Celtic overpowered!

[Thaatu]

Btw, can't do any testing after today. Tomorrow I'm moving into a place where I don't know if they even have electricity. I'll probably still read some of the stuff in here, so if I keep posting, it's not a ghost.

[Frostwulf]

As I said in the first one this is from my perspective and some things may not have been included. Again if this is the case and it has some bearing on this debate, hopefully someone will bring it up.

The summery of the supposed "Devastating Civil War":
I don't have a problem with the term war being used to describe the conflict between the Aedui and the Sequani. Devastating and Civil war I do have a problem.
Websters College Dictionary: civil war-"1.a war between political factions or regions within the same country".

Civil war does not apply as it was a confederations of tribes squabbling amongst themselves. There was no country of Gaul nor any central government of Gaul. State/tribal conflict-yes, civil war-no. This of course really doesn't matter.

What about Devastation? When you have quotes like this your bound to think it is devastating:

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.
On a severity level of 1-10 it seems the claim of the supposed "Devastating Civil War" ranks up there around 9(Caesars war in Gaul being a 10). I believe the squabble,rivalry,struggle ect. to be around a 2 verging close to a 3 on a severity scale.


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.
I have seen others say similar things. I answered this in this post:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1732255&postcount=434
This went back and forth for a few posts:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1733705&postcount=439
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1734745&postcount=446
Ross Cowan-“For the Glory of Rome”-“Vercingetorix now launched one of the greatest cavalry attacks in history on Caesar’s marching army. Some 15,000 mounted warriors in three divisions bore down upon it, but Caesar was not daunted. In the early stages of the campaign he had recruited large numbers of German mercenary cavalry, of whom the Gauls had an almost irrational fear. Vercingetorix’s final hammer blow made hardly a dent as caesar formed the legions into a hollow square (agmen quadratum) with the baggage in the centre, then let loose the Germans who routed the Gallic cavalry. Thus Caesar’s retreat halted abruptly. His army turned about and eagerly pursued Vercengetorix.” pg. 192-193

How is it that if there was a "Devastating Civil War"(started in 120s'BC) the Aedui were able to field any kind of forces against Ariovistus and Caesar? 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. What of the Soldurii and other such troops mentioned?
You have basically the same type of situation in the Po Valley in the 3rd and 4th century BC. Most of the ancient authors just mentioned the tribe names (Insubres,Boii etc.) they didn't always specifically mention "warriors".

If there was a "Devastating Civil War" why did Caesar(paraphrasing) say that the Belgae were the strongest because they stayed away from luxuries? Wouldn't he have said that the Belgae were the strongest because the rest of the Gauls had decimated themselves?



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.

My reply to the subject of slavery:

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
A new citation:

The Celts: Europe's People of Iron-"One of the most important commodities that these oppida provided Roman merchants was slaves, captured in neighboring districts by men who had not forgotten their raiding traditions. And beyond the immediate sphere of Roman influence in regions to the west and to the north, the old ways persevered.pg. pg.70
Now on the oppida:


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.
My reply:

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.
New information:

Ferdinand Maier-"The Celts*"-"The main features of the oppida are the architectural construction of the walls and gates, the spacious layout and commanding view of the surrounding area. Internally, excavation has revealed the first clear signs of urbanization in Celtic society." pg.423


Ferdinand Maier-"The Celts*"-"The decisive step toward the full-blown oppidum, as described here, came with the erection of defense walls, which probably occurred in the last fifty or even thirty years of the second century B.C These operations may have been a response to rivalry between Celtic groups, or to a growing sense of insecurity after the invasions of the Cimbri and Teutons. It is widely thought that the oppida were created in such a relatively short time because of social upheaval or similar circumstances.
This is disproved by the Manching oppidum, which demonstrates progressive, uninterrupted growth form its early days as a village-type settlement midway through the third century B.C." pg.437-438


Peter S. Wells-"Celtic Chiefdom, Celtic State"-"A major reason for the establishment and rapid growth of oppida is likely to have been to serve as protection for people, supplies, livestock, raw materials, and other goods, from the marauding bands that were a persistent feature of the central European landscape during much of the second and final centuries BC(Fischer 1988)." pg.92
Rivalry between Celtic groups,Cimbri and Teutons, marauding bands. Nothing at all that would denote a "Devastating Civil War".

John Collis-"The European Iron Age"-This trade may have been the direct cause of the state formation, and the move to defended oppida in western Europe. Caesar says that hardly a year passed without one Gallic state making war on another. Victory in war could extend territorial limits, but it also provided tribute, booty and slaves. It could both extend control over trade routes and provide the goods with which to trade. In the west it is clearly the trade which comes first, and the oppida second. The Arverni, perhaps because of their military power, were one of the last tribes to construct an oppidum-Gergovie was not founded until the Roman conquest or even later. Urbanism was not necessarily a sign of civilization and power, it was more a sign of weakness. It does not however explain the early move to defended sites in central Europe. Filip has suggested Germanic pressure from the north, which was certainly a reality by the end of the first century BC. There was also the expanding power of Burebista, king of the Dacians in Romania."pg.157 The Arverni were supposedly "weakened" during the supposed "Devastating Civil War" and yet here we have Collis suggesting that because of their military power they didn't construct an oppidum until the Roman conquest or later.

What others have said of the supposed "Devastating Civil War":

The Celts: Europe's People of Iron-"On the Suebi side of the Rhine, the Gallic Sequani tribe called on Ariovistus to intervene in its long-standing squabble with the rival Aedui, also a Gallic tribe." pg.121


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.

Christian Meier-"Caesar"-"The political and social order was aristocratic, the power structure apparently unstable. Wars between tribes, and alliances between nobles from different tribes, often caused unrest, but most of these seem to have had only local significance. The system was occasionally disturbed from the outside as a result of tribal movements beyond the Rhine. Pressure from the north and east, for instance, caused the Helvetians to move from southwestern Germany to what is now Switzerland. Larger or smaller groups of Germans often entered the country, invited or uninvited, to make conquests or merely to take booty. Yet such incursions seldom affected large areas of Gaul. Hence, what went on in this part of the world need not as a rule concern the Romans, even if the Gauls occasionally tried to involve them in their affairs."pg.238


Dr. Barry Raftery; Dr.Jane McIntosh, Clint Twist
*Atlas of the Celts-"Warfare between Celts-to restore hurt pride, score points off neighbours or just for sheer entertainment-may well have developed into fairly ritualised affairs intended to minimise casualties among the elite. The concept of 'national' warfare would have been entirely alien to Celts at the end of the 5th century BC. Such concepts could only arise when the elites came into military conflict with a significant other (as opposed to peoples less well organised then themselves), in the form of highly disciplined Mediterranean armies." pg.53The two quotes above support what Simon James and Adrian Goldsworthy are saying in the following two quotes:


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


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

So what do we have for those who say there is a "Devastating Civil War":



Quote:
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)
Very nice, gives the indication that the reason Caesar had a great superiority was because of the "Devastating Civil War". Lets take a look at how its really written:

Adrian Goldsworthy-“Roman Warfare”-“ Tactics were simple, and relied on a headlong charge by a screaming mass of warriors. The first charge of a Gallic army was a dreadful thing, but the Romans believed that if they could withstand this onslaught then the Gauls would steadily tire and become vulnerable. Classical literature claims that the barbarians were poorly conditioned and easily tired by strenuous activity and heat. But probably the main reason why the Romans were likely to win a prolonged combat was their triplex acies formation that allowed them to reinforce threatened parts of the line. Individually the Romans were better equipped and armoured than the majority of Celtic warriors, but there is little indication of the great superiority which Caesar’s troops in the first century BC would display against similar Gallic opponents.” pg.88
Not levies as has been claimed but similar Gallic opponents!

We mustn't forget this "Devastating" piece of evidence:

Quote:
“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)
As I had mentioned before 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 have asked for multiple times for authors or further information on this citation and I never received any. I decided to go to the source and ask them, here is my e-mail:

Subject: Item search
To: jana.konecna@cerge-ei.cz


I was hoping to find out if the Univerzita Karlova v Praze has
published this item:

(`Indo-European History´, `La Tene Gaul´, XVI, 5.63, Univerzita
Karlova v Praze)"

If this item exists could you perhaps let me know where I might be able
to find it? If it doesn't
exist I would like to know. Any reply would be greatly appreciated,
thank you for your time.

Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your
homepage.
Jana Konecna
Knihovna CERGE-EI
Politickych veznu 7
111 21 Praha 1
Here is the response I received:

Hello,

Iam afraid no book or article with title "Indo-European history" or "La
Tene Gaul" were
published by Karlova Univerzita. Maybe its not correct citation but I
didn't find anything with
this title.

Best regards,

Jana Konecna
Who is Jana Konecna?
http://www.cerge.cuni.cz/library/about/staff/
Jana Konecna CERGE-EI Librarian

* Interlibrary Loans
* Cataloguing

In conclusion of the supposed "Devastating Civil War" part of this summery I think this quote best sums it up:

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

Next and final part will be on the units themselves.

[Raphia]

Sigh we are still on this topic?

[Anthony II]

Wow so much typing! Frostwulf, do you work?


Sigh we are still on this topic?

Sad



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..

..And from what I've read, Frostwulf justified this with a simplistic opinion that Germans > Gauls / Celts / German “volk” were superior to Celts, etc.

He then denied the fact that this hypothesis had its Genesis in German nationalism and romanticism and then ignored the fact that it has long been resoundingly discarded / disproved.

He also proceeded to try and defend this position by ignoring significant amounts of relevant data and preferred to adhere to select quotes from scholars, often taken out of context and in some cases later refuted by the scholars themselves.

I’m sure Psycho would have something to say about this if he were allowed to reply (unbanned) :yes:

My2bob

[Frostwulf]

Sigh we are still on this topic? Not really I told Thaatu I would do a summery and I had additional information. Raphia I'm not trying to insult you, but if this annoys you why do you bother to read it? I do believe that my final section of the summery will be the last as there has been no one who had any substantial proof to counter my arguments.

[Raphia]

I have nothing against you, just cannot believe this topic has lasted so long!

[SaFe]

Wow so much typing! Frostwulf, do you work?



Sad



My2bob


Anything constructive or do we have the pleasure to hear the thoughts of Psycho2?
My opionion was always that Psycho used data that was not available to others for proof and perhaps finally we all can recognize that error we made to take his work on the celts for non debatable.

[Anthony II]

Ah common SaFe... no pom poms, cheers and dancing moves celebrating the apparent victory of good (everyone who disagrees with Psycho) over evil (Psycho himself)? :smiley:

Psycho always said he pictured you in a little pink cheer girls uniform :cheerleader: popping in with a "yer Psycho sucks" here and a "take that you Celtic bastard" there.

What happened to the love, unrequited? I feel your pain, I once had this goat ....... ah, for another time :flowers:



Anything constructive or do we have the pleasure to hear the thoughts of Psycho2?.

Psycho2? Psycho junior? I wouldn't know I'm just his cousin. Thank god I'm not that privy to the intricate details of his "personal life".



My opionion was always that Psycho used data that was not available to others for proof and perhaps finally we all can recognize that error we made to take his work on the celts for non debatable.

Oh oh...really!!? Did someone take his work for "non debatable"!? He must have missed that or failed to mention it in his notes.


my2bob

[antiochus epiphanes]

Ah common SaFe... no pom poms, cheers and dancing moves celebrating the apparent victory of good (everyone who disagrees with Psycho) over evil (Psycho himself)? :smiley:

Psycho always said he pictured you in a little pink cheer girls uniform :cheerleader: popping in with a "yer Psycho sucks" here and a "take that you Celtic bastard" there.

What happened to the love, unrequited? I feel your pain, I once had this goat ....... ah, for another time :flowers:




Psycho2? Psycho junior? I wouldn't know I'm just his cousin. Thank god I'm not that privy to the intricate details of his "personal life".




Oh oh...really!!? Did someone take his work for "non debatable"!? He must have missed that or failed to mention it in his notes.


my2bob
if your not "privy to the intricate details of His life, how do you know about his disdain for SaFe?
lets see here, flaming another board member,
general self martyrdom,
knows alot about "psycho"
and signs his posts with "my2bob"
hmmmn lets see my guess is that your A psycho? seriously, make another account so you can E-harrass members again? whats wrong man you really need help....

[Frostwulf]

I have nothing against you, just cannot believe this topic has lasted so long!I glad to here that. It has lasted a long time, but I believe it will come to its final conclusion soon.


Anything constructive or do we have the pleasure to hear the thoughts of Psycho2?
My opionion was always that Psycho used data that was not available to others for proof and perhaps finally we all can recognize that error we made to take his work on the celts for non debatable.Psycho couldn't substantiate his claims(leading scholars, archaeological evidence) I believe because he made most of these claims up. Then he went into distorting texts(Goldsworthy and others) to support his claim and to finally just making up texts(‘Indo-European History’, ‘La Tene Gaul’, XVI, 5.63, Univerzita Karlova v Praze). Truly Sad.

[NeoSpartan]

.....I’m sure Psycho would have something to say about this if he were allowed to reply (unbanned) :yes:

......

Ok wait a minute now....When was Psycho banned????????? :furious3:

btw I don't believe Psycho made his post up. To the man's defence, if we scroll back some pages he did claim he hated citing stuff and if we look more closely to his posts he didn't start citing until recently.

Anywho... enough about that, I see discussing the man's character in his absence is B.S.

Now here is something I don't get:

If the Gallic tribes were not weakened... Then why in the hell would they need to call on the Suebi and the Romans to fight for them??????

:book:

Sure all sovereign nations/cities/tribes called or hired foreign troops, Carthage did all the time. But calling on a foreign army, which is led by a foreign leader, to fight the sovereign’s war is NOT done unless the sovereign is unable to fight its own war. And what’s even worst, the sovereign is unable to lead the foreign army it called/hired.

You know something has to be F*ed up when the Gallic tribes, who used to fight each other for centuries, all of the sudden call on foreign armies led by the foreigners themselves to fight the Gaul's "squabble"/raid/conflict/civilwar/whatever in the Gauls OWN territory.
-If I am not mistaken the Greeks did something similar... they called on Rome to "free" them Macedon, and then they called of Antiacos (sp) of AS to "free" them from the Romans. Why?? Becuase those cities could not "free" themselves and they used the existing tensions between those powers to fight eachother.

[Thaatu]

I won't comment on anyone, when they can't defend themselves, so that eats up most of my comments. I do have a few though.


Ross Cowan-“For the Glory of Rome”-“Vercingetorix now launched one of the greatest cavalry attacks in history on Caesar’s marching army. Some 15,000 mounted warriors in three divisions bore down upon it, but Caesar was not daunted. In the early stages of the campaign he had recruited large numbers of German mercenary cavalry, of whom the Gauls had an almost irrational fear. Vercingetorix’s final hammer blow made hardly a dent as caesar formed the legions into a hollow square (agmen quadratum) with the baggage in the centre, then let loose the Germans who routed the Gallic cavalry. Thus Caesar’s retreat halted abruptly. His army turned about and eagerly pursued Vercengetorix.” pg. 192-193
Remember to keep a critical mind in your investigation. "...One of the greatest cavalry attacks in history...", "...but Caesar was not daunted.", "...of whom the Gauls had an almost irrational fear." and "Vercingetorix’s final hammer blow made hardly a dent..." make the author sound like he believes every last detail that Caesar gives in his accounts. Not too scientific. I've read the first four "books" of Gallic Wars, and although the big picture is probably true, the details don't sound too realistic. You should remember that when quoting numbers from Caesar.

On that note, I too don't agree with the term "devastating civil war", but the term itself is of no importance. The argument on Psycho's part is simply that the two strongest Celtic tribes in the region lost a part of their warrior elite prior to Caesar's invasion, thus forcing the tribes to pit levies against their foes. Anyway this is not presented in EB, and Roman troops after Marian reforms beat the hell out of all but the highest level Celtic units, so I don't see a problem relating to game mechanics.

[Frostwulf]

btw I don't believe Psycho made his post up. To the man's defence, if we scroll back some pages he did claim he hated citing stuff and if we look more closely to his posts he didn't start citing until recently.You of course are welcome to your opinion. To assume he is telling the truth because he claims he hated citing stuff though? Now I certainly don't expect anyone to believe me, that is why I use citations. In this particular case I put down not only the e-mail I received saying:

Iam afraid no book or article with title "Indo-European history" or "La
Tene Gaul" were
published by Karlova Univerzita. Maybe its not correct citation but I
didn't find anything with
this title. I also put the e-mail address of the person in charge of cataloging and if anyone would know, she would. I put down the e-mail address so anyone can check for themselves.

Not to mention look at his misquotes, are you going to tell me you think that many misquotes are accidental? Especially since said quotes when skewed in the manner he put them would support his argument. If you look at the last one with Goldsworthy, it goes against his claim when quoted accurately.

If the Gallic tribes were not weakened... Then why in the hell would they need to call on the Suebi and the Romans to fight for them??????As you have said other peoples have used mercenaries as did Caesar. As you know there were plenty of Romans to fill in the ranks, so why did they use Celts,Numidians,Germans etc.? I have read from a few authors that they think the Gauls had used German mercenaries before, and Gallic alliances are constantly shifting. I have pointed out that the Po Valley Celts called upon the Gaesatae of 30,000 men, so this might not be so unusual. Also during this time the Belgic tribes used Germanic mercenaries.
I have no citations to rely on, only my supposition. I think there was a stalemate between two powerful Gallic "states" and the Sequani sought to break this stalemate and brought in more troops. The Germani probably had a reputation of being really tough, so who better to bring in then the Germani.

"Larger or smaller groups of Germans often entered the country, invited or uninvited, to make conquests or merely to take booty. Yet such incursions seldom affected large areas of Gaul. "


I won't comment on anyone, when they can't defend themselves, so that eats up most of my comments. I do have a few though.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1805409&postcount=110
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1805497&postcount=111
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1805851&postcount=112
and this one:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1807342&postcount=125
or you could just read pages 4 and 5 of this thread to get the picture.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=97437

Remember to keep a critical mind in your investigation. "...One of the greatest cavalry attacks in history...", "...but Caesar was not daunted.", "...of whom the Gauls had an almost irrational fear." and "Vercingetorix’s final hammer blow made hardly a dent..." make the author sound like he believes every last detail that Caesar gives in his accounts. Not too scientific. I've read the first four "books" of Gallic Wars, and although the big picture is probably true, the details don't sound too realistic. You should remember that when quoting numbers from Caesar.Cowan makes statements of exaggerated numbers, but the amount in the cavalry of Vercengetorix is still a large amount and that is why he calls it "One of the greatest cavalry attacks in history".

The argument on Psycho's part is simply that the two strongest Celtic tribes in the region lost a part of their warrior elite prior to Caesar's invasion, thus forcing the tribes to pit levies against their foes.Thats not what he is claiming, he is saying the warrior class was all but wiped out.

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.Not one of the Aedui council remained alive? Funny there was some there to attack the Suebi and to go before Caesar. Can't be understated, squandered these troops etc. etc.

Where is the proof of what Psycho has said? He says things but doesnt back them up, why is that? He certainly had plenty of time, I had asked him numerous times. Where is any evidence at all? Not one person has submitted anything to support the view of the warrior class being wiped out.

On the other hand I have shown multiple historians/archaeologists saying the same things about how battles were done prior to the intervention of the Romans. How do you explain the large amount of cavalry as I have shown in other places to be mounted nobles. What about the 60,000 picked men and other type warriors mentioned by Caesar? You don't have "Celtic Gaul was generally a prosperous and peaceful region" if most of the "Warrior class" was destroyed.


Anyway this is not presented in EB, and Roman troops after Marian reforms beat the hell out of all but the highest level Celtic units, so I don't see a problem relating to game mechanics.This hasn't been my experience but I don't want to deal with that till my next and final summery post which will deal with the historical units-Gaesatae,Soldurii and etc.

[NeoSpartan]

......As you have said other peoples have used mercenaries as did Caesar. As you know there were plenty of Romans to fill in the ranks, so why did they use Celts,Numidians,Germans etc.? I have read from a few authors that they think the Gauls had used German mercenaries before, and Gallic alliances are constantly shifting. I have pointed out that the Po Valley Celts called upon the Gaesatae of 30,000 men, so this might not be so unusual. Also during this time the Belgic tribes used Germanic mercenaries.
....



nonononononononono....close... but not there... maybe I need to clarify myself some more:

I am not talking about the sovereign hiring large numbers of mercenaries and leading them to battle like Hannibal did.

I am talking about the sovereign calling on a large number of foreign troops, which are led by a foreigner. And that foreign leader and his troops are not under control of the sovereign.

To use the Po Valley Celts as an example:
-The Po Valley Celts hired/called on the Gaesatae (btw that organization was no longer in existence by the time Ceasar and Arventicus showed up :book: ) because they could not take on the Romans themselves. But still, the Po Valley Celts had a good deal of control or say on the movements, and battle position of the Gaesatae. HOWEVER, in the case of Caesar, he was not working in close conjunction, or under the direction of any Gallic tribe. There was no telling him where to move his troops inside Gaul, let alone telling him where to put his troops in battle. Same issue with the Suebi king.

[Gaius Valerius]

their weren't many 'real' german tribes at the time of caesar. that is, from a linguistic point of view. the rhine wasn't a linguistic/cultural border till the time of august. its hard to make a distinction in 'civilisations' when no written evidence (from themselves) is present. archeologically speaking we find the same items east/west of the rhine.

archeologist tend to make a difference between celtic speaking 'germans' at the time of caesar and german speaking 'germans' at the time of caesar. a migration took place between these 2 rulers. caesar spoke of germans only to justify he didn't march east of the rhine (he was there to conquer gaul, since they kicked his ass east of the rhine they weren't germans :idea2: , smart dude he was :2thumbsup: )

[Moros]

Hi Gaius, Great to see other Belgians over here.
Are you studying History or Archeology?

[SaFe]

Ah common SaFe... no pom poms, cheers and dancing moves celebrating the apparent victory of good (everyone who disagrees with Psycho) over evil (Psycho himself)? :smiley:

Psycho always said he pictured you in a little pink cheer girls uniform :cheerleader: popping in with a "yer Psycho sucks" here and a "take that you Celtic bastard" there.

What happened to the love, unrequited? I feel your pain, I once had this goat ....... ah, for another time :flowers:


my2bob

I think that most members of EB who know me -would think this is a little under the belt at least.
If this was really the opinion of Psycho it is sad that he didn't had the "balls" to say it directly to me during our discussions.
I never claimed i like Psycho because of his irritating way to discuss the celtic/germanic "problem".
He was rather quick with the "nazi" suggestion if anyone wouldn't agree about his way of thinking about uncivillized germanic tribes, but if you really know his thoughts this would explain much.

Perhaps you would like to change your rather irritating behaviour against me or at least post only if you have something interesting to say concerning the topic and not your or Psycho's personal and flaming thoughts about other members. You could definately disagree with me, even say i'm totally wrong with my opinion, but i suggest you or Psycho leave the personal attacking out of this forums.

[The Celt]

Wow............it's still here........still open.......my god.............:shame:

At this point can't we all just agree that ancient Germanics and Celts both had their strong and weak points respectively? And that, in the end, everybody is a thetan? :help:

[Power2the1]

This was posted here I think by Ranika or somebody a long time ago I believe. Not sure how relevant it is here.

EDIT: The post below is in favor of a huge war/Civil War in Gaul, and goes into detail on how thing would have been without one, such as conflict would have remained on a smaller less devastating scale, and how outside "help" (Rome, Germans) would have not been needed
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=61067




Vercingetorix's confederacy is often exaggerated way out of proportion. In truth, it was small and weak compared to any of the prior major powers of warring Gaul (we lack one; the Aquitanni/Lemovici alliance and their subjects). You have to realize, many Gauls, the soldiers and warriors particularly (what remained; most had been wiped out fighting eachother), were pretty staunch allies of the Romans, and Vercingetorix was not well-liked by most Gauls. He was seen as a tyrant, because he wanted to set himself up as king of Gaul. This didn't fly with the substantial number of tribes who wanted the magistrates back (the government which the Aedui inherited, the original government of Gaul). Some provided (substantially reduced) support to Vercingetorix, others withdrew their support entirely. He's not really much of a hero. He was, from the view of numerous other Gauls, self-serving, and not worth supporting (essentially considering 'What's the difference between a Gallic tyrant and a Roman tyrant?'; so little that there's no reason to fight for either).

Now, if we say no civil war, this assumes a few things. One, Ambicatus's kingdom of Gaul never collapsed. This means, probably, the Germanic invasions were repelled, and the Belgae probably more handily defeated (this matter was largely handled by the Carnutes). Two, there's been no crisis in this time that caused the little kings to lose faith in the magistrates. The Vergobret and the Gallic 'senate' are still in control of all of Gaul. We'll also assume that, for whatever reason, they've remained in more or less the same borders, though in reality the magistrates probably would have been accepting submission from numerous more tribes, and probably would've expanded more in Italy and conquered or otherwise subverted the central European Bononae (northern Boii) and maybe some Germans. However, for safety's sake, we'll just say they control a portion of northern modern Italy, modern France, a chunk of southeast Britain (where the Casse start in EB; they were effectively Gauls in most respects, and it had been part of the old kingdom), and pockets in northern Iberia.

Alright, so we have a substantial portion of Europe being administered by the magistrates, who handle grievances and deal with keeping the kings united against common threats, giving them a voice in the 'senate', and using the druids to reinforce the law and their own authority through religious means. It doesn't really matter what tribe then is 'leading' them, it may remain in the hands of the Biturges, or move to one of the wealthier traders in terms of power, but that means little if we're assuming it's united; whoever has the most power has kept Gaul in line, regardless. This means many things. Development of arms and armor is not slowed by borders (having to try and assimilate new developments by way of trade and copying first). So, innovation is going to spread quicker. Clan wars would still exist, but these are small affairs, and not near so devestating, b This means more urbanization; oppida appear earlier, and are refined sooner. Means there are more cities in Gaul, some possibly on the scale of earlier Manching (a much earlier Celtic city), or even larger along the main Gallic trade roads.

Gaul, then, already is more developed (which is a big point; one has to recognize that in terms of many arms and armor developments, the Gauls had outpaced the Romans for centuries in several areas, and were only recently overtaken in such developments by the applications of Marius's reforms, shortly before the conquest of Gaul; no mistake, those reforms have a huge impact on the viability of conquering Gaul), more heavily populated (larger population means larger armies, more innovaters among them, more invention yet, plus greater production in trade and business, meaning more money), and would be better developed in terms of infrastructure (to accomodate the larger population; the large oppida and such have very very well developed infrastructure to cope with dense local populations; such things would then likely be applied over a much wider area).

What would the Gallic army look like? Probably not too much different, really. However, EB has a kind of vision of it for late Gallic armies. The necessities of defending wider areas, with smaller portions of a populace, led to 'professionalization' of portions of the army. The warrior class is already, more or less, 'professional', but, with their lords providing them equipment, they'd be much more capable, with better quality weapons and armor than many could normally afford themselves. Also, due to the increase in development, and more workers due to the larger population, the price of helmets, mail, swords, etc., will all drop greatly, because there will be more people producing them, likely with methods advanced over those they had in a disunited Gaul. Before the collapse, Gauls (and Celts in general) were rapidly developing. They were innovative, creative people, who revolutionized many concepts of metalwork. However, in utter disunity, innovation travels slower, so they were, obviously, overtaken by their neighbors in the fields that had originally allowed them so much strength. Anyway, had they not been, the Gallic army would likely have cores of heavy infantry with spears, longswords, and javelins (rather similar to a legion, if 'looser'; such a thing was occuring in Galatia where they were free to develop in relative comfort due to their often good relations with neighbors and internal harmony), supported, as usual, by youth levies, militia-warbands, and others, as well as knights (the Brihentin), and probably a number of developments we can't speculate at because we never got a chance to see their earliest development (EB's 'Neitos' represent the shift the Gauls were taking to superior arms and professionally armed and equipped armies shortly before their end; not necessarily 'too little', but definitely came 'too late' to save Gaul).

So, the army is now larger, with larger cores of both heavy infantry, and heavy cavalry (the Brihentin would balloon in size as well, recall), and possibly the chariot refinements introduced in Britain. The Gauls already had a good grasp of tactics. Polybius is very clear on this; Telamon, despite being a loss for the Gauls, is clearly a sign of Gallic understanding of tactics, but they were still outnumbered and also ambushed; even so, they make a great account of themselves and their use of standard bearers is actually very impressive. Ambushed, they managed to draw up into two lines swiftly to try and repulse the enemy, with a battle line facing each side of the attacking force in very good order (Polybius even says the Romans were actually frightened how well they managed this; they were clearly quite disciplined in this matter). Again though, with a united Gaul, you have more innovators. So, tactically, they'll be more developed. Gauls already have a fair understanding of campaiging tactics (Brennos in Greece {different from Brennos who sacked Rome}; he knew how to concern the Greeks elsewhere, breaking off detachments to ravage the lands of various allies of his enemies, to draw them away, and used his often far more experienced troops to defeat the Greeks; if not for the storm at Delphi, he probably would've survived some time longer, though the reprecussions for sacking the temple, had he lived, would possibly have been something entirely different). So, they'll be more skilled tactically, so we can assume similar-to-better tactics than they can be noted as having done before.

We'll skip more extrapolation and go right to Roman war with Gaul. Pre-Marian Rome; probably wouldn't stand a chance at conquering Gaul. They really didn't stand much of one against a disunited Gaul, considering how hard a slog they had, often having to compromise, and such compromises were largely based on the ability to exploit disunity ('We'll provide you aide against X tribe'). Post-Marian could probably do it with some smart decisions. During Caesar's war with Gaul, there are two major factors to exploit. However, neither is really present here. Germanic incursions, while possibly still an issue, would not be nearly the threat they were to a disunified Gaul, which does not exist. There'd be no need to seek aide from the Romans (what got the Roman conquest of Gaul going anyway; remember that many parts of Gaul joined the Romans swiftly of their own choice to get aide against the Germans and their enemies in Gaul). So the only way Romans could enter Gaul is to invade. They won't have Gallic allies except dissidents. They'll definitely need more men. Also, a big unified Gaul undoubtedly has some allies. They would likely ally with Carthage out of their desire for trade; a unified Gaul providing soldiers to Carthage's campaigns in Italy during the Punic wars? Carthage may then still exist during the Roman invasion; Rome itself may be a non-factor or a portion of Carthage's state, in fact.

However, assuming Rome still survives to fight Gaul, it will invariably face a larger, stronger, and richer enemy. It'd probably be forced to focus on conquests elsewhere, and might ally itself with Gaul in this state to ensure not having to fight with them; even if they win, it'll be insanely hard fought, and a huge number of people will die. It's hardly impossible, but still, it'll look wholely different.

[The Celt]

This was posted here I think by Ranika or somebody a long time ago I believe. Not sure how relevant it is here.



Vercingetorix's confederacy is often exaggerated way out of proportion. In truth, it was small and weak compared to any of the prior major powers of warring Gaul (we lack one; the Aquitanni/Lemovici alliance and their subjects). You have to realize, many Gauls, the soldiers and warriors particularly (what remained; most had been wiped out fighting eachother), were pretty staunch allies of the Romans, and Vercingetorix was not well-liked by most Gauls. He was seen as a tyrant, because he wanted to set himself up as king of Gaul. This didn't fly with the substantial number of tribes who wanted the magistrates back (the government which the Aedui inherited, the original government of Gaul). Some provided (substantially reduced) support to Vercingetorix, others withdrew their support entirely. He's not really much of a hero. He was, from the view of numerous other Gauls, self-serving, and not worth supporting (essentially considering 'What's the difference between a Gallic tyrant and a Roman tyrant?'; so little that there's no reason to fight for either).

Now, if we say no civil war, this assumes a few things. One, Ambicatus's kingdom of Gaul never collapsed. This means, probably, the Germanic invasions were repelled, and the Belgae probably more handily defeated (this matter was largely handled by the Carnutes). Two, there's been no crisis in this time that caused the little kings to lose faith in the magistrates. The Vergobret and the Gallic 'senate' are still in control of all of Gaul. We'll also assume that, for whatever reason, they've remained in more or less the same borders, though in reality the magistrates probably would have been accepting submission from numerous more tribes, and probably would've expanded more in Italy and conquered or otherwise subverted the central European Bononae (northern Boii) and maybe some Germans. However, for safety's sake, we'll just say they control a portion of northern modern Italy, modern France, a chunk of southeast Britain (where the Casse start in EB; they were effectively Gauls in most respects, and it had been part of the old kingdom), and pockets in northern Iberia.

Alright, so we have a substantial portion of Europe being administered by the magistrates, who handle grievances and deal with keeping the kings united against common threats, giving them a voice in the 'senate', and using the druids to reinforce the law and their own authority through religious means. It doesn't really matter what tribe then is 'leading' them, it may remain in the hands of the Biturges, or move to one of the wealthier traders in terms of power, but that means little if we're assuming it's united; whoever has the most power has kept Gaul in line, regardless. This means many things. Development of arms and armor is not slowed by borders (having to try and assimilate new developments by way of trade and copying first). So, innovation is going to spread quicker. Clan wars would still exist, but these are small affairs, and not near so devestating, b This means more urbanization; oppida appear earlier, and are refined sooner. Means there are more cities in Gaul, some possibly on the scale of earlier Manching (a much earlier Celtic city), or even larger along the main Gallic trade roads.

Gaul, then, already is more developed (which is a big point; one has to recognize that in terms of many arms and armor developments, the Gauls had outpaced the Romans for centuries in several areas, and were only recently overtaken in such developments by the applications of Marius's reforms, shortly before the conquest of Gaul; no mistake, those reforms have a huge impact on the viability of conquering Gaul), more heavily populated (larger population means larger armies, more innovaters among them, more invention yet, plus greater production in trade and business, meaning more money), and would be better developed in terms of infrastructure (to accomodate the larger population; the large oppida and such have very very well developed infrastructure to cope with dense local populations; such things would then likely be applied over a much wider area).

What would the Gallic army look like? Probably not too much different, really. However, EB has a kind of vision of it for late Gallic armies. The necessities of defending wider areas, with smaller portions of a populace, led to 'professionalization' of portions of the army. The warrior class is already, more or less, 'professional', but, with their lords providing them equipment, they'd be much more capable, with better quality weapons and armor than many could normally afford themselves. Also, due to the increase in development, and more workers due to the larger population, the price of helmets, mail, swords, etc., will all drop greatly, because there will be more people producing them, likely with methods advanced over those they had in a disunited Gaul. Before the collapse, Gauls (and Celts in general) were rapidly developing. They were innovative, creative people, who revolutionized many concepts of metalwork. However, in utter disunity, innovation travels slower, so they were, obviously, overtaken by their neighbors in the fields that had originally allowed them so much strength. Anyway, had they not been, the Gallic army would likely have cores of heavy infantry with spears, longswords, and javelins (rather similar to a legion, if 'looser'; such a thing was occuring in Galatia where they were free to develop in relative comfort due to their often good relations with neighbors and internal harmony), supported, as usual, by youth levies, militia-warbands, and others, as well as knights (the Brihentin), and probably a number of developments we can't speculate at because we never got a chance to see their earliest development (EB's 'Neitos' represent the shift the Gauls were taking to superior arms and professionally armed and equipped armies shortly before their end; not necessarily 'too little', but definitely came 'too late' to save Gaul).

So, the army is now larger, with larger cores of both heavy infantry, and heavy cavalry (the Brihentin would balloon in size as well, recall), and possibly the chariot refinements introduced in Britain. The Gauls already had a good grasp of tactics. Polybius is very clear on this; Telamon, despite being a loss for the Gauls, is clearly a sign of Gallic understanding of tactics, but they were still outnumbered and also ambushed; even so, they make a great account of themselves and their use of standard bearers is actually very impressive. Ambushed, they managed to draw up into two lines swiftly to try and repulse the enemy, with a battle line facing each side of the attacking force in very good order (Polybius even says the Romans were actually frightened how well they managed this; they were clearly quite disciplined in this matter). Again though, with a united Gaul, you have more innovators. So, tactically, they'll be more developed. Gauls already have a fair understanding of campaiging tactics (Brennos in Greece {different from Brennos who sacked Rome}; he knew how to concern the Greeks elsewhere, breaking off detachments to ravage the lands of various allies of his enemies, to draw them away, and used his often far more experienced troops to defeat the Greeks; if not for the storm at Delphi, he probably would've survived some time longer, though the reprecussions for sacking the temple, had he lived, would possibly have been something entirely different). So, they'll be more skilled tactically, so we can assume similar-to-better tactics than they can be noted as having done before.

We'll skip more extrapolation and go right to Roman war with Gaul. Pre-Marian Rome; probably wouldn't stand a chance at conquering Gaul. They really didn't stand much of one against a disunited Gaul, considering how hard a slog they had, often having to compromise, and such compromises were largely based on the ability to exploit disunity ('We'll provide you aide against X tribe'). Post-Marian could probably do it with some smart decisions. During Caesar's war with Gaul, there are two major factors to exploit. However, neither is really present here. Germanic incursions, while possibly still an issue, would not be nearly the threat they were to a disunified Gaul, which does not exist. There'd be no need to seek aide from the Romans (what got the Roman conquest of Gaul going anyway; remember that many parts of Gaul joined the Romans swiftly of their own choice to get aide against the Germans and their enemies in Gaul). So the only way Romans could enter Gaul is to invade. They won't have Gallic allies except dissidents. They'll definitely need more men. Also, a big unified Gaul undoubtedly has some allies. They would likely ally with Carthage out of their desire for trade; a unified Gaul providing soldiers to Carthage's campaigns in Italy during the Punic wars? Carthage may then still exist during the Roman invasion; Rome itself may be a non-factor or a portion of Carthage's state, in fact.

However, assuming Rome still survives to fight Gaul, it will invariably face a larger, stronger, and richer enemy. It'd probably be forced to focus on conquests elsewhere, and might ally itself with Gaul in this state to ensure not having to fight with them; even if they win, it'll be insanely hard fought, and a huge number of people will die. It's hardly impossible, but still, it'll look wholely different.
I guess not....:wall:

[Power2the1]

I guess not....:wall:


Actually, the post is in favor of a Civil War happening, and goes into detail of how Gaul *would* have been without this Civil War.

[NeoSpartan]

Good job Power2the1 I had completely forgotten about this post.

maybe I should re-read the whole thread :dizzy2: :book: :dizzy2:

[Gaius Valerius]

Hi Gaius, Great to see other Belgians over here.
Are you studying History or Archeology?

History in Ghent, though the knowledge is based on pre & proto-geschiedenis, which is from the department of archeology

[Moros]

History in Ghent, though the knowledge is based on pre & proto-geschiedenis, which is from the department of archeology
Ah, too bad. I was hoping you studied in Leuven. (like me)
Doing history myself, first year though.

[Frostwulf]

Sorry been dealing with another thread as well as not having much time on my hands.

I am talking about the sovereign calling on a large number of foreign troops, which are led by a foreigner. And that foreign leader and his troops are not under control of the sovereign.

To use the Po Valley Celts as an example:
-The Po Valley Celts hired/called on the Gaesatae (btw that organization was no longer in existence by the time Ceasar and Arventicus showed up ) because they could not take on the Romans themselves. But still, the Po Valley Celts had a good deal of control or say on the movements, and battle position of the Gaesatae. HOWEVER, in the case of Caesar, he was not working in close conjunction, or under the direction of any Gallic tribe. There was no telling him where to move his troops inside Gaul, let alone telling him where to put his troops in battle. Same issue with the Suebi king. Ariovistus and his troops were under the leadership of the Sequani. Ariovistus decided after defeating the Aedui to turn on his employer the Sequani and subjugate them.

It does appear that I was wrong that there was a stalemate between the Aedui and Sequani.

Arthur D. Khan-"The Education of Julius Caesar"-"Some years earlier the Aeduians, the most powerful of the Gallic tribes, had engaged in a war over river tolls with their neighbors the Sequanians. The Sequanians had called in German mercenaries under the Suebian chief Ariovistus and inflicted a major defeat on the Aeduans. Subsequently, the Sequanians, themselves threatened by the Germans, sought a reconciliation with the Aeduans against the common foe. Two parties arose within both tribes, one proposing to solicit aid against the Germans from the Helvetians, and the other seeking Roman intervention. While the Romans were preoccupied with the revolt of the Allobrogians, neighbors to the Helvetians and the Aeduans, a Helvetian chieftain plotted with an Aeduan chief and a Seqanian chief for mutual assistance in seizing power in their respective countries. Such an alliance among the three Gallic tribes could not be tolerated by Rome, and possibly at Roman instigation, the Helvetian, Orgetorix, was tried by his people and convicted of attempting to usurp supreme power. The Helvetians, however, continued their plans to migrate to the sea. With the general movement of semi-nomadic tribes in Central Europe, Rome feared the warlike Germans might occupy the Helvetian homeland.


their weren't many 'real' german tribes at the time of caesar. that is, from a linguistic point of view. the rhine wasn't a linguistic/cultural border till the time of august. its hard to make a distinction in 'civilisations' when no written evidence (from themselves) is present. archeologically speaking we find the same items east/west of the rhine. I was curious to which tribes you consider 'real' German? My guess is your referring to the Suebi as being real Germans while the Belgae tribes not being 'real' Germans?

@Power2the1 Thank you for posting Ranika's answer to what if the supposed "Devastating Civil War" never happened. I will try to find his post were he talks of it happening and what he has for proof. I might address some of the issues in the "what if" thread as well.

[blitzkrieg80]

This thread is like Chuck Norris

[Gaius Valerius]

I was curious to which tribes you consider 'real' German? My guess is your referring to the Suebi as being real Germans while the Belgae tribes not being 'real' Germans?


since these regions were at the time still in the phase of prehistory (or proto-history, a term referring to ppl which left no written evidence of their own - if you got your education in france though, you probably see protohistory as teh period from the first agriculture, being the neolithicum, well thats only a methodological difference), we depend on archeology. but its hard to see a difference in language based on parts of pots and weapons. basically no real difference can be seen between the ppl caesar called germans and the ones he saw as gauls, culturally that is. the rhine as border was mostly arbitrary and apologetic to explain why he stopped his conquests there. archeologist nowadays now for sure the culture on both sides was the same.

the belgae were celtic but seemed to have claimed lineage with 'german' tribes to the north, yet looking at example the the language they used in names we know as 'ambiorix' the -ix suffix is celtic and refers to 'king'.

so yes the belgae weren't real germans in terms of language. as i said the rhine effectively became a 'linguistic' border by the time of august.

@Moros

good luck in Leuven, but i've always been hooked on Ghent, and as i'm from west-vlaanderen, its also a lot closer. though the depart of letteren & wijsbegeerte is a nice building (sweet big libraries). couldn't find the entrance though the first time i came there :wall:

[Moros]

good luck in Leuven, but i've always been hooked on Ghent, and as i'm from west-vlaanderen, its also a lot closer. though the depart of letteren & wijsbegeerte is a nice building (sweet big libraries). couldn't find the entrance though the first time i came there :wall:
Got quite a bit of people who first go to the KULAK and then come over here, believe me. I've been surrounded at times by people from West-Vlaanderen, pretty confusing if you live in Limburg. lol :p

Also some notes on topic. Belgae, or better the tribes that lived in Nowadays Belgium, Nothern France, and parts of Netherlands and Germany (this side of the Rhine) indeed have 'Germanic' influence. But Archeology and names seem to suggest a celtic language. Also culturally they seem to have more in common with Celts from Gaul. Ofcourse it didn't just change across the Rhine. Every Tribe had it's own recipy. Take the Nervii for example, a Belgae tribe at "Celtic side" of the Rhine, not to close even. Seemed to have a verry high Germanic influence, and seemed to claim to be originating from Germany and being proud of it. But if you' go more towards the Rhine you could stumble upon a tribe looking more Celtic than them, or you could stumble upon a verry German like tribe (Atuatuci, Eburoni for example). It think you can't draw a line really.

Also isn't the suffix Rix, instead of Ix. IIRC Rix was the word for King in Celtic. (originating from the same word as Rex, or lating for King)

[blitzkrieg80]

Yes, Gaul rix / L rex comes from the Indo-European word for "right" *reģ (literally and figuratively- thus the relationship of this leadership position to the users of the term is slightly elucidated), "to straighten" or "set right", some think it's related to justice as in right or wrong.

[Gaius Valerius]

It think you can't draw a line really.

Also isn't the suffix Rix, instead of Ix. IIRC Rix was the word for King in Celtic. (originating from the same word as Rex, or lating for King)

-true
-my bad


and indeed, the linguistic differences between flemish ppl are quite big. even in ghent - which is relatively close - they wouldn't understand me in plain west-vlaams, while for those from antwerp they're like what? what? waa wès daaa nau? i also think i wouldn't understand real limburgs that easily. my grandma is from bocholt but she's been living here for almost all her life and her language is funniest of all. not west vlaams, not limburgs... hmmm... westburgs

[Frostwulf]

Some reply to Ranika's post about the "What if" scenario:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1814279&postcount=519
On Vercingetorix:

He was seen as a tyrant, because he wanted to set himself up as king of Gaul. This didn't fly with the substantial number of tribes who wanted the magistrates back (the government which the Aedui inherited, the original government of Gaul). Some provided (substantially reduced) support to Vercingetorix, others withdrew their support entirely. He's not really much of a hero. He was, from the view of numerous other Gauls, self-serving, and not worth supporting (essentially considering 'What's the difference between a Gallic tyrant and a Roman tyrant?'; so little that there's no reason to fight for either).
Yet he was able to get "Supposedly with more than 200,000 warriors from at least 40 Celtic tribes". Atlas of the Celts pg.85


John King-"Kingdom of the Celts-"Vercingetorix must have had some very impressive personal qualities to have persuaded the tribal elders that he deserved the kingship." pg.123

John King-"Kingdom of the Celts-"Vercingetorix received a previously unknown level of confidence and support: he was elected King of Gaul, and very quickly secured the allegiance not only of his own powerful tribe, the Arverni, but also of the Senones, Parisii, Cadurci, Turoni, Aulerci, Lemovices, Andes, Pictones, Santoni and Aquitani. To the best of our knowledge, no Gaulish king had ever been afforded that title or honour." pg. 123-123
He wasn't a hero but he was able to convince tribes to:

Goldsworthy-"Caesar Life of a Colossus"-"The Biruriges set fire to twenty of the main settlements in response to this order. Vercingetorix argued that terrible though this was, the alternative was death for the warriors and enslavement for their families. His strategy was considerably more sophisticated Than that employed by Caesar's earlier opponents, and Vercingetorix must clearly have possessed considerable charisma and force of personality to persuade his followers the necessity of such uncompromising measures. It was remarkable just how much the tribes were willing to sacrifice, but unsurprising that they occasionally balked at the prospect." pg.324There is this though:

Goldsworthy-"Caesar Life of a Colossus"-"For a while there was dissension in the Gaulish army, some even claiming that Vercingetorix was in league with the Romans and wished to be made king of all Gaul with Caesar's aid. It is more than likely that the two men had met, and fairly probable that Vercingetorix had even received some favors from Caesar during his cultivation of the Arvernian aristocracy. eventually he calmed them, bringing out captive Roman slaves and claiming that they were legionaries. The men had been coached to tell a plaintive story of the hardships and shortages in the Roman camp. Having convinced the men of the wisdom of his plan, he and the other chieftains selected 10,000 warriors and sent them to reinforce Avaricum." pg.325-326

Atlas of the Celtic World-" Even the greatest of Celtic war leaders, Vercingetorix, could not mobilize all the Gauls against Caesar's legions."pg. 27Granted the above is of no real relevance.

For the "Devastating Civil War" part:

Now, if we say no civil war, this assumes a few things. One, Ambicatus's kingdom of Gaul never collapsed. This means, probably, the Germanic invasions were repelled, and the Belgae probably more handily defeated (this matter was largely handled by the Carnutes). Two, there's been no crisis in this time that caused the little kings to lose faith in the magistrates. The Vergobret and the Gallic 'senate' are still in control of all of Gaul. We'll also assume that, for whatever reason, they've remained in more or less the same borders, though in reality the magistrates probably would have been accepting submission from numerous more tribes, and probably would've expanded more in Italy and conquered or otherwise subverted the central European Bononae (northern Boii) and maybe some Germans. However, for safety's sake, we'll just say they control a portion of northern modern Italy, modern France, a chunk of southeast Britain (where the Casse start in EB; they were effectively Gauls in most respects, and it had been part of the old kingdom), and pockets in northern Iberia.

There is this about Ambicatus and his time period:

Peter Ellis-"The Celtic Empire"-"I have chosen the title The Celtic Empire for this history perhaps somewhat mischievously. Any resemblance to empires as we know them, such as the Roman empire or more recent examples, is in fact spurious. There emerges no known sustained series of Celtic emperors having supreme and extensive political dominion over numerous subject peoples." pg.1


Atlas of the Celts-"During the Early La Tene period, some of these Celtic elites consolidated into larger tribal groupings that became associated with a geographical area, the Boii in Bohemia, for example. In 400 BC, these 'tribes' were the largest ethnic units to which any of the Celtic-speaking inhabitants of Europe would have admitted belonging; and the vast majority would have had no greater sense of belonging than to their own dispersed village." pg. 53
Early La Tene A-B1, 475-350BC.

Dr. Barry Raftery; Dr.Jane McIntosh, Clint Twist
*Atlas of the Celts-"Warfare between Celts-to restore hurt pride, score points off neighbours or just for sheer entertainment-may well have developed into fairly ritualized affairs intended to minimise casualties among the elite. The concept of 'national' warfare would have been entirely alien to Celts at the end of the 5th century BC. Such concepts could only arise when the elites came into military conflict with a significant other (as opposed to peoples less well organised then themselves), in the form of highly disciplined Mediterranean armies." pg.53

B.Cunliffe-"The Ancient Celts"-"Standing back from the evidence, briefly summarized here, we can see that during the course of the fifth century there arose two zones of power and innovation: a Marne-Moselle zone in the west with trading links to the Po Valley via the central Alpine passes and the Golasecca culture, and a Bohemian zone in the east with separate links to the Adriatic via the eastern Alpine routes and the Venetic culture. Both zones, and their constituent regions, had already begun to develop a significant foci of power towards the end of the Late Hallstatt phase, but what stands out a s particularly dramatic is that most of the core of the west Hallstatt elite zone, so dominant in the late sixth and early fifty centuries, was now a cultural backwater. In other words, as the centre decayed, its northern periphery flourished-in much the same way as a mushroom ring grows.
To offer explanations for the phenomenon is not easy. On the one hand, it could be argued that readjustments in trading pressures from the Mediteranean states caused social dislocation north of the Alps upsetting the delicate balance of the prestige goods economy. Perhaps the interests of the Greek cities of the Golfe du Lion turned more to the west as the lucrative Iberian market developed leaving the northern markets open to exclusive Etruscan manipulation. It could also be that internal social dynamics in Transalpine Europe were the prime cause. The peripheral zone , so long producing the supplies of raw materials such as furs, amber, iron, gold, and slaves for the core, may have developed a penchant for southern luxuries. Given the warrior nature of peripheral society, reflecting no doubt the practice of raiding, then aggressive moves against the west Hallstatt core may have destabilized and destroyed the old system. Perhaps it was a combination of all these factors which brought abut the dramatic changes of the fifth century. At any event, by about 400 BC the scene was set for a new act in the story of Europe-the Celtic migrations."pg.66-67He mentions the raiding, but why doesn't he mention that the destruction was cause by a massive "Devastating Civil War"?

B.Cunliffe-"The Ancient Celts"-The most convincing evidence for an exodus of population comes from the Marne region. A study of the rich burial data shows that during the fifth century a large stable population occupied the region, its elite buried in state with their two-wheeled vehicles and wine-drinking equipment. But some time about 400 BC the population suddenly declines. Thereafter, only one major focus developed, in the Reims area, while much of the rest of the Champagne region appears to have been deserted. Taken at face value, the evidence strongly suggests that a very high proportion of the populations must have moved out, leaving only one lineage to maintain a single power centre. Much of the same kind of evidence can be seen in the Rhineland. Although there was a marked degree of continuity between the distribution and range of burials from the fifth to the fourth centuries, a sharp reduction in the actual number of burials is recorded, particularly of warrior burials normally accompanied by swords." pg. 74-75If there is such a "Devastating Civil War" how is it that there is such a large population that is leaving? Why if there was such a "Devastating Civil War" is there a sharp reduction in warrior burials?

There is more of this kind of stuff but I believe that should be sufficient. Just like I showed during the 2nd-1st centuries BC, the same is said of the 5th-4th centuries BC. There was no "Devastating Civil War" that wiped out the warrior class, there was raiding and some battles and that was about it. Again this probably ranks on the severity scale around a 3 or less.
For the 2nd-1st century BC "Devastating Civil War":
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1806465&postcount=502

Ranika(seems like a descent guy) had no evidence other then his say so. Now can anyone at all provide any evidence supporting the "Devastating Civil War"?

[Redmeth]

The people who write the books are people who examine evidence and draw their own conclusions. It's not like their word is gospel. Granted they are very well informed much more than most (any?) of us here but they're still people living in this century it's not like they had the inside story interviewing Vercingetorix or Caesar.

Caesar work cannot be taken word for word, he praises some criticizes some etc. So when you look at evidence you might get an idea someone else might get another idea, it's human nature. I for one believe that there was something more going on in Gaul than Caesar has written but exactly what we'll never know. Quoting passages from authors will not prove your point beyond doubt. And the other way around if I were to quote an author that says "there are indications of a devastating civil war" you'd just quote back and say that the other one has no evidence. It's a vicious circle.

I am in no way saying that all the works you cited are doubtful (I've just read Cunliffe's book The Ancient Celts excellent btw) but all the works published don't usually go into great detail it would probably be overwhelming to be honest and they tend to stay on the safe side of things not theorizing too much.

So please we get it you don't agree with the Civil War Theory there was only raiding etc everyone gets it... How do you like 1.0, have you played with the Sweboz/Aedui/Arvernii a campaign, are you enjoying the game?

EDIT: BTW you quote Ranika's What If post by telling him there was no Gallic Empire, it's a what if scenario... And the part about raiding you quote is from the period before 400 BC (before the migrations) quite a way off from the period under discussion...

[The Wandering Scholar]

Every book is made to sell, bottom line. Therefore books can not be completely reliable or considered such. Well, that is what Critical Thinking does to you.

[paullus]

He mentions the raiding, but why doesn't he mention that the destruction was cause by a massive "Devastating Civil War"?

Quote:
B.Cunliffe-"The Ancient Celts"-The most convincing evidence for an exodus of population comes from the Marne region. A study of the rich burial data shows that during the fifth century a large stable population occupied the region, its elite buried in state with their two-wheeled vehicles and wine-drinking equipment. But some time about 400 BC the population suddenly declines. Thereafter, only one major focus developed, in the Reims area, while much of the rest of the Champagne region appears to have been deserted. Taken at face value, the evidence strongly suggests that a very high proportion of the populations must have moved out, leaving only one lineage to maintain a single power centre. Much of the same kind of evidence can be seen in the Rhineland. Although there was a marked degree of continuity between the distribution and range of burials from the fifth to the fourth centuries, a sharp reduction in the actual number of burials is recorded, particularly of warrior burials normally accompanied by swords." pg. 74-75

If there is such a "Devastating Civil War" how is it that there is such a large population that is leaving? Why if there was such a "Devastating Civil War" is there a sharp reduction in warrior burials?

I'm not sure this quotation actually supports your argument. Population displacement is a common result of either major economic disruption or major conflict. How exactly do you see populations dispersal and displacement as refuting a civil war? Similarly, decreased numbers of warrior burials would also fit with the idea of a civil war. For the 5th-4th century, burying a warrior with his arms, a chariot, and various expensive goods was indicative of wealth and status. In the event of pervasive warfare, retention of weapons likely outweighed the ritual significance of warrior burials, and in the case of population dispersal and large battle casualties, we might expect fewer burials, especially fewer warrior burials, which we indeed find.

[Frostwulf]

And the other way around if I were to quote an author that says "there are indications of a devastating civil war" you'd just quote back and say that the other one has no evidence. It's a vicious circle.I for one believe that there was something more going on in Gaul than Caesar has written but exactly what we'll never know.What do you base this on? From some guys on this forum? One guy who couldn't backup his statements so he had to distort citations and make one up? I'm truly curious what your basing this on.


And the other way around if I were to quote an author that says "there are indications of a devastating civil war" you'd just quote back and say that the other one has no evidence. It's a vicious circle.This is the major problem, not one historian/archaeologist has said anything to support this.

"The Dacians could have held back the Celts early on, they were really powerful and tough. They had such a fine technology that they made these incredibly sharp swords. Just as the Celts started to enter the lands of the Dacians, things went wrong. A huge earthquake hit as the Dacians were heading to meet the Celts, sadly most of their warriors fell on their sharp swords and were either impaled or cut so badly they bled to death. The remaining warriors were so grief stricken they destroyed all the super sharp Dacian swords and vowed never to make them again."

Now I could use your same argument to back up this ridiculous story I made up. But for game purposes we have to go with what is most likely the situation. To date I have seen nothing from any credible source that backs up the 2 "Devastating Civil Wars", on the contrary there is only evidence to dismiss it.


EDIT: BTW you quote Ranika's What If post by telling him there was no Gallic Empire, it's a what if scenario... And the part about raiding you quote is from the period before 400 BC (before the migrations) quite a way off from the period under discussion... The reason for this statement is that Psycho V made a comment that there had been 2 "Devastating Civil Wars", so when Ranika made this comment:

Now, if we say no civil war, this assumes a few things. One, Ambicatus's kingdom of Gaul never collapsed. I assumed that the first "Devastating Civil War" happened sometime after his death. But you are correct that this first one has no bearing on EB.


Every book is made to sell, bottom line. Therefore books can not be completely reliable or considered such. Well, that is what Critical Thinking does to you.I agree with this, but everyone has to trust something. Was there really a people called Celts? If there was how did you find out about them? Most likely the book that was made to sell. I guess we have to read a bunch and come to our own conclusions.

[Frostwulf]

I'm not sure this quotation actually supports your argument. Population displacement is a common result of either major economic disruption or major conflict. How exactly do you see populations dispersal and displacement as refuting a civil war? Similarly, decreased numbers of warrior burials would also fit with the idea of a civil war. For the 5th-4th century, burying a warrior with his arms, a chariot, and various expensive goods was indicative of wealth and status. In the event of pervasive warfare, retention of weapons likely outweighed the ritual significance of warrior burials, and in the case of population dispersal and large battle casualties, we might expect fewer burials, especially fewer warrior burials, which we indeed find.
Sorry about missing your post Paullus, I didn't check things after I posted as I had been up 20+ hours before posting.
I think this will answer what your saying:

B.Cunliffe-"The Ancient Celts"-" In such a situation, the problem of a growing population could be dealt with in several ways. At its simplest, a small entourage under a leader could move out from the homeland, to find a new ecological niche to occupy. A process such as this would have led to the establishment of enclaves of elite warriors, distant from the homeland, who might at least for a generation or two, have retained their identity in an archaelogically-visible form. It is possible that the clusters of Early La Tene vehicle burials along the Lower Seine, in the Ardennes and the Haine, and even the group who emerged in Yorkshire, may have owed their origin to this kind of small-scale warrior exodus.
At the other end of the scale, larger bands of roaming warriors having no particular territorial base may have come together under one or more charismatic leader. It is quite possible that the Gaesatae-warriors who, according to Polybius, were 'available for hire' and were decked out in 'a variety of armour' and were to be found 'about the Alps and on the Rhone'-were itinerant fighters of this kind. Growing population and rigid social constraints in the homelands could well have swelled their numbers. In such a turbulent and unstable situation, it would need only the decision on the part of one leader to take his entourage to the rich pickings of the south for the news to spread and others to follow, swelling the numbers to a migration and creating a momentum of Celtic populations into the Po Valley: it might also be expected to have left traces in the home territories." pg. 74 Most authors(including the classical ones)say(speculate) the reason for the migrations was because of overpopulation. You also have to remember Cunliffe said this:"during the fifth century a large stable population occupied the region". Large and stable populations don't speak well of "Devastating Civil Wars" or any wars for that matter.

[Barry Soteiro]

Frostwulf aren't you bored to harass the EB team with this "holier than thou"" attitude, seriously man ! What are you trying to prove by quoting the same selected excerpts fom the same selected authors since 6 months ?

And you still haven't answered the following question : In your opinion are Gallic factions overpowered in EB ? If so why are they beaten by the Romans in 90% of the campaigns ? :laugh4:

[Frostwulf]

@Gertrude I never considered myself to have a holier then thou attitude. What I do consider is that no one else including members from the EB team seems to provide any evidence to counter what I have provided.
If you have read most of my posts you will see that I have on more then one occasion praised the EB team as I feel that they have done an excellent job. I do disagree with their rendering of the Celtic elite and have debated the subject with others.
If you bothered to even read the last 2 pages you would see why I have revisited this thread. If you would have tried to read this thread you would have noted not only am I using authors mentioned by the EB team member(Psycho V) you would have noticed that more authors and different quotes were used.


And you still haven't answered the following question : In your opinion are Gallic factions overpowered in EB ? If so why are they beaten by the Romans in 90% of the campaigns ?
Again if you would have read this thread you would realize that this mod is about historical accuracy in its units, which for the Celtic elites I believe is wrong.

[Spendios]

@Gertrude I never considered myself to have a holier then thou attitude. What I do consider is that no one else including members from the EB team seems to provide any evidence to counter what I have provided.


Counter what ?



If you would have tried to read this thread you would have noted not only am I using authors mentioned by the EB team member(Psycho V) you would have noticed that more authors and different quotes were used.

Psycho is not an EB member



Again if you would have read this thread you would realize that this mod is about historical accuracy in its units, which for the Celtic elites I believe is wrong.

In what aspects are Celtic units wrong ?

[Frostwulf]

Finally the last part to this thread, the Celtic units.

For the Gaesatae:
Its been said the Gaesatae used drugs and were really tough, but to me what counts is performance in battles. I was watching the history channel when they interviewed a US tank commander from WW2. He said prior to going to going overseas the US army told them that the Sherman was as good if not better then the German tanks. The US tank commander said that when he got into battle it was obvious what the US army told them was untrue.

The situation is the same with the Gaesatae, you can say all you want about them on drugs(magic potions), being bodyguards to Hannibal and etc.(I doubt all of it, this is probably from the same source as the "Devastating Civil Wars") but what really counts is how they performed in battle. As shown in the battles of Telemon,Clusium/Faesulae and Clastidium I don't see any reason why the Gaesatae deserve the stats they have.
For those that say the Gaesatae of Telemon are not the same as those of Clusium/Faesulae and Clastidium:


Ross Cowan-“For the Glory of Rome”-“During the Cimbric War the primus pilus Gnaeus Petreius, tired of his tribune’s reluctance to attack the German force which had surrounded the legion, gutted the cowardly officer with his gladius and let the legion out to victory.” pg.238

Ross Cowan-“For the Glory of Rome”-“In 222BC Roman attention turned to the Insubres. Then new consuls, Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio and Marcus Claudius Marcellus, rejected peace proposals offered by the Insubres and assaulted their stronghold at Acerrae. In anticipation of this, Insubres had enlisted the services of 30,000 Gaesati mercenaries, and attacked the Roman supply base at Clastidium. The consuls had to divied their forces, Marcellus rushing to Clastidium with two-thirds of the cavalry (3000-3500?) And only 600 light infantry, while Scipio pressed on with the siege of Acerrae.”pg.155

Ross Cowan-“For the Glory of Rome”-“Marcellus covered the distance to Clastidium in record time but his tired force appears to have been suprised by the Gauls just ouside the town. The Gauls, Gaesati numbering 10,000, were commanded by their king, Viridomarus, a typically towering and muscular figure.”pg.157
Also this:

Connolly-"Greece and Rome at War"-"The next year 30,000 Gaesati (the ones who fought naked) crossed the Alps to assist their kinsmen in the Po valley. The Romans laid siege to the Insubrian town of Acerrae, north of the Po. In an attempt to draw off the legions the Celts attacked the Roman supply depot at Casteggio, 50km west of piacenza." pg.146
Ellis says the same thing, the Gaesatae of Telemon are the same as those of Clusium/Faesulae and Clastidium.
I don't know if this is the case but if it is:

Guido Achille Mansuelli-"The Celts"*-"Though it is tempting to compare the fianna bands of Irish warriors with the Gesati who fought at the Battle of the Telamon, we would be in danger of moving into very unsure ground historically.pg.17
Of the Soldurii:

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"Their request was granted and they proceeded to hand their weapons over as ordered. But while the attention of all our men was focused on this transaction, their commander-in-chief Adiatumnus went into action in another part of the town with 600 followers whom they called soldurii. The rule of this order is that they share in the enjoyment of all life's advantages with the friends to whom they have committed themselves, and if the friend succumbs to any violence they either share his fate or commit suicide; there is no record of one who refused to die when the man to whose friendship he had committed himself was killed. It was with such followers that Adiatumnus attempted his sortie, but a shout was raised in that part of the fortification. The soldiers ran to arms, and after a sharp engagement Adiatumnus was driven back into the town. But he petitioned Crassus for the old terms of surrender and obtained his desire. Book 3,22

Again here there is nothing to show that they deserve the stats they have. I did some tests on some units using grassy flat lands and medium difficulty. At the beginning I just clicked on my units and then clicked attack on the enemy soldiers and the computer did the rest, I didn't interfere.
2units of praetorian(205 soldiers) vs. 3 units of soldurii(184 warriors):

I control the praetorians=3 losses.
I control the soldurii= I won 3 and lost 2.

2units of praetorian(205 soldiers) vs. 3 units of Rycalawre(184 warriors):
I control the praetorians=3 losses and 1 win.
I control the Rycalawre= 1 win and 3 losses.

I did the same with the hammer guys with one win, one loss.

The problems with doing this is the computer controlled units will do some odd things. I think Neo-Spartans way is the best and that is to have two people square off against each other with the same amount of troops.

I do have a problem with lower level Celtic elites losing to the praetorians! Where does that leave the Carnutes,Orca,Uachtarch(or whatever they are called now) etc?
I don't have a problem at all with the stats of the Remi Mairepos, though I did find it funny that the Remi were first mentioned by Caesar.

So for simplicity, even if you do believe in the "Devastating Civil War" you still have Romans militia/conscript troops defeating larger Celtic armies. So if you have these militia/conscript troops defeating the Celts, how is it that they are better then the later professional Roman troops? It makes no sense what so ever.
The Celtic elite units are overpowered.

[Frostwulf]

Counter what ? I should have explained that better. What I was referring to is that my assertions that the "Devastating Civil War" didn't exist(not on the level claimed by Psycho and others) and that the Romans were defeating the Celts the majority of the time while mostly outnumbered.


Psycho is not an EB memberHe was a member of the EB team until recently. I believe he helped develop the Celtic units, though I'm not entirely sure.


In what aspects are Celtic units wrong ?Its the explanation thats above, we were posting at the same time.

[Spendios]

I really think you should play a campaign. Reaching the conclusion that EB celts are overpowered simply by playing custom battles is very wrong since you don't take in account, the costs of units, the level at which they are available and the number of provinces where you can recruit them.

Just take a look at the faction expansion thread, it seems that the celts never steamroll on their neighbours even if they should according to you.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Frostwulf: Psycho wasn't an EB member anymore when I became one, which IIRC means before you even joined the conversation on these boards.

In any case I really must echo Spendios suggestion to play a campaign or two with them, both Arverni and Aedui nevermind now about the Casse: I have and from what I saw the standard Celtic units you complain about are perhaps one to one the better, but that advantage is royally nullified by the sheer amount of troops the Sweboz tend to throw at you, and in particular their bodyguards.

[Power2the1]

This was a description of the Celtic invasion of Greece.

[10.21.3]"On they marched against their enemies with the unreasoning fury and passion of brutes. Slashed with axe or sword they kept their desperation while they still breathed; pierced by arrow or javelin, they did not abate of their passion so long as life remained. Some drew out from their wounds the spears, by which they had been hit, and threw them at the Greeks or used them in close fighting."
http://www.theoi.com/Text/Pausanias10B.html



Before anyone replies, we did not live back then so no, its cannot be proven with 110% true scientific fact. Doubts about honesty of the any author in any time period can be made and arguments of "X" writer did not live during "X" time frame cannot always be used as reasoning to dismiss their accounts. The text does not mention these were gaesatae by name either or that these Celts took drugs/pain numbing medicines, etc...However, the mention of Celts hit with a spear and throwing them back at the Greeks or using the spears for themselves should be given more than casual thought. Personally I think its true what he wrote and this was observed by the Greeks whom the Celts were fighting.

Draw your own conclusions about this.

[Frostwulf]

I really think you should play a campaign. Reaching the conclusion that EB celts are overpowered simply by playing custom battles is very wrong since you don't take in account, the costs of units, the level at which they are available and the number of provinces where you can recruit them.
I appreciate what your saying here, but this isn't the problem. Its the elite units themselves I have a problem with. To me cost is irrelevant until the elite units fit the historical perspectives. The purpose of EB was to be more of a historical mod then the original game, but I believe that the Celtic elites are overpowered.

To me its like assigning an early Sherman tank the stats of:
Sherman tank-Firepower 17/armor-23 cost-4,500
and then assigning the Panther the stats of:
Panther V- Firepower 12/ armor-17 cost 4,000

I would have a problem with this. Sure it may make the game more "playable" but historically accurate it would not. The Sherman tank should have both its armor and firepower reduced as well as its cost. By doing this it would better reflect the historical accuracy of the situation. The same is true of the elite Celtic units, they simply were not as good as reflected by this mod. The cost of the units should be reduced along with the attack factor(sword,spear,etc.) and defense.

Frostwulf: Psycho wasn't an EB member anymore when I became one, which IIRC means before you even joined the conversation on these boards.
Thank you for that clarification, I thought I had seen his name in conjunction with some of the units and therefor thought he was still with the team.
Even with him not being a member of the team, wouldn't he have access to the material and at the very least know where the information came from?

I have and from what I saw the standard Celtic units you complain about are perhaps one to one the better, but that advantage is royally nullified by the sheer amount of troops the Sweboz tend to throw at you, and in particular their bodyguards.This is the way the Celts should be as well, being able to have a large amount of troops as shown by historical accounts.


Before anyone replies, we did not live back then so no, its cannot be proven with 110% true scientific fact. Doubts about honesty of the any author in any time period can be made and arguments of "X" writer did not live during "X" time frame cannot always be used as reasoning to dismiss their accounts. The text does not mention these were gaesatae by name either or that these Celts took drugs/pain numbing medicines, etc...However, the mention of Celts hit with a spear and throwing them back at the Greeks or using the spears for themselves should be given more than casual thought. Personally I think its true what he wrote and this was observed by the Greeks whom the Celts were fighting.I don't have a problem with this, except I don't think there were very many at all able to do this. Its a common type theme with classical accounts. The Japanese have a guy who gets shot in the eye and pulls the arrow out and shoots it back at the guy who shot him(the enemy of course dies). The Germans have the fountain of Tyr, when the hand gets cut off they blind the enemy with the blood coming out of the stump of the arm. The Norse men were able to grab spears thrown at them out of the air and fling them back at their adversaries. There are stories of Romans doing the same type of things, one guy losing an eye and still holding off many Celts.

Could some of this happen? I believe it could but it would be a handful at best. Also if you look at the battle it really didn't matter if they all could do that, they still lost. If I'm not mistaken the Celts outnumbered the Greeks in this battle.

[Power2the1]

I don't have a problem with this, except I don't think there were very many at all able to do this. Its a common type theme with classical accounts. The Japanese have a guy who gets shot in the eye and pulls the arrow out and shoots it back at the guy who shot him(the enemy of course dies). The Germans have the fountain of Tyr, when the hand gets cut off they blind the enemy with the blood coming out of the stump of the arm. The Norse men were able to grab spears thrown at them out of the air and fling them back at their adversaries. There are stories of Romans doing the same type of things, one guy losing an eye and still holding off many Celts.

Could some of this happen? I believe it could but it would be a handful at best. Also if you look at the battle it really didn't matter if they all could do that, they still lost. If I'm not mistaken the Celts outnumbered the Greeks in this battle.


I believe that if the drug or potions that some Celts took before battle numbed their pain and weakened the effects of wounds (not sure if those other cultures you mentioned took things like that before battle) then I see no reason why a spear hit thats not in the heart or head would easily disable them, at least until they loose enough blood or the drug wears off.

It was on these forums, I think, that the effects of LSD were talked about. Cops shooting guys and hitting them in vital areas, the LSD target breaking through wooden fences and loosing plenty of skin and getting deep cuts in the process and remaining unphased by the wounds, etc...I think its very likely that an enraged + drugged warrior would pull a spear out of him and use it again.

[Frostwulf]

I believe that if the drug or potions that some Celts took before battle numbed their pain and weakened the effects of wounds (not sure if those other cultures you mentioned took things like that before battle) then I see no reason why a spear hit thats not in the heart or head would easily disable them, at least until they loose enough blood or the drug wears off.
The other cultures I mentioned to my knowledge didn't have any of those type of drugs. As far as the effects of the drugs, could they have been that effective etc. I have no idea.
I am very skeptical of the whole situation though, I don't think the Celts had these kind of drugs. I think the drug thing came from the same source as the "Devastating Civil War", I'm very doubtful of its authenticity.

[mlc82]

I believe that if the drug or potions that some Celts took before battle numbed their pain and weakened the effects of wounds (not sure if those other cultures you mentioned took things like that before battle) then I see no reason why a spear hit thats not in the heart or head would easily disable them, at least until they loose enough blood or the drug wears off.

It was on these forums, I think, that the effects of LSD were talked about. Cops shooting guys and hitting them in vital areas, the LSD target breaking through wooden fences and loosing plenty of skin and getting deep cuts in the process and remaining unphased by the wounds, etc...I think its very likely that an enraged + drugged warrior would pull a spear out of him and use it again.


I think you're actually referring to "PCP" there, not "LSD".

[aftzengeier]

Most likely there were no Warriors who used some kind of "battle-drugs"... Historians and biologists found out that they weren't able to produce medicine strong enough to make one immune to pain. Also the drugs that they were able to make weakened their muscles much more then they reduced their ability to feel pain. Additionaly your ability to respond and your endurance dramatically drops, you can not really contol your balance and your instincts are pushed which makes you more susceptible to panic.


All in all:
Keep your hands away from that stuff, kiddy! :eyebrows:

[Frostwulf]

Most likely there were no Warriors who used some kind of "battle-drugs"... Historians and biologists found out that they weren't able to produce medicine strong enough to make one immune to pain. Also the drugs that they were able to make weakened their muscles much more then they reduced their ability to feel pain. Additionaly your ability to respond and your endurance dramatically drops, you can not really contol your balance and your instincts are pushed which makes you more susceptible to panic.This is the way I understood things to work as well. I can't recall where I heard/saw this same kind of information so I am hoping you will be able to provide a source were I could find this.

[bovi]

Most likely there were no Warriors who used some kind of "battle-drugs"... Historians and biologists found out that they weren't able to produce medicine strong enough to make one immune to pain. Also the drugs that they were able to make weakened their muscles much more then they reduced their ability to feel pain. Additionaly your ability to respond and your endurance dramatically drops, you can not really contol your balance and your instincts are pushed which makes you more susceptible to panic.


All in all:
Keep your hands away from that stuff, kiddy! :eyebrows:
The norse berserkers used a poisonous mushroom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanita_muscaria) for the same purpose. Why wouldn't the celts have found a drug?

[blitzkrieg80]

The Fly Agaric is suggested, but it is VERY theoretical... I like the idea though (fan of religious ecstacy) ~:) anyways, for that, no drug use can be proven, whatsoever... hell, just proving that there were fearsome warriors like Berserkir is a pain in the ass (and futile since there is no Ice-berserkr to study). The fact that berserkir are stock antagonist characters and annoying bullies in Old Norse sagas by the time they record the stories, there isn't much we can concretely say about that and it's MUCH MORE documented than Gaul, Celts or non-Greco-Roman/Judeo-Christian anything of the Classical era and late Antiquity. It is a fact that most information on Celtic culture comes from medieval Irish which flourished during the Migration age of the Germanic peoples. A time-frame frowned upon in consideration to EB timeline. Oh well, too bad we don't have more information- the world is interesting!

BUT also, there is no way in hell that any stage of humanity was unaware of the properties of mushrooms and fermentation from the Neolithic onward. Mead, the 'holy' drink is a perfect example of substance-use that was wide-spread and easy (although not as easy as 'ale'! btw, everyone knows the real word 'beer' means strong cider, right? ~:) like medieval 'Welsh ale' /END HIJACK), commonly known to the people who spoke the Indo-European language from which the word sprang.

OT- I posted this recently in our internal Sweboz thread:

Orel, Valdimir. A Handbook of Germanic Etymology. Brill, 2003.

PGmc *aluþ : ON ǫl 'beer, ale' (wa-stem with traces of a root stem), OE ealu, ealo id., OS alu- (in compounds). Connected with or borrowed to OPrus alu 'mead', Lith alùs id., Slav *olъ id. Scyth *alut- (cf. prop. Άλούθαγος and Osset æluton 'beer') from Gmc, indicative of the early chronology of Germanic contacts with East Iranian (from where NCauc *'VlVdwV 'beer'). Grg ludi, dial. aludi id. is also Gmc but hardly via Iranian (16).

ps- ~:( guess what? i was going to provide the fun etymology for 'mead' but I spilled coffee all over one of my favorite and most expensive books... AND i lost the post in the fucking IE explorer textbox... that's what I get for even trying- wah wah life sucks

[aftzengeier]

Hello bovi :eyebrows:


I'm quite sure I read it in the books Die ersten Deutschen - Über das rätselhafte Volk der Germanen ("the first Germans - about the buffling Germanic peoples") by Siegfried Fischer-Fabian. He is one of the best and most recommened historians of the 20th century. I love his books because he exposes all the steriotype and simply false thoughts that most of the people have. In the chapter he directly exposes the one with the mushroom. If you eat one of that you get terrible nausea, exhalation, giddiness and you are weakened. Another problem is that you cannot say when the effect will actually appear! Sometimes it just takes an hour, sometimes 5!!! The time the effect works is very short and it extremely unhealthy to have physical effort when influenced by this drug (because of the lactats that cause permanent paralysis!!!)! The only way to get the harmful substances out of the mushroom was to eat it and after that drink your own pee. :eyebrows: Concerning all this matters it would be self-destruction to use this drugs in battle.



By the way:
The berserks were no fanatic warriors as you may think. They were called "berserks" because of fighting without clothes or at least without any armor, wich is more likely concerning the climate. ~;) They did not exist before ~600AD because until that timeframe the Germanic common sense of warfare simply declined the usage of body armor.





Greetings, Aftzengeier :horn:

[Power2the1]

I think you're actually referring to "PCP" there, not "LSD".


Arrgh... acronyms :whip:

It'd be great if one of the Celtic EB members could shed some extra info on all this though

[bovi]

Hello bovi :eyebrows:

Huh? :inquisitive:


If you eat one of that you get terrible nausea, exhalation, giddiness and you are weakened.
Of course. According to Wikipedia, as much as 95% of the deaths from mushroom poisoning comes from the Amanita family (mostly the Amanita phalloides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_cap), also called Death Cap). Regardless, even today some (few!) people use the Fly Amanita as a hallucinogenic narcotic. Large doses are not recommended.


Concerning all this matters it would be self-destruction to use this drugs in battle.
Quite possibly, and the amphetamine that some of today's soldiers use isn't meant to increase their combat prowess either, just to keep them going longer. I imagine I would be scared of someone who's hell-bent on killing me with no regard to his own health though, regardless of whether he's more effective at it or not. In the same way, the Gaesatae weren't more likely to survive deadly wounds, they would however be able to keep going for longer than others with the same wounds (as the normal shock would be postponed), possibly killing more enemies before dying.


By the way:
The berserks were no fanatic warriors as you may think. They were called "berserks" because of fighting without clothes or at least without any armor
Who said they were fanatics? It's more likely that it means bear-serk, where serk is a type of clothing. The bearskins would signal their berserk "mentality" and cause fear due to their reputation.


Edit: I don't pretend to back this up with evidence, just making a logic argument, which is normally called baseless conjecture hereabouts. I'm not a historian.

[The General]

This thread will (relatively) soon be one year old.

[NeoSpartan]

OK so here we go again..... Just so I don't make a mistake

(I will leave the Sweboz out of this, as 1.0 fixed them)

Frostwolf claims:
1. Celtic Overpowered becuase their Elite units kick too much ass. And this is not true because of.... coutless posts about books and whatnot....

-In addition, Frostwolf suggest that for EB to be "accurate" these 2 things need to happen:
--Celtic Elites should have lower stats.
--Celtic Elites should have lower cost.

And Frostwolf is not refering to cavarly, he is not refering to missiles, and he is not refering to non-Elites like Botroas and the like.

(Edit)
Besides that 1 point Frostwolf claims:
2. There was never a Major Civil war in Gaul around 130BC and the arrival of Ceasar.
-Meaning the Gallic tribes were NOT weak by the time Ceasar and Arventicus (sp) showed up.

Am I correct????????????????? Am I missing anything??????? :book:

[paullus]

I think that's correct, save that I think he is in fact referring to cavalry in some instances.

[Frostwulf]

Frostwolf claims:
1. Celtic Overpowered becuase their Elite units kick too much ass. And this is not true because of.... coutless posts about books and whatnot....

-In addition, Frostwolf suggest that for EB to be "accurate" these 2 things need to happen:
--Celtic Elites should have lower stats.
--Celtic Elites should have lower cost.

And Frostwolf is not refering to cavarly, he is not refering to missiles, and he is not refering to non-Elites like Botroas and the like.

(Edit)
Besides that 1 point Frostwolf claims:
2. There was never a Major Civil war in Gaul around 130BC and the arrival of Ceasar.
-Meaning the Gallic tribes were NOT weak by the time Ceasar and Arventicus (sp) showed up.

Am I correct????????????????? Am I missing anything??????? You summed it up quite well, the only thing that might be missing is that from 390BC to 190ish BC the militia/conscript Roman army had been defeating the Celtic armies(the majority of the times) while usually outnumbered.

This link lays out the game aspects of it:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1825897&postcount=545
Please note my Sherman tank analogy.

[Watchman]

The Shermans AFAIK had a major problem when facing good German tanks; the Firefly variant with its 17pdr gun was around the only one that could fight the Panthers and such more or less equally, the others just plain were a bit too short of everything (firepower, armour, speed) to hack it one to one.

Which didn't really matter that much because the Allies had a lot more Shermans, and could build and ship in replacements a lot faster, than the Germans their high-end hardware. As the Soviets also so succintly proved, quantity has a quality all of its own.

Which, to a degree, would be analoguous to the situation with the Celtic high-end infantry around the time Caesar and Ariovist came stomping around. It's not that they didn't exist or weren't damn good at their job, there just wasn't enough of them to go around.


Most authors(including the classical ones)say(speculate) the reason for the migrations was because of overpopulation. You also have to remember Cunliffe said this:"during the fifth century a large stable population occupied the region". Large and stable populations don't speak well of "Devastating Civil Wars" or any wars for that matter....do I actually have to point out 5th century BC isn't 1st century BC...? :inquisitive: That's round three-four centuries you know. It took around comparable time for Rome to become a wholesale Mediterranean superpower, less for the Seleukid empire to go from probably the strongest of the Diadochi to a historical footnote divided between Romans and Parthians, for Rome to start going from an undisputed superpower to a harried, ramshackle has-been no longer able to keep restless barbarians from crossing the border... Many of the great Chinese dynasties underwent the whole cycle from rise and splendor to decay and collapse in a comparable or shorter span of time.

Get some perspective, willya ? Mighty empires rise and fall, entire populations migrate and societies change beyond recognition in much shorter periods.

I don't have a problem with this, except I don't think there were very many at all able to do this. Its a common type theme with classical accounts. The Japanese have a guy who gets shot in the eye and pulls the arrow out and shoots it back at the guy who shot him(the enemy of course dies). The Germans have the fountain of Tyr, when the hand gets cut off they blind the enemy with the blood coming out of the stump of the arm.Err... yeah. And those are all boasts of how one of "our" guys did this-and-that heroic thing. Why the fig would a Hellenic author come up with that kind of stuff for enemies ? Neither the Romans nor the Greeks had any particular shortage of literary tropes to underline the savagery and ferocity of the Celts after all...

The Norse men were able to grab spears thrown at them out of the air and fling them back at their adversaries....which is actually potentially doable, if you're really good. Throwing-spears aren't all that fast projectiles, they're big and easy to see, and have a lot that a sufficiently fast man can grab a hold of.

Not, of course, exactly a safe or easy trick to try.

There are stories of Romans doing the same type of things, one guy losing an eye and still holding off many Celts.You're thinking of Horatius Cocles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatius_Cocles); that story has nothing to do with any Celts.

It is also one of the "foundation myths" of Rome, and doubtless mythologised and embellished to Hell and back - do recall that Roman accounts of events before around the period of Punic Wars are kinda limited, and increasingly unreliable the further back you go.

Also if you look at the battle it really didn't matter if they all could do that, they still lost.Which doesn't particularly say the first thing of the troops involved. For the sake of comparision, I doubt anyone is going to question the capabilities of cataphract-style superheavy cavalry - but there's hardly any shortage of instances where such was virtually neutralised by cunning stratagems and/or poor deployement, or flat out embarassingly put to flight.

If I'm not mistaken the Celts outnumbered the Greeks in this battle.And the Greeks gave battle in that classic local geographical bottleneck to neutalize superior enemy numbers and maneuverabilty, Thermopylae.

...and that the Romans were defeating the Celts the majority of the time while mostly outnumbered. You mean the early Republic period fights ? Fair enough; I'd say that rather well illustrates the difference equipement makes in a straight fight, since if you forgot period Roman grunts had around as good armour as Celtic high-rankers... most of those would fall into the period before the EB Celtic reforms that introduce most of the high-end armoured elites, no ?

Ellis says the same thing, the Gaesatae of Telemon are the same as those of Clusium/Faesulae and Clastidium.In the case of Clastidum it should be bloody obvious the name "Gaesatae" is used as an umbrella name for Transalpine mercenaries you know. Presumably those guys were the part of such that left the biggest impression on the Romans, and the name stuck.

This is the way the Celts should be as well, being able to have a large amount of troops as shown by historical accounts.You did look at the size of their cheap low-end units right ? Heck, that's about exactly what makes them so potent, as their stats are actually pretty mediocre and armour nominal or nonexistent...


As for whatever accounts for the apparent disregard of pain by the Gaesatae and other "berserk" warriors, my hunch is it was more some sort of autohypnotic state probably helped along with suitable psychoactives (which around every human society has known in one form or another). Humans sometimes survive amazing amount of injury for quite a while solely by refusing to go into system shock, and can do some pretty scary (if injurous) things in a suitable mental state. It is hardly stretch at least some particularly "death or glory"-minded warrior societies would have sought, and potentially also developed, methods for actively inducing such "battle frenzy".


As for the unit stats, meh. EB statting uses a consistent basic system with certain consistent applied modifiers (nevermind now that the actual computations put into the EDU sometimes have hiccups), and those account for equipement differences thoroughly enough that all other things being equal the heavier (and more expensively) armed unit has an advantage in a straight fight. And you're going to have serious problems proving the Celts didn't on the whole have better war gear than their rather poor Germanic neighbours...

[SaFe]

Err... yeah. And those are all boasts of how one of "our" guys did this-and-that heroic thing. Why the fig would a Hellenic author come up with that kind of stuff for enemies ?

The same reason why Tacitus talks about noble savages - in his case the germanics.
Greek historians did have a habit to write about heroic deeds (not only of their own warriors with the ecxception of Persians) and the victory tasted sweeter, if your enemy are described as heroic, fearless and rather invulnerable giants and not just a band of rather unorganized raiders.

[Tellos Athenaios]

suitable psychoactives (which around every human society has known in one form or another).



One that is still used today, often enough: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_nightshade

(Among other things, the substance appears to completely block any signal of pain during the hallucination, and is said to make you feel as if you were flying. (By blocking the other senses the only way you can determine your orientation within a 3D space is by analyzing what you see, which especially if you are lie on your back creates the illusion that you are 'afloat' in the air since you can't tell floor from ceiling anymore.) Basically it's forces your brain to 'dream' whilst awake.

This dreaming whilst being awake (not daydreaming ~:) ) is also thought to be responsible for many a report of 'abduction by aliens', and similar frightning/exstatic illusions.)

[Frostwulf]

I think that's correct, save that I think he is in fact referring to cavalry in some instances.Ok, so thats twice now I skipped you. Next time before I post Ill have to check to see if you didn't slip a post in on me. As far as the Celtic cavalry I thought they were to weak until I found the Brihentin and Remi Mairepos. I think both of these units are well done.

The Shermans AFAIK had a major problem when facing good German tanks; the Firefly variant with its 17pdr gun was around the only one that could fight the Panthers and such more or less equally, the others just plain were a bit too short of everything (firepower, armour, speed) to hack it one to one.Thats is the reason why I said the early Sherman tank, meaning the basic M4 model as the Firefly,Jumbo and the other variants(including those with the 76mm) were later models.

Which, to a degree, would be analoguous to the situation with the Celtic high-end infantry around the time Caesar and Ariovist came stomping around. It's not that they didn't exist or weren't damn good at their job, there just wasn't enough of them to go around.You say there wasn't enough high-end infantry around, what are you basing that on?


...do I actually have to point out 5th century BC isn't 1st century BC...? That's round three-four centuries you know. It took around comparable time for Rome to become a wholesale Mediterranean superpower, less for the Seleukid empire to go from probably the strongest of the Diadochi to a historical footnote divided between Romans and Parthians, for Rome to start going from an undisputed superpower to a harried, ramshackle has-been no longer able to keep restless barbarians from crossing the border... Many of the great Chinese dynasties underwent the whole cycle from rise and splendor to decay and collapse in a comparable or shorter span of time.

Get some perspective, willya ? Mighty empires rise and fall, entire populations migrate and societies change beyond recognition in much shorter periods.Well you might want to read this and the reason for the post you quoted:

The reason for this statement is that Psycho V made a comment that there had been 2 "Devastating Civil Wars", so when Ranika made this comment:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
Now, if we say no civil war, this assumes a few things. One, Ambicatus's kingdom of Gaul never collapsed.
I assumed that the first "Devastating Civil War" happened sometime after his death. But you are correct that this first one has no bearing on EB.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1820927&postcount=535
So the perspective is there, you just have to read it.

Err... yeah. And those are all boasts of how one of "our" guys did this-and-that heroic thing. Why the fig would a Hellenic author come up with that kind of stuff for enemies ? Neither the Romans nor the Greeks had any particular shortage of literary tropes to underline the savagery and ferocity of the Celts after all...Same answer as SaFe not to mention that there was admiration for those kind of things, considering they themselves did "heroic deeds".

You're thinking of Horatius Cocles; that story has nothing to do with any Celts.

It is also one of the "foundation myths" of Rome, and doubtless mythologised and embellished to Hell and back - do recall that Roman accounts of events before around the period of Punic Wars are kinda limited, and increasingly unreliable the further back you go.Actually I was referring to one of Caesars men who after a vicious battle of holding a fort against the Celts he lost his eye. His comrades said he was the main reason the fort didn't fall and Caesar made him a centurion as well as all kinds of medals,cash etc.
My point to this was and still is there are many heroic deeds that happened on both sides. Again Ill state that there was most likely less then a handful that pulled a javelin out of a leg or a spear from a shoulder and continued to fight. You will find these situations in just about every culture, it doesn't speak only of drugged up Gaesatae(again Ill state I don't believe the drug thing).

You mean the early Republic period fights ? Fair enough; I'd say that rather well illustrates the difference equipement makes in a straight fight, since if you forgot period Roman grunts had around as good armour as Celtic high-rankers... most of those would fall into the period before the EB Celtic reforms that introduce most of the high-end armoured elites, no ?Well considering that most of these were raids into Roman territory would they not be warriors and not levy's? Was it not the elite that went on these raids? There were a few times that they mustered for war, but most of these battles were of Celtic warriors going for plunder which would mean warriors, not craftsmen and etc(levy's).


In the case of Clastidum it should be bloody obvious the name "Gaesatae" is used as an umbrella name for Transalpine mercenaries you know. Presumably those guys were the part of such that left the biggest impression on the Romans, and the name stuck.The Romans were able to distinguish between the Gallic tribes(Boii,Insubres,etc.) and they know that in the case of Clastidum that the "king" of the Gaesatae was Virdomarus. There is a reason why the classical authors as well as the modern ones use the same term, because they are the same type of troops.
Again as Connolly puts it:

Connolly-"Greece and Rome at War"-"The next year 30,000 Gaesati (the ones who fought naked) crossed the Alps to assist their kinsmen in the Po valley. The Romans laid siege to the Insubrian town of Acerrae, north of the Po. In an attempt to draw off the legions the Celts attacked the Roman supply depot at Casteggio, 50km west of piacenza." pg.146
Do you have any evidence at all, anything that contradicts this? Do you have anything that supports what your saying? Is there something that the classical authors and the modern authors are missing that you know of? If there is anything that you have please, please put it down.

As for whatever accounts for the apparent disregard of pain by the Gaesatae and other "berserk" warriors, my hunch is it was more some sort of autohypnotic state probably helped along with suitable psychoactives (which around every human society has known in one form or another). Humans sometimes survive amazing amount of injury for quite a while solely by refusing to go into system shock, and can do some pretty scary (if injurous) things in a suitable mental state. It is hardly stretch at least some particularly "death or glory"-minded warrior societies would have sought, and potentially also developed, methods for actively inducing such "battle frenzy".First where are the accounts of the Gaesatae ignoring pain? Where are they anywhere? Do you have any books, authors, papers anything that talks of this?
For the second part I agree with what your saying.

And you're going to have serious problems proving the Celts didn't on the whole have better war gear than their rather poor Germanic neighbours...No doubt about it, thats one of the reasons why I wouldn't bother to try to prove it, not to mention I don't even believe the Germanic neighbours had better equipment. But what is impressive is how well the Germanic neighbours were able to defeat the Gauls with sub par equipment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_nightshade[/url] It may be used but not for the intentions of this discussion as it causes "Symptoms of belladonna poisoning are the same as those for atropine (a tropane alkaloid), and include dilated pupils, tachycardia, hallucinations, blurred vision, loss of balance, a feeling of flight, staggering, a sense of suffocation, paleness followed by a red rash, flushing, husky voice, extremely dry throat, constipation, urinary retention, and confusion." Obviously no one would want to take something like this before going into battle.
I understand what your saying Tellos, but the questions are:
1.Where, anywhere(other then this forum) is there mention of the Gaesatae taking these sort of things.
2.What "drugs" did they take, of the ones listed so far none would come close to what was needed to perform as suggested by these forums. I say these forums because this is the only place you will find that suggests these things about the Gaesatae.

[NeoSpartan]

So to sum up Frostwolf claims:.

1. Celtic Overpowered becuase their Elite units kick too much ass.
So,
-Celtic Elites should have lower stats.
-Celtic Elites should have lower cost.

(not refering to cavarly, he is not refering to missiles, and he is not refering to non-Elites like Botroas)

2. There was never a Major Civil war in Gaul around 130BC and the arrival of Ceasar.
-Meaning the Gallic tribes were NOT weak by the time Ceasar and Arventicus (sp) showed up.

3. From 390BC to 190ish BC the militia/conscript Roman army had been defeating the Celtic armies(the majority of the times) while usually outnumbered.

OK... here we go :coffeenews:

Now by analysing these 3 claims I "believe" I understand Frostwolf overall warrant and that is:
"The Roman army was stronger than Celtic armies since the 4th Century BC. Now, the Gauls never had any Devastating Civil War so their power never decreased, meaning the number and strenght of thier Elite soldiers was not significantly reduced. And when Ceasar came around he just kicked Gallic butt the same way the Romans had done before 50some BC. The reason for the delay into Gaul proper was the fact that Rome was busy with Carthege, Makedonia and Seleukeia (sp)"

I am pretty sure this paraphrasing is correct (again I am leaving the Sweboz out as they got new Elite infantry and cavarly). If I missed something Frostwolf just add to it.

Now... here is the thing Frostwolf, ur basically assuming that from 390BC to Ceasar (58BC), 342 years, Gallic society remained static. However, we all know that by the time Ceasar showed up the Gaesatae, both the organization and their elite members, no longer existed. Also even when you posted Ceasar's and other's account of the 50some BC war there is little to no mention of large contingencies of Soldurus, Corneutos, and well armed infantry like EB's Neitos. Instead, from reading through this thread, it shows that the Gallic tribes were pumping out a LOT of levies and other lighter troops like EB's Bataroas, and Gaeroas (which as Thatuu showed, and .81x MP battles show are not very strong troops
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.)

-Beside that as I posted before:
--Both the Aedui and Sequani+Arverni were locked in a huge fight. And as a result both had to call on entire foreing armies led by foreing generals! Eventhough for a while Ariovistus (hey I got the name right!) was under the control of the Sequani that didn't last. And Ceasar was autonomos on his decitions all throughout his staying in Gaul. You know... stuff like this doesn't happen in an empire or country that is strong.

-Another thing:
--IF we are to asume that there was no Gallic Civil war then there is very good reason for Ranika's explenation "what Gaul would have been like" to hold true:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=61067
and reposted by Power2the1 a couple of pages back.

But that is as much history stuff ur gonna get from me, I'll let other people do that type of talking I don't have neither the time nor knowledge to continue on. :stupido:

Now, when it comes to Gallic elites, your test looks pretty accurate
"2units of praetorian(205 soldiers) vs. 3 units of soldurii(184 warriors)
I control the praetorians=3 losses.
I control the soldurii= I won 3 and lost 2."
:yes:
You see you pitted equal number of soldiers, and as expected pound for pound the Soldorus are better soldiers. :yes:
Really... look:
-Soldurous are: "(Sul-dur-ohs; "Devoted Ones") are remarkably skilled, fearless elite guards of Celtic nobles. They pledge themselves to eachother and their charge, and fight to the very end. Small in number, they are a remarkable elite, best used to combat an enemy's opposing elite soldiers or heavy troops. They are very well armored and armed, and can surely break many enemies, but they are rare, very expensive,..." https://www.europabarbarorum.com/factions_aedui_units.html
-Pretorians are:
The Cohortes Praetoriae are the highest ranked units in the whole imperial army. Their infantry is the core of the Emperor's Guard in Roma and is considered the best in the empire. Praetorians are equipped as, and fight in, the same manner as the normal legionaries, but their look is often somewhat more magnificent. Their lack of experience in actual combat is compensated by excellent, continuous training, and capable officers..."
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/factions_romani_units.html

In case you haven't noticed EB 1.0 Romani have changed. No longer are Pretorians and Evocata protraid as Hight Level Elites such as Solduros, Hypaspistai, Thorakitai Agematos Basilikou (AS), Dosidataskeli (lusotannam), Basilikon Agema (Ptolemoi), etc...

-As Zakafain explained in another thread:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=93420&page=6&highlight=roman+underpowered
:book:
"""1) The Romans were not some super-bad ass military machine.

2) Evocata are just what it says they are--re-enlisted veterans. Theyre EXACTLY the same as a regular legionary, just their term expired and theyve been recalled to service. Pretty much the same equipment, and they're probably about 10-20 years older than your average legionary. They're nothing special. AT MOST, they should have a chevron or two of experience, maybe not even that since they've probably spent their golden years farming a tract of land somewhere in Campania.

3) The Pre-Marian and Marian armies both had not set 'training routines' or drill ceremonies. There were certainly no year-round mobilisation or exercises. Field armies grew experienced whilst in the field, and as Phillip succinctly said, the army was only as good as their commander.
"""
:book:
"""Some historians have traditionally ascribed the high level of training and discipline to Romans that you've probably come to know. Lawrence Keppi put it as such:

Quote:
"Discipline and training were its hallmarks; the care with which the camp was laid out reveals no ordinary grouping of amateur warriors."

But honestly, does this apply to all of the Romans? Most Roman armies were, on the one hand rather heterogenous and consisted of a core of more seasoned troops, with a lot of inexperienced troops added in to give it bulk. In Livy, he gives us a detailed story of the dilectus of the army to fight Perseus in 171 BCE. (AUC 42.32). It talks about how there are so many experienced centurions, etc, that all of them couldnt get the proper posting and were complaining.

Livy's story reflects common practice, of course any Roman commander recruiting wanted to get as many experienced officers and soldiers as possible. This is reflected in Livy 32.9.1

Quote:
"Consulem T. Quinctium ita habito dilectu, ut eos fere legeret, qui in Hispania aut Africa meruissent, spectatae virtutis milites, properantem in provinciam prodigia nuntiata atque eorum procuratio Romae tenuerunt."

Or, blah blah blah, Titus Quinctius wanted seasoned soldiers from Spain or Africa.

Even Marius:

Sallust (B. Jug. 84.) said:

Quote:
Ipse interea milites scribere non more maiorum neque ex classibus, sed ut lubido quoiusque erat, capite censos plerosque"

Note: "Mostly proletarians, not all of them!"

Marius' Mules as we know them did not really constitute a professional mercenary force, but became nearly as good as one by experiencing one military campaign after another--Africa, Numidia, Germanics.

From 88 BCE onward, most wars became longer and had to be fought in far off lands, which naturally led the armies fielded to gain more cohesion and a higher level of esprit and drill. Legions came to represent something like a home to the soldiers serving in them, for many, indeed, it was all they knew.

New legions, recruited in the Social Wars and Civil Wars, had to go against these cohesive legions that had been around for in some cases years, and were certainly no match. Not because of a lack of some supposed training, but because they were new formations.

The contingency legions (levies) of the Marians who fought Sulla in 82 and those of Ahenobarbus and other Pompeian generals who commanded recruits against Caesar's veterans had no chance of winning.

In Familiares 10.24.3f Munatius Plancus, one of the combatants in the civil wars of 44-43, wrote to Cicero that the armies that were commanded by Brutus were large, but worthless, because they consisted of miserable recruits who would have to confront the smaller but more homogenous legions of Caesaran veterans.

It wasnt until Augustus and the establishment of a professional army that a regular training routine was emplaced."""""
(btw Zak is da man!)

So... whats the point of all of this: :study:
-Soldurus, Gaesatae, and others from other factions are top notch elite soldiers, extremely rare and extremely expensive (I will come to the "relevancy" of cost and availability in a little bit). And with RTW's engine EB can only portray their "high cost" but it cannot portray their rarity in availability (aside from limiting the provinces from where the unit is trained). Once EBII comes out with MTW2' engine then not only will Elite units be expensive but the number of units you can train in a province will be limited (just as in MTW2).
---Also they are capable of beating non-elites and lower level elites, HOWEVER they take heavy casualties and those fights are by no means walkthroughs. Especially when pitted againts AP units.
-Roman Legions are not extremely rare and extremely expensive elite soldiers. Their best troops came from well seasoned soldiers.

Ok lets switch gears and talk about unit cost, (not much can be said about unit availability unit EBII) and see how that affects gameplay:
....~:idea: Wait a minute!!!! I don't need to write anything!!!! I'll just copy and past my OWN comments from this thread: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=86612&page=10&highlight=sweboz+underpowered

"""""Cost is very relavant, both in MP and SP. Cost limits how many Elite Gallic units you can field!! Not only the recruitment cost, but the upkeep cost hits you. Make 20 Gallic elites, thats 1 full stack, and you will be loosing 10K-14k in UPKEEP alone cost each turn, let alone paying 60000-70000 just to recruit them. Make 3 full stacks and you are loosing 30k-42k on upkeep alone each turn. And is only 3 stacks!!!
--How many stacks of Imperial Legionaries can u make with this $$$? How many elite only stacks can I get with KH with this $$????
....And don't get me started on MP.
(Gallic elites cost 500-600 in upkeep each, and 3000-3300+ to train.. and its only 60 [men per unit] of them!)
Cost is EXTREMELY relevant. As a matter of fact the high cost of Gallic elites is used to illustrate the time and expense it took for Gallic society to produce such fine and elite soldiers.

Those Gallic elites, individually were better soldiers than the Legionaries, but as a group they were not that numerous, very expensive to maintain, and thats their true weakness. (and is a major one). Compare that to Silver Shields who are also expensive, but its 120 of them!""""

-Here why don't you test this in Costum battle:
--Take a budjet of 20k and train all Soldurus and Gaesatae (the 2 best infantry of the Aedui/Arverni). And then train all Pretorian, or all Cohort Imperatoria (with cohort imperatoria you get even more units with almost the same stats). You will see the Romani not only have more units but more men as well :yes:

:coffeenews:
So... again man. Gallic Elites are fine, they preform as expected and cost as expected, however once EBII come out their availability will be as expected. The rest of the Gallic troops are fine as well, getting beat by better armed hoplites and polybian pricipes.

Now... as for the reason why Ceasar and the Germans virtually walked all over Gaul then thats when the civil war and other aspects and considerations kick in. Thats is a very complex topic, just as complex (if not more) as the Fall of the Roman Empire. Its not that Romans>Gauls always...


----------
BTW, ur WWII sherman vs panther analogy is messed up. Instead of:
"Sherman tank-Firepower 17/armor-23 cost-4,500"
Vs
Panther V- Firepower 12/ armor-17 cost 4,000"

It should be:

"Sherman Tank- Firepower 12/armor-17/ cost 4,000"
Vs
"Panther V- Firepower 20/armor 25 (frontal armor impenetrable to sherman fire)/ cost 8,000 and 2turns."
:yes:

HOWEVER I don't like this analogy because the best of the Gauls was not that much better than a legionary. :thumbsdown:

[Moros]

wikipedia (from the link):
'It has been suggested by Alexander Kuklin's book How Do Witches Fly? that the aconitine in aconite (another toxic hallucinogen) can counter/reduce the toxic effects of atropine in belladonna, while combining their hallucinogenic effects, and that this combination of belladonna and aconite was used by witches in the Middle Ages.'

[NeoSpartan]

Oh yes with regards to drugs... u know what just search over all the "Gaesatae" threads that pop up once every 2 months ok.

The drugs issue has been talked to death.

[Tellos Athenaios]

It may be used but not for the intentions of this discussion as it causes "Symptoms of belladonna poisoning are the same as those for atropine (a tropane alkaloid), and include dilated pupils, tachycardia, hallucinations, blurred vision, loss of balance, a feeling of flight, staggering, a sense of suffocation, paleness followed by a red rash, flushing, husky voice, extremely dry throat, constipation, urinary retention, and confusion." Obviously no one would want to take something like this before going into battle.
I understand what your saying Tellos, but the questions are:
1.Where, anywhere(other then this forum) is there mention of the Gaesatae taking these sort of things.
2.What "drugs" did they take, of the ones listed so far none would come close to what was needed to perform as suggested by these forums. I say these forums because this is the only place you will find that suggests these things about the Gaesatae.

Meh, you seem to disregard a few things.
One, the Belladona is part of a family of plants, many of whom much less poisonous but still quite funky. (Potatoes!)
Two: there are actually quite many plants such as these and believe it or not: they are nearly all lethal, and nearly all widely used in traditional medicine. The reason for this is that if taken in (very) low doses the danger can be limitted, whilst the usual euphoria/stress relieving effects are retained.
Three: nobody is going to consume any such plant 'straight'; if only because as with any good plant poison, it tastes hideous.

That said Belladonna is not the most likely one but the use of drugs (remember even alcohol is a drug) before battle is not unlikely, and indeed in a culture celebrating a special warrior-class...

[SaFe]

Now... as for the reason why Ceasar and the Germans virtually walked all over Gaul then thats when the civil war and other aspects and considerations kick in. Thats is a very complex topic, just as complex (if not more) as the Fall of the Roman Empire. Its not that Romans>Gauls always...



As it seems you are too a believer of the devasting gallic civil war, could you then tell me why the germanics tribes pushed the celts westwards for decades before?
I mean it as a serious question.
Whenever i asked Psycho or another celtic expert they simply had no answer.
The most celtic tribes living on the east side of the Rhenus were clearly on the move, and their goal was as far away from germanic tribes as possible.
The Helvetii are a good example, if a bit late.
I think EB should rethink their position about a devasting civil war.
I believe - as many historians - that theArverni and Aedui were fighting against each other, but it was by no way a devasting civil war.

[Power2the1]

As it seems you are too a believer of the devasting gallic civil war, could you then tell me why the germanics tribes pushed the celts westwards for decades before?
I mean it as a serious question.
Whenever i asked Psycho or another celtic expert they simply had no answer.
The most celtic tribes living on the east side of the Rhenus were clearly on the move, and their goal was as far away from germanic tribes as possible.
The Helvetii are a good example, if a bit late.
I think EB should rethink their position about a devasting civil war.
I believe - as many historians - that theArverni and Aedui were fighting against each other, but it was by no way a devasting civil war.




You mean there were no Celtic tribes across the Rhine at this time or what decades before are you referring to?


Consider this:
Surrounded by 2 migratory/expantionists (Rome, Germans), a 3rd that possessed a strong leader with a spurt of aggressiveness (Dacia), and a 4th that includes the two biggest tribes of your peoples, its understandable that the Celts could not stand indefinately.

We know around the 100's B.C. the Scordisci hegemony in the easter/balkan area of "Celtdom" all but collapsed due to the Romans constant campaigning against them from Macedonia. However, the Romans had to launch 11-12 campaigns I believe it was against them so that say something of their power. By this time the Celts might have been around but they were no longer they once were, and many would have chose to head west to be closer to fellow tribes.

Beginning around 50 B.C. or so Burebista the Dacian launched an offensive against the Boii and Taurisci who dwelled in Pannonia and Slovakia. The Boii allied with the Taurisci in Noricum under a prince named Critasirus but were defeated by Buribista. The tribes were defeated, and began to leave the area, and according to some Greeks, 32,000 men, women, and children moved from those regions and unsuccessfully besieged a town called Noreia (Neumarkt). Following this they opted to join the Helvetii in their migration into Gaul which was defeated by Julius Caesar. Those that survived were allowed to settle with the Aedui as farmers.

To me it seems to me that the Celts becoming weakened or up and leaving the areas were caused not by a vote but by necessity. Migration from too many military conflicts and defeats. Their lands bordering the Dacians were increasingly hostile. The Celts were a ruling minority overall, not 99-100% of the population like you might find in Gaul. I am not claiming at all the Dacians and Germans were collaborating or anything against the Celts, but, these two powers started their own conquests/migrations towards Celtic lands that found themselves in a pinch. The only way to go was west towards homelands, but...

...Caesar decides to strike the western areas of the Celtic realm which did have a huge civil/tribal war between the two biggest guys on the block, Arverni and their dependent tribes and the Aedui and their dependent tribes. Much of Gaul was split into these two camps and this ongoing war was the meat grinder where they would have increasingly fed their best warriors into. Nobody would conduct a war of this scale with levy troops. It appears to me that this civil war was indeed a major disaster without a doubt to its warrior caste.

When you look at the situation, a vibrant society with plenty of skilled manpower would never have the need to call for outsider help but this is exactly what happened. For example, why start paying foreign troops the sums of money needed to risk their lives, giving them food, repair their weapons, giving them a place to stay, etc... It does not add up. The civil war had to have been going on long enough to take it's toll

How to achieve victory in this Civil War would have been examined intently by both sides. Every option would have been explored and tried before they would have had to call on outsiders to intervene. The situation would have had to have been very dire for this to happen.


(Not meant to be 100% historically accurate, but I think this paints a rough idea of what I am getting at)
https://img256.imageshack.us/img256/4064/celtickingdoms2mv4.jpg

[Watchman]

As it seems you are too a believer of the devasting gallic civil war, could you then tell me why the germanics tribes pushed the celts westwards for decades before?
---
The most celtic tribes living on the east side of the Rhenus were clearly on the move, and their goal was as far away from germanic tribes as possible.
The Helvetii are a good example, if a bit late.The Helvetii, we may recall, also trekked back to their old haunts after getting mauled by Caesar and were still dwelling there centuries later, so the Germanic pressure on them cannot have been too serious in purely military terms.

My money's on Germanic raiding having became intense and frequent enough to render the situation intolerable to many Celtic groups in the border regions between the two (however you now tell them apart there...), motivating them to try relocating to less troubled pastures where you didn't have to fight marauders off your fields and trade routes every other day. The chaos in Gaul ought to have opened many an opportunity for such squatting - for example the Helvetii are unlikely to have tried migrating had they been expecting serious and coordinated opposition from strong tribes and kingdoms, no ?

The Germans may have been severely short of means to reliably invest an oppidia or similar point of strong resistance, but they were certainly very expert low-intensity raiders and ought to have been able to cause severe economical damage to the surroundings - not unlike Medieval chevauchee "spoiling raids", in a sense.

As to what caused this intensification of Germanic hostility (above and beyond the business-as-usual raiding and warring normal among and between the two groups), I'm guessing the same pressures that triggered the Cimbri-Teuton "road trip", the Migrations and the Viking emigration (and, on the other side of the coin, mutatis mutandis the Celtic mass movements up to at least the Galatian migration); a combination of internal sociopolitical pressures, population growth (and associated running short of good farmland), the lure of a more prosperous future elsewhere, climate changes and other ecological shifts...

I think EB should rethink their position about a devasting civil war.
I believe - as many historians - that theArverni and Aedui were fighting against each other, but it was by no way a devasting civil war.
Define devastating. It was obviously severe enough to cause a major depletion in their backbone fighting manpower (attested to by the way the participants were reduced to calling in foreign mercenaries and allies they could not control should it prove necessary), and ought to have created major economical and social distruption since if I understood correctly much of the fighting was over the control of important trade-routes and -centres.

[The General]

I find it quite interesting, that for some people it is so hard to believe, that there might've been an actual, fierce civil war. I find it very feasible to believe, that smaller-scale wars that were more than abundant in the Pre-Roman Gaul could've escalated into a full-blown civil war. I'm no expert, so I don't know whether the cause was such, or perhaps something that followed an uprising/rebellion or something (and I'ven't had the endurance to read the thread through in full, I did however make it to the ninth page and then skipped seven or eight pages). While small-scale raiding and wars common in the hero-culture-Gaul, to me it seems that the conflict that was going on in Gaul in the decades preceding Julius Caesar's intervention was something of different level. The fact that the Arverni/Sequani were willing to hire 15,000 Germanic mercenaries, who then were able to subdue their masters and grab more lands than they were promised - enough for 120,000 Germanic settlers, in fact.

On the other side, the Aedui (confederacy) were willing to request aid from the Romans, after being subdued by the Arverni-Sequeni coalition and facing the Helveti migration. Once Caesar got there, he was able to play the factions against each other and recruit Celts, who formed his light infantry and cavalry (to a large extent, at least). It certainly doesn't sound like he was facing particularly strong, united resistance (at least before Vercingetorix's uprising). So, not only do we have several factions/coalitions and such, invading Germanic settlers who have broken free of control and become, or at least (possibly) becoming the masters themselves, but also Caesar with his partly veteran partly levied (?) legions - the situation seems chaotic at best.

Also, the battle accounts are rather interesting. Caesar doesn't win simply based on military supremacy on the man-to-man level, rather, one gets a picture, that while the Celts were skillful in wielding arms and ferocious fighters (the Helveti, Belgae, at least), they were rather lacking in tactics beyond setting up ambushes, whereas Romans, as per their drill, fought with tactical cohesion, tight formations et cetera. So, the Roman soldiers aren't even that superior to the Gallic troops, most of whom were militiamen and lacked proper combat experience, especially on tactical level (compare the tactics seen in the Gallic Wars - direct clash with the Romans to the Battle of Telamon, in which the Celts frightened the Roman forces with their tactical ability and formational cohesity upon facing two armies squeezing them in between).

Well, I'm by no means an expert on the matter, I've hardly scratched the surface at best, in my opinion. However, by what I've been reading I get the image that EB portrays the factions quite well. The basic Gaulic troops come in large numbers, but lack in combat stats. The high-end elite are only barely better than Polybian Principes/Post-Marian Legionnaries, at least when their very high price and small unit sizes are taken into account. Further, the pilums of the Romans can even further tip the balance to their side. I mean, duh, if you're going to have a full army of only Soldurii, Gaesatae and Neitos they're going to be stronger than the Roman equilevant. But, they will be also far more expensive, harder to get AND they will be at disadvantage numbers-wise.

I honestly don't get how Gauls somehow are "overpowered". To me, they seem balanced. I've never had any problems in dealing with them, only Gaesatae might be something of a problem, if lacking proper means to deal with them - something you can blame yourself, truth to be told. And, well, it's not like the AI Gaulic factions exactly dominate the game, either. Rather, they get crushed between the Romans and the Sweboz and/or the Lusitani. The high-end Gaulic units represent the fighting elite, the "heroes" so admired in the Gaulish culture. Sure, they are good, but they are few and expensive.

Hell, the biggest weakness of the Gaulish armies is well represented in EB - thanks to the dumb AI of RTW. A Roman leader should be able to defeat the Gallic dumblings under the leadership of an AI commander who will lack tactical understanding and vision, and thus bring glory to Rome if he himself is capable. If he isn't, then the defeat is well deserved. Disparity in the quality of units isn't to be blamed, chevrons aside as they are a matter different entirely.

Bah, look now, you made ramble on a matter I'm not an expert on, about things that I think are fine, just because I got so bloody irritated by the fact that some people just won't ever seem to stop complaining. And I hate complainers. :wall:

[Frostwulf]

Also even when you posted Ceasar's and other's account of the 50some BC war there is little to no mention of large contingencies of Soldurus, Corneutos, and well armed infantry like EB's Neitos. Instead, from reading through this thread, it shows that the Gallic tribes were pumping out a LOT of levies and other lighter troops like EB's Bataroas, and Gaeroas (which as Thatuu showed, and .81x MP battles show are not very strong troopsThis is simply not true, Cunliffe says(I can't recall which book) that there was more armor available at this time frame and Ranika also says so:

The drastic increase of commonality of mail that occurs from about 110 BC on to the conquest of Gaul. They were making a lot more, importing a lot more, etc.; far more mail than there were nobles. Nobles were trying to outfit their experienced tribesmen with more mail to make the army more effective, but it ultimately meant little since they were hemmed in, and there was so much political strife in the region, they were rendered more or less moot. However, of course, in EB, they can be made to be far more than a 'last ditch attempt'; if you do well as a Gallic faction they can just be a sign of your strength, and put to good use.

Or course Ranika goes on to the supposed "Devastating Civil War" thing(all the nobles etc. wiped out).
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1065172&postcount=10

Both the Aedui and Sequani+Arverni were locked in a huge fight. And as a result both had to call on entire foreing armies led by foreing generals!How huge was this fight, what are you basing this on? The Aedui called in Rome because the Germans defeated them in battles and they became weakened. As explained before the Aedui was more powerful then the Sequani, so the Sequani called in the Germans, more on this later.

IF we are to asume that there was no Gallic Civil war then there is very good reason for Ranika's explenation "what Gaul would have been like" to hold true:Thats if you believe there was a "Devastating Civil War" and in case you didn't notice Ranika didn't back up anything he said at all. Your more then welcome to believe him and totally ignore Dr.James,Dr.Goldsworthy,Dr.Raftery,Twist,Kahn, etc. etc.

You see you pitted equal number of soldiers, and as expected pound for pound the Soldorus are better soldiers.
Really... look:Perhaps one on one, but as a unit no. Why do I say this? I say this because of the historical battles which I already posted.

-Soldurous are: "(Sul-dur-ohs; "Devoted Ones") are remarkably skilled, fearless elite guards of Celtic nobles. They pledge themselves to eachother and their charge, and fight to the very end. Small in number, they are a remarkable elite, best used to combat an enemy's opposing elite soldiers or heavy troops. They are very well armored and armed, and can surely break many enemies, but they are rare, very expensive,..."Yes nice talk, but I showed you how they actually did in battle. They tried to surprise the Romans and then they were defeated by standard legions, not Praetorians.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1825354&postcount=540
-Pretorians are:

The Cohortes Praetoriae are the highest ranked units in the whole imperial army. Their infantry is the core of the Emperor's Guard in Roma and is considered the best in the empire. Praetorians are equipped as, and fight in, the same manner as the normal legionaries, but their look is often somewhat more magnificent. Their lack of experience in actual combat is compensated by excellent, continuous training, and capable officers..."Unfortunately we have to go with generalities because we cant say I'm buying Caesar's tenth, no you just buy a legion. That being said you cant forget Marcus Aurelius and his Praetorians, they were without a doubt exceptional.

-Soldurus, Gaesatae, and others from other factions are top notch elite soldiers, extremely rare and extremely expensive As I said before you have to go with generalities as you cant pick from Aurelius' Praetorians nor Caesar's tenth. Even if you do go with what Zak is saying(I agree with a little of it) it just makes the Celts that much weaker, as shown before in battle the Celts were constantly losing to the Romans.
So again, the Celts were losing to militia/conscript Romans how is it that the elites of the Celts are better then the professional Roman soldier. I have given two examples of Celtic elites(Gaesatae,Solduros) losing to Roman basic units, what justifies the stats they are awarded? I have no doubt that if an equal number of Praetorians came up against either the Gaesatae or Solduros, the Praetorians would slaughter them. What do I base this on? The battles that are recorded in history!

BTW, ur WWII sherman vs panther analogy is messed up. Instead of:
"Sherman tank-Firepower 17/armor-23 cost-4,500"
Vs
Panther V- Firepower 12/ armor-17 cost 4,000"

It should be:

"Sherman Tank- Firepower 12/armor-17/ cost 4,000"
Vs
"Panther V- Firepower 20/armor 25 (frontal armor impenetrable to sherman fire)/ cost 8,000 and 2turns."
You misunderstood my point. I was saying to have the elite Celts as powerful as they are compared to the Roman units(Praetorian,Evocata, etc.) is to have a Sherman tank more powerful then a Panther tank.


That said Belladonna is not the most likely one but the use of drugs (remember even alcohol is a drug) before battle is not unlikely, and indeed in a culture celebrating a special warrior-class...Can you name a single drug/herb/root/etc during this time frame that does what is claimed used by the Gaesatae? Can anyone name anything on this? There are a lot of natural stimulants out there, but none that I ever heard of(outside of myth) that have the capabilities or even remotely close to those ascribed to the Gaesatae.

@Power2the1 As far as what SaFe is saying about the Germans:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1682667&postcount=243

...Caesar decides to strike the western areas of the Celtic realm which did have a huge civil/tribal war between the two biggest guys on the block, Arverni and their dependent tribes and the Aedui and their dependent tribes. Much of Gaul was split into these two camps and this ongoing war was the meat grinder where they would have increasingly fed their best warriors into. Nobody would conduct a war of this scale with levy troops. It appears to me that this civil war was indeed a major disaster without a doubt to its warrior caste.What is your basis for the claim of a huge civil/tribal war? I already showed you in Caesar's "Gallic War" the amount of troops available, and they certainly weren't levies(the ones I mentioned). I have no doubt there were many levy troops, but were is the evidence showing that the elite nobles were wiped out? It certainly wasn't in Caesar's book as he talks of them, so where are you getting your information from?

When you look at the situation, a vibrant society with plenty of skilled manpower would never have the need to call for outsider help but this is exactly what happened. For example, why start paying foreign troops the sums of money needed to risk their lives, giving them food, repair their weapons, giving them a place to stay, etc... It does not add up. The civil war had to have been going on long enough to take it's toll Ill deal with the "they must have been wiped out because they needed mercenaries" later.


The Helvetii, we may recall, also trekked back to their old haunts after getting mauled by Caesar and were still dwelling there centuries later, so the Germanic pressure on them cannot have been too serious in purely military terms.
Caesar does mention that the Helvetii were under pressure from the Germans.

Define devastating. It was obviously severe enough to cause a major depletion in their backbone fighting manpower (attested to by the way the participants were reduced to calling in foreign mercenaries and allies they could not control should it prove necessary),What do you base this on? Where is it mentioned anywhere about a depletion of fighting manpower?

and ought to have created major economical and social distruption since if I understood correctly much of the fighting was over the control of important trade-routes and -centres.Exactly, so if there was a supposedly "Devastating Civil War" do you have this:

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
Where is the major economical and social disruption at? According to every author(historian/archaeologist) than mentions this subject this was a generally prosperous and peaceful region.

Now Ill deal with the mercenary sticking point:

Arthur D. Khan-"The Education of Julius Caesar"-"Some years earlier the Aeduians, the most powerful of the Gallic tribes, had engaged in a war over river tolls with their neighbors the Sequanians. The Sequanians had called in German mercenaries under the Suebian chief Ariovistus and inflicted a major defeat on the Aeduans. Subsequently, the Sequanians, themselves threatened by the Germans, sought a reconciliation with the Aeduans against the common foe. Two parties arose within both tribes, one proposing to solicit aid against the Germans from the Helvetians, and the other seeking Roman intervention. While the Romans were preoccupied with the revolt of the Allobrogians, neighbors to the Helvetians and the Aeduans, a Helvetian chieftain plotted with an Aeduan chief and a Seqanian chief for mutual assistance in seizing power in their respective countries. Such an alliance among the three Gallic tribes could not be tolerated by Rome, and possibly at Roman instigation, the Helvetian, Orgetorix, was tried by his people and convicted of attempting to usurp supreme power. The Helvetians, however, continued their plans to migrate to the sea. With the general movement of semi-nomadic tribes in Central Europe, Rome feared the warlike Germans might occupy the Helvetian homeland.The Aeduians were still the most powerful tribe therefor the Sequanians had to get mercenaries to be on equal footing. Its that simple!

Why did Caesar need mercenaries? Was there a "Devastating Roman Civil War" because he didn't have a 'knightly' class with him? He had to use Celts,Germans and Numidians for cavalry, was there a huge horse plague? So if Caesar didn't have the 'knights' with him, the regular legions must have been levies.

So here is the questions:
1. Where is there proof that the fighting class was all but wiped out?
2. Where is the proof of economic upheaval?
3. Where is any proof at all of this supposed "Devastating Civil War".
The rebuttal's to the above 2 questions and more are here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1806465&postcount=502

On the Gaesatae:
1. Where is proof of their prowess on the battlefield?
2. Where is proof of the "drugs" they used?

The problem is that there is a "want" to believe in "Conan The Celt" that he could only be defeated by other Celts and most certainly not by those weak Romans. Not one person on this forum has put any proof down to support the supposed "Devastating Civil War". I have shown author after historian after archaeologist to prove that the "Devastating Civil War" is over exaggerated nonsense. The funny thing is where my sources(authors) came from. They came from the same people who claimed there was a "Devastating Civil War".

And yes I do know that Conan was a Cimmerian.

[Spendios]

You bad faith is really unbearable, you systematically reject the points developped by others and then have the nerve to ask them for justifications :laugh4:
Even if you are totally unable to answer this simple question, in what way are EB celts are overpowered ? (and don't answer with custom battles tests that is totally ridiculous for someone who labels itsef as the know-it-all of history)
Concerning the Gaesatae, they are very vulnerable to missile, are you going to pretend that it is not historically justified ? :inquisitive:

Yeah, and we all know Gauls weren't divided, they were an united nation :yes:

[Power2the1]

What is your basis for the claim of a huge civil/tribal war? I already showed you in Caesar's "Gallic War" the amount of troops available, and they certainly weren't levies(the ones I mentioned). I have no doubt there were many levy troops, but were is the evidence showing that the elite nobles were wiped out? It certainly wasn't in Caesar's book as he talks of them, so where are you getting your information from?


I get my sources from a understanding of Celtic warfare and applying it to the present Gallic situation, not taking sources at face value and spreading it across the entire situation. Theres no need to endlessly ask for proof or post quotes from authors if you do this.

For example. Why don't your sources explain the fact that by the time Vercingetorix rose to take charge he did not engaged Caesar in any pitched decisive battles? The military forces he had to command were not what they once were or should have been.

Why would the Celts resort to "Oppida:Total War" (Alesia, Gergovia, Uxellodunum, etc...) and not rally to face the Romans on the battlefield if their were plenty of trained warriors eager to defend their homeland against the invaders?. You do not need to be a genius on Celts to know thats not the typical Celtic response to their homelands being invaded if Gaul had a strong, trained military response to foreign incursion.

However, you claim:


According to every author(historian/archaeologist) than mentions this subject this was a generally prosperous and peaceful region.

Those sources forget to factor in that Gauls were centered around a heroic/warrior society just as the Germans were. A peaceful, prosperous warrior society would maintain plenty of warriors and could answer threats to their lands quickly and overwhelmingly. Did that happen? No.

You state this:

Arthur D. Khan-"The Education of Julius Caesar"-"Some years earlier the Aeduians, the most powerful of the Gallic tribes, had engaged in a war over river tolls with their neighbors the Sequanians. The Sequanians had called in German mercenaries under the Suebian chief Ariovistus and inflicted a major defeat on the Aeduans. Subsequently, the Sequanians, themselves threatened by the Germans, sought a reconciliation with the Aeduans against the common foe. Two parties arose within both tribes, one proposing to solicit aid against the Germans from the Helvetians, and the other seeking Roman intervention. While the Romans were preoccupied with the revolt of the Allobrogians, neighbors to the Helvetians and the Aeduans, a Helvetian chieftain plotted with an Aeduan chief and a Seqanian chief for mutual assistance in seizing power in their respective countries. Such an alliance among the three Gallic tribes could not be tolerated by Rome, and possibly at Roman instigation, the Helvetian, Orgetorix, was tried by his people and convicted of attempting to usurp supreme power. The Helvetians, however, continued their plans to migrate to the sea. With the general movement of semi-nomadic tribes in Central Europe, Rome feared the warlike Germans might occupy the Helvetian homeland.

You actually believe this war over river tolls caused enough casualties for the Sequani (who were allied to the Arverni) to call for Germanic help? Thats outrageous, especially if Gaul was peaceful and prosperous...

[SaFe]

While i don't believe that the celtic units in general are overpowered with the notable exception of the Gaesatae i'm on the side of the clear majority of historians who don't believe in a devasting civil war.

Also i'm not too fond of the fact that Frostwulf seems to believe in typical roman numbers, that goes in the hundreds of thousands. Ariovist and his Suebians for example while they faced Caesar had definately not the superiority in numbers when we talk about warriors (not counting the women, old people and children the Suebians had brought with them to the battle.)

But:
Frostwulf seems to always use sources that he back up with well known and respected historians, while the whole basic idea of the celtic civil war that was so extremly devasting was stirred up by Psycho and we all should know by now that he came up with sources and books that doesn't even exist.

B.t.w. i remember many discussions with Ranika and he never claimed a civil war on such a heavy scale like many others here.
Ranika should be known to any "old-timers" as the most knowledgeable person about celts in the EB team.

I rather go with historians like Goldsworthy and others, well-known students like Ranika than the "it must have been a devasting civil war, because the celts would never have been beaten by germanic or roman invaders such easily instead" believers.

Well, perhaps a few people would think about this before answering Frostwulf's question for sources with comments like "unbearable" and "outrageous".
Nonetheless i really woulld like to hear and read those sources too.

[Watchman]

You say there wasn't enough high-end infantry around, what are you basing that on?Pretty sure I've read later-period Celtic higher-end warriors took increasingly to horseback, for one thing. Got the impression the developement was in fact startlingly similar to the Middle Ages - relatively small bodies of hard-hitting heavy cavalry, based on fortified sites (oppidia in this case) to control the surrounding territory, trade-routes etc.

Which sort of thing has always had a tendency to decay the infantry arm, which tends to be increasingly relegated to "home defense" and forming a fairly passive defensive backbone in field engagements.
Although, the Celts apparently went a bit the other way. They apparently began wielding increasingly well-equipped, and hence more expensive and smaller, professional infantry formations on side of the cavalry, probably for stuff like fortress assault and reliably holding and capturing key pieces of geography... and doubtless partly for the sheer prestige value such élite "honour guards" afforded a grandee.

So the perspective is there, you just have to read it.
...and I've a distinct recollection of you at some point in the past having in essence claimed that Celtic and German both society, warfare etc. remained essentially unchanged for four hundred years, or thereabouts. Such as, quite recently in the bit I originally quoted.
Nevermind your bullheaded insistence on trying to claim troop quality is the end-all be-all of how battles and campaigns are won. (By that logic the Samnites ought to get nerfed too, since, you know, the Romans kind of beat them...:dizzy2: )

And then you have the nerve to piously claim you don't lack perspective. :dizzy2:

Same answer as SaFe not to mention that there was admiration for those kind of things, considering they themselves did "heroic deeds".
The Greeks and Romans had no shortage of other literary tropes to underline how big, scary, fierce etc. the Celts were, however. So why just this one, and in the context of the nekkid warriors ?

And I really don't think that sort of thing was commonly attributed to enemies anywhere either.

Actually I was referring to one of Caesars men who after a vicious battle of holding a fort against the Celts he lost his eye. His comrades said he was the main reason the fort didn't fall and Caesar made him a centurion as well as all kinds of medals,cash etc.

My point to this was and still is there are many heroic deeds that happened on both sides. Again Ill state that there was most likely less then a handful that pulled a javelin out of a leg or a spear from a shoulder and continued to fight. You will find these situations in just about every culture, it doesn't speak only of drugged up Gaesatae(again Ill state I don't believe the drug thing)....and is that supposed to be something miraculous or unbelievable ? That's exactly the sort of thing commanders would dearly love their men to do - that is, fight on in spite of agonising injuries (most kinds of damage you would lose an eye to in an ancient melee fight being of the sort that do not, otherwise, actually particularly incapaciate you) - and reward accordingly when someone actually pulls it off. Doubly so if the guy inspires his comrades on the side (although in the case of officers, that was sort of their duty anyway).

Kinda different thing from a claimed ability to pull a thrown spear out of your damn body and toss it back. Recall, this stuff was written for audiences who generally knew fairly well what pain and injury was, often from personal experience (available medical care being what it was); the authors weren't going to throw in what strikes the average Joe as complete baloney just for shit & giggles.

Well considering that most of these were raids into Roman territory would they not be warriors and not levy's? Was it not the elite that went on these raids? There were a few times that they mustered for war, but most of these battles were of Celtic warriors going for plunder which would mean warriors, not craftsmen and etc(levy's)....and you had the nerve to claim you had perspective. You don't even comprehend the bloody context, and apparently haven't been paying attention in general.

I'm sort of starting to get pissed off now. It happens a lot when the other party appears to be employing willful stupidity as his argument strategy.

Now look. We're talking what, 4th-3rd cent BC here right ? Now what was the war gear of the average Celtic warrior ? It sure as Hell wasn't heavy mail. No, what the rank-and-file trooper went into combat with was a shield, some throwing-spears, a fighting-spear, and his bloody trousers. Better off ones might add a helmet and/or longsword.

And that's it. Body armour was pretty much restricted to the social elite and their immediate retainers already for economical reasons.

And you know what ? The lightest of Roman heavy infantry was required to have at least as good gear (the helmet at least being mandatory), and personal finances allowing could easily have more (such as at least one greave and the pectoral plate). It went up from that, all the way to the Triarii whose panoply was at least the equal, if not better, of the Celtic nobles (dunno 'bout the Equites).
And this arming level, minimum requirements included, only kept going up as the resources of the Republic grew; around the Punic Wars the Principes and Equites already wore mail as standard, making them roughly the equals of Celtic noblemen in terms of armour.

Now see where the Roman kind-of had a bit of an equipement advantage ?

Don't ever waste my time with this kind of bloody stupidity again.

The Romans were able to distinguish between the Gallic tribes(Boii,Insubres,etc.) and they know that in the case of Clastidum that the "king" of the Gaesatae was Virdomarus. There is a reason why the classical authors as well as the modern ones use the same term, because they are the same type of troops.Get a clue. Does there appear a reference to a major 'tribe' called "Gaesatae" anywhere other than in the context of mercenaries from Transalpine Gaul ? You know, as in an actual political/tribal entity ?

I'm betting the answer is Hell No. And there hardly could be either, as regardless of what a random garbled Roman account might claim the term patently obviously refers to Transalpine mercenaries in general.

This "king" Vidromarus would not have been anything more or less than a particularly prominent member of the mercenary army acting as its de facto leader and commander. and would the actual king of an actual Celtic tribe hike beyond the Alps to partake in some lousy border war for cash as a mercenary, anyway ?
Hell No.

Besides, if the Gaesatae were a tribe in Gaul, what the fig were similar naked frontline shock-troop warriors doing with the Galatian migration anyway ? You tell me...

And it says absolutely nothing of the type of troops involved, other than at least some of them fought naked which the Romans found quite striking. This may indeed have even been the practice of all such mercenaries; but in that case the easy majority of them would actually in terms of EB units amount to much humbler soldiery than the "Gaesatae" unit (which would really just be the most hardcase guys of the lot in a picked shock force), such as Uirodusios, Pictones Neitos and, heck, those southern spear- and longswordmen too (the common rank-and-file of the mercs).

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

No doubt about it, thats one of the reasons why I wouldn't bother to try to prove it, not to mention I don't even believe the Germanic neighbours had better equipment. But what is impressive is how well the Germanic neighbours were able to defeat the Gauls with sub par equipment.Numbers. Tactics. Leadership. The heavily armed Celtic elite were never numerous, whereas the Germanic tribal warriors were readily available in large numbers.

Indeed, looking at the main period conflicts between the Germanics and Celts - the Cimbri-Teuton "road trip" and Ariovist's renegade mercenaries - one gets a rather strong impression the former were heavily dependent on either massive numerical superiority (the CT seem to have been a little short of full-blown migration; the Romans lost several large armies sent against them, and their accounts - for all the usual "rounding up" of numbers - rather seem to suggest a vast host) and/or the presence of a particularly canny and capable warlord (Ariovist; he likely had a fair bit of numbers too of course).

Plus, the CT seem to have gotten sort of deflected off the Boii and Noricum.



Yes nice talk, but I showed you how they actually did in battle. They tried to surprise the Romans and then they were defeated by standard legions, not Praetorians.Brilliant reasoning. The Celtic chief gathers a picked strike force of his best men for a surprise attack, the Romans notice it in time, vector in reinforcements and beat the assault back.
And you regard this as proof positive that the warriors involved weren't good fighters.

Go home already if you don't understand the first thing about mass combat.

The Celts would've needed to be damn mythic (or Hollywood) heroes every man jack of 'em to beat those odds - fortification, incoming reinforcements, what-have-you. Hell, Medieval knights usually couldn't beat those either and they had way better gear to boot.
The Celts were gambling on a surprise for a reason there if you missed it.

I have given two examples of Celtic elites(Gaesatae,Solduros) losing to Roman basic units, what justifies the stats they are awarded?
--
I was saying to have the elite Celts as powerful as they are compared to the Roman units(Praetorian,Evocata, etc.) is to have a Sherman tank more powerful then a Panther tank.You haven't the slightest grasp of the way the units are statted in EB, that much is obvious. For your benefit, let me explain the basic scheme. Every unit is graded to one of four basic categories (militia, regular, veteran, elite) which determines its basic skill levels, morale vlaue, etc. Equipement and suchlike are then added in.
Also, the higher the grade the lower the "max cap" of men-per-unit.

Now in the case you haven't grasped it the category is above all determined by the historical status of the unit in its relevant military context - hardened vets and particularly highly trained formations are "veteran", picked crack forces, elite guard types etc. are "elite". This is the same for all cultures.

Of course you then also have the likes of Praetorians, who IRL were a bit of a metropolitan "political unit" and "cushy number" who mostly sat around in the capital - they may have had pretty strict entry requirements, drilled regularly and so on and had a formidable espirit de corps, but it's also a well-established fact such "palace guard" types just aren't as tough as they'd be if they were actively campaigning out in the frontline. Which is actually sort of OK as the main point of such forces isn't to form a cutting edge in battle, but provide a (hopefully) reliable defense and security force for the capital and the person of the ruler.
The Praetorians were tough on a good day, but not actually that tough; stubborn and numerous yes, though.

What do I base this on? The battles that are recorded in history!Given that you repeatedly demonstrate an inablity to discern what brings about victory or defeat in battle, and why, this doesn't mean much.

Bluntly put, your analysis blows. It's like demanding the Hoplitai be nerfed because, you know, the Thracian tribal skirmishers (more or less Komatai in EB terms) reguarly handed them their asses in their home woods. Or the Romani be nerfed compared to the Carthie troops because, you know, Hannibal did such a good job beating Legions. Or the Dacians and late-period Romans nerfed variously relative each other, as the Dacians minced at least one army sent against them but eventually lost the wars...

See what I mean ?


Caesar does mention that the Helvetii were under pressure from the Germans.Thanks for the completely pointless and unnecessary reminder. I can read that from teh Wiki too if need be.

And what have you to say to the little detail I pointed out, namely, that even after getting bled by Caesar the Helvetii appear to have quite cheerfully stuck to their old lands they were forced to return to unpleasant Germanic neighbours nonwithstanding ? For centuries ?



Celtic Gaul was generally a prosperous and peaceful region...

Some years earlier the Aeduians, the most powerful of the Gallic tribes, had engaged in a war over river tolls with their neighbors the Sequanians. The Sequanians had called in German mercenaries under the Suebian chief Ariovistus and inflicted a major defeat on the Aeduans. Subsequently, the Sequanians, themselves threatened by the Germans, sought a reconciliation with the Aeduans against the common foe. Two parties arose within both tribes, one proposing to solicit aid against the Germans from the Helvetians, and the other seeking Roman intervention. While the Romans were preoccupied with the revolt of the Allobrogians, neighbors to the Helvetians and the Aeduans, a Helvetian chieftain plotted with an Aeduan chief and a Seqanian chief for mutual assistance in seizing power in their respective countries
...you don't happen to see a minor discrepancy between the two takes ? For a "prosperous and peaceful region" (peaceful, no doubt, a rather relative term given the Celtic cultural predisposition for armed conflict) that seems like an awful lot of scuffles among some of the biggest boys in the neighbourhood...
Besides, weren't the Arverni also involved in the Aedui-Sequani feud ?

Methinks a fair bit can be made out of a later sentence in that former quote too:
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.It seems to me neither you nor the original authors actually quite grasp what this in practice means when you're talking about a society dominated by a warrior class where displaying wealth and success is highly regarded, and every potentate surrounds himself with as many as heavily armed men as he can afford to employ and equip.

It means all those wannabe kings and would-be statelets plus their former overlords will be fighting like cats and dogs to see who bosses around who, who owns the best fields, who controls the most lucrative trade etc, and in the end, who has the most warriors, the most power, and the poshest mansion.

That's the bloody Middle Ages for ya, Celtic style. And prime conquering country for an ambitious man with a big experienced army, lots of money, and quite enough political savvy to play all those petty lordlings to his benefit. The smart conqueror, after all, takes the place over as a wholly owned subsidiary.

The Aeduians were still the most powerful tribe therefor the Sequanians had to get mercenaries to be on equal footing. Its that simple!Like Hell it is. Gaul in particular seems to have had a bit of an excess of footloose warriors for quite a while, enough for tens of thousands to take a hike and go take part in Italic scuffles apparently. So why were the local bigwigs suddenly hiring foreign mercenaries and invoking alliances with foreign potentates, rather than tapping this pool ? What happened to that once impressive supply of warriors-for-hire anyway ? Absorbed into the growing private armies of sundry grandees and employed to guard their domains and try to take those of neighbours ? Depleted in the territorial and prestige dispute raging between some of the biggest tribes of the land ? Found employement in Roman and other foreign armies ?
Whatever it was, they obviously weren't anymore available for the Sequani paymasters who had to turn to the less reliable Germanics instead.


And yes I do know that Conan was a Cimmerian.Howard's Cimmerians always struck me as some sort of Scottish Highlander rip-off mind you. If you want to invoke fictional characters, I'd rather suggest Asterix. :beam:

[Power2the1]

While i don't believe that the celtic units in general are overpowered with the notable exception of the Gaesatae i'm on the side of the clear majority of historians who don't believe in a devasting civil war.

Also i'm not too fond of the fact that Frostwulf seems to believe in typical roman numbers, that goes in the hundreds of thousands. Ariovist and his Suebians for example while they faced Caesar had definately not the superiority in numbers when we talk about warriors (not counting the women, old people and children the Suebians had brought with them to the battle.)

But:
Frostwulf seems to always use sources that he back up with well known and respected historians, while the whole basic idea of the celtic civil war that was so extremly devasting was stirred up by Psycho and we all should know by now that he came up with sources and books that doesn't even exist.

B.t.w. i remember many discussions with Ranika and he never claimed a civil war on such a heavy scale like many others here.
Ranika should be known to any "old-timers" as the most knowledgeable person about celts in the EB team.

I rather go with historians like Goldsworthy and others, well-known students like Ranika than the "it must have been a devasting civil war, because the celts would never have been beaten by germanic or roman invaders such easily instead" believers.

Well, perhaps a few people would think about this before answering Frostwulf's question for sources with comments like "unbearable" and "outrageous".
Nonetheless i really woulld like to hear and read those sources too.



You fall into the same reasoning tactic as Frost.

- First, your usage of the term "devastating," in its context, is all encompassing, used to describing every aspect of the Gallic life at this time.

- Second, your ridicule of the "it must have been a devasting civil war, because the celts would never have been beaten by germanic or roman invaders such easily instead" group of posters here is a poor way to group every argument thats "pro civil war" into an all in one theory that you can sleep better over, despite the compelling reasons contrary.

I do not think anyone here has claimed that the Civil War affected Gaul like a flame throwing hurricane swept through all of Gaul before the Romans and Germans came, only to find and to mop up what feeble souls were left etching out a meager life amid the drought and ashes. Nothing of the sort.

Further, I do not believe everything Caesar mentions in Gallic Wars, especially the military figures he uses. Its not all propaganda and untruths of course, but it is not cannon nor law. IMHO, Caesar was the biggest ego centrist, glory seeker, greedy and corrupt figure of his age. Modern guesstimate believe he killed just over 1 million in Gaul alone (and helped pave the way for the Fall of the Republic. Not a factor here but still). Caesar as a reliable, honest man. No. Liar and self serving historian? Yes.

Keep in mind that those authors/sources even attempt assess the situation on a purely military level. This is where the term "devastating Civil War" can be best applied. The sources and authors seem to champion a group of broad ideas about Gaul (prosperous, peaceful) thus applying a general idea to cover several underlying ones like military, morale, tribal strength, etc... which in turn falsely paints the picture about the Gauls to the average reader. In reality, the truth of the situation fall more on the reasoning that the military was not prospering. Even if the general nation/economy of Gaul was doing rather well as traders, farmers, craftsmen, weapon smiths, etc...those guys were not the ones trained and sent to the "frontlines." Guess who would have been sent however? The nobles, the champions, and professionals.

And yes, it is outrageous to claim a so called "prosperous military" had to resort to fighting as "Oppida:Total War."

[Glewas]

I've tried not to pay attention to this of recent, but it seems I can't look away...


Finally the last part to this thread, the Celtic units.

For the Gaesatae:


Ross Cowan-“For the Glory of Rome”-“During the Cimbric War the primus pilus Gnaeus Petreius, tired of his tribune’s reluctance to attack the German force which had surrounded the legion, gutted the cowardly officer with his gladius and let the legion out to victory.” pg.238

What does the cowardice of one Roman have to do with your analysis the Gaesatae? Am I missing something?


Of the Soldurii:



Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"Their request was granted and they proceeded to hand their weapons over as ordered. But while the attention of all our men was focused on this transaction, their commander-in-chief Adiatumnus went into action in another part of the town with 600 followers whom they called soldurii. The rule of this order is that they share in the enjoyment of all life's advantages with the friends to whom they have committed themselves, and if the friend succumbs to any violence they either share his fate or commit suicide; there is no record of one who refused to die when the man to whose friendship he had committed himself was killed. It was with such followers that Adiatumnus attempted his sortie, but a shout was raised in that part of the fortification. The soldiers ran to arms, and after a sharp engagement Adiatumnus was driven back into the town. But he petitioned Crassus for the old terms of surrender and obtained his desire. Book 3,22



Is this supposed to show how the Soldurii were defeated by the Romans? So a Roman army defeats a last ditch attempt of 600 men? That is your proof why thier stats should be lowered? Not much of an argument especially when one take into account Caesar mentioning the defeat/retreat of two Roman armies in Aquitania just two paragraphs earlier (3,20)...



Knowing that he (Crassus) had to fight in a country where some years previously [78 B.C] the general Lucius Valerius Praeconinus had been defeated and killed, and the proconsul Lucius Manilus compelled to retreat with the loss of all his heavy equipment, he realized that he must proceed with extreme caution. Book 3,20

Also a thought in regard to the "drug" that the Gaesatae may or may not have taken... It is known that the Celts/Gauls were practitioners of trepanation - drilling or scraping hole(s) into the skull for various reasons and skeletons have been found with new bone growth, meaning that the patients survived - at least for some time... Would not patients need some sort of pain medication for the extra holes in their heads during and after surgery? Could it not be possible that these pain killers, or something like them, be used by Gaesatae?

[Frostwulf]

@The General, the reason I have a hard time with the supposed "Devastating Civil War" is because of all the historians/archaeologists and their writings. Not one person has quoted anything from a historian/archaeologist or any professional contrary to what I have written. Why would I believe in this "Devastating Civil War" because some guy on this forum says it happened? There is just to much information contrary to the "Devastating Civil War" for me to believe in it. Ill I have been reading from this forum is total supposition, and most of it is from ignorance of the situation.
Here is a question I pose to you, give me just one quote from a noted historian or archaeologist that supports the "Devastating Civil War" and the hypothesis of the warriors being wiped out.
As far as what your saying about Caesar and his winning I highly recommend Goldsworthy's-"Caesar, Life of a Colossus", I think you will change your mind on the situation.
On the units, you have to get them to historical perspectives first before you put cost to them. And lastly if you insist that its complaining thats fine. I am merely pointing out that I believe there to be historical errors and I'm backing up my claims with historians and archaeologists, not supposition. I have kept this going because I respond back to those who post, if this annoys you the I would suggest not reading any further. But if your interested in the historical aspects of this I would suggest going back a few pages and reading what I have written for the summery of this thread.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1806465&postcount=502


You bad faith is really unbearable, you systematically reject the points developped by others and then have the nerve to ask them for justificationsSpendios lets not stop with being congenial. Why do I reject what others "suppose", because I have historians and archaeologists who disagree with what they are saying. Almost every point I have made I have backed it up with professionals, thats why not many ask for my justifications. I get allot of the same statements, yet not one of them can back up their own statements!
Now if you can give me some points developed by others that I haven't addressed with professional view points, please post them. And please actually make sure I haven't addressed them.

Even if you are totally unable to answer this simple question, in what way are EB celts are overpowered ? (and don't answer with custom battles tests that is totally ridiculous for someone who labels itsef as the know-it-all of history)I will state again, as I have done many times, that the elite Celt units are overpowered. In short I say this because historically they were not as good as the Roman units. That being said if you do a test the Celtic elites are more powerful then their Roman counter parts. If you want more in depth on this, then read through this thread. BTW when did I label myself "the know-it-all of history? Just because I actually use professional opinion as opposed to supposition doesn't mean I know-it-all. I just tend to agree with the professionals and not the forum/wikipedia "scholars".

Concerning the Gaesatae, they are very vulnerable to missile, are you going to pretend that it is not historically justified The two things I think are historically accurate of the Gaesatae are their vulnerability to missiles and the fear they generate.


I get my sources from a understanding of Celtic warfare and applying it to the present Gallic situation, not taking sources at face value and spreading it across the entire situation. Theres no need to endlessly ask for proof or post quotes from authors if you do this. Both Goldsworthy and James specifically targeted Caesars time frame and how fighting would have been done. I believe the key part of this is your not familiar with the whole situation that was going on.

For example. Why don't your sources explain the fact that by the time Vercingetorix rose to take charge he did not engaged Caesar in any pitched decisive battles?Actually they do, and Goldsworthy goes into detail. Vercingetorix was not an idiot, you have to remember he knew how Caesar had defeated the Helvetii, Suebi, the Begae and etc. He knew how tough the Romans were. You have to remember that the Romans had been defeating the Celts consistently since the 300's BC and most of the time the Romans(militia/conscripts) were outnumbered. Now you have the professional legions led by an exceptional commander.

Adrian Goldsworthy-“Roman Warfare”-“ Tactics were simple, and relied on a headlong charge by a screaming mass of warriors. The first charge of a Gallic army was a dreadful thing, but the Romans believed that if they could withstand this onslaught then the Gauls would steadily tire and become vulnerable. Classical literature claims that the barbarians were poorly conditioned and easily tired by strenuous activity and heat. But probably the main reason why the Romans were likely to win a prolonged combat was their triplex acies formation that allowed them to reinforce threatened parts of the line. Individually the Romans were better equipped and armoured than the majority of Celtic warriors, but there is little indication of the great superiority which Caesar’s troops in the first century BC would display against similar Gallic opponents.” pg.88

Why would the Celts resort to "Oppida:Total War" (Alesia, Gergovia, Uxellodunum, etc...) and not rally to face the Romans on the battlefield if their were plenty of trained warriors eager to defend their homeland against the invaders?. You do not need to be a genius on Celts to know thats not the typical Celtic response to their homelands being invaded if Gaul had a strong, trained military response to foreign incursion.I believe your forgetting that the Aedui asked the Romans to help against Ariovistus. He was not seen as a menace till later when the Belgic tribes saw the writing on the wall and went against him. There was no united Gaul, even in the 120's when the Arverni were defeated by the Romans, the Aedui were friends and brothers of the Roman people. The Celts were always feuding with one another, and it took a man of great charisma to unite them against the Romans. If you read Caesar's "Gallic War" you will see plenty of warriors available to the Celts.

Those sources forget to factor in that Gauls were centered around a heroic/warrior society just as the Germans were. A peaceful, prosperous warrior society would maintain plenty of warriors and could answer threats to their lands quickly and overwhelmingly. Did that happen? No.First off the quote was generally peaceful and prosperous, taking into the account of the raiding and small battles that went on.

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
Simon James says the same thing in his quote.

You actually believe this war over river tolls caused enough casualties for the Sequani (who were allied to the Arverni) to call for Germanic help? Thats outrageous, especially if Gaul was peaceful and prosperous...Again Gaul was generally peaceful and prosperous, making room for the raids and small battles that occurred. No I don't believe the squabble over the river tolls caused enough casualties for the Sequani to bring over the Germans. What I do believe is that the Sequani brought over the Germans because of the dispute over the river tolls. The Aedui were still more powerful and bringing over the Germans helped counter the power of the Aedui. Again the problem here is you are not familiar with the situation that was going on.

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 increasing lucrative trade routes up the Saone." pg.170
I know he uses Cicero as one of his classical sources.

Also i'm not too fond of the fact that Frostwulf seems to believe in typical roman numbers, that goes in the hundreds of thousands.I have made the statement multiple times that the Romans exaggerate the numbers, I have no doubt they did.

Ariovist and his Suebians for example while they faced Caesar had definately not the superiority in numbers when we talk about warriors (not counting the women, old people and children the Suebians had brought with them to the battle.) I have to disagree with you on this. I believe Warry to be correct when he puts the numbers as:
Caesar:21000 legionaries,4,000 Gallic horse and other auxiliaries.
Ariovistus: 6,000 horse, 6,000 footmen, 16,000 light infantry.
I did just realize Warry doesn't say how many auxiliaries Caesar had. Goldsworthy stats: "If most of the six legions took part in this manoeurvre then two-thirds of their strength plus the cavalry and light troops would at the very least have matched the German numbers".pg.230
Ok, now I'm not so sure. Ill have to check other sources.

Pretty sure I've read later-period Celtic higher-end warriors took increasingly to horseback, for one thing. Got the impression the developement was in fact startlingly similar to the Middle Ages - relatively small bodies of hard-hitting heavy cavalry, based on fortified sites (oppidia in this case) to control the surrounding territory, trade-routes etc.

Which sort of thing has always had a tendency to decay the infantry arm, which tends to be increasingly relegated to "home defense" and forming a fairly passive defensive backbone in field engagements.
Although, the Celts apparently went a bit the other way. They apparently began wielding increasingly well-equipped, and hence more expensive and smaller, professional infantry formations on side of the cavalry, probably for stuff like fortress assault and reliably holding and capturing key pieces of geography... and doubtless partly for the sheer prestige value such élite "honour guards" afforded a grandee.I would agree with this for the most part. But what you are forgetting is the increase in mail armor and the troops like the Soldurii. Yes most of the nobility were mounted but just like the Soldurii there would have been other professional soldiers, which is what I get from reading Caesar's "Gallic War".

...and I've a distinct recollection of you at some point in the past having in essence claimed that Celtic and German both society, warfare etc. remained essentially unchanged for four hundred years, or thereabouts. Such as, quite recently in the bit I originally quoted.
Your missing what I said again. The quote I made was referring to a second supposed "Devastating Civil War" that Psycho made a reference to. I think the 2nd supposed "Devastating Civil War" happened around the 5th century(basing this on Ranikas post). I never said that the Celtic and German society never changed, that was the usual psycho V misquote and distortion. What I did say was that the German(I never said anything of the Celts) way of fighting had some things that remained the same through later years. I talked of the shield wall(still used in 1066), the way they lined up for battle(used in the 700's and later) and a few other things of that sort. The reason for stating this is to show that the Germans quite possibly used the same methods much earlier, and there is no reason to my knowledge to say differently. Of course I'm always willing to hear differing points of view if someone has something to back it up with.

The Greeks and Romans had no shortage of other literary tropes to underline how big, scary, fierce etc. the Celts were, however. So why just this one, and in the context of the nekkid warriors ?

And I really don't think that sort of thing was commonly attributed to enemies anywhere either.These things were not limited to the nekkid warriors, they applied them to others as well. What particular quotes are you referring to? If you mean to pull spears and javelins out, that wasn't said anywhere of the Gaesatae. It was said of the Celts who included the Tectosages, Trocmi and the Tolistobogii, but again no mention of naked warriors nor of the Gaesatae.

Kinda different thing from a claimed ability to pull a thrown spear out of your damn body and toss it back. Recall, this stuff was written for audiences who generally knew fairly well what pain and injury was, often from personal experience (available medical care being what it was); the authors weren't going to throw in what strikes the average Joe as complete baloney just for shit & giggles.Again this is nothing new nor is it different, these kind of things were said of other peoples by the Romans and Greeks. And just in case you forget, the Gaesatae are not mentioned in the Greek account, nor are they naked(not that this proves anything).The Greek account says some, and again this would be with any group of peoples including Romans and Greeks.

8*Now look. We're talking what, 4th-3rd cent BC here right ? Now what was the war gear of the average Celtic warrior ? It sure as Hell wasn't heavy mail. No, what the rank-and-file trooper went into combat with was a shield, some throwing-spears, a fighting-spear, and his bloody trousers. Better off ones might add a helmet and/or longsword.

And that's it. Body armour was pretty much restricted to the social elite and their immediate retainers already for economical reasons.You are absolutely correct in this. After reading what you wrote my response is inappropriate and I agree for the most part the Romans were better equipped.

My point was to be that the Celts that were invading Roman territory were warriors as opposed to conscripts and levies, which had nothing to do with the point you were making. I'm not sure what I got your point confused with, as in general it takes me a few days to complete these replies and generally its after long hours of work. So my apologies for my irrelevant response to the point you were making.

Get a clue. Does there appear a reference to a major 'tribe' called "Gaesatae" anywhere other than in the context of mercenaries from Transalpine Gaul ? You know, as in an actual political/tribal entity ?Rudeness is easy, but as far a get a clue, how about read a book on the situation which you obviously haven't. Sure all the authors could be wrong and you know what your talking about....LOL
Can you tell me which classical authors talk about the Gaesatae? These authors I mention can. Your basing you opinions on hunches,gut feelings and supposition which is firmly grounded in ignorance.
Being rude is easy, lets not do it anymore.

This "king" Vidromarus would not have been anything more or less than a particularly prominent member of the mercenary army acting as its de facto leader and commander. and would the actual king of an actual Celtic tribe hike beyond the Alps to partake in some lousy border war for cash as a mercenary, anyway ?
Hell No.
I agree with you, this account is most likely how the Romans explained things, just like in Roman eyes the God Tivas would be the same as Jupiter. To the Romans the power of Vidromarus was similar or explained to them by the Celts to be similar to that of a king.

Besides, if the Gaesatae were a tribe in Gaul, what the fig were similar naked frontline shock-troop warriors doing with the Galatian migration anyway ? You tell me...I only have read one author who is not sure if they are a mercenary group or a tribe, the rest say mercenaries. The Gaesatae were not with the Galatians, your simply assuming that because of the way some of the Galatians pulled javelins out and etc. There is nothing said at all in this account of 279 of any naked warriors or of Gaesatae.

And it says absolutely nothing of the type of troops involved, other than at least some of them fought naked which the Romans found quite striking. This may indeed have even been the practice of all such mercenaries; but in that case the easy majority of them would actually in terms of EB units amount to much humbler soldiery than the "Gaesatae" unit (which would really just be the most hardcase guys of the lot in a picked shock force), such as Uirodusios, Pictones Neitos and, heck, those southern spear- and longswordmen too (the common rank-and-file of the mercs).They tell you of the tribes that fought but thats about it. I would say the would all be in EB terms pictones,Neito and etc. as the EB Gaesatae is to me a fantasy unit.

Did you miss the part in the description of the Greeks vs. Celts bout in Thermopylae ? The part where some Celts are claimed to have pulled out javelins from their own wounds and thrown them back ? For that matter, IIRC the description also seemed to suggest they were rather difficult to convince to lie down and die of their wounds too, and seemed to fight in some sort of berserk fury... and the way the account flows sort of associates this stuff with the naked warriors.No I didn't miss it. Just because some guys did this doesn't mean they were Gaesatae, they weren't naked were they? If I'm not mistaken the account talks of the tribes that made up this incursion yet no mention of the Gaesatae. The Germans, Dacians and others did the same kind of things, that doesn't make them Gaesatae. When Caesar's 10th were pulling the shields from the Germani, did that make them berserk Gaesatae? Of course not, again there are accounts of other peoples doing the same type of things.

Numbers. Tactics. Leadership. The heavily armed Celtic elite were never numerous, whereas the Germanic tribal warriors were readily available in large numbers.
Care to back this up with evidence or is this more supposition? The armor available to the Celts during this time had increased.

Indeed, looking at the main period conflicts between the Germanics and Celts - the Cimbri-Teuton "road trip" and Ariovist's renegade mercenaries - one gets a rather strong impression the former were heavily dependent on either massive numerical superiority (the CT seem to have been a little short of full-blown migration; the Romans lost several large armies sent against them, and their accounts - for all the usual "rounding up" of numbers - rather seem to suggest a vast host) and/or the presence of a particularly canny and capable warlord (Ariovist; he likely had a fair bit of numbers too of course).TCA were certainly large considering they were tribal movements. But as far as Ariovistus we have a pretty good idea how many troops he had, and if you read on this subject you will find that he was outnumbered by the Gauls.

Plus, the CT seem to have gotten sort of deflected off the Boii and Noricum. Yes, but we don't know the circumstances or the numbers on the Boii. What we do know is that the armies of Rome that had been defeating the Celts(here we do know the numbers and circumstance) were defeated by the TCA.

Brilliant reasoning. The Celtic chief gathers a picked strike force of his best men for a surprise attack, the Romans notice it in time, vector in reinforcements and beat the assault back.
And you regard this as proof positive that the warriors involved weren't good fighters.I base it on that after being beaten and surrendering, the Gauls still figure they can win with the 600 soldurii. The Gauls were obviously not suicidal as once again they surrendered and asked for the same terms. From the sound of the previous text it seems that as usual the Romans were outnumbered.


The Celts would've needed to be damn mythic (or Hollywood) heroes every man jack of 'em to beat those odds - fortification, incoming reinforcements, what-have-you. Hell, Medieval knights usually couldn't beat those either and they had way better gear to boot. There was no reinforcements and but a shout was raised in that part of the fortification. The soldiers ran to arms, and after a sharp engagement Adiatumnus was driven back into the town." or this version: "shout was made on that side of the entrenchment, the troops ran to arms and a sharp engagement was fought there."
The Soldurii were not fighting against a fortification and there were not Roman reinforcements, it was the Roman soldiers already there going up to engage the Soldurii.

Of course you then also have the likes of Praetorians, who IRL were a bit of a metropolitan "political unit" and "cushy number" who mostly sat around in the capital - they may have had pretty strict entry requirements, drilled regularly and so on and had a formidable espirit de corps, but it's also a well-established fact such "palace guard" types just aren't as tough as they'd be if they were actively campaigning out in the frontline. Which is actually sort of OK as the main point of such forces isn't to form a cutting edge in battle, but provide a (hopefully) reliable defense and security force for the capital and the person of the ruler.They weren't all just idle, some emperors such as Marcus Aurelius used them in battle(to good effect) and I believe there were others as well.

The Praetorians were tough on a good day, but not actually that tough; stubborn and numerous yes, though.Like most other things it depends on which Praetorians your talking about, just like the regular legions. You could have Caesar's 10th or compare that to his 11th, this is why things have to be done in generalities.

And what have you to say to the little detail I pointed out, namely, that even after getting bled by Caesar the Helvetii appear to have quite cheerfully stuck to their old lands they were forced to return to unpleasant Germanic neighbours nonwithstanding ? For centuries ?
Good question, I don't know. I do know that the Romans had troops in that area, but of what strength and etc?

...you don't happen to see a minor discrepancy between the two takes ? For a "prosperous and peaceful region" (peaceful, no doubt, a rather relative term given the Celtic cultural predisposition for armed conflict) that seems like an awful lot of scuffles among some of the biggest boys in the neighbourhood...
Besides, weren't the Arverni also involved in the Aedui-Sequani feud ?
None whatsoever. Being generally peaceful as you have said because of the Celtic culture, there is nothing of huge battles but scuffles as you said. Tribes would shift clientage and etc. The Arverni were allied to the Sequani to my knowledge.

It seems to me neither you nor the original authors actually quite grasp what this in practice means when you're talking about a society dominated by a warrior class where displaying wealth and success is highly regarded, and every potentate surrounds himself with as many as heavily armed men as he can afford to employ and equip.This is so tempting, but I'll refrain. The situation is that your knowledge of this subject is dwarfed by the likes of James,Goldsworthy,Raftery and etc. While wikipedia and forums such as this has some good material, it could hardly match those found in books. Contrary to what you must be thinking, these authors have read the classical authors and are knowledgeable then any of us on the situations they write about.

It means all those wannabe kings and would-be statelets plus their former overlords will be fighting like cats and dogs to see who bosses around who, who owns the best fields, who controls the most lucrative trade etc, and in the end, who has the most warriors, the most power, and the poshest mansion.And that was the case, as mentioned by the authors. The problem is your mind is so boxed into this "Devastating Civil War" you ignoring what these authors are saying. There were raids and small battles, these were used to cause moral defeats and the changing of clientage: "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."

Like Hell it is. Gaul in particular seems to have had a bit of an excess of footloose warriors for quite a while, enough for tens of thousands to take a hike and go take part in Italic scuffles apparently. So why were the local bigwigs suddenly hiring foreign mercenaries and invoking alliances with foreign potentates, rather than tapping this pool ? What happened to that once impressive supply of warriors-for-hire anyway ? Absorbed into the growing private armies of sundry grandees and employed to guard their domains and try to take those of neighbours ? Depleted in the territorial and prestige dispute raging between some of the biggest tribes of the land ? Found employement in Roman and other foreign armies ?
Whatever it was, they obviously weren't anymore available for the Sequani paymasters who had to turn to the less reliable Germanics instead.I'm not sure what time frame your referring to, so I may be answering your question wrong. Between the 300's-200's BC. the Romans had defeated the Celts and absorbed them in northern Italy and southern Gaul. The Romans were putting in pressure from the south, the Dacians began to push from the east and the Germans from the north. It's more then likely the men that were available were trying to stop the tide of invaders. Look at the amount of men available in the 120's when Rome defeated the Allobroges and Arverni. There is nothing to be said of a shortage of men. The Sequani had long relationships with the Germani and called on them perhaps as opposed to other Gallic mercenaries. You have to remember the Aedui were not weakened until after the arrival of the Germans. I'll state again, its wrong to assume because a Gallic state calls on mercenaries means its weak. Rome,Greece and others used mercenaries while weak to being at their peak.


What does the cowardice of one Roman have to do with your analysis the Gaesatae? Am I missing something?You are not missing anything. This was an error on my part and had nothing to do with the discussion. The quotes were copy-pasted and I grabbed that one by accident(not enough sleep).

Is this supposed to show how the Soldurii were defeated by the Romans? So a Roman army defeats a last ditch attempt of 600 men? That is your proof why thier stats should be lowered? Not much of an argument especially when one take into account Caesar mentioning the defeat/retreat of two Roman armies in Aquitania just two paragraphs earlier (3,20)...
This is a fair enough statement, but I was and still am under the impression that the Romans at this area were outnumbered.

Also a thought in regard to the "drug" that the Gaesatae may or may not have taken... It is known that the Celts/Gauls were practitioners of trepanation - drilling or scraping hole(s) into the skull for various reasons and skeletons have been found with new bone growth, meaning that the patients survived - at least for some time... Would not patients need some sort of pain medication for the extra holes in their heads during and after surgery? Could it not be possible that these pain killers, or something like them, be used by Gaesatae?A good example, but would such a painkiller allow you to function properly? I find it doubtful.

As far as the Celtic elites, can anyone show me where they deserve their stats from? Can you list or talk of any battles that these elites showed something of quality?
I have said this before the Celts generally fought as individuals, the Romans fought as units. A bunch of individuals will on the most part lose to those fighting as a unit.

[Frostwulf]

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

2)There was indeed a power struggle for a sort of centralization attempt in Gaul at the time, this had exhausted forces on both sides of the war, which is why they ultimatly started to bring in foriegners which was for them a major mistake and an all too common one in the history of Civilization.
To this I will put what Simon James said(yes I know I have put this quote down multiple times).


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

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

4)Though it is most likely that at one point some Germanic peoples had been under the administrative control of a Celtic elite, which isn't that far fetched as Celtic culture, especially in terms of weapons technology was extremely successful and far ranging,This is certainly a possibility though I know of no historians who have said something of this nature. Most talk of trade, loan words and etc.

as for whether or not Ariovistus, if he had not conflicted with Caesar would have dominated Gaul?There was 2 authors I read that said that it was a possibility, I can't recall who they were though. I can try to find out and put down their quotes. I do think your reasoning is fair, and the authors really didn't (to my recollection) say as to how or why Ariovistus would have conquered Gaul(most of?).

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-" Nor did he suppose that the barbarians so fierce would stop short after seizing the whole of Gaul; but rather, like the Cimbri and Teutoni before them, they would break forth into the Province, and push on thence into Italy, especially as thre wa but the Rhone to separate the Sequani from the Roman Province. Book 1, 33
Whether he truly believed Ariovistus could conquer Gaul is unknown, he may have been using this for an excuse(most likely) to attack the Germans. For Ariovistus to conquer all of Gaul he would have needed more numbers which he may have had access to, especially if he continued to be successful in battle.

The Celtic response to the Cimbri(whether they were Celtic or German, though they were possibly a mixture of both be it ethnic, linguistic or cultural) is what sort of motivates my opinion here as many Celtic tribes seemed to be totally capable of repelling the Cimbri from their lands, the nature of the old Celtic way of life probably was a bit more self sufficient and geard for warfare than the later.[/quote]My guess is that the Cimbri were a Germanic tribe but had large amounts of 'Celts' with them. As far as the Gauls being able to repel the Cimbri:

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-" The Belgae, they said, were the only nation who, when all Gaul was harassed in the last generation, had prevented the Teutoni and Cimbri from entering within their borders; and for this cause they relied on the remembrance of those events to assume great authority and great airs in military matters". Book 2, 4Caesar talking about Ariovistus.

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"What, then, is my counsel? To do what our forefather did in the war, in no wise equal to this, with the Cimbri and Teutones. They shut themselves into the towns, and under stress of a like scarcity sustained life on the bodies of those whose age showed them useless for war, and delivered not themselves to the enemy." Book 7, 77
At the council of war in the land of the Aedui, from the speech of Critognatus.

5)The decline in use of hill forts, and a less aggressive view of foriegners probably made their decline more likely, Caesar himself says that the Gauls had become quite soft whereas groups like the Belgae who were not unfamiliar with regular warfare, were much more up for a fight, the resserection of Celtic aggressive attitudes for the Gauls seems to have come too little too late.
The neighbors were still aggressive as alliances continually shifted; the hillforts came in disuse because of urbanization. The interpretation of soft(to my recollection) is more akin to civilized then it is in martial ability. The Gauls still continued their raiding traditions and small battles as shown in Cicero's writings and the battles(skirmishes) over the trade rights of the Saone.

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

7)Roman society, possibly as a result of georgraphical location had been almost in a constant state of warfare, they had suffered horrendous defeats and they had attain extremely amazing victories, their very survival depended on their capacity to fight viciously, ruthlessly and efficiently, and by the time of the Gallic wars, they were definitely seasoned experts in war economy, organization, they had land, men and resources to draw from, so really, they were a major force to be reckoned with.
I agree with this, and yet when this situation is applied to Gaul, the whole or majority of their warriors are claimed to be wiped out, hence the reason they lost to the Romans or Germans. The wars that happened in Italy were for the most part large scale battles, not the skirmishes and smaller battles that took place in Gaul.

The overall idea iirc is that the constant infighting in Gaul coupled with this "civil war" type atmosphere between the Aedui and allies vs. the Arverni/Sequani and allies helped contributed to the Arverni/Sequani looking to the Germans and their warriros for help. One of the main argument is that Germanic help would not have been needed at all were the Gallic military alive and well.
Again as pointed out by James,Goldsworthy,Kahn etc. the "wars" here were meant more as a means of demoralizing the enemy, not the slaughter of them. By this they could incorporate them into their system of clientage and become more powerful. The Germans as Kahn had said were to bolster the weaker Sequani, but things change as Ariovistus had more intentions then being a mercenary.

Heres an interesting tidbit from the book The Celts (A History) by Daithi O'Hogain p. 138-139:Just so you know I do appreciate you coming up with these quotes, whether I agree or disagree its nice to see something other then just supposition.
I was going to read O'Hogain until I read his credentials(Not necessary a bad thing, he is an Associate Professor of Irish Folklore at University College Dublin) and peer reviews( mostly from Nicholas Thorpe).


There was, of course, little the Celts in Cisalpine Gaul could do, and Transalpine Gaul was at the same time being seized with a panic of insecurity. This derived largely from the Roman threat, which was giving rise to civil wars between the inhabitants of that region. The Aedui had begun to challenge the weakened Arverni and their allies, the Sequani, and around 71 B.C. these two tribes brought in some Germanic mercenaries to assist them. The result was that the king of the Germanic Seubi, Ariovistus, got a foothold among the Sequani, who came more and more under his control. He occupied all their towns, and began to settle large numbers of Germans in their territory.The Arverni and their clientage were weakened because of the massive loss to the Romans. When the Aedui start challenging the Arverni, it was business as usual as James,Goldworthy, Khan and etc. describe. He uses the term civil wars which is about as much sense as saying the Greek civil wars between Athens, Sparta, etc. during the 4-5th century.
Other then the term civil war I have no problem with what he says.

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

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-" With them the Aedui and their dependents have repeatedly fought in battle: defeat has brought great disaster, the loss of all our nobility, our senate, and our knights. It is these battles and disasters that have broken the men who by their own valour, and by the courtesy and friendship of Rome, were formerly paramount in Gaul,....Book 1, 31This defeat and loss was due to the Germans. I believe it was this external influence which caused such a loss as it didn't follow the standard inner tribal Celtic way of battle. It would be the same as with the Romans a few years later.


As far as civil war between gauls goes, recent archeological findings point towards constant fights in ancient gaul. This, and the writings of caesar, tend to prove that global fighting was the rule in Gaul from the 2nd century BC to the roman conquest.
I don't think anyone doubts the constant fighting between the different factions. What is in doubt is to the level of these fights. Every author to date which I have read says they were small scale, therefore it goes against the idea that the warrior class was wiped out. Caesar writes of plenty of warriors in his book.

Adrian Goldsworthy-“The Roman Army at War 100BC-AD200"- Despite the formal institutions of government, the influence of individual nobles tended to dominate the politics of the tribe. These might posses personally both cattle and, most of all, land. As among the Germans, prestige was measured in the size of retinues (BG6.15). Again recruitment seems to have included men from outside the tribe. Caesar frequently refers to wandering warriors seeking employment, who may not in Gallic society have been seen as the robbers and vagabonds that he described (e.g. BG 7.4, 8.30). At least in some instances the followers may have been bound to the noble by an oath of loyalty which demanded that they should not outlive him, as with king Adiatuanus of the Aquitani and his 600 soldurii. Little is known of the nature of this relationship, for instance whether it was common throughout Gaul or merely a local phenomenon.” pg.54

[paullus]

several points:

1) 2 months? there's another thread for this. um...?

2) Ridiculously long posts are a pain in the neck. If I want to do a point by point argument, I'm not doing it on an internet forum with a guy whose best source on the Celts is Goldsworthy and who uses 30 mini-quotes per post.

3) Your points on the Cimbri invasion made no sense. You say that many tribes seem capable of resistance, then give two quotations that describe: a) how the Belgae were the only successful defenders (if the Cimbri came anywhere near their territory, which I doubt...political luck for the Belgae), and b) how most Gaulish towns resorted to cannibalism to survive sieges laid by the Cimbri, waiting until the Cimbri ran out of food and moved on. How does that show capability to resist?

[Parallel Pain]

During the many times I've read this thread, I thought since it was at the back I'll just let it rest. But seeing now as necroposting has brought it back to the front again, I have to say something.

I don't really know whether a "Devastating Gallic Civil War" actually happened or not. I am interested, but for the purposes of this post, I will not take a side and do not care. But I will say this:

While others has mostly not bothered to site their sources, for you, Frostwulf, to immediately denounce them all as "wikipedia, this forum or others, or a random internet site" is dispicable. They could have gotten the knowledge doing research for their PHD papers and didn't bother saying so because it's the X hundredth time this subject has been brought up. Or, more simply, they just forgot which source they got their knowledge from. This is even more annoying when the EB team has listed lots of books focusing on the Celts in their Bibliography page and you, who seems never to have read any of them, hide behind your Roman-focused authors and label everyone else's material as "something off the internet".

So you agree that the Gallic tribes fought each other like how the Greek city-states used to do. Why is it then so hard for you to believe it is possible that one of these wars, possibly the Aedui vs Arverni/Sequani war, either started out as or turned into something devastating like the Peloponnesian War?

You label every single well-argued statement that you can't counter as "You are so stuck with believing this 'Devastating Gallic Civil War' thing that you interpreted it wrong."

Well I could do the same: You are so damned stubborn with your own thoughts that a "Devastating Gallic Civil War" never existed, as you can't accept the fact that some Gallic elite unit smashed your Roman levies to a pulp, that you interpreted your sources wrong.

And really. Some of your arguments contradict themselves so much they are just silly.

[Elmetiacos]

This thread's been going over a year, now!

I think the argument started because of what might be called "meta-game thinking". EB decided to have two Gaulish factions which were likely to have to fight Romans and Germans. A game like this, even one which sets out its stall as going for accuracy like EB, is always a compromise between playability and accuracy. If straight history as recorded in the Gallic Wars and elsewhere were relied on, the Gauls would seem to be weak; they'd be no fun to play because they'd keep losing to their neighbours unless they could maintain a numerical advantage. So, the only thing that could be done was to strengthen the Celts. This, of course, would invite the question, "If the Gauls were so good, how come they got conquered by Caesar?" and to answer this question you need the "devastating civil war" scenario to explain why the tribes in 60BC were pale shadows of those in earlier times. Ranika and Psycho started with a conclusion and had to find the question, in other words. The Gauls needed to be fun to play.

Unfortunately, there's a reluctance to admit this kind of thing has gone on, so these arguments rage. As I said when I first questioned the Cycles of Telam and Donn, if someone had just said, "We don't know if they're real; we just thought they sounded cool!" I'd not have gone any further and ended up reading online Old Irish dictionaries at 2 in the morning fuelled by Turkish coffee :coffeenews: but instead sometimes what doesn't really stand up to serious, hardcore scrutinising keeps getting defended as a point of honour and EB ends up in danger of being painted into a corner. The Gaulish Civil War probably did not exist, but it was necessary to invent it - why not say so?

[Elmetiacos]

I shall not take any lectures on probity from an undergraduate sock puppet. Goodbye.

[Foot]

Elmeticos, you seem to be confused. You seem to think that, because we disagree with you and interpret the evidence in a different way to you, you can paint a picture of not only what previous members thought, but in fact our entire process for historical research. It sounds fantastic, it fits so neatly into how EB has represented the celtic tribes. But it cleverly glosses over where the disagreement actually is.

You claim that the only possible intrepretation for the Civil War that we postulate is because we have included two Gallic factions. This only has any relevance to the proceedings if you deny the existence of two powers in the Gallic homelands who were attempting to destroy the other. You obviously don't deny this. The real issue revolves around the strength of the celtic military, but this is not something that was effected by whether there was a civil war or not. Our statting system is very structured and is applied univerisally with little or no variation between factions. The celtic military was based upon a social structure that includes a professional warrior class, a small but elite group. The civil war has no bearing on the stats nor is it required for the presentation of two gallic factions. Essentially you bark up the wrong tree and completely misunderstand not only what the entire argument is about but how our internal process works.

This thread played out long ago and should have been locked as soon as it started running round in circles. So now it is. We are sick and tired of the constant attacks made on us and in particular esteemed ex- and current members, who worked their arses off to bring you EB. We are happy to discuss things with fans, we are happy to be wrong, but if we disagree with you then you should be happy with that as well. To actually start accusing us of making things up so that we could include two Gallic factions and make them fun to play not only insults every team member, but also credits us with far more organisational skill then we ever had. I mean, to come up with an historical theory because after careful play-testing we discovered that the Gallic factions were not strong enough completely flies in the face of what everyone has been through since the first open-beta.

Locked for everyone's sanity.

Foot