 4th C BC Roman Republic, so why do it for the Gauls.
The reason for the severity of the last great civil war was due to the evolution of Gallic society. The population was booming and there were no more frontiers that could be easily exploited. Power was becoming more centralised, clientages more extensive. Wealth / largess, rather than martial feats in raiding had become the main source of social prestige and advancement in Gallic society since the major campaigns / migrations of the 5th to 3rd C BC (eg. The account of Lovernios “The Fox”). Production and trade was so lucrative that raiding well-prepared neighbours was of limited value. One’s prestige, power (retainers) depended more on what you could pay rather than what you could provide through petty thievery. So when you suddenly have huge political instability, large numbers of restless youth, constrained avenues for advancement and huge sums of money involved, the scene was set for the tragedy that unfolded.
Yea southern Gaul was changing but it doesn't mean that it went to such a devastating "Civil War". The young men would still go mercenary and the raiding may not be as good but there was the heroism of martial valour to proclaim as well. I have read multiple books and as of yet I cannot find one that concurs with you.What citations, proof can you claim?

I have these:

Adrian Goldsworthy"The Roman Army at War 100bc-ad200"-"Before Caesar's arrival in the country, the Gallic states used to fight offensive or defensive wars almost every year (BG6.15). The scale of these conflicts is hard to judge, but it is probable that the aim was the reduction of the enemy to a subject tribe through a moral defeat rather then his destruction. For the nobles, warfare offered the opportunity of wealth, prestige, and reputation to further political aspirations at home.As in Germany, a retinue could only be maintained by actual fighting. The reason given for the migration of the Helvetii, that the geography of their homeland did not allow them full scope for raiding(BG1.1),and the subsequent raids on Rome's allies (BG1.2) reinforces the importance of warfare in Gallic society. Again, both factors are similar to those discussed as encouraging endemic warfare in Germanic culture. This is the customary method of opening hostilities in Gaul. A law common to all the tribe alike requires all adult males to arm and attend the muster, and the last to arrive is cruelly tortured and put to death in the presence of the assembled host." pg56
Martial valour still counted for something.

Psyco if you have some author that talks about this subject of the "Civil War", please let me know. I have no problem being wrong, its just I havent been finding information in your favor, only against it.

[SaFe]

Great work Frostwulf, i really find it frustrating that you were not here in the beginning of EB during the time i was FC(and nearly got lynched for supporting the idea of superior germanic cavalry and the question of the Belgae tribes).
Great work supporting your points with actual trustworthy authors and writers.

Although even 15000 suebi warriors as gallic mercenaires is questionable.

[Frostwulf]

Thank you for the kind words Safe, I do appreciate them. I was reviewing my reply and noticed that I didn't put Psycho V's quotation marks correctly, they don,t have the box around some of them like they should. I am unsure about going back and editing them as it seems that some may think it for dubious reasons. Was my reply adequate or should I clean it up and put the box's around Psycho V's quotes?

[blitzkrieg80]

Why not name the Helveti as Germanic while you're at it? They came from similar areas which felt pressure from Germanic migration... Why not attribute Przeworsk to Germanics as well for that matter, despite clear differences in culture.

SaFe, reading your post, it is not clear at all what you're suggesting concerning Rebels. "Something should be done" doesn't mean much by itself.

[burn_again]

I think SaFe means making the rebel garnisons a bit stronger, because he replied to my post where I said that the AI-Sweboz often expand a bit fast.

[Frostwulf]

Why not name the Helveti as Germanic while you're at it? They came from similar areas which felt pressure from Germanic migration... Why not attribute Przeworsk to Germanics as well for that matter, despite clear differences in culture.
Blitz I'm not sure if this was directed at me, but regardless I will try to answer this.

As far as the Helvetii is concerned no one to my knowledge has ever claimed them to be Germanic(I know your not insinuating this). They are clearly Celtic in archeology, culturaly and in philology as attested by the ancient writers(Caesar,etc.)

As far as the Belgae the Remi and a few others would not be included as being formerly Germanic, or have a Germanic base. The Eubrones were a Germanic speaking people, and they were part of the Belgae. The Nervii and Treveri claimed to be of Germanic ancestry and Caesar said that the Eburones, Condrusi, Caerosi and Paemani were Germanic.
Here is a link to statements I have made previously on this subject:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1556124&postcount=143

As far as the Przeworsk I have to plead mostly ignorant. I was thinking they were proto-slav or Balts.

Regardless of whether the Belgae were of Germanic ancestry or not, as far as EB is concerned is really of no consequence as this would most likely have been before 250 BC. By Caesars time most of them were speaking Celtic and had allot of the Celtic culture.

Blitz if you have information contrary to or supporting what I have posted, please post it, as I'm curious about this subject.

[PSYCHO V]

Frostwulf, i really find it frustrating that you were not here in the beginning of EB during the time i was FC(and nearly got lynched for supporting the idea of superior germanic cavalry and the question of the Belgae tribes)..

Lol … what!? I can’t remember anyone challenging you on your depiction (as in EB) of German cavalry. You trying to distance yourself and play the martyr now?

Frosty: I haven't much time to address this in detail, so apologies



Of course this is simplistic, these are generalities.

Needless to say, important details are lost / overlooked with simplistic generalities. :yes:



As far as EB it is difficult to include the Germans prior to 200BC. When it comes to the Germans what else can you do? You only have information from certain time periods and until the time of Caesar we have very little knowledge of their tactics and numbers. You take the information you have and apply it the best you can.

So if we didn’t have any understanding of ancient Rome you would be happy to directly extrapolate knowledge of modern day Italy? Look at the big picture! Again I ask you, if there were no other contributing events (eg recent Gallic weakness) why was it that it took the Germans until the mid 1st C BC to infiltrated Gaul proper? Did they suddenly eat their spinach!?



What are you basing your claim that the Gauls had been defeating the Germans for centuries on?

One, because we know they (Germans) were there but made no attempt on Gaul, a rich and prosperous area. Two, archeology shows very little in the way of Gallic arms and armour have been found across the Rhine. What does exist tends to be dated (Halstatt 'D' / La Tene 'A') equipment use by the Celtic inhabitants who had been ruling over the local Indo-Europeans (urnfield, Germanics, etc). Three, the Gauls acted as a wall from which Germanic population pressures washed against ..even up ‘til Caesar’s time (eg. The Usipetes and Tenctheri fleeing the Seubi).



How would the German fare against the earlier Celts, quite well I believe

True… a belief.


I do not believe in the devastating "Civil War" theory.

I know :wall: because it runs counter to your hypothesis of the German Master Race.



I'm not taking things out of context

The Menapii claim wasn’t out of context? You jump on / continually cite a few select pieces of data without acknowledging the context to support this claim that all Germans throughout all of ancient history were a superior master race ..yet cite context / dismiss similar examples involving the Gauls



If I did use it as a show of martial prowess then that was unfair of me.

Thanks



I think you should read the books I have listed. I have listed the books and the authors and I know that other people have read these books and have not challenged me.

Your not serious? Do you think I’m shooting blind here? :clown:



Did you miss the part when James said "Probably most Celtic warfare was on a small scale, involving no more then a few score men on each side. The population was growing and states were developing in late Iron age Gaul, and this may have led to an increase in the scale of warfare. But it is clear that the vast armies commanded by Vercingetorix and others were assemble only as a response to the great threat from Rome"

No. Firstly, Jame’s comment (‘Exploring the World of the Celts’ pg 74.) about “warfare was on a small scale” is true if one takes it as a generic comment applicable to all Celts across all time periods (eg. Germany, Ireland, Britain and early Gaul) but it is not applicable to Gaul in our period. Again if you have taken note of all the data and not just select bits you would have noted that he states the escalation / “increase in the scale of warfare” due to the growing states. This was the point which I made and you denied concerning the devastation wrought the Great Gallic Civil War.. which you continue to deny. See also Jame’s comments about the changes in Gallic society and the centralization of power.

Secondly, Jame’s comment “that the vast armies commanded by Vercingetorix and others were assemble only as a response to the great threat from Rome. In fact, Rome changed the very rules of Celtic warfare, bringing large armies into an area”.. I have to say is ridiculous. Did Rome have anything to do with the large forces involved in Spain, Greece or Anatolia hundreds of years prior Vercingetrix? Was the Gallic victories and sacking of Etruscan and Roman cities a response to Rome…no, it was a Gallic initiative. Gallic states had long used large forces before any Roman influence. James even acknowledges that Rome and Greece had no influence in the development of these large Gallic states (pg 120) and the associated employment of force, so he appears to contradict himself when suggesting that large Celtic forces were a response to Rome.

The said work, should be recognized for what it is, a nice overview (albeit simplistic) with pretty pictures. It's a colourful picture book.



You are taking James out of context, not I.

Is that so? :inquisitive:


What about this part "Caesar says that the Druids were involved in disputes and in the decision to wage war, providing some evidence for the existence of limiting social mechanisms".

Yes, I never said there weren’t some limiting factors, but the Druids weren’t what you were suggesting. Further, it is worth noting that the Druids didn’t hold much sway with the Arverni alliance, their (Druids) success was in part, keeping the Aedui confederacy together.






Again, if you are so happy citing Caesar, why ignore his statement regarding the aforementioned battle. “If anyone is alarmed by the fact that the Germans have defeated the Gauls (Battle of Magetobriga) and put them to flight, he should inquire into the circumstance of that defeat. He will find that it happened at a time when the Gauls were exhausted by a long war” (De Bello Gallico; I.XL.XIII). The Civil War you deny / dismiss.

It could be because Caesar was referring to the battles with the Germans. For some reason I cant find that quote, is it in the 1st chapter? It sounds like when he would be addressing his troops and this quote isn't there.

No he is referring to the Gauls fighting the Seubi. If you had read all of De Bello Gallico, you couldn’t have missed it. Again, you can’t just take quotes that you like and ignore those you don’t. Its bad enough to claim some scholarship as definitive truth, much worse to only use select pieces of any said work.






Finally and most significantly, you’ve ignored the fact that the very Civil war in question began in 121 BC after the Arverni hegemony over Gaul was critically weakened by the defeat of King Bituitis and his Arverni alliance at the Battle of Vindalium by the Consular armies of Cnaeus Domitius and Quintus Fabius Maximus. It was this blow that struck the death knell to Gallic liberty. From the ensuing civil war, the Germans and Romans pounced.

I thought the Aedui were the most powerful Gauls during this time. If I'm not mistaken the Sequani became the prominent partner in the Sequani/Arverni alliance because of this situation. So how did the Aedui get hurt by the Arverni getting defeated by the Romans?

Sorry, you need to be a little clearer, what are you getting at?

The Aedui and their confederacy had been defeated in the previous war. The confederacy had disintegrated and Aedui made clients of the Arverni. In the ensuing turmoil of the Arverni defeat at Vindalium, the Aedui and their former allies took up arms and rebelled. This was the genesis for the Great civil war. With the Arverni too weak, the Sequani temporarily took over the leadership of the alliance, as the Carnutes had done for the Aedui against the Belgae generations before.




Yea southern Gaul was changing but it doesn't mean that it went to such a devastating "Civil War". The young men would still go mercenary and the raiding may not be as good but there was the heroism of martial valour to proclaim as well.

For starters, the changes were happening throughout Gaul and not just the south …and if indeed there were all these Gauls frequently raiding (which wasn’t the case) wouldn’t there be many experienced warriors as you suggest. Then why was it necessary for the Gauls (with the exception of the Belgae) to have to arm and train their armies anew on the arrival of Caesar? They were a mobilized militia because the warrior caste was all but wiped out previously, in the war you deny happened.




I have read multiple books and as of yet I cannot find one that concurs with you. What citations, proof can you claim?

Maybe start by reading through the works cited, James, Caesar, etc. If you want a really brief overview of Gallic history I’d suggest Daithi O’Hain / University of Dublin, Kuta, etc. Don’t have my resources at hand.



I'm ..sorry to hear of your RL situations.

Yer, lost our daughter.

[Anastasios Helios]

I do think they are...those naked Galatians are my nightmare...and I hear talk about a "Kataphraktoi Keltioi" on this forum all the time. *cringes in fear*

[Frostwulf]

First off the important things:
Psycho I pray for your grief to subside, happiness to renew and fond memories to remain.

For the other things:


Frosty: I haven't much time to address this in detail, so apologies
No need for apologies. I run into the same problems and sometimes it will take me a few days to complete one post. Sometimes it will take multiple days to weeks to get back to a reply. Work and RL seem to get in the way:beam:


So if we didn’t have any understanding of ancient Rome you would be happy to directly extrapolate knowledge of modern day Italy? Look at the big picture! Again I ask you, if there were no other contributing events (eg recent Gallic weakness) why was it that it took the Germans until the mid 1st C BC to infiltrated Gaul proper? Did they suddenly eat their spinach!?

The difference between ancient Rome and modern Italy is vast. What real differences would their have been between the Germanics of 300BC and 100BC? The Germanics of 100BC would have the advantage of better arms and armor because of increased trade/war with the Celts/Romans. The advanced armor would for the most part only belong to the elites, not the majority of the warriors.

According to William Maehl there was a increase of population and the tribes needed land which became intense in 500 BC.

William H. Maehl-"Germany in Western Civilization"-"Failure to drain bogs and marshy soil only made the situation of the Germans worse. Henceforth the Celts were subjected to steady pressure.
On the eve of the mastery of Germany, the Germans comprised three main groupings: northern,eastern, and western. From the first were to spring the Norse, Danes and Swedes. from the eastern tribes, who had taken up abandoned lands from the middle Oder to the Vistula, were to emerge such great protonations as the East and West Goths, Vandals Burgundians and Langobards(Lombards). The western Germans, who were to furnish the shock troops in the first skirmishes with Rome, comprised the Ingaevoni of Jutland, Schleswig-Holstein, and Hanover, the Herminoni of north-central Germany, and the Istvaenoi, who inhabited the Rhine Valley and were geographically closest to the civilized peoples and included Chatti, Bructi, Chattuari, Batavians, Teutons, Marsi, Cimbrians, and Chauki.
All efforts to block the German advance availed nothing. At some time in the course of the third century B.C. the backbone of the Celtic resistance was broken, and this people for the most part evacuated central and western Germany, fleeing to the east, south, and west. Many Celts, of course, were captured and enslaved or even remained behind as allies or free subjects of the Germans. The vacated areas were filled by Quadi, Marcommani, Suebi, and other western Germans. As the second century BC dawned, Germany was under the domination of one race at last. However, that race could no longer claim to be pure, for the conquest of middle Europe had involved racial admixture with the conquered." pg.7

J.B. Bury-"The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians"-" In the second millennium BC the homes of the Germanic peoples were in southern Scandinavia, in Denmark, and in the adjacent lands between the Elbe and the Oder. East of them beyond the Oder were Baltic or Lettic peoples, who are now represented by Lithuanians and Letts. The lands west of the Elbe, to the Rhine were occupied by Celts.
After 1000BC a double movement of expansion began. The Germans between the Oder and the Elbe pressed westward, displacing the Celts. The boundary between the Celts and Germans advanced to the west, and by about 200BC it had been pushed forward to the Rhine, and southward to the Main. Throughout this period the Germans had been also pressing up the Elbe. Soon after 100BC southern Germany had been occupied, and they were attempting to flood Gaul. This inundation was stemmed by Julius Caesar." pg.5

H.D. Rankin-"Celts and the Classical World"-"By the end of the sixth century BC, the Germans had expanded into Belgium and the southern part of Holland. They occupied both banks of the lower Rhine, and they reached as far south as the Ardennes.
Across Europe the long line of Celtic hill-forts may be said to have restrained German expansion for centuries, though, as we have said, there was considerable intermingling. Certain tribes of Gaul, such as the Aedui, boasted of Germanic descent. The Belgae also were a mixture of German and Celt. There is no reason to suppose that it was specifically German pressure that detonated the great Celtic invasions of Italy and Bohemia at the end of the fifth century BC. There is no evidence that the line of Celtic fortifications did not hold good at that time. On the other hand, Celtic pressure seems to have caused Eastern Germanic tribes, such as the Bastarnae, to move eastwards." pg.18-19

It seems that the Germans did push into Celtic areas starting around 500BC, they were in control of Belgium, both banks of the Rhine and down to the Ardennes by 200BC as said by these 3 authors. Before 500 BC there probably wasn't much contact between the Germans and Celts, but Ill have to do more research on this.
It could be that the movements of the Germanic peoples was a slow process. The TCA went on their trek looking for land because their homeland was flooded. They made it into Gaul, maybe they needed a reason to leave the lands they had occupied.

From this it seems that is was the Germans who were the ones who had been defeating the Celts for centuries.


One, because we know they (Germans) were there but made no attempt on Gaul, a rich and prosperous area. Two, archeology shows very little in the way of Gallic arms and armour have been found across the Rhine. What does exist tends to be dated (Halstatt 'D' / La Tene 'A') equipment use by the Celtic inhabitants who had been ruling over the local Indo-Europeans (urnfield, Germanics, etc). Three, the Gauls acted as a wall from which Germanic population pressures washed against ..even up ‘til Caesar’s time (eg. The Usipetes and Tenctheri fleeing the Seubi).

They did cross and move into Belgium around 200BC, so yes they were there. The lands they settled could have been fine with them. It was Ariovistus who after being invited to Gaul realized that is was good land and didn't want to leave. The reason the Usipetes and the Tencteri crossed the Rhine was because of the Suebi's push for land. The Usipetes and Tencteri defeated the Menapii and took their land. Why didn't the Usipetes and the Tencteri raid the land earlier if there was such a devastating "Civil War"? It seems to me to be a minor Volkerwanderung with the Germanic tribes slowly moving forward.


I know because it runs counter to your hypothesis of the German Master Race.
First when writing of the Romans you say "Your starting to sound like a Roman apologist". Now when talking of the Germans defeating the Celts you say "I do hope this is due to the aforementioned unconscious condition and not a conscious out flow of some ethno-cultural pride issue?" I suppose that if I wrote of the Greek success against the Celts I would be a Graecophile. As I have said earlier I'm neither an apologist nor of Germanic or Roman ancestry. Just in case the subject comes up, I'm not of Greek ancestry either. I have also said the Romans defeated the Germans consistently. Just because I disagree with you is no reason for you to allege such things.


The Menapii claim wasn’t out of context? You jump on / continually cite a few select pieces of data without acknowledging the context to support this claim that all Germans throughout all of ancient history were a superior master race ..yet cite context / dismiss similar examples involving the Gauls

I already answered this in my post before this one. Again the Sugambri, the Usipetes/Tenceri cavalry and Caesar's German mercenary cavalry they are in context. You harp on this one but ignore the others, what Gallic ones are you referring to me dismissing? If your writing about the Helvettii I already explained it, similar to the Menapii situation. It wasn't brought up before because the subject was on German cavalry vs Celtic cavalry. I understand what your getting at saying that Caesars cavalry was weak, but they were not. As I said in the earlier post, they were surprised and spread out. Also Caesars cavalry had 3yrs to become seasoned when they came across the 800 Germans.

No. Firstly, Jame’s comment (‘Exploring the World of the Celts’ pg 74.) about “warfare was on a small scale” is true if one takes it as a generic comment applicable to all Celts across all time periods (eg. Germany, Ireland, Britain and early Gaul) but it is not applicable to Gaul in our period. Again if you have taken note of all the data and not just select bits you would have noted that he states the escalation / “increase in the scale of warfare” due to the growing states. This was the point which I made and you denied concerning the devastation wrought the Great Gallic Civil War.. which you continue to deny. See also Jame’s comments about the changes in Gallic society and the centralization of power.
"Probably most Celtic warfare was on a small scale, involving no more then a few score men on each side. The population was growing and states were developing in late Iron age Gaul, and this may have led to an increase in the scale of warfare."

He said it may have led to an increase, not- this may have led to the increase in the scale of warfare. Even if there was an increase in the level of warfare, it wasn't to the exaggerated levels you claim. You also ignored Goldworthy "The scale of these conflicts is hard to judge, but it is probable that the aim was the reduction of the enemy to a subject tribe through a moral defeat rather then his destruction."
Not the horrendous destruction you claim, but the reduction of the enemy through a moral defeat rather then his destruction.


Secondly, Jame’s comment “that the vast armies commanded by Vercingetorix and others were assemble only as a response to the great threat from Rome. In fact, Rome changed the very rules of Celtic warfare, bringing large armies into an area”.. I have to say is ridiculous. Did Rome have anything to do with the large forces involved in Spain, Greece or Anatolia hundreds of years prior Vercingetrix? Was the Gallic victories and sacking of Etruscan and Roman cities a response to Rome…no, it was a Gallic initiative. Gallic states had long used large forces before any Roman influence.

You forgot to put in this part "Rome changed the very rules of Celtic warfare, bringing large armies into an area where, internally at least, they may have been much rarer before." For Greece wasn't Brennus and his group the only non-tribal group to go into Greece? The ones that went into Spain and Anatolia werent they tribes?

James even acknowledges that Rome and Greece had no influence in the development of these large Gallic states (pg 120) and the associated employment of force, so he appears to contradict himself when suggesting that large Celtic forces were a response to Rome.
Simon James-"The Celts and the Classical World"-"Does this suggest, then, that all the changes taking place in Gallic society in the last centuries BC were the result simply of exposure to the 'civilized' Graeco-Roman cultures to the south?
Not necessarily. Powerful states like the Arverni and Aedui existed before the Roman conquest of the Rhone Valley in the second century BC, as did the earliest oppida in Gaul, while towns were growing in areas like southern Germany and Bohemia which show no signs of Classical contact at the time." Thus the changes responsible for the appearance of urban states were probably triggered by a variety of local stimuli, including population growth, innovations in farming, subtle ecological changes and other factors such as the increasing threat from the Germans."
The Graeco-Roman cultures nevertheless acted as a catalyst for change."pg120-121
James is talking about the urbanization of Gaul, he says nothing here about the "associated employment of force" here. Your throwing them together when they are two separate issues in separate chapters.

Simon James-"The Celts and the Classical World"-"Secondly, Rome became increasingly aware of Gauls growing wealth and vulnerability (following the development of centralized institutions and fixed centers of power). Gaul had become ripe for conquest-not because it was markedly less 'civilized' than Rome, but because it was rich, complex, and already sufficiently similar to the Classical world to be absorbable. Celtic heartland was diverted on to a different, albeit parallel, track: that of Classical urban civilization." pg.121
The vulnerability doesn't mention the "Devastating Civil War"! Why, because its and exaggerated event.

The said work, should be recognized for what it is, a nice overview (albeit simplistic) with pretty pictures. It's a colourful picture book.
Yes it is and more. It does have excellent information by a well known and highly thought of Archaeologist.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
You are taking James out of context, not I.

Is that so?
Yes it is so, as shown above.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Again, if you are so happy citing Caesar, why ignore his statement regarding the aforementioned battle. “If anyone is alarmed by the fact that the Germans have defeated the Gauls (Battle of Magetobriga) and put them to flight, he should inquire into the circumstance of that defeat. He will find that it happened at a time when the Gauls were exhausted by a long war” (De Bello Gallico; I.XL.XIII). The Civil War you deny / dismiss.

It could be because Caesar was referring to the battles with the Germans. For some reason I cant find that quote, is it in the 1st chapter? It sounds like when he would be addressing his troops and this quote isn't there.

No he is referring to the Gauls fighting the Seubi. If you had read all of De Bello Gallico, you couldn’t have missed it. Again, you can’t just take quotes that you like and ignore those you don’t. Its bad enough to claim some scholarship as definitive truth, much worse to only use select pieces of any said work.
Ok so I was right this is when he is addressing his troops.

Caesar-"Gallic war"-XL.--When Caesar observed these things, having called a council, and summoned to it the centurions of all the companies, he severely reprimanded them, "particularly for supposing that it belonged to them to inquire or conjecture, either in what direction they were marching, or with what object. That Ariovistus, during his [Caesar's] consulship, had most anxiously sought after the friendship of the Roman people; why should any one judge that he would so rashly depart from his duty? He for his part was persuaded that, when his demands were known and the fairness of the terms considered, he would reject neither his nor the Roman people's favour. But even if, driven on by rage and madness, he should make war upon them, what after all were they afraid of?--or why should they despair either of their own valour or of his zeal? Of that enemy a trial had been made within our fathers' recollection, when, on the defeat of the Cimbri and Teutones by Caius Marius, the army was regarded as having deserved no less praise than their commander himself. It had been made lately, too, in Italy; during the rebellion of the slaves, whom, however, the experience and training which they had received from us, assisted in some respect. From which a judgment might be formed of the advantages which resolution carries with it,--inasmuch as those whom for some time they had groundlessly dreaded when unarmed, they had afterwards vanquished, when well armed and flushed with success. In short, that these were the same men whom the Helvetii, in frequent encounters, not only in their own territories, but also in theirs [the German], have generally vanquished, and yet cannot have been a match for our army. If the unsuccessful battle and flight of the Gauls disquieted any, these, if they made inquiries, might discover that, when the Gauls had been tired out by the long duration of the war, Ariovistus, after he had many months kept himself in his camp and in the marshes, and had given no opportunity for an engagement, fell suddenly upon them, by this time despairing of a battle and scattered in all directions, and was victorious more through stratagem and cunning than valour. But though there had been room for such stratagem against savage and unskilled men, not even [Ariovistus] himself expected that thereby our armies could be entrapped. That those who ascribed their fear to a pretence about the [deficiency of] supplies and the narrowness of the roads, acted presumptuously, as they seemed either to distrust their general's discharge of his duty, or to dictate to him."XL

This is out of context. This has nothing to do with the "Gallic Civil War", its all about the Gauls being exhausted by the fight with the Germans. So yes I do deny and dismiss the supposed "Devastating Civil War".


For starters, the changes were happening throughout Gaul and not just the south …and if indeed there were all these Gauls frequently raiding (which wasn’t the case) wouldn’t there be many experienced warriors as you suggest. Then why was it necessary for the Gauls (with the exception of the Belgae) to have to arm and train their armies anew on the arrival of Caesar? They were a mobilized militia because the warrior caste was all but wiped out previously, in the war you deny happened.

Venceslas Kruta-"The Celts"-"Recruited from the ranks of the warrior nobility, from about 250BCE onwards the cavalry totally replace the war-chariots that had previously constituted the war-chariots that had previously constituted the shock troops of Celtic armies. They became the elite permanent corps of the city-states, formes and maintained by the aristocrats who governed them. The cavalry's essential role in battle is especially well illustrated in Julius Caesar's Gallic wars." pg.110

Stephen Allen-"Lords of Battle, the World of the Celtic Warrior"-"The nature of Celtic warfare changed from small-scale feuding between family groups and neighboring communities to large conflicts between tribal confederations and the life and death struggle against Roman domination. The Celtic urban centers were ruled by the most powerful clans, which constantly sought to increase their power and territory. A major consequence was the increasing importance of cavalry as the preferred tactical arm of the Celtic noble elite, who were now comparable to the equites, the 'knighly' class of the Roman Republic." pg.83

Stephen Allen-"Lords of Battle, the World of the Celtic Warrior"-"The change in emphasis from skirmishing with javelins to shock tactics using a spear and long sword can be detected in Caesar's description of the cavalry engagements during his campaigns in Gaul. By this period, the elite Gallic warriors who provided the urban aristocracies with their armed retainers were almost entirely cavalry, armed with spear and long slashing sword, protected by an iron helmet and mailshirt, and mounted on a larger horse capable of bearing the weight of the rider and his equipment. To the Romans, they were the equivalent of their own 'knightly' class, the equites." pg.132

The elites became cavalry. The only ones who can claim to be wiped out is the Aedui and that was due to Ariovistus and his Suebi.


Maybe start by reading through the works cited, James, Caesar, etc. If you want a really brief overview of Gallic history I’d suggest Daithi O’Hain / University of Dublin, Kuta, etc. Don’t have my resources at hand.


Are you meaning Dáithí Ó Hógáin and Venceslas Kruta?
This is one of those start on friday, then come back monday to finish type posts.

[Geoffrey S]

Frostwulf, I thoroughly respect the effort you've put into your research, must have been a lot of reading! But I must say that you have yet to convince me of your view that German cavalry was significantly better than that of Gaul, since the evidence you present seems to be mainly isolated incidents (late on in history) and ignores things that don't fit into your theory, ie. the internal conflicts and the fact that Gaul was doing just fine against the Germans (a very broad term I may add) until after said conflicts.

[Frostwulf]

Frostwulf, I thoroughly respect the effort you've put into your research, must have been a lot of reading! But I must say that you have yet to convince me of your view that German cavalry was significantly better than that of Gaul, since the evidence you present seems to be mainly isolated incidents (late on in history)
I appreciate the reply. If your saying that "isolated incidents" is Caesar's conflict in Gaul thats fine. There were 4 battles in which Caesar's mercenaries "won the day", The 800 German cavalry routing Caesars 5,000 Gallic cavalry which included the Remi Mairepos and the Sugambri's cavalry destroying the Roman cohorts.
Goldsworthy “Caesar” -“The tactics and the quality of the Germanic warriors usually gave them the edge over the Gaulish cavalry”. Pg 229

Goldsworthy “Caesar” -Throughout the Gallic campaigns German warriors consistently defeated their Gallic counterparts, each success adding to their fierce reputation. Pg.274

Its not just me claiming this.I will repeat myself and say yes Goldsworthy is saying in the Gallic campaigns, but thats because his subject was Caesar and his time frame. We don't know what the circumstances were when the TCA went on their trek except for their encounters with the Romans. Using generalities the Romans of this time beat the Gauls in the 120's and were in turn defeated by the TCA.


and ignores things that don't fit into your theory, ie. the internal conflicts and the fact that Gaul was doing just fine against the Germans (a very broad term I may add) until after said conflicts
Geoffrey I hope you will respond to this. But how have I been ignoring the internal conflicts? The Celts as the Germans have had many internal conflicts, hence the reason for the Germanic Usipetes and Tencteri crossing over because the Germanic Suebi pushed them out. I just don't buy into the "Devastating Civil War" theory. I haven't read all of Cuniffe's books but the ones I did read says nothing on this, nor does ANY of the authors with the exception of James and Goldsworthy and they say things that would contradict the "Devastating Civil War" theory. Perhaps you didn't get a chance to read the post I made above this one, but the Celts were being pushed back before 400BC. Is that what you would consider doing fine?

[Urnamma]

Wait till you guys see the new and improved Germanics ;) We redid virtually every unit based on myself and Paullus researching everything from the ground up. All based on archaeology, and raw data, to cut out any confusion. I'm sure the Germanic enthusiasts will be happy with them :-)

[blitzkrieg80]

except the flying werwulf, that's all handsome_viking

[the_handsome_viking]

I love my Werwolves =).

[Geoffrey S]

If your saying that "isolated incidents" is Caesar's conflict in Gaul thats fine. There were 4 battles in which Caesar's mercenaries "won the day", The 800 German cavalry routing Caesars 5,000 Gallic cavalry which included the Remi Mairepos and the Sugambri's cavalry destroying the Roman cohorts.
Goldsworthy “Caesar” -“The tactics and the quality of the Germanic warriors usually gave them the edge over the Gaulish cavalry”. Pg 229

Goldsworthy “Caesar” -Throughout the Gallic campaigns German warriors consistently defeated their Gallic counterparts, each success adding to their fierce reputation. Pg.274

Its not just me claiming this.I will repeat myself and say yes Goldsworthy is saying in the Gallic campaigns, but thats because his subject was Caesar and his time frame. We don't know what the circumstances were when the TCA went on their trek except for their encounters with the Romans. Using generalities the Romans of this time beat the Gauls in the 120's and were in turn defeated by the TCA.
It's exactly these kind of generalities I object to. Not only is Caesar not a reliable source for details, and a latecomer in the region at that, but the fact that the examples you cite relate to an entirely different period and situation in Gaul. By now, it has become clear that these examples you use of actualy battle prowess of Germanics come largely from literature based on Caesar, and what annoys me is that that make for extremely circular reading. What I mean to say is, there is far more to study of this region and period than secondary literature based on Roman texts or books on the subject: far more and infinitely more up-to-date information is found in scientific journals. I'll admit that makes for tough research, certainly if you haven't made it your primary occupation, but that's the way things are and why people need to be trained for years in researching these ancient cultures.

Notwithstanding, I recognise the efforts you've made in finding and reading literature and salute them. It's just that they're definitely not quite enough in this kind of a debate on finer details.

Geoffrey I hope you will respond to this. But how have I been ignoring the internal conflicts? The Celts as the Germans have had many internal conflicts, hence the reason for the Germanic Usipetes and Tencteri crossing over because the Germanic Suebi pushed them out. I just don't buy into the "Devastating Civil War" theory. I haven't read all of Cuniffe's books but the ones I did read says nothing on this, nor does ANY of the authors with the exception of James and Goldsworthy and they say things that would contradict the "Devastating Civil War" theory.
And there lies the rub. Cunliffe, a great master of Celtic history though he is, has also not publicised a book on the subject for some time now, and those he has around 2000 are large, general works. Research has moved on since then and even major books miss out on the most recent articles published in scientific journals. Much research is still ongoing, and I'd wager that a large amount of information on the devastation of the civil war is relatively recent. Perhaps 'ignore' was too laden a word, but I do think you're underestimating the importance of internal conflicts and I think that that is caused by the limitations of the literature you have access to.

Somehow, Gaul went from a large and relatively united area that had existed as a distinct cultural area for some time with skilled troops matching the best the rest of the world could offer (and that sent them to the rest of the world!), to an area routinely invaded by outsiders with only levies to oppose them. That rather highlites the devastating effects of civil war in my opinion.

Perhaps you didn't get a chance to read the post I made above this one, but the Celts were being pushed back before 400BC. Is that what you would consider doing fine?
Considering they were only pushed back, yes, I'd say they were doing fine if you consider the size of Gaul by the time Caesar got busy.

[Frostwulf]

It's exactly these kind of generalities I object to.
What generalities? These are actual battles that show the effectiveness of the Germanic horsemen of the time. These are specific events that show their abilities in combat.


Not only is Caesar not a reliable source for details, and a latecomer in the region at that,
Caesar may be prone to exaggerations and bias but he is the best authority of the time. The authors I quote from don't just use Caesar, these are well known and respected authors. They get their information from multiple sources.


but the fact that the examples you cite relate to an entirely different period and situation in Gaul.
I'm assuming your referring to the supposed Gallic "Devastating Civil War"


What I mean to say is, there is far more to study of this region and period than secondary literature based on Roman texts or books on the subject: far more and infinitely more up-to-date information is found in scientific journals. I'll admit that makes for tough research, certainly if you haven't made it your primary occupation, but that's the way things are and why people need to be trained for years in researching these ancient cultures.
I'm not just quoting Caesar. I'm quoting the exact type of people who's primary occupation is archeology,history, philology and etc, the type of people who do use those research tools. What more "up-to date" information are you referring to?


Notwithstanding, I recognise the efforts you've made in finding and reading literature and salute them. It's just that they're definitely not quite enough in this kind of a debate on finer details
I thank you for your words on my efforts. But again I highly doubt there is anyone on this forum who ranks up there with Rankin, Kruta, James,Goldworthy,Sidnell etc. Do you know of anyone on this forum who does have information that these authors wouldn't? These guys are amongst the best in their fields.


And there lies the rub. Cunliffe, a great master of Celtic history though he is, has also not publicised a book on the subject for some time now, and those he has around 2000 are large, general works. Research has moved on since then and even major books miss out on the most recent articles published in scientific journals. Much research is still ongoing, and I'd wager that a large amount of information on the devastation of the civil war is relatively recent. Perhaps 'ignore' was too laden a word, but I do think you're underestimating the importance of internal conflicts and I think that that is caused by the limitations of the literature you have access to.
Some of the authors such as Goldsworthy's "Caesar Life of a Colossus" came out in 2006, and I could make a considerable list of the authors who don't mention the supposed "Devastating Civil War".
But now comes the question, I have posted what 2 authors have said that support what I'm saying. The only citation I have seen that was supposed to support the "Devastating Civil War" was a misunderstanding of what Caesar said.
Surely if there is proof of the supposed "Devastating Civil War" where is it? Do you know of any reputed author, paper, or anything on this subject? If you mention the book,paper or whatever research I will be more then happy to read it.


Somehow, Gaul went from a large and relatively united area that had existed as a distinct cultural area for some time with skilled troops matching the best the rest of the world could offer (and that sent them to the rest of the world!),
The Celts were being defeated most of the time by a pre-Marius conscript army. The Romans were generally outnumbered and won the majority of the battles.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1559843&postcount=144

As for the Germans these events happened prior to the supposed "Devastating Civil War"

William H. Maehl-"Germany in Western Civilization"All efforts to block the German advance availed nothing. At some time in the course of the third century B.C. the backbone of the Celtic resistance was broken, and this people for the most part evacuated central and western Germany, fleeing to the east, south, and west. Many Celts, of course, were captured and enslaved or even remained behind as allies or free subjects of the Germans." pg.7

J.B. Bury-"The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians"-" After 1000BC a double movement of expansion began. The Germans between the Oder and the Elbe pressed westward, displacing the Celts. The boundary between the Celts and Germans advanced to the west, and by about 200BC it had been pushed forward to the Rhine, and southward to the Main. Throughout this period the Germans had been also pressing up the Elbe. Soon after 100BC southern Germany had been occupied, and they were attempting to flood Gaul. This inundation was stemmed by Julius Caesar." pg.5


to an area routinely invaded by outsiders with only levies to oppose them. That rather highlites the devastating effects of civil war in my opinion.Somehow, Gaul went from a large and relatively united area that had existed as a distinct cultural area for some time with skilled troops matching the best the rest of the world could offer (and that sent them to the rest of the world!), to an area routinely invaded by outsiders with only levies to oppose them. That rather highlites the devastating effects of civil war in my opinion.
Stephen Allen-"Lords of Battle, the World of the Celtic Warrior"-"The change in emphasis from skirmishing with javelins to shock tactics using a spear and long sword can be detected in Caesar's description of the cavalry engagements during his campaigns in Gaul. By this period, the elite Gallic warriors who provided the urban aristocracies with their armed retainers were almost entirely cavalry, armed with spear and long slashing sword, protected by an iron helmet and mailshirt, and mounted on a larger horse capable of bearing the weight of the rider and his equipment. To the Romans, they were the equivalent of their own 'knightly' class, the equites." pg.132

The elites during this time were the cavalry and there were plenty of them. I go into more detail in this post.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1670289&postcount=281

Perhaps I am wrong but it seems to me that you haven't been reading the discourse between Psyco V and myself. I would suggest starting with post 265 on page nine and going from there.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=83475&page=9

[Geoffrey S]

What generalities? These are actual battles that show the effectiveness of the Germanic horsemen of the time. These are specific events that show their abilities in combat.
Precisely: they are specific events, from which generalities about German cavalry prowess is drawn.

I'm assuming your referring to the supposed Gallic "Devastating Civil War"
I'm referring to the use of information from Caesar to support claims about 270 bc.

I'm not just quoting Caesar. I'm quoting the exact type of people who's primary occupation is archeology,history, philology and etc, the type of people who do use those research tools. What more "up-to date" information are you referring to?
As far as I can tell the sources you use are books, which by their nature generalise and condense. They're summaries and overviews, with different aims to articles which expand on more detailed issues. They tend to focus on events and histories, based mainly on original texts such as Caesar, or on presenting an overview of Celtic culture through archeology, such as Barry Cunliffe's The Ancient Celts. Blank spots in our knowledge such as what exactly the history of Gaul was like outside of contact with classical cultures like Rome and the Greeks are very rarely addressed in literature, with the occasional exception such as in Holt's Thundering Zeus illuminating the darker corners of Greek-Bactrian history. That's why information about Gaul for the majority of EBs timescale is hard to come by (and why it's so disputed, as this topic illustrates!).

But now comes the question, I have posted what 2 authors have said that support what I'm saying. The only citation I have seen that was supposed to support the "Devastating Civil War" was a misunderstanding of what Caesar said.
Surely if there is proof of the supposed "Devastating Civil War" where is it? Do you know of any reputed author, paper, or anything on this subject? If you mention the book,paper or whatever research I will be more then happy to read it.
It's a blank spot open to speculation. Whereas you take the side that the Germans became stronger and/or more skilled than the Celts based on numbers in various battles and individual details of battle skills late in the period of EB, I take the side that the Celts became weaker based on the information that a once large area that was predominately Celtic shrank considerably after a period of relative peace under larger confederacies was replaced by what was essentially a civil war with every smaller group for itself.

The Celts weren't incapable of fielding well-armed and skilled professional soldiers, but somehow the amounts had greatly decreased by the time Caesar entered the picture. Certainly for some time they had become less able to launch the expansions which so troubled the Romans and Greeks, which indicates a drop in the population growth which made such largescale expeditions possible. I argue that this drop in population growth indicates the severity of the conflict within Gaul and that this hampered the ability to field professional and experienced troops. Certainly the population was growing a lot prior to Celtic migrations; these migrations alleviated the population pressure somewhat, but probably caused population density to lower too much. In that regard Gaul was recovering later in its independant history, but not at a rate as high as the Germanic population boom.

The Celts were being defeated most of the time by a pre-Marius conscript army. The Romans were generally outnumbered and won the majority of the battles.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1559843&postcount=144
I'll repeat the arguments that were probably made in that topic and believe are still relevant: the account of these battles is from a Roman perspective and frequently biased in their favour, and the long period in which these events took place illustrate the challenge the Celts were to the Romans despite the amount of large victories Roman historians make claim to.

As for the Germans these events happened prior to the supposed "Devastating Civil War"

William H. Maehl-"Germany in Western Civilization"All efforts to block the German advance availed nothing. At some time in the course of the third century B.C. the backbone of the Celtic resistance was broken, and this people for the most part evacuated central and western Germany, fleeing to the east, south, and west. Many Celts, of course, were captured and enslaved or even remained behind as allies or free subjects of the Germans." pg.7

J.B. Bury-"The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians"-" After 1000BC a double movement of expansion began. The Germans between the Oder and the Elbe pressed westward, displacing the Celts. The boundary between the Celts and Germans advanced to the west, and by about 200BC it had been pushed forward to the Rhine, and southward to the Main. Throughout this period the Germans had been also pressing up the Elbe. Soon after 100BC southern Germany had been occupied, and they were attempting to flood Gaul. This inundation was stemmed by Julius Caesar." pg.5
You're arguing that the Germans should be made stronger, statwise, than Celts. These quotes however, rather than implying that the Germans were expanding at the cost of the Celts in outlying territories due to martial skills or better tactics, imply that their advantage was numerical: they were going through a large population growth similar to what gave Celts an advantage in their expansion to such areas as Asia Minor. What exactly do these quotes add to support your claims?

I would say that these quotes do however hint at the important part: Gaul had a lower population density than at the time of Celtic migrations and was only recovering slowly (hinting at plenty of warfare and/or problems with agriculture), what was left was instable and frequented by war, whilst the Germanic population was increasing at a high rate. Ultimately these factors combined to create a weak celtic position, not some superiority of Germanic troops, and certainly not something that should be reflected right at the start of EB when there is still time to recover.

Stephen Allen-"Lords of Battle, the World of the Celtic Warrior"-"The change in emphasis from skirmishing with javelins to shock tactics using a spear and long sword can be detected in Caesar's description of the cavalry engagements during his campaigns in Gaul. By this period, the elite Gallic warriors who provided the urban aristocracies with their armed retainers were almost entirely cavalry, armed with spear and long slashing sword, protected by an iron helmet and mailshirt, and mounted on a larger horse capable of bearing the weight of the rider and his equipment. To the Romans, they were the equivalent of their own 'knightly' class, the equites." pg.132

The elites during this time were the cavalry and there were plenty of them.
Again, a misinterpretation of a quote in my opinion. This is referring clearly to elites of society, the rich who afford a mount and quality equipment, something distinct from professional soldiers with good training (and possibly, though not necessarily with good equipment) which were sorely lacking in the first century BC. The quote literally calls them a 'knightly' class, and it does not equate to professionals.

Practically every society has a societal elite that can afford better equipment than the masses due to their relative wealth and as long as wealth doesn't flow outward too much (out of Gaul, that is) this wealthy group will remain, but this says nothing about the standard of training or skills as warriors. That despite their (supposed) large numbers and good equipment they failed in against such enemies as Caesar says something about their experience. It doesn't take skill or professionalism to inherit armour and wealth from a dead father and charge into battle at Alesia.

Perhaps I am wrong but it seems to me that you haven't been reading the discourse between Psyco V and myself. I would suggest starting with post 265 on page nine and going from there.
Don't worry, I have read the discourse and have found it extremely informative and interesting. Interesting enough in fact, to wish to add my own contributions!

[blitzkrieg80]

It seems to me that source-wise we have no variety by circumstance and as such, Frostwulf's position is entirely justified (obviously not without much effort) and he indeed uses the primary and secondary sources available, further proving legitimacy to his effort.

On the other hand, no evidence has been provided for a counterargument, the simple logic of "the Celts didn't get invaded earlier, so they must have been strong" is really all that is being said and has ABSOLUTELY 0% evidence to it.

The bottom line is put up or shut up as the phrase goes, if there is evidence to counter Frostwulf's theory, then provide the citation... I do not have such, so I remain quiet, in fact I can only agree with the overwhelming evidence whether it is actually out of context or not- IT'S EVIDENCE! As Frostwulf mentioned, if we're not using those scholarly and scientific resources that define the academic field in relation to this subject matter, what the hell else we talking about? Just because history went a certain way that does not provide any semblence of a legitimate argument.

So here is the challenge people, where is your evidence that the Germans were weak? Archaeological record? ha! We know they used clubs to great effect as seen on Trajan's column and accounts of their use in service of Rome. One could say the material culture of hill-forts show a continuation of Celtic culture but really that only means they weren't changed and has no bearing on the argument of success in battle outside of the hillfort. I'm sure the fortified cities in Pannonia would look the same despite dominance of the environs by roaming Huns. So where is this specific reference to Germans being inferior? is it scholarly? cite it! simply because of the Celts' technology? the Romans were inferior in that sense and borrowed from Celts and Iberians, but that does not reinforce any argument to their lack in success or quality.

it seems to me, with "master race" bs being thrown all around, some people are Celto-centric whether because of ethnic bias or basic adoration of such a great culture, but that again is 0% evidence toward anything... instead of telling Frostwulf to get lost and read more when obviously he has read more than the people who AREN'T citing, maybe you guys should pull out a book for a change and use some evidence. commentary in an effort to devalue evidence isn't evidence either.

[Geoffrey S]

My, aren't we angry? Last I checked I haven't ever stated that the Germanics were weak, nor do I believe they were; only that there is no indication that they were significantly stronger or more skilled at arms as Frostwulf suggests. And since that is his suggestion, I feel perfectly entitled to give my reasons for not agreeing with his use of the sources and in my opinion have done so in a civil way.

[Watchman]

When a powerful realm starts losing territory to a bunch of barbarians across the border they clearly have not had excessive trouble fending off previously, it tends to nigh invariably speak of two things (usually combined) - first, the realm being invaded has begun losing whatever edge it originally had that allowed it to hold off the barbarians; second, the invading barbarians have been learning their lessons and are now tougher nuts than they used to be, or perhaps just more numerous and motivated to spill over the border for some reason.

The Late Roman period is rife with this sort of stuff, as is the history of China and the horse nomads beyond its borders.

Almost invariably a central component of this decline is serious internal trouble; for one reason or another the institutions of the "victim" realm have become weak, often accompanied by severe internal strife the invaders can exploit (if only in the form of there being less troops available to oppose them due to the domestic strife; defections often also feature heavily in such developements, assorted minor bosses and commanders seeing the writing on the wall and jumping ship to survive or just fill their pockets).

I've yet to see any convincing argument as to why this was not the case also in Gaul when the Germans and Romans started making succesful overtures in the 1st century BC - on the contrary, the references Caesar AFAIK makes to civil strife there and the employement of both German and Roman armies in the Gauls' domestic power struggles suggest as much. The collapse of many a realm has begun just from the ill-advised invitation of foreign armies into the land for some purpose (which usually tends to have something to do with the local lords' own military resources for some reason being insufficient for their needs)

Plus, as I seem to recall having pointed out a long time ago (how long has this debate been going on anyway...?), far as I can tell in EB the stats of the German tribal levies more or less match those of many of the Gallic professional troops, the only real advantage of the latter being the heavy armour of their better late-period troops.
Which is downright generous if you ask me.

[Geoffrey S]

I've yet to see any convincing argument as to why this was not the case also in Gaul when the Germans and Romans started making succesful overtures in the 1st century BC - on the contrary, the references Caesar AFAIK makes to civil strife there and the employement of both German and Roman armies in the Gauls' domestic power struggles suggest as much. The collapse of many a realm has begun just from the ill-advised invitation of foreign armies into the land for some purpose (which usually tends to have something to do with the local lords' own military resources for some reason being insufficient for their needs)
Which is also an interesting point, as it indicates that there was enough money to go around to gain support of outside groups but a lack of own professionals; which would also be a possible explanation for the well-equiped but underperforming Gauls in Caesars wars.

[Watchman]

One of the main attractors of mercenaries in general, in the case they did not "simply" supply a competence you were for one reason or another short of in your domestically available troops (eg. Cretans in Greek armies), was that they were available on comparatively short notice if you were short of competent soldiers soldiers. It should be noted they might actually be recruitable relatively cheaply - many were paid with little more than promises and looting rights, but then many were also content enough with such arrangements. One fairly popular form of payment in some times and places was the prospect of allowing the mercenaries to settle on the lands wrested from your enemy - William the Conqueror paid many of his soldiers in this fashion - which also has the advantage they have a real motivation to fight to the best of their ability to win it.

'Course, the blighters might turn out to be rather costly later if they developed funny ideas... To paraphrase a merchant prince from one Pratchett book, "the trouble with mercenaries is you often find yourself paying them more to stop fighting."

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

The only truly overpowered faction in the game are the Romani, and that's because they did really kick ass during the EB timespan.

[Frostwulf]

Precisely: they are specific events, from which generalities about German cavalry prowess is drawn.

I'm referring to the use of information from Caesar to support claims about 270 bc.
The German cavalry of Caesar's time were superior to that of the Gauls as shown by the events of this time. What reason would there be to assume that these same German units would have changed from earlier times? They would have had the same equipment, so what would have changed? I'm not referring to the armored cavalry of Ariovistus's or the TCA. I'm writing about Caesars mercenaries and the other German cavalry(Sugambri, Usipetes/Tenceri ).

As far as the Gauls are concerned you have to believe in the supposed "Devastating Civil War" theory and say they are weaker. I will get to the Gallic cavalry later and show why this won't stand.


As far as I can tell the sources you use are books, which by their nature generalise and condense. They're summaries and overviews, with different aims to articles which expand on more detailed issues. They tend to focus on events and histories, based mainly on original texts such as Caesar, or on presenting an overview of Celtic culture through archeology, such as Barry Cunliffe's The Ancient Celts. Blank spots in our knowledge such as what exactly the history of Gaul was like outside of contact with classical cultures like Rome and the Greeks are very rarely addressed in literature, with the occasional exception such as in Holt's Thundering Zeus illuminating the darker corners of Greek-Bactrian history. That's why information about Gaul for the majority of EBs timescale is hard to come by (and why it's so disputed, as this topic illustrates!).
The books that I have been referring to use both historical records from different ancient authors as well as archeology. Again the authors I have been reciting are amongst the best in the field.


It's a blank spot open to speculation. Whereas you take the side that the Germans became stronger and/or more skilled than the Celts based on numbers in various battles and individual details of battle skills late in the period of EB, I take the side that the Celts became weaker based on the information that a once large area that was predominately Celtic shrank considerably after a period of relative peace under larger confederacies was replaced by what was essentially a civil war with every smaller group for itself.
Yes but some speculation is better then others based upon reading and research. The supposed "Devastating Civil War" started in the 120's BC, so how is it that the Germans were already pushing the Celts back 500-400BC? The Celts started expanding south during that time period, so how are they weaker? The Celts sacked Rome around 390 BC, yet up north they were being pushed back. By 200BC the Germans were to the Rhine, thats nearly 80yrs before the supposed "Devastating Civil War". Your theory doesn't work because your time frame is off. You will also have to remember the Romans were defeating the Gauls well before the supposed "Devastating Civil War"


The Celts weren't incapable of fielding well-armed and skilled professional soldiers, but somehow the amounts had greatly decreased by the time Caesar entered the picture. Certainly for some time they had become less able to launch the expansions which so troubled the Romans and Greeks, which indicates a drop in the population growth which made such largescale expeditions possible. I argue that this drop in population growth indicates the severity of the conflict within Gaul and that this hampered the ability to field professional and experienced troops. Certainly the population was growing a lot prior to Celtic migrations; these migrations alleviated the population pressure somewhat, but probably caused population density to lower too much. In that regard Gaul was recovering later in its independant history, but not at a rate as high as the Germanic population boom.
Simon James "The World of the Celts"-" the Gaul described and conquered by Caesar showed no signs of exhaustion by internal wars-it was a rich and prosperous land-so means were evidently found for limiting the damage war could cause." pg.74
A rich and prosperous land, not the lack of population your suggesting. Caesar undoubtedly exaggerated the numbers of the Gauls he came against, but if you look at how many people that were in the cities of the time they certainly didn't have a population problem. Your claim that the population must have been lower because the lack of migrations, I simply counter with what really happened-Urbanization. I will deal again with the warrior situation later.

I'll repeat the arguments that were probably made in that topic and believe are still relevant: the account of these battles is from a Roman perspective and frequently biased in their favour, and the long period in which these events took place illustrate the challenge the Celts were to the Romans despite the amount of large victories Roman historians make claim to.
So the lying Romans only told the truth when they outnumbered the Celts or when they lost I suppose. The Romans probably did exaggerate some of the numbers and circumstances, but what else are we to go on? I will go with what the authors I read go with, an educated guess.


You're arguing that the Germans should be made stronger, statwise, than Celts. These quotes however, rather than implying that the Germans were expanding at the cost of the Celts in outlying territories due to martial skills or better tactics, imply that their advantage was numerical: they were going through a large population growth similar to what gave Celts an advantage in their expansion to such areas as Asia Minor. What exactly do these quotes add to support your claims?
If you will go back and read these posts you will see this was in response to Psyco V claiming the Celts had been defeating the Germans for centuries. You said they matched the best in the world, yet were not able to stop the Germans. The Romans were able to stop enemies that had more troops then they, if the Celts were there equal why couldn't they?


I would say that these quotes do however hint at the important part: Gaul had a lower population density than at the time of Celtic migrations and was only recovering slowly (hinting at plenty of warfare and/or problems with agriculture), what was left was instable and frequented by war, whilst the Germanic population was increasing at a high rate. Ultimately these factors combined to create a weak celtic position, not some superiority of Germanic troops, and certainly not something that should be reflected right at the start of EB when there is still time to recover.
Again, the Germans began pushing into Celtic territory the same time the Celts were doing their expansion.
H.D. Rankin-"Celts and the Classical World"-"By the end of the sixth century BC, the Germans had expanded into Belgium and the southern part of Holland. They occupied both banks of the lower Rhine, and they reached as far south as the Ardennes.


Again, a misinterpretation of a quote in my opinion. This is referring clearly to elites of society, the rich who afford a mount and quality equipment, something distinct from professional soldiers with good training (and possibly, though not necessarily with good equipment) which were sorely lacking in the first century BC. The quote literally calls them a 'knightly' class, and it does not equate to professionals.

Did you not read were it says the "elite Gallic warriors"? Did you not read the quotes that I posted from Kruta that talks about their training?

Practically every society has a societal elite that can afford better equipment than the masses due to their relative wealth and as long as wealth doesn't flow outward too much (out of Gaul, that is) this wealthy group will remain, but this says nothing about the standard of training or skills as warriors. That despite their (supposed) large numbers and good equipment they failed in against such enemies as Caesar says something about their experience. It doesn't take skill or professionalism to inherit armour and wealth from a dead father and charge into battle at Alesia.
As I have said earlier the Romans were already beating the Celts with pre-Marian troops. What did you think was going to happen with post-Marian troops?

Don't worry, I have read the discourse and have found it extremely informative and interesting. Interesting enough in fact, to wish to add my own contributions!
I'm glad you do contribute, I think it helps in the understanding of things. But I do have some criticisms.
1. I don't believe you read the thread very well as I have had to repeat things I have replied to Psycho V about.
2. I think your history in this area is lacking a bit. When I first started posting on this thread, I had to re-read and firm up and expand my education on this subject. I would suggest you do the same thing.
3.Where did you get your education on this subject? Most likely from the things you say generalize and condense and etc.
4. What makes you think that the Celts were so tough? Could it be from the lying Romans? Isn't it the lying Romans and the untruthful Greeks where we get the majority of our information of the battles from?

Watchman I haven't seen you post for awhile, welcome back if you have been absent for awhile. Of course I see we will disagree again :beam:


Almost invariably a central component of this decline is serious internal trouble; for one reason or another the institutions of the "victim" realm have become weak, often accompanied by severe internal strife the invaders can exploit (if only in the form of there being less troops available to oppose them due to the domestic strife; defections often also feature heavily in such developements, assorted minor bosses and commanders seeing the writing on the wall and jumping ship to survive or just fill their pockets).

I've yet to see any convincing argument as to why this was not the case also in Gaul when the Germans and Romans started making succesful overtures in the 1st century BC - on the contrary, the references Caesar AFAIK makes to civil strife there and the employement of both German and Roman armies in the Gauls' domestic power struggles suggest as much. The collapse of many a realm has begun just from the ill-advised invitation of foreign armies into the land for some purpose (which usually tends to have something to do with the local lords' own military resources for some reason being insufficient for their needs)
As I have pointed out earlier the Germans were already invading Celtic areas around 400-500 BC, several centuries prior to the supposed "Devastating Civil War". Again the Romans defeated the Celts the majority of the times all prior to the supposed "Devastating Civil War".

What comments exactly does Caesar say to make you think this civil strife was so devastating?
What of the employment of the Romans of Gauls,Germans,Numidians and others in their civil wars, does this suggest the same thing? Were the Romans weak for using mercenaries?


Plus, as I seem to recall having pointed out a long time ago (how long has this debate been going on anyway...?), far as I can tell in EB the stats of the German tribal levies more or less match those of many of the Gallic professional troops, the only real advantage of the latter being the heavy armour of their better late-period troops.
What of the cavalry and the elites? I still think the Germanic levies should be as good as the Gallic professional troops.


It seems to me that source-wise we have no variety by circumstance and as such, Frostwulf's position is entirely justified (obviously not without much effort) and he indeed uses the primary and secondary sources available, further proving legitimacy to his effort.

On the other hand, no evidence has been provided for a counterargument, the simple logic of "the Celts didn't get invaded earlier, so they must have been strong" is really all that is being said and has ABSOLUTELY 0% evidence to it.

I agree, and I appreciate you writing on this.


The bottom line is put up or shut up as the phrase goes, if there is evidence to counter Frostwulf's theory, then provide the citation... I do not have such, so I remain quiet, in fact I can only agree with the overwhelming evidence whether it is actually out of context or not- IT'S EVIDENCE! As Frostwulf mentioned, if we're not using those scholarly and scientific resources that define the academic field in relation to this subject matter, what the hell else we talking about? Just because history went a certain way that does not provide any semblence of a legitimate argument.

I will say I used one quote where the Menapii were defeated but it was due to a surprise attack. Other then that I'm still waiting for anyone to challenge the other quotes legitimately.

So here is the challenge people, where is your evidence that the Germans were weak? Archaeological record? ha! We know they used clubs to great effect as seen on Trajan's column and accounts of their use in service of Rome. One could say the material culture of hill-forts show a continuation of Celtic culture but really that only means they weren't changed and has no bearing on the argument of success in battle outside of the hillfort. I'm sure the fortified cities in Pannonia would look the same despite dominance of the environs by roaming Huns. So where is this specific reference to Germans being inferior? is it scholarly? cite it! simply because of the Celts' technology? the Romans were inferior in that sense and borrowed from Celts and Iberians, but that does not reinforce any argument to their lack in success or quality.

it seems to me, with "master race" bs being thrown all around, some people are Celto-centric whether because of ethnic bias or basic adoration of such a great culture, but that again is 0% evidence toward anything... instead of telling Frostwulf to get lost and read more when obviously he has read more than the people who AREN'T citing, maybe you guys should pull out a book for a change and use some evidence. commentary in an effort to devalue evidence isn't evidence either.
I would like to see people either supporting or disagreeing with evidence instead of supposition. Also the term I come across for Celto-centric people is Celtophile.

[Frostwulf]

The only truly overpowered faction in the game are the Romani, and that's because they did really kick ass during the EB timespan.
Sorry I just can't let this one go!

Lol I have to agree 100% with this :2thumbsup:

[blitzkrieg80]

if my tone was interpreted as angry it wasn't meant to be... my fellow EB members can vouch that I'm just a "loud" ass :yes:

Geoffrey, you have been civil, so I am sorry if I came off as targeting you inappropriately or in particular, which was not my intent

[Watchman]

As I have pointed out earlier the Germans were already invading Celtic areas around 400-500 BC, several centuries prior to the supposed "Devastating Civil War". Again the Romans defeated the Celts the majority of the times all prior to the supposed "Devastating Civil War".Right. Must've been awfully half-assed about following up their victories then, given how bloody large territories the Celts in general and Gauls in particular still controlled in the 1st century BC. And were able to spare the manpower for some pretty big campaigns - indeed, at least one full-scale migration as well - on the side.

Are we to believe these mighty all-conquering warriors who scattered Celtic warbands like sticks into the wind before them lacked the inclination to take their lands too or something ? Perhaps they thought it unsporting...? :inquisitive:

Or that the Celts sat on their thumbs for four hundred years getting beat up by their neighbours and never once tried to come up with ways to turn the tables ? :dizzy2:

And if the Roman record of fighting the Celts even pre Caesar etc. really was that one-sided, one really has to wonder at the Celtic enthusiasm to try major raids against them over the centuries... Are we to believe the Celtic warrior class had a collective pathological death wish, marching to supposed certain doom like that ?
Nevermind now the fact Cisalpine Gaul did hold out for a fairly long time against the increasingly overwhelming might of Rome. Given the Roman flair for ruthless opportunism one really has to wonder why they didn't just walk in and grind the nasty trouser-wearing buggers under their sandals the second they could spare an army from fighting the Carthaginians and Hellenics, if they now were so militarily superior...

You line of reasoning lacks credibility I'm afraid. If both the Germans and the Romans had held such a clear advantage over the Celts in battle already so early on, independent of any domestic trouble the latter might have developed, then why the Hell did it take them so bloody long to conclusively overrun them ? Answer that.


What of the cavalry and the elites?*shrug* The Gauls were richer and better metalworkers so logic dictates their top guys had better war gear. As these also were the creme de creme of their warrior class (given the logic of their "promotion" system) they should obviously be pretty hardcore. The German top dudes might have enough accumulated experience to make up the difference, but I find the prospect somewhat difficult to accept - we're talking highly trained crack veterans on both camps here; all other things being equal the advantage in a straight slugging match then per definition goes to the guys with the better war gear.

As for cavalry, the Germans currently lack anything directly comparable to the Brihentin so that part is moot. IIRC the Ridonharjoz, like still altogether too many overhand-spear cav, have some statting issues but at least going by the basic statline they should have an upper hand against the Leuce Epos so I don't really see a problem.


I still think the Germanic levies should be as good as the Gallic professional troops.And *I* still think you're severely biased in favour of the Germans. Personally I find the parity to be somewhat generous, but I guess it's the only way to simulate, within the confines of the game engine, the way well-practised militia troops can match professionals by means of well-thought tactics, teamwork and group cohesion.

[Glewas]

...Ariovistus, after he had many months kept himself in his camp and in the marshes, and had given no opportunity for an engagement, fell suddenly upon them, by this time despairing of a battle and scattered in all directions, and was victorious more through stratagem and cunning than valour. But though there had been room for such stratagem against savage and unskilled men, not even [Ariovistus] himself expected that thereby our armies could be entrapped.


I came upon this part of Caesar's Gallic Wars the other day and I wondered how you (Frostwulf) take the about part the men being unskilled. In reading the translation you quote, I at first took it to mean the Gauls were generally "bad," for lack of a better word, it terms of warfare. Possibly in comparison to German warriors, or maybe even to Roman soldiers, as it is part of a speech Caesar's gives to his men as you stated above. If such was true then it would back up your claim that the Germans were better warriors than the Celts.

However, the reason I bring this up is that my translation, by S. A. Hanford (I know not whether this a "good" or "bad" translation), is slightly different than above. Where the Gauls are referred to as "savage and unskilled" in your trans. Hanford describes them as being "inexperienced natives." This made be think differently of the meaning of "unskilled." To find out more info I went to Perseus to check out the Latin text and the word used by Caesar is imperitos which is translated as both unskiled and inexperienced, along with unfamiliar and ignorant.

Now here's the question... why would Caesar describe these Celtic combatants, who come from what is generally accepted as a "warrior culture" in which glory and valor in battle is highly regarded, as such? Could it be that the Celts were fielding young men who had yet seen battle or at least seen very little? If so... then why? Maybe that devestaing civil war that you claim wasn't such a big deal really was?

[Frostwulf]

Right. Must've been awfully half-assed about following up their victories then, given how bloody large territories the Celts in general and Gauls in particular still controlled in the 1st century BC. And were able to spare the manpower for some pretty big campaigns - indeed, at least one full-scale migration as well - on the side.

Are we to believe these mighty all-conquering warriors who scattered Celtic warbands like sticks into the wind before them lacked the inclination to take their lands too or something ? Perhaps they thought it unsporting...?


Could it be that they were land hungry and once they kicked out the Celts they settled the land? As more tribes started growing they kept displacing the Celts? Rankin thinks the Celtic hill forts may have held them for awhile. The Helvetii were forced out of their territory by the Germans in the 1st century BC. The Germans did take their land:

H.D. Rankin-"Celts and the Classical World"-"By the end of the sixth century BC, the Germans had expanded into Belgium and the southern part of Holland. They occupied both banks of the lower Rhine, and they reached as far south as the Ardennes.

H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical World"-"We begin to learn of significantly insistent Germanic penetration into Celtic Lands in the first Century BC. The Celtic Helvetii moved out of western Switzerland in 58BC: their migration was caused by Germanic pressure." pg.20


Or that the Celts sat on their thumbs for four hundred years getting beat up by their neighbours and never once tried to come up with ways to turn the tables ?

I'm sure they tried, they just failed is all. If you have information contrary to this please post it.


And if the Roman record of fighting the Celts even pre Caesar etc. really was that one-sided, one really has to wonder at the Celtic enthusiasm to try major raids against them over the centuries... Are we to believe the Celtic warrior class had a collective pathological death wish, marching to supposed certain doom like that ?
Nevermind now the fact Cisalpine Gaul did hold out for a fairly long time against the increasingly overwhelming might of Rome. Given the Roman flair for ruthless opportunism one really has to wonder why they didn't just walk in and grind the nasty trouser-wearing buggers under their sandals the second they could spare an army from fighting the Carthaginians and Hellenics, if they now were so militarily superior...
I have the list of the battles posted here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1559843&postcount=144
The Celts held out so long because the Romans were busy conquering central and southern Italy.

H.D. Rankin “Celts and the Classical World”-“The First Punic War had prevented the Romans from dealing finally with the Celtic menace. It was after this war that the Celts made their concerted attack of 225BC: it may have been intended as a pre-emptive attack by the Celts but it was much too late for this purpose. Then came Hannibal’s invasion of Italy, which prevented the Romans from bringing the Celtic question to a conclusion for a number of years.” pg113


You line of reasoning lacks credibility I'm afraid. If both the Germans and the Romans had held such a clear advantage over the Celts in battle already so early on, independent of any domestic trouble the latter might have developed, then why the Hell did it take them so bloody long to conclusively overrun them ? Answer that.
For the Germans that is just speculation on my part as to why they stopped when they did. For the Romans they were conquering central and southern Italy first. The Romans were interrupted from dealing with the Celts as Rankin and others say. Again I answer that in the above link.
So I have Rankin,Dyson,Connoly,James and etc. for credibility, what do you have?

*shrug* The Gauls were richer and better metalworkers so logic dictates their top guys had better war gear. As these also were the creme de creme of their warrior class (given the logic of their "promotion" system) they should obviously be pretty hardcore. The German top dudes might have enough accumulated experience to make up the difference, but I find the prospect somewhat difficult to accept - we're talking highly trained crack veterans on both camps here; all other things being equal the advantage in a straight slugging match then per definition goes to the guys with the better war gear.

I agree that the Gauls would be outfitted better then the Germans for the most part. Prior to Caesar we don't really have any written records of battles between the Germans and the Gauls. All we know prior to Caesar is that the Germans were encroaching on the Celtic territory's. From Caesar's writings during his time we know that the Germans were martially superior to the Celts.


And *I* still think you're severely biased in favour of the Germans. Personally I find the parity to be somewhat generous, but I guess it's the only way to simulate, within the confines of the game engine, the way well-practised militia troops can match professionals by means of well-thought tactics, teamwork and group cohesion.
Of course I am, I am also a Roman apologist, and maybe in time I'll be a Graecophile.
I agree with you about the game engine and its confines.

[PSYCHO V]

First off the important things: Psycho I pray for your grief to subside, happiness to renew and fond memories to remain..

Thanks mate


No need for apologies… sometimes it will take me a few days to complete one post. Sometimes it will take multiple days to weeks to get back to a reply..

Cheers.





Secondly, Jame’s comment “that the vast armies commanded by Vercingetorix and others were assemble only as a response to the great threat from Rome. In fact, Rome changed the very rules of Celtic warfare, bringing large armies into an area”.. I have to say is ridiculous. Did Rome have anything to do with the large forces involved in Spain, Greece or Anatolia hundreds of years prior Vercingetrix? Was the Gallic victories and sacking of Etruscan and Roman cities a response to Rome…no, it was a Gallic initiative. Gallic states had long used large forces before any Roman influence.

You forgot to put in this part "Rome changed the very rules of Celtic warfare, bringing large armies into an area where, internally at least, they may have been much rarer before."

~:) I “forgot” nothing. What do you suppose was the cause of these mass movements of Gallic warriors! Even your beloved Livy states that these groups had come into being due to internal pressures and turmoil. Was the battle of Admagetobriga a response to Rome?




James even acknowledges that Rome and Greece had no influence in the development of these large Gallic states (pg 120) and the associated employment of force, so he appears to contradict himself when suggesting that large Celtic forces were a response to Rome.

James is talking about the urbanization of Gaul, he says nothing here about the "associated employment of force" here. Your throwing them together when they are two separate issues in separate chapters.

Actually, by this juncture he is talking about the generic development of the various power blocks / proto-states, etc… and no, they are not two separate issues. One’s prosperity / power depended on the number of clients / retainers / forces.




..why was it necessary for the Gauls (with the exception of the Belgae) to have to arm and train their armies anew on the arrival of Caesar? They were a mobilized militia because the warrior caste was all but wiped out previously, in the war you deny happened.

Venceslas Kruta-"The Celts"-"…cavalry totally replace the war-chariots ..blah blah blah." pg.110

Stephen Allen-"Lords of Battle, the World of the Celtic Warrior"-"The nature of Celtic warfare changed … to large conflicts between tribal confederations …A major consequence was the increasing importance of cavalry …blah blah blah." pg.83

Stephen Allen-"Lords of Battle, the World of the Celtic Warrior"-" By this period, the elite Gallic warriors who provided the urban aristocracies with their armed retainers were almost entirely cavalry…blah blah blah" pg.132

:gah2: I know you like to post alot of quotes but I fail to see what has this has got to do with the price of tea in China?




…Romans>Germans>Celts
…The Germans outclassed the Celts..regardless of the territory.
…The Celts were not as good as the Romans nor the Germans.
…I believe the German warrior to be superior.
…The Germans should be superior to them (Gauls).

I don't think it was the infighting but the external force that may have brought them (Gauls) low…. If there was any weakening to the Celts during Caesar's time it was because of the Germans which Caesar himself alludes to..

I'm afraid I'm going to have to quote your own words back to you.



Do you know of any reputed author, paper, or anything on this subject? If you mention the book, paper or whatever research I will be more then happy to read it.



Goldsworthy “Caesar” -“ Throughout the Gallic campaigns German warriors consistently defeated their Gallic counterparts, each success adding to their fierce reputation… The tactics and the quality of the Germanic warriors usually gave them the edge over the Gaulish cavalry”

As I mentioned previously, repetition does not a good argument make when one ignores context. Context ! Ie “Throughout the Gallic campaigns”



Its not just me claiming this. I will repeat myself and say yes Goldsworthy is saying in the Gallic campaigns, but thats because his subject was Caesar and his time frame.

Really? I don’t see anyone else claiming the Germans to be innately superior throughout several hundred years of history.



Some are saying that the "Civil War" with the Sequani, Arverni vs. the Aedui (there were others involved) in 70-60 BC was devastating and nearly brought all these tribes to ruin. I am disagreeing with this on the basis of the findings of Simon James and the writing of A. Goldsworthy.

So at the end of the day, all you have is a quote about how the Gauls didn’t wage total war (James) and how the German units fought well in the 1st C BC (Goldsworthy)…just before they (Gauls) were overrun. Hardly a convincing argument there my friend

As I have said ad naseum, there were several factors that lead to the Gallic demise not one issue only. You have to look at the big picture, remember my analogy of the White Elephant? Internal martial and political weakness, fiscal prosperity, centralisation of governance, external military and socio-economic pressure, both internal and external population pressures, etc etc all contributed. Like the fall of most states / empires, one would be naïve to just to consider the most obvious. Did the western Roman empire fall because they could not stop the Germanic Master Race in 410 AD, no. Just like the Gauls, there were years of decline / political instability, civil war, etc etc that contributed.


Anyone who aims to understand the human past - must seek out the remaining driftwood of earlier times, traces surviving in the present: old documents, objects, monuments, etc. They must then use these, applying their knowledge of how the world works, to construct histories. (Simon James, University of Leicester, UK, 10 September 2005)



You will also have to remember the Romans were defeating the Gauls well before the supposed "Devastating Civil War".

And the Transalpine Gauls were defeating the Romans as well (before the civil war)..even as late as 63 BC. Your point?



The Celts were being defeated most of the time by a pre-Marius conscript army. The Romans were generally outnumbered and won the majority of the battles.

Oh here we go again! The perceptual short cut.


my2bob

[PSYCHO V]

Gday again Frosty. You have posted quite a few comments which I would like to address but don’t think I’ll have time to do so now. This for starters...


The Eubrones (sic) were a Germanic speaking people, and they were part of the Belgae.

Well they may have been bi-lingual and spoken German (we don’t know) but they definitely had Celtic customs, culture and tongue. Further, the Eburones (‘yew people’) were not Belgae but rather (along with the Treveri, Levaci, Condrusi, Caeroesi, Paemani, Segni and Ceutrones), remnants of the Moselle Celts.


“Other tribes who appear to have descended from these Moselle Celts, who had occupied that entire region in the early La Tene period, were the Eburones, a small but hardy group in the forest of the Ardennes….” (The Celts a History, The Destruction of Gaul, pg 149 – Daithi O’Hogain)



Caesar said that the Eburones, Condrusi, Caerosi and Paemani were Germanic.

No, Caesar said that the aforementioned were “known as German tribes”. Known to whom? The ‘Marne’ tribes of central Gaul from which Caesar was getting his information. Why?, because the Marne Celts regarded the Moselle Celts, who happen to have had a thriving culture on the Rhine,.. as easterners / ‘Germans’ (1st C BC). Not too dissimilar to how the Allies of WWI / WWII referred to Germans as Huns.



For the Belgae about the only thing we know of them is they intermingled early on with the Celts in now northern France.

Not true, we know a little more than that.

The Belgae (‘furious ones’), like all Celts, had originally come from Germany. More specifically, they appear to have originated between the Tauber and Main rivers. These were an adventurous people who had their origins in the warrior cults of central Germany that thrived with the collapse of the old Celtic Halstatt chiefdoms. Some Belgae nobility may have even been descendants of the old Halstatt regimes. Some scholars claim they were related to the Volcae.

We also know about many aspects of their material culture. We know of their distinctive art, type and quality of arms, antiquated (by ‘Marne’ standards) ceramics and methods of manufacture, antiquated smithing techniques and treatment of the dead, etc etc.

And whilst you may believe the Belgae to be Germanic because their martial prowess fits in with this ‘master race’ hypothesis, facts say otherwise. Of course, if you dig around long enough you will be able to find some great quotes to support this very old myth.

Belgae history (like all Celtic history) has been written and re-written over centuries, swayed by the tumult of ethno-political events, movements and agendas,... only recently being clawed back from obscurity. They have suffered from agenda based revisionism since the first accounts of their existence were recorded.

This revisionism, was given new impetus in the ‘new dawning’ of European national identity.

When the last Breton army was defeated in 1488 by the French, the Bretons were forced to sign the Treaty of Union between Brittany and France. Frenchman Jean le Fevre was sponsored by his King to write ‘Les Fleurs et Antiquitez des Gaules, ou il est traits des Anciens Philosophes Gaulois applelez Druides’ (1532) in which he stated “we are all Celts now”, claiming that the Germanic Franks and Celto-Belgae Bretons were all of the one Celtic stock.

Elias Schedius claimed that Belgae and Germans were the same people and that the Druids were the ancestors of all German peoples (1648, De Dis Germanis).

By the mid 1700s the French were again having problems with the Bretons. French centralist policies were encroaching on Brittany’s autonomous status, guaranteed under the Acts of Union and several Breton leaders had been executed for attempting to reassert Breton independence. Simon Pelloutiers was sponsored by his King to write another work, claiming that “the religion of the Germanic Franks and the Celtic Belgae was one and the same thing” (1740, Histoire des Gaulois).

Not surprising that the Nazis drew heavily on such texts to support their ethnic theories on the Aryan race. The myth lives on! :yes:



William H. Maehl-"Germany in Western Civilization pg.7"-"On the eve of the mastery of Germany, ..blah blah blah …. As the second century BC dawned, Germany was under the domination of one race at last. However, that race could no longer claim to be pure…

Even if one ignored how dated this work is, doesn’t this strike you as a little odd? Do you think Maehl is being completely dispassionate and objectivity considering his ‘measured’ choice of words.


I could make a considerable list of the authors who don't mention the supposed "Devastating Civil War".

We’ll if you keep quoting stuff as dated as this, I wouldn’t be surprised. ~:rolleyes:





I know because it runs counter to your hypothesis of the German Master Race.

As I have said earlier I'm neither an apologist nor of Germanic or Roman ancestry. Just in case the subject comes up… Just because I disagree with you is no reason for you to allege such things.

Ooo k…? The above comment has nothing to with the aforementioned. The comment was made because it exhibits the same perceptual shortcut. You like things simple and generic, I have just offered assistance by providing an appropriate nomenclature for your hypothesis.




…Romans>Germans>Celts
…The Germans outclassed the Celts..regardless of the territory.
…The Celts were not as good as the Romans nor the Germans.
…I believe the German warrior to be superior.
…The Germans should be superior to them (Gauls).

I notice a propensity to dismiss my comments and religiously quote / defer to that which is published / mentioned by others….. so it seems I’m going to have to do a little quoting myself… and I hate having to type stuff out.


“It is not surprising that they (Gauls) are still being reinvented at this time because, in our sad and sorry contemporary world, people still want a quick fix because people, in the quest for truth and meaning in life, which seems the perennial human drive, prefer simple answers. It is easier to accept the cosy pictures than ponder the uncomfortable realities…” - (Dr Peter Berresford Ellis)

Again, seeing as you like quotes I happened to be speaking with Dr James on Tuesday and mentioned our debate. In response to the your supposition that the Germans were superior to the Gauls he stated, and I quote:
“The Germans were not superior, then or more recently. Though they clearly were tough soldiers..” – (Dr Simon James PhD BSc FSA, Tuesday 11th September 2007, University of Leicester, UK)



Do you know of any reputed author, paper, or anything on this subject? .

Did I happen to mention how much I hate retyping stuff…


“Transalpine Gaul was suddenly seized with social and political turmoil. Following the Roman defeat of the Arverni in 121 BC, most of the inhabitants of region were plunged into a devastating civil war. The Aedui with their clients challenged the weakened Arverni and her allies in order to reassert prior claims of leadership and regain control of the lucrative trade routes that ran through the Rhone river valley.
Over the course of this protracted conflict, both sides became exhausted. In 71 BC, the Arverni and their allies the Sequani, sought desperate new measures to bring a favourably end to the conflict. They hired Germanic mercenaries from various tribes across the Rhine.
The leader of this mercenary body, the Seubi king Ariovistus, quickly noted the weakened military condition of the Gauls and immediately began exerting his own power, first amongst his ‘hosts’ the Sequani and then to the surrounding tribes. Towns were seized, hostages taken and considerable re-enforcements acquired from across the Rhine. The Aedui attempted to mobilise a Gallic resistance to this German incursion but support was limited. The united Gallic militia proved to be no match for Ariovistus’ mercenaries and the Gauls were slaughtered in 61 BC at a battle near Admagetobriga,” – (‘Indo-European History’, ‘La Tene Gaul’, XVI, 5.63, Univerzita Karlova v Praze)




When it comes to the Germans what else can you do? You only have information from certain time periods... You take the information you have and apply it the best you can.


So if we didn’t have any understanding of ancient Rome you would be happy to directly extrapolate knowledge of modern day Italy? Look at the big picture!

The difference between ancient Rome and modern Italy is vast.

You didn’t answer my question. As I said, if you had “no understanding of ancient Rome”, you wouldn’t know that now would you? The only difference here is that you regard some data expedient to substantiate your hypothesis of the Germanic Master Race… whilst other data is not.



It would be hard to compare Germans and Gauls prior to Ariovistus because of the lack of information…

Apparently not.



What real differences would their have been between the Germanics of 300BC and 100BC? The Germanics of 100BC would have the advantage of better arms and armor because of increased trade/war with the Celts/Romans. The advanced armor would for the most part only belong to the elites, not the majority of the warriors.

Again I believe you need to look at the big picture for fear of missing the wood through the trees. Your ignoring context by focusing on the Germans devoid of eternal factors. Strength is only regarded as such through the paradigm of relativity.



The German cavalry of Caesar's time were superior to that of the Gauls as shown by the events of this time. What reason would there be to assume that these same German units would have changed from earlier times?

Yes during Caesar’s time. Again strength is relative. :wall:

The point I was making (which I have made all along), is that the Germans didn’t suddenly wake up one morning in 70 BC as this elite unstoppable force you claim is inferred by Caesar in the 1st C BC. You can’t extrapolate the relative strength of the Germans during Caesar’s War to those several hundred years prior. The Gauls were comparatively weaker in the 1st C BC… as you have cited and every scholar noted. Ask yourself why?



The supposed "Devastating Civil War" started in the 120's BC, so how is it that the Germans were already pushing the Celts back 500-400BC? The Celts started expanding south during that time period, so how are they weaker? The Celts sacked Rome around 390 BC, yet up north they were being pushed back. Your theory doesn't work because your time frame is off.

(*sigh*) .. Frosty, you aren’t even talking about the same people!!

Ignoring the fact that most of the inhabitants of northern Europe were not Celtic at all but rather remnants of the Urnfield and some cases Germanic peoples (most of which had long freed themselves from their Halstatt overlords). They didn’t have an ancient cookie cutting to pop out some sort of generic Celt.

It’s extremely naïve to compare the Germano-Celtic remnants of these northern Halstatt chiefdoms to the advanced powerful La Tene ‘D’ states of Gaul.




The Menapii claim wasn’t out of context? You jump on / continually cite a few select pieces of data without acknowledging the context to support this claim that all Germans throughout all of ancient history were a superior master race ..yet cite context / dismiss similar examples involving the Gauls

I already answered this in my post before this one. Again the Sugambri, the Usipetes/Tenceri cavalry and Caesar's German mercenary cavalry they are in context. You harp on this one but ignore the others, what Gallic ones are you referring to me dismissing?

The problem is that your method of analysis appears to be completely dependant on the type of data, or should I say the interpretation one wishes to gain from the said data.

For the few examples given us of German troops during the 1st C BC (during Caesar’s war of conquest), you are quite happy play up, even make erroneous claims from events that (as you have even admitted) should never be used as supposed evidence. Eg. The Menapii.

On the other hand, when I post equivalent information about the Gauls (merely to prove how preposterous it is to extrapolate isolated events devoid of context), you appear quite comfortable dismissing them.

Eg.




You have continually cited (ad naseum) this example from Caesar’s De Bello Gallico as evidence of the German’s superiority. It’s interesting to note that you have failed to take account of a similar / more impressive event of 400 hundred Gallic cavalry routing a larger contingent (4,000) of the same Roman (Gallic) cavalry (De Bello Gallico; I.XVI.VI). This Gallic cavalry being better than the other Gallic cavalry, why? …funnily enough the victorious 400 Gauls came from a nation that managed to avoid involvement in the great Gallic civil war.

Caesars 4,000 were ambushed over extended ..and were rolled off the field. If you read the situations with the Germans this is not the case, the Germans fought pitched battles and won.
The Helvettii I already explained it, they were surprised and spread out.

Are you just making stuff up now? How did you get the “over extended, rolled off the field, spread out” bit?



Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"….the allied cavalry were ambushed and beaten by a force of Helvetion (sic) cavalry a fraction of their size." pg.215

Regarding the ambush comment, Goldsworthy has made an assumption here. There is no evidence to that effect. Caesar only states that the Helvetii engaged them on “unfavourable ground”. Some scholars believe Caesar is just excusing his defeat as he did with Gergovia and the slaughter of several thousand Romans by the puny Eburones. We will never know for sure.

If you want to adopt Goldsworthy’s rationale then one would have acknowledge the same likelihood with your beloved 800 super Germans.


Caesar states; “Our men (Gallo-Romans) who thought themselves safe from attack because the enemy’s (German) envoys had only just left Caesar and had asked for a truce that day”. The Germans attacked whilst seeking peace! If you’re happy to accept “unfavourable ground” as evidence of an ambush then surely you would accept the surprise attack of the Germans as an ambush as well!?

As for the other accounts of Germanic cavalry in De Bello Gallico, there is nothing to suggest that they were anything other than an effective / experienced force of mercenaries. An elite force bought at a price that fought a weakened Gallic aristocracy long reduced by civil war.




A rather gross misrepresentation I’m afraid.

Ariovistus did not “dominate several Gallic factions” with just 15,000 men. The 15k were the first contingent to cross the Rhine and provide support to the Sequani. Ariovistus had not acquired hegemony over these central Gallic factions until he was reinforced by some 105,000 Seubi, Marcommanni, Vangiones, Triboci, Eudusii, Nemetes and 24,000 Harudes and then defeated what must have then been a pitiful force of Gauls at the Battle of Magetobriga. This purported 120,000 - 144,000 army of Ariovistus would have vastly outnumbered anything the Aedui confederacy could have fielded at the time, little loan what the beleaguered Sequani were capable of.

I believe your misunderstanding the numbers mentioned. The 120,000 Germans encompasses tribal peoples, not just warriors. This many troops were not there at Magetobriga, though there may have been more then the 15,000 I said.

And how, prey tell, do you know that?

Why not suggest that 4,000 Romano-Gauls that fought ‘The mighty (German) 800’ were all kids from the local pony club?

You love to repeatedly cite the example of the 800 but what about the others instances I have cited about the Gauls. Couldn’t we just as likely draw all sorts of strange conclusions / make all sorts of grandiose claims?

Remember that 430,000 of these “superior” Germans (Usipetes and Tenctheri, to which the mighty 800 belonged) ran like girls when faced with 8 Roman legions.


“The Germans threw down their weapons, deserted their standards and rushed out of their camp. When they reached the confluence of the Moselle and the Rhine, they realized that they could flee no farther. A large number were killed, and the rest plunged into the water and perished, overcome by the force of the current in their terror-stricken and exhausted state. The Romans returned to camp without a single fatal casualty, and with only a very few wounded, although a grim struggle had been anticipated against an enemy 430,000 strong.” – (De Bello Gallico; IV.XXIV.V)

Yet we have several accounts on much smaller numbers of Gauls at least putting up a fight. The 92,000 Helvetii attacking 6 legions up hill and retiring in good order. Vercingetrix’s 80,000 Gauls being surprised by an assault of 10 legions and winning..etc etc Should we now assume that the Gauls were the master race / innately superior!? ..Of course not!




One, because we know they (Germans) were there but made no attempt on Gaul, a rich and prosperous area. Two, archeology shows very little in the way of Gallic arms and armour have been found across the Rhine. What does exist tends to be dated (Halstatt 'D' / La Tene 'A') equipment use by the Celtic inhabitants who had been ruling over the local Indo-Europeans (urnfield, Germanics, etc). Three, the Gauls acted as a wall from which Germanic population pressures washed against ..even up ‘til Caesar’s time (eg. The Usipetes and Tenctheri fleeing the Seubi). .

..Yes they were there. The lands they settled could have been fine with them. .

Of course. How heavenly pleasant ……. / convenient. ~:grouphug:



It was Ariovistus who after being invited to Gaul realized that is was good land and didn't want to leave..

You don’t seriously think that the Germans were ignorant / didn't have an appreciation of what Gaul was like prior to 71 BC ....do you!?

The Germans had had extensive contact with the Gauls for centuries. The Seubi had long been heavily influenced by the Gauls. Ariovistus spoke Gallic fluently and even had a Gallic aspect to his name .. ario-vid-s (‘he who forsees’). Many scholars even believe that he had significant contingents of Gauls amongst his mercenary force.



According to William Maehl there was a increase of population and the tribes needed land which became intense in 500 BC.

But if this was the only determiner for Germanic success in 70-65BC, why didn’t the Germans overrun Gaul in 500BC etc?



Why didn't the Usipetes and the Tencteri raid the land earlier if there was such a devastating "Civil War"? It seems to me to be a minor Volkerwanderung with the Germanic tribes slowly moving forward.

Ah..of course! Silly me … they were dancing the "slow version" of the Volkerwanderung!





Again, if you are so happy citing Caesar, why ignore his statement regarding the aforementioned battle. “If anyone is alarmed by the fact that the Germans have defeated the Gauls (Battle of Magetobriga) and put them to flight, he should inquire into the circumstance of that defeat. He will find that it happened at a time when the Gauls were exhausted by a long war” (De Bello Gallico; I.XL.XIII). The Civil War you deny / dismiss.


It could be because Caesar was referring to the battles with the Germans. For some reason I cant find that quote, is it in the 1st chapter? It sounds like when he would be addressing his troops and this quote isn't there.


If you had read all of De Bello Gallico, you couldn’t have missed it. Again, you can’t just take quotes that you like and ignore those you don’t. Its bad enough to claim some scholarship as definitive truth, much worse to only use select pieces of any said work.

This is out of context. This has nothing to do with the "Gallic Civil War", its all about the Gauls being exhausted by the fight with the Germans. So yes I do deny and dismiss the supposed "Devastating Civil War".

:2thumbsup: :laugh4: Wow!... It never ceases to amaze me how some will only see what they want to see.

Why the bloody hell would Caesar try to calm his troops by telling them “Don’t worry about how the Germans fight! The Germans only managed to slaughter the Gauls because they slaughtered them previously”!? ~;p

It doesn’t make sense! You have to be having a lend ...surely?

The comment only makes sense when one acknowledges the context, that the Gauls had been slaughtering each other and were “exhausted by a long war”. The Civil war that you now partly deny




No. Firstly, Jame’s comment (‘Exploring the World of the Celts’ pg 74.) about “warfare was on a small scale” is true if one takes it as a generic comment applicable to all Celts across all time periods (eg. Germany, Ireland, Britain and early Gaul) but it is not applicable to Gaul in our period. Again if you have taken note of all the data and not just select bits you would have noted that he states the escalation / “increase in the scale of warfare” due to the growing states. This was the point which I made and you denied concerning the devastation wrought the Great Gallic Civil War.. which you continue to deny. See also Jame’s comments about the changes in Gallic society and the centralization of power.

He said it may have led to an increase, not- this may have led to the increase in the scale of warfare.

Oh please…semantics! Is that the best you can do?



You also ignored Goldworthy "The scale of these conflicts is hard to judge, but it is probable that the aim was the reduction of the enemy to a subject tribe through a moral defeat rather then his destruction."

Ignored? What are you talking about? This is exactly what I have been saying all along!

The Gauls didn’t engage in total war! They fought until one side had wiped out the others forces / retainers or had gained a significant advantage in such, hostages exchanged and homage paid. The problem for the Gauls was that the Civil war in question was a wide reaching conflict of large evenly balanced forces, so what followed was an attrition of the aforementioned retainers / warrior elite until the balance started to shift and the Sequani took over the leadership of the Southern alliance. The Germans were brought in, at great shame to the Sequani, to even up the numbers. The Aedui confederacy, now bereft of fighters themselves, appealed to Rome.




The 400 were the Helvetii (who authors say were under pressure from Germans to leave) defeated Caesars Gallic cavalry.
The Helvetii moved due to German pressure?


“The Helvetii ..are almost in daily conflict with the Germans, either repulsing them or themselves invading Germany….
Orgetrix… organised a conspiracy of nobleman, and persuaded his countrymen to emigrate enmass, telling that they ..could very easily conquer the whole country (Gaul). They listened the more readily to his proposal because their territory is completely hemmed in by natural barriers, etc etc…. These obstacles restricted their movement and made it more difficult to attack their neighbours… they greatly resented constraint. Considering their military prestige, and reputation for bravery, they felt that their territory …” – (De Bello GallicoI.1&2)

Caesar-"Gallic war"-XL – “In short, that these (Germans) were the same men whom the Helvetii, in frequent encounters, not only in their own territories, but also in theirs [the German], have generally vanquished, and yet cannot have been a match for our army”

Doesn’t sound like they were fleeing in panic to me. :shrug:



From this it seems that is was the Germans who were the ones who had been defeating the Celts for centuries.

Well that may be your deduction but those with a little more objectivity may disagree.



The vulnerability doesn't mention the "Devastating Civil War"! Why, because its and exaggerated event.

Hmm.. “exaggerated”? .. so you're acknowledging it now? :yes:


my2bob

[Geoffrey S]

The German cavalry of Caesar's time were superior to that of the Gauls as shown by the events of this time. What reason would there be to assume that these same German units would have changed from earlier times? They would have had the same equipment, so what would have changed? I'm not referring to the armored cavalry of Ariovistus's or the TCA. I'm writing about Caesars mercenaries and the other German cavalry(Sugambri, Usipetes/Tenceri ).
What indications do you have that Germanic warfare was that stagnant? To me that sounds like equating the Marian legions to the legions of 270 bc.

The books that I have been referring to use both historical records from different ancient authors as well as archeology. Again the authors I have been reciting are amongst the best in the field.
And they are also primarily concerned with the culture of the Celts with only a very loose frame of history outside the well-documented parts with contacts with Mediterranean civilizations.

Yes but some speculation is better then others based upon reading and research. The supposed "Devastating Civil War" started in the 120's BC, so how is it that the Germans were already pushing the Celts back 500-400BC? The Celts started expanding south during that time period, so how are they weaker? The Celts sacked Rome around 390 BC, yet up north they were being pushed back. By 200BC the Germans were to the Rhine, thats nearly 80yrs before the supposed "Devastating Civil War".
Took them an awful long time to achieve that, then, certainly since the Celts were migrating all over the place in the meantime, leaving the homelands less densely populated.

You will also have to remember the Romans were defeating the Gauls well before the supposed "Devastating Civil War"
Not in every battle, but in battles that the (later!) Romans decided to include in their histories, sometimes little more than overblown skirmishes at that.

Simon James "The World of the Celts"-" the Gaul described and conquered by Caesar showed no signs of exhaustion by internal wars-it was a rich and prosperous land-so means were evidently found for limiting the damage war could cause." pg.74
A rich and prosperous land, not the lack of population your suggesting.
It was rich and prosperous, I'll agree completely, but that says nothing about the population or the state of the available troops. If anything, the wealth of the region can be taken to mean less people to divide the available means over, much like the plague in Europe for a time increased the fortunes of those that survived.

Caesar undoubtedly exaggerated the numbers of the Gauls he came against, but if you look at how many people that were in the cities of the time they certainly didn't have a population problem. Your claim that the population must have been lower because the lack of migrations, I simply counter with what really happened-Urbanization.
Urbanization is an interesting possibility that needs to be considered. But was it necessarily a good thing, like you suggest? I recall that deathrates in cities prior to modern sanitation was significantly higher that in the countryside; it's a delicate balance between population growth and decline, and quite conceivably the latte was the case. But I'll admit it's a good point that needs more thought.

If you will go back and read these posts you will see this was in response to Psyco V claiming the Celts had been defeating the Germans for centuries. You said they matched the best in the world, yet were not able to stop the Germans. The Romans were able to stop enemies that had more troops then they, if the Celts were there equal why couldn't they?
I did not say they were the best in the world; quite the opposite, I argued that by the time of Celtic decline their troops were somewhat worse and available in far smaller numbers (particularly professionals) than before, certainly in comparison to their enemies.

Again, the Germans began pushing into Celtic territory the same time the Celts were doing their expansion.
And again, you don't see a possible connection between these two expansions?

Did you not read were it says the "elite Gallic warriors"? Did you not read the quotes that I posted from Kruta that talks about their training?
Not that that counts for much, if they're constantly being lost in skirmishes with neighbouring Celts and don't accrue much experience in battle, also gradually eroding the amount of professionals that can be fielded. And they're a small elite regardless, what about the levies that are being expended against each other and also gain very little in the way of actual battle experience?

As I have said earlier the Romans were already beating the Celts with pre-Marian troops. What did you think was going to happen with post-Marian troops?
They'd get beaten. While I disagree they were consistently beaten by pre-Marian troops, and I'd say they weren't consistently beaten by Marian troops (though more regularly), I'll agree the Celtic levies and small amounts of relatively inexperienced professionals were outclassed by the professional Roman legions.

I'm glad you do contribute, I think it helps in the understanding of things. But I do have some criticisms.
1. I don't believe you read the thread very well as I have had to repeat things I have replied to Psycho V about.
2. I think your history in this area is lacking a bit. When I first started posting on this thread, I had to re-read and firm up and expand my education on this subject. I would suggest you do the same thing.
3.Where did you get your education on this subject? Most likely from the things you say generalize and condense and etc.
4. What makes you think that the Celts were so tough? Could it be from the lying Romans? Isn't it the lying Romans and the untruthful Greeks where we get the majority of our information of the battles from?
1. Replied, sure, but that doesn't mean a consensus was reached or that I agree with the reply.

2. It is a bit lacking since it's not what my studies are focused on now. But that does not mean I can't pick out what I perceive to be flawed arguments and question their reasoning.

3. And I realise their limitations.

4. Right, I see this really needs clearing up. I don't believe the Celts were the toughest bastards around. My opinion on this matter is that there is no indication of innate Germanic toughness or skill that allowed them to eventually beat the Celts, that yes, they were in general more skilled warriors and more numerous (a key point) by the time Caesar describes Gaul but that there is no indication that this state of affairs can be directly linked to the Germanics needing to be stronger than Celts or that Celts should be comparatively weaker than other factions at the start of EBs timeframe.

Geoffrey, you have been civil, so I am sorry if I came off as targeting you inappropriately or in particular, which was not my intent
No problem.

[Watchman]

Could it be that they were land hungry and once they kicked out the Celts they settled the land? As more tribes started growing they kept displacing the Celts? Rankin thinks the Celtic hill forts may have held them for awhile. The Helvetii were forced out of their territory by the Germans in the 1st century BC. The Germans did take their land:

H.D. Rankin-"Celts and the Classical World"-"By the end of the sixth century BC, the Germans had expanded into Belgium and the southern part of Holland. They occupied both banks of the lower Rhine, and they reached as far south as the Ardennes.

H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical World"-"We begin to learn of significantly insistent Germanic penetration into Celtic Lands in the first Century BC. The Celtic Helvetii moved out of western Switzerland in 58BC: their migration was caused by Germanic pressure." pg.20...weren't those Germans who went into Belgium more or less the same bunch the Romans knew as the Belgae, and regarded as a particularly fierce and savage subspecies of the Celt proper...? Even if they originated from the Germanic culture sphere they appear to have gotten pretty Celticized in the meantime - and AFAIK the classification as "Celtic" these days goes by the basis of language and culture due to the heterogenous nature of that umbrella group, so by it they'd have become Celts through and through. Moot point.

That's a funny three-four-hundred year gap in expansion right there anyway. And given what we know of Germanic culture and mindset (and the standard pattern of both in general regarding these matters those days), that sure as Hell wasn't because they felt the poor Celts deserved a break or something.

Expansion stops from two reasons: either you run out of steam and can go no further, or the other guy keeps you from going further. And odds are the Germans weren't so short of people all those centuries they lacked the resources and impetus to try proceeding further into the rich lands of Gaul (and other choicer Celtic lands), which leaves being checked by its inhabitants the only logical explanation.


I'm sure they tried, they just failed is all. If you have information contrary to this please post it.The rank lack of succesful German expansion at Celtic expense for centuries sounds pretty conclusive to me, doubly so given the highly warlike nature of both peoples.


I have the list of the battles posted here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpo...&postcount=144
The Celts held out so long because the Romans were busy conquering central and southern Italy.

H.D. Rankin “Celts and the Classical World”-“The First Punic War had prevented the Romans from dealing finally with the Celtic menace. It was after this war that the Celts made their concerted attack of 225BC: it may have been intended as a pre-emptive attack by the Celts but it was much too late for this purpose. Then came Hannibal’s invasion of Italy, which prevented the Romans from bringing the Celtic question to a conclusion for a number of years.” pg113When did Cisalpine Gaul become a Roman province, anyway ? Anyone happen to know ? The Wiki list of provinces under the Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_provinces#List_of_Republican_provinces) and early Empire is rather unhelpful - the late date seems to suggest the region was long some sort of client-state or allied province which was integrated as a proper province only much later.

In any case, the Cisalpines were obviously tough enough that it took until sometime after the Second Punic War for the Romans to be able to subdue them, in spite of the fact they were a real pain in the arse what with the incessant raids, occasional major invasion (the one culminating in Telamon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Telamon) was doing quite well until the army was caught between two Roman ones) and a noted tendency to sign up with anyone intent on doing the Republic grievous harm. That the Romans did not walk in and kick their heads in for such persistent aggravation suggests doing so required a major investement of military power they long could not spare, or were not willing to risk; clearly the Gauls of Italy were no pushovers, and they had roosted in the Po valley for quite a few centuries after pushing the Italics out of there.


For the Germans that is just speculation on my part as to why they stopped when they did. For the Romans they were conquering central and southern Italy first. The Romans were interrupted from dealing with the Celts as Rankin and others say. Again I answer that in the above link.
So I have Rankin,Dyson,Connoly,James and etc. for credibility, what do you have?See above - the only logically tenable reason I can see for the stalled German expansion was the blunt fact the Celts were holding them at bay, much like the Romans did for a fair few centuries longer.

As for the Romans, might you care to explain why exactly it took until the late 2nd century or so before the Romans had even a decent province in the rich Transalpine Gaul (apparently centered around the old Greek city of Massilia at that), and took until the next century to make serious succesful efforts at grabbing land from the fertile and wealthy Gaul proper ? By that point they certainly could muster armies for military adventures if they smelled profit; we're talking about the period when wealthy magnates kept pulling whole Legions out of thin air by their personal fortunes after all.

Given the Romans' note streak of ruthless opportunism and certain complexes they had concerning the Gauls, it is difficult to find a rational reason for such heel-dragging other than Gallic military power having still been strong enough to check their ambitions. Heck, Caesar originally only went in at the invitation of his Gallic allies...

[NeoSpartan]

....
The Gauls didn’t engage in total war! They fought until one side had wiped out the others forces / retainers or had gained a significant advantage in such, hostages exchanged and homage paid. The problem for the Gauls was that the Civil war in question was a wide reaching conflict of large evenly balanced forces, so what followed was an attrition of the aforementioned retainers / warrior elite until the balance started to shift and the Sequani took over the leadership of the Southern alliance. The Germans were brought in, at great shame to the Sequani, to even up the numbers. The Aedui confederacy, now bereft of fighters themselves, appealed to Rome.

....


Guys I vote this thread to be stickied!

I FINALY understand wtf happened in that time period. :idea2:

[blitzkrieg80]

hey everybody, suppose away and join in on the 0 evidence gang-bang! :knuddel: oh yeah!

(where's my evidence that you have no evidence?...err umm- good point!)

[Watchman]

Yeah, logic is overrated anyway.

[Frostwulf]

Glewas I didn't mean to skip you, you posted as I was in the middle of mine.


Now here's the question... why would Caesar describe these Celtic combatants, who come from what is generally accepted as a "warrior culture" in which glory and valor in battle is highly regarded, as such? Could it be that the Celts were fielding young men who had yet seen battle or at least seen very little? If so... then why? Maybe that devestaing civil war that you claim wasn't such a big deal really was?
A good and legitimate question. My version has "unskilled barbarians" as well. Here is the situation, you can make up your mind on it.

1.Gallic traders began to tell Caesars men about the Germans "men of a mighty frame and incredible valour and skill at arms". Book 1, 38

2.Caesars men were frightened "So great was the panic, and so suddenly did it seize upon all the army..." Book 1,39

3.Caesar convenes a council of war and speaks with his men. Book 1,40

4. Caesar says Ariovistus wont attack and if he did attack "why do you despair of your own courage or of my competence." Book 1,40

5. Caesar says "on the occasion when, in defeat of the Cimbri and Teutoni by Gaius Marius, the army was deemed to have deserved no less praise than the commander himself." Book 1,40

6. Caesar talks about the slave revolt(referring to the German element) "and yet the slaves had the practice and training which they had learnt from us to give them some measure of support." Book 1,40

7.Caesar talks of the Helvetii and how they often subdued the Germans "Yet the Helvetii have not proved a match for our army. Book 1,40

8.Caesar said the Gauls were worn out by the campaign with Ariovistus, then he attacked them as they dispersed.Book 1,40

9."Even Ariovistus himself does not expect that our own armies can be caught by tactics for which there was a chance against unskilled barbarians." Book 1,40

The way I see it is:
The Gauls scare the Roman troops with stories of the Germans, Caesar has his counsel of war. He tries to encourage his men in the proper way.
4. He says don't despair Ariovistus wont attack unless he is mad, then if he does think of your own courage and Caesar competence

5-6 He doesn't mention the multiple defeats inflicted on the Romans. The reason is obvious he is trying to build up their courage and moral.

7.The Helvetii beat the Germans and we(Romans) beat the Helvetii. A win by proxy another courage and moral builder.(Caesar probably didn't know they were most likely forced out by the Germans).

8. Caesar builds the moral and courage of his soldiers by saying the Gauls were just worn out by the battles with the Germans. Caesar of course doesn't mention the victories of the Germans prior to this.

9.Caesar says that Ariovistus "knows" the Romans are to wily and smart to be caught in the same way as the Gauls. Again building up moral and courage by saying the Romans are to intelligent to be caught by the tactics of Ariovistus.
Caesar says the Gauls are unskilled thats why they lost, not because of the Germans being powerful. The Romans are skilled the Gauls are not, again another courage and moral booster.

So basically you tell your troops how the Germans had been defeated by Romans, then you say the Germans are not very tough because they only fought weaklings.


(‘Indo-European History’, ‘La Tene Gaul’, XVI, 5.63, Univerzita Karlova v Praze)
Is this an encyclopedia? What is the full title and the date of publishing? Who is the author(s)?
Ill have to address the rest at a later time.

[Fraekae]

In response to the statements that Celtic units are overpowered compared to the Germanic units, based on stats, I would like to object. At least partially. I took a look at the unit stats shown in the unit cards made by Arkatreides (Stickied topic, "Trading card style unit cards for offline use"). (Hopefully these are still correct for the current EB version, otherwise my whole post might be a load of BS :)

Using these cards I compared the celtic and germanic spear units. From the stats we can see that the celtic spear units are mostly weaker and more expensive than their germanic counterparts. This is true both before and after the first reforms. Only after the second celtic reforms do the celts get better spear units and these are actually heavy infantry with small unit sizes and swords as their primary weapons, so we cannot really compare them.

Of the normal spear units, the Belgae Batacorii are the best celtic ones, and these are worse than Frameharjoz, who are cheaper, and significantly worse than Heruskoz-Swaiut who are only a little more expensive. The Batacorii recruitment is also limited to two provinces IIRC, and I think that at least the Frameharjoz can be recruited in a larger number of provinces. (I am not sure about Sweboz recruitment as I haven't played them yet). The celts really have nothing that can be compared to the Gaizaharjoz.

When looking at other melee units (sword, axe, mace, club) the celts have the upper hand at least regarding the number of different units and the best stats. Still, the Sweboz has really good infantry, especially compared to pre-2nd reform celtic ones. The only widely available good infantry of the Gauls before the 1st reform are the Bataroas and the Gaesetae. The former is really good, but not nearly as good as the better sweboz infantry. The Gaesetae are of course a different chapter as they are killer and widely available, and I would really like to see their availability decrease significantly, if not their stats. (This will be easy in EB2 using MTW2s unit replenishment rates.) The Casse really don't have any widely available good infantry before the 1st reforms, as Botroas are limited to Britain (and some other areas far from Britain) and Cwmyr is available in only three Brittish provinces.

After the first reforms, the celts receive a lot of new cool units with good stats, but most of these are available in only a couple of provinces. These are e.g. Ordmhornaghta, Deaisbárd and Laecha in Ireland (and the ultracool Uachtarach DuboGaiscaocha which is sadly unbuildable in the current EB version) and the Carnute Cingetos in one Gallic province for the Gauls. The Kluddargos also become available in some places in Britain. The only more easily/widely available units are the Milnaht in the 4 belgic provinces and the Calawre in large parts of Europe for Casse. Compared to the more widely available units, the Sweboz infantry is still really good.

Only after the 2nd celtic reforms do the celts receive significanlty better infantry units (disregarding the Gaesetae) than the Sweboz. These are the Arjos, Neitos, Rycalawre and Solduros, and they are truly awesome. Most of them even have quite large recruitment zones. The problem is that the 2nd reform occurs so late in the game, that very few people will ever get them without cheating. If the player plays with another faction, the Gauls will probably be wiped out before they are able to get these troops.

Regarding the missile troops, the problem with spamming Iosatae is ever present, and it is up to the individual player to chose whether to do this. In EB2, their availability can again be limited by decreasing their replenishment rate.

As a conclusion, I would say that I mostly disagree with the statement that the Celts are overpowered. The infantry is fairly well balanced before the 2nd reform, with the Sweboz IMO having the upper hand until the 1st (not counting Gaesetae). The only thing I would really like to see is some better cavalry for the Sweboz, as the Ridoharjoz are quite weak.

(Ok, I know I haven't said anything about Sweboz unit availability and this is a problem. As I stated earlier, I haven't played with them yet and there are no unit availability maps for them as for the celts as far as I know)

[NeoSpartan]

And Ridoharjoz are a little better than the Gallic Leuce Ecpos.

Most of Germanic infantry has really good morale.

[Frostwulf]

I “forgot” nothing. What do you suppose was the cause of these mass movements of Gallic warriors! Even your beloved Livy states that these groups had come into being due to internal pressures and turmoil.
Again he is saying these armies internally were rarer then before, not Spain,Italy Greece etc. but internally.Yes you had tribal movements because of overcrowding and etc. but he is not talking about tribal movements but movements of armies and those like the Gaesatae who were most likely a social escape valve. Large armies were rare in these areas until Rome arrived. If you look at the large armies of the Gauls that raided Italy its still rare considering their close proximity. 390 BC-300 BC you have 4 maybe 5 invasions.From 299-200 BC you have 5 invasions from the different tribes of the Gauls.I never have said or claimed to have held Livy in any esteem.


I know you like to post alot of quotes but I fail to see what has this has got to do with the price of tea in China?
The quotes were saying that the cavalry were the new elite warriors who were now the main defensive forces, not the tribal levies. This was a time of relative peace therefore the only ones that were really trained for the most part was the cavalry, and there was plenty of cavalry around. If you would have had this devastating war as you claim, there would have surely been some experienced and veteran troops.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
…Romans>Germans>Celts
…The Germans outclassed the Celts..regardless of the territory.
…The Celts were not as good as the Romans nor the Germans.
…I believe the German warrior to be superior.
…The Germans should be superior to them (Gauls).

I don't think it was the infighting but the external force that may have brought them (Gauls) low…. If there was any weakening to the Celts during Caesar's time it was because of the Germans which Caesar himself alludes to..

I'm afraid I'm going to have to quote your own words back to you.

I'm not sure what your saying here. I was getting at if there was any tribe that was damaged it was the Aedui who were beat up on by the Germans. The Aedui claimed that the Germans had destroyed their nobility,senators and etc. At the battle of Magetobriga the Germans waited for the Gauls to start to disperse, so there obviously would have been plenty men of fighting age still around. Most likely these Gauls would have been fighting with or against the Germans at one time or another and therefore would be experienced warriors. After Magetobriga the Gauls became subservient to Ariovistus. The Gauls still had plenty of men, they most likely didn't want to attack the Germans because of the fear from constant losses to them. We don't know the losses of the Sequani or any of the other clients, we just know the German crushed the Aedui elite. Again the Germans waited for the Gauls to disperse before emerging to do battle with the remaining Gauls, therefore there were plenty of Gauls left.


As I have said ad naseum, there were several factors that lead to the Gallic demise not one issue only. You have to look at the big picture, remember my analogy of the White Elephant? Internal martial and political weakness, fiscal prosperity, centralisation of governance, external military and socio-economic pressure, both internal and external population pressures, etc etc all contributed. Like the fall of most states / empires, one would be naïve to just to consider the most obvious. Did the western Roman empire fall because they could not stop the Germanic Master Race in 410 AD, no. Just like the Gauls, there were years of decline / political instability, civil war, etc etc that contributed.
Yes Caesar won because he defeated the Gauls for the most part piecemeal and such things. Thats not the subject here though. You are claiming the Gallic warriors were weak(not experienced etc.) because they were devastated from a "Civil War" and are therefore not of the same caliber of the Celts of the 3rd century BC and before. This again comes down the units, and the Gauls faced by Ariovistus and Caesar would have been the of the same skill as those of the 3rd and 4th century BC. The Celtic units are overpowered!

And the Transalpine Gauls were defeating the Romans as well (before the civil war)..even as late as 63 BC. Your point?

My point is the same as it always has been, it wasn't a supposed "Devastating Civil War" that was the problem. What is comes down to is the Romans were simply better soldiers, defeating the Celts the majority of the times. What battle are you referring to in 63 BC? If your referring to Solonium the Romans defeated the Gauls.


Well they may have been bi-lingual and spoken German (we don’t know) but they definitely had Celtic customs, culture and tongue. Further, the Eburones (‘yew people’) were not Belgae but rather (along with the Treveri, Levaci, Condrusi, Caeroesi, Paemani, Segni and Ceutrones), remnants of the Moselle Celts.

We know Caesar said the spoke German and there is very little reason to think they didn't. Being bilingual is a possibility but regardless the authors I have read say that these tribes are Belgae. The Belgae as you have said did have a Celtic culture.

No, Caesar said that the aforementioned were “known as German tribes”. Known to whom? The ‘Marne’ tribes of central Gaul from which Caesar was getting his information. Why?, because the Marne Celts regarded the Moselle Celts, who happen to have had a thriving culture on the Rhine,.. as easterners / ‘Germans’ (1st C BC). Not too dissimilar to how the Allies of WWI / WWII referred to Germans as Huns.

Herwig Wolfram "The Roman Empire and its Germanic Peoples"-"Tacitus closes the second chapter with the interesting comment that the Germanic name was a relatively recent additional name that had developed from the specific name for a single tribe. He relates that the Tungri were the first to cross the Rhine on their push westward and were subsequently called Germani by the Gauls. The victories of the Tungri imparted such prestige to this name that it was also adopted by other tribes as a generic name.
Debates concerning the Germanic identity of the Germanic tribes who lived east of the Rhine fill entire libraries, and a good deal of nonscholarly interests have kept the controversy alive. In actual fact, however, the few sentences in Tacitus offer a quite credible and convincing account of what happened. Successful conquerors, whether they already spoke Germanic or not, crossed the Rhine and were called Germani by the Gauls. The name was used first by outsiders, and it remained so even after the Romans had taken it over from the Gauls. However, and here I correct Tacitus, it did not establish itself as the name of all Germanic tribes, just as French Allemands did not become the self-chosen name of the Germans." pg.4

I notice a propensity to dismiss my comments and religiously quote / defer to that which is published / mentioned by others….. so it seems I’m going to have to do a little quoting myself… and I hate having to type stuff out.
I mean no offense by what I'm about to write but why should I believe what your saying? I quote others because these authors are credible and your not. I don't know you, I never read anything published by you or have seen anything that gives you credibility. I'm not going to believe you just because you say so. Why do you think I use authors for my points, its because you have no reason to believe me for the same reasons. Both of us have been wrong in areas so to me the best method is for those of noted authority to be quoted.

Again, seeing as you like quotes I happened to be speaking with Dr James on Tuesday and mentioned our debate. In response to the your supposition that the Germans were superior to the Gauls he stated, and I quote:
Quote:
“The Germans were not superior, then or more recently. Though they clearly were tough soldiers..” – (Dr Simon James PhD BSc FSA, Tuesday 11th September 2007, University of Leicester, UK)

I cannot consider this as anything relevant because it cannot be proven with any reasonable effort. Even if I were to consider it as evidence I would have to disagree with Dr.James and go with what Goldsworthy says because of his specialty and because of the events that happened during this time period. The Germans of the Gallic war era simply were superior to their Gallic counterparts.

(‘Indo-European History’, ‘La Tene Gaul’, XVI, 5.63, Univerzita Karlova v Praze)
I went through GS, WCAT and I had the ILL team look for this and none of us could find it. I even went through the publishings of Charles University of Prague and couldn't find it. I will have to dismiss it.

Again I believe you need to look at the big picture for fear of missing the wood through the trees. Your ignoring context by focusing on the Germans devoid of eternal factors. Strength is only regarded as such through the paradigm of relativity.
The only factors your coming up with is the supposed "Devastating Civil War", which I don't believe.

The point I was making (which I have made all along), is that the Germans didn’t suddenly wake up one morning in 70 BC as this elite unstoppable force you claim is inferred by Caesar in the 1st C BC. You can’t extrapolate the relative strength of the Germans during Caesar’s War to those several hundred years prior. The Gauls were comparatively weaker in the 1st C BC… as you have cited and every scholar noted. Ask yourself why?
This is the main problem with this subject. You wrongly claim there was a "Devastating Civil War" and I say there wasn't. The Celts were as strong as they had been since the 3rd century and before, possibly even better due to the more availability of better armor and weapons. I never claimed the Germans to be unstoppable, quite the contrary I always have said they are not as good as the Romans. Ill expand on this later.



(*sigh*) .. Frosty, you aren’t even talking about the same people!!

Ignoring the fact that most of the inhabitants of northern Europe were not Celtic at all but rather remnants of the Urnfield and some cases Germanic peoples (most of which had long freed themselves from their Halstatt overlords). They didn’t have an ancient cookie cutting to pop out some sort of generic Celt.

It’s extremely naïve to compare the Germano-Celtic remnants of these northern Halstatt chiefdoms to the advanced powerful La Tene ‘D’ states of Gaul.
The Germans began reversing the Celts around 3rd century BC, wouldn't that put it in the La Tene B era? These are the same Celts who were moving about and invading elsewhere but being pushed back up north. More on this later.

The problem is that your method of analysis appears to be completely dependant on the type of data, or should I say the interpretation one wishes to gain from the said data.

What do you base yours on? There is no difference except I use credible authors and cite their works. You use yourself as a reference and try to interpret the citations of Dr. James to fit your claims.

For the few examples given us of German troops during the 1st C BC (during Caesar’s war of conquest), you are quite happy play up, even make erroneous claims from events that (as you have even admitted) should never be used as supposed evidence. Eg. The Menapii.
I never made an erroneous claim, I said it was unfair to use it, and it was out of context for the situation. Erroneous would be claiming that Caesar's quote of :
"if they made inquiries, might discover that, when the Gauls had been tired out by the long duration of the war, Ariovistus, after he had many months kept himself in his camp and in the marshes, and had given no opportunity for an engagement, fell suddenly upon them, by this time despairing of a battle and scattered in all directions, and was victorious more through stratagem and cunning than valour"
was about a supposed "Devastating Celtic War" as opposed to what it really was, a 10 year war with the Germans. What about the duel with Virdomarus? How about the Celts defeating the Germans for centuries? These are erroneous statements.


On the other hand, when I post equivalent information about the Gauls (merely to prove how preposterous it is to extrapolate isolated events devoid of context), you appear quite comfortable dismissing them.

Again your way off on your examples. Your erroneous example of the 120,000 Germans(again something Ill address later) against Caesar, compared to your 80,000 Gauls which to this date have not told me which battle your talking about, and this is the third time Ill ask you, what battle are you talking about. I have already answered you on the Helvetii example.

Are you just making stuff up now? How did you get the “over extended, rolled off the field, spread out” bit?
I'll see if I can find the quote from Sidnell.


If you want to adopt Goldsworthy’s rationale then one would have acknowledge the same likelihood with your beloved 800 super Germans.
With the Helvetii, Caesars cavalry were routed and lost a few men, they were on unfavorable ground and betrayed by Dumnorix.
With the 800 they charged Caesar's cavalry and it was a set battle as more of Caesars cavalry showed up and joined the battle. There is also a 3yr time difference which allowed Caesars troops to become battle hardened not to mention Caesar also had the Remi. So yea, there was a difference.

The Germans attacked whilst seeking peace! If you’re happy to accept “unfavourable ground” as evidence of an ambush then surely you would accept the surprise attack of the Germans as an ambush as well!?

As for the other accounts of Germanic cavalry in De Bello Gallico, there is nothing to suggest that they were anything other than an effective / experienced force of mercenaries. An elite force bought at a price that fought a weakened Gallic aristocracy long reduced by civil war.
Goldsworthy read the book and may have received more information from Cicero and others of the time.
Caesar "The Gallic War"-" Caesar discovered the unsuccessful cavalry engagement of a few days before, that Dumnorix and his horsemen (he was commander of the body of horse sent by the Aedui to the aid of Caesar) had started the retreat, and that by their retreat the remainder of the horse had been stricken with panic. All this Caesar learnt, and to confirm these suspicions he had indisputable facts. Dumnorix had brought the Helvetii through the borders of the Sequani; he had caused hostages to be given between them; he had done all this not only without orders from his state or from Caesar, but even without the knowledge of either; he was now accused by the magistrate of the Aedui. Caesar deemed all this to be cause enough for him either to punish Dumnorix himself, or to command the state so to do." Book 1, 19


And how, prey tell, do you know that?

Why not suggest that 4,000 Romano-Gauls that fought ‘The mighty (German) 800’ were all kids from the local pony club?

You love to repeatedly cite the example of the 800 but what about the others instances I have cited about the Gauls. Couldn’t we just as likely draw all sorts of strange conclusions / make all sorts of grandiose claims?

Remember that 430,000 of these “superior” Germans (Usipetes and Tenctheri, to which the mighty 800 belonged) ran like girls when faced with 8 Roman legions.
Again misrepresented and ignorance of the facts.
Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"Triple line of columns was formed, and the eight mile march was so speedily accomplished that Caesar reached the the enemy's camp before the Germans could have any inkling of what was toward".Book 4,14

Yet we have several accounts on much smaller numbers of Gauls at least putting up a fight. The 92,000 Helvetii attacking 6 legions up hill and retiring in good order. Vercingetrix’s 80,000 Gauls being surprised by an assault of 10 legions and winning..etc etc Should we now assume that the Gauls were the master race / innately superior!? ..Of course not!
You do realize that the Gauls outnumbered the Romans in each of these cases. For the Helvetii situation 2 of the six legions were left guarding the baggage, and may not have engaged at all. Also as the Romans began to push the Helvetii , 15000 troops from the Boii and the Tulingi showed up on their flank.

Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"The third line of cohorts was peeled away and formed into a new line to face the Boii and Tulingi. The first and second lines dealt with the Helvetii, who had rallied at the appearance of their allies and returned to the fray. The Eleventh and Twelfth do not seem to have been brought up from the extra reserve Caesar had in this battle and appear to have remained mere observers of the action." pg.222
Romans outnumbered defeated the Helvetii.

As for Gergovia the Romans overran the 6ft wall halfway up the hill and met little resistance at first. They charged the Gallic camps that were dotted around the slope and Caesar sounded the recall as he felt enough damage had been done. Most of the men kept going through the camps and against the wall of the town itself.

Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"By this time the Gauls working on the fortifications beyond the far side of the town heard the noise of the Roman attack and realized that they had been duped. Vercingetorix also started to get messengers bringing pleas for help from the townsfold. He sent his cavalry back to meet the Roman attack and the warriors on foot followed. As they arrived thoughts of surrender were banished from the minds of the townsfolk and the women on the walls now started to implore their menfolk to save them. The Roman attack had run out of steam, the men being tired and disordered and unprepared to meet fresh opponents. Many panicked when the Aedui suddenly appeared on their flank, mistaking them for hostile Gauls and failing in the heat of the action to notice that they had their right shoulders bared-the accepted sign of a Gallic ally in Caesar's army. The elation of success soon turned sour" pg. 333
Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"Caesar could do little more than cover the retreat, using the Tenth and quickly ordering up the cohorts of the Thirteenth that had been left behind to guard the small camp. In this way the Gauls were prevented from pursuing to far, but even so casualties were very high." pg.333
Yes the Gauls were surprised but the majority were not engaged till later so the surprise had little effect on them. Caesar only had 2 legions to cover the retreat why didn't the Gauls pursue? They outnumbered a fleeing enemy yet didn't engage.


Wow!... It never ceases to amaze me how some will only see what they want to see.

Why the bloody hell would Caesar try to calm his troops by telling them “Don’t worry about how the Germans fight! The Germans only managed to slaughter the Gauls because they slaughtered them previously”!?

It doesn’t make sense! You have to be having a lend ...surely?

The comment only makes sense when one acknowledges the context, that the Gauls had been slaughtering each other and were “exhausted by a long war”. The Civil war that you now partly deny
It doesn't make sense to you because your trying to make this text fit your claim of the supposedly "Devastating Civil War" when it has nothing at all to do with it.
Caesar-"The Gallic War"If the unsuccessful battle and flight of the Gauls disquieted any, these, if they made inquiries, might discover that, when the Gauls had been tired out by the long duration of the war, Ariovistus, after he had many months kept himself in his camp and in the marshes, and had given no opportunity for an engagement, fell suddenly upon them, by this time despairing of a battle and scattered in all directions, and was victorious more through stratagem and cunning than valour."

Here is another translation that might help you understand what Caesar is talking about.

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"If there be any who are concerned at the defeat and flight of the Gauls, they can discover for the asking that when the Gauls were worn out by the length of the campaign Ariovistus, who had kept himself for many months within his camp in the marshes, without giving a chance of encounter, attacked them suddenly when they had at last dispersed in despair of a battle, and conquered them rather by skill and stratagem than by courage."book 1,40 Translated by H.J. Edwards

He is talking of the battle of Magetobriga. He makes no mention of Gallic infighting at all in this, he is always referring to the battles with the Germans. He is saying that the Gauls were tired of waiting months for the Germans to emerge and fight them.
Yes I do deny the supposed "Devastating Civil War".


The Gauls didn’t engage in total war! They fought until one side had wiped out the others forces / retainers or had gained a significant advantage in such, hostages exchanged and homage paid. The problem for the Gauls was that the Civil war in question was a wide reaching conflict of large evenly balanced forces, so what followed was an attrition of the aforementioned retainers / warrior elite until the balance started to shift and the Sequani took over the leadership of the Southern alliance. The Germans were brought in, at great shame to the Sequani, to even up the numbers. The Aedui confederacy, now bereft of fighters themselves, appealed to Rome.
Your trying to fit these things to fit your ideology and reading things into what these authors are saying. You keep ignoring James saying the warfare of large armies was rare. If there was such an internal conflict it would involve disruption in trade and damage to the surrounding area. "it was a rich and prosperous land-so means were evidently found for limiting the damage war could cause", not just to the land and crops as you suggest but to the people and warriors involved as well. It was not till the external Germanic influence that the Aedui lost their senators,nobility and etc.

What indications do you have that Germanic warfare was that stagnant? To me that sounds like equating the Marian legions to the legions of 270 bc.
What I'm saying is that the majority of the German cavalry that Caesar fought against and with(exception Ariovistus) had for the most part the same arms and armor of those from 270BC. Why is there reason to think that they would be any different?


And they are also primarily concerned with the culture of the Celts with only a very loose frame of history outside the well-documented parts with contacts with Mediterranean civilizations.
Goldsworthy's specialty is Roman warfare and Caesar, Warry and Connoly is warfare for both the Greeks and Romans. What else could you want, you have the archaeologists and the historians that deal with this area and time frame.


Took them an awful long time to achieve that, then, certainly since the Celts were migrating all over the place in the meantime, leaving the homelands less densely populated.
The less dense is a possibility for the Germans replacing them, or it could be that the Germans had more people or it could just come down to the martial prowess of the Germans.

It was rich and prosperous, I'll agree completely, but that says nothing about the population or the state of the available troops. If anything, the wealth of the region can be taken to mean less people to divide the available means over, much like the plague in Europe for a time increased the fortunes of those that survived.
Caesar states plainly about the population, and for the time/era its abundant. You would have to believe there wouldn't have been disruption in trade from the constant battles and raiding during this supposed "Devastating Civil War".

Urbanization is an interesting possibility that needs to be considered. But was it necessarily a good thing, like you suggest? I recall that deathrates in cities prior to modern sanitation was significantly higher that in the countryside; it's a delicate balance between population growth and decline, and quite conceivably the latte was the case. But I'll admit it's a good point that needs more thought.
Rome boasted of nearly a million people at times, and the Gauls had means of sanitation.

And again, you don't see a possible connection between these two expansions?
Some could say the Celts were being pushed out of their areas and were moving south. Rankin doesn't agree with that but he does say the Celts were being displaced. It could be as you said, less densely populated and the Germans moved in. Ill state again, the reason I put this down is from Psycho V saying the Celts were defeating the Germans for century's before. If thats the case why were the Germans displacing them, not to mention where is the evidence to support this.

Not that that counts for much, if they're constantly being lost in skirmishes with neighbouring Celts and don't accrue much experience in battle, also gradually eroding the amount of professionals that can be fielded. And they're a small elite regardless, what about the levies that are being expended against each other and also gain very little in the way of actual battle experience?
This is a legitimate statement if you subscribe to the "Devastating Civil War" theory which I do not. Yes there were skirmishes,raiding and some small battles but it was a time of relative peace.

They'd get beaten. While I disagree they were consistently beaten by pre-Marian troops, and I'd say they weren't consistently beaten by Marian troops (though more regularly), I'll agree the Celtic levies and small amounts of relatively inexperienced professionals were outclassed by the professional Roman legions.
The majority(not consistently) of the times the generally outnumbered Romans would beat the Gauls pre-Marius. I wouldn't say the Gauls of Caesars time were inexperienced as they had their raids,skirmishes and minor battles. Not to mention according to Kruta they were well trained and drilled.

...weren't those Germans who went into Belgium more or less the same bunch the Romans knew as the Belgae, and regarded as a particularly fierce and savage subspecies of the Celt proper...? Even if they originated from the Germanic culture sphere they appear to have gotten pretty Celticized in the meantime - and AFAIK the classification as "Celtic" these days goes by the basis of language and culture due to the heterogenous nature of that umbrella group, so by it they'd have become Celts through and through. Moot point.
I agree with this. All I was pointing out is that the Germans moved into Holland,Belgium and etc. There would have been intermarriage and they spoke a Celtic language and had a Celtic culture.

Expansion stops from two reasons: either you run out of steam and can go no further, or the other guy keeps you from going further. And odds are the Germans weren't so short of people all those centuries they lacked the resources and impetus to try proceeding further into the rich lands of Gaul (and other choicer Celtic lands), which leaves being checked by its inhabitants the only logical explanation.
How do you know those odds? What are the odds? What is the base amount of people thought to live in Germany at the time. What is the base amount of people thought to be in the Scandinavian countries at the time? What is the required amount of land to sustain a certain amount of people based on the farming/hunting lifestyles of said people? Was the population of the Germans growing at the same rate in the new lands they conquered? Did the Germanic peoples need to keep moving to have enough land for their tribes? If so how many people were to fit in a square mile to survive? Was there continuous expansions from other Germanic tribes that caused all this movement?
Again going from the people who study these things, they say the Germans expanded into Celtic lands.


In any case, the Cisalpines were obviously tough enough that it took until sometime after the Second Punic War for the Romans to be able to subdue them, in spite of the fact they were a real pain in the arse what with the incessant raids, occasional major invasion (the one culminating in Telamon was doing quite well until the army was caught between two Roman ones) and a noted tendency to sign up with anyone intent on doing the Republic grievous harm. That the Romans did not walk in and kick their heads in for such persistent aggravation suggests doing so required a major investement of military power they long could not spare, or were not willing to risk; clearly the Gauls of Italy were no pushovers, and they had roosted in the Po valley for quite a few centuries after pushing the Italics out of there.
Cisalpine Gaul was considered conquered by 191 BC. You had the second Illyrian war 220-219BC, followed by the second Punic war 218-201BC, followed by war with the Macedonians 200-196BC and you had Spanish wars going on.

As for the Romans, might you care to explain why exactly it took until the late 2nd century or so before the Romans had even a decent province in the rich Transalpine Gaul (apparently centered around the old Greek city of Massilia at that), and took until the next century to make serious succesful efforts at grabbing land from the fertile and wealthy Gaul proper ? By that point they certainly could muster armies for military adventures if they smelled profit; we're talking about the period when wealthy magnates kept pulling whole Legions out of thin air by their personal fortunes after all.
The southern part was heavily influenced by Greeks colonization and the Romans helped Massalia against the Gauls to protect its trade route to Spain. I believe there was an alliance between the two. Also there was the Syrian war 191-188BC, Wars in Spain,Galatian expedition, Ligurian wars,Third and Fourth Macedonian Wars.

Given the Romans' note streak of ruthless opportunism and certain complexes they had concerning the Gauls, it is difficult to find a rational reason for such heel-dragging other than Gallic military power having still been strong enough to check their ambitions. Heck, Caesar originally only went in at the invitation of his Gallic allies...
Or perhaps as so often over looked in these forums is the Romans commitments elsewhere. Caesar had at first planned to go to Dacia till their "allies" the Aedui asked for help.

Yeah, logic is overrated anyway
Watchman this isn't a dig against you, but what good is logic if you don't have the information to back it up?

I'm going to try to do a summery of this in the Germans underpowered thread.

[Watchman]

You know, I've for a while thought that an awful lot of the German success around Caesar's time seems to revolve around the person of Ariovistus. Kinda seems to me it could be more of a matter of the man's ability as a warlord that was tilting the power balance and allowing the German successes against the Celts, whatever their condition now was...

Put this way: if the German combat troops were so consistently superior to those of the Celts as you argue, why did Ariovistus even feel the need - as he apparently did - to first wear them out by clever strategy and maneuvering before suddenly falling on them when they had already began to break up for want of an actual battle ? (Extended campaigns appear to have been a bit of a problem for the Celtic approach to war.) That's not the strategy you use with superior forces; it's a strategy you use when you think your troops can't be counted to win a straight-up fight.

Not having read Caesar I don't know the context, but it sounds like Ariovistus had to dance around massed Gallic fighting forces on several occasions like that - presumably several chieftains and communities and whatnots joining together to try to deal with him.


Watchman this isn't a dig against you, but what good is logic if you don't have the information to back it up?When information is unavailable, what you fill the holes in with is logic. Hopefully, anyway. 'Cause the alternatives give worse results.

[Frostwulf]

Put this way: if the German combat troops were so consistently superior to those of the Celts as you argue, why did Ariovistus even feel the need - as he apparently did - to first wear them out by clever strategy and maneuvering before suddenly falling on them when they had already began to break up for want of an actual battle ? (Extended campaigns appear to have been a bit of a problem for the Celtic approach to war.) That's not the strategy you use with superior forces; it's a strategy you use when you think your troops can't be counted to win a straight-up fight.
For the same reason that Caesar waited for the Belgae to break up and leave, he would have lost. Both were outnumbered by a powerful foe, the Gauls were not weak, they just were not as powerful as the Germans or the Romans. Caesars troops were clearly superior to the Gallic troops, but that can change drastically if outnumbered and on unfavorable ground.

A counter point to this would be: how come the Gauls didn't go into the marsh after Ariovistus?


Not having read Caesar I don't know the context, but it sounds like Ariovistus had to dance around massed Gallic fighting forces on several occasions like that - presumably several chieftains and communities and whatnots joining together to try to deal with him.

From the way I understand it, Ariovistus defeated the majority of the Aedui nobility,cavalry,senators and etc. He then began to make demands on the Sequani, which didn't go over to well. The Sequani,Aedui and others proceeded with this battle: Magetobriga

Unknown site of a military engagement fought in 61 BCE between the Gallic tribes of the Aedui, Averni and Sequani on one side and the Germanic Suebi, under their King Ariovistus. The Suebi had moved into the region of Gaul comprising modern Alsace and had emerged as a powerful rival to the Gauls on the Rhine. Hoping to evict the unwelcome Germans, the local peoples, headed by the Aedui, confronted Ariovistus in the field. The resulting battle was a display of the martial superiority of the Suebi, for the tribes were crushed. Ariovistus established his rule over much of eastern Gaul. By 58 BCE, Rome was willing to listen to the pleas of the Gallic chieftains, and war erupted once again.
Citation Information:
Text Citation: Bunson, Matthew. "Magetobriga." Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 1994. Facts On File, Inc. Ancient History & Culture. <www.factsonfile.com>.

I also forgot to mention you have to take what Caesar was thinking into account.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1675066&postcount=309

[Erebus26]

Weren't the Helveti invited by a rogue Aedui Noble to help him in his dynastic struggle, and to provide a fighting force to cobat Ariovistus and his Suebi? I would have to disagree with H.D. Rankin if he implies that the Helveti were pushed out of their homelands by 'Germans', as the Helveti were a powerful tribal confederation.

To be honest we have to blame Caesar himself for this whole argument about 'Gauls' and 'Germans'. He created the Rhine boundary so he could back to the senate and say that he had conquered the whole of Gaul. It was more a political statement than a question of ethnicity, which I'm sure Caesar wouldn't have cared too much about. To sum up I don't think there is a lot of difference between the peoples who were at that time living on both sides of the Rhine.

[Watchman]

Could be that the Helveti weren't so much "pushed out" as simply "had had enough" - of fending off pesky raiders and would-be settlers who didn't appear to be inclined to give up no matter how often you chased them away, that is. Gaul wasn't apparently in the best of conditions at the time, so it's hardly inconceivable the Helveti bigwigs figured they could carve themselves a less contested (and probably rather more prosperous) domain there and let the damn northern barbarians have the mountains they so dearly wanted.

Weren't the dynamics of steppe-nomad "domino" migrations rather similar ?


A counter point to this would be: how come the Gauls didn't go into the marsh after Ariovistus?And try to fight the Germans on the ground of their choosing which they were obviously more used to, and had the defender advantage to boot ? Bad idea. The Romans wouldn't do that kind of thing either for equally sensible reasons if they could avoid it.

[Erebus26]

Yeah I suppose so - it's was probably a number of reasons why the Helveti moved. But like you said better lands and less hassle were the main reasons. It's just I contest the point made by some authors that the Helveti were just another Gallic tribe that were ripe for the picking by 'uber' german warriors. But thats just my opinion. :beam:

[Frostwulf]

Weren't the Helveti invited by a rogue Aedui Noble to help him in his dynastic struggle, and to provide a fighting force to cobat Ariovistus and his Suebi? I would have to disagree with H.D. Rankin if he implies that the Helveti were pushed out of their homelands by 'Germans', as the Helveti were a powerful tribal confederation.
Atlas of the Celts-"A suitable pretext for military intervention arose in 58 BC, when the Helvetii, who lived beyond the eastern borders of Gaul, began massing for a planned migration in the face of Germanic pressure." pg.82
The Atlas and Rankin are hardly the only ones to say this, Warry, Newark, etc. etc.


To be honest we have to blame Caesar himself for this whole argument about 'Gauls' and 'Germans'. He created the Rhine boundary so he could back to the senate and say that he had conquered the whole of Gaul.
I agree with this.


It was more a political statement than a question of ethnicity, which I'm sure Caesar wouldn't have cared too much about. To sum up I don't think there is a lot of difference between the peoples who were at that time living on both sides of the Rhine.
I think there was a difference, technology,artistry,religion,culture in general. There were also many similarities, but they were different and both Celts and Germans recognized it.


Could be that the Helveti weren't so much "pushed out" as simply "had had enough" - of fending off pesky raiders and would-be settlers who didn't appear to be inclined to give up no matter how often you chased them away, that is.
This is a possibility, though I still tend to believe people who actually are historians/archaeologists for a living.


Gaul wasn't apparently in the best of conditions at the time, so it's hardly inconceivable the Helveti bigwigs figured they could carve themselves a less contested (and probably rather more prosperous) domain there and let the damn northern barbarians have the mountains they so dearly wanted.
Gaul wasn't in the best of conditions?

Simon James "The World of the Celts"-"Certainly, the Gaul described and conquered by Caesar showed no signs of exhaustion by internal wars-it was a rich and prosperous land" pg.74

*Atlas of the Celts-"During the first half of the 1st century BC, the rest of Gaul attained an uneasy accommodation with the Roman occupation of the south. Celtic Gaul was generally a prosperous and peaceful region where farms flourished and oppida (towns), stimulated by Roman trade grew ever larger. In central Gaul, societies became sufficiently complex and well organized to be on the brink of independent statehood, and left to their own devices they might well have achieved this within a generation or two. pg.82


And try to fight the Germans on the ground of their choosing which they were obviously more used to, and had the defender advantage to boot ? Bad idea. The Romans wouldn't do that kind of thing either for equally sensible reasons if they could avoid it.
I think you are correct on this, same for the reasons the Germans and Caesar chose not to fight in certain situations.


Yeah I suppose so - it's was probably a number of reasons why the Helveti moved. But like you said better lands and less hassle were the main reasons. It's just I contest the point made by some authors that the Helveti were just another Gallic tribe that were ripe for the picking by 'uber' german warriors. But thats just my opinion.
So what do you base this on? Where did you get your information from? Any information you have from a credible source would be sincerely welcomed.

[Watchman]

Wasn't one of the Gauls' prime trade commodities with the Romans slaves, though ? And you usually don't sell your own subjects as such in any great numbers, and obviously those of neighbours tend not come willingly...

Also, if the Helveti were to be genuinely pushed away from their lands by the encroaching Germans, one has trouble imagining they could actually afford to prepare for their migration as thoroughly as they did (as opposed to, you know, barely escaping with their lives). Moreover one would expect them to have been seriously militarily weakened by the Germanic raids and victories; yet they were apparently a formidable enough force that the potentates of Gaul proper did not apparently even try to check them by their own force of arms (which begs the question if they didn't have an acute shortage of that, doubly so if one were to follow the Helvetii-chased-away-by-Germans hypothesis), instead calling on their Roman contacts to defend them.

[Erebus26]

Frostwulf - for questions about German and Celtic ethnicity I found "Beyond Celts, Germans and Scythians" by Peter Wells useful. He just puts forward the case that not all what ancient Greek and Romans put forward about the northern barbarians is correct.

For your point about the Helveti - Caesar states that the Helveti wage constant war against the Germans, either repelling them from their own territories, or invading German lands. Caesar also say because of this they had the most valour of Gallic tribes. Orgetorix proposed that the Helvetti, whoes lands were confined to the mountains, move into the territory of the Aedui - to do this he married his daughter off to Dumnorix - a noble of the Aedui. He also made an alliance with the Sequani noble Casticus so he could pass through their lands. Unfortunately Orgetorix never fulfilled his ambition as he was killed, whilst Dumnorix was driven out by his brother Divitiacus, who had the backing of the Romans. I don't think Caesar mentions that the Helveti's migration was because of germanic raiding, but he does mention that they wanted better land. This is all from Caesar's Gallic Commentaries - the first few pages.

*I've edited this post because the guys below think I'm referring to Caesar's pep talk, but I'm not as I'm referring to the first few pages when Caesar's discusses the movement of the Helveti*

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Oh my God! Does everyone here use the same avatar?!? This is madness!!! No wonder I stay away from this thread.

[Watchman]

Eh, I haven't changed my avatar from the default for... ever, actually.

Now that you mention it though, wonder if there were interesting ones in the pool ?

[Glewas]

When Caesar mentions the Helvetii successfully defending their lands against the Germans and even defeating them in their own (German) lands, he is doing so when giving his troops a pep talk, (see my post above). Frostwulf has replied that he takes what Caesar said as basically a motivational speech - just some "lies" made up to keep the Roman troops from worrying about facing the Germans.

Basically Helvetii beat Germans, Romans beat Helvetii, ergo Romans will beat Germans.

I find it odd that anyone would use lies to motivate and boost morale, but it isn't out of the question so Frostwulf can interpret the passage as he may.

As a Celtophile I am going to be a bit biased even though I try not to be, but I'll take Caesar's pep talk for fact. Which leads me to agree with Watchman that the Helvetii left their lands not because they were forced by the Germans, but because there were better lands to be had and the "unsuccessful" German raids were becoming too annoying to bother with anymore. It's not like the Helvetii could cross the Rhine and defeat all the Germanic tribes - maybe one or two or possibly 10 but more would eventually take their place. There are many times playing as the Aedui that I flirt with the idea of abandoning Mediolanum to postpone the inevitable war with Rome, who, no matter how many times I defeat them in battle, just will not stop attacking...

That aside, here is an interesting question I pose to everyone...

We all know the Helvetii burnt their homes and everything they couldn't take with them before leaving their land (for whatever reason), and that they were defeated in battle by Caesar and forced to return home...

How long until proof of Germanic artifacts, (tools, weaponry, pottery, vessels, etc) appear in the homelands of the Helvetii?

Best answers would be based on archaeological data, but if anyone can give any clues maybe based in ancient literary sources, I'd like to hear...

Because if true artifacts were found in say... 30 BCE then it would seem that almost immediately the Germans took over the surviving Helvetii... If not till much later, 100+ years or so, then it would seem that the Helvetii were capable of defending themselves from Germanic incursion even after losing many, many fighting men from the battle with Caesar...

[Watchman]

Now that you mention it, I've wondered about that bit as well. What did happen to the Helveti after Caesar beat them up and sent them packing ? Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helveti), for what it's worth, says they were given foederati status and eventually more or less assimilated into the Empire, what now with a major uprising in 68/9 AD.

That certainly would sound like they were still strong enough to hold off the Germans even after the casualties suffered against the Romans.

[blitzkrieg80]

Glewas, the only error in that logic is to expect that scientists have been interested enough to find those archaeological samples so one could come to such a conclusion, when in fact there are entire gaps in time and findings simply because of disinterest, besides overpopulation and other factors, so one would be hard-pressed to prove such... but I think it would be cool if that was achievable... it could be that I do not have access to the 'latest findings' yet unpublished, but for the most part we are lucky to have scraps at the table, which is usually before (la tene and period closely following) and after (migration age)

[Frostwulf]

Wasn't one of the Gauls' prime trade commodities with the Romans slaves, though ? And you usually don't sell your own subjects as such in any great numbers, and obviously those of neighbours tend not come willingly...
Simon James-"The World of the Celts"-"Slavery existed, although on a smaller scale than in the Classical world; slaves may have been most important as export commodities." pg. 53

I believe most slaves were acquired while raiding and the battles, but it doesn't seem to be in large numbers.


Also, if the Helveti were to be genuinely pushed away from their lands by the encroaching Germans, one has trouble imagining they could actually afford to prepare for their migration as thoroughly as they did (as opposed to, you know, barely escaping with their lives). Moreover one would expect them to have been seriously militarily weakened by the Germanic raids and victories; yet they were apparently a formidable enough force that the potentates of Gaul proper did not apparently even try to check them by their own force of arms (which begs the question if they didn't have an acute shortage of that, doubly so if one were to follow the Helvetii-chased-away-by-Germans hypothesis), instead calling on their Roman contacts to defend them.
Erebus answers your question of the Gaul proper situation.

For your point about the Helveti - Caesar states that the Helveti wage constant war against the Germans, either repelling them from their own territories, or invading German lands. Caesar also say because of this they had the most valour of Gallic tribes. Orgetorix proposed that the Helvetti, whoes lands were confined to the mountains, move into the territory of the Aedui - to do this he married his daughter off to Dumnorix - a noble of the Aedui. He also made an alliance with the Sequani noble Casticus so he could pass through their lands. Unfortunately Orgetorix never fulfilled his ambition as he was killed, whilst Dumnorix was driven out by his brother Divitiacus, who had the backing of the Romans. I don't think Caesar mentions that the Helveti's migration was because of germanic raiding, but he does mention that they wanted better land. This is all from Caesar's Gallic Commentaries - the first few pages.

As a Celtophile I am going to be a bit biased even though I try not to be, but I'll take Caesar's pep talk for fact. Which leads me to agree with Watchman that the Helvetii left their lands not because they were forced by the Germans, but because there were better lands to be had and the "unsuccessful" German raids were becoming too annoying to bother with anymore. It's not like the Helvetii could cross the Rhine and defeat all the Germanic tribes - maybe one or two or possibly 10 but more would eventually take their place. There are many times playing as the Aedui that I flirt with the idea of abandoning Mediolanum to postpone the inevitable war with Rome, who, no matter how many times I defeat them in battle, just will not stop attacking...
What you guys are saying makes sense.

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-" in such circumstances their range of movement was less extensive, and their chance of waging war on their neighbors were less easy; and on this account they were greatly distressed, for they were men that longed for war."
If they left their homeland for lack of raiding what about what he says about going into the German lands and subduing them there? The Germans would have had cattle and other items that were "raid worthy". I'm sure it wouldn't have been up to the level of loot that Gaul could produce.


That the Helvetians originally lived in southern Germany is confirmed by the Alexandrian geographer Claudius Ptolemaios (ca. 90-168 AD), who tells us of an Ελουητίον έρημος (i.e. “Helvetic deserted lands”) north of the Rhine.[7] Tacitus knows that the Helvetians once settled in the area between Rhine, Main and the Hercynian forest.[8] The abandonment of this northern territory is now usually placed in the late 2nd c. BC, around the time of the first Germanic incursions into the Roman world, when the Tigurini and Toygenoi/Toutonoi are mentioned as participants in the great raids.


We all know the Helvetii burnt their homes and everything they couldn't take with them before leaving their land (for whatever reason), and that they were defeated in battle by Caesar and forced to return home...

I have also wondered this. I don't know what the reason these authors have said they were pressured to leave their home by the Germans. I should be receiving a new book soon that may cover the subject.

Frostwulf - for questions about German and Celtic ethnicity I found "Beyond Celts, Germans and Scythians" by Peter Wells useful. He just puts forward the case that not all what ancient Greek and Romans put forward about the northern barbarians is correct.
I have seen his book but have not read it of as yet. I hope to get to it before the years end. Thanks for the information.:yes:


When Caesar mentions the Helvetii successfully defending their lands against the Germans and even defeating them in their own (German) lands, he is doing so when giving his troops a pep talk, (see my post above). Frostwulf has replied that he takes what Caesar said as basically a motivational speech - just some "lies" made up to keep the Roman troops from worrying about facing the Germans.

Basically Helvetii beat Germans, Romans beat Helvetii, ergo Romans will beat Germans.

I find it odd that anyone would use lies to motivate and boost morale, but it isn't out of the question so Frostwulf can interpret the passage as he may.
Glewas I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I don't think Caesar was lying at all, but I do think he was omitting things. I even put down that I didn't think Caesar knew that the Germans pressured the Helvetii. You have to take into account he did omit the defeats of the Romans and for good reason.
For the Aedui weakling thing Rome didn't exactly have fond references to the Gauls, thinking them fickle and other such things. But we do know that the "weaklings" would have involved the elite of the Gauls at the time.
Glewas what part of my analysis did you disagree with and why?

[Watchman]

Simon James-"The World of the Celts"-"Slavery existed, although on a smaller scale than in the Classical world; slaves may have been most important as export commodities." pg. 53

I believe most slaves were acquired while raiding and the battles, but it doesn't seem to be in large numbers.Given the first paragraph and the fact the Mediterranean region could always use more slaves, I'd actually be rather curious to hear where you drew that last conclusion from. Especially given the Celts' fondness of almost institutionalized raiding and fighting.

One thing I've been wondering about is the fact the Helveti ended up ravaging Aedui territory, and the latter asked the Romans to do something about the buggers. Now unless I've entirely misunderstood something the Aedui weren't exactly the smallest tribe around, so why is it one gets the impression they didn't do anything about their unwanted guests themselves ?

[Erebus26]

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-" in such circumstances their range of movement was less extensive, and their chance of waging war on their neighbors were less easy; and on this account they were greatly distressed, for they were men that longed for war."
If they left their homeland for lack of raiding what about what he says about going into the German lands and subduing them there? The Germans would have had cattle and other items that were "raid worthy". I'm sure it wouldn't have been up to the level of loot that Gaul could produce.

What I can't understand is why they(the Helveti) would they burn their oppida and other settlements. Was this a normal thing for Gallic tribes to do in times of war or migration? Or was it simply because they were afraid of invading tribes from the north taking over their settlements? Anybody have any theories?

Frostwulf - I found that wiki article you quoted about abandoned Helvetic lands north of the rhine very interesting. Especially the quotes from Tacitus and Claudius Ptolemaios. In fact Claudius seems to be writing about a recent event, or maybe I'm merely taking the quote out of context. There was a tribe called the Vindelici who were very powerful on the German side of the Rhine during the last centuries BC, but were finally subjugated by Tiberius in 15BC. I think they are also mentioned briefly by Caesar but I'm afraid I can't get a quote at this time.

[Fionnlagh]

What I can't understand is why they(the Helveti) would they burn their oppida and other settlements. Was this a normal thing for Gallic tribes to do in times of war or migration? Or was it simply because they were afraid of invading tribes from the north taking over their settlements? Anybody have any theories?



I think it had something to do with not giving the impression they were running away or retreating.

[Frostwulf]

Given the first paragraph and the fact the Mediterranean region could always use more slaves, I'd actually be rather curious to hear where you drew that last conclusion from. Especially given the Celts' fondness of almost institutionalized raiding and fighting.
The reason is because it was still a relatively peaceful area. The raids consisted of small groups of men, and the battles would have been few. With the raids and few battles there would not have been many slaves taken, but enough for trade to happen, I believe from what James was saying it was on a smaller scale.




One thing I've been wondering about is the fact the Helveti ended up ravaging Aedui territory, and the latter asked the Romans to do something about the buggers. Now unless I've entirely misunderstood something the Aedui weren't exactly the smallest tribe around, so why is it one gets the impression they didn't do anything about their unwanted guests themselves ?
The Sequani didn't stop the Helvetii because they were on good terms with them. The Germans had wiped out most of the nobles and cavalry of the Aedui but still later they were able to bring 10,000 men to aid Caesar.


What I can't understand is why they(the Helveti) would they burn their oppida and other settlements. Was this a normal thing for Gallic tribes to do in times of war or migration? Or was it simply because they were afraid of invading tribes from the north taking over their settlements? Anybody have any theories?
I believe Caesar said they burned down their oppida so they wouldn't be tempted to return.

Frostwulf - I found that wiki article you quoted about abandoned Helvetic lands north of the rhine very interesting. Especially the quotes from Tacitus and Claudius Ptolemaios. In fact Claudius seems to be writing about a recent event, or maybe I'm merely taking the quote out of context. There was a tribe called the Vindelici who were very powerful on the German side of the Rhine during the last centuries BC, but were finally subjugated by Tiberius in 15BC. I think they are also mentioned briefly by Caesar but I'm afraid I can't get a quote at this time.
It has piqued my curiosity as well, I hope to have a chance to check into it.

I have diverted the Gaesatae back to this thread:

That was actually the expected result whenever unarmoured close-order infantry had to suffer the attentions of skirmishers without a skirmish screen of their own to dissipate the effect. Skirmishers rarely did much damage to each other (since they could dodge most of the javelins), but if unopposed could severely hurt close-order troops (who couldn't, and AFAIK even light javelins can pierce shields worrisomely easily).

And I seem to recall an entire Spartan mora - the premier fighting force of Greece - wiped out by lightly armed peltasts, so there's really no point in saying a unit is weak because it fell victim to skirmishing tactics.
At Telemon the Gaesatae that did reach the Romans were dispatched quite easily, which is to be expected considering the situation. If you consider how they did at Clastidium and Mediolanum it was fairly poor.

You do realize that our Gaesatae are merely the elite part of the entire Gaesatae force, right?
I didn't see this in Plutarch,Polybius,nor Livy. If it were the elite of the Gaesatae why were they not differentiated by name. Irregardless of this, were did they stand out in any of the battles? Where is any evidence what so ever that shows the Gaesatae being anything but average at best?What it comes down to is the Gaesatae statistics are ridiculous based upon their performance of the battles they were in.

[Glewas]

Glewas I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I don't think Caesar was lying at all, but I do think he was omitting things. I even put down that I didn't think Caesar knew that the Germans pressured the Helvetii. You have to take into account he did omit the defeats of the Romans and for good reason.

For the Aedui weakling thing Rome didn't exactly have fond references to the Gauls, thinking them fickle and other such things. But we do know that the "weaklings" would have involved the elite of the Gauls at the time.

Glewas what part of my analysis did you disagree with and why?


Maybe not lie, but you do admit that he omits certain things, stretches the truth, etc.

My problem with your analysis/argument for this whole thread is that you rely a lot on the words of Caesar. Correct me if I am wrong but De Bello Gallico is not an unbiased work, recording the culture and times of the Romans, Celts, and Germans from ca. 60 BCE. on...

Now I may be generalizing, but did not Caesar recorded the events to publish in Rome so that everyone could read/hear how great a man he was, that, not only was he a great politician, and a great man from a respected and wealthy family, but also an accomplished general in battle? Hell, the whole Gallic war was just to refill his coffers after spending so much of his family's wealth as he climbed the political ladder and give him loyal veteran troops to allow him to compete with Pompey.

With all that taken into account why should anyone consider what Caesar said as 100% fact? He paints the Gauls in one stroke as crude backward savages, another as noble warrior barbarians, and another as weak saps (Aedui). The first shows Romans that his slaughter of the Gauls is justified as they are uncivilized and a threat to the Roman way, the second to show that the slaughter is not easy - that every battle is a "heroic victory," and the third to convince the anti-Caesars in Rome that this "war" was to protect Rome's allies against the hostile tribes of Gaul.

There is no real reason why Caesar had to report any truths when he could stretch them to fit his agenda... This doesn't mean that everything is fictionalized, but one should be a bit skeptical, but that is just my observation.

Now you do cite James and Goldsworthy as other sources, but I would be surprised if they didn't use Caesar as a source. Considering Goldsworthy's book is called "Caesar: Life as a Colossus" I would really be surprised if that was the case... but I doubt it. (No I haven't read Goldsworthy, but I am aware that the two authors probably have hundreds of sources for their books - that doesn't mean that every source is used equally or to the same amount).

Two more quick points:

If I remember correctly, you mentioned that, as you are “proving” that the Germans are superior to Gauls/Celts during Caesar's time, that 200 years prior (back to EB’s start time) they should still be superior.

You have made decent arguments backed up with sources (suspect they may or may not be) throughout most of this tread, and if you have rescinded this comment then please ignore the fact that I find said comment to be absurd. In EB’s time period the Romans alone have three different reforms, Celts two, and even the Sweboz will hopefully get one. Are you really trying to tell me that the Germanic armies were static for over 200 years? They didn’t grow in power or even lessen? If what you think is true then you really need to give a damn good reason why they didn’t invade Gaul en masse anytime during EB’s time period.

Of course if am not remembering correctly, and you didn’t make such a statement then I apologize.

Finally... as much energy as you have put into this threat and the thread for the Sweboz, for which I am impressed and commend you... I don’t really see many picking up your side of the argument. There are probably good reasons for this, mainly people not posting their own ideas. But come on... 11, going on 12 pages of pretty much the same thing, although a damn good read for those who care.

You and Psycho, (to give the Celts a single head of their own - not trying to dismiss the other posters), have made your points and neither seem to be willing to budge. I understand the lack of “sources” that the Celtic side has for their argument can be frustrating, but as mentioned above, just because you have them (or not), doesn’t mean you are right (or wrong). Do remember Psycho was the Faction coordinator for the Gauls at one time so I do hope he knows what he is talking about, sources or no.

But then again... you might be totally correct in your arguments and the EB members don’t want to admit a-historicity of the Gallic faction and are conspiring against you.... but they wouldn’t do that would they? ~;)

[IrishArmenian]

Yeah, and their defeating Milan only proves it more!
(I couldn't resist!)
However, this could definitley be handeled in EB2 much more appropriately, as the Celtic factions could just have very low loyalty and the kings could have very low authority.

[Frostwulf]

Glewas I agree with what you said in your post up until what I have for the quotes I will address below. Most authors if not all use Caesar as there would be a large gap in knowledge without his writings. As with most writers of Caesars time and before(after) they are subject to cultural prejudices and ignorance of certain things. Archeology alone will not illuminate history, the ancient writer helps to fill in allot of the gaps.



If I remember correctly, you mentioned that, as you are “proving” that the Germans are superior to Gauls/Celts during Caesar's time, that 200 years prior (back to EB’s start time) they should still be superior.

You have made decent arguments backed up with sources (suspect they may or may not be) throughout most of this tread, and if you have rescinded this comment then please ignore the fact that I find said comment to be absurd. In EB’s time period the Romans alone have three different reforms, Celts two, and even the Sweboz will hopefully get one. Are you really trying to tell me that the Germanic armies were static for over 200 years? They didn’t grow in power or even lessen? If what you think is true then you really need to give a damn good reason why they didn’t invade Gaul en masse anytime during EB’s time period.

Of course if am not remembering correctly, and you didn’t make such a statement then I apologize.

As far as the Germans being superior to the Celts prior to the TCA the only thing that could be said is that the Germans reversed the Celtic expansion. As for the TCA the Germans could be said to be superior based on the defeats of the type of Roman armies they defeated, who had previously defeated Celtic armies which outnumbered the Romans. Then of course we have Caesars time frame.
What do you consider static combat? The arms and armour of the Germans didn't change much during these times. The tactics used? The shield wall was used from before Caesars time for at least a 1,000 years later where the Anglo-Saxon's fought the Normans at the Battle of Hastings. Perhaps your referring to battle formations? If you look at the way the troops of Ariovistus were lined up, they are very similar to those used by the Franks,Lombards and etc. several hundred years later.

As far as why they didn't invade Gaul, they did:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1682667&postcount=243
Also there is what Drinkwater says in this post:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1697882&postcount=273

Finally... as much energy as you have put into this threat and the thread for the Sweboz, for which I am impressed and commend you... I don’t really see many picking up your side of the argument. There are probably good reasons for this, mainly people not posting their own ideas. But come on... 11, going on 12 pages of pretty much the same thing, although a damn good read for those who care.

I appreciate you saying that Glewas. But as far as not many picking up my side of the argument I find interesting. So far the other side of the argument has no evidence to back up its claims. My view is backed up with evidence and yet I'm a Roman apologist and "severely biased in favour of the Germans".

[Watchman]

Uhh... Frosty, not to be rude but thus far your 'evidence' has consisted of some rather selective and tendentious interpretation of what (rather little) is actually known; such as the mistake of assuming strategic success necessitated superior troop calibre...

[Erebus26]

Glewas I agree with what you said in your post up until what I have for the quotes I will address below. Most authors if not all use Caesar as there would be a large gap in knowledge without his writings. As with most writers of Caesars time and before(after) they are subject to cultural prejudices and ignorance of certain things. Archeology alone will not illuminate history, the ancient writer helps to fill in allot of the gaps.



As far as the Germans being superior to the Celts prior to the TCA the only thing that could be said is that the Germans reversed the Celtic expansion. As for the TCA the Germans could be said to be superior based on the defeats of the type of Roman armies they defeated, who had previously defeated Celtic armies which outnumbered the Romans. Then of course we have Caesars time frame.
What do you consider static combat? The arms and armour of the Germans didn't change much during these times. The tactics used? The shield wall was used from before Caesars time for at least a 1,000 years later where the Anglo-Saxon's fought the Normans at the Battle of Hastings. Perhaps your referring to battle formations? If you look at the way the troops of Ariovistus were lined up, they are very similar to those used by the Franks,Lombards and etc. several hundred years later.

As far as why they didn't invade Gaul, they did:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1682667&postcount=243
Also there is what Drinkwater says in this post:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1697882&postcount=273

I appreciate you saying that Glewas. But as far as not many picking up my side of the argument I find interesting. So far the other side of the argument has no evidence to back up its claims. My view is backed up with evidence and yet I'm a Roman apologist and "severely biased in favour of the Germans".


Totally agree with you frosty, although I'm still inclined to say that the TCA had a mixture of both 'Germanic' and 'Celtic' within their ranks.
As for the ethnicity - how can you define 'Celtic' and Germanic' as these were general names given to the occupants of Gaul and Germania by Roman and Greek historians and writers. The peoples belonging to Gaul and Germania at that time would have thought themselves as belonging to a tribe, and probably didn't have a kind of national identity. The Aedui and Sequani would have been most likely scared of invading Suebi rather than invading Germans. I would be interested to hear your views on this frosty.

I don't there was much difference in tactics either between 'Celts' and 'Germans'. After all the Helveti also used 'shield wall' tactics when fighting Caesar's legions. I think one major difference between the Suebi and their allies and the rest was the fact that they used a combination of cavalry and light infantry in battle. Caesar was obviously suitably impressed to include them in his own ranks at the time of Vercingtorix's revolt.

[Frostwulf]

Uhh... Frosty, not to be rude but thus far your 'evidence' has consisted of some rather selective and tendentious interpretation of what (rather little) is actually known; such as the mistake of assuming strategic success necessitated superior troop calibre...
I don't take it as rude. As for being selective I would have to disagree with you as I have tried to find differing views from the authors I have read. Allot of the authors I quote from came from Pyscho V. Tendentious would apply to all here, not just I. As far as: "such as the mistake of assuming strategic success necessitated superior troop calibre..."

The less dense is a possibility for the Germans replacing them, or it could be that the Germans had more people or it could just come down to the martial prowess of the Germans.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1682603&postcount=312


Totally agree with you frosty, although I'm still inclined to say that the TCA had a mixture of both 'Germanic' and 'Celtic' within their ranks.
I agree with you on this, though at the beginning I think the majority would have been Germanic.

As for the ethnicity - how can you define 'Celtic' and Germanic' as these were general names given to the occupants of Gaul and Germania by Roman and Greek historians and writers. The peoples belonging to Gaul and Germania at that time would have thought themselves as belonging to a tribe, and probably didn't have a kind of national identity. The Aedui and Sequani would have been most likely scared of invading Suebi rather than invading Germans. I would be interested to hear your views on this frosty.
I believe this is born out in the ancient writers. The Germani from what I read always said they were Suebi,Chatti,Batavi or whatever. The only exception to this is when they were in Roman service where they may refer to themselves as Germani. As far as the Celts are concerned I'm not sure. They did use the term Germani when describing the Suebi(according to Caesar) so they may have linked those who spoke German to all be Germani.

I don't there was much difference in tactics either between 'Celts' and 'Germans'. After all the Helveti also used 'shield wall' tactics when fighting Caesar's legions. I think one major difference between the Suebi and their allies and the rest was the fact that they used a combination of cavalry and light infantry in battle. Caesar was obviously suitably impressed to include them in his own ranks at the time of Vercingtorix's revolt.
There may have been minor variances but for the most part I agree with you that they would have been very similar.

[Beefy187]

Im soo gonna embrass my self:sweatdrop:

In terms of strategy I read somewhere that Germans used more of an guerilla tactic. Like raids and ambush. Where Gauls fought field battles like the Romans.

I think Caesar mentioned that Celts were superior to Germans until they started making cities and farm and stuff. They became more rich which made them more weak. While Germans rarely stayed in one place because they preffred hunting and raiding.

Sorry if this has been said before. I didnt have time to read the entire thread.

[Megas Methuselah]

Sorry if this has been said before. I didnt have time to read the entire thread.

Who does?
:tired:

[NeoSpartan]

Who does?
:tired:

I did!!!!

Over a period of mothts that is :shame:

[Power2the1]

Totally agree with you frosty, although I'm still inclined to say that the TCA had a mixture of both 'Germanic' and 'Celtic' within their ranks.
As for the ethnicity - how can you define 'Celtic' and Germanic' as these were general names given to the occupants of Gaul and Germania by Roman and Greek historians and writers. The peoples belonging to Gaul and Germania at that time would have thought themselves as belonging to a tribe, and probably didn't have a kind of national identity. The Aedui and Sequani would have been most likely scared of invading Suebi rather than invading Germans. I would be interested to hear your views on this frosty.

I don't there was much difference in tactics either between 'Celts' and 'Germans'. After all the Helveti also used 'shield wall' tactics when fighting Caesar's legions. I think one major difference between the Suebi and their allies and the rest was the fact that they used a combination of cavalry and light infantry in battle. Caesar was obviously suitably impressed to include them in his own ranks at the time of Vercingtorix's revolt.



I agree. Regarding battle tactics of boths races here, I can think of a couple differences in battle protocol. Granted, I have not read as much as other historians on this board, so anyone feel free to post where I might be wrong :-)

Celts used "music" to a great effect. I have not heard how the carnyx sounded, but its rather scary if you imagine a Celtic army sounding on them as they begin a battle! I have not read much of the Germans battling with horns blaring, creating the dreadful din (not that they did not, however, I've just not read about evidence of them using horns to the extent of the Celtic armies.)

Germanic tactics, I would assume, relied more on the powerful charge. As we all know, one popular tactic was charging in wedge formation, crashing into their enemies front lines, attempting to break them quickly (like most "barbarian tribes). Its ashame the the wedge cannot be adapted to Germans in game.

Chariot ambushes, with riders throwing spears was mentioned being used heavily by the Briton Celts, the Germans most successful use of ambush in Teutoberg Wald, and the Gaulish use of skirmish and hit and run tactics provides for plenty to keep a "civilized" commander on his toes.

I read somewhere that Celtic oppida were designed in a way that slingers/archers could have an optimal line of fire. Anyone know how accurate this is?

Too bad none of them learned to adopt a more thorough battle plan on the whole. I often ask myself why didn't the barbarians over hundred's of years learn a more complex form of battle. Maybe the standard "charge and hope they break" worked just enough to keep in forefront in their minds

[blitzkrieg80]

the wedge formation CAN be adapted to RTW: in fact it doesn't make sense for a single unit to do a wedge formation, because it should be more tactical in manner, similar to legions:

Saxo Grammaticus describes the sv&#237;nfylkir "wedge formation" in his History of the Danes, which shows a good map of where Dugunthiz stood on the social/ battlefield importance scale... these scans are from the English Warrior by Pollington and Saxo Grammaticus by David & Fisher: WARNING MASSIVE FILE... some nice text on the right too
https://img458.imageshack.us/img458/7763/wedgexr8.th.jpg (https://img458.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wedgexr8.jpg)

The Germany Army composition should consist of 2 main lines (even in ambush) with the Youth (skirmishers) along the front and the Veteran spearmen behind them, flanked with Support and/or Levy troops. The King/General is directly in the middle of the battle line as a 3rd grouping unto themselves, flanked by personal followers/bodyguard, in front of them is a special elite/vanguard 2nd and 1st line middle force who are even with the rest in ambush but will eventually form the point of a wedge formation.

(facing upwards toward the enemy)
1st line:
.........................Club Infantry | Skirmishers| Skirmishers | Chatti Club Infantry | Skirmishers | Skirmishers | Club Infantry

2nd line:

Levy Spear | Levy Spear | Spearmen | Spearmen | Chatti Spearmen | Chatti Spearmen | Spearmen | Spearmen | Levy Spear | Levy Spear

3rd line:
...........................................................Heavy Infantry | (Bodyguard) | Heavy Infantry

KEY:
Germanic Skirmishers: Jugunthiz
Chatti Club Infantry: Jugunthiz Hattisku
Germanic Club Infantry: Slaganz
Germanic Spearmen: Dugunthiz
Chatti Spearmen: Dugunthiz Hattisku
Germanic Levy Spearmen: Gaizōz Aljē
Germanic Heavy Infantry: Thegnōz Drugulē
Germanic Bodyguard Infantry: Herthaganautōz


*Some of this has been copy and pasted from other commentary by me, so when I mention the Dugunthiz it might seem weird and this composition isn't a FOR SURE ALWAYS kind of thing, it's an example, so you can substitute similar units easily: in fact, the scan graphic has the real sketch/reference information we have on such, so you can determine your own wedge formation ~:)

[Power2the1]

the wedge formation CAN be adapted to RTW: in fact it doesn't make sense for a single unit to do a wedge formation, because it should be more tactical in manner, similar to legions:

Saxo Grammaticus describes the svínfylkir "wedge formation" in his History of the Danes, which shows a good map of where Dugunthiz stood on the social/ battlefield importance scale... these scans are from the English Warrior by Pollington and Saxo Grammaticus by David & Fisher: WARNING MASSIVE FILE... some nice text on the right too
https://img458.imageshack.us/img458/7763/wedgexr8.th.jpg (https://img458.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wedgexr8.jpg)

The Germany Army composition should consist of 2 main lines (even in ambush) with the Youth (skirmishers) along the front and the Veteran spearmen behind them, flanked with Support and/or Levy troops. The King/General is directly in the middle of the battle line as a 3rd grouping unto themselves, flanked by personal followers/bodyguard, in front of them is a special elite/vanguard 2nd and 1st line middle force who are even with the rest in ambush but will eventually form the point of a wedge formation.

(facing upwards toward the enemy)
1st line:
.........................Club Infantry | Skirmishers| Skirmishers | Chatti Club Infantry | Skirmishers | Skirmishers | Club Infantry

2nd line:

Levy Spear | Levy Spear | Spearmen | Spearmen | Chatti Spearmen | Chatti Spearmen | Spearmen | Spearmen | Levy Spear | Levy Spear

3rd line:
...........................................................Heavy Infantry | (Bodyguard) | Heavy Infantry

KEY:
Germanic Skirmishers: Jugunthiz
Chatti Club Infantry: Jugunthiz Hattisku
Germanic Club Infantry: Slaganz
Germanic Spearmen: Dugunthiz
Chatti Spearmen: Dugunthiz Hattisku
Germanic Levy Spearmen: Gaizōz Aljē
Germanic Heavy Infantry: Thegnōz Drugulē
Germanic Bodyguard Infantry: Herthaganautōz


*Some of this has been copy and pasted from other commentary by me, so when I mention the Dugunthiz it might seem weird and this composition isn't a FOR SURE ALWAYS kind of thing, it's an example, so you can substitute similar units easily: in fact, the scan graphic has the real sketch/reference information we have on such, so you can determine your own wedge formation ~:)





Are you saying that the wedge formation can be made as a formation in game? I was thinking it could not for infantry, but only for cavalry units. Not sure though. I know that units can position themselves and arrange themselves into wedge formation if thats what you were refering to :-)

Speaking of which, in the wedge diagram you posted above, do you know where (if any) Germanic skirmisher or heavy cavalry units be positioned? Were they on the far left/right flanks, or were they used as strictly skirmishers that would engage only at the beginning of battle to soften them up, and then again when the enemy was routing by riding the enemy down with their swift light horses?

[blitzkrieg80]

the "Youth" who made up the front line would usually be considered skirmishers, which they are in EB, as well as on the colored configuration I show.

Cavalry is a very good question because there isn't much info on that, but I would believe they'd be kept as reserves, similar to how Caesar used them, but depending on the role, since the Ridoharjoz might be considered skirmishers and screen at the front. Also I doubt they'd be positioned on wings as Romans, I'm thinking you got the idea with softening up at the beginning then in reserve.

Yes, i meant using an overall army formation and not a unit ability.

[PSYCHO V]

(*sigh*) …Frosty Frosty




…Romans>Germans>Celts
…The Germans outclassed the Celts..regardless of the territory.
…The Celts were not as good as the Romans nor the Germans.
…I believe the German warrior to be superior.
…The Germans should be superior to them (Gauls).

I think ..if there was any weakening to the Celts during Caesar's time it was because of the Germans..

I'm not sure what your saying here.

? ~:) They’re your comments!



Of course this is simplistic, these are generalities.

General-fantasies. You can’t seriously expect others to take you seriously when you grab select data, ignore chronology and regional variation and extrapolate it where and when you see fit to fit a personal belief / thinking.



The greatest difficulties concern chronology and regional variation. To imply that any generalized description has universal application is evident nonsense (The Ancient Celts, Warfare and Society, p92, Barry Cunliffe).


“It is not surprising that they (Gauls) are still being reinvented at this time because, in our sad and sorry contemporary world, people still want a quick fix because people, in the quest for truth and meaning in life, which seems the perennial human drive, prefer simple answers. It is easier to accept the cosy pictures than ponder the uncomfortable realities…” - (Dr Peter Berresford Ellis).


This is very much the same way in which Europeans considered the whole of America to be inhabited by “Indians”. In locating the Celts we should ignore such generic usages: Celts, Germans…and perhaps others which no longer exist. (The Celts; Origins, Myths and Inventions, Locating the Celts, p105, John Collins).

Again in principle..

(We run the)… risk of turning an abstract set of material markers, which we have ourselves selected, into a historically real group of humans to which we then attribute a collective identity or ascribe collective value. (Rome’s Gothic Wars, Archaeology, Identity and Ethnicity, p62, Michael Kulikowski)






What indications do you have that Germanic warfare was that stagnant? To me that sounds like equating the Marian legions to the legions of 270 bc.

Why is there reason to think that they would be any different?

:wall:



Well they may have been bi-lingual and spoken German (we don’t know) but they definitely had Celtic customs, culture and tongue. Further, the Eburones (‘yew people’) were not Belgae but rather (along with the Treveri, Levaci, Condrusi, Caeroesi, Paemani, Segni and Ceutrones), remnants of the Moselle Celts.

…the authors I have read say that these tribes are Belgae.... Ill make the claim, the Belgae were .. descended from the Germans.
….Goldsworthy's specialty is Roman warfare, Warry and Connoly is warfare for both the Greeks and Romans. What else could you want, you have the archaeologists and the historians that deal with this area and time frame.

? To date you have only given indication that you have read or part-read two books that specialise on the Celts. Could be good to look at a few quotes from the legends in the field? Few better than Powell.


“Caesar also learnt that the Belgae, in earlier times, had themselves come from beyond the Rhine. Modern archaeological research supports the tradition as to the Rhenine, or trans-Rhenine, origins of these peoples. (The Celts, The Celtic Survival, 190 T.G.E Powell)


It is along the Rhine that the use of the name Germani is really important, and the archaeological evidence for Celtic settlement east of the river, together with the Celtic topographical names that survive as far east as the Weser, and even the lower Elbe, combine with the observed characteristics of the Belgae, the Treveri, amongst others, to suggest that Germani was originally a Celtic tribe name which perhaps, in former days, had achieved a suzerain position. From the 2nd C BC, it is clear that the name began being used indiscriminantely for any intruders coming into Gaul from across the Rhine. (The Celts, The Celtic Survival, 191 T.G.E Powell)



The Belgae as you have said did have a Celtic culture.

And!?




(“Unskilled”) - Why would Caesar describe these Celtic combatants, who come from what is generally accepted as a "warrior culture" in which glory and valor in battle is highly regarded, as such? Could it be that the Celts were fielding young men who had yet seen battle or at least seen very little? If so... then why?

My version has "unskilled barbarians" as well.

And!? .... horses and water ..and all that.






And there was formerly a time when the Gauls excelled the Germans in prowess, and waged war on them offensively..( De Bello Gallico 6.24)

I'm going to do some supposition here and really don't have much to back this up with.. I just think the Romans and the Germans were tougher.

By all means “just think” away, but it’s not exactly a convincing argument




Why didn't the (Germani) raid the (Gallic) land earlier? It seems to me to be a minor Volkerwanderung with the Germanic tribes slowly moving forward.


The methodological problem is of long standing. In the early years of archaeology’s development as a scientific discipline, it was normal to understand cultural changes as the result of one tribe or people (Germani) conquering or displacing another (Celtoi) and replacing the previous material culture with a new one of their own. This interpretative paradigm goes back to the nationalist scholarship of the Volk (Rome’s Gothic Wars, p64-65, Michael Kulikowski)


In the later half of the eighteenth century, Romanticism became the reigning intellectual paradigm for German-speaking thinkers and artists. Romantic ideals about the intrinsic qualities of individuals and whole peoples helped to articulate a sense of belonging and identity in German-speaking lands. For that reason, Romantic ideology was an inextricable part of German nationalism throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. (Rome’s Gothic Wars, Romanticism and the Rise of Modern Scholarship, p45 Michael Kulikowski)


The Romantic ideal of the German volk helped provide a conceptual framework for the political unification of German-speaking lands that was brought about by Otto von Bismark in 1871. With the creation of a united Germany, the study of a German national past became even more important.
Nazi foreign policy made much of the purity of the German race rooted in the very remote past. The wide distribution of Germans across the European continent could justify the conquest of modern Germany’s neighbours as a ‘reconquest’ of the former lands of the German volk. (Rome’s Gothic Wars, The Volk and Philology, p47, Michael Kulikowski)





And the Transalpine Gauls were defeating the Romans as well (before the civil war)..even as late as 63 BC. Your point?

My point is the same as it always has been.

Ah yes, the superior Germanic master race and their innate martial superiority. All we need now is some credible supportive evidence for this romantic ideal.




What battle are you referring to in 63 BC?

Three battles in fact. Catugnatos and his Allobroges defeated a Roman army led by Manlius Lentius at the Battle of Valence and then again at the Battle of the Isere, in which “His (Lentius’) army would have been wiped out but for a sudden storm which arose and hindred the attack”. Lentius fled and was able to apparently re-equipped his army with astonishing speed, drawing from the considerable reserves used to garrison various departments. The Allobroges were finally crushed between Lentius’ army and another huge force commanded by the Governor of Gallia Narbonesis, Gaius pomptinus. The Gauls / Allobroges, not able to make good the loss of their warrior elite surrendered.





“The Germans were not superior, then or more recently. Though they clearly were tough soldiers..” – (Dr Simon James PhD BSc FSA, Tuesday 11th September 2007, University of Leicester, UK)

I cannot consider this as anything relevant because it cannot be proven with any reasonable effort.

“reasonable effort” eh? ..thank god for expediency. My friend, if you truly believe me to be a lier, you could contact Leicester University.



I quote others because these authors are credible.

So you say.



You use yourself as a reference and try to interpret the citations of Dr. James to fit your claims.

Ok, how would you interpret “The Germans were not superior, then or more recently”?



Even if I were to consider it as evidence I would have to disagree with Dr. James and go with … Goldsworthy

So much for defending this “excellent information by a well known and highly thought of Archaeologist”.



As for being selective I would have to disagree with you as I have tried to find differing views from the authors I have read.

And how's that working for you?



There is no difference except I use credible authors and cite their works.

Apparently only when it suits



You keep ignoring James…

I do?



Why do you think I use authors for my points

At a loss ….positional expediency?




I notice a propensity to dismiss my comments …

Why should I believe what your saying? I'm not going to believe you…

~:) At least I'm not alone



I would have to.. go with what Goldsworthy says because of his specialty and because of the events that happened during this time period.

Goldsworthy’s specialty is Rome, not the Celts.

The truth of the matter is you’ll go with anything that can be applied to support your hypothesis of an innately superior Germanic master race.






…Romans>Germans>Celts
…The Germans outclassed the Celts..regardless of the territory.
…The Celts were not as good as the Romans nor the Germans.
…I believe the German warrior to be superior.
…The Germans should be superior to them (Gauls).
… If there was any weakening to the Celts during Caesar's time it was because of the Germans

Im basing this on mostly Goldsworthy…

All that from:
“Throughout the Gallic campaigns German warriors consistently defeated their Gallic counterparts, each success adding to their fierce reputation”. Goldsworthy “Caesar” -Pg.274

I’m sorry, but this hypothesis is just wishful “thinking”



Its not just me claiming this.

Unless you count the writings of the German nationalists and Romanticists, I’m afraid it is.




(‘Indo-European History’, ‘La Tene Gaul’, XVI, 5.63, Univerzita Karlova v Praze)

I couldn't find it. I will have to dismiss it.

I know I should be surprised …




The German cavalry of Caesar's time were superior to that of the Gauls as shown by the events of this time.

Yes during Caesar’s time, how many times do we need to go over this!? Again strength is relative.



The Germans of the Gallic war era simply were superior to their Gallic counterparts.

Hallelujah! Yes, the perceived strength was a recent relativity!?



I will repeat myself and say yes Goldsworthy is saying in the Gallic campaigns, but that’s because his subject was Caesar and his time frame.

Exactly! So if you are going to quote an author, please do so in the context they intended. Don’t go taking random data, extrapolating that to any given anachronistic period in order to serve a preconceived agenda.. and expect us to see the “logic” in it.





The Gauls didn’t engage in total war! They fought until one side had wiped out the others forces / retainers or had gained a significant advantage in such, hostages exchanged and homage paid. The problem for the Gauls was that the Civil war in question was a wide reaching conflict of large evenly balanced forces, so what followed was an attrition of the aforementioned retainers / warrior elite until the balance started to shift and the Sequani took over the leadership of the Southern alliance. The Germans were brought in, at great shame to the Sequani, to even up the numbers. The Aedui confederacy, now bereft of fighters themselves, appealed to Rome.

Your trying to fit these things to fit your ideology and reading things into what these authors are saying.

Ironic




If there was such an internal conflict it would involve disruption in trade and damage to the surrounding area. "it was a rich and prosperous land-so means were evidently found for limiting the damage war could cause".

Positionally schizophrenic? You have already acknowledge that the Gauls didn’t wage total war, that they had “limiting factors”. Why are you now suggesting the opposite? ..that they did wage total war and therefore all aspects of society would be so affected?





No, Caesar said that the aforementioned were “known as German tribes”. Known to whom? The ‘Marne’ tribes of central Gaul from which Caesar was getting his information. Why?, because the Marne Celts regarded the Moselle Celts, who happen to have had a thriving culture on the Rhine,.. as easterners / ‘Germans’ (1st C BC). Not too dissimilar to how the Allies of WWI / WWII referred to Germans as Huns.

Herwig Wolfram "The Roman Empire and its Germanic Peoples"-" Successful conquerors, whether they already spoke Germanic or not, crossed the Rhine and were called Germani by the Gauls. The name was used first by outsiders, and it remained so even after the Romans had taken it over from the Gauls ....etc etc" pg.4

I’m confused. Are you arguing with me now?



It can be seen, as viewed by the Gauls, a geographical connotation would have been established so that, by the first century BC, any people coming west across the Rhine, whether Celts, or predatory strangers of still more remote origins (Germans), would naturally be dubbed “Germans” (The Celts, The Celtic Survival, 191 T.G.E Powell)




Tacitus closes the second chapter with the interesting comment that the Germanic name was a relatively recent additional name that had developed from the specific name for a single tribe.

Which some claim was Celtic.



He relates that the Tungri were the first to cross the Rhine on their push westward and were subsequently called Germani by the Gauls. The victories of the Tungri imparted such prestige to this name that it was also adopted by other tribes as a generic name.

By the time Tacitus was writing, the time of the Celts was all but over and the Germans were the new barbarians ‘at the gates’. His works the Agricola and Germania were intended to both praise his relation Agricola and rale against the corruption / decadence within Rome, so much was made of the noble savage / German.

Further, it is not unusual that peoples, in retrospect, would claim decent from a supposed heroic / mythical past to add to their prestige. Egyptian Pharaohs, Babylonian kings, etc etc came from the gods, as did the Romans (Mars) claiming decent through the Trojans, the Arverni (‘Dis Pater’) also through the Trojans, etc. Little wonder to find the defeated, subjugated and down trodden Gauls of the late 1st BC and first centuries Ad claiming German ancestry.





Frosty, you aren’t even talking about the same people!!

Ignoring the fact that most of the inhabitants of northern Europe were not Celtic at all but rather remnants of the Urnfield and some cases Germanic peoples (most of which had long freed themselves from their Halstatt overlords). They didn’t have an ancient cookie cutting to pop out some sort of generic Celt.

It’s extremely na&#239;ve to compare the Germano-Celtic remnants of these northern Halstatt chiefdoms to the advanced powerful La Tene ‘D’ states of Gaul.

These are the same Celts who were moving about and invading elsewhere but being pushed back up north.

Sorry to burst your bubble…

Ok, again I state, you can’t lump everything together just because it fits better with your beliefs. There is no such thing as the “Timeless Celt”. One would have to be incredibly na&#239;ve to think otherwise.


Using nineteenth century concepts, ..these ideas were developed by Gustav Kossinna and adopted by the Nazi party as a foundation of the concept of a German master race. Races were thought to have characteristic features such as religion, social structure, language, etc. this leads to racial stereo-typing and the idea that different sources from different places and different times can be collated to define the concept of the “timeless Celt”, an idea that still pervades most general books on the Celts. (The Celts; Origins, Myths and Inventions, Locating the Celts, p224, John Collins)



The Germans began reversing the Celts around 3rd century BC, wouldn't that put it in the La Tene B era?

Firstly, Geo-political demographics and culture varied greatly over time and space. Each area, people, tribe, etc would have geographically specific distinctions. Even the categorical nomenclature has been adapted to demonstrated the variations.

Thus, in the third century you have the area of Southern Gaul – “La Tene C”, Northern France – “Middle La Tene II & III”, Hunsr&#252;ck-Eifel (Reinecke) – “La Tene A & B”, Switzerland – La Tene “Ic & Iia”, Baden W&#252;rttemberg (Z&#252;rn) Halstatt D3 / La Tene A, Northern Plain – “Late Iron Age / Halstatt A & B”, Briton – “Early & Mid Iron Age”.

Secondly, notwithstanding the previous paragraph, I repeat, you’re NOT talking about the same peoples. You may as well start making claims about the Germans vs the forces of the United States of America.

Those peoples in northern Europe, whom the so-called Germani dealt with in the 3rd and early 2nd C BC had almost nothing in common with the La Tene D Gauls of France nor the La Tene B & C Gauls of southern Germany. In fact, La Tene culture never extended beyond the 51st parallel.


(For all accounts), .. in terms of material culture, socio-economic structure, and language the inhabitants of the Northern European Plain differed from the Celtic communities further south, there was a wide zone between where one graded into the other.(The Ancient Celts, p237 Barry Cunliffe)

There was no Celtic wall that the Germans suddenly smashed through due to their innate superiority. In fact, by the time the ‘Germani’ began putting pressure on Celtic lands across the Rhine and in southern Germany, most of the Celtic colonies had already / previously disappeared, their states collapsed. To this day we don’t know why. We know that significant contingents of Volcae (Osi, Cotini, etc) migrated east to join their kin throughout eastern Europe .. even as far as the black sea. Some scholars claim regional disasters, some disease, some internal warfare fought over the increasing scale of trade with the south. All we know for sure is that dozens of major fortified sites and significant areas of population were suddenly abandoned. To date, only deposits of La Tene weaponry have been found dating to the period.


The martial and cultural ascendancy of the Celts throughout the fifth to the second centuries BC, manifested archeologically in the La Tene culture, exerted a great influence on the remoter barbarians (Germani), lying to the north and east. (The Celts, The Celtic Survival, 192 T.G.E Powell)

The Germani, didn’t begin making an incursion into this area until the mid to late 2nd C BC.


The trans-Rhenine aggressors of the first centuries BC and AD represent but an early phase in a movement that involved an ever-increasing element of Tuetonic-speaking peoples as they pressed forward from their earlier homelands that had previous lain north-eastwards of the Elbe.(The Celts, The Celtic Survival, 192 T.G.E Powell)


During the second and first centuries BC, the Darcians and (later) certain of the so-called Germanic peoples began making territorial inroads on Celtic lands (The Ancient Celts, The Developed Celtic World, p221, Barry Cunliffe)




Ill state again, the reason I put this down is from Psycho V saying the Celts were defeating the Germans for century's before. If thats the case why were the Germans displacing them, not to mention where is the evidence to support this.

Apparently in the material yet to be studied. ~:flirt:




I believe most slaves were acquired while raiding and the battles, but it doesn't seem to be in large numbers.

The reason is because it was still a relatively peaceful area. The raids consisted of small groups of men, and the battles would have been few. With the raids and few battles there would not have been many slaves taken…


No offence to your beliefs but I’m afraid Watchman is correct.

Whilst previously, slavery had only played a minor role within Gallic society, there was a huge increase in the slave trade (export south) at the end of the 2nd and begging of the 1st century BC. This just happens to coincide with the out-break of a major conflict between northern and southern tribes over the lucrative trade routs. The war you deny.


By the beginning of the first century BC the reliance of the Roman economy on slave labour was considerable. One estimate is that in the early first century BC there were 300,000 Gallic slaves in Italy alone, a total which required to be topped up at a rate of 15,000 a year. (The Ancient Celts, The Developed Celtic World, p215, Barry Cunliffe)


Not the “small groups of men” taken in “raids” that you claim but rather implies a much more significant developement. The war you deny.


After the defeat of Luernio’s son Bituitos by the Romans on the River Isere in 123 BC where he had been opposing the invasion of the Province, the Arverni lost their leading role (in Gaul). As Caesar says that by his time the control of Gaul was being contested by the Aedui and Sequani.(The Celts; Origins, Myths and Inventions, Archaeology of the Celts, p171, John Collins)


The “unsual situation” of the first century BC ..suggests that it was likely due to the instability of the Celtic states brought into sharp focus by the sudden interest of the Roman world (Reduction of Arverni) in the affairs of its northern periphery (The Ancient Celts, Warfare and Society, p223, Barry Cunliffe)

Further, the material record bears this out. The huge increase in the trade of slaves happens to coincide with the huge increase in the trade of wine.


They (Gauls) are extremely partial to wine and glut themselves with the unmixed wine brought in by merchants. Their desire makes them guzzle it and when they get drunk, they either fall into a stupor or become manic. For this reason many Italian merchants, with their usual love for money, regard the Celtic passion for wine as a source of treasure. They transport the wine by boat on the navigable rivers and by cart … and get an incredibly good price for it; for one amphora of wine they get a slave. (Hist 5.26 Diodorus Siculus)

Little wonder the Romans / merchants (and James) regarded Gaul as prosperous.


We have deposits of tens of thousands of distinctive Amphora of Dressel Type 1A & 1B dating to this period. Huge dumps like that found in Saone, Cabillonum (Chalon) testify to the significant increase in importation. Thus even in a war that would almost annihilate the warrior class, the precious wine was prized.


Another factor (for Caesar’s conquest of Gaul), was surely economic. Gaul, as we have seen, provided Rome with an immensely valuable market (of) slaves. (The Ancient Celts, The Celts in Retreat, p239, Barry Cunliffe)

Caesar was to make his personal fortune from the slaves taken in his campaign.

The material record demonstrates other significant changes that took place in the period.


In the late La Tene D1, around 120-100 BC most of the sites in the Grande Limagne (Auvergne) were abandoned, and three successive oppida were established (Corent, Gondole and Gergovie) (The Celts; Origins, Myths and Inventions, Archaeology of the Celts, p172, John Collins)

Another indicator of major conflict, change and attempt to protect the valuable trade in commodities. There is plenty of other evidence, but hey, why let facts get in the way of a good master race story.



Simon James-"The World of the Celts"-"Slavery existed, although on a smaller scale than in the Classical world; slaves may have been most important as export commodities." pg. 53

Yes, in Jame’s paragragh “The Shape of Society, The make-up of Celtic societies”, he again provides a general overview of Celtic society throughout history. More specifically in regards to slavery, he is talking about the use of slavery within Celtic society, suggesting that slavery’s real (most important) value lay in “export” / outside Celtic society / tuath. He is not making a statement about the scale of the slavery trade, but rather the retention / use of slaves within Celtic society. The slave trade of the 1st C BC was something different and new altogether for the Gauls.






..why was it necessary for the Gauls .. to have to arm and train their armies anew on the arrival of Caesar? They were a mobilized militia because the warrior caste was all but wiped out previously, in the war you deny happened.

Venceslas Kruta-"The Celts"-"…cavalry totally replace the war-chariots ..blah blah blah." pg.110

Stephen Allen-"Lords of Battle, the World of the Celtic Warrior"-"The nature of Celtic warfare changed … to large conflicts between tribal confederations …A major consequence was the increasing importance of cavalry …blah blah blah." pg.83

Stephen Allen-"Lords of Battle, the World of the Celtic Warrior"-" By this period, the elite Gallic warriors who provided the urban aristocracies with their armed retainers were almost entirely cavalry…blah blah blah" pg.132

Aside from providing support for my argument, I fail to see what has this has got to do with the price of tea in China?

The quotes were saying that the cavalry were the new elite warriors who were now the main defensive forces, not the tribal levies. This was a time of relative peace therefore.

Cavalry = Peace? Those Huns, Alans, Bulgars, Mongols, etc etc were obviously the most peaceful persons on the planet! :laugh4:




The only ones that were really trained for the most part was the cavalry.

The only ones properly trained were the warrior elite, who were increasingly mounted from the second C BC on. Again, your point?





The point I was making (which I have made all along), is that the Germans didn’t suddenly wake up one morning in 70 BC as this elite unstoppable force you claim is inferred by Caesar in the 1st C BC. You can’t extrapolate the relative strength of the Germans during Caesar’s War to those several hundred years prior.

You wrongly claim there was a "Devastating Civil War" ..there wasn't. The Celts were as strong as they had been since the 3rd century and before, possibly even better …

Is this “just” your thinking at play again or do you have something to back that up?





Are you just making stuff up now? How did you get the “over extended, rolled off the field, spread out” bit?

I'll see if I can find the quote from Sidnell.

? My friend, if you are happy to dismiss quotes I provide even when references are provided, what should I make of these sort of comments?





For the few examples given us of German troops during the 1st C BC (during Caesar’s war of conquest), you are quite happy play up, even make erroneous claims from events that (as you have even admitted) should never be used as supposed evidence. Eg. The Menapii.

I never made an erroneous claim, I said it was unfair to use it, and it was out of context for the situation.

“I never made..” ..? Ok Bill, time for a reality check. You made a claim that you had to retract because it was “unfair” and “out of context”, but that wasn’t an error? :yes:



Erroneous would be claiming that Caesar's quote …was about a supposed "Devastating Celtic War" as opposed to what it really was, a 10 year war with the Germans. What about the duel with Virdomarus? How about the Celts defeating the Germans for centuries? These are erroneous statements.

You forgot the sky being blue and the earth round. :2thumbsup:





On the other hand, when I post… (merely to prove how preposterous it is to extrapolate isolated events devoid of context).you dismiss..

Again your way off on your examples. Your erroneous example of the 120,000 Germans (again something Ill address later) against Caesar, compared to your 80,000 Gauls

Again, you’ve missed the point entirely!



…which to this date have not told me which battle your talking about, and this is the third time Ill ask you, what battle are you talking about.

Gergovia, although it was apparently against 6 rather than 10 legions due to postings elsewhere.



You love to repeatedly cite the example of the 800 but what about the others instances I have.Couldn’t we just as likely draw all sorts of strange conclusions / make all sorts of grandiose claims? Remember that 430,000 of these “superior” Germans (Usipetes and Tenctheri, to which the mighty 800 belonged) ran like girls when faced with 8 Roman legions.

Again misrepresented and ignorance of the facts.

Again missed the point!




Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"Triple line of columns was formed, and the eight mile march was so speedily accomplished that Caesar reached the the enemy's camp before the Germans could have any inkling of what was toward".Book 4,14

And there you go …citing context now it’s suddenly relevant. Why hasn’t this worried you before… when it came to the Romans / Germans defeating the Gauls “most of the time”.


Gallic armies successfully …(defeated Roman armies), but this was only possible when the Gauls had had enough time to muster their whole army along the likely route of Roman advance. Mustering a Gallic army and then deploying it for battle was a slow procedure, and it is notable that very often the (Gauls) were unable to form an army until the Romans had (already) attacked their territory …. (Roman Warfare, World Conquest, p96 Adrian Goldsworthy)





Yet we have several accounts on much smaller numbers of Gauls at least putting up a fight. The 92,000 Helvetii attacking 6 legions up hill and retiring in good order. Vercingetrix’s 80,000 Gauls being surprised by an assault of 10 legions and winning..etc etc Should we now assume that the Gauls were the master race / innately superior!? ..Of course not!

You do realize that the Gauls outnumbered the Romans in each of these cases… blah blah blah

You do realise that whether the Romans were outnumbered is a mute point when considering the relevance to my comment!? Or are you still claiming that Ariovistus fought Caesar with only 15,000 men?



Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"The third line of cohorts …blah blah blah" pg.222
Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"By this time the Gauls …blah blah blah" pg. 333
Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"Caesar could do little … blah blah blah" pg.333

I can only assume that in the absence of argument, you hope to distract and confuse with huge amounts of irrelevant quotes.





If you want to adopt Goldsworthy’s rationale then one would have acknowledge the same likelihood with your beloved 800 super Germans.

Yea, there was a difference. With the Helvetii, Caesars cavalry were routed and lost a few men, they were on unfavourable ground and betrayed by Dumnorix.
With the 800 they charged Caesar's cavalry and it was a set battle as more of Caesars cavalry showed up and joined the battle.

For starters, Caesar’s cavalry were also betrayed, by Ariovistus and his overtures of peace. Secondly, the mighty ‘800’ (even if Caesar is to believe on the numbers) ambushed the Gauls, experienced or not. Ceasar’s veteran legions ran at Gergovia, should we start claiming that Vercingetrix’s Gauls were all innately superior?

Further the Gauls were initially routed by this un-expected attack, not with the subsequent melee that followed. Ignoring the realities of warfare and the state at which the Gallic morale must have been at the time, it is amazing they returned to the fight at all. We have no account of any Germanic force of the period rallying once routed, so again.. should we confer on the Gauls an innate superiority.

It’s also worth mentioning that the Helvetii charged a force ten times their size (400/4000) whilst the Germans only three times their size (1,600/5000)… so again, are the Gauls innately superior? …of course not!





The Germans attacked whilst seeking peace! If you’re happy to accept “unfavourable ground” as evidence of an ambush then surely you would accept the surprise attack of the Germans as an ambush as well!?

As for the other accounts of Germanic cavalry in De Bello Gallico, there is nothing to suggest that they were anything other than an effective / experienced force of mercenaries. An elite force bought at a price that fought a weakened Gallic aristocracy long reduced by civil war.


Goldsworthy read the book and may have….blah blah blah

Speculative hearsay. Your fishing.






It never ceases to amaze me how some will only see what they want to see.

Why the bloody hell would Caesar try to calm his troops by telling them “Don’t worry about how the Germans fight! The Germans only managed to slaughter the Gauls because they slaughtered them previously”!?

It doesn’t make sense!

The comment only makes sense when one acknowledges the context, that the Gauls had been slaughtering each other and were “exhausted by a long war”. The war that you now partly deny

It doesn't make sense to you because your trying to make this text fit your claim of the supposedly "Devastating Civil War" when it has nothing at all to do with it.


Caesar-"The Gallic War"… the Gauls had been tired out by the long duration of the war, Ariovistus, after he…"

You’ve merged the sentences to infer direct connection. You have to consider context my friend.



He is talking of the battle of Magetobriga. He makes no mention of Gallic infighting at all in this, he is always referring to the battles with the Germans. He is saying that the Gauls were tired of waiting months for the Germans to emerge and fight them.

Here, I’ll hold your hand and walk you through it.


Caesar mentions the Gallic war in two sections:

1)
“The Gauls (plural), …were divided into two parties. One dominated by the Aedui, the other by the Arverni. After a fierce struggle for supremacy, lasting many years, the Arverni and Sequani hired some German mercenaries to help them… and there are at present about a 120,000 of them were in the country (Gaul)…The Aedui and their satellite tribes had fought the Germans more than once, and had suffered disastrous defeats… These calamities had broken the supremacy which they formerly maintained in Gaul. (Germans seizing Aedui land) and in a few years time the whole population of Gaul would be expatriated…

….After a single victory over the united Gallic forces at Admagetobriga (61 BC), Arivistus has shown himself an arrogant and cruel tyrant…. Unless Caesar.. would help them, the Gauls (plural) must ..leave their homes, seek other dwelling places … (De Bello Gallico I.XXXI.X)


The points to note here is the fierce Gallic struggle for supremacy lasting many years, the Aedui fighting the German mercenaries more than once and a single victory over a united Gallic force at Admagetobriga


2)
“Observing this state of affairs (fear of the Germans), Caesar summoned the centurions of every grade to a council, and began to severely reprimand them.

Our countrymen faced this enemy in our father’s time (Cimbri / Teutones) …
They faced them again more recently in Italy (Spartacus / “rebellious slaves”)
Moreover these Germans are the same men whom the Helvetii often met in battle … and have generally beaten .. yet were not a match for our army
If anyone is alarmed by the fact that the Germans have defeated the Gauls (plural) and put them to flight (Admagetobriga), he should inquire into the circumstances of that defeat. He will find that it happened at a time when the Gauls (plural) were exhausted by a long war

(De Bello Gallico I.XXXX.XIII)

The defeat of the Gauls at Admagetobriga was against a united Gallic force, it is not taking about the Aedui fighting the “Germans more than once”. It is a united pan-Gallic force involved in one major battle. These Gauls (plural ie not just the previously mentioned Aedui) had been exhausted by a “long war” / “fierce struggle for supremacy, lasting many years”.

Caesar then goes on and further stresses the point that even in this battle against exhausted Gauls, Ariovistus had to ambush this united Gallic force after they “broke up into scattered groups” His victory being due to “cunning strategy rather than the bravery (superiority) of his troops.”

If one studies the work in context and refrains from grabing select pieces, joining sentences, etc, one will have a better appreciation of the author’s intended meaning rather than that of the reader.



Caesar said the Gauls were worn out by the campaign with Ariovistus, then he attacked them as they dispersed.

He said no such thing.



He is saying that the Gauls were tired of waiting .. for the Germans to emerge (from the marshes) and fight them.

Seriously, think about it :smash:



Hoping to evict the unwelcome Germans, ..peoples headed by the Aedui, confronted Ariovistus in the field. The resulting battle was a display of the martial superiority of the (Germans).

Another flight of fancy I’m afraid. If you are referring to Admagetobriga, the battle was fought by a united Gallic force. There is no mention of the Aedui leading, in fact we are told that the Aedui had lost their leading position amongst the Gauls.

Your comment about the so-called display of “martial superiority” flies in the face of what Caesar states and I can only assume one’s imagination has got the better of them yet again.



Again the Germans waited for the Gauls to disperse before emerging to do battle with the remaining Gauls, therefore there were plenty of Gauls left.

? :inquisitive:



So the Helvetii beat the Germans and we(Romans) beat the Helvetii..basically you tell your troops how the Germans had been defeated by Romans, then you say the Germans are not very tough because they only fought weaklings.

Something like that :book:



Caesar probably didn't know they (Helvetii) were most likely forced out by the Germans.

Shame you weren't there to help him





To be honest we have to blame Caesar himself for this whole argument about 'Gauls' and 'Germans'. He created the Rhine boundary so he could back to the senate and say that he had conquered the whole of Gaul.

I agree with this.

Yes, but this wasn’t the main reason for doing so. It was more a case of overstating (and in some cases fabricating) the German threat to Gaul and Rome so as to provide a casus belli for his Gallic campaign. Ensuring his tenure and support at home.


“In the fourth book of his commentaries Caesar begins with a sketch of the “warlike” Germans, reminding his readers of the instability of the region…providing sufficient justification for his concern on behalf of the stability of Rome.” (The Ancient Celts, p242 Barry Cunliffe)





The vulnerability doesn't mention the "Devastating Civil War"! Why, because its and exaggerated event.

Hmm.. “exaggerated”? .. so you're acknowledging it now?

The supposed "Devastating Civil War", which I don't believe. I do deny the supposed "Devastating Civil War”

So what exactly is your position? The Gauls didn’t fight ? There was no major struggle between the Arverni and Aedui?




As I have said ad naseum, there were several factors that lead to the Gallic demise not one issue only. You have to look at the big picture, remember my analogy of the White Elephant? Internal martial and political weakness, fiscal prosperity, centralisation of governance, external military and socio-economic pressure, both internal and external population pressures, etc etc all contributed.
Like the fall of most states / empires, one would be na&#239;ve to just to consider the most obvious. Did the western Roman empire fall because they could not stop the Germanic Master Race in 410 AD, no. Just like the Gauls, there were years of decline / political instability, civil war, etc etc that contributed.

You are claiming the Gallic warriors were weak (not experienced etc.) because they were devastated from a "Civil War" and are therefore not of the same caliber of the Celts of the 3rd century BC and before.


Individually the Romans were better equipped and armoured than the majority of Celtic warriors, but there is little indication (from earlier periods) of the great superiority which Caesar’s troops in the first C BC would display against Gallic opponents. (Roman Warfare, World Conquest, p96 Adrian Goldsworthy)





Even your beloved Livy states that these groups had come into being due to internal pressures and turmoil.

Again he is saying these armies internally were rarer then before.

Was that intentional? No he says that they were rarer before ie more common later in the period due to the changing nature of Gallic society and the increasing power / political hegemony that the various power bloke enjoyed (eg Arverni, Aedui, etc)

James is again providing a general overview that encompasses several hundred years of history. The point here is that he doesn’t state anything that supports your position that this significant Gallic war never occurred.
Goldsworthy makes exactly the same comment about Celtic society in the 3rd c BC as a prefix to his commentary on the first Punic war.


(Celtic) Raiding and small scale warfare were endemic; battle less common but by no means unknown.(The Punic Wars, Opposing Sides, p25 Adrian Goldsworthy). It’s worth noting that James also mentions that “conflicts ranged from great wars..to mere brigandage..etc”.



He is not talking about tribal movements but movements of armies and those like the Gaesatae who were most likely a social escape valve.

Yes, for the excess warrior elite. In fact the Gallic warrior elite served as mercenaries throughout the ancient world, suddenly disappearing from the world stage at a time that happen to coincide with major internal turmoil in Transalpine Gaul, etc.


As in other Indo-European societies, the Celts produced a warrior class or caste with their own rituals; they were professionals who sold their expertise to whoever would hire their services. Their role might be more quickly understood by comparing them with the Samurai - (The Druids, p28 Peter Berresford Ellis)

How do you think the forces of early feudal Japan would fair without Samurai?



Caesar states plainly about the population, and for the time/era its abundant.

And your point? Either the Celts wage limited warfare (ie predominantly through the warrior class / elites) or they didn't. You can't have it both ways my friend.



I never have said or claimed to have held Livy in any esteem.

Well, you were willing to ignore the commentary of world experts and instead adopt Livy’s bolox verbatim / as truth.




The problem is that your method of analysis appears to be completely dependant on the type of data, or should I say the interpretation one wishes to gain from the said data.

What do you base yours on?

I have a list of references posted around here somewhere. I’ve been fortunate enough to triple my library since then




In response to the statements that Celtic units are overpowered compared to the Germanic units, based on stats, I would like to object. At least partially. I took a look at the unit stats shown in the unit cards made by Arkatreides (Stickied topic, "Trading card style unit cards for offline use"). (Hopefully these are still correct for the current EB version, otherwise my whole post might be a load of BS :)

Using these cards I compared the celtic and germanic spear units. From the stats we can see that the celtic spear units are mostly weaker and more expensive than their germanic counterparts. This is true both before and after the first reforms.…..


Ah, back to the original subject matter of the thread. Completely agree. :2thumbsup:


...geez how long is this? ..way too much time better spent elsewhere me thinks..



my2bob

[NeoSpartan]

Ah, back to the original subject matter of the thread. Completely agree. :2thumbsup:


...geez how long is this? ..way too much time better spent elsewhere me thinks..



my2bob

oh no Psycho V... all was not a waste of time...

Do you realize how many people (including me) now know what happened to the Gauls???

[Watchman]

Me, at least. Between that and some other stuff someone else posted I figure I now have a pretty decent idea of how the whole shebang went.

[Erebus26]

Psycho - I would like you to give me some of your main sources, as I would like to get hold of the books in question.

[Power2the1]

I am not good at the whole quote thing. My opinions are in bold

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking
And there was formerly a time when the Gauls excelled the Germans in prowess, and waged war on them offensively..( De Bello Gallico 6.24)

I might can see that that could have happened. I am sure it was the other way around too. I doubt the Germanic tribes took it sitting down.


Originally Posted by Originally Posted by Frostwulf
1)…Romans>Germans>Celts <~~~
2)…The Germans outclassed the Celts..regardless of the territory.
3)…The Celts were not as good as the Romans nor the Germans.
4)…I believe the German warrior to be superior.
5)…The Germans should be superior to them (Gauls).
6)… If there was any weakening to the Celts during Caesar's time it was because of the Germans

The 1), 2), etc... that you see above are my inserts btw.
1) Depends on time period. Up until the Celtic Civil war, I would put the Celts on par with the Romans. They both defeated and won battle against each other. I should make a tally sheet do see what the ratio was..
2) I doubt that. Again, depends on time frame we are talking about.
3) See #2
4) & 5) I respect your opinion
6) Thats not what I have gleaned in my various readings. This Civil war was between two side of the Celts and their allies adn mercenaries. The Germans were a hired "side show," though they turned out to be decisive I am sure in some battles, they could not have been the only factor. If that was so, and the Gauls were such easy pickings, why didn't we have a Germanic invasion (Like we found with the Anglo-Saxons heading to Britain in the 5-6 centuries A.D. after the Romans left) finding itself doing the same in Gaul?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Erroneous would be claiming that Caesar's quote …was about a supposed "Devastating Celtic War" as opposed to what it really was, a 10 year war with the Germans. What about the duel with Virdomarus? How about the Celts defeating the Germans for centuries? These are erroneous statements.

This is impossible. If the Celts were constantly fighting Germans, there'd be massive loss of life on both sides. The Germans were hardy, no doubt, but their native lands could not hold the population that Gaul could. So take warrior after warrior, kill them in battles, and its should be obvious that a fertile rolling flatlands of Gaul, full of Celtic farmsteads and crops, could hold and sustain more warriors and people that dark, swampy, shady forest population centers that were prevalent (though perhaps not dominant) in Germany.

That being said, its way more likely that the Civil War would have cost the Celts on both sides (Aedui and Arverni) all their manpower, while one side would have to get a relatively ample supply of warriors from a land that had warriors and lands that were not ravaged and depleted by war (the Germans).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
As I have said ad naseum, there were several factors that lead to the Gallic demise not one issue only. You have to look at the big picture, remember my analogy of the White Elephant? Internal martial and political weakness, fiscal prosperity, centralisation of governance, external military and socio-economic pressure, both internal and external population pressures, etc etc all contributed.
Like the fall of most states / empires, one would be naïve to just to consider the most obvious. Did the western Roman empire fall because they could not stop the Germanic Master Race in 410 AD, no. Just like the Gauls, there were years of decline / political instability, civil war, etc etc that contributed.

I agree.


You are claiming the Gallic warriors were weak (not experienced etc.) because they were devastated from a "Civil War" and are therefore not of the same caliber of the Celts of the 3rd century BC and before.
Quote:
“Throughout the Gallic campaigns German warriors consistently defeated their Gallic counterparts, each success adding to their fierce reputation”. Goldsworthy “Caesar” -Pg.274


I would claim the same thing too when you look at the situation. Yes, experienced bands of German Warriors, that had no Civil War ravaging their homelands for decades, would defeat unexperienced, war weary men whose civilization was being torn apart by two opposing side as well as being invaded by the mighty Romans.

You must admit, the Celts fought to the bitter end bravely. They took on Caesars Veteran Legions (routing them at times), the Germans (who were ready, fresh troops from a non civil war affected society), themselves, *and still* managed to offer determined resistance to the Roman Legions and German troops for 7 years (58-51 B.C.E.) in addition to the Civil War which depleted their war machine for decades.

Though I might get flamed hard, and I might veer off in highly debatable issues here, but when I think about it, it seems throughout ancient history when the Germans came on the scene, they never really faced whole, powerful, equal empires that could field warriors on an even platform. I feel they are vastly overrated. They went against and warred versus land and peoples that were long past their prime. Western Rome was declining fast, in fighting, political turmoil, the lack of a strong emperor central figure, etc...had taken its toll for generations, and when the Germans came knocking, their was not a substantial military response tho their advance. In Britain, the Romano-British had all their Legions whisked away, left to fend for themselves versus warrior hordes descending from Scotland (Picts), Ireland, and German Saxons and Angles.

Germans never had to face such odds until WW2

[Hooahguy]

Germans never had to face such odds until WW2

what about WWI and the countless wars that came before it?

[blitzkrieg80]

Power2the1, "non-civil war affected society"?? HELLO- almost all tribes (especially in Europe) participate in ritual warfare, continuous raiding and feuding which is actually a whole lot like civil war... there just isn't a continuous ideological dedication to war with neighbors... go to the ghetto and poor slums of any civilization on earth and see how much peace and lack of violence exists.

btw, the Germans were there the WHOLE time. that's why they're around in EB... you mention the missing emperor figure and Roman military- why? because the Germans were better soldiers and civilization had gotten very used to using them instead of making their own. that is why German soldiers were placing their own emperor on the throne, not because they secretly came in and Romans mysteriously disappeared, but because there was no way to stop that which was accepted by choice.

if you study the early history of Prussia (not the real Prussians who were cool ass pagan Balto-Slavs) but the state with its capital eventually at Brandenburg, you'll notice that a very tiny country faced huge threats continuously over time... seriously, now. there is a reason that Prussian military tradition became the "Roman" variant of its time... the Teutonic Knights suck though, so don't think I mean them even if they started the area, because their un-Christ-like genocide made in his name is as much BS as the one below this paragraph.

the Thirty Years War was a conflict ( I know there is more to it, but I will speak of Germans ) of small and relatively disunited German states who actually put up more of a fight than other similar states, against many nations. Talk about genocide: ignored because it was Catholics peforming it in an effort to control thought, this is vastly ignored due to the "who cares about killing Germans" sentiment of Europe... at least Europeans discovered how good the potato is ~:) seriously, crops were burned and they learned how great its nutrition is even though it was "lowly"

if you ask me, one of the primary reasons for the late formation of a unified German state only in the nineteenth century (besides their love of decentralized government) is because the people of the German states were continuously at war (not by choice) especially seen in the Thirty Years War... it is a fact that one of the reasons for WW1 is because Great Britain couldn't handle the idea of competition, Germany had become a GNP powerhouse. there was no "right" or "wrong" in that war, just the idea of "balance of power" which Britain loves to use when it limits other Europeans, but if you look at their military history, they are in more wars than ANYBODY and it's for their own interest and power.

BTW, the reason the Germans were held back so long in antiquity was the fact that the Romans continuously killed them and "defended themselves." so to say that they waited until the time was right is laughable. they struggled for their whole existence as most Eurasian peoples not living off the wealth of others. Not that they wouldn't have if they could (live off the wealth of others). I'm not saying they would be "uber" anything, the Germanic peoples were tribal- and they borrowed technology as much as anybody, why invent an alphabet on your own if you can just borrow it, but it is a fact that Romans "liked" to have reasons to raid Germany and receive triumphs over peoples (not just Germans).

[Erebus26]

if you ask me, one of the primary reasons for the late formation of a unified German state only in the nineteenth century (besides their love of decentralized government) is because the people of the German states were continuously at war (not by choice) especially seen in the Thirty Years War... it is a fact that one of the reasons for WW1 is because Great Britain couldn't handle the idea of competition, Germany had become a GNP powerhouse. there was no "right" or "wrong" in that war, just the idea of "balance of power" which Britain loves to use when it limits other Europeans, but if you look at their military history, they are in more wars than ANYBODY and it's for their own interest and power.

I think you're a good lad Blitzkreig, and I respect your comments, but haven't you heard of the Schlieffen Plan? Germany had, apart from Russia, the biggest army in Europe at that time and it was undoubtedly the most efficient and well trained. Plus Prussia was involved in two wars in the 19th century - against Austria in 1866 and France 1870 - in order to prove it's military superiority and to weaken it's neighbours. Britain was also involved in a lot of wars during the 19th century but all, apart from the Crimea, were in our colonies, although they were to preserve our power and prestige! :beam:

[blitzkrieg80]

well if you know your neighbors are going to declare war, amassing an army and planning other manuevers is hardly offensive... Napoleon had the same problem... of course Britain's reasoning was against that scary "revolution" thing and dethroning of the monarchy ~;) but also maintaining the "balance of power". if Germany was so power-hungry then the Franco-Prussian war wouldn't have ended so nicely... in fact, reclaiming parts of Charlemagne's empire is hardly anything, so France should be ashamed of making such as fuss to cause WW1 :grin:

[Power2the1]

I'm sorry guys, I should have clarified. What I meant by "The Germans did not have to face such odd until WW2" is like this:

You have the Germans (i.e. Arverni will be used to keep it simple), steadily being attacked and also attacking, years of very hard war, townships being razed and destroyed, trade, food, and supplies affected, civilians under all the wartime stress, standard of living has went down, etc...and during all this, you have mighty America (i.e. Rome) coming at you full steam. They are not alone, they've brought their British and Canadian allies (i.e. Rome's various Germanic allies). At the same time, you have to contend with keeping intact your own allied countries like Italy, Romania, Bulgaria and aid them (i.e. smaller subjugated Gallic tribes allied with the Arverni). On top of that Russia (i.e. Aedui) is still coming on strong, and you are trying to win on all fronts. Your allies are dropping off and some are joining/surrendering the enemy (i.e. Gallic tribes defecting/joining/surrendering to Caesar)


Basically, like I mentioned earlier, I do believe the Germans are vastly overrated in their Ancient/Dark Age conquests when you consider who they had to face on the whole (frail and failing empires and abandoned demoralized armies at the fringes of the empire). To claim thats a remarkable tactical masterstroke based on "superior" racial constitution just because they were German, is unbalanced.

I hope I illustrated this well enough. Perhaps it falls on its face, I don't know. I makes sense to me, so I hope its conveyed well.

[blitzkrieg80]

Wait... you're claiming that Ariovistus was allied with Caesar?

I don't think industrialized nations can really be compared to ancient tribes... what are the self-propelled artillery- Bartix olyphonts?

how are the Germans vastly overrated when everyone diminishes what actually happened and ignore the huge cultural influence of Celts and Germans, calling it "Dark" simply because Roman bureaucracy/civilization was changed? Franks and Anglo-Saxons proudly claim Roman-heritage these days (and have been for quite a while), forgetting any tie to a Germanic past, so I don't really see where anyone is claiming what you say. WW1 and WW2 wouldn't have even happened if the French and British felt any affinity to Germanic "brothers."

BTW, by your own standards then, who HAS lived up to your expectations... did the Celts of La Tene have vast empires as enemies whom they conquered with ease? Did the Romans have to fight Alexander and his empire? Methinks the Roman land-grab and easy adoption of fragmented and destabilized Hellenistic culture and administration in the East is much more pathetic in triumph while we're using comparison.

[NeoSpartan]

hey... wtf are u guys talking about??? Why are u all looking and arguing about Germany in 19th, and 20th Century????

:focus:

EB Celts, Germans and Romans.

[PSYCHO V]

Psycho - I would like you to give me some of your main sources, as I would like to get hold of the books in question.

What sort of content are you after? Technical / archeaological material or historical / overview sort of material?

my2bob

[blitzkrieg80]

hey... wtf are u guys talking about??? Why are u all looking and arguing about Germany in 19th, and 20th Century????

:focus:

EB Celts, Germans and Romans.

Haha ~:) Nicely said... sorry for the hijack ~:doh:

"looking?"

damn, i didn't know I looked 19th century, I feel so old ~:( but at least Erebus called me 'lad'!

[PSYCHO V]

oh no Psycho V... all was not a waste of time...

~:) .. comforting to know. Thanks

my2bob

[Erebus26]

What sort of content are you after? Technical / archeaological material or historical / overview sort of material?

my2bob

Historical overview would be nice, but I don't mind a few choice archaeological while you're at it! :yes:

[Frostwulf]

? To date you have only given indication that you have read or part-read two books that specialise on the Celts. Could be good to look at a few quotes from the legends in the field? Few better than Powell.Books read specifically on Celts:Stephen Allen-"Lords of Battle, the World of the Celtic Warrior",Venceslas Kruta-"The Celts",Simon James "The world of the Celts", Barry Cunliffe-"The Ancient Celts,H.D. Rankin “Celts and the Classical World”
Why would I read a book that was written in 1958? Yes it was republished in 1980 but the material is still the same only the format is different. You complained about me citing a book from the mid 60's and here you are citing older material. You also have to remember this is the same guy who said:

Eg. Powell states that he believed the Romans were the weaker party for far longer, that “the Romans finally managed to turned the tide of Gaulish supremacy from the victory at the battle of Telamon (225 BC)”

This statement of his is obviously wrong. As shown by historical records the Romans were defeating them while embattled with others.
H.D. Rankin “Celts and the Classical World”-“The First Punic War had prevented the Romans from dealing finally with the Celtic menace. It was after this war that the Celts made their concerted attack of 225BC: it may have been intended as a pre-emptive attack by the Celts but it was much too late for this purpose. Then came Hannibal’s invasion of Italy, which prevented the Romans from bringing the Celtic question to a conclusion for a number of years.” pg113
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1556124&postcount=143



Quote:
“Caesar also learnt that the Belgae, in earlier times, had themselves come from beyond the Rhine. Modern archaeological research supports the tradition as to the Rhenine, or trans-Rhenine, origins of these peoples. (The Celts, The Celtic Survival, 190 T.G.E Powell)

Quote:
It is along the Rhine that the use of the name Germani is really important, and the archaeological evidence for Celtic settlement east of the river, together with the Celtic topographical names that survive as far east as the Weser, and even the lower Elbe, combine with the observed characteristics of the Belgae, the Treveri, amongst others, to suggest that Germani was originally a Celtic tribe name which perhaps, in former days, had achieved a suzerain position. From the 2nd C BC, it is clear that the name began being used indiscriminantely for any intruders coming into Gaul from across the Rhine. (The Celts, The Celtic Survival, 191 T.G.E Powell)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
The Belgae as you have said did have a Celtic culture.

And!?
Relatively simple. The Germans came over and became Celtized, just as they later had become Romanized in different areas. Again your using outdated material. For more recent material we have:
"Certain tribes of Gaul, such as the Aedui, boasted of Germanic descent. The Belgae also were a mixture of German and Celt." Pg.19. "After their defeat, the Belgae, a group of mixed Celtic and German origins, were treated with comparative moderation." pg.128. H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical world".

/ "Caesar considered all the Belgae were Gauls, but also claims that many of them were descended from German settlers. As we have already seen, the distinction between Gaul and German was not always as clear as our ancient source suggest but there may well have been some truth in this.At the end of the first century AD Tacitus also believed that the Nervii and the Treveri were both Germanic." pg.238 Adrian Goldsworthy "Caesar"/
http://www.duerinck.com/tribes1.html While I havent read all the resources listed on this site, I have read a bit by Herbert Schutz and he acknowledges Caesars claim of the Belgae being of German ancestry. Look what is posted under the Belgae on this site and check it out.

Barry Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"-"But apart from recourse to chronologically ill-focused maps of Celtic and Germanic place names, there is no sure way of distinguishing which tribes were German speaking.All we can do is to accept the ethnic identifications made by the Roman commentators". pg.238
J.E.Drinkwater-"Roman Gaul"-"Nevertheless, it now seems that we can talk, if only with much qualification, of early 'German' peoples in northern Europe from around the middle of the fifth century BC. Expansion, leading to contact with the Mediterranean world, took place from the third century BC, including, of course, the movement of the Cimbri into Gaul at the end of the following century. It is likely that full German settlement across the lower Rhine (involving Caesar's Eburones, Condrusi, Caerosi, and so on) and a fusion of Germanic and Celtic peoples around the Eifel (to form, above all, the future civitas of the Celtic-speaking Treveri) also belong to this period. There is no doubt that the Gallic nations were seriously disturbed by this activity, particularly the Cimbric invasions, but they seem to have learned to live with the new circumstances. However, towards the middle of the first century BC there was renewed and increased pressure in Gaul as a result of the arrival of Germanic latecomers, who plunged Gallia Comata into further unrest. The stress manifested itself in two distinct bu related forms, both potentially dangerous to Roman interests. In the first place German penetration into the upper Rhineland threatened to displace the nation of the Helvetii. A Celtic people who had originally lived beyond the Rhine, they had been increasingly forced into the area of modern Switzerland from about the third century BC onwards. They lost their last foothold across the river probably around 100BC, and from about the late 70s BC began to feel embattled in their new habitat. They started to plan a retreat through central Gaul, which would have disrupted the peoples already settled there, including their neighbors, the Allobroges, who were the direct responsibility of Rome, and the Aedui, who could claim a 'special relationship' with the City." pg.12-14


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
I will repeat myself and say yes Goldsworthy is saying in the Gallic campaigns, but that’s because his subject was Caesar and his time frame.

Exactly! So if you are going to quote an author, please do so in the context they intended. Don’t go taking random data, extrapolating that to any given anachronistic period in order to serve a preconceived agenda.. and expect us to see the “logic” in it.
It wasn't random data and it is logical to assume that the Germans fought roughly in the same way as they had before. I already laid this out.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1698844&postcount=333

Ah yes, the superior Germanic master race and their innate martial superiority. All we need now is some credible supportive evidence for this romantic ideal.
Ah yes the refuge of the losing argument- "you must be a Nazi"
Goldsworthy isn't credible? He unequivocally states they were superior during Caesars time, also Sidnell,Speidell,etc. Prior to that we have the TCA(granted they had some Celts with them).

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"The Aduatici were descended from the Cimbri and the Teutoni who, when they invaded our province and Italy [45 years before], left such baggage as they could not drive or carry on this side of the Rhine with 6,000 of their men to guard it. When their main body was destroyed this band was for many years harassed by war with their neighbors, defensive and offensive. Finally peace was made, by general agreement, and they chose this district to live in. Book2,29

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"If, in keeping with the compassion and kindness of which they had heard from others, Caesar would resolve to spare the Aduatici, they prayed that he would not deprive them of their arms. Their neighbors were almost all hostile and envious of their prowess; if they surrendered their arms they would be defenseless against them, and in that case would prefer to suffer any fate at the hands of the Roman people than be tortured and killed by men among whom they were used to be masters." Book 2,31

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"It arose from the remarks of Gauls and trader who declared that the Germans were huge men and unbelievably brave and skillful fighters;"Book 1,39

J.E.Drinkwater-"Roman Gaul"-"In the course of the long-running rivalry between the Arverni and the Aedui, the Sequani, allies of the former, were tempted to invite in a German princeling and his followers, Ariovistus and the Suebi, as mercenary troops, to be paid in land. Militarily, this policy proved a great success; the 'friends' of the Roman People were severely mauled, which must have reflected very poorly on the credibility of Roman power and influence." pg.12-14

Of the TCA:
Barry Cunliffe-"Greeks,Romans & Barbarians"-"After defeating a Roman army on the Danube in 113BC they crossed the Rhine in 109, and for a decade terrorized Gaul." pg.57
We also have the numerous defeats on the same type of Roman armies that had been defeating the Gauls.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1682667&postcount=243
Where is your proof disproving this?


Thus, in the third century you have the area of Southern Gaul – “La Tene C”, Northern France – “Middle La Tene II & III”, Hunsrück-Eifel (Reinecke) – “La Tene A & B”, Switzerland – La Tene “Ic & Iia”, Baden Württemberg (Zürn) Halstatt D3 / La Tene A, Northern Plain – “Late Iron Age / Halstatt A & B”, Briton – “Early & Mid Iron Age”.

Secondly, notwithstanding the previous paragraph, I repeat, you’re NOT talking about the same peoples. You may as well start making claims about the Germans vs the forces of the United States of America.

Those peoples in northern Europe, whom the so-called Germani dealt with in the 3rd and early 2nd C BC had almost nothing in common with the La Tene D Gauls of France nor the La Tene B & C Gauls of southern Germany. In fact, La Tene culture never extended beyond the 51st parallel.
So we go from:
the Gauls had been defeating the Germans for centuries prior the beginning of the 1st C BC.
to:
I repeat, you’re NOT talking about the same peoples. You may as well start making claims about the Germans vs the forces of the United States of America.

Atlas of the Celts-"During the La Tene A phase, this new culture spread rapidly across central Europe, forming a cultural continuum from northern France to Austria." pg.45
Of course La Tene A-D are different because of the area and time, but the situation stays the same when you claim the Celts had been defeating the Germans for centuries.During Caesars time the central Celts(Arverni,Aedui,etc.) were different from the Belgae who in turn were different from the British Celts. Was not the La Tene culture considered militaristic, so there were differences but all A-D still had this characteristic. It was during the La Tene B/C that the Celts expansion was reversed around 300BC.
J.E.Drinkwater-"Roman Gaul"-"Europe from around the middle of the fifth century BC. Expansion, leading to contact with the Mediterranean world, took place from the third century BC, including, of course, the movement of the Cimbri into Gaul at the end of the following century. It is likely that full German settlement across the lower Rhine (involving Caesar's Eburones, Condrusi, Caerosi, and so on) and a fusion of Germanic and Celtic peoples around the Eifel (to form, above all, the future civitas of the Celtic-speaking Treveri) also belong to this period. "pg.12
The Germans still pushed back the La Tene B Celts of NE Gaul.


Quote:
During the second and first centuries BC, the Darcians and (later) certain of the so-called Germanic peoples began making territorial inroads on Celtic lands (The Ancient Celts, The Developed Celtic World, p221, Barry Cunliffe)

Barry Cunliffe-"Greeks,Romans & Barbarians"-"After the middle of the third centuries BC the Gauls came under increasing pressure, in the south from the Romans, in the east from the Hellenistic kingdoms and in the north from the Dacians and the Germans." pg.37


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Ill state again, the reason I put this down is from Psycho V saying the Celts were defeating the Germans for century's before. If thats the case why were the Germans displacing them, not to mention where is the evidence to support this.

Apparently in the material yet to be studied.

Meaning you have no proof as it has "yet to be studied".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
(‘Indo-European History’, ‘La Tene Gaul’, XVI, 5.63, Univerzita Karlova v Praze)

I couldn't find it. I will have to dismiss it.

I know I should be surprised …
I have asked you before for the date of publishing,authors, and the full title and you have yet to provide it. Again I went through the publishing list of the Univerzita Karlova v Praze and couldn't find it.I went through GS, WCAT and I had the ILL team look for this and none of us could find it. The only thing I found that remotely had anything to do with the subject was the Czech being of Celt and Slavic descent, which isn't surprising considering this is a scientific research university that seems to deal mostly with medical research.

Positionally schizophrenic? You have already acknowledge that the Gauls didn’t wage total war, that they had “limiting factors”. Why are you now suggesting the opposite? ..that they did wage total war and therefore all aspects of society would be so affected?

As with most things you seem to have problems understanding what was written. They had conflicts but not the huge devastating war that you claim.

“I never made..” ..? Ok Bill, time for a reality check. You made a claim that you had to retract because it was “unfair” and “out of context”, but that wasn’t an error?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Erroneous would be claiming that Caesar's quote …was about a supposed "Devastating Celtic War" as opposed to what it really was, a 10 year war with the Germans. What about the duel with Virdomarus? How about the Celts defeating the Germans for centuries? These are erroneous statements.

You forgot the sky being blue and the earth round.
The information I had was true, but it was out of context, therefore it was not erroneous.At least I'm willing to correct my mistake, you are not. Did you not make these claims and are they not in error?


Gallic armies successfully …(defeated Roman armies), but this was only possible when the Gauls had had enough time to muster their whole army along the likely route of Roman advance. Mustering a Gallic army and then deploying it for battle was a slow procedure, and it is notable that very often the (Gauls) were unable to form an army until the Romans had (already) attacked their territory …. (Roman Warfare, World Conquest, p96 Adrian Goldsworthy)
A very valid post. I agree with this completely. Of course you do realize that prior to 200BC it was mostly the Celts roaming around Italy that were defeated, they had already mustered and were spoiling for a fight. During Caesars campaign there are plenty of examples where the Gauls were ready to fight: the Helvetii,Sambre,Axona, the battles with Vercingetorix, etc.

Goldsworthy-"The Roman Army at War 100BC-AD200"-"A war between one of these tribes and Rome was likely to be decisive, either through a massed battle between the respective armies, or when the Romans employed their skill at siegecraft to take the enemy oppida. Although the Romans were more likely to win such a conflict, we should not forget that there was still a chance of defeat, and that such a defeat would be on a large scale." pg.60



You do realise that whether the Romans were outnumbered is a mute point when considering the relevance to my comment!? Or are you still claiming that Ariovistus fought Caesar with only 15,000 men?
Again you didn't read or remember properly. I said that Ariovistus had 6,000 horse, 6,000 footmen and 16,000 light troops. I have said that multiple times.


For starters, Caesar’s cavalry were also betrayed, by Ariovistus and his overtures of peace. Secondly, the mighty ‘800’ (even if Caesar is to believe on the numbers) ambushed the Gauls, experienced or not. Ceasar’s veteran legions ran at Gergovia, should we start claiming that Vercingetrix’s Gauls were all innately superior?
You should read and try to understand what Caesar has written. Fist off the "800" had nothing to do with Ariovistus, they were from the Usipetes and Tencteri. The Usipetes and Tencteri did not ambush the Gauls.


Further the Gauls were initially routed by this un-expected attack, not with the subsequent melee that followed. Ignoring the realities of warfare and the state at which the Gallic morale must have been at the time, it is amazing they returned to the fight at all. We have no account of any Germanic force of the period rallying once routed, so again.. should we confer on the Gauls an innate superiority.
Goldsworthy “Caesar”-Caesar made one modest concession, saying that he would advance 4 miles during the day, moving to a position where his camp would have a convenient water supply. In the meantime fighting had already broken out between the cavalry of the two sides.The Germans had some 800 horsemen still guarding their encampment. Caesar had 5,000 cavalry, although if these were performing their duties as a patrolling and screening force properly, then they would not all have been concentrated in one place. Even so, the Gallic auxiliaries probably had a significant numerical advantage, and were mounted on larger horses than their opponents, which makes it all the more notable that the Germans quickly gained an advantage. In Caesar's account the Germans charged first, chasing away part of the Gallic cavalry, but were in turn met by their supports. Many of the Germans then dismounted to fight on foot-perhaps with the support of the picked infantrymen who regularly supported the horsemen of some Germanic tribes. The Gauls were routed and fled, spreading panic amongst a large part of the auxiliary and allied cavalry who galloped in terror back to the main force, which was probably several miles away.” pg.274

This was hardly a full rout. The only time I recall the Gauls rallying was when reinforcements showed up(Helvetii and this example), that never happened in any of the instances with the Germans.
The Gallic moral must have been high as they had been with Caesar for multiple years and have not lost yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
The Germans attacked whilst seeking peace! If you’re happy to accept “unfavourable ground” as evidence of an ambush then surely you would accept the surprise attack of the Germans as an ambush as well!?

As for the other accounts of Germanic cavalry in De Bello Gallico, there is nothing to suggest that they were anything other than an effective / experienced force of mercenaries. An elite force bought at a price that fought a weakened Gallic aristocracy long reduced by civil war.


Goldsworthy read the book and may have….blah blah blah

Speculative hearsay. Your fishing.

This is addressed below.

It’s also worth mentioning that the Helvetii charged a force ten times their size (400/4000) whilst the Germans only three times their size (1,600/5000)… so again, are the Gauls innately superior? …of course not!

1600 is an assumption as there is nothing really said except that there was 800 cavlary. As far as the 400/4000:
Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-" The convoys of the Helvetii moved onwards, and Caesar followed them, sending his 4,000 cavalry out in advance. Amongst them was a sizeable force of Aedui led by Dumnorix, the same chieftain who had allied with Orgetorix and then aided the Helvetii. Advancing too carelessly, the allied cavalry were ambushed and beaten by a force of Helvetion cavalry a fraction of their size." pg.215

Caesar "The Gallic War"-" Caesar discovered the unsuccessful cavalry engagement of a few days before, that Dumnorix and his horsemen (he was commander of the body of horse sent by the Aedui to the aid of Caesar) had started the retreat, and that by their retreat the remainder of the horse had been stricken with panic. All this Caesar learnt, and to confirm these suspicions he had indisputable facts. Dumnorix had brought the Helvetii through the borders of the Sequani; he had caused hostages to be given between them; he had done all this not only without orders from his state or from Caesar, but even without the knowledge of either; he was now accused by the magistrate of the Aedui. Caesar deemed all this to be cause enough for him either to punish Dumnorix himself, or to command the state so to do." Book 1, 19
Caesars cavalry were duped by Dumnorix and surprised, thats why they retreated.


The defeat of the Gauls at Admagetobriga was against a united Gallic force, it is not taking about the Aedui fighting the “Germans more than once”. It is a united pan-Gallic force involved in one major battle. These Gauls (plural ie not just the previously mentioned Aedui) had been exhausted by a “long war” / “fierce struggle for supremacy, lasting many years”.

Caesar then goes on and further stresses the point that even in this battle against exhausted Gauls, Ariovistus had to ambush this united Gallic force after they “broke up into scattered groups” His victory being due to “cunning strategy rather than the bravery (superiority) of his troops.”

If one studies the work in context and refrains from grabing select pieces, joining sentences, etc, one will have a better appreciation of the author’s intended meaning rather than that of the reader.


Yes it was a united front of Gauls, I never said anything to the contrary. In fact I had said there was a united Gallic force multiple times. They were exhausted by the campaign with Ariovistus and dispersed because they were tired of waiting for him. Your really stretching it here.
Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"If there be any who are concerned at the defeat and flight of the Gauls, they can discover for the asking that when the Gauls were worn out by the length of the campaign Ariovistus, who had kept himself for many months within his camp in the marshes, without giving a chance of encounter, attacked them suddenly when they had at last dispersed in despair of a battle, and conquered them rather by skill and stratagem than by courage."book 1,40 Translated by H.J. Edwards

Here is yet another translation that might help you.

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"What then of the defeat and rout of the Gauls? If that case were examined it would be found that the Gauls were tired out by the long campaign, because Ariovistus hid in his camp in the marshes and offered no chance for an engagement, and then when the Gauls had given up hope of a battle, and were dispersing Ariovistus attacked and won by stratagem rather than courage. Against naive natives there was room for a stratagem, but not even Ariovistus could expect that our army would be taken in by it." Book 1,40 Translated by H.E.L. Mellersh/published by Random House Inc./distributed by Heron books.

Again your simply adding in your biased ideas instead of seeing what is really said here. You keep trying to string things together that don't belong together.

“reasonable effort” eh? ..thank god for expediency. My friend, if you truly believe me to be a lier, you could contact Leicester University.

Again this is not evidence, if I were to contact Dr.James and he said that nothing of the sort happened, what does that prove? You will still claim it did happen and my claim would be that it didn't. Books, web sites etc. can be examined by all.

So much for defending this “excellent information by a well known and highly thought of Archaeologist”.

He does have excellent information and is highly regarded. If what you say he said is true about the Germans I would disagree with him on that and refer to Sidnell,Goldsworthy,Warry and others. What I don't understand is why you would ask him this question as opposed to one he specializes in. Why wouldn't you have asked him about the supposed "Devastating Gallic Civil War"?

Goldsworthy’s specialty is Rome, not the Celts.
So what if it is, if you read just books about the Celts you will lose allot of the picture. Goldsworthy obviously knows quite a bit about Caesars time.


Yes, but this wasn’t the main reason for doing so. It was more a case of overstating (and in some cases fabricating) the German threat to Gaul and Rome so as to provide a casus belli for his Gallic campaign. Ensuring his tenure and support at home.

Quote:
“In the fourth book of his commentaries Caesar begins with a sketch of the “warlike” Germans, reminding his readers of the instability of the region…providing sufficient justification for his concern on behalf of the stability of Rome.” (The Ancient Celts, p242 Barry Cunliffe)

Perhaps you need to get into the habit of putting down the whole quote!
Barry Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"“In the fourth book of his commentaries Caesar begins with a sketch of the “warlike” Germans, reminding his readers of the instability of the region. His description of the expansive power of the Suebi, driving other tribes like the Usipetes and the Tenceteri from their lands to seek a new home south of the Rhine, is probably an accurate account of the volatile situation and provides sufficient justification for his concern on behalf of the stability of Rome." pg.242

So you say Caesar is overstating/fabricating then post a quote and completely leave out the part that says its probably an accurate account!



No offence to your beliefs but I’m afraid Watchman is correct.

Whilst previously, slavery had only played a minor role within Gallic society, there was a huge increase in the slave trade (export south) at the end of the 2nd and begging of the 1st century BC. This just happens to coincide with the out-break of a major conflict between northern and southern tribes over the lucrative trade routs. The war you deny.

Quote:
By the beginning of the first century BC the reliance of the Roman economy on slave labour was considerable. One estimate is that in the early first century BC there were 300,000 Gallic slaves in Italy alone, a total which required to be topped up at a rate of 15,000 a year. (The Ancient Celts, The Developed Celtic World, p215, Barry Cunliffe)


Not the “small groups of men” taken in “raids” that you claim but rather implies a much more significant developement. The war you deny.
No offense taken whatsoever, this is a good and legitimate question.

Barry Cunliffe-"Greeks,Romans & Barbarians"-"To arrive at any idea of the volume of the trans-frontier slave trade is extremely difficult, but for Gaul, in the first century BC, Tchernia has offered an estimate. Basing his calculations on figures given for the ethnic composition and numbers of slaves taking part in a slave rebellion led by Spartacus in 74-1BC, he arrives at 300,000 as the total number of the Gallic slaves in Italy. Assuming a replacement rate of 7 percent, and also that the proportion of slaves was maintained, then the annual export of slaves by trade in a non-war year must have been about 15,000. Sufficient will have been said of the calculations to show that the figure can be regarded only as a best guess, rather than an estimate, but nevertheless it offers an order of magnitude." pg. 78

Barry Cunliffe-"Greeks,Romans & Barbarians"-"A replacement rate of 7 per cent per annum is by no means unlikely. Thus, simply to maintain the Italian labour force in the late first century BC would have required the generation of 140,000 slaves a year. Replacement by breading would certainly have contributed, but, as an industry, it had not yet got underway on a large scale. At a rough estimate, therefore, well in excess of 100,000 new slaves had to be acquired every year, assuming a situation of non-growth in the rural estates.
Slaves came from three different sources: by capture during war time; through piracy; and by means of regular trade with territories beyond the frontiers." pg. 77

Even though Tchernia says 15,000 is from non-war gatherings you still have to take into consideration the multiple battles leading up to 74-71BC:200-190,154,125-121,107-2,90,83,77-2. Most of these battles must have contributed to the 300,000 Celts.
Even though the Ligurian pirates were suppressed in 181 BC, you still have to look at how many slaves were being imported by pirates/brigands, Strabo says that in 166BC on the Island of Delos "10,000" slaves were being sold per day. Also this wouldn't all be from Gaul proper but also from Spain and Briton
.
"Trade in the Ancient Economy"-"By contrast Andrea Tchernia discusses the overall penetration of Gaul by wine and amphorae during the last 2 centuries BC; he convincingly links the early Italian commercial success to the trade of Gallic slaves then shows how the decline of the slave trade was accompanied by the rise of local wine production."
Wine seems to be used as prestige and slaves could be used to trade for other items, so if slaves were from the supposed "Devastating Civil War" why would the slave trade go down?

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"As for the common folk, they are treated almost as slaves, venturing naught of themselves,never taken into counsel. The more part of them, oppressed as they are either by debt, or by the heavy weight of tribute, or by the wrongdoing of the more powerful men, commit themselves in slavery to the nobles, who have, in fact, the same rights over them as masters over slaves." Book 6,13

Further, the material record bears this out. The huge increase in the trade of slaves happens to coincide with the huge increase in the trade of wine.

Quote:
They (Gauls) are extremely partial to wine and glut themselves with the unmixed wine brought in by merchants. Their desire makes them guzzle it and when they get drunk, they either fall into a stupor or become manic. For this reason many Italian merchants, with their usual love for money, regard the Celtic passion for wine as a source of treasure. They transport the wine by boat on the navigable rivers and by cart … and get an incredibly good price for it; for one amphora of wine they get a slave. (Hist 5.26 Diodorus Siculus)

Little wonder the Romans / merchants (and James) regarded Gaul as prosperous.


We have deposits of tens of thousands of distinctive Amphora of Dressel Type 1A & 1B dating to this period. Huge dumps like that found in Saone, Cabillonum (Chalon) testify to the significant increase in importation. Thus even in a war that would almost annihilate the warrior class, the precious wine was prized.

Barry Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"-"Whilst it is always necessary to treat texts of this kind with caution, archaeological evidence amply bears out the huge volume of Roman wine which was transported to Gaul in distinctive amphorae of Dressel 1 type. Two trading ports have been identified, one near Toulouse in the Garonne Valley, the other on the Saone at Cabillonum(Chalon)."pg.218-219

Well what do you know,Whilst it is always necessary to treat texts of this kind with caution doesn't help your argument, good thing you didn't put it in!


Quote:
In the late La Tene D1, around 120-100 BC most of the sites in the Grande Limagne (Auvergne) were abandoned, and three successive oppida were established (Corent, Gondole and Gergovie) (The Celts; Origins, Myths and Inventions, Archaeology of the Celts, p172, John Collins)

Another indicator of major conflict, change and attempt to protect the valuable trade in commodities. There is plenty of other evidence, but hey, why let facts get in the way of a good master race story.

Or what it really was:Urbanization.
Barry Cunliffe-"Greeks,Romans & Barbarians"-"The documentary, numismatic,and archaeological evidence, taken together, shows that the tribes of central Gaul underwent a profound change in the period 120-60BC, during which time the old order-the classical Celtic system-was replaced with a new centralized system of government, involving changes in the minting of coins and the development of oppida. To a large extent these changes can be ascribed directly to the proximity of the rapidly developing Roman province of Transalpina. The tribes of central Gaul were now becoming a contact zone with the Roman world. Through them much of the trade was articulated, and those tribes who, like the Aedui, were prepared to accept the situation, grew rich. Stability and centralization, institutionalized in a new system of government, enabled the benefits of the proximity of Rome to accrue." pg.97
The oppida before and after Caesar's time have been occupied later to be abandoned then reoccupied later.
Barry Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"-"Excavation has shown that occupation began in the second century BC and continued until about 20BC, by which time the focus of activity had moved to the newly founded Roman town of Augustodunum(Autun) 20 kilometers away." pg.224 (this is about Bibacte)

So guess the supposed "Devastating Gallic Civil War" lasted into 20BC by your logic.


Yes, for the excess warrior elite. In fact the Gallic warrior elite served as mercenaries throughout the ancient world, suddenly disappearing from the world stage at a time that happen to coincide with major internal turmoil in Transalpine Gaul, etc.
Could it be perhaps because the Senones were almost completely annihilated by the Romans? That the Romans conquered northern Italy.Or perhaps that the Romans were putting in pressure from the south, the Dacians began to push from the east and the Germans from the north. In Anatolia were there not "Gallic" mercenaries still being used. Who was Rome using for their cavalry mercenaries?

So what exactly is your position? The Gauls didn’t fight ? There was no major struggle between the Arverni and Aedui?

Yes they fought each other, but hardly on the level you claim. It's like what James,Goldsworthy,Raftery,McIntosh and Twist are saying. They had some fighting and raiding going on but not the devastation your thinking.

James is again providing a general overview that encompasses several hundred years of history. The point here is that he doesn’t state anything that supports your position that this significant Gallic war never occurred.
Goldsworthy makes exactly the same comment about Celtic society in the 3rd c BC as a prefix to his commentary on the first Punic war.
So when James says "Certainly, the Gaul described and conquered by Caesar showed no signs of exhaustion by internal wars" was general?No exhaustion by internal wars doesn't support my view? When Goldsworthy says that "the aim was the reduction of the enemy to a subject tribe through a moral defeat rather then his destruction." That doesn't support my view? When I say that is was a minor conflict and you say it was a "Devastating Civil War", and you still say these don't support my view? As I have said before your misinterpreting James or just not understanding him. More on this later.

Three battles in fact. Catugnatos and his Allobroges defeated a Roman army led by Manlius Lentius at the Battle of Valence and then again at the Battle of the Isere, in which “His (Lentius’) army would have been wiped out but for a sudden storm which arose and hindred the attack”. Lentius fled and was able to apparently re-equipped his army with astonishing speed, drawing from the considerable reserves used to garrison various departments. The Allobroges were finally crushed between Lentius’ army and another huge force commanded by the Governor of Gallia Narbonesis, Gaius pomptinus. The Gauls / Allobroges, not able to make good the loss of their warrior elite surrendered.
Were not the Allobroges part of the Arverni/Sequani alliance? If so then how is it they were able to resist the Romans at all if the supposed "Devastating Civil War" happened.



The Gauls didn’t have the advanced training techniques the Romans did. It took significantly longer / many many years and great (usually personal) expense to train as a Gallic warrior. It was these that they were bereft of. They had squandered these troops in bitter civil war so much to the point that not one of the Aedui council remained alive. The devastation of this war cannot be understated. It was unprecedented / appears more extensive and vicious that any internal Celtic conflict prior.

This is born out in the material record with significant deposits of fragmentary war material, remains and most significantly thick ash levels around major sites dating to the period… prior to Germanic and Roman intervention. We also know commercial production of many goods and trade all but ceased and large portions of the population starved or suffered from malnutrition.

The Romans were well aware of this having deliberately contributed to the instability. They were aware of the long standing animosity between the southerners and northerners and true to Roman policy of ‘keeping the barbarians at each other’..acted. In 121 BC the Romans using other events (Saluvii) as a pretext to war, sought to reduce the power of the then undisputed power in Gaul, the Arverni Alliance / empire. After defeating them in the Battle of Vindalium with two consular armies and several elephants, the Romans made a nominal alliance with their sworn enemy, the Aedui, thus formenting the last final and most bitter chapter in this protracted conflict.


Yes!!.. Gaul was extremely prosperous (both fiscally and population wise), this is one of the main reasons why Caesar was so keen to pillage / conquer it! He did after all have huge personal debts.

Gaul was extremely prosperous because the Gauls did NOT engage in total war. The very work you are so eager to cite (ie James …as does every other scholar) states this and I’m surprised you appear to ignore this significant fact and appear to prefer to project a 21st C Ad paradigm when rationalising data. The major trade centres remained untouched. The very war was over this wealth / trade / money / power. Archaeology only shows a burning / pillaging of minor settlements of no major value.
.Hmm I mention what Dr.James says and you go from: "We also know commercial production of many goods and trade all but ceased and large portions of the population starved or suffered from malnutrition."

to this:"Yes!!.. Gaul was extremely prosperous (both fiscally and population wise), this is one of the main reasons why Caesar was so keen to pillage / conquer it! He did after all have huge personal debts".

Then this:"This is born out in the material record with significant deposits of fragmentary war material, remains and most significantly thick ash levels around major sites dating to the period…"

To this:"Archaeology only shows a burning / pillaging of minor settlements of no major value."

From this:The devastation of this war cannot be understated. It was unprecedented / appears more extensive and vicious that any internal Celtic conflict prior.

To this: Gaul was extremely prosperous because the Gauls did NOT engage in total war."
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1509927&postcount=39
I'm not trying to insult you or belittle you but this is the kind of problems when you have amateur's trying to do the work of professionals. You keep trying to fit your idea of this supposed "Devastating Civil War" into historical context. The problem is the "Devastating Civil War" never happened, you have two rivals with a dispute over trade routes.


I’m surprised you appear to ignore this significant fact and appear to prefer to project a 21st C Ad paradigm when rationalising data

If one studies the work in context and refrains from grabing select pieces, joining sentences, etc, one will have a better appreciation of the author’s intended meaning rather than that of the reader.

? My friend, if you are happy to dismiss quotes I provide even when references are provided, what should I make of these sort of comments?

Who is rationalizing? Who is grabbing select pieces and leaving information out!
You complain that I don't take your word for it, as I have explained before that I don't know you or read anything by you that would lead me to believe your an expert on the subject. You have a problem understanding Caesar as shown by your responses to Caesar boosting the moral of his troops as well as the situation with the 400 Helvetii chasing off the 4,000 Gallic mercenaries of Caesar. As I have shown Goldsworthy knew what he was talking about and you did not. You get Ariovistus confused with other German tribes and basically you don't understand what Caesar was talking about.
Then you try to rationalize the Celt situation when you say "the Gauls had been defeating the Germans for centuries prior the beginning of the 1st C BC" then you have to come up with "I repeat, you’re NOT talking about the same peoples". You misunderstand data such as that of the Aedui oppida changing and James and multiple others, and also leaving out key parts to quotes you put down. You string my quotes together trying to make it sound like something else(cavalry=peace) and other such things, so no I don't take your word for it.
As for your authorities you have chosen some good ones-Goldsworthy and Cunliffe. The majority of your quotes that you have from this post is from an old outdated book half a century old, Powell. You use Michael Kulikowski's quotes which really has no bearing on the situation except that you might be trying to discredit some of the authors like M. Todd. Todd gets into the same subject as Kulikowski's showing a history of why the subject of the early Germans wasn't much talked about. It's quite obvious that much of that stuff is still around from the nonsense you have been spewing i.e. master race etc.

One last thing on the supposed "Devastating Civil War". As I have said multiple times I will say again, the Arverni and Aedui did fight each other, but nothing even being close to what your saying. If you would examine what the historians and archaeologists are saying you would understand this.

Adrian Goldsworthy"The Roman Army at War 100bc-ad200"-"Before Caesar's arrival in the country, the Gallic states used to fight offensive or defensive wars almost every year (BG6.15). The scale of these conflicts is hard to judge, but it is probable that the aim was the reduction of the enemy to a subject tribe through a moral defeat rather then his destruction.pg.56

Probably most Celtic warfare was on a small scale, involving no more then a few score men on each side. The population was growing and states were developing in late Iron age Gaul, and this may have led to an increase in the scale of warfare. But it is clear that the vast armies commanded by Vercingetorix and others were assemble only as a response to the great threat from Rome (p.127). In fact, Rome changed the very rules of Celtic warfare, bringing large armies into an area where, internally at least, they may have been much rarer before. Certainly, the Gaul described and conquered by Caesar showed no signs of exhaustion by internal wars-it was a rich and prosperous land-so means were evidently found for limiting the damage war could cause pg.74

Dr. Barry Raftery; Dr.Jane McIntosh, Clint Twist
*Atlas of the Celts-"During the first half of the 1st century BC, the rest of Gaul attained an uneasy accommodation with the Roman occupation of the south. Celtic Gaul was generally a prosperous and peaceful region where farms flourished and oppida (towns), stimulated by Roman trade grew ever larger. In central Gaul, societies became sufficiently complex and well organized to be on the brink of independent statehood, and left to their own devices they might well have achieved this within a generation or two. pg.82Dr. Barry Raftery; Dr.Jane McIntosh, Clint Twist

You notice how the Goldsworthy and James are similar in their beliefs? Dr.Goldsworthy says that the aim was to reduce the enemy not devastate them, and James says the internal warfare was small scale but "may" have led to an increase. Raftery,Mcintosh and Twist say it was generally peaceful and prosperous. Both Goldsworthy and Raftery/McIntosh/Twist tie into what Dr.James was saying.

If you look what other authors say:
Colin Jones-"France(Cambridge Illustrated History)"-"This was combined with the treat of destabilization further north, where the Germanic chieftain Ariovistus had joined in a squabble involving the Arverni, the Sequni and Rome's long standing allies, the Aeduans. To combat this politico-military threat Rome sent Julius Caesar. pg.30

Goldsworthy calls it struggle as does Cunliffe, Drinkwater says long running rivalry. None have I found that say anything that amounts to a supposed "Devastating Squabble" errr I mean "Devastating Civil War" It was simply small battles to erode the others moral to draw clients to ones side, hence generally peaceful.

[Spendios]

http://www.wickedsunshine.com/WagePeace/Election2004/Images/AwJeez,NotThisShitAgain!.jpg

[NeoSpartan]

http://www.wickedsunshine.com/WagePeace/Election2004/Images/AwJeez,NotThisShitAgain!.jpg

:dizzy2:

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

http://www.wickedsunshine.com/WagePeace/Election2004/Images/AwJeez,NotThisShitAgain!.jpg
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[blitzkrieg80]

Come on guys, quoting the same picture over and over is so annoying... ~:pissed: now find some quotes from Caesar instead, like good Romans- better yet, some pictures of Loricata Segmentata (probably too many t's there, but it's a silly language anyways ~;)) :grin: otherwise, we will get more "why u R0mun hat3rs?" comments

[PSYCHO V]

:tredmil: As they say “a man convinced against their will is of the same opinion still”

Frosty, your flogging a dead horse my friend. Using the same quotes over and over again, ignoring evidence and your own errors and in some cases responding to my comments with text that is completely irrelevant.

I don’t have the time to give this the response it deserves. So in short:



Meaning you have no proof as it has "yet to be studied".

:shrug: Did you miss the relevant quotes I provided or are you deliberately ignoring them?



The information I had was true, but it was out of context, therefore it was not erroneous.

Still trying to wriggle out of that one huh? I note the convenient switch from discussing your claim / position to that of the information. The validity of information was never part of the discussion. You made a claim that was wrong, for some reason you just can’t acknowledge it.



Ah yes the refuge of the losing argument- "you must be a Nazi"

~:rolleyes: So you’re ignoring the several quotes I’ve posted on the origins of your 'innately superior German' theory. Frosty, you can’t blame me for the fact that you’re espousing the same rationale / hypothesis as the Romanticists, German Nationalists and yes, the Nazis.



As with most things you seem to have problems understanding what was written.
:clown:



It wasn't random data and it is logical to assume that the Germans fought roughly in the same way as they had before.

So you’re basically saying that you believe the Germanics were so stupid, that they were unable to effect one change within their socio-cultural communities over several hundred years?

You probably should start up a new thread if you want to write fiction about “Invincible Germanic Neanderthals” as this isn't really relevant to the topic here, "Celtic overpowered".



I said that Ariovistus had 6,000 horse, 6,000 footmen and 16,000 light troops. I have said that multiple times.

And the error repeated ..."mulitple times". The problem is that you’re claiming that the Romans had a significant numerical advantage, which is bolox





It’s also worth mentioning that the Helvetii charged a force ten times their size (400/4000) whilst the Germans only three times their size (1,600/5000)… so again, are the Gauls innately superior? …of course not!

1600 is an assumption as there is nothing really said except that there was 800 cavlary.

800 cavalry, 1600 troops… or does this need to be spelt out as well? :shame:





Even if I were to consider it as evidence I would have to disagree with Dr. James and go with … Goldsworthy

So much for defending this “excellent information by a well known and highly thought of Archaeologist”.

He does have excellent information and is highly regarded. If what you say he said is true about the Germans I would disagree with him

..(*sigh*)



Again this is not evidence, if I were to contact Dr.James and he said that nothing of the sort happened, what does that prove? You will still claim it did happen and my claim would be that it didn't.

And if you did and he repeated his comment you’d still dismiss it as indicated several times now. Truth is, you’ve been posting James’ comments all over the community in support of your hypothesis, citing his credentials and as soon someone else comes along with another quote that explicitly denies your hypothesis, you suddenly dismiss him.




Powell states that he believed the Romans were the weaker party for far longer, that “the Romans finally managed to turned the tide of Gaulish supremacy from the victory at the battle of Telamon (225 BC)”

This statement of his is obviously wrong.

Of course! ~;p



So we go from:
The Gauls had been defeating the Germans for centuries prior the beginning of the 1st C BC.
to

I repeat, you’re NOT talking about the same peoples. You may as well start making claims about the Germans vs the forces of the United States of America.

What exactly don't you understand here? You’ve confused yourself again by trying to view everything through the narrow minded paradigm of the “Timeless Celt”. I’ll say it again, you can’t ignore chronology and regional variation.




Three battles in fact. Catugnatos and his Allobroges defeated a Roman army led by Manlius Lentius at the Battle of Valence and then again at the Battle of the Isere, in which “His (Lentius’) army would have been wiped out but for a sudden storm which arose and hindred the attack”. Lentius fled and was able to apparently re-equipped his army with astonishing speed, drawing from the considerable reserves used to garrison various departments. The Allobroges were finally crushed between Lentius’ army and another huge force commanded by the Governor of Gallia Narbonesis, Gaius pomptinus. The Gauls / Allobroges, not able to make good the loss of their warrior elite surrendered.

Were not the Allobroges part of the Arverni/Sequani alliance? If so then how is it they were able to resist the Romans at all if the supposed "Devastating Civil War" happened.

(*sigh*) :stupido2:
I'm afraid in desperation you have again shot yourself in the foot. Giving further public evidence that you appear to lack a basic understanding of the period of history under discussion.

No! The Allobroges hadn’t been part of the alliance since the battle of Vindalium (121 BC), the battle that facilitated the onset of the war in question.



Hmm I mention what Dr.James says and you go from:

"We also know commercial production of many goods and trade all but ceased and large portions of the population starved or suffered from malnutrition."

to this:

"Yes!!.. Gaul was extremely prosperous (both fiscally and population wise), this is one of the main reasons why Caesar was so keen to pillage / conquer it! He did after all have huge personal debts".

Then this:
"This is born out in the material record with significant deposits of fragmentary war material, remains and most significantly thick ash levels around major sites dating to the period…"

To this:
"Archaeology only shows a burning / pillaging of minor settlements of no major value."

Nice try…context my friend. Yes, the later is regarding your quotes “during Caesar’s time”, the ones previous, to the conflicts prior. You do understand that the Arverni and Aedui fought prior to the period of Caesar’s campaign do you not? ..and you do understand that the aforementioned fought two major wars?



From this:
The devastation of this war cannot be understated. It was unprecedented / appears more extensive and vicious that any internal Celtic conflict prior.

To this:
Gaul was extremely prosperous because the Gauls did NOT engage in total war."

:shrug: …and your point?





Further, the material record bears this out. The huge increase in the trade of slaves happens to coincide with the huge increase in the trade of wine.

Quote:
They (Gauls) are extremely partial to wine and glut themselves with the unmixed wine brought in by merchants. Their desire makes them guzzle it and when they get drunk, they either fall into a stupor or become manic. For this reason many Italian merchants, with their usual love for money, regard the Celtic passion for wine as a source of treasure. They transport the wine by boat on the navigable rivers and by cart … and get an incredibly good price for it; for one amphora of wine they get a slave. (Hist 5.26 Diodorus Siculus)

We have deposits of tens of thousands of distinctive Amphora of Dressel Type 1A & 1B dating to this period. Huge dumps like that found in Saone, Cabillonum (Chalon) testify to the significant increase in importation. Thus even in a war that would almost annihilate the warrior class, the precious wine was prized.

Well what do you know, “Whilst it is always necessary to treat texts of this kind with caution” doesn't help your argument, good thing you didn't put it in!

:laugh4: … well what do you know .. more desperation! ~;p

Neither helps nor hinders my friend. Frosty, unlike others about the place, I’ve got better things to do than type up text that is irrelevant to the point being discussed. Whether the Romans got 1 slave, 2 or 10 for each amphora is a mute point. The point was that the market was significant enough to warrant special mention. Are you going to dismiss the tangible evidence as well?




For starters, Caesar’s cavalry were also betrayed, by Ariovistus and his overtures of peace. Secondly, the mighty ‘800’ (even if Caesar is to believe on the numbers) ambushed the Gauls, experienced or not. Ceasar’s veteran legions ran at Gergovia, should we start claiming that Vercingetrix’s Gauls were all innately superior?

You should read and try to understand what Caesar has written. Fist (sic) off the "800" had nothing to do with Ariovistus, they were from the Usipetes and Tencteri. The Usipetes and Tencteri did not ambush the Gauls.

Please revisit the text and note how the Usipetes and Tencteri were seeking peace when they unexpectedly attacked.
You’re right however about Ariovistus, ~:) he wasn’t involved, my error …irrelevant point conceded.


Frosty, please re-read over some of my previous comments. Not only is your hypothesis of a innately superior Germanic volk critically flawed, but the very means / analytical method employed to support such a ridiculous notion is as well.
:titanic:
If you wish to persist in this thinking / the belief in the existence of an innately superior Germanic volk, all I can do is encourage you to continue your study and hope you'll have a change of mind.

I no longer have the time to due justice to this dicsussion and therefore will not be able to continue. I thank you for your input and time, apologise for any offence I may caused, my frustration, etc (it's all banter) and wish you well in the future.


Regards

[Maksimus]

I have noticed that Celts are very unbalanced in my EB 1, maybe that is because other unit types are (horsmen?).

For example, Celtics spearman are almost imposible to kill if you dont have 3 Hellenes units or the Silver shields..and they beat silver shields 1 on 1. Also they shortsword are way owerpowerd. I understand that some studies that are base for EB can not be denied, but it is a matter of source and perspective. I understand that 'half' of Europe are Celt. But that cant stand in front your rational tough.

For example, my history profesor that lectures all around Europe, once said to me that if one should count armies and strengts -- he should count MEDICALY!
I was like w..what? And he said
:'Yes, the more you have to offer your army as a cure to their wounds - they are more effective'.. and he added :'80% of all deaths after battles of ancient times (especialy Roman era) was due to their wounds and infections'.. And if somebody writes now that Barbarians had their Druids and Hellenes their academies and doctors wich makes them the same - I will hang myself...(and this is just an example, not to say knowledges of how to eat and live in civilised world)

The point is... you must tweak unit strengts as a 'whole' and if you can not (and it is well known that you can not!!!) incorporate all side effects in EB to make it more real -- you should tweak hitpoints at the least ! This just does not work well .. Civilised armies should be at least 20% stronger in commbat :yes:

thank you!

[Thaatu]

Civilised armies should be at least 20% stronger in commbat :yes:
You said the magic word! I suggest you take cover... :skull:

[Watchman]

Gah, I say.

[The Celtic Viking]

Maksimus: I agree with that part about "Civilised armies should be at least 20% stronger in commbat". I suggest we nerf the Romans and Greeks to portray that.

[Thaatu]

Maksimus: I agree with that part about "Civilised armies should be at least 20% stronger in commbat". I suggest we nerf the Romans and Greeks to portray that.
Oooouuuh... vicious.

[Zaknafien]

I have noticed that Celts are very unbalanced in my EB 1, maybe that is because other unit types are (horsmen?).

For example, Celtics spearman are almost imposible to kill if you dont have 3 Hellenes units or the Silver shields..and they beat silver shields 1 on 1. Also they shortsword are way owerpowerd. I understand that some studies that are base for EB can not be denied, but it is a matter of source and perspective. I understand that 'half' of Europe are Celt. But that cant stand in front your rational tough.

For example, my history prof. that lectures all around Europe, once said to me that if one should count armies and strengts -- he should count MEDICAL!
I was like w..what? And he said
:'Yes, the more you have to offer your army as a cure to their wounds - they are more effective'.. and he added :'80% of all deaths after batlles of ancient times (especialy Roman era) was duoe to their wound and infections'.. And if somebody writes now tath Barbarians had their Druids and Hellenes their academies I will hang myself...(and this is just an example, not to say knowledges of how to eat adn live in civilised world)

The point is... you must tweak unit strengts as a 'whole' and if you can not (and it is well known that you can not!!!) incorporate all side effects in EB to make it more real -- you should tweak hitpoints at the least ! This just does not work well .. Civilised armies should be at least 20% stronger in commbat :yes:

thank you!

:daisy:

[NeoSpartan]

I have noticed that Celts are very unbalanced in my EB 1, maybe that is because other unit types are (horsmen?).

For example, Celtics spearman are almost imposible to kill if you dont have 3 Hellenes units or the Silver shields..and they beat silver shields 1 on 1. Also they shortsword are way owerpowerd. I understand that some studies that are base for EB can not be denied, but it is a matter of source and perspective. I understand that 'half' of Europe are Celt. But that cant stand in front your rational tough.

For example, my history prof. that lectures all around Europe, once said to me that if one should count armies and strengts -- he should count MEDICAL!
I was like w..what? And he said
:'Yes, the more you have to offer your army as a cure to their wounds - they are more effective'.. and he added :'80% of all deaths after batlles of ancient times (especialy Roman era) was duoe to their wound and infections'.. And if somebody writes now tath Barbarians had their Druids and Hellenes their academies I will hang myself...(and this is just an example, not to say knowledges of how to eat adn live in civilised world)

The point is... you must tweak unit strengts as a 'whole' and if you can not (and it is well known that you can not!!!) incorporate all side effects in EB to make it more real -- you should tweak hitpoints at the least ! This just does not work well .. Civilised armies should be at least 20% stronger in commbat :yes:

thank you!
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
ouch.... ur lucky this is a VERY friendly forum :whip:

Ohh, I suggest you start a campain with the Arverni or Aedui.... you might learn something :book:

here is a hint of the knowledge to come:
"Celts invented soap, and all the while neither the Greek or Romans had anything close to that." :yes:

[blitzkrieg80]

does this thread actually provide any good? it seems like a repository of hate :wall:

"why r EB hat3rs of barbie-nZ?" (hint: not Klaus Barbie- sorry Psycho)

[NeoSpartan]

does this thread actually provide any good? it seems like a repository of hate :wall:

"why r EB hat3rs of barbie-nZ?" (hint: not Klaus Barbie- sorry Psycho)

Dude this thread is Fing awesome.... appart from the lenght of it, there is a LOT of info here regarding the history of the Gauls, especially how they came about falling.

Hell... I would even vote to have it stickied.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I think Blitz made that statement as a remark regarding the 20% stronger civs... :sweatdrop:

[-Praetor-]

hey... wtf are u guys talking about??? Why are u all looking and arguing about Germany in 19th, and 20th Century????



Godwins law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)

( "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." )

[antiochus epiphanes]

:clown:
im sorry i had to do that..

[Maksimus]

:daisy:

You are very unpolite and I just can not belive that you are EB member, you are a shame for this forum. There are some very nice people that create EB - you sure are not one oh them.. not a sence of creativity from you


If not, then sorry. And I must say that you are not educated well or you are in some 'left' or no high education what so ever!

[Pharnakes]

Oh, trust me Zak is a member all right, and one of the more polite and civilized ones too, prozided he is in polite cizilized company, so how about you just take his advice? maybe you'll get more pleasure out of it than from your ignorant, imature whining. You, sir are disgrace to these forums and humanity as whole.

Recently I have being wondering why the EB tem are overacting so much in a lot of other threads, that to me, seemed over the line but not waranting the EB teams replies, but then I saw that this thread had been dredged up again, and I thought, "Oh god, now what are they whining about?". And then I read the last page. And then I understood just why the EB team has been so anoyed these last few days, due to imature, pompous, dogmatic little brats like yourself. Please, remove yourself before I get myself banned from these forums by responding to you in the manner that you deserve.

Edit: and yes I am an EB Fanboi, and proud of it:2thumbsup:

[Andronikos]

I continue the discusion about physicians. You cannot compare druids to helenic/roman physicians as siberian shamans to best oxford/cambridge doctor. In EB timeframe both of them could use only natural products, mostly herbs, as there was no chemistry and no artificial drugs. Druids were very skilled, they learned how to use herbs, which of them are poisonous, which heal wounds and so on. We do not know many about them and their methotds because they did not write books like their civilisated counterparts did. That can be an advantage for civilised doctors - you can have more info when you have books than when you have to remember it. And hygiene and healthy lifestyle - greeks and romans did not know so much about it. It was Galen who started to build sunny hospitals, perform operations in separated rooms and put knives into fire before using them. And he lived long after EB timeframe ends. Yes, there were some very good doctors before Galen and roman physicians had to be skilled - when you wage so many wars, there are so many wounds you have to heal.
To conclude - both celts and romans/helenes had good doctors, perhaps the civilised ones were slightly better.

[Thaatu]

You are very unpolite and I just can not belive that you are EB member, you are a shame for this forum. There are some very nice people that create EB - you sure are not one oh them.. not a sence of creativity from you

And! Are. You. Nazi? If you are - Kiss Putins (.) ...

If not, then sorry. And I must say that you are not educated well or you are in some 'left' or no high education what so ever!
To sound a little aggressive myself, answering thousands of stupid questions, and refusing demands that are logical only in the head of the person who makes them, does take it's toll on any person. You must be pretty educated yourself to judge someone's creativity and education by a single post. Not knowing anything about Celts, well... I don't if education is to blame, or just simple mindness. Just to let you know that Zaknafien is pretty much responsible for your precious EB Romans, so you might want to keep that in mind the next time you play.

But I will try to answer your initial questions to the best of my abilities.

I have noticed that Celts are very unbalanced in my EB 1, maybe that is because other unit types are (horsmen?).
I have no idea what you're trying to say. Other unit types are horsemen..?

For example, Celtics spearman are almost imposible to kill if you dont have 3 Hellenes units or the Silver shields..and they beat silver shields 1 on 1.
Do you mean Gaesatae, or actual spearmen? If you mean spearmen, then I'm quite sure you're BSing. If you mean Gaesatae, that's how it's supposed to be.

Also they shortsword are way owerpowerd. I understand that some studies that are base for EB can not be denied, but it is a matter of source and perspective. I understand that 'half' of Europe are Celt. But that cant stand in front your rational tough.
How are the shortswords overpowered? Did you test this somehow? Do you know anything about shortswords? Are you talking about the Galatians? Do you know anything about the Galatians? I imagine Roman shortswords are waaayyy underpowered, am I right? And I don't think the spread of Celtic population has anything to do with shortsword effectiveness...

For example, my history profesor that lectures all around Europe, once said to me that if one should count armies and strengts -- he should count MEDICALY!
I was like w..what? And he said
:'Yes, the more you have to offer your army as a cure to their wounds - they are more effective'..
Nice generalization. Simple as math.

...and he added :'80% of all deaths after battles of ancient times (especialy Roman era) was due to their wounds and infections'.. And if somebody writes now that Barbarians had their Druids and Hellenes their academies and doctors wich makes them the same - I will hang myself...
Soap is pretty good in preventing infections. Just please don't hang yourself, it ain't worth dying for.

(...and this is just an example, not to say knowledges of how to eat and live in civilised world)
Celts weren't actually starving, so I can't see how food has anything to do with it. Of course, there was no such thing as a fat Roman.

The point is... you must tweak unit strengts as a 'whole' and if you can not (and it is well known that you can not!!!)
I hope that's not meant as an insult, but it can be read as such.

incorporate all side effects in EB to make it more real -- you should tweak hitpoints at the least ! This just does not work well ..
Funny how you seem to be about the only person who thinks EB battles don't work well... Maybe we should take your word on it. You seem to be an expert.

Civilised armies should be at least 20% stronger in commbat
You seem to be an expert...

I hope this helps. If not, I'm sorry I couldn't be more sarcastic.



Pharnakes, you typoed 'whining'. Shame on you.

[Pharnakes]

Opps, "winning" lol, I hope he isn't doing that at least.

[blitzkrieg80]

You are very unpolite and I just can not belive that you are EB member, you are a shame for this forum. There are some very nice people that create EB - you sure are not one oh them.. not a sence of creativity from you

And! Are. You. Nazi? If you are - Kiss Putins (.) ...

If not, then sorry. And I must say that you are not educated well or you are in some 'left' or no high education what so ever!

Zak is very polite and well educated, and as mentioned, a good deal responsible for some truly great stuff with the Roman faction... now, if you don't think so, that shows how far into the deep end you've become. So what if he is rude, after you've been blatantly disrespectful and arrogant, what does that say about YOU, when you started that way, there was no transition from good behavior to bad?... talk about shame on the forum :wall:

[Zaknafien]

heh, i just was looking for a chance to post that movie :)lol

[Pharnakes]

It seems that even Maksimus has been put on this planet for a purpose, then...

[Maksimus]

My post had no intention to be rude or insulting, or to downsize, devaluates or judge someone's creativity and education by a single post, especially not an EB member. But, because of such a nice comment to someone like me that can not comment and 'quote' and write about references because English is not his native - then fine, I am not blatantly disrespectful and arrogant, that impression could come only if you support Zaknafien's movie posts. . . and that was his response to my observation of my current campaign -- and I am no Roman fan (do they are very nice realy) but I am EB fan still -- and no 'bad' posts that attack me will change that.

I will just shortly address some comments of: Thaatu, fanboi Pharnakes, and blitzkrieg80 -- and Zak -- you post that movie to some bad people with bad intentions around here - or in some forums that need that.

Generalization and simple math was not my intention, its just that I dont have time and will to argue and post for hours here-- and my English is not so god - so it is somewhat hard for me to type what I mean in a way that it wouldn't touch anyones feelings and believes

Behind my comment that it is well known that you (EB team) can not shape RTW as you wish is a simple fact due to RTW engine limits. Right? I read that several times here - and that was posted by other EB members - so, that is no insult and sorry if it looked like one. And just to add that my point here was due to some posts that explained how Romans were not 'stonger' but were better in their battle tactics -- and how can you implement that in RTW EB (I understand the exp._descr_units, but battle formations?) - all factions have the same formation options - or if one can say that there was (and I can refer that there were) a greater chance of a Roman soldier to get healed after battle -- how can that be implemented -- there are just thousands of possible 'tweaks' that could sease these arguments if only they 'could' be in RTW - but they cant because of RTW engine limits..right?
I wont argue about the Soap, its a fact (only for Europe - not Far East) , but If someone is trying to say that Romans had no 'other' 'cleaning' tools - is mistaken - they have (and some very rich people still use) used olive oil and herbs that is very effective - and no soap can put your body parts back onto you - but it can be done by a Roman medic..

Know, I must adress 'overpowered shortswords' -
Yes I have tested it in my battles and I very well know who are Galatians - It is just a fact that they are very hard to kill (and they have higher defence than various greek units) -- and I am no Roman fanboy -- I really use tactics to win and I havent even played with Romans in EB.
And the spread of Celtic population has a thing or two to do with shortsword effectiveness actually...

Like, what would we say If some group of Italian historians came in charge of EB units tweaks? I am not sure they would follow all EB patterns - here we come to the point of source! All my sources are not Anglo-Germanic origins - mine are better, new and neutral.
EB battles work well... but the horsmen are underpowerd against shortswords even if they have a full charge - few of my generals (upgraded and high level)
just can not kill one Galatian shortswords unit...sorry for my opinion it is still just my stand here.
And if its hard to see how food has anything to do with an army, his people and state and the way it is used and prepared - then I have no comment - exept - try to run for 20 minutes and practise for a while (that is why new sources are important) And remmember what happent to Romans when they started to use lead?

note: disgrace to these forums and humanity as whole can be a tittle of one Nazi - and very sarcastic people (whom I hope) dont live in a sarcastic way - that is bad for your society and your friends


And this is all from me, I'll add to all, sorry for and if there were any hardfeelings - that was not an intention, thank you for your time to post here because for me (do it was not pleasant at all:no: )..but, here we are, hope no harm was done - there were no ideas to hurt someones ego or personallity

thank you for your time EBs, be well:yes:

[Zaknafien]

dude, dont worry about it. I was just posting a funny movie. No hard feelings :)

[Maksimus]

dude, dont worry about it. I was just posting a funny movie. No hard feelings :)

No, no hard feelings at all. I was just stresed that there is a :daisy: modding the game here- at least I hope it is not you.. Anyway... i posted for some other members:furious3: ..
They realy like someone to stand on form the firts step -- I dont blame them - I would do worst to myself realy:whip:

be well ;)

[Pharnakes]

I would also like to offer my apologies, it seems that I misunderstood what you were saying, and this thread has alway attracted the less thoughtful element of this comunity. My sincere apologies for this unfortunate misunderstanding. Have a ballon:balloon2: and sign a peace treaty.

:gah:can't find the right smillie, well have a white flag instead.:surrender2:

[Maksimus]

I would also like to offer my apologies, it seems that I misunderstood what you were saying, and this thread has alway attracted the less thoughtful element of this comunity. My sincere apologies for this unfortunate misunderstanding. Have a ballon:balloon2: and sign a peace treaty.

:gah:can't find the right smillie, well have a white flag instead.:surrender2:

Nah... ~:pimp: I just hope you find my post after some EB 1 patches an help me with your comments for my EB mod (do that will be on TWC) ..

see you around :yes:

[blitzkrieg80]

Maskimus that was an excellent post (content and grammar/style flows well)! I apologize for any attitude, we DO welcome your opinion and comments, especially such as those

[Thaatu]

Maksimus, I can't offer you a balloon or anything, because that's someone else's line, but I apologise for my aggressiveness. I just get a little cooked up whenever someone attacks an EB member. They suffer too much abuse already. Just to let you know, to my knowledge, there are no nazis in the team, and the "STFU Donny" thing is absolutely hilarious if you've seen the movie. I say it sometimes to my brother, but Zak, you shouldn't say it to a stranger. Shame on you. Anyway Maksimus, get your hands on "The Big Lebowski". Most video rentals should have it. It's guaranteed to make you burst. After you've seen it, you'll know it wasn't a personal attack, just something to lighten up the mood. :2thumbsup:

Anyways...


- so, that is no insult and sorry if it looked like one.
I'm glad. I wasn't sure at all... :sweatdrop:


- or if one can say that there was (and I can refer that there were) a greater chance of a Roman soldier to get healed after battle -- how can that be implemented -- there are just thousands of possible 'tweaks' that could sease these arguments if only they 'could' be in RTW - but they cant because of RTW engine limits..right?
It's somewhat possible, and I think it has been implemented. Roman FM's get doctors and those kinds of ancillaries that increase the casualty survival rate. I'm not sure if they get them more frequently than others though..


...but If someone is trying to say that Romans had no 'other' 'cleaning' tools - is mistaken - they have (and some very rich people still use) used olive oil and herbs that is very effective - and no soap can put your body parts back onto you - but it can be done by a Roman medic..
Even Roman medicine can't put dismembered bodyparts back together, although those herbs and olive oil would make them delicious. The Celts, on the other hand, can use soap to clean them up and make a trophy, so it's a 50/50 situation. Looks vs. taste. It's a matter of opinion.

Sorry, I had to do it. What I was going to say is that I don't know how effective herbs and olive oil are at killing bacteria, and that I think they were mostly used for the scent and keeping skin moist. You know, cosmetics, not actual disease preventers.


-- and I am no Roman fanboy -- I really use tactics to win and I havent even played with Romans in EB.
My bad.


- few of my generals (upgraded and high level)
just can not kill one Galatian shortswords unit...
Which faction do you play with? Seleucid, Macedonian and Ptolemaic hetairoi bodyguards hack through them like butter, but I reckon something like Pontic bodyguards are a different story.


And if its hard to see how food has anything to do with an army, his people and state and the way it is used and prepared - then I have no comment - exept - try to run for 20 minutes and practise for a while (that is why new sources are important) And remmember what happent to Romans when they started to use lead?
Well, to defend myself, you weren't actually referring to the relationship of food and military. I was just saying that Celts didn't go to McDonald's, so they ate pretty normal food. I doubt the diet of a "midclass" Roman was that much different from a "midclass" Celt's. Except for the booze.


...sorry for my opinion
Never say that.


note: disgrace to these forums and humanity as whole can be a tittle of one Nazi - and very sarcastic people (whom I hope) dont live in a sarcastic way - that is bad for your society and your friends
I try not to be sarcastic all of the time, but disgrace is my second name. :clown:

[Jaywalker-Jack]

Funny how people say the Romans and Germans constantly beat up on the Celts by ONLY looking at the period of Ceasar's Gaellic Wars.
:thumbsdown:

Damn straight. Caeser's invasion was really just the last chapter for the continental Celts. Before that Celtic tribes conquered much of Europe, from Iberia all the way to Anatolia, they sacked Rome, and according to new evidence they may have sacked Delphi too. (The Greeks claim they stopped the barbarians in the nick of time, but just recently rich Greek objects like those that would have been deposited at Delphi have turned up in French rivers and lakes.) As for the Germans, they were blocked from expanding south for centuries by Celtic tribes such as the Volcae.
Im guessing the perception of Germans wiping the floor with Celts comes from the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain, which happened much later (and was by no means a walk over for the Saxons - read the Mabinogion).

[Zaknafien]

also, apparently you've not noticed that medics and 'soldiers healing' are already in the game through ancilliaries that increase soldiers healed after a battle.

[Jaywalker-Jack]

So here is the challenge people, where is your evidence that the Germans were weak? Archaeological record? ha! We know they used clubs to great effect as seen on Trajan's column and accounts of their use in service of Rome. One could say the material culture of hill-forts show a continuation of Celtic culture but really that only means they weren't changed and has no bearing on the argument of success in battle outside of the hillfort. I'm sure the fortified cities in Pannonia would look the same despite dominance of the environs by roaming Huns. So where is this specific reference to Germans being inferior? is it scholarly? cite it! simply because of the Celts' technology? the Romans were inferior in that sense and borrowed from Celts and Iberians, but that does not reinforce any argument to their lack in success or quality.

it seems to me, with "master race" bs being thrown all around, some people are Celto-centric whether because of ethnic bias or basic adoration of such a great culture, but that again is 0% evidence toward anything... instead of telling Frostwulf to get lost and read more when obviously he has read more than the people who AREN'T citing, maybe you guys should pull out a book for a change and use some evidence. commentary in an effort to devalue evidence isn't evidence either.

I think EBs Celtic depiction is justified. From archaeology we know the Celts were an expansive and technologicaly advanced group of peoples, and they remained so until a far more organised and concerted foe, Rome, overcame them. The Germans on the other hand did not have much impact on Europe until later in history, when Rome was in decline.
People are VERY touchy about this, and I think its for the wrong reasons (ie not a passion for historical accuracy, but patriotic bias). Noone is claiming Celts were innately more valiant or more intelligent, any generalisation on that scale is stupid.
If anything EB speaks very highly of the Germans, I remember for example in one place it states Celts were more likely to rout, while Germans would use the retreat creatively to launch a new attack.

And the little differences in stats should not be such a big deal to people.
Its like New Zealand loosing the rugby world cup. Man for man they are easily the best team, but on the day they were outplayed by France. Likewise on a battlefield tactics are far more important than the fighting attributes of the men deployed. Hannibal repeatedly hammered the Romans despite have an inferior infantry line. Anyway Im rambling now, but you see where Im going with this. As the saying goes "An army of sheep led by a lion would beat an army of lions led by a sheep".

[Power2the1]

Damn straight. Caeser's invasion was really just the last chapter for the continental Celts. Before that Celtic tribes conquered much of Europe, from Iberia all the way to Anatolia, they sacked Rome, and according to new evidence they may have sacked Delphi too. (The Greeks claim they stopped the barbarians in the nick of time, but just recently rich Greek objects like those that would have been deposited at Delphi have turned up in French rivers and lakes.) As for the Germans, they were blocked from expanding south for centuries by Celtic tribes such as the Volcae.
Im guessing the perception of Germans wiping the floor with Celts comes from the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain, which happened much later (and was by no means a walk over for the Saxons - read the Mabinogion).



I agree. I mentioned in an earlier post the Germans, on the whole, had to fight against failing, soon to fall empires and lands (Western Romans Empire & Gaul) and invaded lands that were robbed of their defenses and Legions on the edges of Empires (Britannia).

What accounts for the absence of Gauls elite warriors?

I think the Celtic Civil War had robbed Gaul of its best troops in the war between the two main tribes, Aedui and Arverni. I feel theres no way Caesar would have been able to take down Gaul otherwise.

Each tribe had its elite, well trained warrior classes. If Gaul was united behind resisting Caesar, where were these elite warriors? I do not believe Caesar fought against a professional Celtic force, even once, in Gaul. The only logical reason I can imagine is that Gaul's professional armies, and their most experienced troops were already gone and dead through Civil War.

Imagine the siege of Alesia with the relief army composing of professional, seasoned warriors from Gaul from each tribe? Caesar would have been hard pressed to hold out against them.

No doubt this will be taken as downplaying Germanic wonder conquests. It would be admirable if they fought against vigorous, powerful empires in their prime, but that never really happened...\

Feel free to disagree though. Just my 2 cents... :yes:

[Thaatu]

- It is just a fact that they are very hard to kill (and they have higher defence than various greek units) --
Just accidentally checked this. Galatian Shortswordsmen have total defence of 14 (armour 1, shield 2, skill 11) while Hoplitai Haploi have defence 15 (armour 5, shield 4, skill 7). Are you absolutely sure their defence is too strong? I can't find a single Hellenistic unit with lower defence than that, apart from Akontistai, Toxotai and Sphendonetai. You should read the description of the unit and you'll find a completely new perspective on them.

[Watchman]

I'm kind of wondering if the elementary but surprisingly often made mistake of not switching to the cavalry's secondary weapons in melee wasn't involved...

[cmacq]

I think the Celtic Civil War had robbed Gaul of its best troops in the war between the two main tribes, Aedui and Arverni. I feel theres no way Caesar would have been able to take down Gaul otherwise.

Each tribe had its elite, well trained warrior classes. If Gaul was united behind resisting Caesar, where were these elite warriors? I do not believe Caesar fought against a professional Celtic force, even once, in Gaul. The only logical reason I can imagine is that Gaul's professional armies, and their most experienced troops were already gone and dead through Civil War.

Imagine the siege of Alesia with the relief army composing of professional, seasoned warriors from Gaul from each tribe? Caesar would have been hard pressed to hold out against them.

No doubt this will be taken as downplaying Germanic wonder conquests. It would be admirable if they fought against vigorous, powerful empires in their prime, but that never really happened...\


I've had this Gallic Civil War discussion before. It seems clear that here the Swabians were simply acting out the role the Franks would later play. That is fighting for the caracas of a big dead cow. Except in their case there was a bigger more bader wolf on site? Caesar.

[Thaatu]

I'm kind of wondering if the elementary but surprisingly often made mistake of not switching to the cavalry's secondary weapons in melee wasn't involved...
Aye.

[Frostwulf]

The 1), 2), etc... that you see above are my inserts btw.
1) Depends on time period. Up until the Celtic Civil war, I would put the Celts on par with the Romans. They both defeated and won battle against each other. I should make a tally sheet do see what the ratio was..
2) I doubt that. Again, depends on time frame we are talking about.
3) See #2
4) & 5) I respect your opinion
6) Thats not what I have gleaned in my various readings. This Civil war was between two side of the Celts and their allies adn mercenaries. The Germans were a hired "side show," though they turned out to be decisive I am sure in some battles, they could not have been the only factor. If that was so, and the Gauls were such easy pickings, why didn't we have a Germanic invasion (Like we found with the Anglo-Saxons heading to Britain in the 5-6 centuries A.D. after the Romans left) finding itself doing the same in Gaul?For some of these questions go here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1682667&postcount=243
Power I have just one question and this question is not meant to be rude by any sort. Where did you get your information on this supposed "Devastating Civil War" and can you please cite any author?
Also this link is to a list of battle:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1559843&postcount=144


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Meaning you have no proof as it has "yet to be studied".


Did you miss the relevant quotes I provided or are you deliberately ignoring them?

I didn't miss the quotes you provided, I put down this response. Cunliffe is an excellent source, Powell on the other hand; his information is dated.

Barry Cunliffe-"Greeks,Romans & Barbarians"-"After the middle of the third centuries BC the Gauls came under increasing pressure, in the south from the Romans, in the east from the Hellenistic kingdoms and in the north from the Dacians and the Germans." pg.37
Also there is these:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1682667&postcount=243


Still trying to wriggle out of that one huh? I note the convenient switch from discussing your claim / position to that of the information. The validity of information was never part of the discussion. You made a claim that was wrong, for some reason you just can’t acknowledge it.
The information was correct, but if you want to say the use of it was erroneous that is fair. I'm not afraid of admitting when I'm wrong and have done so when it has been pointed out. You on the other hand......


So you’re ignoring the several quotes I’ve posted on the origins of your 'innately superior German' theory. Frosty, you can’t blame me for the fact that you’re espousing the same rationale / hypothesis as the Romanticists, German Nationalists and yes, the Nazis.

I ignore them because they have no relevance here. The Romans were superior to the Celts(I'm a Roman apologist for saying that). The Germans of the time of Caesar were superior to the Celtic forces, backed up by many authors. This could also be said of the TCA. I simply disagreed with your claim that the Celts had been defeating the Germans for centuries. Should I then go and start quoting from 17th and 18th century about Celtomania?
Everything I have said on the subject is backed up with evidence from experts in the field, but it would seem because they disagree with you they are nazis. If your thinking that I said the Germans were genetically superior or something to that effect your completely wrong. I did say that the German would have an edge over the Celt(all things being equal) as would a Celt over a Roman, it had to do with the general physical size. The rest of the factors would be environmental and cultural.

So you’re basically saying that you believe the Germanics were so stupid, that they were unable to effect one change within their socio-cultural communities over several hundred years?

You probably should start up a new thread if you want to write fiction about “Invincible Germanic Neanderthals” as this isn't really relevant to the topic here, "Celtic overpowered".
Your misunderstanding me again.
"The arms and armour of the Germans didn't change much during these times. The tactics used? The shield wall was used from before Caesars time for at least a 1,000 years later where the Anglo-Saxon's fought the Normans at the Battle of Hastings. Perhaps your referring to battle formations? If you look at the way the troops of Ariovistus were lined up, they are very similar to those used by the Franks,Lombards and etc. several hundred years later."
Its all about combat, after all thats what this thread is supposed to be about, even though we had to deviate to prove/disprove things.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
I said that Ariovistus had 6,000 horse, 6,000 footmen and 16,000 light troops. I have said that multiple times.

And the error repeated ..."mulitple times". The problem is that you’re claiming that the Romans had a significant numerical advantage, which is bolox


According to John Warry "Warfare in the Classical World" on pg.161 he list's number of soldiers as:
Caesar: 21000 Legionaries plus Gallic horse (4000) and other auxiliaries
Ariovistus: Germans tribal levy en masse (from community of 120,000); includes 6000 horse-men with 6000 footmen and 16000 light infantry.

He doesn't go into detail of the troop make up other then making the distinction of light infantry. It seems of the 22000 troops, 6000 of them had decent armor. That of course is pure speculation on my part. But it is also worth noting of the arms and armor of the TCA, roughly 50 years earlier.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1595743&postcount=115

I have said this multiple times. Ariovistus outnumbered the Romans.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
It’s also worth mentioning that the Helvetii charged a force ten times their size (400/4000) whilst the Germans only three times their size (1,600/5000)… so again, are the Gauls innately superior? …of course not!

1600 is an assumption as there is nothing really said except that there was 800 cavlary.

800 cavalry, 1600 troops… or does this need to be spelt out as well?

Goldsworthy “Caesar”-The Germans had some 800 horsemen still guarding their encampment. Caesar had 5,000 cavalry, although if these were performing their duties as a patrolling and screening force properly, then they would not all have been concentrated in one place. Even so, the Gallic auxiliaries probably had a significant numerical advantage, and were mounted on larger horses than their opponents, which makes it all the more notable that the Germans quickly gained an advantage. In Caesar's account the Germans charged first, chasing away part of the Gallic cavalry, but were in turn met by their supports. Many of the Germans then dismounted to fight on foot-perhaps with the support of the picked infantrymen who regularly supported the horsemen of some Germanic tribes. The Gauls were routed and fled, spreading panic amongst a large part of the auxiliary and allied cavalry who galloped in terror back to the main force, which was probably several miles away.” pg.274
Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"Although not more than eight hundred German horsemen were present, as soon as they caught sight of Caesar's cavalry they charged and 'soon threw them into disorder'-all five thousand of them. The Celts did not break immediately, 'but in their turn, made a stand' and a sharp fight ensued in which the Germans, 'overthrowing a great many of our men, put the rest to flight'. pg.230-231
The Usipetes and Tenctheri may or may not have had the footmen with them, Caesar only said that Ariovistus had them. I'm not saying that the Usipetes and Tenctheri footmen were not there, we just don't know for sure.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Again this is not evidence, if I were to contact Dr.James and he said that nothing of the sort happened, what does that prove? You will still claim it did happen and my claim would be that it didn't.

And if you did and he repeated his comment you’d still dismiss it as indicated several times now. Truth is, you’ve been posting James’ comments all over the community in support of your hypothesis, citing his credentials and as soon someone else comes along with another quote that explicitly denies your hypothesis, you suddenly dismiss him.
Funny how you keep harping on this, trying to make it sound like I discredit him. "If" he did say this I would disagree with him, that doesn't mean he loses all credibility. If you read what the other authors have written(Sidnell,Speidel,Goldsworthy,etc.) it shows quite obviously who was better. All these authors are prone to error including the ones I use, but here is the question, where is your proof to disprove what these authors are saying?


What exactly don't you understand here? You’ve confused yourself again by trying to view everything through the narrow minded paradigm of the “Timeless Celt”. I’ll say it again, you can’t ignore chronology and regional variation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
The Germans began reversing the Celts around 3rd century BC, wouldn't that put it in the La Tene B era?

Firstly, Geo-political demographics and culture varied greatly over time and space. Each area, people, tribe, etc would have geographically specific distinctions. Even the categorical nomenclature has been adapted to demonstrated the variations.

Thus, in the third century you have the area of Southern Gaul – “La Tene C”, Northern France – “Middle La Tene II & III”, Hunsrück-Eifel (Reinecke) – “La Tene A & B”, Switzerland – La Tene “Ic & Iia”, Baden Württemberg (Zürn) Halstatt D3 / La Tene A, Northern Plain – “Late Iron Age / Halstatt A & B”, Briton – “Early & Mid Iron Age”.

Secondly, notwithstanding the previous paragraph, I repeat, you’re NOT talking about the same peoples. You may as well start making claims about the Germans vs the forces of the United States of America.

Those peoples in northern Europe, whom the so-called Germani dealt with in the 3rd and early 2nd C BC had almost nothing in common with the La Tene D Gauls of France nor the La Tene B & C Gauls of southern Germany. In fact, La Tene culture never extended beyond the 51st parallel.

So we go from:


the Gauls had been defeating the Germans for centuries prior the beginning of the 1st C BC.
to:


I repeat, you’re NOT talking about the same peoples. You may as well start making claims about the Germans vs the forces of the United States of America.
I have said before that the Belgae are different from the Aedui, who were different then the Celts on the Island etc. So what is your point here?


No! The Allobroges hadn’t been part of the alliance since the battle of Vindalium (121 BC), the battle that facilitated the onset of the war in question.

This is the reason I put my statement in question form. I have never claimed to be an expert, that is why I put quotes down from those who are. To say I have a lack of understanding because I wasn't sure if the Allobroges were still part of an alliance is a bit of an overstatement.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Hmm I mention what Dr.James says and you go from:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
"We also know commercial production of many goods and trade all but ceased and large portions of the population starved or suffered from malnutrition."

to this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
"Yes!!.. Gaul was extremely prosperous (both fiscally and population wise), this is one of the main reasons why Caesar was so keen to pillage / conquer it! He did after all have huge personal debts".

Then this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
"This is born out in the material record with significant deposits of fragmentary war material, remains and most significantly thick ash levels around major sites dating to the period…"

To this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
"Archaeology only shows a burning / pillaging of minor settlements of no major value."

Nice try…context my friend. Yes, the later is regarding your quotes “during Caesar’s time”, the ones previous, to the conflicts prior. You do understand that the Arverni and Aedui fought prior to the period of Caesar’s campaign do you not? ..and you do understand that the aforementioned fought two major wars?
So now we go from the supposed "Devastating Civil War" to they fought two wars.

*Atlas of the Celts-"During the first half of the 1st century BC, the rest of Gaul attained an uneasy accommodation with the Roman occupation of the south. Celtic Gaul was generally a prosperous and peaceful region where farms flourished and oppida (towns), stimulated by Roman trade grew ever larger. In central Gaul, societies became sufficiently complex and well organized to be on the brink of independent statehood, and left to their own devices they might well have achieved this within a generation or two. pg.82

According to you the supposed "Devastating Civil War" started around 124 B.C. or so. According to the above statement the generally prosperous and peaceful region was from 100B.C. till Caesars arrival around 58 B.C. So that leaves roughly 25 years of supposed "Devastation", also you have to take into account the TCA from around 109-101 BC.

*Atlas of the Celts-"During the 2nd century BC, a period of prosperity and relative stability in Celtic Europe, the first oppida(towns) emerged north of the Alps. Like the cities of the Mediterranean region, the oppida served as commercial, administrative, manufacturing and distribution centers."pg.88

Simon James "The World of the Celts"-"It is clear from Classical sources, and from the number of Iron Age settlements found, that Gaul and Britain were settled. Modern surveys, using aerial photography and field-walking (searching fields for pottery and other traces of buried settlements churned up by ploughing), have located farms, hamlets and larger agglomerations in their thousands. Not all of these were occupied at once, of course, but even so, recent estimates put the population of late Iron Age Britain as high as 2-3 million, and that of Gaul at 6-8 million. There had evidently been rapid growth in the last two centuries BC, because during the early Iron age in Britain at any rate the population was much smaller." pg.63

So you have prosperity and relative stability during the 2nd century BC and you have population growth as well. The only disturbance during this time to my knowledge was the TCA.
What would be nice is if you could put down the source of your information. Who said that there were two wars, who talked about the "Devastation" and the malnutrition? Where are the authors and what book/article has this?

The following two quotes come from chapter 5-Gaul: continuity and change 125-59BC:

Barry Cunliffe-"Greeks,Romans & Barbarians"-"A socio-economic system such a this ensured a sound subsistence economy. It also allowed the aristocracy a degree of mobility, but since it was a society in which was, to a large extent, gained by prowess in the raid, it meant that warfare, at least on a raiding level remained endemic."pg.89

Barry Cunliffe-"Greeks,Romans & Barbarians"-"Sufficient will have been said to show that in classic Celtic society, power lay in personal prowess and the size of the individual's following, but the maintenance of that power required the lavish distribution of gifts in displays of conspicuous consumption. Such extravagance could only be kept up by raiding and looting. Hence warfare on this scale was endemic.
The overall effects of this kind of socio-economic system were to keep society fragmented in a multitude of loosely linked chiefdoms. Alliances could suddenly appear, great war leaders could emerge, but equally quickly they could disintegrate and vanish overnight. In short, the socio-economic system of Celtic Gaul in its classical period, before the first century BC, actively worked against the emergence of large stable confederations. The only force which seems to have had a degree of coercive power transcending local hierarchies was the religious class- the Druids." pg.91

Cunliffe echoes both Goldsworthy and James, which supports my view.


Neither helps nor hinders my friend. Frosty, unlike others about the place, I’ve got better things to do than type up text that is irrelevant to the point being discussed. Whether the Romans got 1 slave, 2 or 10 for each amphora is a mute point. The point was that the market was significant enough to warrant special mention. Are you going to dismiss the tangible evidence as well?

I think your response here is very reasonable, but I haven't dismissed your evidence either. I disagreed with it and felt that Tchernia(the guy with the best guess) equated the end of the slave trade to Gauls manufacturing their own wine. This goes against the supposed "Devastating Civil War".


Please revisit the text and note how the Usipetes and Tencteri were seeking peace when they unexpectedly attacked.
I have and I agree with you up to a point. They may not have been expecting an attack but after the Usipetes and Tencteri charged, Caesar's Gallic cavalry was reinforced which should have given the momentum to the Gauls.

Goldsworthy “Caesar”-Caesar made one modest concession, saying that he would advance 4 miles during the day, moving to a position where his camp would have a convenient water supply. In the meantime fighting had already broken out between the cavalry of the two sides.The Germans had some 800 horsemen still guarding their encampment. Caesar had 5,000 cavalry, although if these were performing their duties as a patrolling and screening force properly, then they would not all have been concentrated in one place. Even so, the Gallic auxiliaries probably had a significant numerical advantage, and were mounted on larger horses than their opponents, which makes it all the more notable that the Germans quickly gained an advantage. In Caesar's account the Germans charged first, chasing away part of the Gallic cavalry, but were in turn met by their supports. Many of the Germans then dismounted to fight on foot-perhaps with the support of the picked infantrymen who regularly supported the horsemen of some Germanic tribes. The Gauls were routed and fled, spreading panic amongst a large part of the auxiliary and allied cavalry who galloped in terror back to the main force, which was probably several miles away.” pg.274

Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"Although not more than eight hundred German horsemen were present, as soon as they caught sight of Caesar's cavalry they charged and 'soon threw them into disorder'-all five thousand of them. The Celts did not break immediately, 'but in their turn, made a stand' and a sharp fight ensued in which the Germans, 'overthrowing a great many of our men, put the rest to flight'. pg.230-231

Frosty, please re-read over some of my previous comments. Not only is your hypothesis of a innately superior Germanic volk critically flawed, but the very means / analytical method employed to support such a ridiculous notion is as well.
Again if your going with the genetic type thing I never claimed, nor would I ever claim such a thing.
What I do claim is that the Germans were superior warriors during Caesars time, as backed up by many authors. I also believe the case is the same with the TCA though most of it through proxy. Prior to this time it is unknown, the conventional view is that the Germans began to reverse the Celtic expansion around 300 BC.

I no longer have the time to due justice to this dicsussion and therefore will not be able to continue. I thank you for your input and time, apologise for any offence I may caused, my frustration, etc (it's all banter) and wish you well in the future.

I'm sorry to hear that but it is totally understandable. I do have the same problems, thats why it takes me a few days to respond. I hope things go well for you as well.


Damn straight. Caeser's invasion was really just the last chapter for the continental Celts. Before that Celtic tribes conquered much of Europe, from Iberia all the way to Anatolia, they sacked Rome, and according to new evidence they may have sacked Delphi too. (The Greeks claim they stopped the barbarians in the nick of time, but just recently rich Greek objects like those that would have been deposited at Delphi have turned up in French rivers and lakes.)
I believe you have missed out on a few things. For the Romans go here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1559843&postcount=144

As for the Germans, they were blocked from expanding south for centuries by Celtic tribes such as the Volcae.
Im guessing the perception of Germans wiping the floor with Celts comes from the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain, which happened much later (and was by no means a walk over for the Saxons - read the Mabinogion).
For the Germans go here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1682667&postcount=243


What accounts for the absence of Gauls elite warriors?
Ariovistus for one. Most of the elites by the time of Caesar were the cavalry, and if you look at the cavalry of the Celts there were many.

Power2the1,Johnny5 and cmacq if any of you or any one else out there have any information pertaining to the supposed "Devastating Civil War" could you please post were you received this information from. I don't care if its a web site, article,book, whatever source it is please post it here.

[NeoSpartan]

http://www.wickedsunshine.com/WagePeace/Election2004/Images/AwJeez,NotThisShitAgain!.jpg
:dizzy2:

[SaFe]

:dizzy2:


Very cheap, if you don't like to be educated just don't read it.
Although i'm not agreeing with Frostwulf on every aspect he quotes respected authors and you give us a lame picture as input...
:wall:

[blitzkrieg80]

See how SaFe quoted? That's how it's done!! ~:thumb:

We don't need quoted picture spam, thank you! :wall:

Want to talk about Overpowered Celts? The Alpine Phalanx is awesome, 1400 cost and you get a pretty damn good unit with 9 armor! This is actually already discussed to be corrected (less armor) in 1.1 but I must say, I had a hard time wanting to build any other phalanx with that unit being sooo nice.

The Alpine swordsmen are nicely priced also!! I won't say they're overpowered, because you can figure it out, with 1100 cost and high stats ~:) but I don't want them to be changed! You know, it seems like the whole Alpine area just has nice units ~:) History rules!

[NeoSpartan]

Sorry if I went out of hand with that pic :shame: really....but I like it :yes: and I could not resist using it one more time :shame:.... :no:

but like I said in the Sweboz underpowered... I have yet to play this on Costume battles to test it, as well as on MP, so I can't pass judgement.


Oh yes those alpine guys are awesome... nice infantry, with decently good stats, and at a reasonable price. I am also digging the celts to the East close to the Balkans (sp), oh and the gaesatae-wannabees too.

Its a shame i STILL am on midterms I haven't been able to play in the past week :no:

[Maksimus]

Sorry for making this topic 'up in the front line again' -
But, are there any special motive for using one very powerfull attribute in EB only for 'some' units?
To be more specific

Why is COMMAND attribute used in 'export_descr_unit.txt' refering only to Celts - let me note: Casse - Britania?

Like;

Cidainh (celtic chariot cidainh bodyguards, celtic chariot cidainh), = britons, slave

Calawre (celtic infantry calawre), = britons, slave

Carnute Cingetos (celtic infantry carnute cingetos), = gauls, slave

Cwmyr (celtic infantry cwmyr), = gauls, britons, scythia, slave

Kluddargos (celtic infantry kluddargos) = britons, slave, gauls, scythia

Rycalawre (celtic infantry rycalawre) = britons, slave

Drwdae (celtic infantry drwdae) = gauls, scythia, britons, slave

Lugian Swordsmen (celtic infantry lugian) = britons, slave, gauls, scythia, germans, dacia

Is this a bug or a command issue?? How did EB team reached a point to OK this? Because all EB members are calling and quoting and explaining that everything is 'history-based' - now this?
Realy, I was just trying to add HP 2 for general_unit to see how it would work with EB 1 - and I found that no Legion has this? Am I wrong? If I am - then sorry..
I would not like to belive that someone is actually 'giving' some nice attributes to 'some' units just because they are - Casse or Celtic? No?

Well if not, I would realy like to know why are those units above so speciall..

Thank you!

[QwertyMIDX]

It's mostly used for the Casse to simulate their style of fighting, which was based around small groups of 'Champions' who inspired nearby more run of the mill soldiers to hold out a bit longer. The command attribute just gives a small morale bonus to troops around that unit. If you look at your list you'll notice that only the Carnute Cingetos (who are druids effectively hence their morale boosting attribute) and the Lugian Swordsmen aren't troops from the British Isles.

[Maksimus]

It's mostly used for the Casse to simulate their style of fighting, which was based around small groups of 'Champions' who inspired nearby more run of the mill soldiers to hold out a bit longer. The command attribute just gives a small morale bonus to troops around that unit. If you look at your list you'll notice that only the Carnute Cingetos (who are druids effectively hence their morale boosting attribute) and the Lugian Swordsmen aren't troops from the British Isles.

Thank you for this response, I understand what you are trying to say ...:yes:

Still, it does not calms me:no: , I mod my RTW, I know how powerfull 'command' atribute is:whip: ... it is very powerfull in important battles - and when you use it in EB in wich you already have 'some' 'balanced' stats in a way that Greek and Italian historians would only be angry .. ,, I mean, you have my point? :thumbsdown:
Yes, I am not the only one with 'some' education that is somewhat sceptical about some very high stats for some barb units (and will add, yes I agree that no faction is powerfull beyond means).

And who ever 'suggested' NOT to add the same atributes to other factions units (like some that realy had Empires) to other EB team members.. - realy, and I mean realy - has some preferences to 'some' factions
(needless to say that EBs could have implemented Indian faction insead of 'some', and even one from the China or Illyria or Pergam)

Command atribute, if used for Celts - should be used for numerous if not all factions - anyone who was in the army knows that 'moral' in every army draws it's roots from at least one unit no matter who it is..

thank you for your time
be well!:yes:

[Geoffrey S]

If I understand correctly, Casse units are weaker than equivalent opposing units (morale difference I presume) and need inspriring champions to be effective. I'm not certain I like your implications of strong bias, Maksimus.

[Maksimus]

If I understand correctly, Casse units are weaker than equivalent opposing units (morale difference I presume) and need inspriring champions to be effective. I'm not certain I like your implications of strong bias, Maksimus.

No, not at all, Casse units are no weaker than equivalent opposing units (morale difference is not the casse), and don't get me wrong here -

I very much like UK and people there - this is a was a simple question about 'dynamics' - and the explanation QwertyMIDX gave is no good at all, not for me to be exact.. and apperantly not to all other modders out side of EB
(yes, in RTR command line is given to barbs as to the greeks or romans or carthage)..
And you should know that - offcourse- those are not only Casse units - the druids are in Naisos too or Singidunum I think..

And the command atribute is very powerfull.. it should be used to some successors state units and others..

[QwertyMIDX]

Casse units are in fact weaker than most others, they're probably the most lightly armed and armored faction in the game (only the Sweboz can compete and they have other advantages).

Why should we give the attribute to random successor units? They didn't fight in the style were representing at all and none of the Hellenistic historians, myself included, has seen any reason to make use of the command attribute for them.

In short, the answer I gave you is a good answer. If we were just tossing the attribute out to make units stronger than you'd have a point, but we're not, we're using it to simulate a particular style of fighting and the celtic historians in EB are pretty happy with it. If you'll notice Casse elites are fairly weak, and come in small units, their primary purpose is to shore up the morale of regular line infantry.

[Maksimus]

Yes, I understand, I have checked the exp_unit txt, and it is very nice that all Celtic historians are very happy, and by typing that - I am not going to draw myself into an argument that is not needed realy..

My point is that the same 'effect' that goes for Casse - is reality for all armies of the world - that means hellenes too.. especially Makedonija and their noble cavalry and not to say SShields...

And second - while EB team is using 'it' (command atribute for celts) to simulate a particular style of fighting that will please celtic historians in EB team... you (EB team) are acctualy giving penalties to all other units that are due to fight 'commandos'.. I have seen that in my Battles already,

anyway thank you for commenting, my goal is to get some info why is 'that' the way it is - now i know -
Thank you :yes:

[Geoffrey S]

Yes, I understand, I have checked the exp_unit txt, and it is very nice that all Celtic historians are very happy, and by typing that - I am not going to draw myself into an argument that is not needed realy..
Too late now. The moment you started this particular discussion, you implicitely accepted the right of others to voice their disagreement. Bit cowardly to withdraw yourself from that really.:laugh4:

My point is that the same 'effect' that goes for Casse - is reality for all armies of the world - that means hellenes too.. especially Makedonija and their noble cavalry and not to say SShields...
No. Read what QwertyMIDX said. The Hellenes didn't have that kind of 'hero' culture. Casse warfare is heavily reliant on it.

And second - while EB team is using 'it' (command atribute for celts) to simulate a particular style of fighting that will please celtic historians in EB team... you (EB team) are acctualy giving penalties to all other units that are due to fight 'commandos'.. I have seen that in my Battles already,
An advantage to Celts? By having weaker basic units supported by the occasional small group of stronger warriors with a morale boost? To get that advantage, they acquire a numerical disadvantage, and without the morale boost, Casse armies will break more quickly.

anyway thank you for commenting, my goal is to get some info why is 'that' the way it is - now i know -
Thank you :yes:
I don't think you know at all, judging by the rest of your post. Bit trollish, actually.

[QwertyMIDX]

..My point is that the same 'effect' that goes for Casse - is reality for all armies of the world - that means hellenes too.. especially Makedonija and their noble cavalry and not to say SShields...

Having elite units and having a hero culture of warfare aren't the same thing at all...

[Charge]

Germans has as well? (attribute)

[Maksimus]

Too late now. The moment you started this particular discussion, you implicitely accepted the right of others to voice their disagreement. Bit cowardly to withdraw yourself from that really.:laugh4:

No. Read what QwertyMIDX said. The Hellenes didn't have that kind of 'hero' culture. Casse warfare is heavily reliant on it.

An advantage to Celts? By having weaker basic units supported by the occasional small group of stronger warriors with a morale boost? To get that advantage, they acquire a numerical disadvantage, and without the morale boost, Casse armies will break more quickly.

I don't think you know at all, judging by the rest of your post. Bit trollish, actually.

What QwertyMIDX said is not good for me - because I did not just 'run-on' this atribute from yesterday and I very well know about ancient warfare and history so I need no lectures on this forum.

My question was pointed to an EB member that knows something about this .. and QwertyMIDX answerd it - OK .. I said thanks.. but now this

My second post to was there because the basic response is to my question why was :
'We' - that means 'EB team' made an agreement based on opinion of some memmbers - they wanted to deeple express the Casse 'Hero cult' by adding very powerfull atributes (that is their right - it is their mod).

But the command atribute..-if you even know how much that is important in battle- - is very important because the point goes beyond this Geoffrey S my friend - Those - command attributes affect all units (in this case) in Casse armies - that means some very powerfull that are Regional based - you see now?! NO? Well, than see my list again:

Cidainh (celtic chariot cidainh bodyguards, celtic chariot cidainh), = britons, slave
Calawre (celtic infantry calawre), = britons, slave
Carnute Cingetos (celtic infantry carnute cingetos), = gauls, slave
Cwmyr (celtic infantry cwmyr), = gauls, britons, scythia, slave
Kluddargos (celtic infantry kluddargos) = britons, slave, gauls, scythia
Rycalawre (celtic infantry rycalawre) = britons, slave
Drwdae (celtic infantry drwdae) = gauls, scythia, britons, slave
Lugian Swordsmen (celtic infantry lugian) = britons, slave, gauls, scythia, germans, dacia

You see -- the first are generals -- on chariots - if they were heroes very well but they are surely no 'occasional small group of stronger warriors' that give a morale boost - those are units used by family members!

And to my posts were adressing QwertyMIDX (so thank him for hus answers)posts not your's G --- and about that 'trollish' and 'cowardly' stuf - I have no comment -

English is not my native so that is why I 'pass' these discitions here on the forum - maybe thinking that I wont have to draw my posts for kids like you

[Geoffrey S]

What QwertyMIDX said is not good for me - because I did not just 'run-on' this atribute from yesterday and I very well know about ancient warfare and history so I need no lectures on this forum.
No lectures? Sure thing. I found some of your earlier posts rather interesting, coming from someone who knows enough about ancient warfare and history not to be lectured.

My second post to was there because the basic response is to my question why was :
'We' - that means 'EB team' made an agreement based on opinion of some memmbers - they wanted to deeple express the Casse 'Hero cult' by adding very powerfull atributes (that is their right - it is their mod).
And there's the part I find quite rude. It's an unfounded accusation of (nationalist) bias, in a previous post you implied that it has something to do with the UK.

But the command atribute..-if you even know how much that is important in battle- - is very important because the point goes beyond this Geoffrey S my friend - Those - command attributes affect all units (in this case) in Casse armies - that means some very powerfull that are Regional based - you see now?! NO? Well, than see my list again:

Cidainh (celtic chariot cidainh bodyguards, celtic chariot cidainh), = britons, slave
Calawre (celtic infantry calawre), = britons, slave
Carnute Cingetos (celtic infantry carnute cingetos), = gauls, slave
Cwmyr (celtic infantry cwmyr), = gauls, britons, scythia, slave
Kluddargos (celtic infantry kluddargos) = britons, slave, gauls, scythia
Rycalawre (celtic infantry rycalawre) = britons, slave
Drwdae (celtic infantry drwdae) = gauls, scythia, britons, slave
Lugian Swordsmen (celtic infantry lugian) = britons, slave, gauls, scythia, germans, dacia

You see -- the first are generals -- on chariots - if they were heroes very well but they are surely no 'occasional small group of stronger warriors' that give a morale boost - those are units used by family members!
In the case of the chariots, relatively fragile and relatively rare. In the case of the other units, small and expensive groups of good infantry: as I said, at a numerical disadvantage and easily swamped by more numerous enemies. They've got the command bonus, sure, but in their own way all are a liability. Their stats make them tempting for frontline duty, but if they are overwhelmed and break it's potentially devastating for the Casse. The majority of the (basic) units they support are weaker and more expensive than enemy counterparts, something that's present among each of the Celtic factions.

And to my posts were adressing QwertyMIDX (so thank him for hus answers)posts not your's G --- and about that 'trollish' and 'cowardly' stuf - I have no comment -

English is not my native so that is why I 'pass' these discitions here on the forum - maybe thinking that I wont have to draw my posts for kids like you
I recognise that it's difficult to argue in a foreign language, but find that it has little to do with all this since you get your point across clearly. I've seen plenty of non-English speakers here and elsewhere who are quite capable of being polite.

[Power2the1]

Power2the1,Johnny5 and cmacq if any of you or any one else out there have any information pertaining to the supposed "Devastating Civil War" could you please post were you received this information from. I don't care if its a web site, article,book, whatever source it is please post it here.


Why do you continue putting "devastating" in front of the Civil War? Wonderful productive lands, gold, riches, fertile fields do not kill off men.

Caesar wanted to show everyone he was "the man" in Gaul. Why did he not mention defeating quality troops, in any large number, in his writings on the invasion? I might be wrong as its been a few years since I last read it, I recall him never mentioning, not once, facing his Legions/Germans off against an equally professional force in Gaul.

The cream of Gaul's troops had to have been already killed (unless someone thinks they used levy/farmer quality troops up until Caesar's invasion?) by the Aedui and Arverni battles. Gauls best troops were long gone and killed off, thats what the war did, and so, Caesar had easier pickings then othewise.

Still does not make German conquests in Gaul or Britain anymore grand and awesome in my book...they follow after the real killing had already been done for years and the best troops long gone...

My two cents...

[Maksimus]

If you find my post to be an attack to your or an accusation to someones or yours nationalist pride - has realy nothing to do with my bias, in a previous post I implied that it has something to do with the UK.

Because, you see, I am sure that you would not comment here in such manner if you don't feel that I am attacking 'British' modders and experts and that national pride just because they wan't me to belive that --

Casse is the 'only' worthy faction in EB (that means in ancient world).. that has one 'specific' hero cults that is acctually allowing their generals to have a command atribute (and that 'fragile and relatively rare' comment save for someone that has no clue what I am refering to) ..

And let me add, ..that even if I am pointing to Casse, my intention is not to be rude, or anything it is just the way I think .. and keep your lectures to yourself - your toughts may not be forthy outside the 'anglo world'

that is it, I am stoping this disscusion now

[Geoffrey S]

Even assuming I'm from the UK, now I'm supposedly defending the EB portrayal of the Casse, a people completely unrelated to modern England in all aspects except a small part of the geography, on the basis of UK nationalist feelings? Oh dear, I think you got me there... :laugh4:

Have a nice one!

[QwertyMIDX]

But the command atribute..-if you even know how much that is important in battle- - is very important because the point goes beyond this Geoffrey S my friend - Those - command attributes affect all units (in this case) in Casse armies - that means some very powerfull that are Regional based - you see now?! NO? Well, than see my list again:


Umm, not true, the command attribute only affects units within a small radius. Its like the command attribute a general gets with stars, but with much less influence (at least compared to a general with a fair number of command stars).


You see -- the first are generals -- on chariots - if they were heroes very well but they are surely no 'occasional small group of stronger warriors' that give a morale boost - those are units used by family members!

Generals have similar affects with or without the trait, the unit is also recruitable as a non-general of course. Finally, FM bodyguards are almost by definition "small groups of stronger warriors". They're also without a doubt the weakest general's bodyguard in the entire, even with the command attribute.

[Maksimus]

You se Geoffrey S, on the basis of UK nationalist feelings, and, nationalist feelings in general. One can't ever be sure who is who, .. you should no better ,, there are many people here that feell the way I was refering to

QwertyMIDX , thank you again for posting, I realy had no intention of spreading this thread and yes, units within a small radius are only effected by that atribute - I meant it effects 'all' units within a small radius (that means even some very nice recruatable ones).. so that is clear,..

be well (even you Geoffrey S:whip: ) !

[blitzkrieg80]

your toughts may not be forthy outside the 'anglo world'
I'm sorry, is this English? OK, it's not your first language... so why did you write that at all? (My tip of the day- secret languages should stay in one's own head: or better yet make a nice new Harry Potter sequel)

Btw, it's not an Anglo-Saxon world, especially when everyone calls Deutschland Germany, the Roman name, despite the fact that they never call themselves that. That's Romanocentric (what most of Europe considers themselves inheritors of, despite Rome's rip-off of Greek learning/culture), so keep dreaming of Anglo-Saxon bullies, write some good fiction on it- but don't pretend like you speak fact. Wah wah wah, British people had money (and were smart/lucky enough) to invest in the First Industrial Revoultion and changed the world, wah wah wah! BUT Romans (the angels), they were inherently supermen who should be able to destroy barbarians (you know, those retards) 1,000,000 to 1... EB, why isn't Rome flying around stopping crime and able to leap buildings in a single bound?! WTF! This is so unhistorical...


Gauls best troops were long gone and killed off, thats what the war did, and so, Caesar had easier pickings then othewise.

Still does not make German conquests in Gaul or Britain anymore grand and awesome in my book...they follow after the real killing had already been done for years and the best troops long gone...

it's a shame there is absolutely no evidence of this, in archaeology or literature, nor oral tradition... as Frostwulf has pointed out and no one has bothered to post anything otherwise, despite use of logic, which is all well and good yet entirely theory... i guess we can leave it to the realm of the Sacred Feminine and the M that can be seen everywhere... Mesus! (no, not you Maskimus)

if you are not happy with my attitude of amusement at your propoganda, i ask: why do you keep bringing up this nonsense as if you have something against Germanic peoples? Every case in history is a case of weaker and stronger. if any of those cases is idolized, then yes point out how wrong that is, but it's hardly the case that Germans are praised by all as sexy beasts based on the small break of luck witnessed in Gaul. who's claiming this? nobody, end of story. if we're bitter that Germanic peoples conquered so much of Europe, nothing will help it, it's like complaing about Rome's success... but to try and diminish it based on our own bias?

[Power2the1]

it's a shame there is absolutely no evidence of this, in archaeology or literature, nor oral tradition...


Are you stating theres no evidence of a Civil War in Gaul before/during Caesar's invasion or what are you referring to?

[blitzkrieg80]

the claim of near extinction of the Gallic warrior class: "Gauls best troops were long gone and killed off"

there is no despute of a civil war by itself which doesn't mean much at all, in-fact, it can hardly be called a "civil war" when there was no united state before the conflict... but what evidence proves what you claim? a lack of evidence is hardly proof

[Power2the1]

the claim of near extinction of the Gallic warrior class: "Gauls best troops were long gone and killed off"

there is no despute of a civil war by itself which doesn't mean much at all, in-fact, it can hardly be called a "civil war" when there was no united state before the conflict... but what evidence proves what you claim? a lack of evidence is hardly proof

Lack of evidence?

Consider how/why the Celts fought, and how/why they would have relished battle against anything that came their way and its easy...

They never backed down from the chance to gain spoils, glory, riches and prestige through battle. Any insult to their tribe was answered with a sword. No attack nor insult went unpunished. Every classical writer basically paints the Celts in that fashion.

You are aware that the nobility and upper class Celts (that would be the professionals and then some) always led their men into battle and to do otherwise was a sign of cowardice? NO Celt worth his reputation in his land and tribe would decline battle. They did not sit around and let others do the fighting for them. There is no glory nor fame to boast of if you did not fight. It is contrary to basically every classical description of their battle ways. Therefore, unless the Celts inexplicably changed how they achieved fame and glory and a mean reputation, they'd have fought in the Civil War in the many thousands, and died in the Civil War in the same fashion.

Again, there being no mention of armies with really any notable contingents of armored nobles leading their professional troops against Caesar looks really suspect to their simply not being enough professionals left over from the Civil War to affect any major outcome in battle.

Caesar would have looked all the more superior by noting the hordes of chain mailed, well trained, nobility he crushed repeatedly battle after battle. He did not mention anything of the sort, so unless he simply forgot that crucial manifestation of the enemies troop composition, anyone can easily reason and conclude that what I am presenting as proof, is backed up by their classical description.

[blitzkrieg80]

your interpretation of Caesar's propoganda is not evidence, although you have a valid point for conversation, but similar deductive "evidence" can be argued for just about anything, thus why materials are necessary. the views of scholars who write on the subject are generally more persuasive than you or I (subject to opinion ~;)), not merely because of their logic, but because of their citation, use and analysis of various scientific records of physical evidence concerning the period as well as literary evidence and their authors' bias, thus why Frostwulf quotes them.

[NeoSpartan]

hum.... ~:confused: wtf are u guys arguing about :dizzy2:

[Thaatu]

hum.... ~:confused: wtf are u guys arguing about :dizzy2:
That there's no evidence that confirms that the finest warriors of Gallic tribes had been wiped out by their wars prior to the Roman conquest. It's a worthy theory, but I doubt there will ever be conclusive evidence to back it up. Unless someone digs up mass graves along with huge amounts of weapons and armour of the period, with all the skeletons riddled with cuts and breaks. Maybe even a ceasefire document in which all sides state "We have nothing left to throw at you".

[NeoSpartan]

That there's no evidence that confirms that the finest warriors of Gallic tribes had been wiped out by their wars prior to the Roman conquest. It's a worthy theory, but I doubt there will ever be conclusive evidence to back it up. Unless someone digs up mass graves along with huge amounts of weapons and armour of the period, with all the skeletons riddled with cuts and breaks. Maybe even a ceasefire document in which all sides state "We have nothing left to throw at you".

well it kinda sounds to me like power2the1 is bringing up Psycho's info but he is not mentioning it, and then blitzkrieg80 is using Frostwolf info again without mentioning it.

Hey fellas.... re-read the whole thread before you post anything chances are its already been said ESPECIALLY if your going to bring up Ceasar, Goldsworthy, etc. :whip: :yes:

[Thaatu]

It's fifteen pages. It can't be re-read.

[NeoSpartan]

It's fifteen pages. It can't be re-read.

yeah it can... in a few hours OR in a few weeks. Or u can just read the last three pages were Frostwolf and Psyco V were replying to eachother

[blitzkrieg80]

damnit, no, I am not using anything concerning or about Frostwulf, because I don't need to :grin: that's the beauty of sitting back and requiring evidence that can't be found... i mention Frostwulf, because he has used scholarly references to back up his words, which is more than Psycho does, thus why he appears right even if he isn't. If anyone wants to rag on about how the Germanics were pathetic losers who can't get even a shred of credit for a single success on the battlefield, then it will be challenged with: what is your source? That's all, but clearly some people are not happy with giving a shred of credit to those dirty bastards of the North who have nothing to do with modern fascism, or in the other direction, the general bitterness that the mighty yet fragmented Celtic empire had to fall.

It's like Gibbons, man, it can be reread, but why would you want to? ~;)

[Frostwulf]

They never backed down from the chance to gain spoils, glory, riches and prestige through battle. Any insult to their tribe was answered with a sword. No attack nor insult went unpunished. Every classical writer basically paints the Celts in that fashion.
Maybe I'm reading to much into what your saying but the Celts would not just go out and attack, they weighed the consequences of their decisions(could they win). They did back down plenty of times as did most people when fighting superior forces(either in number or skill). There are times when they felt insulted by the Romans but didn't do anything about it, or it took many years to do so.

You are aware that the nobility and upper class Celts (that would be the professionals and then some) always led their men into battle and to do otherwise was a sign of cowardice? NO Celt worth his reputation in his land and tribe would decline battle. They did not sit around and let others do the fighting for them. There is no glory nor fame to boast of if you did not fight. It is contrary to basically every classical description of their battle ways.
As was true for the Germans and other peoples, this was not unique to the Celts.

therefore, unless the Celts inexplicably changed how they achieved fame and glory and a mean reputation, they'd have fought in the Civil War in the many thousands, and died in the Civil War in the same fashion.

Up to and during Caesar's time these things still happened, you still had Celts making challenges and etc. The main change was that most of the nobility (elites) were mounted, i.e. became cavalry.

Venceslas Kruta-"The Celts"-"Recruited from the ranks of the warrior nobility, from about 250BCE onwards the cavalry totally replace the war-chariots that had previously constituted the war-chariots that had previously constituted the shock troops of Celtic armies. They became the elite permanent corps of the city-states, formes and maintained by the aristocrats who governed them. The cavalry's essential role in battle is especially well illustrated in Julius Caesar's Gallic wars." pg.110


Again, there being no mention of armies with really any notable contingents of armored nobles leading their professional troops against Caesar looks really suspect to their simply not being enough professionals left over from the Civil War to affect any major outcome in battle.
There is mention of this:
Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-One might expect that the combination of the long-famed Celtic prowess as mounted warriors with this new state-of-the-art military equipment (to which add spurs, superior ironwork in their weapons and armour and, at first, larger horses) would have proved unstoppable, yet it is the German cavalry who really stand out in Caesar's accounts and we are specifically told they did not have the advantage of saddles. Indeed, Caesar makes clear that the Germans positively scorned such aids as a sign of weakness:' In their eyes it is the height of effeminacy and shame to use a saddle, and they do not hesitate to engage the largest force of cavalry riding saddled horses, however small their own numbers may be'." pg.228

Stephen Allen-"Lords of Battle, the World of the Celtic Warrior"-"The change in emphasis from skirmishing with javelins to shock tactics using a spear and long sword can be detected in Caesar's description of the cavalry engagements during his campaigns in Gaul. By this period, the elite Gallic warriors who provided the urban aristocracies with their armed retainers were almost entirely cavalry, armed with spear and long slashing sword, protected by an iron helmet and mailshirt, and mounted on a larger horse capable of bearing the weight of the rider and his equipment. To the Romans, they were the equivalent of their own 'knightly' class, the equites." pg.132

Caesar would have looked all the more superior by noting the hordes of chain mailed, well trained, nobility he crushed repeatedly battle after battle. He did not mention anything of the sort, so unless he simply forgot that crucial manifestation of the enemies troop composition, anyone can easily reason and conclude that what I am presenting as proof, is backed up by their classical description.
He did mention it, see above.

"Had the Celtic Civil War not happened, then Caesar would have never invaded against such warriors. The Celts would rule the world..." I know this is just your signature but I couldn't resist responding. Lets pretend the supposedly "Devastating Civil War" happened, that still doesn't explain about the Belgae nor the Britons getting beat up by Caesar. Nor does it explain the advance of the Germans or Dacians or of the defeat of the Po Valley Celts of northern Italy.
My belief is that the supposed "Devastating Civil War" is much exaggerated and it was infrequent battles mixed in with raids.


i mention Frostwulf, because he has used scholarly material to back up his words, which is more than Psycho does, thus why he appears right even if he isn't.
My bet blitz is that your one of the few who would say that I appear to be right.

It's fifteen pages. It can't be re-read.
I plan to do a summation in a few weeks (hopefully less), but be warned it will be mostly from my point of view. I will post what others say contrary but there is a possibility that I could miss some relevant material from others perspectives. I do suppose though that said material will be brought to my attention from others.

[J.Alco]

Stop the madness!!

[Thaatu]

I plan to do a summation in a few weeks (hopefully less), but be warned it will be mostly from my point of view. I will post what others say contrary but there is a possibility that I could miss some relevant material from others perspectives. I do suppose though that said material will be brought to my attention from others.
I'd appreciate that very much. All this is just too much for my poor brain. :2thumbsup:

[Power2the1]

Maybe I'm reading to much into what your saying but the Celts would not just go out and attack, they weighed the consequences of their decisions(could they win). They did back down plenty of times as did most people when fighting superior forces(either in number or skill). There are times when they felt insulted by the Romans but didn't do anything about it, or it took many years to do so.

Right, I am not referring to blind fury knee jerk attacks seconds after the insult or injury.





Up to and during Caesar's time these things still happened, you still had Celts making challenges and etc. The main change was that most of the nobility (elites) were mounted, i.e. became cavalry.

Venceslas Kruta-"The Celts"-"Recruited from the ranks of the warrior nobility, from about 250BCE onwards the cavalry totally replace the war-chariots that had previously constituted the war-chariots that had previously constituted the shock troops of Celtic armies. They became the elite permanent corps of the city-states, formes and maintained by the aristocrats who governed them. The cavalry's essential role in battle is especially well illustrated in Julius Caesar's Gallic wars." pg.110


Stephen Allen-"Lords of Battle, the World of the Celtic Warrior"-"The change in emphasis from skirmishing with javelins to shock tactics using a spear and long sword can be detected in Caesar's description of the cavalry engagements during his campaigns in Gaul. By this period, the elite Gallic warriors who provided the urban aristocracies with their armed retainers were almost entirely cavalry, armed with spear and long slashing sword, protected by an iron helmet and mailshirt, and mounted on a larger horse capable of bearing the weight of the rider and his equipment. To the Romans, they were the equivalent of their own 'knightly' class, the equites." pg.132




I have a problem with accepting this.

For example, I do not recall Caesar never mentioned fighting the Celtic professional cavalry or anything of the sort when he fought the Helvetii. In fact, his whole account of the battle mentions infantry engagments.

In the battle against the Nervii (which was not really involved in the Arverni/Aedui Civil War, therefor should have been left rather in tact overall), no cavalry is mentioned either by Caesar. When Quintus Cicero fought the Nervii, the cavalry was mentioned as skirmishing with the Roman for a few days prior to the battle. Later in the book, Caesar reveals that the Nervii were intentionally weak in cavalry because they preferred to fight on foot.

No doubt there was cavalry in plenty of battles, but if the Celts revamped their nobility to fighting on horse and not foot, as one of your sources claims happened, there either was a vast shortage of horses in Gaul, or nobility to fight upon them.

Celtic Cavalry in any great numbers confronted by Caesar, is mentioned in one section of the book, the section dealing with Vercingetorix, once basically all tribes in Gaul joined with him. The beginning and middle of the War Celtic cavalry is seldom mentioned if at all. Caesar never mentions that cavalry engagement was made of Celtic professional horsemen or nobility or anything out of the ordinary. I am under the conclusion that, again, by this time, there was nobility fighting, perhaps all on horseback, for Vercingetorix, but, because of their small numbers at this time, the overwhelming majority of Vercingetorix's cavalry would have been made of "lesser" horsemen of varying degree of skill.

[Frostwulf]

I have a problem with accepting this.

For example, I do not recall Caesar never mentioned fighting the Celtic professional cavalry or anything of the sort when he fought the Helvetii. In fact, his whole account of the battle mentions infantry engagments.


Next day the Helvetii struck camp. Caesar did likewise and sent all his cavalry, 4,000 men whom he had raised from the whole Province, the Aedui, and their allies, to reconnoiter the enemy's march. In their excessive eagerness to harass the enemy's rear, they engaged the Helvetian cavalry on unfavorable ground and suffered a few casualties. The Helvetians, elated at having repulsed so large a body of cavalry with but 500 men, began to make halts, when their rear guard would attempt to provoke a battle." Book 1, 15 Caesar-"The Gallic War"
Later on we find out that Caesar's cavalry were "duped" into retreating.


In the battle against the Nervii (which was not really involved in the Arverni/Aedui Civil War, therefor should have been left rather in tact overall), no cavalry is mentioned either by Caesar. When Quintus Cicero fought the Nervii, the cavalry was mentioned as skirmishing with the Roman for a few days prior to the battle. Later in the book, Caesar reveals that the Nervii were intentionally weak in cavalry because they preferred to fight on foot.

Caesar had sent his cavalry ahead and was following with all his forces; but the arrangement of his column was different from what the Belgae had reported to the Nervii. Caesar followed his usual practice when approaching an enemy and advanced with six legions light-armed; behind them was the baggage of the whole army, and then the two legions most recently recruited closed the line and formed a guard for the baggage. Our cavalry, with slingers and archers, crossed the river and engaged the enemy cavalry. Book 2,19 Caesar-"The Gallic War"
To my knowledge the Nervii had little cavalry but they did have them.

No doubt there was cavalry in plenty of battles, but if the Celts revamped their nobility to fighting on horse and not foot, as one of your sources claims happened, there either was a vast shortage of horses in Gaul, or nobility to fight upon them.

Here is a link to some of the authors I used on the situation of the Gallic cavalry.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1656696&postcount=219


Celtic Cavalry in any great numbers confronted by Caesar, is mentioned in one section of the book, the section dealing with Vercingetorix, once basically all tribes in Gaul joined with him. The beginning and middle of the War Celtic cavalry is seldom mentioned if at all. Caesar never mentions that cavalry engagement was made of Celtic professional horsemen or nobility or anything out of the ordinary. I am under the conclusion that, again, by this time, there was nobility fighting, perhaps all on horseback, for Vercingetorix, but, because of their small numbers at this time, the overwhelming majority of Vercingetorix's cavalry would have been made of "lesser" horsemen of varying degree of skill.
Throughout Caesars "The Gallic War" he mentions in one way or another the cavalry of the Remi,Arverni,Menapii,Treveri,Aedui etc.
Also look at this link as well as the link above for the Celtic cavalry:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1578793&postcount=37

[Power2the1]

Later on we find out that Caesar's cavalry were "duped" into retreating.



To my knowledge the Nervii had little cavalry but they did have them.

Here is a link to some of the authors I used on the situation of the Gallic cavalry.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1656696&postcount=219


Throughout Caesars "The Gallic War" he mentions in one way or another the cavalry of the Remi,Arverni,Menapii,Treveri,Aedui etc.
Also look at this link as well as the link above for the Celtic cavalry:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1578793&postcount=37



Yes, the Nervii, Remi, Arverni, Menapii, Treverii, Aedui all had cavarly, every tribe must had had some, but theres no mention from Caesars many battles of all the Gauls having all their existing nobility all on horse all the time at this period. Nervii preferred to fight on foot as Caesar mentions, not on horseback. I do not believe they were the only tribe in Gaul that did this. Theres a high probability that there were plenty of other tribes that did not adopt the notion of "nobility on horseback, non nobility on foot."

The Helvetii reference I missed, so good eyes on your part. However, theres no details on that cavalry being made up of Celtic nobility or anything mentioning their professional training or high skill.

Caesar does not mention every cavalry engagement as being all nobility as your source claims the Celts all used at this time. Like I said before, until Vercingetorix came on the scene, the details on the horsemen were next to nonexistent, so they must not have been highly trained nobility but overwhelmingly horsemen of lesser skill, despite many of them having some better weapons than pitchforks, leather skins and spears.

If Caesar goes so far to mention details of peasants and detail about mundane corn aquisitions, it stands to reason he'd mention what battle he faced off against elite Celtic cavalry *or* if the Celtic cavalry was all mounted nobility. He mentions the 600 Soldurii, but not countless hordes of elite horsemen showing up in his many battles? Something doesn't add up.


https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1578793&postcount=37
In that link above, the Celtic cavalry was mentioned as being basically identical in appearance and the Roman auxiliary had to bear a shoulder to distinguish friend from foe. It also mentions Vercingetorix had about 15,000 cavalry at his disposal. Lets say the 15,000 were raw, bona fide nobility of the highest order (although its very unlikely that they were all nobility on horse). Its agreed that all Gaul was more or less united behind him. How many tribes could that have been, and allies, tributaries, all sending their best to his command? I do not see 15,000 as being a showable display of professional horsemen. Of course every tribe did not send 100% of their nobles, but regardless, only 15,000 nobles left existing in all Gaul? Again, something does not add up, theres a shortage in elite fighters somewhere.

The Celts, in the Po Valley especially, always seemed to be launching invasions into Italy. One classical author (I forget who) mentions the Celts were a very fecund race (meaning they always are reproducing, theres many of them all the time from this), so they always replace their losses and always seems to have high numbers. Gaul was such a place that was very able to sustain vast numbers of people, and this would include nobles. Between the Civil War and to a lesser extent battles with their own external enemies before the Roman invasion, the best fighters in that period were killed off, leaving too few to face the Romans of a more equal footing. Blame the Northern European "barbarian tribal tactic" of constantly fighting with everything and everyone-constantly. Keep this up long enough (Huge losses In Civil War or ones as Ariovistus mention he dealt the Celts in a huge battle) and you might see my point. If all this, especially the ongoing Civil War with the Aedui and Arveni, and their many sub tribes and allies continually going at it, and its kept up long enough and severe enough, it really does not matter how fecund and, pardon the term, "Zerglike," your race is. Your best fighters will be eliminated first.

Perhaps we should agree to politely disagree on some points, of which many of yours hold up to the highest merit and reasoning based on what we know of the time period, but, I guess my overall main point on the matter is that the lack of mounted professional, foot bound professional forces, or any manner of elite forces in Gaul, at the time, is severely lacking. I find it unconvincing that a fertile, supposedly rich land, would have few elites residing within. There should have been plenty of elites on foot (or horse) to throw at Caesar when the time came. The losses of the ongoing Civil War practically eroded their chances...

[NeoSpartan]

:wall:

come one guys reread a couple pages back. This is turing to the same story different author. :whip:

[PershsNhpios]

We are gathered here today to witness the passing of a well-beloved, controversial spirit of our community.
She was birthed by our friend and colleague, Mr. Sweboz Gastiz, who, in his unconscious curiousity - which none of us could check - allowed rise to a somewhat demonic, unholy, warmongering creature that did threaten to outlive us all.

It grew amongst our ranks, and examined us each as individuals.
And when it understood our minds, and our ambitions, it turned us all against one another in a fit of prolonged madness and rebellion.

Very few escaped the terrible web of malicious argument that encumbered it's victims, it forced them into deeds of resentment against their fellow men.
Corrupted their hearts with ignorance - and foul attitude!

When it's siblings has perished, and it began to grow old, it's trickery not so common and voracious as before, it's grip began to lessen upon the souls of those it captured.

On this day, when I noticed it's features unmoving, and it's evils stagnant, I saw fit to give this opportunity to our people - that we may again live in virtue and maybe our scars may heal!

I would of cremated the terribly damned thing, but I dared not touch it's body for fear it would find a hold upon me too!

However, I think even if this thing was burnt to ashes of fine and crisp physicality, no book in the world of religion could abide the darkness and sinful aggressiveness within this creature.



So quickly - 'fore it's chest allows another breath to animate it's destruction once more - help me with shovel or with bare hands, bury this accursed anti-christ beneath the layers of the Earth before it possesses another undeserving human being!

[JMRC]

We are gathered here today to witness the passing of a well-beloved, controversial spirit of our community.
She was birthed by our friend and colleague, Mr. Sweboz Gastiz, who, in his unconscious curiousity - which none of us could check - allowed rise to a somewhat demonic, unholy, warmongering creature that did threaten to outlive us all.

It grew amongst our ranks, and examined us each as individuals.
And when it understood our minds, and our ambitions, it turned us all against one another in a fit of prolonged madness and rebellion.

Very few escaped the terrible web of malicious argument that encumbered it's victims, it forced them into deeds of resentment against their fellow men.
Corrupted their hearts with ignorance - and foul attitude!

When it's siblings has perished, and it began to grow old, it's trickery not so common and voracious as before, it's grip began to lessen upon the souls of those it captured.

On this day, when I noticed it's features unmoving, and it's evils stagnant, I saw fit to give this opportunity to our people - that we may again live in virtue and maybe our scars may heal!

I would of cremated the terribly damned thing, but I dared not touch it's body for fear it would find a hold upon me too!

However, I think even if this thing was burnt to ashes of fine and crisp physicality, no book in the world of religion could abide the darkness and sinful aggressiveness within this creature.

So quickly - 'fore it's chest allows another breath to animate it's destruction once more - help me with shovel or with bare hands, bury this accursed anti-christ beneath the layers of the Earth before it possesses another undeserving human being!

Awesome intervention! :laugh4:

I think this discussion is already far off-topic and I really think that the "contenders" should create a new thread instead of continuing to renew this one.

There have been many changes to the units' stats (celtic and otherwise) in EB 1.0 and the thread's name mislead us to think that the celtic warriors are still overpowered.

If you still think they are overpowered, then, by all means, keep up with the discussion (which is interesting btw :yes: )

[Watchman]

Well, a few of them have minor stat gaffes (like those lighter Alpine phalanx guys who had around two points too much armour by mistake), but that's about as far as it goes with "overpowered".

But hey, WIP. Stuff always slips through.

[runes]

yea, seriously, vehemently compaining about something which is basically user-controlled and user-submitted is kinda ridiculous. this is mod, and a mod community. this isn't something given to us as is, with no room for feedback or suggestions.

[blitzkrieg80]

If Caesar goes so far to mention details of peasants and detail about mundane corn aquisitions, it stands to reason he'd mention what battle he faced off against elite Celtic cavalry *or* if the Celtic cavalry was all mounted nobility. He mentions the 600 Soldurii, but not countless hordes of elite horsemen showing up in his many battles? Something doesn't add up.

talkabout tailoring your interpretation, so first Caesar doesn't talk about a complete lack of nobility because he wanted his own people to think he's great, then he is, all of a sudden, completely honest and candid?! and would have definitely mentioned if the nobility was a certain way? this is totally contradictory- either Caesar used his writings as biased propoganda (yes) or he was factual and objective, but you don't get it both ways: using this convenient logic, you can explain that Caesar was descendant from Hector, because they don't say it in true geneology because they don't want to give him credit, but then they do say the truth when it comes to mythology and legend :inquisitive:

just because Caesar is the only source for the time period, that doesn't make a single thing true. I suppose we should believe that Alexander really encounted UFOs at Tyre!

[Frostwulf]

Yes, the Nervii, Remi, Arverni, Menapii, Treverii, Aedui all had cavarly, every tribe must had had some, but theres no mention from Caesars many battles of all the Gauls having all their existing nobility all on horse all the time at this period. Nervii preferred to fight on foot as Caesar mentions, not on horseback. I do not believe they were the only tribe in Gaul that did this. Theres a high probability that there were plenty of other tribes that did not adopt the notion of "nobility on horseback, non nobility on foot."

Not all the nobility was mounted, the majority were. The Nervii had no dealings with the supposed "Devastating Civil War" yet he doesn't mention anything about the nobility among them. Caesar doesn't mention allot of things but that doesn't mean that they were not there. The Nervii and other Belgae had nobility but Caesar may mention the leader of the tribe but doesn't mention any others.

The Helvetii reference I missed, so good eyes on your part. However, theres no details on that cavalry being made up of Celtic nobility or anything mentioning their professional training or high skill.
All he says of the Helvetii was that they were skilled, he doesn't differentiate between cavalry or footmen when he says this.


Caesar does not mention every cavalry engagement as being all nobility as your source claims the Celts all used at this time. Like I said before, until Vercingetorix came on the scene, the details on the horsemen were next to nonexistent, so they must not have been highly trained nobility but overwhelmingly horsemen of lesser skill, despite many of them having some better weapons than pitchforks, leather skins and spears.

Because Caesar doesn't mention the details of the cavalry means they were not highly trained? It was known that the Gallic cavalry were very good, thats why Caesar raised them. Most of Caesars readers would have been aware of situations and would not have needed the details. Caesar doesn't go into the arms and armor of his troops because he knows his readers know about them.


If Caesar goes so far to mention details of peasants and detail about mundane corn aquisitions, it stands to reason he'd mention what battle he faced off against elite Celtic cavalry *or* if the Celtic cavalry was all mounted nobility. He mentions the 600 Soldurii, but not countless hordes of elite horsemen showing up in his many battles? Something doesn't add up.

He mentions the corn to finish his story of what was going to happen to the Helvetii and how he took "care" of them. Does Caesar mention the type of food he and his soldiers ate? Are we to assume that they didn't eat because it wasn't mentioned? What were the arms and armor of the Soldurii? Are we to assume because Caesar didn't mention what arms and armor they had that the Soldurii were inexperienced levy's?

In that link above, the Celtic cavalry was mentioned as being basically identical in appearance and the Roman auxiliary had to bear a shoulder to distinguish friend from foe. It also mentions Vercingetorix had about 15,000 cavalry at his disposal. Lets say the 15,000 were raw, bona fide nobility of the highest order (although its very unlikely that they were all nobility on horse). Its agreed that all Gaul was more or less united behind him. How many tribes could that have been, and allies, tributaries, all sending their best to his command? I do not see 15,000 as being a showable display of professional horsemen. Of course every tribe did not send 100% of their nobles, but regardless, only 15,000 nobles left existing in all Gaul? Again, something does not add up, theres a shortage in elite fighters somewhere.

The mustering of Celts would take along time. They did get a sizable force for the amount of time they had. Among the 250,000(I'm sure this is an exaggerated figure) how many of them were nobility? Caesar mentions the Soldurii, but what about others, just because he doesn't mention them doesn't mean they were not there. When he battles Ariovistus he doesn't go into detail about them much, are we to assume they didn't have nobles or elite amongst them?

The Celts, in the Po Valley especially, always seemed to be launching invasions into Italy. One classical author (I forget who) mentions the Celts were a very fecund race (meaning they always are reproducing, theres many of them all the time from this), so they always replace their losses and always seems to have high numbers. Gaul was such a place that was very able to sustain vast numbers of people, and this would include nobles. Between the Civil War and to a lesser extent battles with their own external enemies before the Roman invasion, the best fighters in that period were killed off, leaving too few to face the Romans of a more equal footing. Blame the Northern European "barbarian tribal tactic" of constantly fighting with everything and everyone-constantly. Keep this up long enough (Huge losses In Civil War or ones as Ariovistus mention he dealt the Celts in a huge battle) and you might see my point. If all this, especially the ongoing Civil War with the Aedui and Arveni, and their many sub tribes and allies continually going at it, and its kept up long enough and severe enough, it really does not matter how fecund and, pardon the term, "Zerglike," your race is. Your best fighters will be eliminated first.Most of the Belgae were not involved in this supposed "Devastating Civil War" yet Caesar doesn't mention much about the nobility. I understand the theory behind what your saying but the historians I have been reading say contrary to this. It seems to me that your basing this theory on the lack of information provided by Caesar. Have you read anything on this that supports your view? If so please put it down, I haven't as yet found anything that supports the supposed "Devastating Civil War".

[Watchman]

Aren't you forgetting the bit (helpfully quoted by someone) where Caesar talks about the Arverni, Aedui and some other major tribe (at the least) having had a major war of supremacy, with Ariovist and his boys having been brought in to break the stalemate that existed or had developed between the sides - and the German mercenaries then developing funny ambitious ideas of their own and turning on their erstwhile employers ?

If you ask me that speaks of a fairly severe level of conflict that cannot have done good for the numbers of capable Gallic soldiery available, given that the defeat of whoever it now was who ended up losing was doubtless rather bloody, and the way Ariovist could run amuck on his onetime allies and employers (and defeating a coalition gathered to get rid of him piecemeal on the side) doesn't exactly suggest the losses were being made good very swiftly. Enter Caesar and the additional drain he brought on the manpower pool (both through recruiting and enlisting, and as battle casualties both for and against) and I don't really see where exactly the major Gallic powers would have had ample opportunity to regenerate their pool of fully competent fighting men, doubly so given the somewhat time-consuming nature of the process in the Celtic "heroic" system.


All he says of the Helvetii was that they were skilled, he doesn't differentiate between cavalry or footmen when he says this.Fair enough, but I think we can safely assume the Alps did not produce great numbers of capable horse. Unlike some other highland regions that area has AFAIK never been very good "horse country".

[NeoSpartan]

..... I don't really see where exactly the major Gallic powers would have had ample opportunity to regenerate their pool of fully competent fighting men, doubly so given the somewhat time-consuming nature of the process in the Celtic "heroic" system.

....
(to continue WatchITman, I mean, Watchman)

.....AND the disunited nature of Gaul itself which was NOT a "state" like Rome, AS, Carthege, etc. Rather a geographical area made up of independent and temporarily subjected tribes.

[NeoSpartan]

DANG IT!!!! :wall: u fellas had me posting again here. Repeating WHAT WAS SAID BEFORE:wall:

fellas... play the game .81x IS NOT 1.0. :yes:

[Megas Methuselah]

Someone has to close this thread...
:uneasy:

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Why the hell?! If nothing, I noted down a heap of bibliography to get and read. :book2:

You don't want to see the thread? Then why reading it?
.

[SaFe]

I never thought i will say this, but i really think it should be enough.
Frostwulf quotes time and time again well respected authors. On the other hand we have Psycho, who never came up with actual sources that supports his claims about devasting gallic civil wars save his own assumptions.
Well, although even the authors like Goldsworthy and Speidel couldn't agree on the numbers of gauls and germanics that fought against each other or the romans they all support Frostwulf much more than Psycho and now Power 2 the 1 who stepped in.
I think we should rather go with the well known and up to date authors Frostwulf based his posts on than Psycho (who stands rather alone when asking writers and authors educated in the celtic, roman and germanic affairs)
Speidel, Goldsworthy and others would rip Psycho's argumentation apart as Frostwulf already had. Sad that they have better to do than posting in this forum:dizzy2:

B.t.w. talking about civil wars:
The Hermunduri and the Chatti fought a few decades later a very nasty war(no raiding or similar activities but a real war) about salt mines and the chattii lost, but could still put up quite a lot resistance to the conquering romans in the so called chatti wars. This war between the two germanic tribes was so bitterly fought that both tribes sworn to give all of the enmeies and their loot to the gods as sacrifice(Teutoni, Ambroni and Cimbri did the same a few decades earlier).
This is what i call devasting for a tribe!

[Thaatu]

Someone has to close this thread...
:uneasy:
Don't worry, the discussion is pretty calm here and hasn't lead to any serious personal attacks. The only negative thing is that a new visitor may think that Celts are actually overpowered, just by glancing at the title. But still NeoSpartan, don't blow your head for this. Sometimes a scholarly duel is harder to break than a soccer riot.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
In 1.0 the fearsome Gaesatae are...well, not fearsome! :laugh4: I fought them a few times with my second rate inexperienced Iberian troops and there are numberless cut off...trunks all over the battlefield. :elephant:
.

[Jaywalker-Jack]

For the Germans go here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1682667&postcount=243

Power2the1,Johnny5 and cmacq if any of you or any one else out there have any information pertaining to the supposed "Devastating Civil War" could you please post were you received this information from. I don't care if its a web site, article,book, whatever source it is please post it here.

The Celts and what not is my subject in college and Ive never heard of this "devastating civil war" everyone's talking about, so Im with you there.

On the reversal of Celtic expansion in southern Germany - well, the area was one of the first regions to be occupied by Celts, and the later waves of Celtic expansion would come in part from there. From linguistics and archaeology we know the Celts moved, in large numbers, all over Europe. By the time of the migrations of the likes of the Cimbri and Teutones, Germanic tribes arriving in what is now southern Germany greatly outnumbered the Celts still living there and naturaly enough their culture absorbed this smaller native group. Were not talking about the tougher guys coming in and pushing the weaker ones out, were talking about a large population movement resulting in cultural shift.

Just on your point about Gallic tribes boasting of German heritage - this does not necessarily infer German ethnicity, but rather an origin in the German region ie east of the Rhine. (Not that theres anything wrong with being German.) I'll get back to you on where I read that, cant remember the author at the minute.

On your many references to the Romans decisively beating the Celts - A very important thing to remember about the Roman invasion of Gaul is that the vast majority of the Gallic warriors involved were just ordinary farmers desperately trying to defend themselves and their homes from a foreign invader. They were not a professional force, like the legions sent to destroy them. There is a very misled notion that the entire male population of Gaul were all warriors, which was of course not the case.
Although I dont subscribe to this civil war theory, it is a fact that Gaul was fragmented politicaly - the great weakness of all Celtic nations through history. The Romans could play one tribe off against another to their advantage - divide and conquer. When the Gauls finally united under Arverni leadership it was already too late.

Why were the Romans so unsuccesful in their incursions into Germania then? There was a fundamental difference between Gaul and Germania (one that EB cant accurately represent) - Gaul had settled, developed power structures - Germania for the most part did not. The Romans could conquer a Celtic oppida, and they would then control the region that opidda had controlled. There were no such power nodes in Germania, the Romans would have to build them from the ground up, in hostile territory.

You are obviously well read and passionate about the subject, but maybe a little too passionate. You insist Germanic peoples were more vigorous, or more valorous and so on - I dont get it. The ancient Celts and Germans were really very similar afterall, and made war in a very similar fashion.

To come back to the root of the debate, I havnt really looked at the difference in stats (because I dont think its that big a deal) but if the Sweboz really are that far behind the Celtic factions, maybe they should be brought up to par with them.

[Maksimus]

The Celts and what not is my subject in college and Ive never heard of this "devastating civil war" everyone's talking about, so Im with you there.

On the reversal of Celtic expansion in southern Germany - well, the area was one of the first regions to be occupied by Celts, and the later waves of Celtic expansion would come in part from there. From linguistics and archaeology we know the Celts moved, in large numbers, all over Europe. By the time of the migrations of the likes of the Cimbri and Teutones, Germanic tribes arriving in what is now southern Germany greatly outnumbered the Celts still living there and naturaly enough their culture absorbed this smaller native group. Were not talking about the tougher guys coming in and pushing the weaker ones out, were talking about a large population movement resulting in cultural shift.

Just on your point about Gallic tribes boasting of German heritage - this does not necessarily infer German ethnicity, but rather an origin in the German region ie east of the Rhine. (Not that theres anything wrong with being German.) I'll get back to you on where I read that, cant remember the author at the minute.

On your many references to the Romans decisively beating the Celts - A very important thing to remember about the Roman invasion of Gaul is that the vast majority of the Gallic warriors involved were just ordinary farmers desperately trying to defend themselves and their homes from a foreign invader. They were not a professional force, like the legions sent to destroy them. There is a very misled notion that the entire male population of Gaul were all warriors, which was of course not the case.
Although I dont subscribe to this civil war theory, it is a fact that Gaul was fragmented politicaly - the great weakness of all Celtic nations through history. The Romans could play one tribe off against another to their advantage - divide and conquer. When the Gauls finally united under Arverni leadership it was already too late.

Why were the Romans so unsuccesful in their incursions into Germania then? There was a fundamental difference between Gaul and Germania (one that EB cant accurately represent) - Gaul had settled, developed power structures - Germania for the most part did not. The Romans could conquer a Celtic oppida, and they would then control the region that opidda had controlled. There were no such power nodes in Germania, the Romans would have to build them from the ground up, in hostile territory.

You are obviously well read and passionate about the subject, but maybe a little too passionate. You insist Germanic peoples were more vigorous, or more valorous and so on - I dont get it. The ancient Celts and Germans were really very similar afterall, and made war in a very similar fashion.

To come back to the root of the debate, I havnt really looked at the difference in stats (because I dont think its that big a deal) but if the Sweboz really are that far behind the Celtic factions, maybe they should be brought up to par with them.

Some EB fans or we can say 'people' here are debating Celt-Germania issues.. that you already mentioned..

But ones like me were wondering (or asking actually) why are some - or 'most' - Celtic units (ok, with or without Galatians) powerfull enough to address the best Hellenic or Roman Units.. - offcourse it could be clear that EB team sources are - 'what they are' - their sources.. But they did not answer as they should to a contra questions - 'What do you think what quotas would Italian or Greek Historians give in this debates?'

I remmember that someone debated at me because I said that

:''If Celts are powerfull as they are, why are there no bonuses for civilised factions - like less casulties due to their medic like in Roman armies'' - no, they just typed that Celts invented soap and that basiclly it is a good sign that no Romans or Greeks were ahead of barb factions at all..?? I am still doubting that (as I do also for some high defence skill for many Celts units and a Command atribute)

[lobf]

For students of history, I'm surprised so many of you refer to Nations as if one can be held up to another as "better" or "worse" or "weaker" or "stronger". The success of a culture or nation is dependent not on genes but geographic location at the most fundamental level, which in turn effects their skill in politics, their ability to raise large populations, field large, well supplied armies, etc. I mean, humans are all born the same, they always have been, and will bve for a long time. What makes us distinct is our surroundings.

[Jaywalker-Jack]

Some EB fans or we can say 'people' here are debating Celt-Germania issues.. that you already mentioned..

But ones like me were wondering (or asking actually) why are some - or 'most' - Celtic units (ok, with or without Galatians) powerfull enough to address the best Hellenic or Roman Units.. - offcourse it could be clear that EB team sources are - 'what they are' - their sources.. But they did not answer as they should to a contra questions - 'What do you think what quotas would Italian or Greek Historians give in this debates?'

I remmember that someone debated at me because I said that

:''If Celts are powerfull as they are, why are there no bonuses for civilised factions - like less casulties due to their medic like in Roman armies'' - no, they just typed that Celts invented soap and that basiclly it is a good sign that no Romans or Greeks were ahead of barb factions at all..?? I am still doubting that (as I do also for some high defence skill for many Celts units and a Command atribute)

I dont see how the medical knowledge the Greeks or Romans possesed would have any effect on the course of a battle. It would help the wounded recover after a battle, but how would it make them any less vulnerable during fighting?

There is a good argument for giving Celtic units a high defence attribute - and that is the Celts historicaly used good quality weapons and armour, on par with or better than equivalents used in Italy and the Greek world.

[Jaywalker-Jack]

For students of history, I'm surprised so many of you refer to Nations as if one can be held up to another as "better" or "worse" or "weaker" or "stronger". The success of a culture or nation is dependent not on genes but geographic location at the most fundamental level, which in turn effects their skill in politics, their ability to raise large populations, field large, well supplied armies, etc. I mean, humans are all born the same, they always have been, and will bve for a long time. What makes us distinct is our surroundings.

I agree completely, but I would also add there are capable and incompetent, good and bad in any given group of people. Which of these makes the decisions for that group will determine how well they use the resources available to them eg a less competent Roman senate wouldnt have taken on the challenge of building a fleet to beat Carthage, and so gone on to loose the Punic wars.

[NeoSpartan]

....
To come back to the root of the debate, I havnt really looked at the difference in stats (because I dont think its that big a deal) but if the Sweboz really are that far behind the Celtic factions, maybe they should be brought up to par with them.

BUT the funny thing is... THE CELTS ARE NOT OVERPOWERED!!!!

Heck, look at the stats, the cost, the AP attacks, the new units, AND the way the units ACTUALLY preform in battle. (which I can guarntee you nobody save the EB team has done). Btw... only Costume and MP battles count SP doesn't if it did then EVERYONE, save my faction, would be underpowered :laugh4:

Additonaly...This thread is OLD, back when .81x was around, and EVEN THEM the Sweboz were NOT underpowered. As I played with them in MP and they preform pretty good for a faction which only had a medium cavarly at the time. NOW, in EB 1.0 yeah its true the Celts got some AP mofo's, some new long swords mofo's, some new cheap wannabeGaesate, etc... BUT the Sweboz ALSO got some really sweet & tough mofo's too. :yes:

So are the Celts overpowered???? HELLS NO! Disagree??? Play the Game and u will see. :smash:

---------------------------------------------------------
BTW... this thread should be RENAMED to:
-Gallic Civil War????
or something like that.

And YES my man PSYCHO V is correct about a rather nasty civil war, because... why would then the Gauls need to hire so many Germanic Mercs, and why the Aedui need call up Ceasar. And why the in the heck are the Gallic tribes UNABLE to come up with large numbers of decent fighting men, and have to rely on regular folk pressed into fight, etc, etc :book:

[Megas Methuselah]

that's right.

[PershsNhpios]

Stricken mortals of this world behold!
Twelve feet of rock and silt were not enough to bury the satanic lust for aggression and contempt that this leviathan craves!

Oh young lords of this age, if only you could see how it strangles the life and credibility from your lips the words they vomit forth like crevasses of Loki.

I call upon you then, my great God, possess my spirit as this thread of curses hath possessed theirs, that they may hear your wisdom - and far deeper understanding of the events that disperse here!

Gaaaargh!

--

Would you mind relinquishing your sacreligious continuance against reality and logic?
Like heathens, you are burning each other at the stake and proclaiming each other heretics over the statistics of a computer game.
In truth, you have been warring so long over this that you have forgotten it is an argument over the tiny on-screen 3D models and their performance against other similar works.

I very much doubt they have the diverse, unpredictable nature of actual human beings, and therefore cannot be held in the same number as say, an army of sixty-thousand Helvetii from antiquity.

Therefore, in the eyes of the Lord - you are all very silly.

God.

[Thaatu]

But ones like me were wondering (or asking actually) why are some - or 'most' - Celtic units (ok, with or without Galatians) powerfull enough to address the best Hellenic or Roman Units.. - offcourse it could be clear that EB team sources are - 'what they are' - their sources.. But they did not answer as they should to a contra questions - 'What do you think what quotas would Italian or Greek Historians give in this debates?'
162 Classical Hoplites beat 242 Gaeroas with 103 casualties 214 kills.
162 Classical Hoplites beat 202 Bataroas with 103 casualties 157 kills.
162 Classical Hoplites beat 240 Galatikoi Kluddolon with 74 casualties 217 kills.
162 Classical Hoplites beat 202 Botroas with 86 casualties 175 kills.
162 Classical Hoplites beat 200 Uirodusios with 117 casualties 173 kills.
162 Classical Hoplites beat 120 Pictone Neitos with 106 casualties 111 kills
162 Classical Hoplites beat 162 Milnaht with 134 casualties 152 kills.
162 Classical Hoplites lost to 162 Neitos with 152 casualties 52 kills.

These "most Celtic units" you speak of... Where are they? Hoplites just happen to be the backbone of KH, not even the elite, still they beat 'most' Celtic units, with the exception of Neitos and Gaesatae.

I even tried your example of Gaesatae beating Argyraspidai. 242 Argyraspidai beat 121 Galatikoi Tindanotae with 180 casualties and 108 kills. That wasn't even a fair fight, with the Galatian captain single-handedly killing 93 Silver Shields (captains' stats are hardcoded). You really should test before complaining.

[NeoSpartan]

THANK YOU THAATU!!!


btw for future tests...

In order to avoid the "captain effect" have the AI's captain be a crappy archers and ur captain be a decent medium FAST cavarly (like prodromoi or luges epos).
-WIth the cavarly make the archers retreat and then kill them FAR from the main battle/tests.
-LEAVE the cavarly far away otherwise you'll give the AI's troops a morale hit due to "having flanks exposed".
-u could also make ur cavarly retreat the battle.

[Maksimus]

162 Classical Hoplites beat 242 Gaeroas with 103 casualties 214 kills.
162 Classical Hoplites beat 202 Bataroas with 103 casualties 157 kills.
162 Classical Hoplites beat 240 Galatikoi Kluddolon with 74 casualties 217 kills.
162 Classical Hoplites beat 202 Botroas with 86 casualties 175 kills.
162 Classical Hoplites beat 200 Uirodusios with 117 casualties 173 kills.
162 Classical Hoplites beat 120 Pictone Neitos with 106 casualties 111 kills
162 Classical Hoplites beat 162 Milnaht with 134 casualties 152 kills.
162 Classical Hoplites lost to 162 Neitos with 152 casualties 52 kills.

These "most Celtic units" you speak of... Where are they? Hoplites just happen to be the backbone of KH, not even the elite, still they beat 'most' Celtic units, with the exception of Neitos and Gaesatae.

I even tried your example of Gaesatae beating Argyraspidai. 242 Argyraspidai beat 121 Galatikoi Tindanotae with 180 casualties and 108 kills. That wasn't even a fair fight, with the Galatian captain single-handedly killing 93 Silver Shields (captains' stats are hardcoded). You really should test before complaining.

Were you using VH or Medium diffculty? I was realy refering to VH, and, you know, Classical Hoplites are very nice unit, and realy rare in my Macedon campaign. . most of units I use are Native Phalanx, but, ok, did you see my post about command atribute? and you agree? realy? If so, I have no comment, and I will add again
- I HAVE NO PROBS BEATING THE CELTS -
It is because I use tactics all the time - I play on VH and I never loose a battle and I heve reached Italy-Germania-Scythia.. Aegypt-Seleucia..
I was just wondering around and the command atribute is one that is just to much for me .. they could have just make some casse units stronger and by that make them heroes..

[Bonny]

I was just wondering around and the command atribute is one that is just to much for me .. they could have just make some casse units stronger and by that make them heroes..

the idea behind this:

all normal casse units have lesser morale than their respective counterpart of other factions, which makes them more likely get defeated by any other faction. The champions should be used to fight alongside the normal units, in order to bolster the low morale they have the command attribute. This allows for some new tactics different to other factions (even celtic ones) adding a unique feature to the casse.



Were you using VH or Medium diffculty?

this makes no difference in costum battle, the stat bonus for VH and H is applied to both the ai and the player

[Maksimus]

I don't like that idea much, or the history part of 'casse hero cult' - like no one else would deserve such an atrubute (like no other faction deserve it) it is one sort of very nice 'chosen' source (maybe a group of authors) that would confirm facts of the EB creators (and I am sure that there are second views there)..
(In my history classes I had the same lectures for Illyrians and their hero cult)

But, you know what - it is their mod - they can do anything they like, and if adding that atribute should 'fix' what can not be fixed - the fact (if I understood well) that casse are the weakest and that
'it should bring stats in some deasent level so casse would not loose alot'

Well.. then, maybe casse should be replased with some faction of India or Pergamum..

My view

sorry for bringing this up again, be well!

[Frostwulf]

Aren't you forgetting the bit (helpfully quoted by someone) where Caesar talks about the Arverni, Aedui and some other major tribe (at the least) having had a major war of supremacy, with Ariovist and his boys having been brought in to break the stalemate that existed or had developed between the sides - and the German mercenaries then developing funny ambitious ideas of their own and turning on their erstwhile employers ?
The Sequani is the other and this is a valid point, here is what Caesar says.

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"Their spokesman was Diviciacus. "Gaul as a whole," he said, is divided into two factions, headed respectively by the Aedui and the Arverni. The two had bitterly contested the supremacy for many years, until the Arverni and the Sequani hired the Germans. At first some 15,000 of the savage barbarians crossed the Rhine, but when they had fallen in love with Gallic farming and civilization and abundance they brought more over, until now there are 120,000 of them in Gaul. The Aedui and their dependents have fought them repeatedly, but we have been disastrously defeated and have lost all our nobility, all our senate, all our knighthood. It is these disastrous defeats that have shattered a power which our courage and our alliance with Rome once made paramount in Gaul. We have been compelled to surrender our leading personages to the Sequani as hostages and to engage our commonwealth on oath not to ask our hostages back or to solicit assistance from Rome but remain submissive forever to their sovereign dictates." Book 1,31

No major war mentioned, just they had bitterly contested for supremacy. If you read others(Cicero is one I believe) it talks of the source of the dispute being a trade route, and the term they use is dispute.

Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier"-"The delegation's task was made more difficult by the outbreak of fighting between the Aedui and the Sequani, both amici populi romani. This was undoubtedly brought about by the continuing dispute over the control of the increasingly lucrative trade routes up the Saone." pg.170


If you ask me that speaks of a fairly severe level of conflict that cannot have done good for the numbers of capable Gallic soldiery available, given that the defeat of whoever it now was who ended up losing was doubtless rather bloody,This is because of your assumption of what you believe Caesar to have said. There is a reason why Dr.James, Dr.Raftery, Dr.Goldsworthy, Dr.Jones, Dr.McIntosh, Dr. Dyson etc. say this was a "struggle","squabble","rivalry", "dispute" etc. not a "Devastating Civil War" .

and the way Ariovist could run amuck on his onetime allies and employers (and defeating a coalition gathered to get rid of him piecemeal on the side) doesn't exactly suggest the losses were being made good very swiftly.
You have to remember that Ariovistus gave Caesar a hard time and pressed his left flank. Ariovistus and his warriors were defeated by Caesar but Ariovistus certainly wasn't a push over.

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"What then of the defeat and rout of the Gauls? If that case were examined it would be found that the Gauls were tired out by the long campaign, because Ariovistus hid in his camp in the marshes and offered no chance for an engagement, and then when the Gauls had given up hope of a battle, and were dispersing Ariovistus attacked and won by stratagem rather than courage. Against naive natives there was room for a stratagem, but not even Ariovistus could expect that our army would be taken in by it." Book 1,40 Translated by H.E.L. Mellersh/published by Random House Inc./distributed by Heron books.

Ariovistus did what Caesar did when Caesar was facing the Belgae for the first time. Caesar was heavily outnumbered and waited till the Belgae started to disperse and then attacked them as they were leaving. He later went on to attack them piecemeal. Ariovistus waited till the Gauls were dispersing as well then attacked were he wouldn't be so heavily outnumbered. It was then that Diviciacus went to get help from the Romans.


Enter Caesar and the additional drain he brought on the manpower pool (both through recruiting and enlisting, and as battle casualties both for and against) and I don't really see where exactly the major Gallic powers would have had ample opportunity to regenerate their pool of fully competent fighting men, doubly so given the somewhat time-consuming nature of the process in the Celtic "heroic" system.
Caesar was able to raise 4,000 cavalry from the Aedui and their allies, the Bellovaci (who would have been involved in the supposed "Devastating Civil War" as allies to the Aedui) could field 60,000 "picked" troops. Arminius had "picked" troops as well, they proved their value at the expense of the Romans.

The Aedui lost all their nobles, senate etc. when Ariovistus showed up. How is that possible if there was such a "Devastating Civil War"? Shouldn't they have mostly been dead by then? If there was such a supposed "Devastating Civil War" why did the Aedui wait till Ariovistus to maul them before going to the Romans? The Aedui had been "friends of the Roman people" since around 120 BC but they wait till 61 BC?

Where is this loss of manpower mentioned anywhere? Where is this supposed "Devastating Civil War" mentioned?

Johnny5 I hope you don't mind but I answered you on this thread:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=86612


Speidel, Goldsworthy and others would rip Psycho's argumentation apart as Frostwulf already had. Sad that they have better to do than posting in this forum I would love to see some of those authors debating, I'm sure there would be much more information to come out of it.

Thaatu and Neo-spartan I'm not willing to say that the Celts in 1.0 are overpowered like they were in the one before, I will have to take time to check out the stats. From my cursory check though, they still seem overpowered.
Thaatu I'm still planning on getting that summery out.

[NeoSpartan]

I don't like that idea much, or the history part of 'casse hero cult' - like no one else would deserve such an atrubute (like no other faction deserve it) it is one sort of very nice 'chosen' source (maybe a group of authors) that would confirm facts of the EB creators (and I am sure that there are second views there)..
(In my history classes I had the same lectures for Illyrians and their hero cult)

But, you know what - it is their mod - they can do anything they like, and if adding that atribute should 'fix' what can not be fixed - the fact (if I understood well) that casse are the weakest and that
'it should bring stats in some deasent level so casse would not loose alot'

Well.. then, maybe casse should be replased with some faction of India or Pergamum..

My view

sorry for bringing this up again, be well!


What part of "That's How They Fought" do you not understand??? Is like not giving the Romani the gladius short sword, or not giving pikemen to the Successor's because "I don't like that idea much..." Come one dude... Seriously, come on.


Frostwolf... its good to know your gonna do those tests, you will see, the Gallic units are not overpowered. Just don't test a phalanx unit vs a non-phalanx one in a frontal assult 'cause thats just silly. Oh and don't forget about the "Captain Effect" in my preview post I described how to solve it.

Oh and one more thing. AFTER doing the unit vs unit battle. Choose a budget (30k for example) and try to see how much of a war winning army you can make with that budget. You will see that Polybian Romani (thanks to the Allied Cavarly) & Successors have the best "unit-cost/ars-wooping" ratio. Probably KH too due to their new Pike guys.
(fyi unfortunatly MP isn't working so army vs army battles & tests cannot be done. In Costum battle is silly because the Ai doesn't know how to fight, Darth mod helps it a little.)

[Thaatu]

But ones like me were wondering (or asking actually) why are some - or 'most' - Celtic units (ok, with or without Galatians) powerfull enough to address the best Hellenic or Roman Units.. - offcourse it could be clear that EB team sources are - 'what they are' - their sources.. But they did not answer as they should to a contra questions - 'What do you think what quotas would Italian or Greek Historians give in this debates?'

- I HAVE NO PROBS BEATING THE CELTS -
It is because I use tactics all the time - I play on VH and I never loose a battle and I heve reached Italy-Germania-Scythia.. Aegypt-Seleucia..
Then stop saying they're overpowered. EB is not meant to be played on VH battle difficulty, and all the balancing is done for M (which must have been mentioned about a dozen times already). All I know about Casse is that I didn't notice much difference, although I haven't fought with them against mainland factions, only against independents.



Thaatu and Neo-spartan I'm not willing to say that the Celts in 1.0 are overpowered like they were in the one before, I will have to take time to check out the stats. From my cursory check though, they still seem overpowered.
Take NeoSpartan's advice with the captains. They can dish some whooping when they're in the mood.

Thaatu I'm still planning on getting that summery out.
:2thumbsup:

[Maksimus]

ok.. I will play my game and... maybe I will win something here?
Is there any competition in place - for EB? how does it work?

[NeoSpartan]

ok.. I will play my game and... maybe I will win something here?
Is there any competition in place - for EB? how does it work?

yes actually there is a price each time you play, really.

its called:
"Education via Playing" or simply "learn by play" Its freaking awesome as u learn a LOT about ancient history, plus the threads on history debates you learn even more. :yes:

[Thaatu]

Sorry for sounding a little prickish. It's Fall and all.



Edit:

ok.. I will play my game and... maybe I will win something here?
Is there any competition in place - for EB? how does it work?
There are two places where one can boast of his campaign:

1.0x AI Faction Progression Thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1737935#post1737935)
and
Post Empires! (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=93299)


The goal is to make others envious. It's a reward in its own right.

[Maksimus]

It's just I dont know how to 'take' a picture of my campaign.. realy, I have never done it before.. I do have ASUSGamerOSD if that is what I need?
Any help?

[konny]

Hit "Print Screen" before you quit, open paint or something like that and paste the shot in a blank picture. Cut out the map (you do not need to enlarge it, the default size is sufficent for a thread) and paste it in another blank image, save & upload it - finish.

[Maksimus]

Oh.. I see now.. well I am in the middle of my Armenia VH campaign.. so I will post it .. thank you konny... btw did you managed to 'enforce' that generals -stars issues? If you have.. that is great!

[Moros]

fraps is also commonly used, or disable Anti Aliasing and use the print scren button.

[Frostwulf]

I'm having problems accessing certain Roman units in the custom battles. I can't find some (cohors, Praetoriana,etc.) unless I do random army generator which may only give me one of the desired units. How do I go about retrieving these units that don't show up on the selection screen?

[Bonny]

I'm having problems accessing certain Roman units in the custom battles. I can't find some (cohors, Praetoriana,etc.) unless I do random army generator which may only give me one of the desired units. How do I go about retrieving these units that don't show up on the selection screen

you might find the costum and multiplayer battle edu usefull. It limits the ownership only to faction troops. You find it in th EB folder.

[NeoSpartan]

I'm having problems accessing certain Roman units in the custom battles. I can't find some (cohors, Praetoriana,etc.) unless I do random army generator which may only give me one of the desired units. How do I go about retrieving these units that don't show up on the selection screen?

yep costume battles is messed up, maybe what Bonny said will help. MP however, is completely F*ed up :wall:

[Thaatu]

@Frostwulf, if I remember correctly, you had a quote somewhere from Paul Simon's "Still Crazy After All These Years" Simon James' "Exploring the World of the Celts". I've been reading it for a hundred pages, so I'd like your opinion on it. Did you find any outdated info in it? It's not exactly old, but it was published 14 years ago, so it may not have the most up to date info. Is it good, or do you recommend something else? Granted, it does support your argument somewhat. Loosely translated (from a Finnish translation): "Surely the Gaul that Caesar described and conquered didn't show signs of weariness from internal wars - it was a wealthy and blossoming land - so apparently there were ways to restrict devastation caused by wars". Although, this doesn't refer to the state of the warrior class.

What I'm curious about is how many tribes were under Aedui and Arverni authority? Also do any of the books you've read give the approximate population of Bibracte?

[Frostwulf]

@Frostwulf, if I remember correctly, you had a quote somewhere from Paul Simon's "Still Crazy After All These Years" Simon James' "Exploring the World of the Celts". I've been reading it for a hundred pages, so I'd like your opinion on it. Did you find any outdated info in it? It's not exactly old, but it was published 14 years ago, so it may not have the most up to date info. Is it good, or do you recommend something else?
First please remember that I am an amature at best, and all the information I have is from reading the professionals. That being said to my knowledge his book still holds true. I have not come across anything that contradicts his views on any of the subjects he wrote about. Rankin's "Celts and the Classical World" is a good book as well, though it is around 10yrs older then James's book.Venceslas Kruta-"The Celts" is another that is good, he has differing views on the Belgae then does Rankin and others. I have read that some people have problems with Cunliffe, but for me I thought for the most part he was a good read with plenty of information. I recommend just about any of Goldsworthy's books, especially "Caesar-Life of a Colossus". Goldsworthy's book goes into Caesars "The Gallic War" and is well worth the read. I would suggest being very wary of Peter Ellis, he tends to exaggerate and leave out certain things.

Granted, it does support your argument somewhat. Loosely translated (from a Finnish translation): "Surely the Gaul that Caesar described and conquered didn't show signs of weariness from internal wars - it was a wealthy and blossoming land - so apparently there were ways to restrict devastation caused by wars". Although, this doesn't refer to the state of the warrior class.
Simon James "The World of the Celts"-" The complex web of clientage and alliance which Caesar reveals in Gaul was largely based on the outcome of frequent wars. The theater of combat was where many personal and tribal relations were tested, broken and forged. We may suppose conflicts ranged from great wars associated with migrations of whole peoples to mere brigandage, inter-family feuds, and cattle raids by individual warriors seeking quick wealth and prestige. Probably most Celtic warfare was on a small scale, involving no more then a few score men on each side. The population was growing and states were developing in late Iron age Gaul, and this may have led to an increase in the scale of warfare. But it is clear that the vast armies commanded by Vercingetorix and others were assemble only as a response to the great threat from Rome (p.127). In fact, Rome changed the very rules of Celtic warfare, bringing large armies into an area where, internally at least, they may have been much rarer before. Certainly, the Gaul described and conquered by Caesar showed no signs of exhaustion by internal wars-it was a rich and prosperous land-so means were evidently found for limiting the damage war could cause. Caesar says that the Druids were involved in disputes and in the decision to wage war, providing some evidence for the existence of limiting social mechanisms. War did not threaten the fabric of society as a whole, even if the fortunes of the individual clans and tribes did wax and wane. It would be probably also be wrong to think that love of war was confined to the nobility, at the expense of the suffering of a pacifist peasantry: admiration for the warrior ethic appears to have been general, and was not restricted to men either (see box). Violence was endemic, but sufficiently intermittent for most people to get on with their lives successfully most of the time: warlike display was at least as important as actual fighting." pg. 74

I thought it supports my argument completely. My view is that their was still some raiding with a few score of men going on as well as a few battles going on every once in awhile. This was the case elsewhere amongst Celtic peoples, nothing different then the Belgae, Brits, Galations, etc. The state of the warrior class wouldn't have been any different then that of the other Celts. You have some dying in these raids and small battles but as with the others there would have been those that would have be replaced with the younger generation. This certainly flies in the face of the supposed "Devastating Civil War".

What I'm curious about is how many tribes were under Aedui and Arverni authority? Also do any of the books you've read give the approximate population of Bibracte?
You will find some of the tribes listed in Dr.James book, I don't recall exactly where though. As far as the population of Bibracte I don't recall reading about the size of the population anywhere. I think in Caesars "The Gallic War" he mentions the population of some of the other oppida.

[Maksimus]

Sorry for posting here, but I got the info for this and my campaign in this thread..
I would like to say thank you Thaatu.. so now you can see what I am playing in EB 1 - it is Armenia, on VH/VH Huge units -- NO CHEATS!

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=93151&page=5

:shame:

[Thaatu]

I thought it supports my argument completely. My view is that their was still some raiding with a few score of men going on as well as a few battles going on every once in awhile. This was the case elsewhere amongst Celtic peoples, nothing different then the Belgae, Brits, Galations, etc. The state of the warrior class wouldn't have been any different then that of the other Celts. You have some dying in these raids and small battles but as with the others there would have been those that would have be replaced with the younger generation. This certainly flies in the face of the supposed "Devastating Civil War".
I'm just wondering whether the scale of the Aedui-Arverni conflict was a bit different from the others. There were probably no huge armies facing each other, but when the both sides grew in power and size, was it just tribes in the alliances raiding each other, or was there some "centralized" effort to damage the other side, ie. an Arverni lead force against an Aedui lead one?

Also, one thing that's on my mind are the seasons in which raiding took place. According to EB at least, winter was a "dark period" in which combat was avoided. If the farmers took part in raiding, the raiding seasons would be restricted, because the crops need attetion too. That doesn't make for much devastation, since raids only took place a few times per year. But if the warrior class continued raiding through the whole year, except winter, then the warrior class would soak up most of the damage.

Although, I must admit. I know almost nothing of the conflict itself. I don't know if it was border disputes amongs their clients or a blood feud. All I know is that since tribes and clans regularely raided each other, even friendly ones, there must have been something deeper in this, or I don't know why it's even mentioned anywhere.



Sorry for posting here, but I got the info for this and my campaign in this thread..
I would like to say thank you Thaatu.. so now you can see what I am playing in EB 1 - it is Armenia, on VH/VH Huge units -- NO CHEATS!
Let me recommend either Aedui or Arverni, in M battle difficulty. The battles are a bit harder in that theatre. I personally play with H/M because VH cripples AI's brains, and I like my enemies thinking. Although I play with general camera, which I guess adds a little more to the challenge. :yes:

[NeoSpartan]

I'm just wondering whether the scale of the Aedui-Arverni conflict was a bit different from the others.....

Very much in deed... however I'll let those who know do the talking for me. :yes:

Oh my bad they already did. :shame: Here is a CLIP of the info on page 11 of this thread.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=83475&page=11

"Transalpine Gaul was suddenly seized with social and political turmoil. Following the Roman defeat of the Arverni in 121 BC, most of the inhabitants of region were plunged into a devastating civil war. The Aedui with their clients challenged the weakened Arverni and her allies in order to reassert prior claims of leadership and regain control of the lucrative trade routes that ran through the Rhone river valley.
Over the course of this protracted conflict, both sides became exhausted. In 71 BC, the Arverni and their allies the Sequani, sought desperate new measures to bring a favourably end to the conflict. They hired Germanic mercenaries from various tribes across the Rhine.
The leader of this mercenary body, the Seubi king Ariovistus, quickly noted the weakened military condition of the Gauls and immediately began exerting his own power, first amongst his ‘hosts’ the Sequani and then to the surrounding tribes. Towns were seized, hostages taken and considerable re-enforcements acquired from across the Rhine. The Aedui attempted to mobilise a Gallic resistance to this German incursion but support was limited. The united Gallic militia proved to be no match for Ariovistus’ mercenaries and the Gauls were slaughtered in 61 BC at a battle near Admagetobriga,” – (‘Indo-European History’, ‘La Tene Gaul’, XVI, 5.63, Univerzita Karlova v Praze)"

this is to give u an idea of the difference of this conflict... that don't look like a typical move in the part of "seasonal raiders", this is a whole 'nother ball game.:book:

[Thaatu]

Wow, thanks for that quote NeoSpartan. Btw, It would be helpful to know where Psycho got his info. Did he mention it anywhere?

[Frostwulf]

I'm just wondering whether the scale of the Aedui-Arverni conflict was a bit different from the others. There were probably no huge armies facing each other, but when the both sides grew in power and size, was it just tribes in the alliances raiding each other, or was there some "centralized" effort to damage the other side, ie. an Arverni lead force against an Aedui lead one?

This is a reasonable assumption I think its quite possible to have these small battles which would end up with a moral defeat of one side or the other. I still don't think it would have been much different then any of the others.

Also, one thing that's on my mind are the seasons in which raiding took place. According to EB at least, winter was a "dark period" in which combat was avoided. If the farmers took part in raiding, the raiding seasons would be restricted, because the crops need attetion too. That doesn't make for much devastation, since raids only took place a few times per year. But if the warrior class continued raiding through the whole year, except winter, then the warrior class would soak up most of the damage.
In general this is true that most fighting did not happen during the winter though in some cases they did(Eubrones attacking the Romans). As far as raiding and these small battles I would think it would only be the warriors and not the tradesmen,farmers and etc who participated. How many of the warriors would have died during these raids and small battles, I'm not sure. When Ariovistus destroyed the nobles,senate and all the knights of the Aedui, Caesar was still able to gather 4,000 cavalry 2 years later. Again most of the raids were just a few score men, not thousands,not hundreds. The raids probably happened every year, but my thought is the small battles did not.


Although, I must admit. I know almost nothing of the conflict itself. I don't know if it was border disputes amongs their clients or a blood feud. All I know is that since tribes and clans regularely raided each other, even friendly ones, there must have been something deeper in this, or I don't know why it's even mentioned anywhere.
In general its not mentioned by most modern authors, those who do mention it say things like squabble,rivalry,struggle etc. nothing on the scale of the supposed "Devastating Civil War". The reason it is brought up is because of Caesar giving an idea of what the situation was and how he had to protect the "friends and brothers" (Aedui) from the German menace.



Very much in deed... however I'll let those who know do the talking for me.

Oh my bad they already did. Here is a CLIP of the info on page 11 of this thread.
this is to give u an idea of the difference of this conflict... that don't look like a typical move in the part of "seasonal raiders", this is a whole 'nother ball game.
I have asked for the authors 3 times now, I and others have also checked many other avenues and it wasn't there. But here is a link to the University itself, I can find the other papers and books published by them but for some reason I just cant seem to find this one.
http://www.cuni.cz/

[NeoSpartan]

ah dammit, it sucks u fellas can't find the reference :wall: it messes up the discussion.

I can't read what their saying, well I can sort of understand a few words due to its similary with English & Spanish but... thats it really.

[NeoSpartan]

Wow, thanks for that quote NeoSpartan. Btw, It would be helpful to know where Psycho got his info. Did he mention it anywhere?

np...

I know I am joking a little when I tell people to REREAD the thread :clown: .... but there is A LOT OF truth in that joke. :yes:

(btw... guess who u will find on the 1st page of this thread? :whip:)

[The Celtic Viking]

that should do it...

Oh yes, how wrong you turned out to be... :laugh4:

[Andronikos]

ah dammit, it sucks u fellas can't find the reference :wall: it messes up the discussion.

I can't read what their saying, well I can sort of understand a few words due to its similary with English & Spanish but... thats it really.

I don't know exactly what you mean but if you want to translate something from Czech, perhaps I could help.

[NeoSpartan]

Oh yes, how wrong you turned out to be... :laugh4:

LOL!!!!!!

tell me about it:dizzy2:

[Frostwulf]

@Frostwulf, if I remember correctly, you had a quote somewhere from Paul Simon's "Still Crazy After All These Years" Simon James' "Exploring the World of the Celts". I've been reading it for a hundred pages, so I'd like your opinion on it. Did you find any outdated info in it? It's not exactly old, but it was published 14 years ago, so it may not have the most up to date info. Is it good, or do you recommend something else?
Well it does seem I was in error, at least partially.

Thanks for your e-mail and glad you liked World of the Celts, although you should be aware that it is now quite an old book, and my views have changed a lot since I wrote it, mainly in that I no longer believe the generic, Europe-wide 'Ancient Celts' existed as such (see my Atlantic Celts on this, out of print but usually available on Abebooks.com). I believe allot of the information in "The World of the Celts" is still valid, but I will read "Atlantic Celts" to see what is different.

[Thaatu]

Wow, I admire your balls. It seems to be only a minor flaw in the book, so I'll continue reading. And yes, I am that slow of a reader.

[Frostwulf]

Sorry Thaatu, I know this has taken a long time. This is the second time I am starting the summary as the first time my computer glitched(once again) and I lost all my material. I won't be going into detail as I had the first time due to time constraints and the irritation of losing everything:furious3: .
This thread was created because of the claim of the Celts being to overpowered. I agreed with this(and still do) that the Celt stats are to powerful compared to their historical counter parts.

Please remember when reading this summery it is from my perspective. I will try to be fair but I am human and I will make mistakes. I'm sure some will be found and hopefully will be presented to balance things out. Of this summery I will be sticking to the main points and will not be going off on other subjects(Germans, Gaul prior to 272 b.c,clubs,Belgae, etc.).

I'm breaking this up into three posts, the first being the Celts of northern Italy during the 4th thru the 2nd century where several things were claimed. Here are the things that were claimed:

Ok for starters, you clearly stated that you believed the Romans couldn’t / most likely didn't conquer the Gauls because they were distracted fighting Carthage. “There was a reason why the Romans had not succeeded in conquering Transalpine Gaul in the previous 300 years of conflict…because of the other wars going on like with carthage..”

Now, when this statement was critically examined / debunked it appears you wished to ignore the former debate and present a new line of inquiry… “attrition”..shifting focus. That’s fine but you probably should concede the former point if you believe it no longer tenable / you no longer wish to defend it…else I’ll just keep rabbiting on about it.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1523866&postcount=129
This is the "critically examined/ debunked response:

Why you say? ..Well you stated that Rome couldn’t conquer the Gauls because they were distracted fighting Carthage. The point I made was that during the same period (ie when the Romans were supposedly busy fighting Carthage), they managed to conquer other (non Gallic) peoples, thus the hypothesis “does not stand up critical analysis”.And this:

they managed to conquer other (non Gallic) peoples, thus the hypothesis “does not stand up critical analysis”.
My response:

Hardly debunked or ignored and the attrition situation will be discussed later. A brief history is in order here.
390 bc. Rome sacked and loses dominant position in Latin League. War with Tarquinii in 388 and 386. Rome/Latin League continue conquest of Italy against the Etruscans and Volsci.In 367bc. Celts show up again and are routed.Rome continues once again concentrating on Italy against the Latins and others. In 360/361bc Gauls attack again and are defeated first near Rome then near Tibur. Ill make out a chronology later but it keeps going on and on about wars with Samnites,Etruscans,Greeks,Illyrians etc. etc.
Rome was first and foremost interested in conquering southern Italy then moving up to the north. Most of their resources were spent conquering everything south of Cisalpine Gaul.

Connolly "Greece and Rome at War": after losing 13,000 men to the Gauls in 284-"In an act of massive retaliation the Romans crossed the mountain into the Senonic homeland and drove the entire tribe out of Italy."pg.90-"The Boii, who had captured Bologna from the Etruscans and had settled in the area, now also crossed the Apenines but were defeated in central Etruria. The following year they crossed the mountains again and were once more defeated. They sued for peace. The Romans, preoccupied with the situation in central Italy, agreed to the treaty which lasted for 50 years. With the fall of Samnium, Rome controlled almost the whole of peninsular Italy. Only the Greek cities of the south remained outside the Roman alliance. In order to consolidate her position Rome began to put pressure on these Greek states to try to force them into alliance." Pg. 90: This is the beginning of the Pyrric wars.

/Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier"-Rome continued to strengthen its hold in central Italy. The wars against the Samnites ground on. In Etruria internal strife increased. The population in the Celtic homeland was again growing. In 284bc Gauls invaded the territory of Arretium and started a sequence of events that ended with the near extermination of the Senones.

/Ellis "The Celtic Empire"- referring to the defeats of Celts and Etruscans in 283:"For the first time, Rome was confident of her northern boundaries. She now turned her greedy eyes towards the Greek city states of southern Italy-Magna Graeca." pg.33

/Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"-"By the 330's Rome had recovered sufficiently to begin a new expansionist drive, and, to secure its northern frontier, a peace treaty was negotiated with the Senones in 334".pg.77:"After the First Punic War(264-41bc) Rome's attention turned once more to the north, and in 232 the territory of the Senones was confiscated and made over to Italian settlement. pg77

Connolly "Greece and Rome at War"- "In 225 the Celts crossed the Apennines with an army of 70,000 men. It was bad timing for the Celts as the Romans, free of any other commitment, were able to devote their entire resources to the war." pg.146-"The threat of yet another invasion was over. The Romans vowed it would be the last. The legions now invaded the Po valley itself." pg. 146

/Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier"-"By 225bc the Romans felt that war with the Gauls was imminent. Rumors about the recruitment of the transalpine Gauls by the Celts in Italy had certainly reached them. They stepped up their own precautions, making peace with Hasdrubal in Spain in order to free themselves from concerns over that area, and recruiting strong armies and gathering stores." pg.29

/Simon James "The World of The Celts"-"An uneasy peace followed due to Rome's distraction by war with Carthage; this lasted for a generation, until 232bc, when Rome seized the land of the Senones and parcelled it out to her own colonists." pg.35: "Hannibal's final defeat at Zama in 202bc, however, left the battle-hardened Romans free to resume the conquest of the north, and the Boii and the Insubres were eventually subdued in the 190's".

/Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"- "The Second Punic War completely altered the balance of power in the mediterranean. Rome moved into an expansive mode. From the end of the war in 202bc until the capitulation of Numantia in 133 the Celtiberians and Lusitani were gradually brought under control. The first two decades of the second century saw the Roman armies win a series of major campaigns north of the Apenines paving the way for romanization, largely completed within a century".pg.235: "The migrations were largely at an end by 200bc. This was the moment which Rome, freed from the threat of Carthage by her hard-won victories during the Second Punic War, entered into a more expansive mode". pg273

If you take a look at these quotes you will see what I said earlier. "freed from", "free to resume", "free of any other commitment" etc etc. This shows that the Romans were pre-occupied with other wars and therefore couldnt muster the means to conquer northern Italy.
I put the bold in this post, it wasn't in the original post.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1556124&postcount=143
Here is another quote to support my position:

H.D. Rankin “Celts and the Classical World”-“The First Punic War had prevented the Romans from dealing finally with the Celtic menace. It was after this war that the Celts made their concerted attack of 225BC: it may have been intended as a pre-emptive attack by the Celts but it was much too late for this purpose. Then came Hannibal’s invasion of Italy, which prevented the Romans from bringing the Celtic question to a conclusion for a number of years.” pg113

The first Punic War started in 264B.C., So the Romans could have brought the Celts to their knees as early as the 260's and possibly earlier. As shown by the above scholars the Romans were busy conquering southern and central Italy first.

The only counter to the above(which I have to get from prior posts as no one tackled this particular post):

Which proves little. For example, where are all the records of the several Roman defeats at the hands of the Cisalpine Gauls that archaeology has since discovered?

My response to the above is the same, "What defeats are you referring to? Which archaeologist? Where in Cisalpine Gaul?" Again no proof forthcoming whatsoever. For the historical records you have the lying Romans and untrustworthy Greek defense. Yes the Romans were biased but they did record the defeats they suffered and you had multiple authors describing allot of the battles.

The Celts were tough opponents and did defeat Roman and Greek armies:

Atlas of the Celts-“Through a combination of sheer weight of numbers and fighting prowess (the equal of any army in the Mediterranean region), the Celts were able to subdue native populations along their line of advance, including the Illyrians and Pannonians, leaving some of their number behind as a ruling or tribute-exacting elite.
The vanguard reached the Balkan region in 350BC. Behind them, stretched and scattered across eastern Europe, were assortments of Celtic groups whose size and composition must have varied considerably.” pg 63

While I agree with the above statement you should understand the date (300's B.C.) and that the Romans and Greeks(270's) won most of the battles.

For the "attrition" factor:

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

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

Strength is relative. The Celts were relatively stronger in the 5th, 4th and very beginning of the 3rd C BC.. as previously stated.
My response to the above are here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1559843&postcount=144
The only thing new I could put down is more information on the battles supplied by John Montagu from his book "Battles of the Greek & Roman Worlds". The chronologies and battles are just about the same. The little differing there is, is with the places the battles took place. Montagu is more recent and I tend to go with his explanation as to where the battles took place.Also at the bottom of the post mentioned above I said that the Celtic cavalry was underpowered, that no longer holds true.

As shown the Romans won the majority of the time and often outnumbered. The attrition excuse is also nonsense:
H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical World"-"Polybius' theory of successive waves of tribes pressing on each other was substantially correct."pg.111/ "In the Celts, Rome had a formidable enemy with resources of population that must have seemed interminable."pg.118

Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"-"The migrations were largely at an end by 200 BC."

Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier"-"The wars against the Samnites ground on. In Etruria internal strife increased. The population in the Celtic homeland was again growing." pg.24




The next post will deal with the supposed "Devastating Civil War". I have new information on it.

[Thaatu]

On this note I would like to say a few things. I won't nitpick on the above, just because it's a disputed matter and I feel that some of the authors have a personal rather than a purely objective look on some events. Just about my view of the EB Celts...

The Celts are, in my mind, underpowered in finances. It's not just once or twice in my campaigns that AI Rome has forced AI Aedui to become a protectorate in a matter of a few turns. I feel that this is because Rome is so stinking rich and has enormous "military power" (meaning units in the field) compared to any of the Celtic factions. It's a difficult question whether the Celtic tribes were rich, or did the wealth go to individuals that can't be included in the "faction". The fact is, Gallic Celts were supposedly rich, EB Celts are not. I don't know if it's justifiable or not.

In the unit power sense, the only truly overpowered unit I've found is the basic Bataroas. It's either that they're too strong or too cheap. They have almost the same stats (202 men) as Belgian Swordsmen (162 men), but cost about 390 where as the Belgians cost 513. They are EXTREMELY effective and behave more like elites than the basic backbone unit, and this is based on my two Aedui campaigns.

[NeoSpartan]

dang on it... i have to go work and this thread is back... ok I'll respond better when I get back. In the meantime a quick responce:



In the unit power sense, the only truly overpowered unit I've found is the basic Bataroas. It's either that they're too strong or too cheap. They have almost the same stats (202 men) as Belgian Swordsmen (162 men), but cost about 390 where as the Belgians cost 513. They are EXTREMELY effective and behave more like elites than the basic backbone unit, and this is based on my two Aedui campaigns.

uhm.... neither bataroas or Minhalt (sp) are very good units. They BOTH get beat by Polibian Principes without much trouble.

I recommend some tests on that claim Thaatu, pit both Bataroas and Minhalt agains Principes (camillian and Polybian), Hoplites, Theuroporoi (sp), and similar "good" units. Oh and don't forget to deal with the "Captain effect".

Unfortunaly since my PC is F***ed I can't do any tests nor play :wall:

[Frostwulf]

On this note I would like to say a few things. I won't nitpick on the above, just because it's a disputed matter and I feel that some of the authors have a personal rather than a purely objective look on some events. Just about my view of the EB Celts...

I am curious what you consider disputed? Which authors do you think are not objective?


In the unit power sense, the only truly overpowered unit I've found is the basic Bataroas. It's either that they're too strong or too cheap. They have almost the same stats (202 men) as Belgian Swordsmen (162 men), but cost about 390 where as the Belgians cost 513. They are EXTREMELY effective and behave more like elites than the basic backbone unit, and this is based on my two Aedui campaigns.
The next summery post will be on the supposed"Devastating Civil War" and the third and final one will be on the units themselves. I wont get into the units or the so called "Devastating Civil War" until I post the information.


Unfortunaly since my PC is F***ed I can't do any tests nor play I think your situation deserves one of these: :furious3:
It is very annoying when one's computer doesn't respond properly, I hope you resolve the situation soon.

I will try to get my next summery post done on friday.

[Thaatu]

I recommend some tests on that claim Thaatu, pit both Bataroas and Minhalt agains Principes (camillian and Polybian), Hoplites, Theuroporoi (sp), and similar "good" units. Oh and don't forget to deal with the "Captain effect".
I've fought with them a few hundred battles and have found that they are so cheap compared to their abilities that there's no sense in recruiting anything else but a Gaesatae, a few slingers and lots of Bataroas. I've fought against Sweboz, Rome, Carthage, Lusotania and Epirus, in addition to other mainland Celts. I'm not saying they are a super unit, but that they are too cheap. That being said, I didn't compare them to any unit, just their performance in those battles. They rarely failed me.

I am curious what you consider disputed? Which authors do you think are not objective?
I just hate seeing people refer to some ancient text as pure fact. It's just my personal scepticism. In my mind there are just too many reasons why ancient historians can't be trusted to produce accurate details. I'm not accusing the modern authors, but they do tend to trust ancient sources a little too much.

Oh, and I'm not saying it's a disputed matter in the scientific community, since I wouldn't know even if it was. Just that it's a disputed matter here.

[NeoSpartan]

I've fought with them a few hundred battles and have found that they are so cheap compared to their abilities that there's no sense in recruiting anything else but a Gaesatae, a few slingers and lots of Bataroas. I've fought against Sweboz, Rome, Carthage, Lusotania and Epirus, in addition to other mainland Celts. I'm not saying they are a super unit, but that they are too cheap. That being said, I didn't compare them to any unit, just their performance in those battles. They rarely failed me.

....

... LOL! I know u don't mean of them as a super unit, and I take them any day for Botroas or Minhalt (due to cost/benefit ratio) they are pretty good.

But honestly is really hard to get an accurate picture on unit strenght/cost ratio when playing against the AI. I say it because when I got to MP back in .80 everything changed. Thats why when anyone claims X is stronger I ask them to test that hypothesis.


Frostwolf... I think I'll wait for your other posts that way we don't off on a tanget, or commit to a topic before you have finished ur point.

p.s PC should be here by Monday latest. Had to drop down $300+ in total to get that laptop fixed and upgraded. Of that about $160 was dedicated to keep EB saved games (among other important docs), and more RAM to play EB.