Celtic overpowered!

[SwebozGaztiz]

hello i was playing in my lusotana campaign, conquering the celtic cities and well i had this thought for a long time and now i want to let it all out, celtic slingers and the celtic heavy infantry(the cisalpine heavy infantry and the naked guys)are waaaaaaaaaaaaay overpowered in one of the final engagements in a big battle i had against the aedui, they had only 19 iosotae and one unit of naked guys and one unit of the cisalpine infantry i think is geroas i dont remember the name they almost killed by themselves 3 units of vasci shock infantry with one bronze chevron and two units of the loricati caetratii the guys with the golden shields and scale armor it was just ridicuolous i know that the naked guys are strong but the vasci shock armor has better stats than them anyways it was just frustrating to see my heavy infantry just being slaughtered by a few celts, a lot of people complained about the naked guys i do understand that the europabarbarorum team really cares about reallism and they have to do something in order to portrait this guys accurately but this is just too much in my opinion both the loricati caetratii and the vasci shock infantry make excellent heavy infantry anyways is there something that can be done to make the naked guys look less exagerated??also the computer abuses the effective against armour adjective, only 19 celtic slingers where killing all of my infantry they did cause a LOT of casualties just to be 19 guys, sometimes i feel the celtic units are unrealistic, i dont mean to critizice your mod, is the best mod out there and its the only reason i play rtw, and it made me stopped playing mtw2 i just wish something can be done in order for this units to be more balanced!thanks guys!!!!

[Kralizec]

Wow, I've never seen the AI spam missile units that badly.

Personally I reduced the Celtic slingers' range to 180, making them identical to the Greek ones (except for melee capability, in wich the Celts are still considerably better)

The nudists are super tough but have one considerable achiles heel, their lousy armour rating. I rarely had trouble dealing with them, but then again I usually have the advantage in the missile department against the AI :inquisitive:

[NeoSpartan]

.....i do understand that the europabarbarorum team really cares about reallism ....

that should do it...

[Kugutsu]

Wow, I've never seen the AI spam missile units that badly.

I think the OP means that there were only 19 men in one unit of Iosatae (not 19 units of iosatae, which is what I read initially too).

To damage the Gaesatae, use units with javelins, or any ranged units, and charge them with cavalry. Dont let anything get stuck in melee with them unlesss its really unavoidable. Run them around a bit too to tire them out.

[Rilder]

Weird I'm playing Lusotannan too and I'm fighting the Aedui without much trouble only seen like 1-2 slingers in a stack at most and the Gaesatae are no problems, I fought a battle recently with like 6 Gaesatae units and they were no problem. (m battle difficulty)

[mAIOR]

Also, if you have your Lusotannan heavier troops, you can trash Naked dudes no problem... that is, if you're playing in Medium otherwise, you'll get hammered.


Cheers...

[antisocialmunky]

You're playing on Medium battle/VH campaign right?

[SwebozGaztiz]

i usually play in my campaigns h/h i really like the challenge but sometimes the ai abuses the bonuses it receives from the difficulty level, well im using the best unit the lusotanan can offer the vasci shock infantry and they where wasted by the gaesetae also the loricati caetrati which are heavy troops too and they do have a very good armor and attack rating too, anyways i feel the celtic units are overpowered, also in one battle a unit of lugoae the levy spearmen, caused a lot of casualties to a full unit of loricati scutari with the armor and attack upgrade and one chevron of experience, hahahaha anyways thanks for the mod guys i really enjoy it!im really waiting for the mod for mtw2 !greetings from mexico!

[Foot]

i usually play in my campaigns h/h i really like the challenge but sometimes the ai abuses the bonuses it receives from the difficulty level, well im using the best unit the lusotanan can offer the vasci shock infantry and they where wasted by the gaesetae also the loricati caetrati which are heavy troops too and they do have a very good armor and attack rating too, anyways i feel the celtic units are overpowered, also in one battle a unit of lugoae the levy spearmen, caused a lot of casualties to a full unit of loricati scutari with the armor and attack upgrade and one chevron of experience, hahahaha anyways thanks for the mod guys i really enjoy it!im really waiting for the mod for mtw2 !greetings from mexico!

The stats for EB are not designed for any difficulty level other than medium for battle. The reason that the celtic units appear overpowered to you is because of those bonuses. If you don't play on medium battle difficulty, we can't really help with any complaints.

Foot

[Frostwulf]

It seems to me that the units are overpowered as well. I did a cursory check of the units from Celtic type peoples (Aedui, Galations, etc.) and for the infantry units anyway they seem to be more powerful then even the Romans. It seems to me that the the Celts infantry units from the light,med,hvy and special units are in general more powerful then units of other factions.
I have a problem with this because the Romans and Germans consistently beat up on the Celts. It seems strange that some of the Celt units are even stronger then the elite Roman Praetorian guard. I readily admit Im not a historical scholar but as an amature historian of several readings on this period these stats dont fit.
As far as the Gaesatae are concerned I still have a problem with their stats. I know people keep saying these guy were hopped up on drugs etc. There was a study done in 2004 on drug induced volunteer and how effective they were with melee weapons. These volunteers where trained to use these weapons and when they used the drugs there effectiveness severely decreased. Granted this study used different drugs then the Gaesatae used, but if your body is numb to that much to pain I doubt the effectiveness of your abilities to use weapons. It might be a different situation if ignoring pain was due to adrenaline.

I do think the EB team did an exceptional job on this mod, I just happen to disagree with the Celt stats. If anyone has any information I could find on the Gaesatae and Celtic fighting in general, I would greatly appreciate the information.

[Anthony]

As I recall, most decent Celtic units are more expensive than the Roman counterparts, which accounts for a bit of that; there aren't enough of the good soldiers to fight their equivalents, due to their cost. Mind Romans did have trouble with actual soldiers in Celtic territories, as opposed to levies-augmented-by-soldiers that Julius Caesar had to fight (as the Gallic armies were so worn down by fighting between the Sequani {who's royal house taken control of the kingdom the Arverni had built} and the Aedui Confederacy). Most Gallic soldiers in those days would've probably been spearmen, incapable of raising 'regulars', who the Neitos represent. Mail-equipped companies of Gauls were trouble for the Romans, but most were spent retarding the Germanic expansion or fighting eachother; had they been spent against the Romans, it may have been at least a bit different, at least slowing the conquest of Gaul.

[NeoSpartan]

Funny how people say the Romans and Germans constantly beat up on the Celts by ONLY looking at the period of Ceasar's Gaellic Wars.
:thumbsdown:

[Geoffrey S]

Punctuation... :dizzy2:

[Tretii]

I don't think Celtic units are overpowered at all. In my Aedui campaign I had hard times fighting against Romans on one side and Garthage on the other. Despite having Celtic slingers. Try to use em against Roman Triarii and you will be running around the battle map a lot.

[SaFe]

Funny how people say the Romans and Germans constantly beat up on the Celts by ONLY looking at the period of Ceasar's Gaellic Wars.
:thumbsdown:

Thats definately too simple but it is also much too simple to say that the gauls just lost vs. the germanic tribes because of inner-tribal struggles.
They were pushed west- and southwards from the germanic tribes a few decades before Ariovist beat the Aedui or Ceasar conquered Gaul.

[Orb]

The Celts did sack Rome once, and they also inflicted heavy damage on the Greeks (slightly before the time frame, IIRC). Also, as the Lusotannan, on medium, I've had my proverbial ass sort-of-handed to me by rebels (I lost 4-5 average units for just two units caetrati) because of situational bonus terrain gives. Just throwing units in isn't guaranteed to work in overwhelming particular units, particularly units going down hill seem to nail everything.

[Watchman]

By what I've read of it thus far here, I've gotten the impression the developements along the Celtic/German border in fact rather closely paralleled the later Roman/Germanic border overall... Internal troubles on one side allowed ample opportunities for the other to grow stronger at their expense, and eventually begin graduating from raiding and pillaging to outright invasion and conquest once the defenders have become ragged enough. That success an profit from raiding the richer Gallic areas and/or being paid for mercenary service there only improved the prestige, resources and power of the Germanic border chiefs and attracted even more enterprising groups and individuals from further away to try to get a slice of the cake cannot have helped.

[SaFe]

That really doesn't belong here, but the ideal display of the germanics in EB should be as a emerging faction ca. 130 BC- 110 BC.

But i also say it is much too easy to give the germanic tribes only credit for their successes because of inner-celtic struggles.
They fought hard on the Belgae border, drove th Helvetii from their homelands and took many oppidas from their gallic enemies before the war between the Averni and the Aedui as the two major celtic powers.

[Anthony]

The Arverni and Aedui were already fighting as major powers by the start of the EB period, well before the driving off of Helvetii, which was also combined with pressure from the Boii (mind wars like the Cimbrians war with Rome were under Boii kings; the Cimbrians and Teutones were probably vassals of the Boii at the time of the Cimbrian war). Mind not to lump Gauls with the central European kingdoms and tribes of Celts. The Aedui and Arverni both should be able to put up substantial resistance. The fighting is a major factor, but they had little concern for central European Celts. The only ones there of substantial power were the Boii, who were likely more powerful than either of our Gallic powers, and held off the Germans successfully into the ADs, when the Germans overwhelmed combined with steppe invasions.

[SaFe]

The Arverni and Aedui were already fighting as major powers by the start of the EB period, well before the driving off of Helvetii, which was also combined with pressure from the Boii (mind wars like the Cimbrians war with Rome were under Boii kings; the Cimbrians and Teutones were probably vassals of the Boii at the time of the Cimbrian war). Mind not to lump Gauls with the central European kingdoms and tribes of Celts. The Aedui and Arverni both should be able to put up substantial resistance. The fighting is a major factor, but they had little concern for central European Celts. The only ones there of substantial power were the Boii, who were likely more powerful than either of our Gallic powers, and held off the Germans successfully into the ADs, when the Germans overwhelmed combined with steppe invasions.

I agree with many things you say Anthony ( the Helvetii for example ) but i totally disagree that the Cimbri, Ambrones and Teutones were vassals of the Boii.
That is a bold and very disputable point you bring up here.
I'd really like to see some proof here, if you believe in this argument.
I hope the point is not that the mentioned chieftain and war-king of the Cimbri was named Boiorix. It is logical that after many years of wandering through europe other chieftains and smaller tribes were integrated and it is in my opinion also logical that some Boii chieftains saw this as a great oppotunity and took part with their men in the migration.

Also the Boii could hold out longer vs the suebian tribes ( the Marcomannii should be mentioned here ), because the germanics took their effort further west- and southwards and not east into Boii territory.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Funny how people say the Romans and Germans constantly beat up on the Celts by ONLY looking at the period of Ceasar's Gaellic Wars.
:thumbsdown:
I hate to be pedantic or demeaning but, "Gaelic" refers to people in Ireland (& Scotland) of a little later period, and "Gallic" refers to the Celts who were in what is modern France. Probably just a typo...

[Zim]

I hate to be pedantic or demening but, "Gaelic" refers to people in Ireland (& Scotland) of a little later period, and "Gallic" refers to the Celts who were in what is modern France. Probably just a typo...

Haha. I just remembered this "rule" I heard about a while back stating that any time you post in a thread to correct somebody's spelling or a grammar mistake, you always make one of your own.

I wonder what kind of mistake I'll have made in this post...

[The_Mark]

Haha. I just remembered this "rule" I heard about a while back stating that any time you post in a thread to correct somebody's spelling or a grammar mistake, you always make one of your own.

I wonder what kind of mistake I'll have made in this post...
Though, I'll have to consult my copy of "A Thousand and One Tempuses" to be certain on this one.

[Zim]

Hmm, "I will have" does sound a bit off.

Regarding the thread topic, playing Celtic factions I've always found them to be a bit weaker than the others, at least until the reforms (which, for the Celts, take a long time. 20 years longer wait than the Romans to get weaker troops than they do, then another 100 years to get troops about as good as Marian troops, that can't be recruited in nearly as many places).

Those Celtic swordsmen (Batoras, or something similiar?) are ok, but don't seem to hold up well to Roman or German heavy infantry. The Gaesatae are great, but extremely expensive and vulnerable to missile fire.

I do remember the Lusotannan shock infantry being a bit on the weak side, though... Lusotannan spearmen, on the other hand, are much better than the celtic spearmen. Post 1st reform Celtic spearmen have a lower attack, and something like 5+ lower defense than the Lusotannan "light" spearmen. The Lusotannan also get those crazy looking guys with the chainmail veils, and a cataphract type unit.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Haha. I just remembered this "rule" I heard about a while back stating that any time you post in a thread to correct somebody's spelling or a grammar mistake, you always make one of your own.

I wonder what kind of mistake I'll have made in this post...
That is really funny. I actually grabbed a dictionary and looked that word up to spell it. I found it, looked at the spelling, read the definition, then didn't change it. Not I feel really stupid and I wasted time.

[PSYCHO V]

If I may comment..



Thats definately too simple but it is also much too simple to say that the gauls just lost vs. the germanic tribes because of inner-tribal struggles.

Well, of course there is an element of luck and skill in battle but ‘weakness’ is regarded the underlying issue by most scholars I’ve read. The Germanics, like the Celts before them and their own Germanic descendants after, took advantage of circumstances and situations. I’m currently reading a work by Dr Michael Kulikowski on the Goths, and he bears this out quite clearly. The eb and flow of large demographics / peoples / tribes / nations is a dance of power, influence and commerce. The Germanics were drawn south initially due to the weakness and wealth of the surviving Halstatt chiefdoms in central Europe, then into the more prosperous Gallic, Rhaetian, etc lands …and finally the Greek and Roman lands.



They (Gauls) were pushed west- and southwards from the germanic tribes a few decades before Ariovist beat the Aedui or Ceasar conquered Gaul.

I’m sorry but that is just so completely wrong. This ignores almost everything we know about the Celts, Halstatt and La Tene culture, the material record, etc etc. The Gauls migrated long before the Germanics were even a blip on the historical radar.

The Gauls (Halstatt Celts) began arriving in ‘Gaul’ / France during the 8th and 7th C BC, over running the weaker indigenous Urnfield peoples, Ligurians, etc. They did so due to the lure of rich trade routs already established with the mediterrainian, better soil and climate, etc etc. In this group came the likes of the Arverni (‘superior ones’), Cavari (‘giants’), Cubi (‘Victors’ – later known as Bituriges ‘World Kings’), Parisii (effective ones’), Vicontii (‘twenty septs’), Salluvii (‘Those settled by the sea’), etc etc.

Thence came the La Tene Celts in the 5th and 6th C BC also seeking wealth and exploiting the weakness of their predecessors. These newcomers included likes of the Ligones (‘energetic ones / leapers’), Aedui (‘followers of the fiery one’ – Aedos the sun god), Boii (‘Attackers’), Volcae (‘wolves’), Redones (‘Chariot drivers’), etc etc. This wave of La Tene Celts pushed even more (then Halstatt / proto-La Tene tribes) west / south-west..like the Senones (‘Old inhabitants’), Cenomani (‘Far removed ones’), Sagii (‘Seekers’), Allobroges (‘foreigners’), Aulerci (‘exiles’), Sequani (named after the river in their new home ‘Sequana’) and their relatives the Helvetii (‘much land possessors’), Pictones (‘Belligerent ones’), Santones (‘Journeyers’), etc etc.

The Cubi, with their capital at Avaricum (modern Bourges) managed to absorb the influx of these new arrivals and adopt La Tene culture. Then under their renown king Ambicatus (‘He who turns battles’), they managed to unite through diplomacy and force of arms, all of greater Gaul by mid 5th C BC. This caused further migration to places like Britain.. as some subjected nations / tribes sought to flee the power of the Cubi, eg the Eburovices (‘yew conquerors’) becoming the Brigantes (‘High ones’), Cenomani becoming the Iceni, the Parisii becoming the Coritani and Parisi, etc etc ..all before these tribes had fully converted to La Tene culture.
...Itlay, Hiberia, etc etc.

The final ‘Gallic’ /Celtic wave was that of the Belgae (‘Furious ones’) in the 4th and 3rd C BC. The Belgae people and their various nations / tribes retained many peculiarities of the old Halstatt culture but meshed them with a proto-La Tene / La Tene ‘A’ flavour. Again they invaded and sought to exploit the weakness and ultimate collapse of the Cubi / Biturige empire, first invading and then over running the Aulerci who had been critically weakened in their struggle against the Cubi. The Belgae continued to advance all down the western coast to Armorica, before being checked by a resurgence of Aedui power through their sub-tribe the Carnutes (‘People of the Horned One’). So successful was the Aedui confederacy that the Belgae were completely pushed back over the Seine and groups like the Viromandui who bcame known as the Trinovantes, Casse / Catuellauni / Cauvellauni (‘Battle superiors’) either migrated to Briton, or in the cases of some of the Casse dispersed into smaller groups (eg Veliocasse, Baiocasse, Viducasse, Tricasse, Vadicasse, etc) and sought the protection other more power nations / tribes like the Remi.




But i also say it is much too easy to give the germanic tribes only credit for their successes because of inner-celtic struggles. They ..drove th Helvetii from their homelands and took many oppidas from their gallic enemies before the war between the Averni and the Aedui as the two major celtic powers.

Again I’m afraid this is wrong. The Arverni and Aedui had been fighting for centuries before the Germans arrived or the Helvetii migrated. The later doing so in an attempt to seize power for themselves in a war ravished land. Remember the Aedui had none of their council left alive and the Sequani, so bereft of fighting men had been forced to mobilise old men, young boys and seek the help of thousands of German mercenaries.




I agree with many things you say Anthony .. but i totally disagree that the Cimbri, Ambrones and Teutones were vassals of the Boii. That is a bold and very disputable point you bring up here.

I'd really like to see some proof here, if you believe in this argument..

I agree. There is no evidence that I’m aware of that suggests that they were clients of the Boii. What is worth noting at this juncture is that the Cimbri (and Tuetones by this point) were defeated in battle by the Boii and force to go around their lands.

As far as the name goes, most scholars state that Boiorix was probably the name given him by his Gallic allies / followers, they being the ones who acted on his behalf in diplomacy and recounted the detail for Roman records. But we will never know for sure. I don't believe one can jump to conclusions about clientage just from this one name.





Also the Boii could hold out longer vs the suebian tribes ( the Marcomannii should be mentioned here ), because the germanics took their effort further west- and southwards and not east into Boii territory.

I’m sorry but by the time the Marcomannii turn up to ravage the ‘lands of the Boii’, the Boii had almost a century earlier ceased to exist in any form of significant power.

The Dacian king Boerebistas had managed to unite the Getae and Boeri into one Darcian kingdom and unleashed his reputed forces of 200,000 on the hapless Celts / Gauls. First to feel the sting were the Scordisci who had only some decades before suffered a genocide at the hands of the Romans. Then Dacian attention was turned on the Boii and Taurisci (Volcae). At the Battle of Tisza (60 BC) in modern day Hungary, Critasiros king of the Boii suffered a crushing defeat. His people were subsequently massacred, the survivors fleeing west and their land becoming hence forth known as “The desert of the Boii”. The Germans had played a part in weakening the Boii but they merely moved into Boii lands once the Dacians had done their work and left.

my2bob

[Ludens]

That's a very interesting read.
:book:

[Thaatu]

I agree. Especially the translations of the celtic tribe names.

[SaFe]

If I may comment..


I’m sorry but that is just so completely wrong. This ignores almost everything we know about the Celts, Halstatt and La Tene culture, the material record, etc etc. The Gauls migrated long before the Germanics were even a blip on the historical radar.


my2bob


Have you ever heard about Jastorf or Hapstedt culture. It seems you just mention the celtic cultures but totally ignore other ones.
There is proof about those cultures around ca. 500 BC.
I find it a little curious as you are implying the germanics were a blip on the historical radar as those mentioned cultures are closely connceted with later germanic culture.

I agree with you about Halstatt culture, but during the La Tene culture there is proof about extensive trading contact between celtic and germanic tribes. Especially fine celtic art and jewellry.

The regions where the most trading occured where today's Bohemia and Mähren (sorry - don't know the english word for those region) B.t.w. It is logical that this trading included fine celtic weapons too.

Last week i had a really interesting discussion with a member of the Römisch-Germanisches Museum in Cologne about those points.
It seems often, that some people just took some of Tacitus remarks in his Germania, but ignore others totally. Germanics had no swords ( this i hear over and over from some members - just because Tacitus said so and there are no proofs of germanic grave-belongings / look above) But Tacitus also wrote about half-men half-beast in the nort-eastern part of Germania... Tacitus said so, so it must be correct:-)

One last remark about the lack of germanic ( or better translated traded or raided ) celtic sword in graves during the time B.C.
This is a point where i'm really dissapointed, because of the lack of knowledge of many members here.
It is a fact that germanics burned their dead in those times. It was just not possible to give the dead some things for their last journey, as they had no graves!
Those behaviour only changed in the first century AD, where it became more and more uncommon to burn the dead. So, it is logical that we could not have much archaelogical findings of the time B.C.
B.t.w. there is proof about germanic iron working around the time 300 BC - 100 BC.
Those items that looked a lot like celtic work are from a material that is known as "Raseneisen" and which only was found in those now germanic-settled regions.
Those iron was inferior to other iron, found elsewhere, but it was used!

It is a myth, that germanics used no swords.
Even after the Varus battle, where the germanics gained more than enough roman arms ( swords!) ,there were almost no grave offerings. Why?
Logical: The dead had to suffice with shields and spears as swords were too important.





As ever - please excuse my poor english

[SaFe]

Psycho wrote:
If I may comment..

Again I’m afraid this is wrong. The Arverni and Aedui had been fighting for centuries before the Germans arrived or the Helvetii migrated. The later doing so in an attempt to seize power for themselves in a war ravished land. Remember the Aedui had none of their council left alive and the Sequani, so bereft of fighting men had been forced to mobilise old men, young boys and seek the help of thousands of German mercenaries.


And this is what i have to say here:
This is correct, but again you seem to forget that celtic oppidas were not given up without a fight. Perhaps it is my rather poor english, but you seem to argue with the point that celtic tribes just left their homelands without pressure from the germanic tribes. This is simply not true.
There are clearly signs of battles on these locations.
Concerning the migration of the Helvetii.
I really hope you at least agree with the fact that the were under great pressure from the germanics and did not leave their homelands just to seize power in other lands.
About those mercenaries( who turned out to be rather clever, as the just stayed in those new lands aftr defeating the gauls). At this time they were already just over the river border - becaue of conquering celtic lands for many decades.

[Watchman]

This is correct, but again you seem to forget that celtic oppidas were not given up without a fight. Perhaps it is my rather poor english, but you seem to argue with the point that celtic tribes just left their homelands without pressure from the germanic tribes. This is simply not true.
There are clearly signs of battles on these locations.I don't think anything of the sort was claimed. Rather the argument is that by the time the German tribes started seriously encroaching on Gallic and Celtic central regions they had a relatively smooth sailing for the exact same reason as the Romans - their opponents were weakened by centuries of internecine strife (above and beyond the tolerable attrition level imposed by the tradition of minor inter-tribal raiding and fighting inherent in the Celtic "hero culture") whereas the invaders had only grown stronger, in the case of the Germans quite literally at the expense of the Celts.

The border regions moreover would have long been subjected to slowly escalating German raids which would have taken their toll on the power of the locals (and the spoils and tribute only further strenghtened the raiders), until they had become sufficiently weakened genuine invasions and seizing the fortified places became a viable outgrowth. Medieval warfare in fact followed a very similar "wearing out" model, as did the more permanent Viking encroachement - you usually couldn't capture the forts, so instead you hit the other guy's economic base and thus wore down his ability to offer resistance in the future.


About those mercenaries( who turned out to be rather clever, as the just stayed in those new lands aftr defeating the gauls). At this time they were already just over the river border - becaue of conquering celtic lands for many decades.This would be a rather normal developement; the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain more or less got started the exact same way, and both the Romans in Gaul and Moors in Iberia originally came in to stick their noses in local power struggles. In this specific case not only had the Germans grown strong literally at Celtic expense - as succesful mercenaries were able to get that much better war gear and even spread it around thereby aquiring minor personal warbands with the obvious potential for massive "snowballing" - but also gotten the figurative foot in the door in the course of their mercenary activity, as well as doubtless having gotten a good long look at just how much richer lands their Celtic paymasters occupied with the obvious implications...

[SaFe]

Rather the argument is that by the time the German tribes started seriously encroaching on Gallic and Celtic central regions they had a relatively smooth sailing for the exact same reason as the Romans - their opponents were weakened by centuries of internecine strife (above and beyond the tolerable attrition level imposed by the tradition of minor inter-tribal raiding and fighting inherent in the Celtic "hero culture") whereas the invaders had only grown stronger, in the case of the Germans quite literally at the expense of the Celts.


Surely the celts were weakened but it seems you forget one thing. They were no united germanic tribes - they too fought endlessly against each other and so we could also argue that they had been weakened.
Just look as example at the decade-long war the Hermundurii and the Chatti fought. Granted, that was well after the conquering of celtic lands, but even at the time we talk about the germanic tribes were not united and Semnones fought against Harudes for example, though they both were members of the suebian federation. Now let's think for a moment about germanic tribes who didn't belong to those rather loose federation...
It seems we talk ever about the weakened gauls, but forget that they didn't fought against overhelming numbers of a united foe. This is simply not the case.
There was no "Germans" as it is often said - just tribes who struggled against each other AND gallic tribes too.


BUT as i don't want to "going away further" from the original topic of this thread, i contacted The Tank (Jasper) already and try to discuss with him some minor and major points in the display of the Sweboz.
Most are still part of the Sweboz faction - (introduction, names, wonders and the basic ideas of most units) from the time i was faction coordinator and the changes he made after taking over the job.

This thread though was once just about the Celts in game statswise and so it should remain on this focus.

[Sarcasm]

Pity. I was rather enjoying a civil (for once!) discussion.

[SaFe]

Pity. I was rather enjoying a civil (for once!) discussion.

I try to be civil and friendly all the time.
If sometimes my comments sounding rude, it's just my poor english:oops:

[bovi]

I try to be civil and friendly all the time.

You are. No one thinks you're rude. It's just that many other discussions around here lately have got rather heated, so Sarcasm said he enjoyed your discussion.

[Frostwulf]

It seems to me that it comes down to several points.
1. Even before the Arverni-Aedui wars there were conflicts with the Romans. Most of these battles were won by the Romans. Therefore Romans>Celts most of the time. Yes yes, Brennis and such. Romans still won most of the battles prior to Marius and especially after Marius.

2. I dont buy into the idea that the Celtic tribes were weakened. If you look at the battles and numbers during Caesars expansion into Gaul, the numbers do not bare this out. In the battle of Alesia there were over 300,000 Gauls, not to mention 5,000 of them were the elite Arverni Gaurd. I know there was a conglomeration of tribes, but it has almost always been that way. Soldiers die, new ones are born and trained, this never stopped happening in Gaul. The Gauls were a tough and warlike people(I know they were also other things).

3. The Teutons,Cimbri and Ambrones (TCA)were certainly not vassals of the Boii. Yes they were repulsed by the Boii in hungry. I do have questions about this particular situation. Every thing I read on this (which isnt much) leads me to believe that is wasnt so much a victory as it was not worth the effort on the Germans part. I keep reading repulsed as opposed to defeat in the books I have read but none tend to go into details on the situation. I know the Boii were a very tough tribe so I dont have a problem believing they out fought the Germans. But the way its been presented in these books (again not much detail of the battle(s) ) it lead me to believe the Boii were in a strong defensive position. It couldnt have been much of a battle as the (TCA) kept on moving without much interference. If anyone can give me any information (books, websites) on this, I would like to see it.

4. The TCA entered Gaul and began rampaging through there which caught the attention of the Romans who's allies the TCA were attacking. The Romans came up and got hammered by the TCA and the TCA kept on pillaging. The TCA split up and some went into spain and pillaged there until they were repulsed by the Celt/Iberians. Again the TCA must have come out without much losses because they started again through Gaul and besting the very tough Belgae.

5. What Im trying to get at is that the Stats in the game for the Celts are rated to high for their units. The Celts were most certainly a tough group of people but they were bested by the Romans and the Germans Most of the time. And I still dont buy into the "they were weakened" argument, the numbers just dont bare it out. The Gauls still had lots of well trained cavalry and elite units, even in Caesars time.

[Orb]

'1. Even before the Arverni-Aedui wars there were conflicts with the Romans. Most of these battles were won by the Romans. Therefore Romans>Celts most of the time. Yes yes, Brennis and such. Romans still won most of the battles prior to Marius and especially after Marius.'

Which battles in particular? I'm not being sarcastic here, just curious. I haven't read much about the period/it's not the one talked about much. Telamon is the only real example I've heard of.

'over 300,000 Gauls' - really? This seems implausible. 300,000 including (large numbers of) non-combatants, possibly. 300,000 soldiers, I doubt.

[Frostwulf]

I didnt take your question as being sarcastic. I think its a very legitimate question and I should actually put down more information and sources then I do. The only information I have at the moment is from what I remember. This means the best I can do is give you the name of the battle from memory and use wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alesia . This was a large conglomeration of different tribes of Gauls. To me this shows the leadership skills and charisma of Vercingetorix . Other battles you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_wars_and_battles
These are a few as there were many other battles and skirmishes. Im sorry that this is the best I can do, my books are still packed away and probably will be for awhile.

[PSYCHO V]

I try to be civil and friendly all the time.
If sometimes my comments sounding rude, it's just my poor english:oops:

No offence taken mate



As ever - please excuse my poor english

Your English is perfectly fine, but it probably has contributed to mis-interpreting some of my past positions / intentions.




Have you ever heard about Jastorf or Hapstedt culture. It seems you just mention the celtic cultures but totally ignore other ones. There is proof about those cultures around ca. 500 BC.

Yes, much of the theory has been founded on the like of Jordane’s ‘Gettica’, the works of Germanic Romanticists Gottfried Herder and dare I say, Ludwig Schmidt (eg Geschichte der deutschen Stämme – “History of the German Tribes”). Whilst I personally am not outright denying the existence of the aforementioned cultures, there is a significant degree / enough scholarly doubt to warrant careful consideration. It’s hardly conclusive fact.




I find it a little curious as you are implying the germanics were a blip on the historical radar as those mentioned cultures are closely connceted with later germanic culture.

I’m not trying to offend the Germanic sense of national pride here. This is not a generic qualititative statement about the value / impact of the Germanic peoples throughout time. This was merely a response to your statement that the Celts “were pushed west- and southwards from the germanic tribes”. That is just not true. At the time of the Celtic / Gallic migrations, the Germans were only a “blip on the historical radar”. The point was that I believe you had the cart before the horse / mistaken the consequence for the catalytical action.
Sure, by the end of the period the Germans did force some Celts to move, but only after they had been critically weakened, as I’ve previous mentioned.




I agree with you about Halstatt culture, but during the La Tene culture there is proof about extensive trading contact between celtic and germanic tribes. Especially fine celtic art and jewellry….It is logical that this trading included fine celtic weapons too. Last week i had a really interesting discussion ….One last remark about the lack of germanic ( or better translated traded or raided ) celtic sword in graves during the time B.C….This is a point where i'm really dissapointed, because of the lack of knowledge of many members here.

And your point? This only further supports the hypothesis that the Germans coveted Celtic / Gallic wealth / wares and when an opportunity came to seize those by force of arms / when the aforementioned were in a weakened state, they pounced. The same situation was repeated with the Romans… and has been repeated throughout history. It was evident in the first recorded annals of human history, when Nubian / Libyan raiders attacked Ancient Egypt and has been evident throughout history ever since.




..there is proof about germanic iron working around the time 300 BC - 100 BC.… It is a myth, that germanics used no swords…Even after the Varus battle, where the germanics gained more than enough roman arms ( swords!) ,there were almost no grave offerings. Why?

So first century AD Germanics used these prised pieces of equipment (captured Roman swords) until they rusted away. Again, your point? You stated that you did not agree with the commonly held position of Celtic weakness facilitating their downfall and ultimate defeat / in some cases annihilation of Celtic peoples…again, what has this got to do with the issue?




It is a fact that germanics burned their dead in those times. It was just not possible to give the dead some things for their last journey, as they had no graves! Those behaviour only changed in the first century AD, where it became more and more uncommon to burn the dead. So, it is logical that we could not have much archaelogical findings of the time B.C.

I’m sorry but one can claim for example, a priori in stating Joseph Smith (founder of the Mormons) did indeed discover ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs in the US and then interpret them with magical glasses presented by the angel Gabriel, only to claim later that all evidence had since been lost, but critical scientific analysis requires more substantiation. It requires a posteriori

Sure the Germans maintained, by then antiquated practices, regarding their dead (Cremation / Urn burial), but so did the Celtic Belgae. Yet we have significantly more evidence of the advanced development and use of iron working within their realms of influence. If the Germans were as advanced as you seem to be implying, the material record does not bear this out.
Further, it is little wonder that the closer / more involved they came with the La Tene Gauls, the more they adopted aspects of their culture eg. Inhumation tumuli, etc etc. The Gauls had exactly the same sort of effect on the Germanics as did the Romans after them.




This is correct, but again you seem to forget that celtic oppidas were not given up without a fight….you seem to argue with the point that celtic tribes just left their homelands without pressure from the germanic tribes. This is simply not true.

True there is evidence of conflict / battle around several oppida sites in central / northern Europe, but they are all dated to a period when any semblance of Celtic power in those regions had long ceased to exist. In many cases the locals whilst retaining some antiquated Halstatt traditions, re-asserted themselves. The major powers / majority of Gauls moved out of central Europe looking for new opportunities / a better place to live long before. They were NOT fleeing some supposed force of Germanics. When the Celts / Gauls migrated to France / Gaul the Germans were not to present any kind of threat for another 800 – 300 years. They (Germanics) were barely a blip on the historical radar.






Surely the celts were weakened but it seems you forget one thing. They were no united germanic tribes - they too fought endlessly against each other and so we could also argue that they had been weakened…

Exactly, "no united Germanic tribes". In this period, did the Germans ever achieve the degree of political unity required to wage such a widespread civil war on anywhere near the same scale? ..no. This war affected the whole of Gaul and all those individuals there-in. For the Germans, any damage tended to be localised.

Further, it also appears you may have forgotten a significant point yourself. What was the nature of these groups..or any other at the time? Where the Gallic Cemonani, Insubres, Boii and Senones politically united when they invaded and sacked Etruscan / Latin and Roman towns? No, they merely colluded on occasion because they sought to take collective advantage of the weakness of targets rich in spoils. At the same time that the Etruscans were focusing on internal strife and their struggle / defeats at the hand of Rome to their south, the Gauls struck in the north. This is exactly what the Germanics themselves did…and continued to do so with Rome until they over ran the Roman State critically weakened by Civil war, etc etc.

Did the Germanics fight each other, of course, but when they did it was localised and in the end usually turned out to be far more profitable for them to expend their considerable energies attacking their richer / weaker neighbours when opportunity came knocking.

It’s worth noting that historically, there is clear evidence that Germanics had problems making any headway against Gallic / Celtic groups that had retained some semblance of power on their arrival eg. The Boii defeated / repulsed the same Cimbri that would go one to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Romans … as did the relatively primitive Belgae who continued to repulse strong Germanic groups until they were themselves were devided / overrun by Caesar.



It seems we talk ever about the weakened gauls, but forget that they didn't fought against overhelming numbers of a united foe. This is simply not the case.

Well, no one said the Germanics were united. They merely colluded on occasion either by design or co-incidence, to take advantage of what they must have regarded a crippled animal (Gauls) ... as the Gauls themselves had done previously to the etruscans, Ligurians, etc
What would you attribute Germanic success to?



It seems to me that it comes down to several points.
Even before the Arverni-Aedui wars there were conflicts with the Romans. Most of these battles were won by the Romans. Therefore Romans>Celts most of the time. Yes yes, Brennis and such. Romans still won most of the battles prior to Marius and especially after Marius.

Whilst I fulling acknowledge Roman superiority of arms, one does need to remember that history is written by the victors / Rome is known for excusing, downplaying or out-right ignoring / denying their defeats. Here’s a few which we do know about but most are not aware of;

Prior Marius...

Battle of Arrentium (286 BC) – Praetor Lucius and 24,000 Romans attempt to relieve the aforementioned town (garrison 5,000) from a siege by 33,000 Insubres and Senones. The Romans are defeated, the town taken and Lucius beheaded.

Battle of Faesulae (225 BC) – 45,000 Insubres, Boii and Gaesatae defeat a Roman army of 45,000

Battle of Mutina (218 BC) – 15,000 Insubres and Boii defeat 4,500 Romans

Battle of Litana (216 BC) – 35,000 Boii defeat and slaughter everyone of the 25,000 Romans under Postumius Albinus. Albinus was beheaded and his skull gilded as a drinking vessel

Battle of Mutilum (200 BC) – 16,000 Boii defeated Gaius Ampius and 13,000 Romans

Battle of the Boii (196 BC) – 15,000 Boii defeated Consul Claudius Marcellous and 12,000 Romans

etc etc..

Many of the ‘great victories’ that were most celebrated by Rome were not quite as stunning as first glance would suggest eg Telamon where the Romans outnumbered the Gauls by almost 2 to 1 (30,000 men) and had them surrounded from the outset.

It is also worth noting that Rome (like the Germans) had significant problems with any strong Celtic / Gallic group. The Romans in such cases, inevitable won victory by a war of attrition. Despite Gallic victories, Rome had substantial resources of men and materials at their disposal that enabled them to make good their losses (as the likes of Hannibal was to discover). Their enemy, the Celtic nations / tribes, didn’t share such a luxury and quickly ran out of both.

This lead to many situations were the Romans ended up celebrating hollow victories. eg. Battle of Minicio (196 BC) when 24,000 Romans under Consul Gaius Cornelius refused peace terms and slaughtered 12,000 old men, boys and women of the Insubres as they made a last ditch attempt at defending themselves. Similarly the Boii suffered the same fate.

"When appeals of peace where ignored and Roman greed again drove them on, it so happened that a nobleman of the Boii went with his sons to the camp of the Consul Lucius Quinctius Flaminius, imploring the protection of the Roman people. The Consul was partying with a boy prostitute, and he enquired of the boy if he would like to see a man being killed. The boy nodded, and straight away Flaminius drew his sword and slew the unfortunate nobleman and then proceeded to rape the nobleman's son over his father's carcass" - (The Celts, Defeat of Cisalpine Gaul; D'O Hogain)

Publius Scipio then (191 BC) marched with his 38,000 veterans to attack 35,000 Boii men, women and children. Despite great pomp and ceremony, the battle was no more than a slaughter of desperate Gauls, predominantly non-combatants forced to defend themselves with cooking utensils and farming tools.




I dont buy into the idea that the Celtic tribes were weakened. If you look at the battles and numbers during Caesars expansion into Gaul, the numbers do not bare this out. In the battle of Alesia there were over 300,000 Gauls, … I still dont buy into the "they were weakened" argument, the numbers just dont bare it out..

Firstly, whilst the Gauls did significantly outnumber Caesar’s forces, the 300,000 + that Caesar claims is most likely an exaggeration. Caesar’s commentaries are a dramafication of events, not a factual objective account.

Secondly, numbers themselves count for nothing. You can have a public riot of millions of civilians disperse by a handful of trained and well equipped troops. The inherent weakness wasn’t in potential man power, it was in trained and equipped / experienced troops.
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.


my2bob

[NeoSpartan]

:book: .....:2thumbsup:

[Redmeth]

This is just great this sort if educated debates are a great reason of my passion for history, EB and my admiration for this community.

[SaFe]

As ever, Psycho and me could not agree on the topics about germanics. What dissapoints me here is, that he only admits the books and writings where his points are valued and question every other.

I never said that germanics were as advanced as celts during the centuries b.c. ,( in fact germanics were very eager to gain celtic weapons and trading tools because they were better!) but it seems many on this boards still imply that they were just a bunch of half-naked wooden-club swinging savages who had the luck to find some places the celts left...because hundreds of mile westward two of their leading federations ( Averni and Aedui ) fought a endless war...
Very logical indeed.

Interesting sidenote:
If the germanics were so backwards and not able to stand against a stong celtic enemy, why should even the Nervii - a tribe belonging to the Belgae spoke of their germanic origins? (which is totally wrong to be honest)
Was it a sign of strenght and honour to belong to those backward forest dwellers?

But:
As i said, if we want to continue this discussion, we should start a other tread.
This one here was about stats for celtic units...

Thanks to all who contributed here though:2thumbsup:

[Frostwulf]

Psyco I see you are well read and Im glad of that. With that being said I still disagree with you.
1. As far as the Germans in general being poorly equipped Ill agree with you for some of the stages of invasion. When the TCA came into Gaul, they were well equiped. Most of the equipment was probably made by the Celtic tribe but they were well equipped. I still think that the TCA were not really defeated by the Boii but were repulsed. The TCA still left Bohemia in good order and were still able to defeat other Gallic tribes Including the Belgae. And from the readings I believe even the Celts themselves said that the Belgae were the toughest among them, with the Nervii being the toughest of the Belgae. The only tribes the TCA had problems with is the Boii and the Celt/Iberians and those were one battle each. If Iam wrong on this please correct me and let me know where I can find information contrary to this.

2. Your arguments can be used against you. Who took note of the wars between the Romans and Celts? Were they not all Roman scholars? Just as in this country today we have writers that hate their own for what ever reason, could not have the Romans? What Im getting at is the numbers may be skewed in favor of the Romans and Germanics for the most part but that still does not change the situation. The Romans and Germanics still won most of their battles against the Celts. You listed multiple battles in favor of the Celts, if I had my resources with me I could come up with twice as many in favor of the Romans with similar situations. You did say that you dont disagree that the Romans are superior in arms, Ill Im saying is that if the Romans are superior in arms as we agree it should be reflected in the game and I dont believe it is.

3. I dont see how you can say that Rome didnt have the same problems as the Celts in man power. Rome had wars within Italy, Greece, North Africa etc. Romans also had civil wars (Caesar/Pompey and others).The Celts had plenty of people and with their type of culture, training of warriors as with the Germans began at a young age.

4. The number of Gauls available in all times has been numerous as shown by the battles taken place through out the wars with Rome and the Germanics. I still believe that the Celts had very well trained warrior like the 5,000 Averni Guard at Alesia. The Celts had numerous and well trained cavalry prior to and during battles with Caesar. The warlike culture of the Celts would keep trained warriors coming through the ages until they were devastated in certain areas like the Dacians did to the Boii. The Celts were not devastated in Gaul until the Germanic invasions of the 400's. You can disagree with the Roman writers but they and the Greeks are our only source only source of the matter.The Romans still wrote about the battles they lost, so yea there could be numbers that are skewed but I dont believe greatly so.

5. The Celts are a tough people without doubt. I agree with you that the Romans and Germanics did have problems with the tougher Celtic tribes. But the whole point is that most of the battles that the Romans and Germanics fought against the Celts were won by the Romans and Germanics. In skills of arms the Romans and Germanics bested the Celts on almost all terms. The Romans had better skills at arms then the Germanics and the Germanics had better skills at arms then the Celts. So within the scope of EB I just dont agree with the Celts having most of its troops being superior of arms to the Germanics and especially the Romans REGARDLESS of the time frame.

6.I do enjoy the information that you guys are all providing. I may not agree with the analysis of the information but your arguments do make sense. I also appreciate the way these debates are handled, no name calling or basic infantile behavior. These have been respectful and very informative.

[Watchman]

3. I dont see how you can say that Rome didnt have the same problems as the Celts in man power. Rome had wars within Italy, Greece, North Africa etc. Romans also had civil wars (Caesar/Pompey and others).The Celts had plenty of people and with their type of culture, training of warriors as with the Germans began at a young age.Quite incorrect AFAIK. Among the Celts warfare was the virtual monopoly of a distinct warrior class, with the common farmers and craftsmen and such normally only becoming involved in emergencies as rather low-quality tribal levies. I understand this warrior class was all things considered fairly large - a testament to the material wealth of the Celts and the agricultural productivity of their lands, as it takes a major surplus to support such a class in large numbers - and very influental in the society, in essence forming the ruling elite (or in any case providing most of the members of the ruling elite).

As Psycho already explained the making of a Caltic warrior was a very do-it-yourself business and took a long time to bear good fruit (presumably due to fierce competitiveness, ie. relatively little instruction from your peers, and in the absence of true standardized training institutions), although the final product could be quite formidable indeed and Roman sources readily ascribe to them an ability to work passably as large units.

In essence, the Celtic warrior system was a mechanism for creating heroes, elite warriors.

The Romans and Germans had quite different approaches, namely full militia service. Republican Roman citizen-soldier system should not need to be further examined here, save for reminding it gave the state a near-unlimited pool of decently equipped militia soldiers who, once they got used to operating as cohesive units after being mustered, could be a quite formidable and above all a very stubborn opponent on the battlefield. One notes from Psycho's short list of pre-Marian Celtic victories over Romans that most seem to involve at least some numerical superiority on the part of the Celts for example.

The post-Marian professionals were just scary in comparision, being as full-time soldiers much more readily "knit" to cohesive and effective combat formations from the start - and even more inexhaustible if not nearly as cheap as the earlier self-equipped reservists, as the urban and rural poor, all kinds of adventurers and drifters, subjects wanting to better their lot by earning citizenship under arms etc. provided a very ready supply of manpower that could be tapped by anyone with enough funds. Recall the way the Romans could keep on conjuring fully armed legions from Italy alone during the Spartacus mess.

By what I understand of it the Germanic version quite simply called for every freeman to also be a warrior, and indeed to be downright eager to be; one gets the impression they could actually surpass the Celtic warrior class in sheer bloody-mindedness. This would have been out of sheer necessity; being by far poorer than their Celtic neighbours there was no way the German peoples could have afforded a similar large class of dedicated warriors, so it duly fell to the great mass of common tribesmen (backed up by the better-equipped and trained nobles and their personal retainers, the rather less numerous analogy of the Celtic warrior aristocracy) to do the fighting and raiding.

In other words, while they were in top form the Celtic warrior class could take on either of the other two with at least a fair chance of success, all other things being equal. The Romans might be better equipped and organized, but on the other hand the Celtic warriors by and large held the edge in skill and gusto and seem to usually have enjoyed at least a marginal local superiority in numbers even if the Roman manpower base was actually rather larger. The Germans conversely were rather worse equipped and unlikely to be quite as good as the Celtic warriors in a major stand-up fight (given that their practical experience was more in small-scale raiding), with the obvious exception of the elites but then the Celts outnumbered those, but numerous and persistent.

The trouble came when the Celts started running out of dedicated warriors. A major flaw in their approach was the long incubation period of fresh replacements for fallen heroes, and the fact their backup levy was pretty poor. In Gaul as already mentioned the warrior class was decimated in the long internecine strife, in the eastern parts apparently by constant squabbling with assorted increasingly formidable barbarian neighbours (Illyrians, Dacians, the increasingly better armed and organized Germans) and Roman probes nevermind now incessant small raids from the German side of the border. And this on top of what "natural attrition" the compulsive pugnaciousness of the Celtic warrior class, the very mechanism through which it trained its better warriors, inflicted. Over time the Celts simply couldn't make good for their casualties fast enough, all the more so as their neighbours were only ever growing stronger in many cases directly on spoils looted from Celtic lands. The fact the Romans began co-opting Celtic tribes near their borders into their own political orbit and siphoned off parts of the warrior class into their own armies by the simple virtue of being able to offer good pay and looting prospects would not have helped one bit.

So when the other shoe dropped what the Celts could send against the formidable Legions and screaming hordes of ferocious German tribal warriors was all too few real warriors and far too many lousy militias, who simply weren't up to snuff. Moreover increasing numbers of the remaining warrior class could doubtless read the writing on the wall and unabashedly jumped ship to side with the winners; Caesar had no shortage of allied Gallic troops and I'd be very surprised if by that time enterprising Celtic border chieftains had not long ago aligned themselves with the more formidable among the Germanic confederations and kings to pull their butts out of the fire.

[Watchman]

Also, unless I'm entirely mistaken during the early spread of Celtic culture the proto-Germanic peoples had been driven to the northern areas of heavy clay soil, which could not be fully claimed for agriculture until the invention of the heavy iron swing-plough in the Late Middle Ages. Poor, second- and third-rate farming regions in other words as far as the people of Antiquity were concerned, with lots of sheer uncultivable wilderness.

That'd certainly be a good reason for both the Celts and the Romans to not bother contesting those cold forests with their fierce spear-toting inhabitants; the return-of-interest calculation of an invasion would at best have been in the red. In a way this would have been an advantage to the Germans - they were in fact pretty much safe from actual invasions by their neighbours, and thus had a more or less quaranteed refuge from which to always return for another raid no matter what damage a punitive Roman chevauchee might do to the border tribes; if those were meaningfully weakened their place would juts be usurped by a stronger group from further away.

And the Germans stood everything to gain from at first raiding and eventually invading their more prosperous neighbours; the eternal paradox of poor tribes eking out a living in desolate lands near rich and powerful areas, where that very destitution becomes a kind of strenght and source of safety.

[mAIOR]

I loved the way you explained the fall of Celtic power.
Remember, if you die in war you can't make babies and babies, are the long term answer for a successful attrition war :D

[Watchman]

That sounds like Napoleon in one of his less diplomatic moods. Anyway, the question here is not so much of sheer demographics as the expense and "training time" involved in producing a full-fledged warrior through the Celtic system - the demand just plain outstripped the supply.

That's one area where the post-Marian Roman system for example was rather superior. It was based on getting the soldiers work effectively as drilled collectives rather than on hard-won individual skill at arms, and could thus turn jetsam and flotsam press-ganged from the slums into decent military resources in a startlingly short time - and these could then pick up the finer points of weapon skill through further training and practical experience.

[Frostwulf]

This will have to be brief as I dont have to much time.
1. As far as I can remember elites were the best fighters taken out of regular units. The Praetorian Guard, the Persian Immortals and etc. It seems to me that the Generals,Chiefs or whoever would chose from the basic units people who stood out and then put them into the elite unit. There may have been extra training for these elite units, I dont know but this is the way Ive always thought of how elite units were formed. Is the Celtic system different? Did they choose a child and say "you will be trained as a hero or elite"? Most tribes did the standard way including the Germans, they chose the best and made them into body guards and other "shock" type troops. The Germans began training there people for war at a young age as did most tribes. There wasnt much training in unit formation until later in age, just the basic blocks,thrusts and etc. A lot of tribes had a warrior class.
arghh just dont have the time to write replies. If you dont mind answer these questions for me, it might help me understand your point of view better.
1. How is a Celtic warrior made that he is different then other warriors who ar trained?
2.According to my resources the Celts from 3rd century B.C. to 300AD had many warriors (armor,weapons etc.) including elite units such as the Arverni Guard in the battle of Alesia. Are you saying the elite in the later years are not as tough as in the centuries before? Are you saying the average fighting Celt in Caesars time is not as tough as those in years past?
Sorry watchman Ill give a better explanation of my thoughts on the Celts loss of power next time.:shame:

[Watchman]

1. How is a Celtic warrior made that he is different then other warriors who ar trained?The difference in system is that the Celts delegated warfare to a large, dedicated warrior class in some ways not unlike post-Marian Romans with their standing professional army (although in practice the Celtic warriors weren't solely warriors but also engaged in agriculture - or at least owned land - and trade). You'll have to ask the EB Celt experts about how exactly entry into that class happened, but I'd be very surprised if it wasn't at least partially hereditary.

Among the Germans every free man was a warrior beside his civilian occupation, period, plus then small cadres of full-time warriors in assorted nobles' and chieftains' personal retinues.

The difference is that the Celts had a decent-sized pool of good warriors and then lots of poor-quality tribal levies raised from the commoners, while the germans had a lot of average-quality farmer-warriors plus some high-end specialists.

Mutatis mutandis the pre-Marian Roman reservist system is roughly comparable to the Germanic model, in that every man who fulfilled certain criteria was obliged to serve as a soldier if called to and be at least passably skilled at it.


2.According to my resources the Celts from 3rd century B.C. to 300AD had many warriors (armor,weapons etc.) including elite units such as the Arverni Guard in the battle of Alesia. Are you saying the elite in the later years are not as tough as in the centuries before? Are you saying the average fighting Celt in Caesars time is not as tough as those in years past?*sigh* Look, if anything by Caesar's time the Celtic warrior class was better quality-wise than it was in for example the 300s BC, due to sheer accumulation of war gear over time and organizational and other innovations and developements to meet new challenges (like the Romans). The point is that there simply weren't sufficient numbers of them due to the sheer attrition of the Aedui-Arverni conflict in Gaul, increasingly damaging German raids on the borders, increasing pressure from Dacians and Romans and who knows who else elsewhere, the siphoning off of qualified warriors as mercenaries and allies to for example Roman banners, and so on as already discussed. What full-blown warriors there were were still very formidable; but due to the sheer time it took to "graduate" a raw beginner to that level and the expenses involved they simply couldn't replace casualties and other haemorrhaging fast enough to keep the numbers up to the levels that would have been required to fend off the fearsomely effective Legions or the increasingly more organized, equipped, dangerous and confident Germans.

The tribal emergency levies tried, but as they weren't really match for even the German tribal warriors it's hardly surprising they broke like so many waves on rocks against the iron wall of the cohorts.

[PSYCHO V]

As ever, Psycho and me could not agree on the topics about germanics. What dissapoints me here is, that he only admits the books and writings where his points are valued and question every other. ..

Well I think you’ll find we disagree more often than not due to you pre-supposing an alleged position / bias I’m supposed to have against the Germans. In spite or continually inferences and accusations, I have no such bias, nor do I seek to romanticise / over state the position of the Celts / Gauls. I merely wish to present what I regard as the other side of the coin / the data that I am aware of.



I never said that germanics were as advanced as celts during the centuries b.c. ,( in fact germanics were very eager to gain celtic weapons and trading tools because they were better!) but it seems many on this boards still imply that they were just a bunch of half-naked wooden-club swinging savages who had the luck to find some places the celts left...because hundreds of mile westward two of their leading federations ( Averni and Aedui ) fought a endless war... Very logical indeed. ..

I never claimed you did … nor have I implied or inferred that all the Germanics were animalistic Neanderthals only recently emerged from the primordial bog. Just because I have argued (in the past) against equipping several Germanic units with fine armour, swords and 1st-3rd C AD shields and helmets, does not then mean I have a thing against the Germans. I merely seek a balanced / “most likely scenario” for the faction. Hence EB / Tank / I have for example, sought to add the odd unit of club troops to demonstrate this diversity. We did / EB are doing the same for the Celts, with more primitive units eg Caturige. We have also sought to tone down many of the bright clean colours, as I also did with the Celtic units.




Interesting sidenote:
If the germanics were so backwards and not able to stand against a stong celtic enemy, why should even the Nervii - a tribe belonging to the Belgae spoke of their germanic origins? (which is totally wrong to be honest).Was it a sign of strenght and honour to belong to those backward forest dwellers? ..

Well for starters, I believe you have made a common mistake here, assigning meaning that was never intended. The Belgae weren’t inferring Germanic superiority by claiming decent from a heroic past / peoples as the Romans did Mars / Trojans, etc, they were merely stating from whence they had come. Kuta, Collis, O’ Hogain, Ellis, etc all agree on this.

Secondly, I have never argued against the martial traditions / status of the Romans and Germans. Yes the Germans were great fighters but the underlying reason fro the Gallic collapse wasn’t German interference. The Germanics played a small part very late in the period.



As i said, if we want to continue this discussion, we should start a other tread. This one here was about stats for celtic units...

And it’s all related. The argument was that the Celtic units were over powered. The whole debate about the reasons for the fall of the Gaul is significant and related due to what EB has tried to depict, historical reality.

For starters, it’s important to note that those claiming that the Gauls are overpowered are generally doing so when they have only progressed some 50 odd years into the game / period. They are trying to achieve in the first several turns what it took Rome, etc 300 years / the whole period to achieve…and then complaining it’s all too hard.

It’s worth noting that the Gauls had complete military supremacy over the Romans throughout the 4th and very early 3rd C BC. The balance of power then began to shift as the Roman state adapted to dealing with these peoples. Thus in EB, at the beginning of the game, the Gauls have access to units like the Gaesatae, their militia are better than Roman militia, etc. But the Gauls soon loose these advantages as the Romans / others catch up and overtake them. To put things in perspective, look at the imperial legions that Rome can field by game’s end. The Celts, whilst still progressing themselves, do not have any unit equivalent… and rightly so.

Having said that however, the Celts do have some good units and these represent the elite of their Culture, again nothing in comparison to the likes of the Roman Triarii. Now if we could force the game to play out historically, the Gauls would rarely get some of these units, but this is an open ended game. So we can get full ahistorical Roman armies full of Triarii as much as we can get Gallic armies full of Neitos, Soldurii, Gaesatae, etc. One can’t claim they wish to have all a factions stats reduced because they are having problems dealing with these circumstances. This is the beauty of the historical ‘what if’ scenario.

Finally, in regards to the collapse of the Gauls, as previously stated, the Gauls were critically weakened. To put in EB terms, there would be no Gaesatae, no Brihentin, no Neitos, no Cingetos, no Mairepos, no Curoas, etc. Bataros, Gaelaiche etc would be few and far between and few if any Arjos and Soldurii, etc


my2bob

[PSYCHO V]

Psyco I see you are well read and Im glad of that. With that being said I still disagree with you.
In skills of arms the Romans and Germanics bested the Celts on almost all terms. The Romans had better skills at arms then the Germanics and the Germanics had better skills at arms then the Celts. So within the scope of EB I just don’t agree with the Celts having most of its troops being superior of arms to the Germanics and especially the Romans REGARDLESS of the time frame. ..

I’m afraid you may be extrapolating your understanding of the 1st C BC to the stats of EB’s Gallic troops in the 3rd C BC.
In addition, I believe you are making some flawed assumptions. Just because group ‘X’ defeats group ‘Y’, does not automatically translated to mean that all of ‘X’ were better / superior to that of ‘Y’. By the same rationale the Spartans completely sucked in comparison to the Persians (eg Thermopylae). Now I’m not saying the Gauls were Celtic equivalents to the Spartans, I just wish to make the point.
History is not just about who was the strongest / best fighters on the field of battle. It was also about resources of material and men, trade and commerce, diplomacy and politics, the internal stability / revolts within kingdoms, etc etc. Just because Rome and the Germans were ultimately victorious over the Celts does not naturally mean there was always a huge discrepancy between the former and later.

To ignore the fact that Gallic weakness was the underlying factor in the Gallic collapse in the 1st C BC, is like doing the same with any other major empires / kingdoms…whether that be Egypt, Imperial Rome, Mogolian Khanate, etc etc.

There was a reason why the Romans had not succeeded in conquering Transalpine Gaul in the previous 300 years of conflict. It was only when Caesar realised the state of weakness of the Gauls in the 1st C BC, that he was emboldened to try his hand. In his very own commentary he admits to taking extreme levels of caution to test the Gallic forces, only to discover what scholars have since recognised, the Gauls were fielding green, untrained and ill-equipped troops. This being due to the slaughter of all but a relative few of their exisiting troops in a civil bloodbath. Was this weakness the only reason why the Gauls were overcome, no ..not by any stretch, but it was the main underlying issue. A house of cards will fall if only one major support is critically weakened.




But the whole point is that most of the battles that the Romans and Germanics fought against the Celts were won by the Romans and Germanics. ..

We only have three recorded battles between the Gauls and Germans. Two of which were late in 1st C BC, by which stage, as already mentioned, the Gauls were in peril.

A battle between the Boii and Cimrbi but details are sketchy at best. All we know was that they fought and the Cimbri were defeated. The Battle of the Rhine (71 BC) – The Aedui Confederacy was defeated by the Sequani Alliance, majority being Germanic Seubi, and the Battle of Admagetobriga (61 BC) - Aedui Confederacy leads a futile attempt to throw out Ariovistus and his Germans.

Considering the fact that German intrusions into Gaul were being persistently repulse all along the Rhine, Danube, etc, there must have been a substantial number of Gallic victories… a testament to feat of Gallic arms on the field of battle despite internal chaos. Chaos that ultimately brought about their doom.

As far as Roman victories, well again there were many defeats (Celtic victories) that were unrecorded, downplayed or dismissed. Even when admitted, Roman loss wasn’t due to being outwitted or out fought, but due to treachery, betrayal and generally underhanded actions or the over eagerness of troops. Eg. Caesar’s defeat at the Battle of Gergovia or the explanation offered for the slaughter of one and a half of his legions by the tiny Eburone tribe. Again, I’m not trying to deny the superiority of Roman arms / war machine, but rather wish show that one needs to be careful drawing conclusions from outcomes without looking at the bigger picture.



The Romans and Germanics still won most of their battles against the Celts. ..

We will never know what really went on between these groups. Yes there are a lot of Roman victories recorded but even the most naïve reader will acknowledge that the records are inherently bias. It was the victors / Romans writing their own version of history, and they generally did so for overt political reasons or under political patronage.



You listed multiple battles in favor of the Celts, if I had my resources with me I could come up with twice as many in favor of the Romans with similar situations. ..

Which proves little. For example, where are all the records of the several Roman defeats at the hands of the Cisalpine Gauls that archaeology has since discovered?



You did say that you dont disagree that the Romans are superior in arms, Ill Im saying is that if the Romans are superior in arms as we agree it should be reflected in the game and I dont believe it is. ..

They are, you just need to play through the period enough to note the historic changes / adaptions / improvements the Romans made. Again try not to extrapolate one’s understanding of late-Republican / Imperial Rome on the early 3rd C BC.




Are you saying the average fighting Celt in Caesars time is not as tough as those in years past?

Basically yes. Due to the civil war killing almost all of the experienced / trained troops.



Is the Celtic system different? Did they choose a child and say "you will be trained as a hero or elite"? Most tribes did the standard way including the Germans, they chose the best and made them into body guards and other "shock" type troops.

Yes. The Celts had extensive and often complex systems of clientage, where children were chosen, taken from their parents and made to study / undertake a certain specific role in the community (be that as a craftsman, druid, warrior, etc). In times of trouble, an overlord would first call on his retainers / body guard, then the remainder of his warrior pool (usually novices in training) and finally if need be, the masses / other males (eg craftsmen and farmers) who had little / no rudimentary training.
The Germans were different and were much more militaristic and egalitarian with each member being regarded an intricate if not equal part in the collective ‘volk’. Every German male child was trained in warfare from an early age with certain tribes having intricate ritualistic rights of passage for young men on becoming a warrior… much the same as many native American Indian tribes did.


my2bob

[Teutobod II]

Hence EB / Tank / I have for example, sought to add the odd unit of club troops to demonstrate this diversity.

but how does this comply if supposedly every youth was given his spear and shield as his personel weapons when becoming of age - why should they use a primitve club ?

[Watchman]

The practice does not always follow the principle. Plus some warriors may simply have preferred a different fighting style and weapons kit, of which a sturdy club was obviously the most affordable kind (the higher-end version of course being axes).

[The_Mark]

why should they use a primitve club ?
Imagine what a baseball bat would do when it connects to a head with proper velocity. Not pretty. Now, add a helmet. Not such a mess as without one, but the head is still pretty much out of the game for a sufficiently long time to land a few more wallops.

Primitive, perhaps, but not that ineffective, what with most armors not protecting well from hard concussions.

[Teutobod II]

ok, that sounds logical as they still have their throwing spears. Dont know if they also have spears as secondary weapons ?
Ash or oakwood is pretty hard, drive in some short pointy things (not too long as not to get stuck on the enemies shield when bashing it) harden it over a fire and you got a nasty weapon

[antisocialmunky]

Never underestimate the stick. Its mankind's oldest weapon besides the rock and has been the basis of many other weapons such as spears, swords, staffs and maces. As long as man needs mechanical leverage and range, the stick will be effective.

[SaFe]

The practice does not always follow the principle. Plus some warriors may simply have preferred a different fighting style and weapons kit, of which a sturdy club was obviously the most affordable kind (the higher-end version of course being axes).


The wooden club was the weapon of the poor man. We could also asume that is was a fine weapon for ambushes, because it was easily affordable.

For their typical fighting style the germanics preferred their frame and shield though.
Naturally clubs were used, but it is definately not the weapon a warrior of renown would have chosen.
The sword at first is to mention and even swordbearers sticked to their trusted spear at least as secondary weapon.
Axes were also used, especially after conflict and trading with raetian tribes.

[Orb]

On the claim of the bias of Roman historians being not wholly valid, as they were the eventual victors:

If your only study on Norman warfare in the mezzogiorno was [toolazytoprovidelinkbutisonwikipediawithdownloadabletranslation]Malaterra[/too...], you would think that all Normans were ten feet tall, shot fire from their eyes, and had an ability to defeat entire Greek armies by *staring* at them.

Quite simply, the bias is very important here, because we only have the biased view of one side, while about the Norman conquests in the Mezzogiorno we have Anna Komnena's considerable bias and gullibility against Malaterra's (admittedly worse) considerable bias and fawning.

[mucky305]

:whip: I usually play as the Romans and they consistenly run away from the Gestae, I assume in a homophobic stampede.....or maybe they're just not into snuff porn. Whatever it is, it's funny. In all seriousness, keep up the great work EB team!!

http://world6.monstersgame.co.uk/?ac=vid&vid=114017506

[mAIOR]

So, the Celtic downfall was due to Logistics... As it should.
Now, to all of you who say the Celtic units arfe overpowered, Just reach the Polybian reforms not even Marians are needed. If you play historically, you'll see a big diference. If you're not, well, you'll se a big diference as well. Basically, your Polybian Princeps are as good as they come and can shred most Gallic infantry to pieces no time. Now, when you reach Marian, you won't even have a chalenge. By the time you field Legions, the Naked fanatics are no match for the Roman army. And if you're able to reach imperial and still have Gauls messing around, you'll win most batles with litle to no casualities. Check the trading card game and you'll find that for you to have Celtic units compared to a post Marian legion, you'll need a level 4~5 MIC. Also they'll come out in units of 60 whilst the Legions com in the 100s.
I've been a "civilised" faction player for a long time however, once I discovered some Gallic mercs, I tried the Avernii and after reading this topic, again even greater respect for the so called "Barbarians". I believe from what I've read that EB is pretty accurate save for some minor discrepancies that is. But nothing that'd affect the balance of the gameplay.

BTW, try playing with the Celts and see if you still think they are over powered. You'll have a tough time trying to reach your most advanced units!

Cheers...

[Casuir]

They usually get destroyed fairly early in the campaigns I've played, though the Aedui hang in for longer due to rebellions in central and eastern europe.

[Boyar Son]

The stats for EB are not designed for any difficulty level other than medium for battle. The reason that the celtic units appear overpowered to you is because of those bonuses. If you don't play on medium battle difficulty, we can't really help with any complaints.

Foot

this really does answer alot of questions:yes:

[Frostwulf]

This is the way I look at it. ROMANS
1.a: We all agree that the Roman martial prowess was greater post Marius.
b: According to Watchman and Psyco Celts were at there strongest pre-Marius.
c: This being the case why is it that the pre-Marius (weaker) Roman troops defeated the pre-Arverni-Aedui war(stronger) Celts. Most historians say that on equal terms the Romans of this period defeated the Celts most of the time. The time frame Iam talking about is starting from 250 b.c. The battles Iam referring to are stated in historical writings. There were times when the Romans outnumbered the Celts and vice versa. There were times when one ambushed the other and other events which take place in warfare. With all these things taken into account, the Romans bested the Celts the majority of the time. Im not talking about the ultimate victory here, Im talking about individual battles, not just the whole war. By 200 B.C. the romans had occupied all northern Italy and had started into southern Gaul. You even have leader vs. leader in that M. Claudius Marcellus defeating Virdomarus in a duel.
Pyco you said: There was a reason why the Romans had not succeeded in conquering Transalpine Gaul in the previous 300 years of conflict. It cold be because of the other wars going on like with carthage.

2. Post Marius: Not all Celtic tribes were involved in the Arverni-Aedui war. These Celts were defeated by the Romans as well. They didnt lose their most experienced troops in this on going war, yet they were defeated just as the Arverni and Aedui were. You even have the Britons who were off the mainland and they were defeated just as well. These Celts that Caesar faced were NOT green, ill-equipped, untrained troops. Sure some could have been, but the Celts were a warlike people and they most certainly trained their children in the arts of war. Again when Caesar fought the Arverni, they had well trained cavalry and foot soldiers who were mail-clad. The battle of Gergovia and others of this time will show these were not green, ill-equipped, untrained troops. Most troops get their experience in war thus becoming veterans. With all the infighting between the Arverni and Aedui there had to be many veterans as shown in the aformentioned battles. Vercingetorix had plenty of soldiers and there had to be many that were experienced from the infighting of the tribes, they werent all just wiped out and then suddenly a new crop of green soldiers appear.
Again I dont have the time to continue, but I will another time and Im sure there will be comments to this :beam: .

[Watchman]

I'm under the impression the Roman/Celtic front in Northern Italy was something of a stalemate for a rather long time. You win some, you lose some, sometimes one side held the upper hand and sometimes the other (especially if someone from beyond the Alps stuck his nose in). Didn't the Romans eventually first subjugate the Cisalpine Gauls into allies and later fully "Romanize" them or something ?

But outside containing the nasty hairy trouser-wearing barbarians in the north (not always succesfully) Roman interests for a long time were focused on the Mediterranean region - Iberia, Sicily, Africa, the Balkans etc., that much is true. Transalpine Gaul was pretty low on their list, partly as they had no pressing reason to get stuck there (the Alps doing a decent job as a barrier, and the major players there were busy fighting each other) and partly because they weren't too keen on adding their heads to some hairy nutjob's trophy collection.

[PSYCHO V]

… why should they use a primitve club ?

The club is not a primitive weapon perse. Ie the design of the weapon may be primitive but it is a major error to then infer the same of it’s user. Remember, the club was the weapon of choice by many of Europe’s most powerful and wealthy during the Medieval period.

The facts of the matter is that a good solid club, as already mentioned by others here, is an effective weapon, especially when one if facing heavily armoured troops. I believe that rather than the Germans displaying their “primitive” nature by employing clubs, they were actually doing the opposite. They were demonstrating their willingness to adapt to circumstances, ie fighting armoured Gauls, Ligurians, Rhaetians and Romans.



Now, to all of you who say the Celtic units arfe overpowered, Just reach the Polybian reforms not even Marians are needed. If you play historically, you'll see a big diference. If you're not, well, you'll se a big diference as well. Basically, your Polybian Princeps are as good as they come and can shred most Gallic infantry to pieces no time. Now, when you reach Marian, you won't even have a chalenge. By the time you field Legions, the Naked fanatics are no match for the Roman army. And if you're able to reach imperial and still have Gauls messing around, you'll win most batles with litle to no casualities. Check the trading card game and you'll find that for you to have Celtic units compared to a post Marian legion, you'll need a level 4~5 MIC. Also they'll come out in units of 60 whilst the Legions com in the 100s.
I've been a "civilised" faction player for a long time however, once I discovered some Gallic mercs, I tried the Avernii and after reading this topic, again even greater respect for the so called "Barbarians". I believe from what I've read that EB is pretty accurate save for some minor discrepancies that is. But nothing that'd affect the balance of the gameplay.

BTW, try playing with the Celts and see if you still think they are over powered. You'll have a tough time trying to reach your most advanced units!

Cheers...

:2thumbsup:
Yup, exactly. One can’t project one’s understanding of late Republican / Imperial Rome on the 3rd C BC




This is the way I look at it. According to Watchman and Psyco Celts were at there strongest pre-Marius.

Strength is relative. The Celts were relatively stronger in the 5th, 4th and very beginning of the 3rd C BC.. as previously stated.



This being the case why is it that the pre-Marius (weaker) Roman troops defeated the pre-Arverni-Aedui war(stronger) Celts. Most historians say that on equal terms the Romans of this period defeated the Celts most of the time. The time frame Iam talking about is starting from 250 b.c. The battles Iam referring to are stated in historical writings.

For the record, “most historians” do not claim that the Romans were victors “most of the time”, what they do state is that according to Roman records, we are told that was the case. As I’ve previously stated, there has been many Roman battles / defeats not recorded / lost (giving the benefit of the doubt) to us.

Further the battles you refer to involve Cisalpine Gauls, who by the mid 3rd C BC (250 BC) were already on the back foot. The Romans had waged a brutal war of attrition for over 150 years prior. The Cisalpine Gauls could not sustain their looses as the Romans could and once they reached a critical point the Cisalpine Gauls collapsed. Much celebrated Roman victories like the Battle of Minicio (196 BC), Battle of Bonnonia (191 BC), etc bear this out as they were no more a battle than the massacres of plains Indians at the likes of the ‘Battle of Wounded Knee’. The Romans in a genocidal blood lust, wiped out whole towns, tribes and nations.



The Romans bested the Celts the majority of the time. Im not talking about the ultimate victory here, Im talking about individual battles, not just the whole war.

No, we can’t say anything of the sort. We just don’t know



By 200 B.C. the romans had occupied all northern Italy and had started into southern Gaul.

And your point?



You even have leader vs. leader in that M. Claudius Marcellus defeating Virdomarus in a duel.

I’m sorry to be a kill joy, but the account of M. Claudius Marcellus defeating Virdomarus is pure fiction. Again, this is not my opinion but rather that of the world’s leading scholars on this subject.



Pyco you said: There was a reason why the Romans had not succeeded in conquering Transalpine Gaul in the previous 300 years of conflict. It cold (sic) be because of the other wars going on like with carthage.

I’m sorry but the Carthage hypothesis / excuse just does not stand up critical analysis. The Romans managed to expand their empire throughout the 3 Carthaginian Wars .. the last being little more than an excuse to plunder. If the Gauls were such a walk over as you seem to suggest, Gaul would have been a temptation too great to resist.



Post Marius: Not all Celtic tribes were involved in the Arverni-Aedui war. These Celts were defeated by the Romans as well. They didnt lose their most experienced troops in this on going war, yet they were defeated just as the Arverni and Aedui were.

Well, I have stated time and time again that the underlying cause for the complete Gallic capitulation was the civil war. All the tribes in Gaul were involved in this war as they sided with one or the other or in some isolated cases, sought to profit from circumstance ..incurring bloody / devastating reprisals (eg. Ossimii, Turoni, Venelli, Lingones, etc). It was into this internal loathing/ hatred and blood shed that Caesar came, playing on old hatreds and using Gauls to continue killing Gauls now for Rome’s / his benefit.

It is true however, that the likes of the Belgae (whom I was not originally referring to) had not been as involved in the Gallic civil war as the Gauls proper..and they were to prove a shock to the likes of Caesar. Remember Caesar was very nearly bested by one remote and primitive tribe the Nervii. The Nervii, who had little to no weapon producing facilities within their lands / having to import from the south, who had no equestrian knowledge or heritage … only had their courage, skill and training. Unlike the Romans, they had never fought their new enemy prior and yet gave a notable account of themselves.

The ultimate defeat of the Belgae was due in part to the prior defeat of the powers to their south. This caused great consternation within the loose Belgae confederation, causing it’s leading and most powerful tribes (eg Remi ‘Premier ones’, Suessiones ‘Six clans’, etc) to side with the Romans. Thus the Romans / Caesar was able to avoid facing a united Belgae force in battle (something he obviously wished to avoid) and instead use his new Belgae forces to ravage lands and strike at the heart and soul of his enemies…their women and children, .. only employing Roman arms to mop up any remaining tribe that continued to resist.



You even have the Britons who were off the mainland and they were defeated just as well. These Celts that Caesar faced were NOT green, ill-equipped, untrained troops.

The Britons were a different kettle of fish. Again I was talking about Gauls. The Britons succumbed for much the same reason as the continental Belgae.



The battle of Gergovia and others of this time will show these were not green, ill-equipped, untrained troops. Most troops get their experience in war thus becoming veterans. With all the infighting between the Arverni and Aedui there had to be many veterans as shown in the aformentioned battles. Vercingetorix had plenty of soldiers and there had to be many that were experienced from the infighting of the tribes, they werent all just wiped out and then suddenly a new crop of green soldiers appear.

One can’t assume, “Well they beat the Romans so they must have been supermen”. All that demonstrates is one’s attempt at trying to fit facts within a pre-conceived paradigm / world view. Yes the Gauls at Gergovia defeated Caesar, and yes they probably had had some experience / rudimentary training by this point in the campaign, unlikely for a leader like Vercingetrix to have over looked this. But the fact remains that these guys were only recently mobilised and thus inexperienced. As much as you may wish it otherwise, this wasn’t a trained / experienced force of veteran troops.

This is not only born out in the material record (eg. Thigh bones of Gallic youth, etc) but by other examples. Eg the fact Vercingetrix mounted all his most experienced / well equipped troops and when they were in turn defeated, the whole army (some of whom were apparently young boys) naturally lost heart.


my2bob

[Thaatu]

I really don't know which sources to trust about these things, but is it generally accepted that Celts had a more individual fighting style, while Romans acted as a unit and that while Celts might have generally been better fighters, the Roman tactics hampered their ability to fight one-on-one? If this is true then it would justify stronger stats to Celtic units. Damn, I hate to generalize...

[Watchman]

Well, the Roman method stemmed from the highly collectivist phalanx tradition albeit with fair bit of modifications AFAIK. They relied more on sustaining unit-level cohesion and wearing down that of the enemy, a perfectly viable approach particularly if you can't afford to train every soldier into a mighty warrior (drill and discipline being way faster to instill in fresh recruits). While the Celtic tradition produced cohesive enough battlefield formations I understand its focus and reliance was more on the fighting skill of the individual, an approach that certainly has its perks but also certain problems as discussed above - particularly if you're short on fully trained and experienced warriors for some reason.


The club is not a primitive weapon perse. Ie the design of the weapon may be primitive but it is a major error to then infer the same of it’s user. Remember, the club was the weapon of choice by many of Europe’s most powerful and wealthy during the Medieval period.That would be maces, and a mace is not the same thing as a wooden club already per definition. Commanders' paraphenelia commonly included some sort of baton as a sign of their rank, a very ancient affectation from which royal sceptres also stem from AFAIK and still around as late as WW2 (if not today), but those would only have been used for combat in a dire emergency if the officer in question hadn't had time to draw his sword or something.

When people had to go into battle with wooden percussion weapons, usually in the context of peasant revolts or suchlike, they tended to make a point of adding all kinds of metal reinforcements and nasty pointy bits to improve the terminal effect. Among the examples I can name off the top of my head are the (somewhat obscure) godendags of High Medieval Flemish urban militias, the flails of the Hussite rebels that swiftly saw the addition of spiky metal bands and suchlike added to their business ends, and the spiky clubs of the peasant rebels in the 1500s "War of Clubs" uprising in Finland.

[PSYCHO V]

That would be maces, and a mace is not the same thing as a wooden club already per definition. Commanders' paraphenelia commonly included some sort of baton as a sign of their rank.....

Effectively the same blunt force weapon. One fashioned out of wood, the other metal. The same could be said if we depicted Germanics wielding primitive malets / hammers. The weapon doesn't by nature infer a primitive state on the user.

my2bob

[Rex_Pelasgorum]

Interesting what you say about gamply. With no Gaesatae, Celts seem fairly easy to defeat (i laways play battles on hard and campaing on medium for the sake of roleplaying).

If you say that Celts are too strong, just try a custom battle or fight a campaign with anything against the Romans or the Macedonoans.. those are damn strong ! ~:)

[Watchman]

Effectively the same blunt force weapon. One fashioned out of wood, the other metal. The same could be said if we depicted Germanics wielding primitive malets / hammers. The weapon doesn't by nature infer a primitive state on the user.The main difference is that a wooden club isn't nearly as good a "mass" weapon for smashing stuff as a metal-headed mace (although the earliest specimen I know of are Neolithic stone-headed ones; whether they were used for seal-hunting, to keep the valuable skin intact, disputing hunting rights with competing groups, or both, is unknown). Wood just isn't all that hard and heavy, and the use of actual wooden clubs would seem to imply rather low overall standards of equipement.

'Course, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if what the sources call "clubs" were actually some kinds of maces or hammers. For example I recall reading that at one battle Palmyrene cataphracts were attacked in the flank by auxiliary troops from the Judea/Syria region, whose "clubs" were remarked to be very effective against their armour - quite certainly a somewhat confused reference to maces, known in the region since at least Late Bronze Age and also popular among the Parthian-style cataphract cavalry that had become common there.

[Orb]

You even have the Britons who were off the mainland and they were defeated just as well. These Celts that Caesar faced were NOT green, ill-equipped, untrained troops. Sure some could have been, but the Celts were a warlike people and they most certainly trained their children in the arts of war.

Yes, and they were facing Marian legions, not Camillan ones. I suspect that the majority of players attempt to take on Gaul proper before the Marian reforms. Also note that large numbers of the 'barbarians' were actually on the Roman side, having agreed to being clients of Rome, expecting fair treatment. Large numbers of these had their weapons taken away and were thus ill-equipped when they actually girded themselves into rebellion.

Also, IIRC (I use that abbreviation a lot, it's been a while since I read anything connected), the Romans had to use a disproportionate number of men just to garrison Britain. If the Britons (as Celts) were such poor warriors, they wouldn't have needed to.

[NeoSpartan]

.....

Also, IIRC (I use that abbreviation a lot, it's been a while since I read anything connected), the Romans had to use a disproportionate number of men just to garrison Britain. If the Britons (as Celts) were such poor warriors, they wouldn't have needed to.

Ok here ur talking about keeping law and order, or in this case preventing a rebellion to flare up. That is COMPLETELY different than facing an army in battle. One of the things nessesary to prevent a rebellion is a good size garrison. It doens't matter that the rebellios citizenry only has knives, pikes and shovels to fight. They will still loot, burn gov't buildings, assasinate leading gov't officials, destroy economic infrastructure, etc.

Mantaining a conquered people under control is not the same as defeating them in a conventional battle. For a recent example just look at Iraq....

[Frostwulf]

Ok Im tired of not knowing how to put down peoples quotes, how is this done? i.e the "originally posted by..."

[Fondor_Yards]

At the bottom of a person post there's a big quote button.

[Frostwulf]

Im not blind, really Im not! :dizzy2: Thanks fondor

[Frostwulf]

Ok Im not blind just stupid and impatient.:furious3: How do I get a single sentence from someones quote?


paste it the place you want to quote
Thanks k_raso :)

[-Praetor-]

Ok Im not blind just stupid and impatient.:furious3: How do I get a single sentence from someones quote?

like this?


Ok Im not blind just stupid and impatient.:furious3:

You simply delete the part from the other quotes that`s unuseful to your post.

Or, you could just:

1º Select the text you want to quote
2º copy it
3º paste it the place you want to quote
4º Add at the quoted phrase the [/QUOTE] command, and at the beginning of it, the [QUOTE=type here the name of the guy you are quoting from] command.

Easy peacy, japaneasy. :grin:

PS: JUST ONE MAYOR WARNING, DON`T EDIT or ALTER QUOTATION, there have been some problems, bitter fightings and flamings, that have originated from that. Just a healthy advice.

[L.C.Cinna]

"When appeals of peace where ignored and Roman greed again drove them on, it so happened that a nobleman of the Boii went with his sons to the camp of the Consul Lucius Quinctius Flaminius, imploring the protection of the Roman people. The Consul was partying with a boy prostitute, and he enquired of the boy if he would like to see a man being killed. The boy nodded, and straight away Flaminius drew his sword and slew the unfortunate nobleman and then proceeded to rape the nobleman's son over his father's carcass" - (The Celts, Defeat of Cisalpine Gaul; D'O Hogain)


my2bob


Sorry this is a bit off topic but I just had to say something when I read this quote. As much as I enjoyed your posts in this thread so far I'm a bit surprised to see something like that. You seem to have read quite a lot on the topic, so why back up your arguments with something as stupid as this? Sorry nothing against you but you talk about bias in Roman sources and then post a quote which is surely biased and completely unscientific. Is that taken from a novel?

No offence here. BTW great discussion.

[Casuir]

He gave the source at the end of the story "The Celts, Defeat of Cisalpine Gaul; D'O Hogain" Daithi O'Hogain/Daithí O hOgáin is the authors name and he looks to be a fairly respectable authority on the celts. As to it being unbalanced and completely unscientific, hate to burst your bubble here lad but such acts did take place, similar ones sparked a famous rebellion in Britain in later years. Reality can be a lot more ugly than history books.

[NeoSpartan]

He gave the source at the end of the story "The Celts, Defeat of Cisalpine Gaul; D'O Hogain" Daithi O'Hogain/Daithí O hOgáin is the authors name and he looks to be a fairly respectable authority on the celts. As to it being unbalanced and completely unscientific, hate to burst your bubble here lad but such acts did take place, similar ones sparked a famous rebellion in Britain in later years. Reality can be a lot more ugly than FICTION books.

I think thats what you meant to say... Fixed it for ya :2thumbsup:

[Casuir]

No, its not, in fact it makes no sense like that, well done.

[L.C.Cinna]

Oh I know that such things happened. It is the way it is written. for example "Roman greed". A completely unscientific statement. As if all Romans were greedy and Roman expansion was driven by greed. I haven't read this specific author but he sounds biased and unprofessional in this quote, and I guess he is. Many people pretend to be an authority, or are called such by some people, but this kind of bias and sentimental involvement and message disqualifies him. Using nationalistic prejudice is not welcome in science and is unprofessional.



Sorry maybe let's just stop this and continue with the initial discussion.

[Casuir]

Maybe he does have a bias, hard to tell from three sentences though. I'd put money down that you're a fan of the romans though.

[SaFe]

As it seems this thread will not go back to its original topic...
i throw in my thoughts:
Naturally authors are biased. It depend totally on the sources the use, as they have to use information from ancient writers.
Here starts the problem:
We have neither celtic or germanic written account during this timeframe and so we have to stick with romans and greeks. Along with their totally unrealistic numbers they show the romans usually in better light than their opponents, BUT in modern times we should know the following:

Romans behaved very badly in new conquered - or better romanized celtic or germanic regions if the tribes didn't exactly do what romans wanted them to do. They crucified, enslaved, killed for "sport" and raped and...

Germanics behaved real badly when raiding roman or celtic territories or in later times conquering them. They nailed the heads of their enemies at trees, hung them from trees, throw them in moors, cut their sinews, so they can't run away...

Celt behaved very badly when conquering or raiding foreign lands. They raped, murderers and likely sometimes even tortured their enemies too...

So, what do we learn - all those cultures did those things and they did those things even to their "relatives" - other culturally related tribes or other political roman factions - too.

Point is:
Neither romans nor celtic or germanic people were angels, but they weren't devils either.

[Kralizec]

Interesting discussion.

Thanks for the interesting info, Psycho. If you don't mind, could you tell a thing or two about who the Galatians were and why they migrated?

[L.C.Cinna]

Maybe he does have a bias, hard to tell from three sentences though. I'd put money down that you're a fan of the romans though.


No I wouldn't call myself a "fan" of the Romans. I didn't deny they often behaved in a brutal and cruel way as described in that quote. I'm studying ancient history at university and I think a modern historian should try to avoid any kind of bias or steroetypes like "greedy Romans", "uncivilised barbarians" and so on. That was all I wanted to say. I fully agree with what SaFe said, that's why I didn't like the "greedy, evil Romans vs innocent, poor Celts" mood of the quote. A historian should not mark events as good or bad out of personal preference.

sorry again for hijacking the thread.

[NeoSpartan]

As it seems this thread will not go back to its original topic...
i throw in my thoughts:
Naturally authors are biased. It depend totally on the sources the use, as they have to use information from ancient writers.
Here starts the problem:
We have neither celtic or germanic written account during this timeframe and so we have to stick with romans and greeks. Along with their totally unrealistic numbers they show the romans usually in better light than their opponents, BUT in modern times we should know the following:

Romans behaved very badly in new conquered - or better romanized celtic or germanic regions if the tribes didn't exactly do what romans wanted them to do. They crucified, enslaved, killed for "sport" and raped and...

Germanics behaved real badly when raiding roman or celtic territories or in later times conquering them. They nailed the heads of their enemies at trees, hung them from trees, throw them in moors, cut their sinews, so they can't run away...

Celt behaved very badly when conquering or raiding foreign lands. They raped, murderers and likely sometimes even tortured their enemies too...

So, what do we learn - all those cultures did those things and they did those things even to their "relatives" - other culturally related tribes or other political roman factions - too.

Point is:
Neither romans nor celtic or germanic people were angels, but they weren't devils either.

Through out history this has been the most NATURAL thing to do. Everybody did it.

HOWEVER, the problem is that the general public is not told about this horrid acts with this amount of DETAIL.

[L.C.Cinna]

That's true. The problem is that we have only very very few sources and non of them is without bias. It's a pitty we don't have more things from the celts, parthians, germanics and so on. Of course they would contain the same things the Romans wrote just the other way round when it comes to cruelty and such but it would make things much easier for us.

[Teutobod II]

Germanics behaved real badly when raiding roman or celtic territories or in later times conquering them. They nailed the heads of their enemies at trees, hung them from trees, throw them in moors,...


Wasn´t that a sort of offering to the gods ?

[Kralizec]

That's true. The problem is that we have only very very few sources and non of them is without bias. It's a pitty we don't have more things from the celts, parthians, germanics and so on. Of course they would contain the same things the Romans wrote just the other way round when it comes to cruelty and such but it would make things much easier for us.

The Parthians weren't conquered by Rome or any other power (basicly a coup by a former Persian satrap)
Their problem was that they weren't real Persians, the Sassanians were and they neglected the historical legacy of the former and changed certain parts of historical accounts to better fit certain Zoroastrian prophecies.

[SaFe]

Wasn´t that a sort of offering to the gods ?

Sure, those victims were offering to the gods, but the roman gladiator-fights were also a religious thing in the beginning and ended as a brutal sports for the plebs.

Every culture or nation exaggerate the cruelties of their enemies.
The Aedui for example told the romans how cruel and evil the suebian warking Ariovist was, to enlist the romans for their side against the germanics.
I doubt that the suebians were really this cruel, as they brought their families with them and had to arrange themselves with the native gauls somehow.
It was not a clever thing, because so good old Julius Caesar had his invitation to "free" the poor gauls.

[The Celt]

The Parthians weren't conquered by Rome or any other power (basicly a coup by a former Persian satrap)
Their problem was that they weren't real Persians, the Sassanians were and they neglected the historical legacy of the former and changed certain parts of historical accounts to better fit certain Zoroastrian prophecies.
That, and they destroyed all the Parthian written history in good o'l fashioned book-burnings.(Thank you Ardashir I. :idea2: )

[Urnamma]

Re clubs:

Psycho is absolutely right. The club or cudgel, when made out of wood or otherwise, is a surprisingly effective weapon.

A blunt force weapon is not about the material used, but about the weight involved. Probably the most damaging historically speaking are the Arab 'amud or the Nubian basalt-headed maces. There are firsthand accounts of 'amud weighing 10-15kg (yes, that heavy), and also crushing helmeted heads into a lopsided bowl full of brain soup.

From testing maces vs. clubs on various types of armor, metal or otherwise, I can tell you that clubs are about .03 less effective than most mace types, excepting flanged maces of the East Greeks and Parthians. That is to say, they managed to defeat armor and 'kill' the wearer a significant percentage of the time.

I'm not sure I know enough about the topic to argue as eloquently as Psycho has here, but I would like to add one bit. Written sources will always favor the Romans, because they, umm, wrote them. Archeology has only just begun to unravel the complexity of Celtic society and warfare.

Psycho: as far as Cunliffe is concerned, a (albeit much truncated) Boii kingdom existed until about ~100 A.D. Are you disputing that? I'm a bit confused, I would like a clarification of your point where you mentioned the defeat by the Dacians.

Btw, Anthony is quite right about the Germanic vassals of the Boii, at least with regard to current scholarly opinions. Excavations in Austria and Czech have confirmed large amounts of tributary items of Germanic origin at the sites of principle Boii-controlled Oppidae concurrent with the layers precisely dated with contemporary Roman pottery. This in itself (the very abundance of items) is as good an indication as any with regard to tributary payments.

Further, the very expanse of the dated areas mean that the Boii of central Europe controlled a vast area at their height.

[The Celt]

Further, the very expanse of the dated areas mean that the Boii of central Europe controlled a vast area at their height.
So on that note:The Boii should definitely be a faction for EB2 correct?

[Watchman]

Probably the most damaging historically speaking are the Arab 'amud or the Nubian basalt-headed maces.The first one's all metal though. A hexagonal or octagonal iron bar about a meter long with a sword handle, by what I've read. Cost like the dickies too, given that it took the metal of something like five swords to make one and the Middle East isn't exactly swimming in iron to begin with. Bet you the concept was copied off those Byzantine and Sassanid heavy maces (as pre-Conquest Arabs mainly stuck to swords and spears), the former which were apparently something of a source of awe and fear well into the Middle Ages.

While it is true that in blunt-trauma weapons like maces weight, leverage and how the impact is conveyed to the target is more important, one somewhat suspects most wood had a bad tendency to yield and deform in such encounters with metal which would presumably sort of dampen the effect. That people seem to always have made a point of sticking all kinds of metal reinforcements and contact surface add-ons to the hefty lenghts of wood they intend to go clobber armoured fellers with would seem to hint in the same direction.

And there was presumably a practical reason even a small solid metal business end was preferred to all-wood pummeling instruments as well.

[SaFe]

Btw, Anthony is quite right about the Germanic vassals of the Boii, at least with regard to current scholarly opinions. Excavations in Austria and Czech have confirmed large amounts of tributary items of Germanic origin at the sites of principle Boii-controlled Oppidae concurrent with the layers precisely dated with contemporary Roman pottery. This in itself (the very abundance of items) is as good an indication as any with regard to tributary payments.




This is simply wrong.
Anthony said the Cimbri were vassals of the Boii.

I will not argue about some minor germanic vassals of the Boii - perhaps refugees from other tribes, but it is absolutely incorrect to assume the Boii very the masters of important germanic tribes.

I find it very irritating to back up your assumption by the findings of germanic craft items - we could assume that numerous gallic tribes were vassals of north-germanic tribes, because in their territory many celtic made crafts were found - which is also wrong.
Raiding and trade goes in two ways.

The only point we can be sure of is that at some time the Cimbri during their migration, tried to invade Boii territory and were repulsed, because of the strong defense position the Boii had. I find it very believeable that there was no major battles, because of the strong oppidas the Boii had during these times and so the Cimbrii wandered off to find better and easier lands to conquer and places to live.

[SaFe]

About the wooden club:
Yes, it is a weapon with great impact, but after all we know is was not a esteemed weapon for germanic warriors.
More than often the importance of the frame and the shield as well as sword are mentioned.
Rituals of young men on their way to adulthood had to do with swords, if germanics warriors lost their shield on the battlefield it was a great shame for them and to fight in their - for western "barbarians" rather disciplined way they had to use the spear(frame).
Even the renowned far ranged spear throwing ability of germanic warriors is often mentioned.
Clubs were the weapon of the poor man - simple as that.

[SaFe]

So on that note:The Boii should definitely be a faction for EB2 correct?

About this i would be careful, if fear some people would also like to include the Lugians as a faction of celtic overlords ruling germanic vassals.:wall:
But that is another theme...


Less is sometimes more concerning the inclusion of numerous celtic factions.

[Casuir]

They're needed for reasons you've already stated, to keep the sweboz in check, as it is they have to easy a time expanding into eastern and central europe.

[Frostwulf]

To me the purpose of this thread was to show that the Celtic units are more powerful then they should be.

sometimes i feel the celtic units are unrealistic
With EB we should be looking at the units themselves from a historical perspective as best we can. The units should be accessed points based on the armor value, weapons, skill, morale and special abilities (hide in woods,charge etc). Some of these factors can be determined in a fairly scientific/historical fashion such as the weapons and armor. The rest has to come from the historical writings and archaeology of the battlefield, there is no other way.
I havent played EB enough to see how things transition, Ive played battles and looked at stats. It seems to me from a historical perspective that in the west the Praetorian guard should be the strongest infantry unit. The reason I say this is because they took the best men from the Roman legions and gave them the best equipment available. But in EB the Celts have more powerful units then the Praetorian guard. Its not just these units either, there are several others that seemed mismatched to me.

Whilst I fulling acknowledge Roman superiority of arms, one does need to remember that history is written by the victors / Rome is known for excusing, downplaying or out-right ignoring / denying their defeats
This is what Im referring to, I dont believe this is reflected properly in EB. Yes Romans and the Greeks do exaggerate but that doesnt change the situation of Roman superiority of arms.


Strength is relative. The Celts were relatively stronger in the 5th, 4th and very beginning of the 3rd C BC.. as previously stated.
What do you base this on? If you mean by relative that the Celts were stronger at this time because there opponents were weaker I agree. If this is the case you might as well ignore the rest of this section. Who did the Celts really fight of consequence during the 5th and 4th centuries other then the Greeks? During the late 4th centry to the early 3rd Century BC we find them attacking pre-Camillus Rome and other Italic/Etruscan peoples. If you look at the battles during this time Rome won most of the battles, including Camillus defeating the Celts in 367 BC.


Prior Marius...

Battle of Arrentium (286 BC) – Praetor Lucius and 24,000 Romans attempt to relieve the aforementioned town (garrison 5,000) from a siege by 33,000 Insubres and Senones. The Romans are defeated, the town taken and Lucius beheaded.

Battle of Faesulae (225 BC) – 45,000 Insubres, Boii and Gaesatae defeat a Roman army of 45,000

Battle of Mutina (218 BC) – 15,000 Insubres and Boii defeat 4,500 Romans

Battle of Litana (216 BC) – 35,000 Boii defeat and slaughter everyone of the 25,000 Romans under Postumius Albinus. Albinus was beheaded and his skull gilded as a drinking vessel

Battle of Mutilum (200 BC) – 16,000 Boii defeated Gaius Ampius and 13,000 Romans

Battle of the Boii (196 BC) – 15,000 Boii defeated Consul Claudius Marcellous and 12,000 Romans

etc etc..
Most of the battles you listed the Celts outnumbered the Romans, and after some of these battles the Romans avenged themselves on the Celts.

Arrentium-Picenum:(283 BC) Britomaris of the Senones was defeated.
Faesulae-Telamon (224BC)
Battle of the Boii-Battle of Mutina (194 BC)
As you already know there are plenty of battles in which the Romans defeated the Celts.


Many of the ‘great victories’ that were most celebrated by Rome were not quite as stunning as first glance would suggest eg Telamon where the Romans outnumbered the Gauls by almost 2 to 1 (30,000 men) and had them surrounded from the outset.
Cant argue with you on this particular battle, except for the numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Telamon


It is also worth noting that Rome (like the Germans) had significant problems with any strong Celtic / Gallic group. The Romans in such cases, inevitable won victory by a war of attrition. Despite Gallic victories, Rome had substantial resources of men and materials at their disposal that enabled them to make good their losses (as the likes of Hannibal was to discover). Their enemy, the Celtic nations / tribes, didn’t share such a luxury and quickly ran out of both.

Further the battles you refer to involve Cisalpine Gauls, who by the mid 3rd C BC (250 BC) were already on the back foot. The Romans had waged a brutal war of attrition for over 150 years prior. The Cisalpine Gauls could not sustain their looses as the Romans could and once they reached a critical point the Cisalpine Gauls collapsed. Much celebrated Roman victories like the Battle of Minicio (196 BC), Battle of Bonnonia (191 BC), etc bear this out as they were no more a battle than the massacres of plains Indians at the likes of the ‘Battle of Wounded Knee’. The Romans in a genocidal blood lust, wiped out whole towns, tribes and nations.

I wont disagree with your first statement, the Celts were tough! The second statement about attrition and the second quote doesnt matter to much to me as I am looking for statistical points for units, not the war. That being said, Rome in the 3rd century BC was at war with Carthage, Illyria,Macedon, Etruscans, etc. etc. Who were the southern Gauls at war with? Yes they raided one another but to my knowledge there was no major infighting during this time. Did the Gauls have a low birth rate or something?

I know you keep talking about merciless slaughters and horrid atrocity's of war that the Romans did. Which one of these people didnt commit any kind of slaughters or atrocity's:Germans,Celts,Samnites,Etruscans etc. etc. Ill give you a hint, it wasnt the Celts, they were as guilty as all of them.


Secondly, numbers themselves count for nothing. You can have a public riot of millions of civilians disperse by a handful of trained and well equipped troops. The inherent weakness wasn’t in potential man power, it was in trained and equipped / experienced troops.
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.
The numbers do count against the devastation claim of the civil war as it shows that there were plenty of people around and were not completely ground down due to civil war. In history there are many peoples who received their veteran status through war. If the Celts were battling amongst themselves they would have vital war experience. If these wars are long drawn out events then training would take place in addition to the war experience. During these times it is rare for entire armies to be wiped out. If these people had enough people to continue these wars they would be getting war exp. I dont buy that all the experienced soldiers were wiped out and only green troops were left. If you look into the Mogadishu (blackhawk down) situation, the constant warfare and experience is shown. The U.S. expected little resistance from the Somalia's because they didnt really have a standing army. What they forgot to take into account is the constant battling between the warlords which gave the Somalia's battle hardened veterans. There are many more historical precedents for such cases, it is the norm!


For the record, “most historians” do not claim that the Romans were victors “most of the time”, what they do state is that according to Roman records, we are told that was the case. As I’ve previously stated, there has been many Roman battles / defeats not recorded / lost (giving the benefit of the doubt) to us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
The Romans bested the Celts the majority of the time. Im not talking about the ultimate victory here, Im talking about individual battles, not just the whole war.

No, we can’t say anything of the sort. We just don’t know
Roman records are not completely accurate but nor are they entirely false. You can use the Records and educated assumptions to determine what happened. Will this be 100% correct? Of course not but it is the best that can be done. From these records and educated assumptions we can see that the Romans bested the Celts most of the time. Yes archaeology can play a role in discovering some of the facts of battlefields, but just like other things these can be misinterpreted. I still stand by the statement that most historians will claim that the Romans were victors most of the time.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
You even have leader vs. leader in that M. Claudius Marcellus defeating Virdomarus in a duel.

I’m sorry to be a kill joy, but the account of M. Claudius Marcellus defeating Virdomarus is pure fiction. Again, this is not my opinion but rather that of the world’s leading scholars on this subject.
Tim Newark-editor of Military Illustrated/Peter Connolly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Connolly /Peter Berresford Ellis(considered the foremost authority on the Celts). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Berresford_Ellis .These authors say it happened, why would it be hard to believe? Ellis in his book Celt and Roman mentions several others like this that happened. What could there be against this? Also there is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viridomarus This post doesnt really have anything to do with accessing statistics to units.

There was a reason why the Romans had not succeeded in conquering Transalpine Gaul in the previous 300 years of conflict. It was only when Caesar realised the state of weakness of the Gauls in the 1st C BC, that he was emboldened to try his hand. In his very own commentary he admits to taking extreme levels of caution to test the Gallic forces, only to discover what scholars have since recognised, the Gauls were fielding green, untrained and ill-equipped troops. This being due to the slaughter of all but a relative few of their exisiting troops in a civil bloodbath. Was this weakness the only reason why the Gauls were overcome, no ..not by any stretch, but it was the main underlying issue. A house of cards will fall if only one major support is critically weakened.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
By 200 B.C. the romans had occupied all northern Italy and had started into southern Gaul.

And your point?
My point was to say that the Romans prior to Caesar did go into southern Gaul. Transalpine Gaul according to Barry Cunliffe ("The Ancient Celts") was annexed in 123 BC, over 60 years prior to Caesar entering Gaul. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transalpine_Gaul This doesnt have anything to do with accessing points to units.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Pyco you said: There was a reason why the Romans had not succeeded in conquering Transalpine Gaul in the previous 300 years of conflict. It cold (sic) be because of the other wars going on like with carthage.

I’m sorry but the Carthage hypothesis / excuse just does not stand up critical analysis. The Romans managed to expand their empire throughout the 3 Carthaginian Wars .. the last being little more than an excuse to plunder. If the Gauls were such a walk over as you seem to suggest, Gaul would have been a temptation too great to resist.
Why doesnt it stand up? Rome at this time as I stated earlier was dealing with multiple opponents. This hypothesis holds up much more then the constant tribal struggles you suggest for the Celts. Again there are many peoples that went through tribal conflicts (Germans, Scythians, Sarmatians, etc.) and Civil wars and still were able to expand. Am I misunderstanding what your getting at here? Also I have never suggested the Celts were a walk over. If you look at my posts I say that the Celts are tough. The only thing I have suggested is that the Romans and Germans are overall better skilled and I dont see that reflected in the unit stats. I still maintain that the Celts were tough and fierce. This post doesnt really have anything to do with accessing points to units.
I still maintain that Vercingetorix had elite units(5,000 Arverni guard) trained units (Peter_Connolly states that Vercingetorix took time to train his units) and experienced troops from the constant tribal warfare.

It is true however, that the likes of the Belgae (whom I was not originally referring to) had not been as involved in the Gallic civil war as the Gauls proper..and they were to prove a shock to the likes of Caesar. Remember Caesar was very nearly bested by one remote and primitive tribe the Nervii. The Nervii, who had little to no weapon producing facilities within their lands / having to import from the south, who had no equestrian knowledge or heritage … only had their courage, skill and training. Unlike the Romans, they had never fought their new enemy prior and yet gave a notable account of themselves.
I agree fully with this statement. I also agree that a united Belgae confederation would have defeated Caesar. Well I need to break off and end this as its getting a bit long.
I do appreciate the way this thread has been going. Even though there is disagreement its still Civil :yes: Ive been working alot lately with not much sleep so if I put something in here that was offensive I apologize as it wasnt my intent. Also I know this is dominated by Psyco V quotes, but I intend to try to address others such as Watchman and a later time.

[Orb]

I did a long and intelligent reply, but then lost it.

Which stats are you looking at in particular?

Gaesatae are drugged up maniacs, drilled, disciplined, obscenely brave and conditioned mercenaries. The Praetorians are basically limited to coups.

[JeffBag]

I havent played EB enough to see how things transition, Ive played battles and looked at stats. It seems to me from a historical perspective that in the west the Praetorian guard should be the strongest infantry unit. The reason I say this is because they took the best men from the Roman legions and gave them the best equipment available. But in EB the Celts have more powerful units then the Praetorian guard. Its not just these units either, there are several others that seemed mismatched to me.

Not a fair comparison since Praetorians have a bugged armor stat; its lower than Cohors Imperatoria even though they have two greaves more. I'm guessing that they should have 14 or 15 armor rather than 10, which would put them at 13 attack, 0.13 lethality, and 31 defense. Coupled with the fact that they come in neat 100 men cohorts, they would readily beat the crap out of any of those 60 in a unit Celtic elites. Actually, even without the +4 armour, Praetorians are still superior to any Celtic units, so I don't know what uber unit you are talking about. Remember that Caesar was always trying to avoid fighting the Averni guard head-on in battle.

[Frostwulf]

Orb the stats Im talking about are the ones listed for the units. The attack value, defense value and etc. What Im trying to say that if the Praetorian Guard unit came up against a unit of Gaesatae, Uachtarach or the Carnute cingetos, it seems to me the Praetorian Guard wins.About the Carnute cingetos if I thought druids were exempted from military service.Also Im going to make another reply on the Gaesatae thread, if you have the chance I would appreciate a reply.


I'm under the impression the Roman/Celtic front in Northern Italy was something of a stalemate for a rather long time. You win some, you lose some, sometimes one side held the upper hand and sometimes the other (especially if someone from beyond the Alps stuck his nose in). Didn't the Romans eventually first subjugate the Cisalpine Gauls into allies and later fully "Romanize" them or something ?
The Romans were the dominant force by 200 BC. The Romans were victorious over Boii in 191 BC which sealed it. There were still Celts and Italic tribes in this area, but they wore the yoke of the Romans. There was a revolt in 175 BC but this was "quickly suppressed, with no great effort". According to Livy Cisalpine Gaul was a province by 170 BC, but Peter B. Ellis disputes this and figures 81 BC is more accurate.

I really don't know which sources to trust about these things, but is it generally accepted that Celts had a more individual fighting style, while Romans acted as a unit and that while Celts might have generally been better fighters, the Roman tactics hampered their ability to fight one-on-one? If this is true then it would justify stronger stats to Celtic units. Damn, I hate to generalize...
In general terms I tend to agree with you on the Celts having a more individual fighting style with the Romans being team or unit oriented. Im not sure if you meant to say the Celtic units should be stronger or not but if you did I disagree with you. The cohesion of Roman units trained to fight together is more effective the individuals put together to fight as a unit. One on One Id say the Celt in general would win because of their size and type of training. In battles such as these units reigned supreme, not individuals.

This is simply wrong.
Anthony said the Cimbri were vassals of the Boii.

I will not argue about some minor germanic vassals of the Boii - perhaps refugees from other tribes, but it is absolutely incorrect to assume the Boii very the masters of important germanic tribes.

I find it very irritating to back up your assumption by the findings of germanic craft items - we could assume that numerous gallic tribes were vassals of north-germanic tribes, because in their territory many celtic made crafts were found - which is also wrong.
Raiding and trade goes in two ways.

The only point we can be sure of is that at some time the Cimbri during their migration, tried to invade Boii territory and were repulsed, because of the strong defense position the Boii had. I find it very believeable that there was no major battles, because of the strong oppidas the Boii had during these times and so the Cimbrii wandered off to find better and easier lands to conquer and places to live.
I completely agree with everything SaFe has to say here, especially the last statement. Not to mention archaeology does have its problems with interpretation of items found.Urnamma I do have an interest in archaeology, where can I find more information on these sites?

Praetorians are still superior to any Celtic units, so I don't know what uber unit you are talking about. Remember that Caesar was always trying to avoid fighting the Averni guard head-on in battle.
I listed some of the units at the top of this post but there are others of lesser strength and ability that seem off to me. I know the Arverni Guard were tough but I dont ever remember reading about Caesar avoiding a head on battle as he had tried to get Vercingetorix into open warfare.

[Orb]

'Orb the stats Im talking about are the ones listed for the units. The attack value, defense value and etc. What Im trying to say that if the Praetorian Guard unit came up against a unit of Gaesatae, Uachtarach or the Carnute cingetos, it seems to me the Praetorian Guard wins.About the Carnute cingetos if I thought druids were exempted from military service.Also Im going to make another reply on the Gaesatae thread, if you have the chance I would appreciate a reply.'

Yes, but which units' stats specifically? Where is the Celtic superiority you're alluding to?
Druids did fight on several occasions, but you'll have to ask a Celtic historian about that, I'm just a traitor.

[Watchman]

I'm pretty sure the Cingetos aren't Druids per ce, but a sort of elite "temple guard" with close associations with them.

Anyway, "palace guard" units like the Praetorians, stationed in an imperial capital far from the constant low-intensity action of the ever-troubled borders, have always tended towards a nasty tendency to becoming "parade units" of rather lower military calibre than their running costs and prestige would make one except, with entry requirements having a bad habit of degenerating into issues of pure politics, favouritism and brown-nosing (not to say outright bribery...). Although I understand the Praetorians were relatively well able to maintain their military usefulness.


That being said, Rome in the 3rd century BC was at war with Carthage, Illyria,Macedon, Etruscans, etc. etc. Who were the southern Gauls at war with? Yes they raided one another but to my knowledge there was no major infighting during this time. Did the Gauls have a low birth rate or something?If you mean the Cisalpines, come on now. They were like the Po river valley vs. the whole rest of the peninsula, with no quarantees of any kind of assistance from either the mountain tribes or the Transalpines (who in any case were busy fighting each other and the Germans). If nothing else the Romans were able to wear them down by sheer attrition over time, nevermind now "turning" them bit by bit to their own side. It doesn't take great genius to realize being a subject-ally tends to be preferable to being eradicated, all the more so given the rather Assyrian approach the Romans had to intractability. Not that a very vae victis approach to defeated foes wasn't rather more the norm than the exception those days anyway, but I understand the Romans were fairly good at exploiting it as a psychological weapon.

As for the Mediterranean coast of southern Gaul, the fact the Romans could easily ship in armies from Italy and the close trading links might have something to do with the way it fell into Roman orbit quite early on. Plus weren't there a few major Greek trading colonies like Massilia there, independent of the major Gallic powers and by what I've seen mentioned of them in passing relatively willing to enter into associations with major powers (both the Romans and Carthaginians had such client-cities in Iberia as well, I understand) ?


The numbers do count against the devastation claim of the civil war as it shows that there were plenty of people around and were not completely ground down due to civil war. In history there are many peoples who received their veteran status through war. If the Celts were battling amongst themselves they would have vital war experience. If these wars are long drawn out events then training would take place in addition to the war experience. During these times it is rare for entire armies to be wiped out. If these people had enough people to continue these wars they would be getting war exp.You're missing the point of the division of labour in Celtic society and warfare. The fighting was done by the warrior class (and mercenaries); the commoner levy only became involved in dire emergencies (primarily the defense of their homes, I understand) and was not normally mobilized for offensive operations (with the possible exception of the segments providing the missile troops), ie. not only was their training rather poor but whatever combat experience they might earn was very sporadic, often quite brief and dismal, and quite possibly finished with getting massacred or sold into slavery.

Do recall that the Celts did not ascribe to the same sort of fully tribal warfare as the Germans for example did.


If you look into the Mogadishu (blackhawk down) situation, the constant warfare and experience is shown. The U.S. expected little resistance from the Somalia's because they didnt really have a standing army. What they forgot to take into account is the constant battling between the warlords which gave the Somalia's battle hardened veterans.Oh come on. The warlords had thousands of irregular Tupac Army gunmen who had to chew drugs to deal with their fear, and had never been told blasting away at full auto is chiefly a good way to waste ammunition. The fighting lasted for something like half a day, and the total American casualties amounted to under twenty.

You try to do battle with comparable forces against an opponent of comparably vastly higher calibre in the context of premodern warfare, and what you most get is an utter massacre. Which in fact seems to more often than not have been exactly the result whenever the Celts had to try to fight the Romans head on mainly with their tribal levies, and duly why for example (AFAIK) Vercingetorix's strategy was one of harassement and guerilla warfare, not pitched battle (which in turn Caesar did his best to force). Any rag-tag bunch of bandits and angry natives can pull off frustrating guerilla warfare well enough.


I know the Arverni Guard were tough but I dont ever remember reading about Caesar avoiding a head on battle as he had tried to get Vercingetorix into open warfare.I'd say JB was talking tactically - that is, contain and thus render impotent such elite heavies while the rest of their army is destroyed, after which it's entirely irrelevant how badass they are. Strategically Caesar of course wanted to force a decisive pitched battle where his superior troops could tear the heart out of the resistance (and scare the rest into submission), rather than try to manage an intractable province crawling with elusive and persistent bandits and guerillas.

[Wolfman]

If the germans were the masters of the celts before rome than why is it that their culture didn't achieve dominance of europe until the the 5th aand 6th centuries A.D.. The celtic culture had been on the rise well before that as stated before this culture was dominant and using metal weaponry in the B.C. era while the germans when the romans first encountered them were using sharpened hardened sticks, stones, and clubs not counting the aristocracy who raided celtic lands. I got my sources from books that I got at my public library including History of the Celts, History of Northern Europe, and The Rise and Fall of the Roman empire.

[SaFe]

If the germans were the masters of the celts before rome than why is it that their culture didn't achieve dominance of europe until the the 5th aand 6th centuries A.D.. The celtic culture had been on the rise well before that as stated before this culture was dominant and using metal weaponry in the B.C. era while the germans when the romans first encountered them were using sharpened hardened sticks, stones, and clubs not counting the aristocracy who raided celtic lands. I got my sources from books that I got at my public library including History of the Celts, History of Northern Europe, and The Rise and Fall of the Roman empire.

As far as i know nobody said germanics were the overlords of celts before rome.
Naturally they ruled over the celts that stayed in those areas the germanics conquered.

Now concerning your question about germanics used only stones, clubs and hardened sticks when encountering romans for the first time:
What we know today is the following - the first germanics the romans encountered were the tribes of the Cimbri, Ambroni and Teutoni(the Teutoni were half celtic though).
Those tribes wandered for many, many years through celtic ruled territory - raided, plundered and sometimes lived a few months in "peace" with the celtic natives, where surely some trading took part also.

Don't you think, they got their hands during this time on enough better weapons as stones and wooden clubs?

No, it seems some of the discussion members here think, that the germanics saw some fine swords, axes and other weapons - and finally throw them away because they loved their wooden clubs so much:wall:

Yes, it is known that the Cimbri for example offered all the captured weapons and armor of the romans to their gods (along with the captured romans b.t.w.) after winning a battle vs. the romans.
But this didn't happen every time - they wandered over many years through today's' Europe and had enough good weapons at least for their best warriors captured by this time.

Same with my next argumentation point:
Ariovist, War-king of the suebian federation conquered the lands of the Aedui, beat them in battle and was de facto overlord of the gauls living in this area for a few years.
So, nobody thinks he equipped his warrior elite with the best weapons available?
Again no - some of us still think the germaics ignored those weapons and stuck to their wooden clubs...Funny idea...

The suebians (he had also Harudes and men from other tribes with him) under Ariovists command were excellent warriors.
They were not poor farmes but trained and very experienced fighters.
( Remark - even poor farmers in germanic society had more than enough combat experience though )
Those warrios knew a good weapon when they saw it and would have take the most advantage of their situation in a foreign land.

Please guys, stop thinking of germanics only as savage wooden-club wielding and stone throwing idiots, who ignored better weapons and were unable to produce own iron weapons.

Not only me tried to explain many times why we had so few proofs of germanic iron weapons finds (for example they burned their dead before A.D., so we had simply no weapon finds here, as those weapons were given from father or uncle to son or nephew) and it seems some of us here ignore the fact that the germanics produced iron weapons too.
(Raseneisen is the german word for the material they used, not sure of the english word for the iron, it was of poorer quality than celtic iron, but still they used it)

As i want to come to a end here -

Germanics - at least the better warriors in a tribe - when they encountered romans were equipped with weapons of good celtic quality ( raiding, conquering and trading, even some of own fabrication )


I wouldn't believe solely the roman biased books about their savage and barbarian enemies not able to take advantage of raided and traded better quality weapons.

It is just wrong and incorrect to assume only germanic aristocracy was able to afford those iron weapons, this may be true for some tribes that lived far from celtic territory, but even here we have the known fact that they produced weapons made of Raseneisen, but is simply wrong for the mentioned tribes above.
On reason why romans often described germanics as only using spears and shields may be the fact that the mostly fought against them in this way.
Germanics tried to stay together in battle and tried to hold a line unlike the way they are often displayed.
For this fighting method the use of throwing and stabbing spears was necessary.

Thanks for your attention:bow:

[Teutobod II]

Germanics - at least the better warriors in a tribe - when they encountered romans were equipped with weapons of good celtic quality ( raiding, conquering and trading, even some of own fabrication )


One thought for a Germanic reform: due to more contact with Rome (won battles and hired mercs) they had more Roman equipment, the swords got shorter and looked more like a gladius, to the end of the EB timeframe...

[NeoSpartan]

One thought for a Germanic reform: due to more contact with Rome (won battles and hired mercs) they had more Roman equipment, the swords got shorter and looked more like a gladius, to the end of the EB timeframe...

hum..... I don't quite think so.... you are streching it a bit TOO much here.

[SaFe]

Concerning your argument Teutobod II:
Well, naturally raided and traded equipment became more roman during the last decades of EB's timeframe, but we should stick with celtic and germanic-styled sword for the germanic units.
I once made plans for a germanic reform, especially for Gastiz and Herthoz units, but i really don't know what became of this plans.
Surely the germanics need a reform too, because Gastiz as example are much too well equiped for the beginning time they are hireable and their equipment should change after the reform.

[Fondor_Yards]

If you check in the script file, you can see there's a proposed Iron Reform for the germans in there.

[Urnamma]

Indeed. I think the original debate here still stands. So... bump.

[PSYCHO V]

I enjoyed your posts in this thread so far I'm a bit surprised to see something like that. You seem to have read quite a lot on the topic, so why back up your arguments with something as stupid as this? Sorry nothing against you but you talk about bias in Roman sources and then post a quote which is surely biased and completely unscientific. Is that taken from a novel? No offence here. BTW great discussion.

No as cited it is from Daithi O Hogain, Professor of Celtic Studies, University of Dublin. I believe he is para-phrasing Siculus amongst others.




I'm studying ancient history at university and I think a modern historian should try to avoid any kind of bias or steroetypes like "greedy Romans", "uncivilised barbarians" and so on...

I assume you have similar problems with the likes of Tacitus’ Roman “Pillagers of the world” etc etc.
Unfortunately, I believe you’ve jumped to all sorts of assumptions here and missed the wood through the trees. These are the Roman accounts and neither the aforementioned scholar nor I believe they should be taken on face value. Whilst there is often truth still there, accounts tend to be wrapped up in a whole lot of bolox. …best examples Livy & Caesar imho.



Oh I know that such things happened. It is the way it is written. for example "Roman greed". A completely unscientific statement. As if all Romans were greedy and Roman expansion was driven by greed. I haven't read this specific author but he sounds biased and unprofessional in this quote, and I guess he is. Many people pretend to be an authority, or are called such by some people, but this kind of bias and sentimental involvement and message disqualifies him. Using nationalistic prejudice is not welcome in science and is unprofessional…..etc etc.

“Unscientific”? As a student of ancient history I’m sure you’d be well aware that ‘Romanic’ historians wrote for their audience under the patronage of a Roman leader / family. Hence we do have ‘biased’ / politically expedient Roman accounts condemning the actions of other Romans / Roman dynasties / families, etc. eg. Plutarch, Poseidonius, Polybius, etc etc.



I fully agree with what SaFe said, that's why I didn't like the "greedy, evil Romans vs innocent, poor Celts" mood of the quote. A historian should not mark events as good or bad out of personal preference..

Again, I believe you are the one adding the qualitative dimension here. The only ones who mention “barbarians”, “greed” etc are the Roman / Greek historians themselves. The addition of the “evil” / “poor” nomenclatures are entirely your doing..no doubt to make your point.
All I ask is that people look at the facts in a holistic manner and don’t regress to 2D stereo-types. One needs to keep an open mind and refrain from knee-jerk assumptions whenever others recount less that flattering aspects of their own pets. Fact is often stranger and more complex than fiction.




That's true. The problem is that we have only very very few sources and non of them is without bias. It's a pitty we don't have more things from the celts, parthians, germanics and so on. Of course they would contain the same things the Romans wrote just the other way round when it comes to cruelty and such but it would make things much easier for us.

Absolutely!

[PSYCHO V]

Why should even the Nervii - a tribe belonging to the Belgae spoke of their germanic origins? Was it a sign of strenght and honour to belong to those backward forest dwellers?:

“This account means no more than that they had trans-Rhenine origins. We know they were a Celtic people.” – Finding The Celts, T.G.E Powell



About the wooden club: Yes, it is a weapon with great impact, but after all we know is was not a esteemed weapon for germanic warriors. Clubs were the weapon of the poor man - simple as that.

And how pre-tell have you come to that conclusion?



More than often the importance of the frame and the shield as well as sword are mentioned. Rituals of young men on their way to adulthood had to do with swords...

Yes amongst the Germanics post (in some cases several hundred years) the period EB is depicting here. You can’t just extrapolate anachronistic data.

One can claim that the Germanics of this period were all (bar the poor) well equipped with swords, spears, etc that subsequently mysteriously disappeared from the material record but I believe otherwise. Whilst the likes of Tacitus need to be taken with a grain of salt as he has a propensity to over generalise, I do not believe his work a complete fiction / he lost his marbles when describing the Germanic tribes of the early 1st C AD. His account happens to be reflected in the material record.

“The Germans wear no breastplates or helmets. Their shields are not reinforced with either iron or leather, but are painted wood or wicker work. Spears, of a sort , are limited to their front rank. The rest have only clubs burnt at the end, or with short metal points” – ‘Anals of Imperial Rome’, Tactitus II.10).

Now obviously there would be exceptions to the above descript, as aptly recognised by EB, but what we need to acknowledge here is his points of note / the generic norm. To continually deny / refuse to acknowledge facts (ie Germanic did indeed use clubs on a large scale) because it didn’t fit in with preconceived ideas or was believed to infer a primitive condition on the user… is imho, unacceptable in the objective quest for historical truth.



Re clubs:
Psycho is absolutely right. The club or cudgel, when made out of wood or otherwise, is a surprisingly effective weapon….From testing maces vs. clubs on various types of armor, metal or otherwise, I can tell you that clubs are about .03 less effective than most mace types, excepting flanged maces of the East Greeks and Parthians. That is to say, they managed to defeat armor and 'kill' the wearer a significant percentage of the time. .

Yup, exactly.



Every culture or nation exaggerate the cruelties of their enemies.
The Aedui for example told the romans how cruel and evil the suebian warking Ariovist was, to enlist the romans for their side against the germanics..

Yup, the Gauls had no idea how bad things could get :wall:



This is simply wrongThe only point we can be sure of is that at some time the Cimbri during their migration, tried to invade Boii territory and were repulsed, because of the strong defense position the Boii had. I find it very believeable that there was no major battles, because of the strong oppidas the Boii had during these times and so the Cimbrii wandered off to find better and easier lands to conquer and places to live.

“no major battles” / “repulsed, because of the strong defense position”. Again how have you come to that conclusion? Is this recognition that one can not acknowledge that the uber Germans / Cimbri could ever be beaten by the inferior Gauls / Boii? I certainly hope not.



Psycho: as far as Cunliffe is concerned, a (albeit much truncated) Boii kingdom existed until about ~100 A.D. Are you disputing that? I'm a bit confused, I would like a clarification of your point where you mentioned the defeat by the Dacians..

Not sure what you are asking here? The aforementioned slaughter of the Boii by the Dacians is attested in several classical accounts as well as the material record. …?



Btw, Anthony is quite right about the Germanic vassals of the Boii, at least with regard to current scholarly opinions. Excavations in Austria and Czech have confirmed large amounts of tributary items of Germanic origin at the sites of principle Boii-controlled Oppidae concurrent with the layers precisely dated with contemporary Roman pottery. This in itself (the very abundance of items) is as good an indication as any with regard to tributary payments..

One can’t attribute these material finds to the Cimbri, the chronological dating of the material just doesn’t support this hypothesis. There is no sudden deposit … rather this was a increasing phenomina prior the Cimbri arrival that most attribute primarily to trade. The likes of Kuta, Powell, etc state quite clearly that these finds are predominantly the remnants of an extensive trade network with peoples north of the Danube / through the lands of the Aravisci and Osi and up the Oder River (to a lesser extent the Elbe and Vistula). This very trade may have actually contributed to luring the Cimbri through this otherwise / relatively inhospitable landscape. Yes there were some obvious items of tribute (and we have no doubt local peoples both Celtic and Germanic had become clients of the Boii), but the material is shown to have come from a very wide area, including parts where to our current knowledge, the Cimbri never ventured. Now that itself doesn’t necessarily preclude the Cimbri coming by this material through many distant hands but considering the chronological dating of the finds I believe the hypothesis that the deposit of this material was result of the Cimbri offering tribute… to be a mere flight of fancy.


my2bob

[PSYCHO V]

I also agree that a united Belgae confederation would have defeated Caesar…I do appreciate the way this thread has been going. Even though there is disagreement its still Civil :yes: Ive been working alot lately with not much sleep so if I put something in here that was offensive I apologize as it wasnt my intent. Also I know this is dominated by Psyco V quotes, but I intend to try to address others such as Watchman and a later time.

No prob, working a lot myself… and no offence intended here...and sorry for the delay in response.




Roman records are not completely accurate but nor are they entirely false. You can use the Records and educated assumptions to determine what happened. Will this be 100% correct? Of course not but it is the best that can be done.

True




To me the purpose of this thread was to show that the Celtic units are more powerful then they should be…..I havent played EB enough to see how things transition..

Having had this discussion with you, funnily enough, this doesn’t surprise me. If I may make a humble suggestion, please start a campaign and play it through. You may just find (like others here) that EB has done both Romans, Celts (amongst others) due justice




…In the west the Praetorian guard should be the strongest infantry unit. But in EB the Celts have more powerful units then the Praetorian guard. Yes Romans and the Greeks do exaggerate but that doesnt change the situation of Roman superiority of arms. This is what Im referring to, I dont believe this is reflected properly in EB.

Well for one I believe you are again trying to court the argument in terms of your pre-conceived understanding of Imperial Rome….ignoring the importance of chronology in the process. You can’t extrapolate an elite unit to a period decades if not centuries prior. By the same rationale one could claim that US forces were always superior to French because the modern US Home Gaurd could always best the Napoleonic Imperial Guard.
In the 4th C BC the Praetorian Guard didn’t even exist. When the unit did begin to evolve in the 3rd C BC, it wasn’t anything significant.




What do you base this on?

On the writings of scholars that are far more learned than I.. Hogain states that following the Roman slaughter at Allia (the so-called ‘infaustus dies’ - “unlucky day”), “Roman historians were anxious to disguise the fact that in this period (4th / early 3rd C BC), the Celts had military superiority in Italy”.




Who did the Celts really fight of consequence during the 5th and 4th centuries.

Arrr..Everyone! Remember ‘these Gauls’ who you believe were of “inferior skill” were in fact cherished as mercenaries throughout the entire ancient world / from Iberia to the Indus. There was a very good reason for this and I have to say, it had nothing to do with them lacking any skill / being a push over in battle / or in any other way inferior.




…we find them attacking pre-Camillus Rome and other Italic/Etruscan peoples. If you look at the battles during this time Rome won most of the battles, including Camillus defeating the Celts in 367 BC.

Oh please! Don’t throw up accounts of Camillus as fact, next you’ll be claiming Roman accounts of Remus and Romulus were fact too.

Powell, Hogain and Kuta note that following Allia, Revisionist Roman historians “invented a campaign of resistance” led by the ‘renowned’ Roman General Camillus who supposedly returned from exile to save Rome. They have this Camillus confronting the Gauls about the ransom and (according to Plutarch at least), Camillus ordered them to depart without their gold, for “it was customary with the Romans to deliver their country with iron, not with gold!”. Both Plutarch and Livy then give a dramatic “fictional” account of a Gallic rout in Rome and then a final huge / “great victory on the road to Gabii”. Livy then cites several “fictitious” Roman victories but all the while fails to explain why the Gauls were able to raid with impunity during the period (raiding which he himself acknowledges)…often unchallenged in small bands. One such so-called “victory” that was actually based on fact was an incident in 349 BC when the Romans confronted a band of Gallic raiders who had just raided several Roman towns. When the two sides lined up for battle, the Roman army failed to attack. The Gauls, burdened with booty merely turned their backs and continued home untouched, happy with their spoils. In an attempt to cover for Rome’s overt failure / weakness, the incident was henceforth presented as a victory and the road along which the Gauls travelled was named Gallica (‘the Gaulish Way’).

The Roman weakness is further born out by the Roman relief when Transalpine Gauls crossed the Alps wanting a piece of the action. Initially a disaster for the Romans, in the end the Transalpine Gauls (Arverni, Allobroges, Cadurci, etc) fell out with the Cisalpine Gauls (Insubres, Senones, etc)… feelings that were part of broader Gallic politics in Transalpine proper. The conflict came to a head in 299 BC when the combined group had returned from a raid deep into Roman territory. When “burdened with a great quantity of booty”, they quarrelled over the division and in the end ended up destroying most of the spoils “as well as the best part of their own forces”. Following this slaughter, the opportunistic Romans noted the weakness of the Cisalpine Gauls and decided to finally push north. Thus in 296 BC, the Gauls (still reeling from the slaughter with their brethren) sought an alliance with their former enemies, the Etruscans, Samnites and Umbrians.

Other scholars believe that Celtic superiority lasted much later in the period . Eg. Powell states that he believed the Romans were the weaker party for far longer, that “the Romans finally managed to turned the tide of Gaulish supremacy from the victory at the battle of Telamon (225 BC)”




From these records and educated assumptions we can see that the Romans bested the Celts most of the time. I still stand by the statement that most historians will claim that the Romans were victors most of the time.

So you acknowledge that Roman sources are biased, that they play down, dismiss or ignore Roman defeats yet you are willing to take them on face value because that is what you wish to believe?

An “educated assumption” is looking at the issue in a holistic manner and not assuming things that fit a pre-conceived idea. Looking to the Romans to tell us who won most of the battles is like looking to G.W Bush to tell us if there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Again, one needs to consider the whole picture…including archaeological as well as literary evidence, length of conflicts, resources invested, freedom of movement of the various factions, incidence of raids, anthropological data, etc etc.

Livy may claim that over a half a million Gauls and Samnites were defeated in one battle by four Roman legions, or Plutarch claim that Roman legions jogged half a mile in mid summer and fought for a day against the Cimbri but “were so tough that not a single Roman was seen short of breath or had a bead of sweat” … but the more discerning eye with note the obvious bolox.




Tim Newark-editor of Military Illustrated/Peter Connolly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Connolly /Peter Berresford Ellis(considered the foremost authority on the Celts). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Berresford_Ellis .These authors say it happened, why would it be hard to believe? Ellis in his book Celt and Roman mentions several others like this that happened. What could there be against this? Also there is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viridomarus

Firstly, I’d suggest not relying too heavily on what you read on the net / places like wiki. The ‘info’ is usually provided by those who have no more understanding than you or I.
Secondly, you can’t cite Newark as an expert on the Gauls and whilst I personally adore Ellis, he does tend to be prone to over stating things.
Thirdly, neither Ellis, Connolly nor any other scholar to date has stated that Livy’s account is undeniable fact, they merely recount the telling of the tail. Quite to the contrary in fact, many are explicit in denouncing the account as “dramatic fiction”, which is the point I made previously. James calls it “works of propaganda”, Collis “a dramatised account”, Cunliffe “an entertaining tail”, Hogain “a dramatised anecdote”.

Hogain continues, “that besides strengthening military morale and serving feelings of Roman patriotism, there was a further purpose to such stories, that of family propaganda - for Roman aristocrats of later centuries found it expedient to invent accounts of how their illustrious ancestors had saved the city in times of need”.

In the midst (349-348 BC) of the fictional campaign of Camillus, Livy gives an account of Titus Manlius slaying a huge Celt in single combat, taking his huge torc and the name “Torquatus” for himself. Livy even goes so far as to tell the tale of Marcus Valerius (from Camillus’ forces) slaying a Celt of similar stature after the later was set upon and blinded by a raven! :yes: :clown:

If one had any appreciation for Celtic culture, one would note the propaganda / message that Livy wished to convey by the telling of these tails. Devoid of roman success, Livy / others invented accounts and used cultural features dear to the Celts to claim supremacy of the Roman cause and power of arms.




My point was to say that the Romans prior to Caesar did go into southern Gaul. Transalpine Gaul according to Barry Cunliffe ("The Ancient Celts") was annexed in 123 BC, over 60 years prior to Caesar entering Gaul…see wiki

Lol… I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood the text. Cunliffe was talking about what the Romans claimed. The Romans hadn’t conquered Gaul at all.. merely a small part.

The Arverni had previously led a large alliance in bitter civil war against the northern Aedui and their confederates. The Arverni Alliance had been victorious and by the beginning of the 2nd C BC, had reduced their enemies to clientage. The Romans were concerned about this turn of events and accordingly sought a casus belli to both weaken the power of the Arverni and gain loot. That opportunity apparently came with the Salluvii. The Romans subsequently sent two consular armies and several Elephants against the Arverni. At the Battle of Vindalium (121 BC) some of the Gallic cavalry were put to flight at the sight of the Elephants. The uncertainty quickly turned to tragedy as the Elephants born down on the bewildered Gauls. When this heavily armoured / veteran force tried to withdraw back across the Rhone, panic set in and the crowded Gallic pontoon bridges collapsed, drowning almost the entire force.

This defeat critically weakened the Arverni and after the Romans made a nominal alliance with their enemy the Aedui, the Romans extended their influence in the south / establish the province of Narbonesis (very bottom of Gaul). The Aedui now emboldened sought to wrest control back from the Arverni and thus the final chapter to this tragic event played out. By the mid 1st C BC, the conflict had all but wiped out the Gallic warrior class.
Which is the whole point I’ve made about this debate.




Most of the battles you listed the Celts outnumbered the Romans, and after some of these battles the Romans avenged themselves on the Celts.

Your starting to sound like a Roman apologist seeking to argue and end point rather that addressing the actual points of the debate. Next you’ll be claiming, like Livy, that Roman’s weren’t defeated by Gauls, they (a whole consular army) were wiped out by falling trees!

The point I made was in response to the claim that “most of the time” the Romans were victorous..therefore they were almost always superior and this therefore should be born out in EB stats.

I have argued several points to the contrary;
A) The above rationale is flawed as it ignores a great deal of additional data
B) Not all battles (esp Roman losses) were recorded
C) Those that are recorded have often been distorted by the gloss of Roman propaganda
D) Many so-called Roman victories were no more than the slaughter non-combatants seeking to defend themselves.
E) One needs to consider chronology and actually play the game before coming to conclusions.

With regard to numbers, the numbers are fairly even in most cases. Much more so than Roman historians would usually like us to believe. I have already recounted Livy’s tale of Romans facing half a million in battle.




Cant argue with you on this particular battle, except for the numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Telamon

I was actually being conservative.

Again drawing from what the aforementioned scholars have written on the subject, the Gauls were heavily outnumbered at Telamon, almost 2 to 1. According to Roman sources, the Gauls started the campaign with 50,000 foot and 20,000 cavalry. The Romans had never faced such a number of Gauls since they sacked the city over a century prior. The inter-Gallic conflict previously mentioned in 299 BC and the subsequent one in 236 BC had severely weakened the Cisalpine Gauls and the Romans had only had to deal with small bands. When the Romans got news of this force, bolstered by large contingents of experienced Transalpine troops, they apparently went mad with fear. Plutarch states “never before nor since were so many thousands of Romans called upon to bear arms at once”. The Romans went on to sacrifice a Greek man and women and a Gallic man and women to propitiate the gods.
Far from the Romans being confident that they had “superior skill” and would thus “most likely be victorious”, they feared the worse. They feared fighting a large experienced force of Gauls.

This Gallic force that Roman historians claim was 70,000 (which is unlikely at the outset) was then forced to leave several thousand to garrison their rear when they were threatened by the Veneti.. It is believed that less that 45,000 marched south. In response (from Roman records), the Romans had mustered several legions and around 100,000 auxilaries / allies. In addition to this they had hundreds of thousands of additional troops spread out along the Gallic line of advance.
Some of these later Roman troops the Gauls bested to sack / loot several to towns in Etruria before heading to Rome. Here they defeated a large Roman army sent to stop them (point of note that again this defeat is relegated to a relative foot note and the leader’s name omitted). By the time both sides faced each other at Telamon, the Gauls would have fielded no more than 30,000 – 40,000 troops. The Romans 70,000 – 80,000. The Gauls, despite their bravery, didn’t stand a chance.




I wont disagree with your first statement, the Celts were tough! The second statement about attrition and the second quote doesnt matter to much to me as I am looking for statistical points for units, not the war…. Yes they raided one another but to my knowledge there was no major infighting during this time. Did the Gauls have a low birth rate or something?

Look the point is very simple. Consider WWII for a moment. One can’t take Hitler’s ‘Home Guard’ circa 1944 complete with units of ‘Hitler Youth’ and assume a correct qualitative evaluation on the standard of German armed forces throughout the conflict. We all know that Germany had very well trained / experienced troops at the outset of the war but as a result of defeat / casualties they could not sustain, their forces had progressively suffered in quality the closer the end came.

I’m merely making the same point about the Gauls. Once that balance of power shifted, and horrendous casualties sustainted, there was no turning back. The Gauls couldn’t sustain the number of warriors required to stem the super power of Rome.




That being said, Rome in the 3rd century BC was at war with Carthage, Illyria,Macedon, Etruscans, etc. etc. Who were the southern Gauls at war with?

Again everyone!




I know you keep talking about merciless slaughters and horrid atrocity's of war that the Romans did. Which one of these people didnt commit any kind of slaughters or atrocity's:Germans,Celts,Samnites,Etruscans etc. etc. Ill give you a hint, it wasnt the Celts, they were as guilty as all of them.

I’m sorry but your wrong on this account. Yes the Germans, Celts, Samnites, Etruscans, etc did terrible things, they weren’t angels by any stretch, but they didn’t engage in systematic genocide like the Romans did.




The numbers do count against the devastation claim of the civil war…. In history there are many peoples who received their veteran status through war. If the Celts were battling amongst themselves they would have vital war experience.

I believe that to be extremely simplistic, albeit flawed thinking. By the same rationale, Hitler’s “Home Guard” should have been elite veterans after 6 long years of war. Same deal. If you kill all your troops, yes you can continue the conflict but don’t expect the mobilised militia to count for much. They are not the same as properly trained and equipped troops. The efficient Germans took several years of peace to prepare for WWII and even then some generals though it too soon.




If you look into the Mogadishu (blackhawk down) situation, the constant warfare and experience is shown. The U.S. expected little resistance from the Somalia's because they didnt really have a standing army. What they forgot to take into account is the constant battling between the warlords which gave the Somalia's battle hardened veterans. There are many more historical precedents for such cases, it is the norm!

Sure, but I’m afraid you have extrapolated a circumstance very different to that which we are discussing here. Of course troops acquire experience over time …If They Live! A dead veteran is no good to anyone..and this was the problem for the Gauls.
The inter gang / tribal conflict of Somalia is very much removed from the blood letting of the Gallic civil war. At the point that the Gallic warrior class was wiped out, the Germans then the Romans became involved. The Gauls didn’t have time for a new generation of warriors to rise to the fore nor for their militia to be mobilised and gain some semblance of experience. It is true that by the battle of Georgovia and Alesia, over a decade had passed and many young Gallic youths had appeared as novice warriors. This is born out in the archaeology record as previously mentioned. But these boys were no where near the same quality of their adult predecessors.




Why doesnt it stand up? Rome at this time as I stated earlier was dealing with multiple opponents. This hypothesis holds up much more then the constant tribal struggles you suggest for the Celts. Am I misunderstanding what your getting at here?

Why you say? ..Well you stated that Rome couldn’t conquer the Gauls because they were distracted fighting Carthage. The point I made was that during the same period (ie when the Romans were supposedly busy fighting Carthage), they managed to conquer other (non Gallic) peoples, thus the hypothesis “does not stand up critical analysis”.


my2bob

[SaFe]

@Psycho:
Concerning the Belgae and here especially the Nervii:
In the future it would be better if you quote my complete sentences, i never disputet that the Nervii were celtic. I just said that they themselves seemed to be proud of germanic heritage - which is wrong.

Concerning the wooden club:
For the typical germanic style of warfare in open field battles the wooden club wouldn't fit.
Also it was in germanic society a sign of wealth to have good quality weapons ( the spear as standard weapon for every warrior doesn't count here ).
A self-made wooden club was ..
a) a poor weapon for germanic battle tactics except ambushes and
b) a weapon without showing the wielders wealth.
So we can assume that it was definately not the most loved weapon of free men or even nobles.

I will ignore your mentioning about "continual denying" here, because it is you who seems to totally ignore the well-known fact about the reason for the lack of weapons, armor or even tools of trade as grave givings again and again.
I would also suggest if you would take a look at your own sentences. You say germanics use clubs on a large scale, but here also we have no other source as Tacitus (and one picture on a roman column) whom you seem to believe only if it fits you.
Naturally you will also not find archaelogical proofs of your point here, because of the germanic tradition of burning of their dead.
Final note from me concerning clubs:
I said never that clubs were not used. I only said that by all we know about germanic sense of honour concerning weapons and style of warfare before AD the club was not the most loved weapon.

Concerning the swords:
Again Tacitus. If Tacitus is your source here than i hope you don't forget to mention the beastmen of the northeastern tribes. You should read something about the iron finds in germanic lands and also i'm sure we both don't know at what time those sword-rituals started.
Interesting that the Cheruscii ( a tribe that existed well before the time you mentioned ) named themselves Sword-People in their own language without any access to swords or the knowledge to fabricate them as you seem to imply.

Concerning Ariovist and his conquest of the Aedui:
Gallic propaganda tour 73BC :dizzy2:

Concerning the Cimbrii and Boii:
Cheap shot from you and not your usual style - i never said that the Cimbri or Ambronii were better combatants than their Boii counterparts. But it is well known that the Boii had a very good defensive position and no major battle between those tribes are mentioned, so we can assume that the wandering germanic tribes gave up and marched on for easier targets. Surely some fighting took place, but perhaps you could find some evidence of major battles between them. But it seems logical, that the Cimbrii who travelled along with their families would not try to asault fortified oppida's or even try to lay some kind of siege. Even against the romans they tried to fight open field battles and the Boii would have been very dumb to fulfill the germanics their wishes, as they had a better position.

Hopefully we could agree at least at some points here.
Wish you well

[Frostwulf]

Orb what Im trying to say, apparently not very well is that the attack factor and defense factors are higher in Celtic units then on the Roman and German units albiet sometimes slightly. I simply just disagree with the numbers is all.

Anyway, "palace guard" units like the Praetorians, stationed in an imperial capital far from the constant low-intensity action of the ever-troubled borders, have always tended towards a nasty tendency to becoming "parade units" of rather lower military calibre than their running costs and prestige would make one except, with entry requirements having a bad habit of degenerating into issues of pure politics, favouritism and brown-nosing (not to say outright bribery...). Although I understand the Praetorians were relatively well able to maintain their military usefulness.
I agree with you on this, I should have chosen a different unit for an example. Your last sentence is true as well in that they did have some constant warfare experience. Marcus Aurelius and a few others used them in combat.


if you mean the Cisalpines, come on now. They were like the Po river valley vs. the whole rest of the peninsula, with no quarantees of any kind of assistance from either the mountain tribes or the Transalpines (who in any case were busy fighting each other and the Germans). If nothing else the Romans were able to wear them down by sheer attrition over time, nevermind now "turning" them bit by bit to their own side. It doesn't take great genius to realize being a subject-ally tends to be preferable to being eradicated, all the more so given the rather Assyrian approach the Romans had to intractability. Not that a very vae victis approach to defeated foes wasn't rather more the norm than the exception those days anyway, but I understand the Romans were fairly good at exploiting it as a psychological weapon.Not that this has a bearing on this topic...
For Cisalpines are you talking about the Boii and their allying themselves with the Etruscans and Samnites to attack the Romans(295 BC - Battle of Sentinum , 283 BC - Battle of Lake Vadimo etc,etc)? Are you talking about the Insubres, Cenomani, Lingones and Senones who were also allied to the Boii? Who were attacking the Celts in Cisalpine? The Romans won through major battles not just piecemeal. Yes after these battles some of the tribes would join the Romans, but they were for the most part conquered.
Romans wear them down through attrition? Again look at who Rome was fighting during this time. Rome had way more foes then the Celts did in Cisalpine! How is it that the Celts are susceptible to attrition yet the Romans are not? It was the loss in 191BC of the Boii that ended any real Celtic problems in Cisapine.


You're missing the point of the division of labour in Celtic society and warfare. The fighting was done by the warrior class (and mercenaries); the commoner levy only became involved in dire emergencies (primarily the defense of their homes, I understand) and was not normally mobilized for offensive operations (with the possible exception of the segments providing the missile troops), ie. not only was their training rather poor but whatever combat experience they might earn was very sporadic, often quite brief and dismal, and quite possibly finished with getting massacred or sold into slavery.

Do recall that the Celts did not ascribe to the same sort of fully tribal warfare as the Germans for example did.
Im not going to completely disagree with you on this.I have not done much studying on this subject. "The Celts fought as a tribal army and were probably divided into septs or sub-divisions of the tribe just as they were 2000 years later at Culloden"/ "The Celtic military system, as it survived in Scotland in 1745, was that every male over the 'age of choice', usually seventeen years old, and fit enough to carry arms was automatically part of the 'regiment' of his clan or tribe. The chieftain was the automatic commander. Brother fought with brother, father with son." -Peter Ellis
I have 4 books that deal with the Celts but only Celt&Roman-Peter Ellis even comes close to addressing this issue. What Ellis is saying seems to differ from what your saying. Ellis does mention an Elite upper class but in no way says anything about them being the only warriors. If you know where I can find out information on this subject please post it, Id like to know which book or article etc. I just dont have anything that addresses this subject.


Oh come on. The warlords had thousands of irregular Tupac Army gunmen who had to chew drugs to deal with their fear, and had never been told blasting away at full auto is chiefly a good way to waste ammunition. The fighting lasted for something like half a day, and the total American casualties amounted to under twenty.

You try to do battle with comparable forces against an opponent of comparably vastly higher calibre in the context of premodern warfare, and what you most get is an utter massacre. Which in fact seems to more often than not have been exactly the result whenever the Celts had to try to fight the Romans head on mainly with their tribal levies, and duly why for example (AFAIK) Vercingetorix's strategy was one of harassement and guerilla warfare, not pitched battle (which in turn Caesar did his best to force). Any rag-tag bunch of bandits and angry natives can pull off frustrating guerilla warfare well enough.
Im just repeating what the commander of the Delta's said. Yes they chewed drugs but he also said they had considerable experience from constant in-fighting amongst themselves. This wasnt the one day event your mentioning, its the time they were there and the problems they had with the soms. The soms knew what they were doing and were not green, thats what Im getting at. Of course the U.S. is going to thump on the soms, better equipment and better training. But what would have been the course if the soms had no practical experience?This isnt a new thing, in the U.S. civil war, the U.S. revolution, medieval warfare and etc. soldiers get experience fighting in wars therefore becoming more effective warriors.
I dont remember reading about Vercingetorix guerilla warfare though I do know that he had some problems with others not associated with Vercingetorix. Regardless Vercingetorix didnt want a pitched battle simply because the Romans had overall better soldiers. Not that his soldiers were inexperienced, after all Vercingetorix did spend around a year getting his people trained. The Celts must have had some warfare experience from the raids and infighting. But what it comes down to is the Romans had the better soldiers, this is due to their tactics and discipline.
About the Arverni Guard, I still dont remember Caesar saying anything or doing anything to avoid them. Where was this mentioned?
As far as the Germans are concerned Im thinking it would be easier to start a new thread on them then to continue with them here.

[NeoSpartan]

....

The numbers do count against the devastation claim of the civil war as it shows that there were plenty of people around and were not completely ground down due to civil war. In history there are many peoples who received their veteran status through war. If the Celts were battling amongst themselves they would have vital war experience.If these wars are long drawn out events then training would take place in addition to the war experience. During these times it is rare for entire armies to be wiped out. If these people had enough people to continue these wars they would be getting war exp. I dont buy that all the experienced soldiers were wiped out and only green troops were left. If you look into the Mogadishu (blackhawk down) situation, the constant warfare and experience is shown. The U.S. expected little resistance from the Somalia's because they didnt really have a standing army. What they forgot to take into account is the constant battling between the warlords which gave the Somalia's battle hardened veterans. There are many more historical precedents for such cases, it is the norm!

....

Let me point out somethign, all wars are different. What happens in one civil war, does not happen in all civil wars, there are too many variables involved. With that in mind I continue:

You state: If the Celts were battling amongst themselves they would have vital war experience.If these wars are long drawn out events then training would take place in addition to the war experience. During these times it is rare for entire armies to be wiped out.

-Says who? Depending on the intensity of a conflict a nation will either drain its expireinced forces and adult males, or it will end up with a good number of expirienced soldiers. Also, not only do entire Armies are destroyed but entire towns and populations are exterminated too. Again it all depends on the intensity of the conflict, and what the winning side decides to do when they conquer enemy towns. In the case of the Gallic Civil war killing for killing's sake was common practice. To illustrate this point, think of General Sherman marching throught the South in the American Civil War.

You also state: If these people had enough people to continue these wars they would be getting war exp.
-Or they could have just as easely field young men and boys to battle, as the war drags on and the casualties mount.

Now this is just off, seriously: I dont buy that all the experienced soldiers were wiped out and only green troops were left. If you look into the Mogadishu (blackhawk down) situation, the constant warfare and experience is shown. The U.S. expected little resistance from the Somalia's because they didnt really have a standing army. What they forgot to take into account is the constant battling between the warlords which gave the Somalia's battle hardened veterans.

First, soldiers and adult males were dying out, and young men and boys are then FIELDED into battle with some/no trainning.

Now, in Mogadishu the US sent in an EXTRACTION team of Rangers and Delta Force supported by Transport Black Hawck helicopters. And those soldiers were to be picked up by a small convoy of Hummvees and trucks along with the prisoners. All these men were fighting against and ENTIRE CITY, where men and children, doped up, and wielding AKs where going after them. And, at the end of the day, 19 US soldiers (R.I.P) were killed, and one taken prisoner.

Another point about the ongoing Somali civil war. In this particular conflict you don't see towns burnt to the ground and entire populations massacered. So far the capital city, Mogadishu. has exchanged many hands from local War Chiefs, the Islamists, to the National Somali gov't (which is exiled in Ethiopa).

[Watchman]

Romans wear them down through attrition? Again look at who Rome was fighting during this time. Rome had way more foes then the Celts did in Cisalpine! How is it that the Celts are susceptible to attrition yet the Romans are not? It was the loss in 191BC of the Boii that ended any real Celtic problems in Cisapine.How many times will I have to repeat this, I wonder ? Whatever the shortcomings of the armies it produced (especially right after being formed, when the soldiers weren't yet "knit" to units), the militia system gave the Romans a huge manpower pool to draw on, plus allies and subjects on top of that. Look at the way they just kept conjuring up new fully equipped legions during Hannibal's rampage; they suffered truly catastrophic casualties on several occasions, but that in no way kept them from raising enough armies to contain the Big H in Italy and simultaneously press the Carthies back on at least two other theaters - and I'd be surprised if they didn't have to deal with a couple of opportunistic Celtic raids on the side to boot.

The Celtic "heroic" system may have produced better warriors, but it could never have absorbed such appalling losses with such ease and kept on going. Its warriors took a long time to train to the required level of skill and courage, and serious setbacks and casualties could well mean they had to wait for a more or less entirely new generation of warriors to "grow to the role" so to speak.

And the Romans were stubborn. Bulldogs, figuratively speaking. Both strategically and tactically they had a noticeable tendency towards sheer bloody-minded tenacity, trying to just plain outlast and wear out the opponent on the battlefield, and on larger scale they typically just kept throwing armies at the salient problem until it had had enough and either collapsed or went away.

The Cisalpine Gauls may have been able to raid deep down the Italian peninsula, but they apaprently never established permanent footholds there (probably as even trying would have subjected them to an endless stream of angry militiamen from the assorted rather territorial Latin peoples). What that means is that they did damage, but hardly something the Romans and others could not recover from - there was always someone willing to take over the devastated farmland, and duly fill the rosters of the militia (and under the professional legions, well, there was always all kinds of flotsam and jetsam willing to enlist in exchange of steady meals and a roof over their heads). Once the Romans grew relatively strong enough to start hitting back, however, the Cisalpines with their rather smaller territoty and decidely poorer rate of replacing casualties would have been in major strategic trouble - and the bloodletting and quakes inside the Celtic world did not help one bit.


Im not going to completely disagree with you on this.I have not done much studying on this subject. "The Celts fought as a tribal army and were probably divided into septs or sub-divisions of the tribe just as they were 2000 years later at Culloden"/ "The Celtic military system, as it survived in Scotland in 1745, was that every male over the 'age of choice', usually seventeen years old, and fit enough to carry arms was automatically part of the 'regiment' of his clan or tribe. The chieftain was the automatic commander. Brother fought with brother, father with son." -Peter Ellis
I have 4 books that deal with the Celts but only Celt&Roman-Peter Ellis even comes close to addressing this issue. What Ellis is saying seems to differ from what your saying. Ellis does mention an Elite upper class but in no way says anything about them being the only warriors. If you know where I can find out information on this subject please post it, Id like to know which book or article etc. I just dont have anything that addresses this subject.I'd say it's cutting corners a bit too close to assume the fighting tradition of the Highland clans can be taken as a representative of Celtic armies a good two millenia earlier in any but the most vague sense. In any case I understand the Highlanders' main punch came from their warrior nobles, the gentry, who were supported by the deep but by far less formidable rank and file commoners of the clans. The aristocrats, well equipped and trained, formed the front ranks and led their fellows forward by example; the common clansmen, little more than mobs of tribal irregulars really, followed to the best of their ability, and provided the numbers. If one wants to find analogies to for example the Gallic armies of Antiquity, about most that can be said is that the gentry were roughly analogous to the warrior class of old (at least in their military function) and the rank-and-file to the emergency tribal levies. But frankly I have a feeling the Highland tradition was closer to a true "tribal" or perhaps a quasi-feudal form of warfare, than the ancient Celtic system with its specialized warrior class that normally all but monopolized warfare.


This isnt a new thing, in the U.S. civil war, the U.S. revolution, medieval warfare and etc. soldiers get experience fighting in wars therefore becoming more effective warriors.Experience in banditry, pillaging and fighting equally incompetent gunmen in clumsy skirmishes that would make any trained officer weep in despair hardly builds a fighting force capable of taking on well-equipped soldiers trained to do the whole thing right from the start. What such troops mostly learn that way is competence in banditry, not soldiering. It takes dedicated drill and training to turn volatile rabble into dependable soldiers.

And the thing is, the Celts had no institutionalized methods for doing so quickly. Their whole military tradition was based on patiently building up experience and war gear over a long period (and, obviously, the slow learners Darwinizing in the process...), with a mighty hero as the end product. What they would have needed at the time the Romans and Germans began to invade Celtic territory with serious intent was a system that would have allowed the mobilizing of commoners into effective fighting units, in the manner of the citizen-soldiers of Classical Greece and Republican Rome or the every-man-a-warrior approach of the Germans and others with less specialized division of labour.

I would actually hazard a guess the Celts on the whole just plain could not let go of their old "hero" system even when it was visibly failing them; it seems to have been very deeply integrated into their society and worldview, and they would not have been neither the first nor the last ones to sink grimly holding onto a dear but useless if not outright harmful relic.

[Frostwulf]

I just finish posting and what happens :inquisitive:
Im glad to see you back again Psyco :laugh4:
Im sure I dont understand the mechanics of the game so I hope you dont mind answering my questions. Do the Celtic units degrade to reflect there loss in power? Are the 4th and 5th century Celtic units better then the 3rd century Celts who's armor began to improve then (according to Ellis)? If I was to take a 4th or 5th century Celtic unit against a 2nd century Celt unit of the same level(elite vs elite) would the 4th-5th be stronger, if so why? Again this is going strictly by the stats of the overall unit, not whats going on around him. In other words would an Arverni Guard unit be beaten by an elite 4th-5th century elite unit, and if so why(both game and historically, only referring to the units ability).


Well for one I believe you are again trying to court the argument in terms of your pre-conceived understanding of Imperial Rome….ignoring the importance of chronology in the process. You can’t extrapolate an elite unit to a period decades if not centuries prior. By the same rationale one could claim that US forces were always superior to French because the modern US Home Gaurd could always best the Napoleonic Imperial Guard.
In the 4th C BC the Praetorian Guard didn’t even exist. When the unit did begin to evolve in the 3rd C BC, it wasn’t anything significant.
This is what Im wondering if EB is doing about using stats from one era to another. Would an elite Celtic unit from the 3rd cent. beat the 1st cent. praetorian? About the same question as above. Do you believe that 5th and 4th century Celts transported by time or whatever could defeat like Celts in the 2nd century, historically speaking and game speaking? Are you saying that the 5th and 4th cent. Celts are more powerful to their enemies as compared to the Celts of the 2nd cent. vs their enemies?

Arrr..Everyone! Remember ‘these Gauls’ who you believe were of “inferior skill” were in fact cherished as mercenaries throughout the entire ancient world / from Iberia to the Indus. There was a very good reason for this and I have to say, it had nothing to do with them lacking any skill / being a push over in battle / or in any other way inferior.
I was thinking of them as a group and forgetting about them as mercenaries. Yes they were known for their cavalry.

Oh please! Don’t throw up accounts of Camillus as fact, next you’ll be claiming Roman accounts of Remus and Romulus were fact too.
So are you saying Camillus was not a real person or his feats were exaggerated? If you say exaggerated I would agree with you up to a point.
the rest of your quote Ill address after your next quote.

So you acknowledge that Roman sources are biased, that they play down, dismiss or ignore Roman defeats yet you are willing to take them on face value because that is what you wish to believe?

An “educated assumption” is looking at the issue in a holistic manner and not assuming things that fit a pre-conceived idea. Looking to the Romans to tell us who won most of the battles is like looking to G.W Bush to tell us if there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Again, one needs to consider the whole picture…including archaeological as well as literary evidence, length of conflicts, resources invested, freedom of movement of the various factions, incidence of raids, anthropological data, etc etc.

Livy may claim that over a half a million Gauls and Samnites were defeated in one battle by four Roman legions, or Plutarch claim that Roman legions jogged half a mile in mid summer and fought for a day against the Cimbri but “were so tough that not a single Roman was seen short of breath or had a bead of sweat” … but the more discerning eye with note the obvious bolox.
We both agree that the romans exaggerate, but you are doing exactly the same thing you accuse me of doing! You take what you want to read from the Romans (battle losses, cruelty,or Celtic stories of heroism, etc), but you wont take the opposite view(Celtic losses, cruelty, stories of Roman heroism etc). Your sources, yes the modern ones are just as bias! More on this below.

Firstly, I’d suggest not relying too heavily on what you read on the net / places like wiki. The ‘info’ is usually provided by those who have no more understanding than you or I.
Secondly, you can’t cite Newark as an expert on the Gauls and whilst I personally adore Ellis, he does tend to be prone to over stating things.
Thirdly, neither Ellis, Connolly nor any other scholar to date has stated that Livy’s account is undeniable fact, they merely recount the telling of the tail. Quite to the contrary in fact, many are explicit in denouncing the account as “dramatic fiction”, which is the point I made previously. James calls it “works of propaganda”, Collis “a dramatised account”, Cunliffe “an entertaining tail”, Hogain “a dramatised anecdote”.

Hogain continues, “that besides strengthening military morale and serving feelings of Roman patriotism, there was a further purpose to such stories, that of family propaganda - for Roman aristocrats of later centuries found it expedient to invent accounts of how their illustrious ancestors had saved the city in times of need”.

In the midst (349-348 BC) of the fictional campaign of Camillus, Livy gives an account of Titus Manlius slaying a huge Celt in single combat, taking his huge torc and the name “Torquatus” for himself. Livy even goes so far as to tell the tale of Marcus Valerius (from Camillus’ forces) slaying a Celt of similar stature after the later was set upon and blinded by a raven!

If one had any appreciation for Celtic culture, one would note the propaganda / message that Livy wished to convey by the telling of these tails. Devoid of roman success, Livy / others invented accounts and used cultural features dear to the Celts to claim supremacy of the Roman cause and power of arms.
I completely agree with you on wikipedia, I use them rarely for the problems you say. I used them for the authors for the sake of verification.
None of the authors I mentioned seem to have a problem with the duels. "but the Romans had even beaten the Celts at their own game. Challenged to single combat by the chieftan of the Insurbres, M.Claudius Marcellus accepted" -Newark. He goes on to tell of how Marcellus won."The surprise is that the consul Claudius Marcellu accepted the challenge in spit of the law forbidding single combat by Roman officers. He succeded in slaying Viridomarus and the Celtic army crumble before a renewed Roman attack"-Ellis
These quotes sound like they believe it to me. The Titus Manlius one also finds its way into Ellis's book, he even goes on to mention more. The Roman troops would have witnessed these events and if the person involved said it happened dont you think that a least one of the Romans would have let the cat out of the bag? With these guys being of high rank and political dont you think that their enemies would have made a stink about it?What facts are there to disprove these duels? Is it impossible for a Roman to beat a Celt in a duel? I think that its interesting that your quoted authors seem to think that it is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
My point was to say that the Romans prior to Caesar did go into southern Gaul. Transalpine Gaul according to Barry Cunliffe ("The Ancient Celts") was annexed in 123 BC, over 60 years prior to Caesar entering Gaul…see wiki

Lol… I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood the text. Cunliffe was talking about what the Romans claimed. The Romans hadn’t conquered Gaul at all.. merely a small part.
I considered Transalpine Gaul as southern Gaul. I only meant that the Romans had entered into and annexed Transalpine Gaul, just the southern part of Gaul not its entirety.

Your starting to sound like a Roman apologist seeking to argue and end point rather that addressing the actual points of the debate. Next you’ll be claiming, like Livy, that Roman’s weren’t defeated by Gauls, they (a whole consular army) were wiped out by falling trees!

The point I made was in response to the claim that “most of the time” the Romans were victorous..therefore they were almost always superior and this therefore should be born out in EB stats.

I have argued several points to the contrary;
A) The above rationale is flawed as it ignores a great deal of additional data
B) Not all battles (esp Roman losses) were recorded
C) Those that are recorded have often been distorted by the gloss of Roman propaganda
D) Many so-called Roman victories were no more than the slaughter non-combatants seeking to defend themselves.
E) One needs to consider chronology and actually play the game before coming to conclusions.

With regard to numbers, the numbers are fairly even in most cases. Much more so than Roman historians would usually like us to believe. I have already recounted Livy’s tale of Romans facing half a million in battle.
Im not a Roman appologist, I see their failings. Of course the falling tree's is just plain dumb. A) Archealogical data? can be very misleading and the interpretation can be way off.B) Agreed, and I assume nearly 100percent wins were.C)agreed.D)I disagree, most troop types are mentioned when they did have battles.They may mention slaughters but those arent battles. E) Yea

Look the point is very simple. Consider WWII for a moment. One can’t take Hitler’s ‘Home Guard’ circa 1944 complete with units of ‘Hitler Youth’ and assume a correct qualitative evaluation on the standard of German armed forces throughout the conflict. We all know that Germany had very well trained / experienced troops at the outset of the war but as a result of defeat / casualties they could not sustain, their forces had progressively suffered in quality the closer the end came.

I’m merely making the same point about the Gauls. Once that balance of power shifted, and horrendous casualties sustainted, there was no turning back. The Gauls couldn’t sustain the number of warriors required to stem the super power of Rome.
Excellent analogy. I just not sure its applicable. Ill have to read more on the Gallic infighting.

Why you say? ..Well you stated that Rome couldn’t conquer the Gauls because they were distracted fighting Carthage. The point I made was that during the same period (ie when the Romans were supposedly busy fighting Carthage), they managed to conquer other (non Gallic) peoples, thus the hypothesis “does not stand up critical analysis”.
I must be missing something. Im saying that Rome was caught up with many enemies and they would have had the same hard time as the Celts. Just because the Celts gave way doesnt mean the Romans didnt have the same problems. The Romans were successfully attacking the Celts,Illyrians,Greeks and etc. why would it only befall the Celts that they lose to attrition? I must be missing something. Sorry Psyco your just going to have to break out the crayons for me.
Alot of these last ones were rushed as Im pressed for time, sorry about that. Psyco if you wouldnt mind putting down the first names of the authors you mentioned, Id like to find more out about them.

[NeoSpartan]

....

I must be missing something. Im saying that Rome was caught up with many enemies and they would have had the same hard time as the Celts. Just because the Celts gave way doesnt mean the Romans didnt have the same problems. The Romans were successfully attacking the Celts,Illyrians,Greeks and etc. why would it only befall the Celts that they lose to attrition? I must be missing something. Sorry Psyco your just going to have to break out the crayons for me.
Alot of these last ones were rushed as Im pressed for time, sorry about that. Psyco if you wouldnt mind putting down the first names of the authors you mentioned, Id like to find more out about them.

why would it only befall the Celts that they lose to attrition?

Its been like the 5th time it has been said. The Romans, Celts and Germans had different ways of producing and training armies.
--The Romans would call up men from its territories and allies. Train them, and drill them to fight as a unit and throw them into battle. IF that army failled (as in the case against Hannibal), the Romans simply called up more men.
--Each German tribe had most of its men be able to double as Soldiers and Farmers/Craftmen/etc.
--Celts, had a warrior class that did the fighting, the farmers/craftmen/etc did not fight UNLESS in times of dire need. AND unlike the Romans these "Levies" were not trainned and drilled to fight as a unit.
----Also, Celtic warrior class was NOT trained from training camps or anything like that.

Another point I would like to make. The Romans were able to crunch out men like a paper mill to go against Pyross (sp), Hannibal, etc. because Rome exerted direct political, economic and administrative control from all its territories. Where at a flick of a finger during Republican eras the Senate could reduce land requirments and raise extra legions. And during Imperial times there was no shortege of men willing to join the well fed Legions.

The Celts were not an ORGANIZED NATION. There were different tribes who formed and broke alliances depending on what tribe was stronger and RARELY EVER came together as a Single Gallic Nation.

Not only is it hard to crunch out new fighting men by it self. But the tribes RARELY EVER decided to all produce new Warriors at the same time, and all spend the amount of resources nessesary to do so.

[PSYCHO V]

Gday Frostwulf ...I'll have to get back to you.



@Psycho:
Concerning the Belgae and here especially the Nervii:
In the future it would be better if you quote my complete sentences, i never disputet that the Nervii were celtic. I just said that they themselves seemed to be proud of germanic heritage - which is wrong.

And this is exactly what I was responding to. They were taking pride in their achievements having come from what was later called the land of the Germani. ie “we chose to migrate and by feats of valour fought our way here and seized all this land above the Seine.” They were NOT making / inferring some imagined statement about how great they were by trying to associate themselves with the Germanics.



I would also suggest if you would take a look at your own sentences. You say germanics use clubs on a large scale, but here also we have no other source as Tacitus (and one picture on a roman column) whom you seem to believe only if it fits you.

Well several depictions actually… but yes, as you acknowledge often, our information is sparse so we can only look at the available data and make an educated assessment to the best of our abilities / go with the “most likely scenario”. Literary sources and archaeological records (eg aforementioned Roman features) tell us that the club featured predominantly ..along with the framae, in Germanic forces of the period. That doesn’t mean all / the majority used them, but they were used on a scale worthy of note.
This is what I have always argued.




Final note from me concerning clubs:
I said never that clubs were not used. I only said that by all we know about germanic sense of honour concerning weapons and style of warfare before AD the club was not the most loved weapon.

Have I misunderstood you here ? .. because to my recollection, you have consistently fought against any depiction of Germanics wielding clubs. Further, to ignore the data we have and instead rely exclusively on what one personally supposes considering an envisioned “sense of honour concerning weapons”..is not objective science, historical inquiry.




Naturally you will also not find archaeological proofs of your point here, because of the germanic tradition of burning of their dead.

And as I have state previously, you can’t cite Germanic funerary rites as an excuse. The Belgae also engaged in the antiquated practice yet their culture offers us some of the richest archaeology finds to date.




For the typical germanic style of warfare in open field battles the wooden club wouldn't fit. A self-made wooden club was a poor weapon for germanic battle tactics except ambushes …

How do you figure that?




Concerning the wooden club:Also it was in germanic society a sign of wealth to have good quality weapons ( the spear as standard weapon for every warrior doesn't count here ). A self-made wooden club was a weapon without showing the wielders wealth.

I have to say I’m rather shocked here SaFe. You seem to be ignoring some key features of Germanic culture..at least in our period. We are not talking about Celts here with their highly stratified society, and social mobility..we are talking about Germanics who in this period and for many centuries later prided themselves on their egalitarian social structures. The recognition of the ‘volk’ and the democratic principles that underlie much of our modern Western civilisation.

The Germanics didn’t start adopting Celtic cultural features until the end of the period we are discussing and then into the first several centuries AD, culminating in the great Germanic migrations of the 4th and 5th C AD. I’m sure their would have been some consideration given one’s arms, when they were not provided by the ‘volk’ as they apparently were in some case..and I’m sure Germanic warlords were well equipped and their sub-leaders increasingly so by the turn of the millennium / year ‘0’, but one can’t project an anachronistic, dare I say Celticised opinion of a people in an attempt to rationalise a condition not supported by any other means / data.




So we can assume that it was definately not the most loved weapon of free men or even nobles.

Probably true, for we know that the Germanics were always eager to get their hands on Gallic and Roman swords. But mere preference is very different to what you are suggesting here. I’m sure Roman legionaries would have all preferred the beautiful mounts, equipment and conditions enjoyed by their commanders..but far from being ‘primitive’ their kit often proved adequate / better suited to deal with the challenges they faced.




Again Tacitus. If Tacitus is your source here than i hope you don't forget to mention the beastmen of the northeastern tribes.

As both of us have already acknowledged several times, one needs to take accounts with a grain of salt … but not throw the whole thing out just because we don’t like it.




You should read something about the iron finds in germanic lands and also i'm sure we both don't know at what time those sword-rituals started. Interesting that the Cheruscii ( a tribe that existed well before the time you mentioned ) named themselves Sword-People in their own language without any access to swords or the knowledge to fabricate them as you seem to imply.

Whats the deal with the swords, I thought we were talking about clubs? What’s your point here? How many Celtic tribes do you think named themselves after gods!?




Concerning the Cimbrii and Boii: Cheap shot from you and not your usual style - i never said that the Cimbri or Ambronii were better combatants than their Boii counterparts.

Then why assume the Boii avoided pitched battle? We just don’t know.




But …no major battle between those tribes are mentioned, so we can assume that the wandering germanic tribes gave up and marched on for easier targets.

We can’t assume anything of the sort. All we know is that the Cimbri were repulsed. To try an embellish an event because it fits with a pre-conceived idea is not an admirable undertaking imho.




But it seems logical, …the Boii would have been very dumb to fulfill the germanics their wishes..

“Logical”?.. Speculative at best. If I may - point out the inherent problem here. Romans, Greeks, Carthaginains, etc all had extremely strong fortifications but they didn’t always cower behind their walls. They would prefer to march out, often regardless of numbers, and meet their enemy in battle than suffer the privations of a siege and the ravaging of their territory. The Boii (who you acknowledge were a regional power at the time) would have likely done the same, but we will never know for sure unless we actually discover a battle site and remove all doubt.




Concerning Ariovist and his conquest of the Aedui:
Gallic propaganda tour 73BC :dizzy2: ..
Hopefully we could agree at least at some points here.

Well we both seem to agree that it’s highly improbable that the Cimbri were reduce to being clients of the Boii… and the Aedui no doubt did play up the suffering under the Seubi.. but I wouldn’t label / dismiss the later as outright propaganda




Wish you well

Same mate. Contrary to what you may or may not believe, I don't hate you.. or the Germans. Quite the contrary in fact. :yes: ~:)


my2bob

[-Praetor-]

Great discussion, please get going, i`m actually saving the pages in my PC to read it later on!!! I haven`t got a bvetter place to learn about Celtic or Germanic ancient way of battle than here!!! This discussion has a hugh fan here!!!

Only two precistions:
Look the point is very simple. Consider WWII for a moment. One can’t take Hitler’s ‘Home Guard’ circa 1944 complete with units of ‘Hitler Youth’ and assume a correct qualitative evaluation on the standard of German armed forces throughout the conflict. We all know that Germany had very well trained / experienced troops at the outset of the war but as a result of defeat / casualties they could not sustain, their forces had progressively suffered in quality the closer the end came.


That thing about the evolution of the quality of german troops troughout the WWII, isn`t precisely right, and your reasoning there is appallingly simplistic given that particular conflict. But it was just an example, not big deal. However, I would happily discuss that thing with you, but I don`t wanna poison this pristine topic with XX century events.


Contrary to what you may or may not believe, I don't hate you.. or the Germans. Quite the contrary in fact.

:uhoh2:

That sounded kinda queer :biker:

:grin: :grin: :grin:

Cheers, keep on rolling!!!!

[mAIOR]

Reading that Camillian campaigns were ficticius enlightend me. Really I was always confused by reading how the Romans so decisivelly beat the celts and still were unable to prevent the looting of their northern most provincies. Also, If they had defeated them like that, why so frightened in telamon?
It kinda makes sence.
Regarding the club; in open battle it's a handy weapon as it doesn't really matter where you hit it will always hurt. Even if you hit a shield, the blunt force imposed could still break your arm if you're not carefull.


Cheers...

Cheers...

[Watchman]

Im sure I dont understand the mechanics of the game so I hope you dont mind answering my questions. Do the Celtic units degrade to reflect there loss in power? Are the 4th and 5th century Celtic units better then the 3rd century Celts who's armor began to improve then (according to Ellis)? If I was to take a 4th or 5th century Celtic unit against a 2nd century Celt unit of the same level(elite vs elite) would the 4th-5th be stronger, if so why? Again this is going strictly by the stats of the overall unit, not whats going on around him. In other words would an Arverni Guard unit be beaten by an elite 4th-5th century elite unit, and if so why(both game and historically, only referring to the units ability).This has nothing to do with the relatively open-ended "history anew" idea of the game. And in the game the erosion of the Celtic military system would come from an increased inability to train and maintain the types of units that represent the actual warrior class, through simple collapse of the taxpaying population base through repeated violent conquest of settlements (think "enslave" and "exterminate") and the devastation of the economical and military infrastructure (ie. dismantling of buildings for cash, probably simply to deny their use to your foe in a settlement you don't even intend to keep).

In EB terms the Gallic situation at the eve of the main invasions by the Romans and Germans would quite simply be represented by the armies being made up chiefly of Lugoae and those shortsword guys (the militia-type troops) plus the various ranged troops, with a sprinkling of few but probably quite formidable representatives of the warrior class - by that point more likely than not including very high-end units like Brihentin, Solduri and the various faction-specific elite. These obviously also pretty much slaughter the Celtic militias in straight fights, which rather well illustrates why exactly the levies did not tend to aquire much experience.

The major problem would be that the facilities to train such high-end troops would only be present in a very few important settlements that had had a priority on being defended and thus escaped the worst of the damage. Against this would then be thrown the ability of the Sweboz and post-Marian Romani factions to spam capable soldiery from damn near every settlement, and mercs and local auxiliaries on top of that...

There was never a collapse in the quality of the Celtic warrior class involved in the equation (beyond neophyte replacements of course not being nearly as tough as fully learned grizzled warriors), but quite simply an inability to raise and maintain them in sufficient numbers.

[Varg1204]

I know that this Germanic discussion is off-topic in here but I need to interfere.

towards Psycho V and SaFe

on the Nervi, who said in front of the Romans to be of Germanic origin in order to be more honored, which is a fact of at least a later period! I quote Tacitus, the only source about it afaik: "TREVERI ET NERVI CIRCA AFFECTATIONEM GERMANICAE ORIGINIS ULTRO AMBITIOSI SUNT, TAMQUAM PER HANC GLORIAM SANGUINIS A SIMILTUDINE ET INERTIA GALLORUM SEPERANTUR."

translated in English quite freely: The Treverians and Nervians praise themselves too much for their claim on Germanic origin, in order to prevent from being mixed up with gallic inertness by such noble blood.

Is is a fact that those tribes were Celtic, while the Treverians were germanised in much later times, the Nervians mixed up with the poor rest of the defeated Cimbri and Teutons, which finally settled in the lands of the Belgae and therefore the Nervians are right to claim a bit of Germanic origin in Roman times..

on the clubs:
I agree with SaFe that clubs were most likely not the prefered weapon of the free or rich tribesmen. it must have been the weapon of the very poor tribesmen which weren't able to afford even a spear, which was the absolute main weapon of free Germanics, while the rich ones used swords. I agree that some used clubs but surely not the majority. But why the trouble? We have a Germanic club unit in EB, but we have even more Germanic units which are equipped with spears or swords, which is correct from my point of view...

[Watchman]

Those'd have to be very poor people indeed, as AFAIK in comparatively low-tech and sylvan cultures like the Germans the "universal weapon" was the spear already due to its role as a hunting tool. You try to club a deer or any other skittish herbivore with fast legs... Tossing something pointy at it worked rather better overall.

Stone maces are know from late Stone Age Scandinavia. They appear primarily in the context of coastal seal-hunting settlements, and it is thought they were used to kill seals caught on ice without damaging the valuable pelts. Although as there was doubtless friction over hunting territory between rival groups, given the considerable value of sealskin as a trade item, it is theorized they may as well or even instead been used to settle such disputed the old-fashioned way... The latter would probably make them the first weapons purpose-made for killing other humans.

Anyway, I suspect the Germans chiefly employed clubs as "cheap and cheerful" backup weapons among the poorer tribesmen, with the due developement that some took a liking to the more "up close and personal" fighting style involved and started using them as primary weapons instead of spears. But I'd be very surprised if such "primary weapon" clubs had not shortly began sporting all kinds of appliqué spikes, studs, and other details common to blunt-instrument weaponry. Long wooden clubs with rows of bronze studs as the contact point are known to have been occasionally used by Medieval warriors after all, and as such small reinforcement bits could easily enough be crafted of all kinds of scrap metal hey would hardly have been a very expensive addition to a humble but aggressive tribesman's club.

Plus they look way cooler than a plain wooden stick. That alone would probably have been reason enough for many to apply such extra pieces...

[Frostwulf]

Well unfortunately I wont be posting much for the next few weeks as work and other things have priority. I do appreciate the discourse we have had though we may not agree with one another. I do have a couple of statements and questions.
1. I understand that your saying the Celts had mostly a trained Warrior class. That being so how were they trained?
2. Who can you recommend reading that discusses about this situation of training? Also who do you suggest for finding more information about the infighting in Gaul? If I didnt misunderstand you was there infighting in Celtiberia and britain as well?

The questions I raised above are what are causing me the most problems, thats why I want to find out more.I try to read both sides because I believe most authors are biased toward whom they are writing about. The bias varies in degrees but never the less it there. Ill be trying to find a book about the romans of this period as well as the Celts. Im hoping that some one can get me the information prior to Sunday if possible.

on the Nervi, who said in front of the Romans to be of Germanic origin in order to be more honored, which is a fact of at least a later period! I quote Tacitus, the only source about it afaik: "TREVERI ET NERVI CIRCA AFFECTATIONEM GERMANICAE ORIGINIS ULTRO AMBITIOSI SUNT, TAMQUAM PER HANC GLORIAM SANGUINIS A SIMILTUDINE ET INERTIA GALLORUM SEPERANTUR."

translated in English quite freely: The Treverians and Nervians praise themselves too much for their claim on Germanic origin, in order to prevent from being mixed up with gallic inertness by such noble blood.

Is is a fact that those tribes were Celtic, while the Treverians were germanised in much later times, the Nervians mixed up with the poor rest of the defeated Cimbri and Teutons, which finally settled in the lands of the Belgae and therefore the Nervians are right to claim a bit of Germanic origin in Roman times..
This is the way I understood it to be as well. Ill also throw in that the TCA(Teutons,Cimbri,Ambrones) had some Celtic admixture as they lived in close approximation to the Celts.
Im wanting to start a new thread on the Germans but first have to read up more on the Celts and also have to find the time.

[PSYCHO V]

Im sure I dont understand the mechanics of the game so I hope you dont mind answering my questions. Do the Celtic units degrade to reflect there loss in power?

Ok….. no, the game mechanics do not allow EB to do so and your missing the point here. EB is not seeking to replicate the course of history / guarantee the Celts are defeated and the Romans victorious. Otherwise everything would be strictly scripted and the player afforded little / no choice. In fact if one wishes to have history represented accurately, you’d be watching a documentary…not gaming at all.

Now you claim the Celts are over powered in EB but do so whilst projecting a simplified / generic view of Roman superiority devoid of any consideration of time, circumstance, etc. EB is a game that provides the player with a historically accurate paradigm to explore the ancient world of ‘what if’. Hence the Celts in EB are not depicted in a weakened state no more than the Romans (any other faction) are depicted when they happened to be starving, emaciated, flighty / green, tactically rebellious, etc etc. EB have (after a great deal of research and debate) taken what a standard / reasonably generic unit was like and reflected that in game. Using what one may call intrinsic value devoid of other 'short term' / circumstantial / ‘environmental’ factors that deviated them from their 'norm'.

The EB world, whilst limited by historical constraints, provides a mechanism to greatly diverge from ‘history’ as we know it. Thus, one may find EB’s Celtic factions in a stronger position in game (ie wealth / heavy units, etc) that what they were in real life depending on gameplay / AI player choices. To force any faction, whether it be Celtic, Roman, Greek, Iberian, Germanic etc etc into a pre-conceived box devoid of any historical imperative is a grave injustice to those peoples, history and contrary to the principles and directives of EB.




Are the 4th and 5th century Celtic units better then the 3rd century Celts who's armor began to improve then (according to Ellis)? If I was to take a 4th or 5th century Celtic unit against a 2nd century Celt unit of the same level(elite vs elite) would the 4th-5th be stronger, if so why? ….

If I personally had a choice between taking an actual 4th / 5th C BC Gaul or a 1st C BC Gaul for a body guard, I’d be taking the 4th / 5th C BC Gaul. Not because on any difference in intrinsic value but because by the 1st C BC, the Gallic states weren’t in a position to properly supply, equip and train their warrior elites to the same proficiency.

As I answered you before…




Are you saying the average fighting Celt in Caesars time is not as tough as those in years past?

Basically yes. Due to the civil war killing almost all of the experienced / trained troops.

I don’t know how else I can spell this out. :shrug:



This is what Im wondering if EB is doing about using stats from one era to another. Do you believe that 5th and 4th century Celts transported by time or whatever could defeat like Celts in the 2nd century, historically speaking and game speaking? Are you saying that the 5th and 4th cent. Celts are more powerful to their enemies as compared to the Celts of the 2nd cent. vs their enemies?.

Yes …because by the 2nd C BC the Celts were on the decline. Their neighbours had gotten stronger so there was more incentive to kill the guy next door and make off quick with your spoils rather than track hundreds / thousands of miles into uncertainty and try and lug the stuff home through unfamiliar, inhospitable terrain. This internal blood letting with the growing power of their neighbours completely tipped the balance of power. Few peoples / states in history have manage to successfully fend off several strong powers whilst engaging in a bloody civil war.



Re: Celtic Mercenaries;
I was thinking of them as a group and forgetting about them as mercenaries. Yes they were known for their cavalry.

Not just the cavalry my friend. Celtic Gauls (As oppose to Romanised Gauls) were being use for elite body guards well into the 1st C AD.



So are you saying Camillus was not a real person or his feats were exaggerated? If you say exaggerated I would agree with you up to a point.

What part of ‘fiction’ do you not understand?. This ‘Arthurian’ Camillus character may well have existed (with or without a magical sword) / we will never know for sure.. but his feats / campaign are the work of a creative mind according to the world’s top scholars.



Your sources, yes the modern ones are just as bias! More on this below.

Well? You got my attention. I was looking forward to the said critique of our “modern sources” ~:(



None of the authors I mentioned seem to have a problem with the duels.

Newark and Ellis you mean…ignoring (I might add) my comments on both. Newark isn’t what one would call a Celtic expert and takes things on face / Roman value.



"but the Romans had even beaten the Celts at their own game. Challenged to single combat by the chieftan of the Insurbres, M.Claudius Marcellus accepted" -Newark. He goes on to tell of how Marcellus won."The surprise is that the consul Claudius Marcellu accepted the challenge in spit of the law forbidding single combat by Roman officers.

Do you know why there was “surprise”? Read Goldsworthy on the strict Roman law pertaining to leaving one’s station to seek single combat. It’s a dramatic fabrication by Livy.



He succeded in slaying Viridomarus and the Celtic army crumble before a renewed Roman attack"-Ellis.

Ellis is recounting the tale exactly as Livy had written it. He is not claiming it as unequivocal fact.
Again, as previously stated, I love Ellis but he’s prone to over stating. I could write a whole thesis on all of the aforementioned Scholars but I just don’t have the time and you’ll either have to take me at my word or do your own reading.




These quotes sound like they believe it to me. ….. What facts are there to disprove these duels? Is it impossible for a Roman to beat a Celt in a duel? I think that its interesting that your quoted authors seem to think that it is.

So you’re willing to dismiss the opinions of some of the worlds leading scholars because….?

I don’t know what else to say?

I have tried to coin the debate in simple terms.
Now this will no doubt sound condescending but that is not my intention. If you are serious about debating this issue, may I suggest the following readings;

For the fictious campaign of Camillus; Livy (5.49), Plutarch, Camillos (29), Dionysius of Halicarnassus (13.6; 14.9), Appian’s ‘Celtica’ (1.1, 4-9 ..well the fragment we have), Frontinus’ ‘Strategematon’ (2.6.1;3.13.1) .. and then read ‘Camillus: Indo European Religion as Roman History’, Georges Dumezil.

For other early fictious Roman wars / victories against the Celts – Florus (1.7 (1.13)), Livy (6.42; 7.1-15, 22-26), Dionysius of Halicarnassus (13.6; 14.8-10;15.1), Dio Cassius (7.24), Diodorus (14.5-7), Appian’s ‘Celtica’ (1.1-2 ..again from the fragments we have), Frontinus’ ‘Strategematon’ (2.4.5) ..and then ‘Sur l’Historie des Celtes’, Arbois de Jubainville …if you can manage to get a copy ..let alone in English.

Once read, then come back and explain / debate with me about how great / superior the Romans were in the 5th, 4th and early 3rd C BC.




Im not a Roman appologist, I see their failings. Of course the falling tree's is just plain dumb.

~:) Good to hear




Re: WWII; Excellent analogy….Ill have to read more on the Gallic infighting.

I had assumed you already had. What I’d like to know however, is how one comes to the conclusion that “The Celts were not devastated in Gaul until the Germanic invasions of the 400's”?



The numbers do count against the devastation claim of the civil war as it shows that there were plenty of people around and were not completely ground down due to civil war.

Yes plenty of people, as there were in Nazi Germany, circa 1945. Numbers prove nothing. Large numbers of trained well equipped forces count for everything.







Why you say? ..Well you stated that Rome couldn’t conquer the Gauls because they were distracted fighting Carthage. The point I made was that during the same period (ie when the Romans were supposedly busy fighting Carthage), they managed to conquer other (non Gallic) peoples, thus the hypothesis “does not stand up critical analysis”.

I must be missing something. Im saying that Rome was caught up with many enemies and they would have had the same hard time as the Celts. Just because the Celts gave way doesnt mean the Romans didnt have the same problems…The Romans were successfully attacking the Celts,Illyrians,Greeks and etc. why would it only befall the Celts that they lose to attrition? …Sorry Psyco your just going to have to break out the crayons for me.

:laugh4: :smash: :2thumbsup: Ok… where’s those crayons!

Ok for starters, you clearly stated that you believed the Romans couldn’t / most likely didn't conquer the Gauls because they were distracted fighting Carthage. “There was a reason why the Romans had not succeeded in conquering Transalpine Gaul in the previous 300 years of conflict…because of the other wars going on like with carthage..”

Now, when this statement was critically examined / debunked it appears you wished to ignore the former debate and present a new line of inquiry… “attrition”..shifting focus. That’s fine but you probably should concede the former point if you believe it no longer tenable / you no longer wish to defend it…else I’ll just keep rabbiting on about it. ~;p




The Romans were successfully attacking the Celts,Illyrians,Greeks and etc. why would it only befall the Celts that they lose to attrition? I must be missing something.

I believe what you’ve missed here is context. You claim that the Romans suffered attrition too / fought other ‘factions’. This therefore (according to your implied rationale) excludes the likelihood of such circumstances / suppositions as an inherent Celtic weakness being due to conditions. I believe the rationale is inherently flawed / wrong because it ignores context.

Context! Again if I may use the WWII analogy. How many millions of men did the Soviets loose on their push to Berlin? Did it strategically cripple or weaken them, no! They had the momentum, supplies, resources, etc to absorb the losses. By 1944 the Germans didn’t, their state was exhausted. The situation though markedly different in many regards reflects the situation between the Romans and the Celts.. The Roman juggernaut lumbered on regardless of cost. Any historian will tell you that few / if any state could sustain the casualties Rome could and still push on. Even the great Hannibal was forced to acknowledge this.



I considered Transalpine Gaul as southern Gaul. I only meant that the Romans had entered into and annexed Transalpine Gaul, just the southern part of Gaul not its entirety.

Ok, sorry. So what was your point?


We both agree that the romans exaggerate, but you are doing exactly the same thing you accuse me of doing! You take what you want to read from the Romans (battle losses, cruelty,or Celtic stories of heroism, etc), but you wont take the opposite view(Celtic losses, cruelty, stories of Roman heroism etc)…

What exactly are you talking about here?


my2bob

[pockettank]

ok i deffinitly agree there over powered i had 2 units of Spartan hoplites against a unit of Galatian soldiers from the Ptolmaioi all units had 9 chevrons gold weapons/armor i had the charge bonus and in the charge enemy lost about 15 units i lost about 20 sodiers then in the battle i killed about another 70 and lost my whole army of spatans (one was a general) and yes it was a custom battle about 6 made it off the field alive

[PSYCHO V]

ok i deffinitly agree there over powered i had 2 units of Spartan hoplites against a unit of Galatian soldiers from the Ptolmaioi all units had 9 chevrons gold weapons/armor i had the charge bonus and in the charge enemy lost about 15 units i lost about 20 sodiers then in the battle i killed about another 70 and lost my whole army of spatans (one was a general) and yes it was a custom battle about 6 made it off the field alive

If you've given units extra / "gold chevrons", then you have distorted units beyond what EB ever intended. EB has balanced the game very carefully at the generic level. It's highly unlikely you'll ever field elite units with everything (chevrons, armour, etc) maxed out in game / in EB.

Again I urge all to play through a campaign and not just look at a few units, UI cards or the occasional custom battles

my2bob

[Geoffrey S]

And please, use full stops!

[mAIOR]

Actually that might fit the game even better:p remember when the Celtic invasions occured, the Celts sacked Delphi, Rome and got as far as Gallatia proving the phalanx was no match for their elites.
I think the games quite accurate after all we've seen/debated here. Even if Psycho is proved wrong by future research (hey for all we know, romans and Celts and Sueboz could all be making fun of us when they wrote their accounts and forged evidences to make it appear there was battle only in truth, they were all drinking buddies), by his (and a lot of scholars) interpretation of events, EB tends to be quite correct.


Cheers...

[Watchman]

remember when the Celtic invasions occured, the Celts sacked Delphi, Rome and got as far as Gallatia proving the phalanx was no match for their elites.In all fairness, I understand they enjoyed enough numerical superiority to simply envelop the phalanxes and roll them up from the flanks. The Macs weren't exactly in the best of shape around the time AFAIK, the Seleucids busy elsewhere (judging by the way it took them a few years to haul in a proper army to deal with the rampaging Galatians), and the peninsular poleis... well, they were never too good at cooperating until absolutely necessary.

[pockettank]

idk the best iv got was a general he came with 7 chevrons and silver weapons/bronze armor through bribing an enemy he was 10 command/influence and 9 management... cost a hell of a lot tho lmao oh and i eventually got him 10 managment and 9 chevrons PLUS all the morale boost stuff then died to a horde of sweboz coming down on small greece :( (btw i was as KH about to take over the north of it)

[Fondor_Yards]

Since it was already brought up here, do you think the Celts were really able to sack Delphi? The "gods raining fire" and defeating them sounds kinda iffy to me, and I've read about how a large gold/artifact find had a lot of stuff probably from Delphi.

[PSYCHO V]

Since it was already brought up here, do you think the Celts were really able to sack Delphi? The "gods raining fire" and defeating them sounds kinda iffy to me, and I've read about how a large gold/artifact find had a lot of stuff probably from Delphi.

Yes, tales of the Gauls being defeated by Greeks gods and the ghosts of warriors past is obvious bolox …as unlikely as the accounts of them ripping babies from mothers stomachs to drink the infants blood.

Again, many if not most scholars (admittedly I have primarily studied Celtic ones) believe that the Gauls did indeed sack Delphi and sought to withdraw with the loot. Then once burdened / so encumbered, Greek forces engaged in a guerrilla campaign of ambush / hit and run on the now disorganised Gauls, inflicting significant casualties.

The Greeks like the Romans, often fail to acknowledge that Gauls were not always seeking permanent conquest but rather, more often than not, loot, plunder and glory. Thus when a large Gallic raiding party withdrew, both Greeks and Romans were tempted to cite fiction / fanciful interpretations of the reason for their doing so. Imaginary victories / campaigns, acts of gods, etc etc. As already mentioned, the Romans even named a road after a supposed Gallic rout that never happened.


my2bob

[Grey_Fox]

Sorry to dig this one up but can I ask what the sources are that you are drawing this stuff from because it's fairly interesting and I;ve gotten involved in a discussion at the .c0mmie over some of this stuff (yes, there are intelligent discussion there, try not to faint).

[Fenrhyl]

Just to add a stone to Psycho V building :

Every single french translation of Livy works about Cammilius and the gauls' sacking of Rome clearly states that it is PURE FANTASY and indeed the whole stuff is incoherent.

Furthermore, as a swordsman (beginner) i second Psycho V about the club. If it is heavy enough and balanced in a proper way it can bring down anything. A club does not say you are backwards, it says you are poor.

[Watchman]

The difference tends to be rather moot on a large scale though.

[Fenrhyl]

That's usually what rich people say. Most of the time to convince themselves of their superiority over poor people.

I think it is rubbish.

[Watchman]

Given that wealth, on a societal level, tends to be linked to methods of production, organization etc...

Although I'll give you the Germans had a fair bit of handicap in mainly possessing a bunch of woods not terribly well suited for farming.

[Frostwulf]

Well finally I can respond once again. I even had time to read some more. Im going to start off stating again that the Celts were a tough lot, Connolly states that under a good general the Celts make excellent soldiers. Dyson states that the subjugation of the Gauls involded some of the most brutal fighting and serious losses in Roman military history. The Spartans and some others were impressed with the mercenary cavalry of the Celts. This all being said, the Romans were still better at skill of arms. I still believe that the Celts are overpowered both compared to the Romans and the Germans. I will not contend with the Germans at this time, Ill eventually start a new thread on them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
@Psycho:
Concerning the Belgae and here especially the Nervii:
In the future it would be better if you quote my complete sentences, i never disputet that the Nervii were celtic. I just said that they themselves seemed to be proud of germanic heritage - which is wrong.

And this is exactly what I was responding to. They were taking pride in their achievements having come from what was later called the land of the Germani. ie “we chose to migrate and by feats of valour fought our way here and seized all this land above the Seine.” They were NOT making / inferring some imagined statement about how great they were by trying to associate themselves with the Germanics.
Ill make the claim that the Belgae were indeed making this statement that they were descended from the Germans and were a mix of Celt-Germanic peoples. "Certain tribes of Gaul, such as the Aedui, boasted of Germanic descent. The Belgae also were a mixture of German and Celt." Pg.19. "After their defeat, the Belgae, a group of mixed Celtic and German origins, were treated with comparative moderation." pg.128. H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical world".

/ "Caesar considered all the Belgae were Gauls, but also claims that many of them were descended from German settlers. As we have already seen, the distinction between Gaul and German was not always as clear as our ancient source suggest but there may well have been some truth in this.At the end of the first century AD Tacitus also believed that the Nervii and the Treveri were both Germanic." pg.238 Adrian Goldsworthy "Caesar"/
http://www.duerinck.com/tribes1.html While I havent read all the resources listed on this site, I have read a bit by Herbert Schutz and he acknowledges Caesars claim of the Belgae being of German ancestry. Look what is posted under the Belgae on this site and check it out.

One last one to look at is Barry Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"-"All we can do is to accept the ethnic identifications made by the Roman commentators". pg.238. I would suggest reading from pg.237-238 to get a good idea at what he is getting at. Arghhh I shouldnt have put this here, oh well more on the Germans on new thread.



Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
You even have leader vs. leader in that M. Claudius Marcellus defeating Virdomarus in a duel.

I’m sorry to be a kill joy, but the account of M. Claudius Marcellus defeating Virdomarus is pure fiction. Again, this is not my opinion but rather that of the world’s leading scholars on this subject.
Tim Newark-editor of Military Illustrated/Peter Connolly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Connolly /Peter Berresford Ellis(considered the foremost authority on the Celts). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Berresford_Ellis .These authors say it happened, why would it be hard to believe? Ellis in his book Celt and Roman mentions several others like this that happened. What could there be against this? Also there is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viridomarus This post doesnt really have anything to do with accessing statistics to units.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
None of the authors I mentioned seem to have a problem with the duels.

Newark and Ellis you mean…ignoring (I might add) my comments on both. Newark isn’t what one would call a Celtic expert and takes things on face / Roman value.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
"but the Romans had even beaten the Celts at their own game. Challenged to single combat by the chieftan of the Insurbres, M.Claudius Marcellus accepted" -Newark. He goes on to tell of how Marcellus won."The surprise is that the consul Claudius Marcellu accepted the challenge in spit of the law forbidding single combat by Roman officers.


Do you know why there was “surprise”? Read Goldsworthy on the strict Roman law pertaining to leaving one’s station to seek single combat. It’s a dramatic fabrication by Livy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
He succeded in slaying Viridomarus and the Celtic army crumble before a renewed Roman attack"-Ellis.

Ellis is recounting the tale exactly as Livy had written it. He is not claiming it as unequivocal fact.
Again, as previously stated, I love Ellis but he’s prone to over stating. I could write a whole thesis on all of the aforementioned Scholars but I just don’t have the time and you’ll either have to take me at my word or do your own reading.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
These quotes sound like they believe it to me. ….. What facts are there to disprove these duels? Is it impossible for a Roman to beat a Celt in a duel? I think that its interesting that your quoted authors seem to think that it is.

So you’re willing to dismiss the opinions of some of the worlds leading scholars because….?

I don’t know what else to say?
Authors who put this in matter of fact statements: Connolly "Greece and Rome at War"-"The most noteworthy of these heroes was Marcus Claudius Marcellus, who killed the Gallic chieftain Viridomarus in single combat in 222bc. He went on to become Rome's most successful general against Hannibal during his campaigns in Italy". pg.114. "During the conflict the Gallic chieftain Viridomarus challenged him to single combat and although Marcellus was nearing 50 he accepted the challenge and killed Viridomarus". pg. 146

/ H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical world"- "One of these, at Clastidium in 223BC, was notable for another example of single combat. The consul M. Claudius Marcellus killed the Insubrian leader, Virduromarus". pg.114

/ Adrian Goldsworthy "In The Name Of Rome"-"Then, deciding that Britomarus himself wore the finest equipment, The Roman consul spurred ahead of his men to reach the king. The two leaders met between the rival lines. Marcellus drove his spear into the Gaul's body, knocking him from his horse, and then finished him off with a second and a third blow, before dismounting to strip the corpse." Pg.42

/ Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier"-"The battles saw heroic actions on both sides. The Roman commander Marcellus, won the spolia opima for slaying the Gallic chieftain Virdumarus at Clastidium, for which the Roman poet Naevius wrote a play celebrating the events." pg.32

/David Matz "An Ancient Rome Chronology, 264-27 B.C." -"The outcome was decided when the Roman commander Marcus Claudius Marcellus, overcame the chieftan of the Insubres, a certain Viridomarus in single combat" pg.77

Ellis is recounting the tale exactly as Livy had written it. He is not claiming it as unequivocal fact.
/Peter B. Ellis "The Celtic Empire"-"Here we find a surprising development. It appears that Viridomar offered a challenge, in the traditional Celtic fashion, to the Roman General, Marcus Claudius Marcellus, to settle the issue by combat to the death. Surprisingly, the Roman General accepted. He succeeded in slaying Viridomar and the Celtic army crumbled before a renewed Roman charge." pg.41 this isnt the way livy wrote it, he is interpreting the story himself.
The only thing I could find remotely contrary to this is in Cunliffe's "The Ancient Celts"- in referring to the parallelism between the two stories of Valerius and Manlius: "The parallelism between the two stories may suggest the repetition of a single incident or even a fictitious embroidery, but the fact that Livy had access to the tradition suggests that single combat was a feature of Celtic behavior in Italy." pg.102 Even this says it MAY be fictitious, not that it is fictitious.Not one author I have read denies or seems to doubt what happened with Marcellus. Even though Manlius is a different story this is where the only dissension I could find, and thats with Cunliffe. And even in this statement he is not sure. As far as Manlius it seems some authors are suspect of the story, but this is not true of Marcellus.

Yes plenty of people, as there were in Nazi Germany, circa 1945. Numbers prove nothing. Large numbers of trained well equipped forces count for everything.
I dont agree with you on the Nazi Germany thing but I do agree with trained and equipped forces.


Why you say? ..Well you stated that Rome couldn’t conquer the Gauls because they were distracted fighting Carthage. The point I made was that during the same period (ie when the Romans were supposedly busy fighting Carthage), they managed to conquer other (non Gallic) peoples, thus the hypothesis “does not stand up critical analysis”.


Ok for starters, you clearly stated that you believed the Romans couldn’t / most likely didn't conquer the Gauls because they were distracted fighting Carthage. “There was a reason why the Romans had not succeeded in conquering Transalpine Gaul in the previous 300 years of conflict…because of the other wars going on like with carthage..”

Now, when this statement was critically examined / debunked it appears you wished to ignore the former debate and present a new line of inquiry… “attrition”..shifting focus. That’s fine but you probably should concede the former point if you believe it no longer tenable / you no longer wish to defend it…else I’ll just keep rabbiting on about it.
Hardly debunked or ignored and the attrition situation will be discussed later. A brief history is in order here.
390 bc. Rome sacked and loses dominant position in Latin League. War with Tarquinii in 388 and 386. Rome/Latin League continue conquest of Italy against the Etruscans and Volsci.In 367bc. Celts show up again and are routed.Rome continues once again concentrating on Italy against the Latins and others. In 360/361bc Gauls attack again and are defeated first near Rome then near Tibur. Ill make out a chronology later but it keeps going on and on about wars with Samnites,Etruscans,Greeks,Illyrians etc. etc.
Rome was first and foremost interested in conquering southern Italy then moving up to the north. Most of their resources were spent conquering everything south of Cisalpine Gaul.

Connolly "Greece and Rome at War": after losing 13,000 men to the Gauls in 284-"In an act of massive retaliation the Romans crossed the mountain into the Senonic homeland and drove the entire tribe out of Italy."pg.90-"The Boii, who had captured Bologna from the Etruscans and had settled in the area, now also crossed the Apenines but were defeated in central Etruria. The following year they crossed the mountains again and were once more defeated. They sued for peace. The Romans, preoccupied with the situation in central Italy, agreed to the treaty which lasted for 50 years. With the fall of Samnium, Rome controlled almost the whole of peninsular Italy. Only the Greek cities of the south remained outside the Roman alliance. In order to consolidate her position Rome began to put pressure on these Greek states to try to force them into alliance." Pg. 90: This is the beginning of the Pyrric wars.

/Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier"-Rome continued to strengthen its hold in central Italy. The wars against the Samnites ground on. In Etruria internal strife increased. The population in the Celtic homeland was again growing. In 284bc Gauls invaded the territory of Arretium and started a sequence of events that ended with the near extermination of the Senones.

/Ellis "The Celtic Empire"- referring to the defeats of Celts and Etruscans in 283:"For the first time, Rome was confident of her northern boundaries. She now turned her greedy eyes towards the Greek city states of southern Italy-Magna Graeca." pg.33

/Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"-"By the 330's Rome had recovered sufficiently to begin a new expansionist drive, and, to secure its northern frontier, a peace treaty was negotiated with the Senones in 334".pg.77:"After the First Punic War(264-41bc) Rome's attention turned once more to the north, and in 232 the territory of the Senones was confiscated and made over to Italian settlement. pg77

Connolly "Greece and Rome at War"- "In 225 the Celts crossed the Apennines with an army of 70,000 men. It was bad timing for the Celts as the Romans, free of any other commitment, were able to devote their entire resources to the war." pg.146-"The threat of yet another invasion was over. The Romans vowed it would be the last. The legions now invaded the Po valley itself." pg. 146

/Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier"-"By 225bc the Romans felt that war with the Gauls was imminent. Rumors about the recruitment of the transalpine Gauls by the Celts in Italy had certainly reached them. They stepped up their own precautions, making peace with Hasdrubal in Spain in order to free themselves from concerns over that area, and recruiting strong armies and gathering stores." pg.29

/Simon James "The World of The Celts"-"An uneasy peace followed due to Rome's distraction by war with Carthage; this lasted for a generation, until 232bc, when Rome seized the land of the Senones and parcelled it out to her own colonists." pg.35: "Hannibal's final defeat at Zama in 202bc, however, left the battle-hardened Romans free to resume the conquest of the north, and the Boii and the Insubres were eventually subdued in the 190's".

/Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"- "The Second Punic War completely altered the balance of power in the mediterranean. Rome moved into an expansive mode. From the end of the war in 202bc until the capitulation of Numantia in 133 the Celtiberians and Lusitani were gradually brought under control. The first two decades of the second century saw the Roman armies win a series of major campaigns north of the Apenines paving the way for romanization, largely completed within a century".pg.235: "The migrations were largely at an end by 200bc. This was the moment which Rome, freed from the threat of Carthage by her hard-won victories during the Second Punic War, entered into a more expansive mode". pg273

If you take a look at these quotes you will see what I said earlier. "freed from", "free to resume", "free of any other commitment" etc etc. This shows that the Romans were pre-occupied with other wars and therefore couldnt muster the means to conquer northern Italy.

they managed to conquer other (non Gallic) peoples, thus the hypothesis “does not stand up critical analysis”.
The Romans could conquer the Gallic people, They just went after the southern and middle parts first. Once Rome had completed the conquest of middle and southern Italy they moved north. Also I put in the Senone situation so you could see that they still defeated the Gauls. I have no doubt that if the Romans after 300bc wanted to conquer northern Italy it would have happened. Why do I say this, because of the majority of battles show that Romans are superior in arms to the Celts.


This is not only born out in the material record (eg. Thigh bones of Gallic youth, etc) but by other examples. Eg the fact Vercingetrix mounted all his most experienced / well equipped troops and when they were in turn defeated, the whole army (some of whom were apparently young boys) naturally lost heart.


It is true that by the battle of Georgovia and Alesia, over a decade had passed and many young Gallic youths had appeared as novice warriors. This is born out in the archaeology record as previously mentioned.
H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical World"-"The next year they tried once more, and shortage of manpower compelled them to arm young adolescents. (This may be a Greek rationalisation: traditionally, the warriors of the Celts were often remarkably young.)"pg.111

Which proves little. For example, where are all the records of the several Roman defeats at the hands of the Cisalpine Gauls that archaeology has since discovered?
What defeats are you referring to? Which archaeologist? Where in Cisalpine Gaul?
Its getting really late and Ill have to continue later, I really want to get into attrition.

[Frostwulf]

-Says who? Depending on the intensity of a conflict a nation will either drain its expireinced forces and adult males, or it will end up with a good number of expirienced soldiers. Also, not only do entire Armies are destroyed but entire towns and populations are exterminated too. Again it all depends on the intensity of the conflict, and what the winning side decides to do when they conquer enemy towns. In the case of the Gallic Civil war killing for killing's sake was common practice. To illustrate this point, think of General Sherman marching throught the South in the American Civil War.
Others have said other such things, but this is what Im trying to get at.

Simon James "The World of The Celts"- Hannibal's final defeat at Zama in 202bc however left the battle-hardened Romans free to resume the conquest of the north, and the Boii and the ...."pg.122

Peter B. Ellis "The Celtic Empire"-"The Belgae confederation had come into being to fight the encroachments of the Germans and had been hardened by years of border conflict. pg.133

H.D.Rankin "Celts and the Classical World"-"Polybius also makes the point that as a result of the experience of war that they gained in fighting the Celts, the Romans wre the better able to face the challenge of the war with Pyrrhus(280bc), and also to make war successfully against the Carthaginians."pg.110

For Rome the 2nd punic wars took a heavy toll on the Romans, yet we have "battle-hardened" soldiers.Ill also talk about the Gallic civil war further below. Now in the case of the Celts Ill begin to show the superiority of the Romans in skill at arms and how attrition takes its place.

For the record, “most historians” do not claim that the Romans were victors “most of the time”, what they do state is that according to Roman records, we are told that was the case. As I’ve previously stated, there has been many Roman battles / defeats not recorded / lost (giving the benefit of the doubt) to us.

Further the battles you refer to involve Cisalpine Gauls, who by the mid 3rd C BC (250 BC) were already on the back foot. The Romans had waged a brutal war of attrition for over 150 years prior. The Cisalpine Gauls could not sustain their looses as the Romans could and once they reached a critical point the Cisalpine Gauls collapsed. Much celebrated Roman victories like the Battle of Minicio (196 BC), Battle of Bonnonia (191 BC), etc bear this out as they were no more a battle than the massacres of plains Indians at the likes of the ‘Battle of Wounded Knee’. The Romans in a genocidal blood lust, wiped out whole towns, tribes and nations.
In your first paragraph what defeats not recorded or lost are you talking about? What sources are you using?
The second paragraph about attrition as I stated above will be addressed below.


Strength is relative. The Celts were relatively stronger in the 5th, 4th and very beginning of the 3rd C BC.. as previously stated.
4th century B.C.
390- Allia: Gauls defeat Romans and Sack Rome
367- Velitrae: Romans route or defeat Gauls.
360- Near Rome:Romans defeat Gauls and Latins
360- Near Tibur:Romans defeat Gauls and Latins
357-351 No mention of Gauls, Syracuse may have used them as mercenaries.
348- Pomptine area: Romans defeat Gauls or Gauls retreated.
338- Praeneste: Romans defeat Gauls.
334- Treaty with Celts supposed to last 30yrs.
From 334-299 there have been no Gallic involvement of note with the Romans. The Romans continue towards conquest of Central and southern Italy during this time.This is the time of the 4th century "stronger" Celts? Im not trying by any means to say the Celts are weak, Im just pointing out that they lost most of the battles during this time. So again we have the "stronger" Celts losing most of the time to the "weaker" Semi-Militia style Romans. Ill state once again the Celt units are to strong in EB compared to their Roman and German counterparts.
Now lets take a look at attrition during this period, to our knowledge their is none. There doesnt seem to be any tribal clashes nor any prolonged warfare, there were some raids and a few pitched battles in which the "stronger" Celts were chased off or defeated. Here is what some of the authors said about this period of time.

Mackay "Ancient Rome"-"The Gauls returned and despite tepid assistance from the Latins the Romans defeated them with little difficulty"pg.46

Connoly "Greece And Rome At War"-"During the 4th century the Gauls mounted a succession of plundering raids in central Italy. Usually they were deflected by the stronger groups-the Etruscans, Latins and Samnites-and were channelled into Apulia, where it is possible that the founded permanent communities".pg.113

After listing the 3rd century battles Ill discuss raids and more about attrition.
3rd Century
299* see notes below
297- Camerinum: Gauls and Samnites defeat Romans
295- Sentinum: Romans defeat Gauls and Samnites
284- Arretium: Gauls(Senones) defeat Romans
284-?: Romans send a punitive expedition and rout the Gauls(Senones) and chased them out of Italy
283-Vadimon: Romans defeat Gauls(Boii) and Etruscans
283- ? Romans defeat Gauls(Boii) once again.
283* see notes below
238* see notes below
225-Faesulae: Gauls(Boii,Insubres,Taurisci and Gaesatae) defeat Romans
225-Telemon: Romans defeat Gauls(Boii,Insubres,Taurisci and Gaesatae)
224- Boii Land: Romans ravage the Boii territory
223- Bergamo: Romans defeat Gauls(Insubres)
222- Clastidim: Romans defeat Gauls(Insubres)
218- Boii Land: Gauls(Boii) stop Roman advance.
216- Mutina: Gauls defeat Romans
205-Ligurian coast: Romans defeat Carthage with a massive durbar of Gauls and Ligurians
201-?: Gauls defeat Romans
200-Near Ariminum: Romans defeat Gauls
199- Placentia: Gauls(Insubres) defeat Romans
197-?: Romans defeat Gauls and Hamilcar(Hannibal's brother)
196-?: Romans defeat Gauls
195-?: Romans defeat Gauls or is indecisive.
194-?: Indecisive battle
193- Mutina Romans defeat Gauls
191- ?: Romans defeat Gauls
This List was compiled with the main sources of Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier" pgs.11-38/ H.D.Rankin "Celts and the Classical World" pgs. 107-116/ David Matz "An Ancient Rome Chronology 264-27 B.C." pgs.75-80. The minor sources used are-Connolly "Greece and Rome at War"/ Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"/ Simon James "The World of The Celts".
*This denotes inter-tribal warfare.

The Roman weakness is further born out by the Roman relief when Transalpine Gauls crossed the Alps wanting a piece of the action. Initially a disaster for the Romans, in the end the Transalpine Gauls (Arverni, Allobroges, Cadurci, etc) fell out with the Cisalpine Gauls (Insubres, Senones, etc)… feelings that were part of broader Gallic politics in Transalpine proper. The conflict came to a head in 299 BC when the combined group had returned from a raid deep into Roman territory. When “burdened with a great quantity of booty”, they quarrelled over the division and in the end ended up destroying most of the spoils “as well as the best part of their own forces”. Following this slaughter, the opportunistic Romans noted the weakness of the Cisalpine Gauls and decided to finally push north. Thus in 296 BC, the Gauls (still reeling from the slaughter with their brethren) sought an alliance with their former enemies, the Etruscans, Samnites and Umbrians.
So the opportunistic Romans decided to go through enemy Etruscan lands to get at the Celts because they knew they were weakened? Were they also going to totally ignore the Umbrians and the Samnites?

H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical World"-"They made their way through Etruria where they were joined by a number of the inhabitants who were anxious to do the Romans some harm. Although these expeditionaries obtained considerable plunder which they managed to take home,they were weakened by internecine quarrels of the kind, Polybius says (2.19), which arise from excessive eating and drinking. In 297 BC the Celts and the Samnites joined together against Rome and defeated a Roman army at Camertium. But the Celts were chased out of the territory of Sentinum by Roman consular armies. Samnites and Celts suffered substantial losses.".pg.110

Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier"-"The year 299 B.C. saw a new attack on Etruria by the Gauls. The Etruscans bought them off and even attempted to turn them against Rome. The Gauls were only willing to follow that risky course if the Etruscans promised them land on which to settle. Fearing such barbarian neighbors, the Etruscans paid off the Gauls and sent them home. Livy mentions the false rumor of a Gallic tumultus at Rome in 299 B.C., while Polybius describes a full-fledged Gallic raid, sparked by the arrival of new tribesmen from over the Alps. The stereotypical accounts of Gallic drinking and internecine strife suggest that the details of Polybius' account should be viewed with caution. The fears of the Romans were real, however, and they reacted vigorously. Ties with Picenum were strengthened. At Narnia, some seventy kilometers up the Tiber valley a settlement was founded to guard the Apennine approaches to Rome. Unrest continued in both Etruria and in the Samnium. Finally, in 296 B.C. Etruscans and Samnites coalesce into a threat to Rome. The uprising ended only with the great Roman victory and Sentinum in 295 B.C."pg.23

283BC*
H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical World"- "Five years had still to pass before the Celts who invaded Greece were defeated at Delphi. Throughout this period, Polybius comments, war raged like a plague amongst the Celtic peoples (2.20)." pg.110

This event took place after the defeats and destruction of the Senones and after the two battles with the Boii.

238BC*
H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical World"-"Some of the Boii made plans to thwart the warlike intentions of their leader. They killed their own two kings, Atis and Galatus.Then the strangers and the Boii liquidated their mutual suspicions by a pitched battle in which both sides suffered severely. The Roman pre-emptive force was able to return home without fighting." pg.112

Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier"-"They demanded the land of Ariminum and the removal of the Romans from the thirty-year-old colony. Attacks were apparently made on Ariminum itself, and the Boii called in fellow tribesmen from across the Alps. The arrival of these newcomers, however, soon caused internal friction between ethnically related but now culturally different groups. Fighting broke out, and the weakened Boii were forced to sue for peace." pg.28

The inner tribal warfare didnt have much effect on these battles. 299bc is the only one that could argue to have any effect on battles and even then there is a lot of questions. In 283bc the inner tribal warfare happened after the battles in 283. In 238bc its of non-consequence as there were many other Gauls involved in the invasions after 238bc. The Celts also had many more tribes added to them and that includes adding more warriors, not to mention the large amounts of Gaesatae.

H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical World"-"Polybius' theory of successive waves of tribes pressing on each other was substantially correct."pg.111/ "In the Celts, Rome had a formidable enemy with resources of population that must have seemed interminable."pg.118

Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"-"The migrations were largely at an end by 200 BC."

Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier"-"The wars against the Samnites ground on. In Etruria internal strife increased. The population in the Celtic homeland was again growing." pg.24

Again we have the "weaker" Romans defeating the "stronger" 3rd century Celts the majority of the time. As far as the attrition theory I think the above statement meets that question. These Celts were raiders, not family units, therefore its safe to assume these were all warriors not farmers or craftsmen.Also lets not forget that the Celts were not the only enemies and wars going on. There is the Punic wars,Samnites,Greeks,Etruscans,Umbrians,Illyrians,Macedonians,etc. etc. Also I didnt include numbers or circumstances(terrain,suprise(Romans need better scouts)). In reference for the Roman army of the time:

Adrian Goldsworthy"In the Name of Rome"-"Most scholars play down the significance of the Marian reform in the transition from a militia to a professional army, preferring to see this as a much more gradual process."pg.122 / "Roman soldiers were not professionals, but men who served in the army as a duty to the Republic. The army is often referred to as a militia force, but it is probably better to think of it as a conscript army, for men would often spend several years consecutively with the legions although no one was supposed to be called upon to serve for more then 16 years.pg.26

Of the Celts:

Adrian Goldsworthy"In the Name of Rome"-"Such restrictions should not lead us to the conclusion that all Roman campaigns agains tribal opponents were 'cheap' victories. A few were, but the majority were difficult operations against an enemy who was brave, often numerous, and well used to exploiting the natural strength of there homeland."pg.98

Im not going to go on about the Celts who went to Greece and other places. Ill not bother with the time between Caesar and 191BC as these are not the "stronger" Celts. I will however deal with the Arverni-Aedui war.

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

Goldsworthy"In the Name of Rome"-At times a tribe grew in power, often under the rule of a charismatic war-leader and sometimes bringing neighbouring peoples under control". pg243

Simon James "The World of the Celts"-"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 conqured by Caesar showed no signs of exhaustion by internal wars-it was a rich and prosperous land-so means were evidently found for limiting the damage war could cause." pg. 74

Unfortunately Ive run out of time again. There are other quotes that are similar but will have to get to at a later time. This last quote surely differs then those on this forum. This shows that the Arverni-Aedui war wasnt nearly as drastic as claimed. The elites would still have existed and would have been on comparison to the "stronger" 4th-3rd century Celts.

One other thing I would like to add, while I think the Celts are overpowered, there is one I think they are underpowered. I think the Celtic Cavalry should be much stronger then it is. The Celt cavalry consistently defeated the Roman Cavalry up to Caesar's time.

[Frostwulf]

LOL ... Frosty still propagating the same line huh!? I commend you on your labours but I'm sorry mate, this and much of the other material you cite in defence of your argument is just so contextually wrong. Suffice to say, if you took the time to actually read all the material / consider all the data and see the bigger picture, you wouldn't keep making all these ridiculous statements. Trying to take select points out of any semblance of context and extrapolate that to support some hypothesis is just bolox!

I have to admit Im a bit disappointed at your response to this. In the past though, Watchman, others and you have disagreed with me but there hasnt been any real disparaging remarks. You and others, especially Watchman have been very logical in posting but we just disagree.
The only reason I'm posting is to get a historical perspective and enjoy a game thats supposed to be as historical as possible. After looking at these unit stats things didn't seem right, so I started to respond to these threads. My main interest is combat and how the units are addressed in this. We ended up going to other subjects and so I responded by reading up on these subjects.

I put down authors,books and page numbers so I wouldn't be accused of using quotes out of context. These are books anyone can get. You said I should read up on these subjects and I have. I even read some of the others you quoted from. I even quit quoting from Newark because you didn't find him credible, and also from Ellis with the exception Marcus Claudius Marcellus vs. Viridomarus duel, and this was just to show that he wasn't quoting from livy.

Are you still going to try to say that I'm still misunderstanding the Marcus Claudius Marcellus vs. Viridomarus duel? Do you still contend that this is just a "tale","a dramatised account",“works of propaganda”? What about the above authors, are they wrong or is it I just somehow misunderstood what they said? Others can read these books and they can decide who is right, that's the main reason I have the author, book and page numbers.

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

[Frostwulf]

my current idea on the addition of a new MED-ish cavalry is an alternate skin for some horseman model (we have no space for new units) which will be a "proven" or "champion" rider or early "horse retainer" unit. This horse unit will represent the superiority of the higher class Germanic horsemen over the standard issue Leuce Epos and yet still be very similar to the Ridoharjoz. The regular Ridoharjoz should not be automatically superior, because the examples of Celtic defeat against German cavalry was not a representation of the Celts during their heyday and the Germans at that time suredly had experienced units on that front rather than conscripts more accurately portrayed by the normal Ridoharjoz.

Blitz the reason I would like to put this here is because it goes to the topic of this thread more then it would the German one. This game is about being as historically accurate as possible, and I believe that is should be. I also am interested in history and would like to come to the truth as much as possible. Here is my problem, your saying in essence these are "weaker" Celts then in centuries past. I have read multiple books and only two have alluded to or talked about this subject directly. Here are the quotes from the two books concerning this subject:

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 "The World of the Celts"-"Probably most Celtic warfare was on a small scale, involving no more then a few score men on each side. The population was growing and states were developing in late Iron age Gaul, and this may have led to an increase in the scale of warfare. But it is clear that the vast armies commanded by Vercingetorix and others were assemble only as a response to the great threat from Rome (p.127). In fact, Rome changed the very rules of Celtic warfare, bringing large armies into an area where, internally at least, they may have been much rarer before. Certainly, the Gaul described and conquered by Caesar showed no signs of exhaustion by internal wars-it was a rich and prosperous land-so means were evidently found for limiting the damage war could cause." pg. 74

So I'm going to echo Grey_Fox:

Sorry to dig this one up but can I ask what the sources are that you are drawing this stuff from because it's fairly interesting and I;ve gotten involved in a discussion at the .c0mmie over some of this stuff (yes, there are intelligent discussion there, try not to faint).

I for my part have given the information by author,book, page number that support my claim. What I would like to see is the same in return for those that say the Celts were weaker during Caesar's time. I just interested in getting my history straight. So Watchman,Neospartan, Psyco V, Blitz or anyone who can tell me which author and book to read I would really appreciate it.
I also want to make clear that Im not trying to be obnoxious or prove a point, I just want information.

[Frostwulf]

De Bello Gallico is I suppose a good source of information, though I'm not really all that sure if I can trust it, the battles always seem to follow a similar patterm, bascially the Romans encounter a group of Celts, the Celts charge and theres this big fight, and it looks like the Romans are in trouble, then suddenly Julius Caesar does something clever and the Celts rout.

Perhaps thats an oversimplification but I recall a lot of battles in the book that went along those lines, that said, perhaps that is the way it unfolded anyway, Caesar complimented the Celts, I recall the best one being somethin along the lines of "the most innovative people in the world", so obviously there was something he liked about them, and I don't see why a propagandist would want to paint all too nice a picture of his enemies, though perhaps he was setting down the foundations for the idea that these people could become good Romans also, who knows, either way what he does mention is that the most vicious Celtic people were the Belgae, because they were the closest to the Germanic people and fought the Germans on a regular basis and probably came from Germanic stock originally.

I agree that the Celts were a tough people, I have never had a problem with that. Caesar was almost always outnumbered and he lost one battle with the Celts. As far as the Belgae:
Ill make the claim that the Belgae were indeed making this statement that they were descended from the Germans and were a mix of Celt-Germanic peoples. "Certain tribes of Gaul, such as the Aedui, boasted of Germanic descent. The Belgae also were a mixture of German and Celt." Pg.19. "After their defeat, the Belgae, a group of mixed Celtic and German origins, were treated with comparative moderation." pg.128. H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical world".

/ "Caesar considered all the Belgae were Gauls, but also claims that many of them were descended from German settlers. As we have already seen, the distinction between Gaul and German was not always as clear as our ancient source suggest but there may well have been some truth in this.At the end of the first century AD Tacitus also believed that the Nervii and the Treveri were both Germanic." pg.238 Adrian Goldsworthy "Caesar"/
http://www.duerinck.com/tribes1.html While I havent read all the resources listed on this site, I have read a bit by Herbert Schutz and he acknowledges Caesars claim of the Belgae being of German ancestry. Look what is posted under the Belgae on this site and check it out.

One last one to look at is Barry Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"-"All we can do is to accept the ethnic identifications made by the Roman commentators". pg.238. I would suggest reading from pg.237-238 to get a good idea at what he is getting at. Arghhh I shouldnt have put this here, oh well more on the Germans on new thread.


The Celts were undoubtably the masters of their territory and the replication by others of Celtic weapons does present them as at least a technologically adpet people when it comes to warfare, but as to how good they actually were at fighting? who knows, what we do know is their culture covered a very large amount of territory and really, if you were to view the Celts as a single unit were probably the dominent force in Europe prior to being conquered, so in short, there must have at least at one point been a highly formidible warrior culture in place to have allowed them to hold so much territory and keep it for as long as they did, and the fact that they were still raiding the Italian Peninsula goes to show that there must have been a very expansionist cultural element there.

I would say that if the Celtic people banded together they would have beaten Caesar because of shear numbers, not from martial prowess. The Celts were formidable but they were not as good as the Romans nor the Germans. I dont believe the Celtic units are very accurate, they are to powerful when compared to the Romans and Germans. Look at my posts dated 5/26/07 and 5/29/07. I go through these questions.

[blitzkrieg80]

Don't mean to be rude, but of course Celtic tribes proudly mentioned they were of "German" descent- it's just another Celtic tribe, admittingly mixed with Germanics though... Caesar invented what we think of as "Germans" for propoganda purposes to justify his "peace-keeping" and future Roman interests/defense. "German" really only means "Celts on the other side of the Rhine." One of the reasons Germany is a BS country-name is the fact that no German calls themselves that, they call themselves "Deutsch, ja?" The Oxford English Dictionary even states that the Germani are of Celtic origin. The Teutons are widely believed to be of Celtic origin as well, despite modern connotations of Deutsch-ness. My point being that they weren't refering to being Deutsch, but bad-ass Rhine Celts versus less bad-ass Gaul hinterland Celts, like the Belgae, another Celtic tribe, with mixed elements maybe, but certainly not dominated by the Deutsch. The small clan/tribe structure was as aware as they got concerning language/race, so "Germani" can certainly be treated as geographical and contextual.

That website btw mentions that one of the few pieces of evidence for Germanic ancestry among Belgae is a description of being "tall" and "blonde"- who does that describe? All Indo-Europeans (especially Celts too). Slavs, Celts, and Germans are all especially mentioned early as "tall" and "ruddy" besides rampant "blonde" and "Red" hair references- like China describing the Yueh-Chi. Also, the main argument is analysis of skull types which doesn't prove anything. There were native peoples throughout Europe before the Indo-European invasion, probably quite a few. I have read some of those kind of early archaeology books which fall into "race-theory" a little too much and I really doubt any legitimate scientist pursues that kind of theory anymore, I would hope not. It is true that certain linguistic family/cultures have similar morphology like Siberian/steppe people being short and African people being tall (but not always) similar to skin tone and Vitamin D both being adaptation to weather and sun, but that is hardly proven and mostly opinion and common sense (people still don't believe in evolution!), so skulls of people who are assuredly mixed prove nothing. It can't even be proven that the Battle-Axe culture or the Przeworsk culture are any specific race/language family and we know quite a bit about them.

Although it may sound like I'm being argumentative for fun (well it is fun- probably because I'm not writing a bunch of citations ~:)) but I want to mention that I truly believe that the Germanic tribes were mixing early on along the Rhineland, but they didn't identify themselves separate from those Celtic tribes which took credit for the people. It is the same case with the Slavs who certainly weren't spontaneously generated... in fact, I doubt any Indo-Europeans traveled over the steppe (yes I believe they came from the steppe- for the same reason, if they came from Turkey why did they leave and come back? that's dumb) and went through nicer southern land then went north away from good land far into hostile/cold wasteland then decided to go back to the nice land... don't think so... somehow I think they spread out slowly, slowly forming, slowly migrating... so I'm sure Balts and Thracians, some West Slavs too might be mixed among the Belgae. A melting pot that later uses certain languages that we call them by but certainly were not 100% anything.

[Watchman]

I would say that if the Celtic people banded together they would have beaten Caesar because of shear numbers, not from martial prowess. The Celts were formidable but they were not as good as the Romans nor the Germans. I dont believe the Celtic units are very accurate, they are to powerful when compared to the Romans and Germans. Look at my posts dated 5/26/07 and 5/29/07. I go through these questions.Nonsense. The Romans always made a point of having at least roughly equal numbers of serious combatants to fight the Celts, and in spite of the fact virtually every free man among the Germans was a reasonably well trained and experienced (if not equipped) warrior (which was not the case in the Celtic society, as their warring was primarily up to the warrior class) it took them centuries to start seriously encroaching on Celtic territory.

Hardly a testament to some full-spectrum "weakness" on the part of the Celts, that.

The Celtic warrior class weren't part-time tribal farmer-soldiers like the rank-and-file Germans or reservists like the early Roman soldiery. They were a specialist social segment that spent the better part of its time preparing for and engaging in more-or-less organized warfare as their primary occupation; leaving aside the potential long-term problems of that sort of setup, it has a tendency to produce quite formidable fighters.

[Frostwulf]

Don't mean to be rude, but of course Celtic tribes proudly mentioned they were of "German" descent- it's just another Celtic tribe, admittingly mixed with Germanics though... Caesar invented what we think of as "Germans" for propoganda purposes to justify his "peace-keeping" and future Roman interests/defense. "German" really only means "Celts on the other side of the Rhine." One of the reasons Germany is a BS country-name is the fact that no German calls themselves that, they call themselves "Deutsch, ja?" The Oxford English Dictionary even states that the Germani are of Celtic origin. The Teutons are widely believed to be of Celtic origin as well, despite modern connotations of Deutsch-ness. My point being that they weren't refering to being Deutsch, but bad-ass Rhine Celts versus less bad-ass Gaul hinterland Celts, like the Belgae, another Celtic tribe, with mixed elements maybe, but certainly not dominated by the Deutsch. The small clan/tribe structure was as aware as they got concerning language/race, so "Germani" can certainly be treated as geographical and contextual.

I didnt take any of this as being rude, merely a discussion. We may disagree on things but no condescending attitude, rude remarks or character attacks have been made so no problems.

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


That website btw mentions that one of the few pieces of evidence for Germanic ancestry among Belgae is a description of being "tall" and "blonde"- who does that describe? All Indo-Europeans (especially Celts too). Slavs, Celts, and Germans are all especially mentioned early as "tall" and "ruddy" besides rampant "blonde" and "Red" hair references- like China describing the Yueh-Chi. Also, the main argument is analysis of skull types which doesn't prove anything. There were native peoples throughout Europe before the Indo-European invasion, probably quite a few. I have read some of those kind of early archaeology books which fall into "race-theory" a little too much and I really doubt any legitimate scientist pursues that kind of theory anymore, I would hope not. It is true that certain linguistic family/cultures have similar morphology like Siberian/steppe people being short and African people being tall (but not always) similar to skin tone and Vitamin D both being adaptation to weather and sun, but that is hardly proven and mostly opinion and common sense (people still don't believe in evolution!), so skulls of people who are assuredly mixed prove nothing. It can't even be proven that the Battle-Axe culture or the Przeworsk culture are any specific race/language family and we know quite a bit about them.

I think the Tall and blond thing is just a general description of the Belgae, not any kind of evidence. As far as the skulls are concerned I do believe this may be making a comeback. They use it in forensics allot to identify what a person would have looked like. They can tell the race of people by the bone structure just as they did the Kennewick Man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man
I don't know if there is much difference in the cephalic index between Celts and Germans, or even if they are going by the index.


Although it may sound like I'm being argumentative for fun (well it is fun- probably because I'm not writing a bunch of citations ) but I want to mention that I truly believe that the Germanic tribes were mixing early on along the Rhineland, but they didn't identify themselves separate from those Celtic tribes which took credit for the people. It is the same case with the Slavs who certainly weren't spontaneously generated... in fact, I doubt any Indo-Europeans traveled over the steppe (yes I believe they came from the steppe- for the same reason, if they came from Turkey why did they leave and come back? that's dumb) and went through nicer southern land then went north away from good land far into hostile/cold wasteland then decided to go back to the nice land... don't think so... somehow I think they spread out slowly, slowly forming, slowly migrating... so I'm sure Balts and Thracians, some West Slavs too might be mixed among the Belgae. A melting pot that later uses certain languages that we call them by but certainly were not 100% anything.

The mixing part I agree with (my knowledge is very little on this subject), but with a different language and customs that may be where the "Germani" came from.


Nonsense. The Romans always made a point of having at least roughly equal numbers of serious combatants to fight the Celts, and in spite of the fact virtually every free man among the Germans was a reasonably well trained and experienced (if not equipped) warrior (which was not the case in the Celtic society, as their warring was primarily up to the warrior class) it took them centuries to start seriously encroaching on Celtic territory.
Roughly equal numbers is simply not true, the Romans may have exaggerated and inflated enemy numbers but it depended on the battle. There were times when the Romans out numbered the Celts but in general the Celts outnumbered the Romans, especially during Caesars campaign. If your talking about Romans encroaching I have explained this in the 5/29/07 thread. As far as the Germans, wouldn't it be a slow migration period of building up a populace?


The Celtic warrior class weren't part-time tribal farmer-soldiers like the rank-and-file Germans or reservists like the early Roman soldiery. They were a specialist social segment that spent the better part of its time preparing for and engaging in more-or-less organized warfare as their primary occupation; leaving aside the potential long-term problems of that sort of setup, it has a tendency to produce quite formidable fighters.

Yes the Celtic warrior class like the German elites did the raiding,training and participated in warfare. Yes the Celts did have formidable fighters, the problem is they lost the majority of the time. The Romans fought as a unit, not as a bunch of individuals. The Celts like the Germans usually did a fast charge and if the Romans didn't buckle they would start to sustain heavy damage.

[Watchman]

Roughly equal numbers is simply not true, the Romans may have exaggerated and inflated enemy numbers but it depended on the battle. There were times when the Romans out numbered the Celts but in general the Celts outnumbered the Romans, especially during Caesars campaign. If your talking about Romans encroaching I have explained this in the 5/29/07 thread. As far as the Germans, wouldn't it be a slow migration period of building up a populace?Notice I said serious combatants. The tribal levies that formed the bulk of Vercingetorix's forces weren't that by a long shot, doubly so compared to the professional post-Marian legionaries. I'm pretty sure the pre-Marian reservist armies insisted on reasonably equal numbers of "effectives", although the fact the Roman soldiery were on the average better armoured ought to have made up for some disparity in numbers (though everyone always liked to have an edge in numbers if possible, natch).

If by "5/29/07" you mean this post (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1559843&postcount=144) (and if not, please be more specific and better yet link), no, it does not really answer much anything about the marked sluggishness in Roman advance into Gaul. Sure, they subdued the Cisalpine Gauls relatively early on (not all that surprising given that by the end of the Punic Wars they could draw on the resources of entire Italy and beyond against pretty much just the Po river valley - it would be rather strange indeed if the more realistic among the Gauls there had not seen the writing on the wall and bowed before the inevitable) and more or less took over the Mediterranean coastal regions, but AFAIK Caesar was the first to succesfully (or even at all) invade the interior beyond that - and that involved making use of treaties, alliances etc. the Romans had made with local Gallic potentates.

In other words, the Romans only invaded when they judged the time was ripe and there was a real opportunity of success, not earlier (that Caesar's operation may well have snowballed far past its original goals is irrelevant here). The same was undoubtly the case with the Germans beyond the northern borders of Celtic territory; given the amount of raiding and mercenary work they did, they would certainly have been able to tell if and when the strenght of the Gauls was ebbing and they could start mounting more ambitious raids (accelerating the collapse and enlarging the powerbase of the warlords in charge), culminating with a full-scale invasion to seize the richer lands. And conversely the increase of wealth of the border tribes and confederations near the Celtic borderland would naturally begin attracting unwelcome attention from the tribes further away... I'm willing to bet the pattern was virtually the same as would continue all the way until the Migrations and the collapse of the Roman frontier.


Yes the Celtic warrior class like the German elites did the raiding,training and participated in warfare.The difference, though, is that the by far wealthier Celtic society could afford a by far larger class of specialized warriors...


Yes the Celts did have formidable fighters, the problem is they lost the majority of the time.What ? Since when - Caesar perhaps ?


The Romans fought as a unit, not as a bunch of individuals.Right, big news. So did the Celts by what I hear, although their tradition was a wee bit different from the rather hoplite-style one the Romans adhered to. Pursuit of personal martial glory and formation combat aren't exactly inherently incompatible after all.


The Celts like the Germans usually did a fast charge and if the Romans didn't buckle they would start to sustain heavy damage.Uh... that wouldn't happen to have anything to do with the little detail that Roman infantry doctrine was, since the adoption of the triplex acies, specifically designed to win the battle through attrition ? What with the system of rotating fresh reserves to the frontline and all that ? Neither the Celts nor the Germans were the tunnel-visioned tactical idiots popular commonplace thinks, but neither did they have any real counter for that clever trick unless they were able to demolish the front lines fast enough (which happened too, far as I know; the Romans were anything but invincible after all, many of their wars being won through sheer bloody-minded stubbornness and willingess to keep throwing armies into the grinder longer than the other party could sustain).

[blitzkrieg80]

Nice quote, I love Herwig Wolfram :grin:

Yeah, I think I misread/overreacted concerning the "tall" and "blonde"- it was only description... I just am sensitive to stereotypes of Germans being the only tall and blonde IndoEuropeans so I tend to want to tell everybody how it is... Like Aryan = Iran, so neoNazis are quite ignorant in their purism- I love the universalism of IndoEuropean... The universalism of Semitic languages and others are quite interesting as well, especially when Arabs hate Jews and it's called Antisemitism :wall: self-hate is a funny thing.

[Watchman]

I'm pretty sure the Arabs don't themselves use the term "anti-Semitism" much just because of that. Iranians may be a bit different issue since they don't like Arabs all that much by what I know of it, but AFAIK they too usually speak of "Zionists". It's the "Zionist Crusader State" of Israel they loathe, not Jews in general after all.

To keep on the "tall and blonde" tangent a bit, I find it sort of amusing how artists tend to diligently portray us Finns as blonde and blue-eyed - which most of us actually aren't. We tend more towards the "various shades of brown" in both on the average; the stereotypical "Nordic" look turns up most often in the context of Swedish ancestry, not that according to diligent and scientifically accurate survey carried out with Eyeball Mk I in the Scandinavian countries it was actually terribly common there either. Just more common than in most of the world - the pigmentation in question being something of a slowly disappearing recessive trait after all.

Which is also why I take the references to "blonde" and "red-haired" Celts, Germans and whoever with more than a pinch of salt. I very strongly suspect observers used to the dark hair and eyes normal around the Med just dreadfully over-emphasized the extent of the phenomenom due to its exoticism and association with "weird northern barbarians"...

[blitzkrieg80]

That's some interesting cultural perspective, Watchman, thanks for sharing that. IMO, Finland has some of the most interesting diversity of different language cultures, but here in the US we don't get much time devoted to learning about that or much of anything before 1776 and beyond the Atlantic ~:)

[the_handsome_viking]

Don't mean to be rude, but of course Celtic tribes proudly mentioned they were of "German" descent- it's just another Celtic tribe, admittingly mixed with Germanics though... Caesar invented what we think of as "Germans" for propoganda purposes to justify his "peace-keeping" and future Roman interests/defense. "German" really only means "Celts on the other side of the Rhine." One of the reasons Germany is a BS country-name is the fact that no German calls themselves that, they call themselves "Deutsch, ja?" The Oxford English Dictionary even states that the Germani are of Celtic origin. The Teutons are widely believed to be of Celtic origin as well, despite modern connotations of Deutsch-ness. My point being that they weren't refering to being Deutsch, but bad-ass Rhine Celts versus less bad-ass Gaul hinterland Celts, like the Belgae, another Celtic tribe, with mixed elements maybe, but certainly not dominated by the Deutsch. The small clan/tribe structure was as aware as they got concerning language/race, so "Germani" can certainly be treated as geographical and contextual.

To get into the nitty gritty of it they are all just Indo Europeans anyway who became distinct through isolation for a bit, the culture lines would have blurred, but I still think that the Germans most likely became quite distinct in their Scandinavian homeland before invading south.

Another interesting thing to keep in mind is that the Caledonians were considered to be of Germanic descent due to their reddish hair, which the romans for whatever reason associated with the Germans, which sort of clashes with the view of them being very blonde in general.

Within relation to Genetics theres actually a fairly high possibility that red hair evolved in isolation in the British isles because its quite a distinct trait here genetically speaking so as to what was going on in ancient times in terms of populatiom movements, who knows.

I assume that the Germans came from territories that from prehistoric times had a high percentage of blondes because of sexual selection, but that not all of these men would have been blonde, and quite possibly just light brown like many other European peoples, and that a distinct blondness found among the Belgae could indeed indicate some Germanic descent, but I doubt all of them would have been Blonde, and culturally speaking they were just Celts still.


That website btw mentions that one of the few pieces of evidence for Germanic ancestry among Belgae is a description of being "tall" and "blonde"- who does that describe? All Indo-Europeans (especially Celts too). Slavs, Celts, and Germans are all especially mentioned early as "tall" and "ruddy" besides rampant "blonde" and "Red" hair references- like China describing the Yueh-Chi.

There were also brunettes in the tarim basin and brunettes depicted alongside redheads and blondes, whatever the Indo Europeans originally looked like who knows, they probably would have been a mixed bag (in terms of hair and eye color) like many other peoples of Europe. Blondism undoubtably a much earlier evolution.



Also, the main argument is analysis of skull types which doesn't prove anything. There were native peoples throughout Europe before the Indo-European invasion, probably quite a few. I have read some of those kind of early archaeology books which fall into "race-theory" a little too much and I really doubt any legitimate scientist pursues that kind of theory anymore, I would hope not.

It's not so much a silly theory, well, depending on what these anthropologists define as a race, but in general the Idea that the Aryans were an extremely distinct race is most likely or perhaps totally incorrect, they would have just been White Caucasians like the rest of the peoples of Europe who were also of Cro-Magnon descent. As for the hair and eye color, like I said, this was really already determined by evolution in prehistoric times, well before the Proto-Indo-Europeans showed up, and is most likely a result of the iceage, population bottlenecks and founder effects, not to mention sexual selection and a healthy bit of isolation, but this is essentially why distinct characteristics come into being in the first place.

The idea however in older times that one of the possible reasons for a lot of upper class folk in ancient times being blonde being relative to the aesthetics of the Indo-Europeans isn't however such a silly idea though, it's just an idea that is sort of being more explained by evolutionary developments that occured well before them.

As for skull shape, outside of more broad racial categories, I don't really put much faith in the effectiveness of say, Alpinoid, Brunn or Nordic, because of the high degrees of mixing that have occurd amongst European folk. The Proto Indo Europeans most likely had a certain cranial style, back for the same way people have them today, but this would have been more distinct than Blonde hair, and really, by the time the Celts, Germans and Romans were on the scene, whatever these guys originally looked like was pretty much lost.


It is true that certain linguistic family/cultures have similar morphology like Siberian/steppe people being short and African people being tall (but not always) similar to skin tone and Vitamin D both being adaptation to weather and sun, but that is hardly proven and mostly opinion and common sense (people still don't believe in evolution!), so skulls of people who are assuredly mixed prove nothing. It can't even be proven that the Battle-Axe culture or the Przeworsk culture are any specific race/language family and we know quite a bit about them.

Oh race undoubtably exists, it just doesn't fit neatly into the worlds linguistic maps, Pre Indo Europeans and Indo Europeans were both the same race and came from the same Cro-Magnon root, despite having different languages, but it really comes down to the definition of race, but it's typically only worthwhile when you look at it in terms of distinction, there wouldn't for example be much practical purpose in calling a family of three generations a race.



Although it may sound like I'm being argumentative for fun (well it is fun- probably because I'm not writing a bunch of citations ~:)) but I want to mention that I truly believe that the Germanic tribes were mixing early on along the Rhineland, but they didn't identify themselves separate from those Celtic tribes which took credit for the people. It is the same case with the Slavs who certainly weren't spontaneously generated... in fact, I doubt any Indo-Europeans traveled over the steppe (yes I believe they came from the steppe- for the same reason, if they came from Turkey why did they leave and come back? that's dumb) and went through nicer southern land then went north away from good land far into hostile/cold wasteland then decided to go back to the nice land... don't think so... somehow I think they spread out slowly, slowly forming, slowly migrating... so I'm sure Balts and Thracians, some West Slavs too might be mixed among the Belgae. A melting pot that later uses certain languages that we call them by but certainly were not 100% anything.

Essentially it's because of the domestication of the horse that it could allow bands of young men and probably women to basically move around more effectivly than any other groups in known history, so the expansion of these people was most likely in all directions, though undoubtably some movements were peaceful, others undoubtably were aggressive, mounted combat and chariot warfare changed the world.

I suppose the situation with the Belgae was just that they resembled German people to an exten and that Germans like lots of people back in those times of much less mobile populations, had quite distinct features. I suppose you could compare it to Modern Iranians where you have many that look like people typically found in Saudi Arabia yet some that look like they could be from Poland or France.

In ancient times when you have a typically brunette people living in one area and then close to the Rhine, near the lands of the lighter haired people, when you see a group of mixed folk with lighter hair you can sort of just assume that at some point mixing had occurred.

I think EB has depicted both the Germans and Celts quite well in terms of phenotype.

[the_handsome_viking]

I'm pretty sure the Arabs don't themselves use the term "anti-Semitism" much just because of that. Iranians may be a bit different issue since they don't like Arabs all that much by what I know of it, but AFAIK they too usually speak of "Zionists". It's the "Zionist Crusader State" of Israel they loathe, not Jews in general after all.

To keep on the "tall and blonde" tangent a bit, I find it sort of amusing how artists tend to diligently portray us Finns as blonde and blue-eyed - which most of us actually aren't. We tend more towards the "various shades of brown" in both on the average; the stereotypical "Nordic" look turns up most often in the context of Swedish ancestry, not that according to diligent and scientifically accurate survey carried out with Eyeball Mk I in the Scandinavian countries it was actually terribly common there either. Just more common than in most of the world - the pigmentation in question being something of a slowly disappearing recessive trait after all.

Which is also why I take the references to "blonde" and "red-haired" Celts, Germans and whoever with more than a pinch of salt. I very strongly suspect observers used to the dark hair and eyes normal around the Med just dreadfully over-emphasized the extent of the phenomenom due to its exoticism and association with "weird northern barbarians"...

I actually agree with that, despite many of the Med people being of Brunette and Blonde hair colors, but often when they describe the lighter haired "races" of the north, it doesn't necissarily mean blonde. It could just mean light brown.

I for example have a light brown hair color, typically lighter than most browns in the country which would seem quite light if I was to walk around a country with a high population of Black haired people or very dark haired people.

[the_handsome_viking]

The hair conversation aside though.


I'll ask the question. How much can we trust Roman accounts? at least when it comes to battles?

[the_handsome_viking]

Right, big news. So did the Celts by what I hear, although their tradition was a wee bit different from the rather hoplite-style one the Romans adhered to. Pursuit of personal martial glory and formation combat aren't exactly inherently incompatible after all.

Interestingly enough there were examples in De Bello Gallico where Roman soldiers would actually attack the front lines of the Celts as basically a show of manhood and induce something of highly competitive actions in terms of bravado in other men, The famous example being when those two crack soldiers decided to attack the army of Gauls who were seiging the settlement they were hiding in and competitively fought to kill as many as possible to come over as the bravest soldier in the eyes of their peers, only to then end up saving each other and making it back to safety much to the undoubtable high reception from their fellow soldiers.

I guess what I'm saying is, the stereotypes of barbarian northerners and disciplined southerners are fairly incorrect both ways, the northerners weren't uncoordinated savages, they never had been, and the the southerners weren't cold nerved mechanically disciplined soldiers, There was undoubtably organization amongst the likes of the Germans, example they often fought in dence phalanx formation, and there was also a sort of lionhearted courage and risk taking within the ranks of the Romans.

Exmaple, the Romans once overcame a German phalanx by leaping upon the shields of the Germans and stabbing down at them, that takes guts and is undoubtably a risky move, infact it's so risky that you'd typically think that it's something the more stereotypical warrior societies would have attempted, but no, this was the Romans.



Uh... that wouldn't happen to have anything to do with the little detail that Roman infantry doctrine was, since the adoption of the triplex acies, specifically designed to win the battle through attrition ? What with the system of rotating fresh reserves to the frontline and all that ? Neither the Celts nor the Germans were the tunnel-visioned tactical idiots popular commonplace thinks, but neither did they have any real counter for that clever trick unless they were able to demolish the front lines fast enough (which happened too, far as I know; the Romans were anything but invincible after all, many of their wars being won through sheer bloody-minded stubbornness and willingess to keep throwing armies into the grinder longer than the other party could sustain).


I hate to quote the movie Rocky Balboa (though I did really like it) but he said something along the lines of "it's not about how hard you can hit, it's about how hard you can be hit and keep going" that, in my opinion is exactly what the Romans had figured out, like many seasoned and objective fighting people, if you can tire out your enemy and take the best they can throw at you, then you have a sure chance of eventually beating them.

The tightly packed formations, the shield designs, the short stabbing swords, the front line revolutions, the indurence training of the Romans all seem to undoubtably point towards their realization that in war, stamina is extremely importent, and staying power can win a battle, train your men to take everything the enemy can throw at them and keep going and when their enemies are tired, take them down quickly, ruthlessly and efficiently, and when all else fails, brass balls it, leap onto their shields and stab them in the face.

[Caratacos]

There have been some good and informative posts in here... Watchman and The Handsome Viking living up to their reputations I see.

I haven't read the whole thread but can see that some think "stronger" or "better" soldiers are the determiner of victory in battles (and thus the fortunes of Empires/States etc.)... this must come from playing computer games too much where your warriors don't have other things to worry about. Travelling far from home (mental fatigue), eating, supply lines, terrain, morale (of the whole army) and so forth. Numbers don't count for much either (though obviously they do help). It's no use outnumbering an army 3:1 if you can't outflank them and the higher numbers are made up of raw recruits anyway...
Battles were the easy part... it is the planning that goes into them that usually determines the victory (and is therefore the hard part)...
So I don't see what individual unit stats have to do with the fact that battles were lost by those armies in history (especially when it was these other factors that contributed to the defeats in the first place).

[the_handsome_viking]

There have been some good and informative posts in here... Watchman and The Handsome Viking living up to their reputations I see.

I haven't read the whole thread but can see that some think "stronger" or "better" soldiers are the determiner of victory in battles (and thus the fortunes of Empires/States etc.)... this must come from playing computer games too much where your warriors don't have other things to worry about. Travelling far from home (mental fatigue), eating, supply lines, terrain, morale (of the whole army) and so forth. Numbers don't count for much either (though obviously they do help). It's no use outnumbering an army 3:1 if you can't outflank them and the higher numbers are made up of raw recruits anyway...
Battles were the easy part... it is the planning that goes into them that usually determines the victory (and is therefore the hard part)...
So I don't see what individual unit stats have to do with the fact that battles were lost by those armies in history (especially when it was these other factors that contributed to the defeats in the first place).

WOW... I have a reputation now?

I would have always assumed I was known as "the guy who made that bunny thread".

Thankyou.

[Frostwulf]

Notice I said serious combatants. The tribal levies that formed the bulk of Vercingetorix's forces weren't that by a long shot, doubly so compared to the professional post-Marian legionaries. I'm pretty sure the pre-Marian reservist armies insisted on reasonably equal numbers of "effectives", although the fact the Roman soldiery were on the average better armoured ought to have made up for some disparity in numbers (though everyone always liked to have an edge in numbers if possible, natch).
How do you know? If these guys were constantly fighting as is suggested they would be veterans. Im not saying they would all be veterans but they would still have their warriors, as I have stated what Simon James has said. I agree with you on the Romans being better armored.


If by "5/29/07" you mean this post (and if not, please be more specific and better yet link), no, it does not really answer much anything about the marked sluggishness in Roman advance into Gaul. Sure, they subdued the Cisalpine Gauls relatively early on (not all that surprising given that by the end of the Punic Wars they could draw on the resources of entire Italy and beyond against pretty much just the Po river valley - it would be rather strange indeed if the more realistic among the Gauls there had not seen the writing on the wall and bowed before the inevitable) and more or less took over the Mediterranean coastal regions, but AFAIK Caesar was the first to succesfully (or even at all) invade the interior beyond that - and that involved making use of treaties, alliances etc. the Romans had made with local Gallic potentates.

In other words, the Romans only invaded when they judged the time was ripe and there was a real opportunity of success, not earlier (that Caesar's operation may well have snowballed far past its original goals is irrelevant here). The same was undoubtly the case with the Germans beyond the northern borders of Celtic territory; given the amount of raiding and mercenary work they did, they would certainly have been able to tell if and when the strenght of the Gauls was ebbing and they could start mounting more ambitious raids (accelerating the collapse and enlarging the powerbase of the warlords in charge), culminating with a full-scale invasion to seize the richer lands. And conversely the increase of wealth of the border tribes and confederations near the Celtic borderland would naturally begin attracting unwelcome attention from the tribes further away... I'm willing to bet the pattern was virtually the same as would continue all the way until the Migrations and the collapse of the Roman frontier.
Yes that is the correct link. The reason it doesnt talk about the sluggishness of the Roman advance into Gaul is because it was discussing about the northern Italy situation. I didnt realize you were referring to only Gaul. That being said there are certain quotes which are relevant on that response I made. The Gauls were being defeated when they raided into central Italy. Again these are the "tougher" Celts who must have been warriors as I dont see tradesmen and farmers coming over to raid. Most of these battles the Romans were outnumbered and most of these battles were won by the Romans. The conquest of northern Italy was one of pitched battles not of attrition.
When you say that the Romans only invaded because the time was ripe I dont buy at all. This is the same type of argument that Psyco tried to make with northern Italy. But as for the invasion of Gaul: Macedon,Seleucids,Achaean League,Carthage(third punic war),Numidia,TCA, etc. etc.


The difference, though, is that the by far wealthier Celtic society could afford a by far larger class of specialized warriors...
At the beginning I agree with you.



Quote:
Yes the Celts did have formidable fighters, the problem is they lost the majority of the time.
What ? Since when - Caesar perhaps ?

Since the 4th century and ever since. If you would read my post you will see the list of battles, the quotes and the citations.


Right, big news. So did the Celts by what I hear, although their tradition was a wee bit different from the rather hoplite-style one the Romans adhered to. Pursuit of personal martial glory and formation combat aren't exactly inherently incompatible after all.
The authors I sited that discussed the difference's in style of combat said basically the Romans fought as a unit where the Celts fought as a bunch of individuals.

Uh... that wouldn't happen to have anything to do with the little detail that Roman infantry doctrine was, since the adoption of the triplex acies, specifically designed to win the battle through attrition ? What with the system of rotating fresh reserves to the frontline and all that ? Neither the Celts nor the Germans were the tunnel-visioned tactical idiots popular commonplace thinks, but neither did they have any real counter for that clever trick unless they were able to demolish the front lines fast enough (which happened too, far as I know; the Romans were anything but invincible after all, many of their wars being won through sheer bloody-minded stubbornness and willingess to keep throwing armies into the grinder longer than the other party could sustain).
For the most part I agree. Here are some interesting quotes:

Simon James "The World of the Celts"- " to each horseman were attached two servants, who were themselves skilled riders and, like their masters, had a horse. When the Galatian horsemen were engaged, the servants remained behind the ranks and proved useful in the following way. Should a horseman or his horse fall, the slave brought him a horse to mount; if the rider was killed the slave mounted the horse in his master's place; if both rider and horse were killed, there was a mounted man ready. When a rider was wounded, one slave brought back to camp the wounded man, while the other took his vacant place in the ranks... This organization is called in their native speech trimarcisia, for I would have you know that marca is the Celtic name for a horse." Pausanias 10,19,5 on the Galatae who attacked Greece. pg. 78

I have read about this from a couple of the other authors as well. I dont think it pertains only to the Galatians. Any way for the most part the Celts and Germans didnt have reserves from what I read, they committed most everyone.

Simon James "The World of the Celts"-"Gallic infantry at least sometimes fought in close masses according to Caesar, who describes their overlapping shields pinned together by Roman javelins. However, their big thrusting spears and long slashing swords required a lot of room to swing, which suggests a fairly open order, suited to their individualistic fighting style and national temperament." pg.81

Simon James "The World of the Celts"Celtic armies were fragile, virtually clouds of individuals almost as much in competition with each other for glory as in conflict with the foe. They consequently lacked cohesion: if part of the line wavered, panic could spread with great speed. In contrast, Roman legionaries were trained to fight as teams, to trust each other and remain steady under pressure. This difference gave the legions a decisive tactical advantage, while the Celtic lack of discipline and tenacity gave Rome a clear strategic edge. Celtic armies were bad at supplying themselves: Caesar dealt with one large Gallic army by the simple expedient of waiting for it to get hungry and go home. In weapons, and in courage, individual Gauls were equal to the Romans, and against Caesar they frequently had great numerical advantage. Yet this was more than offset by the Romans' quantitative advantage in arms: by the second century BC, legionaries were all mail-clad, helmeted and armed with swords. Only the Celtic chieftains were consistently equipped as well as this; their armies mostly remained of unarmored spearmen.

the_handsome_viking I agree with you on just about everything, phenotype, gene pools(you didnt exactly mention it but I think thats what your getting at) and etc. The skulls I would disagree with you on just for the gene pool situation. This would change along with everything else as people intermixed.


I'll ask the question. How much can we trust Roman accounts? at least when it comes to battles?
I think for the most part we can. You have to figure the Romans inflated their numbers but in some accounts their is two sides writing about whats happened. I would guess it would depend on which battle and how much can be backed up by other things(other writings,archeology, past comparisons, etc.).


I haven't read the whole thread but can see that some think "stronger" or "better" soldiers are the determiner of victory in battles (and thus the fortunes of Empires/States etc.)... this must come from playing computer games too much where your warriors don't have other things to worry about. Travelling far from home (mental fatigue), eating, supply lines, terrain, morale (of the whole army) and so forth. Numbers don't count for much either (though obviously they do help). It's no use outnumbering an army 3:1 if you can't outflank them and the higher numbers are made up of raw recruits anyway...
Battles were the easy part... it is the planning that goes into them that usually determines the victory (and is therefore the hard part)...
So I don't see what individual unit stats have to do with the fact that battles were lost by those armies in history (especially when it was these other factors that contributed to the defeats in the first place).
So stronger units don't determine battles? Yes supply lines, terrain, are important but If you don't have good troops it doesn't matter if you hold the high ground munching on wheaties. There are battles that have taken place where the victor was badly outnumbered,taken by surprise in unfavorable terrain and still came out on top. Battles being the easy part would be quickly disagreed with you by most soldiers. Logistics are important but its the actual battle itself that makes the difference, and these are usually based on the commander,the troops (morale is part of the troop)and the tactics and formations used. When do you advance, when do you send in reserves, when do you send in the cavalry charge, do you feign retreat? when do you spring your ambush or hidden troops? Its your troops that hold the line, or start to push the enemy back, If your talking of an overall war, individual battles make up that war. Yes logistics will get you there, but its the troops and leadership that will win it.At the Battle of Watling Street do you really think if the Romans had been had been Germans they would have won that battle? What about when Caesar met Pompei, it was Caesar's experienced troops that carried the day. Yes things like bad leadership can lose you a battle but reliable good troops can bail out a bad commander just as well.
As far as EB is concerned unit stats are a must, how else are you going to do it?

[Caratacos]

So stronger units don't determine battles?

Not always. My point is when it comes to grand things like the crumbling of Empires or whatnot there are greater things at play than how good the victors soldiers are. But what makes a unit strong? Training is good but if the army is overly fatigued, worried about the home situation, mutinous-- does not have confidence in their leaders the training won't be put to best use.


Yes supply lines, terrain, are important but If you don't have good troops it doesn't matter if you hold the high ground munching on wheaties. There are battles that have taken place where the victor was badly outnumbered,taken by surprise in unfavorable terrain and still came out on top. Battles being the easy part would be quickly disagreed with you by most soldiers. Logistics are important but its the actual battle itself that makes the difference, and these are usually based on the commander,the troops (morale is part of the troop)and the tactics and formations used. When do you advance, when do you send in reserves, when do you send in the cavalry charge, do you feign retreat? when do you spring your ambush or hidden troops? Its your troops that hold the line, or start to push the enemy back, If your talking of an overall war, individual battles make up that war. Yes logistics will get you there, but its the troops and leadership that will win it.

You prove my point. There are bigger things at play than an army's training or experience (which I do think is important and say so in my post). Of course a soildier will say it isn't the easy part because of perspective-- and by easy I meant comparitably. At the end of the day if the General makes all sorts of tactical screw ups prior to the battle the soldiers no matter how good they are will be destroyed. So therefore the strategy and forethought by the general and his officers does determine battles moreso than experienced soldiers. It is also no coincidence that experienced soldiers are lead by capable men. If their soldiers die they don't exactly live to become "experienced" now do they? But I fear this is not the what I was trying to discuss.


As far as EB is concerned unit stats are a must, how else are you going to do it?

I'm not 100% sure on what you mean here but here goes...

Obviously there are limits to what you can have in game. EB does a good job through traits for things like logistics, forced marching and morale etc. But can never hope to match the complexities of the real thing. Besides this doesn't seem to be what you are interested in. Stats, namely those of the celtic factions vs the Sweboz.
Through comparisons made by Watchman and yourself it appears to me that they are quite even when you face similar units against each other... but this doesn't seem to be enough for you... what would you have? Slightly beefed up Germans so that their skills overcome their lesser quality armour and weapons? Downplay the Celtic units so that they are skilless but with nice shiny armour and swords?
It seems to me like you want it so that in every campaign the inevitable conclusion of the Germans "stomping all over Gaul". Two problems. 1) It would take away the fun/balance away from the game-- which at the end of the day it is. And 2) The point of playing is to change history-- not to repeat it. And if playing as either the Averni or Aedui one can unify Gaul under a strong leadership and defend well against the Romans or Sweboz I don't see a problem in the plausibility (historically) of that.

[the_handsome_viking]

the_handsome_viking I agree with you on just about everything, phenotype, gene pools(you didnt exactly mention it but I think thats what your getting at) and etc. The skulls I would disagree with you on just for the gene pool situation. This would change along with everything else as people intermixed.

The skulls would undoubtably change as peoples mixed, which is why I basically said that whatever the proto Indo European skull type was like, we won't really know now because they mixed so much.

Undoubtably originally there would have most likely been key features which is just a product of genetic isolation, they definitely wouldn't be distinct enough to be an entirely seperate race.

I think we agree on this one, maybe there was a bit of confusion though.



I think for the most part we can. You have to figure the Romans inflated their numbers but in some accounts their is two sides writing about whats happened. I would guess it would depend on which battle and how much can be backed up by other things(other writings,archeology, past comparisons, etc.).

It's a tough cookie when it comes to the Romans, especially Pre Christian Romans (believe it or not, post Christian Romans actually wrote a number of works saying that the Barbarian successes over the Romans was justified historically because of the wickedness of Romans in the past towards other peoples) because on the one hand you have them saying somewhat condescending things about the Celts and at other times complimenting them greatly, I think I remember mentioning that Julius Caesar claimed that the Celts were the most innovative people in the world.

I guess we really need to compare surviving oral tradition with historical texts and archeological data to really understand what truly was going on back in these times.

I personally think that the Romans won becuase Julius Caesar was nothing short of a super genius who knew exactly how to form temporary alliencies to get what he wanted, and knew exactly how to take down a liberalistic warrior culture made up of free states and naturally riddled with petty rivalries. Not to mention the fact that I suppose the location of the Romans in central Italy basically made them subject to attacks from everyone and naturally hardened them up into a brutally practical people who eventually realized that one of the major keys to success on the battlefield wasn't the weaponry and how well you could use your weapons but in many ways down to how hard you could be hit and keep going and absorb the attacks of your enemies.

De Bello Gallico did have examples of Celts temporarily routing the Romans only to then reform and hold them off once again and eventually win because of this, and believe it or not, I've actually had to good fortune to have played a few battles in Europa Barbarorum where I have(in loose formation) charge into a numerically superior Roman force, wiped out a lot of units and routed them very quickly, only to have them reform and withstand the attack and after a long time of fighting in a forest eventually have them attain the upper hand (as the Roman reinforcement army arrived) and rout my army.

Though it was a loss it was quite a glorious loss, and suprisingly historically accurate.

I recall making arguments in a thread a while ago about the possibilities of boosting the Celtic swordsmans attack points in loose formation because the nature of the long sword basically implies that in mass, you would have to have loose formation in order to effectivly use the weapon, there is really no point in a long sword in close formation unless you punch with the crossguard, which really didn't exist at the time.

It's not so much a style of ill disciplin, hypothetically it's an extremely versitile and flexible warrior style and it appears to have been something that was used all over the Celtic world from Gaul to Britain and I can only assume to great effect at one point, until the Romans figured out the trick, dence formations, defence first attack later, forcing this Celtic swordsman elite to cluster, and obstruct each others sword blows.

Spearmen undoubtably would have sooner or later started to have fought in some sort of dence phalanx formation because lets face it, the Celts had seen it used by the Romans, the Greeks and the Germans by this point, so it's not like this method of spear combat wouldn't have been adopted if not independantly developed, but as for close formation sword fighting? I suppose I would have to study more of the methods the Iberians used with their short swords and the falcata to see if they fought in dence formation or not, but in general the Celtic method of sword fighting seems to be an elite group trained to fight flexibly with an all out charge, brutal sweeping sword swings with the hopes of inducing an all out rout.

It sort of makes sense in a way because the battles in De Bello Gallico usually do follow a pattern of intial Celtic advantage, then a clever trick pulled by Julius Caesar resulting in an all out rout of the Celtic forces.

I guess now we really have to think about the Celtic advantage they had at one point that allowed them to be the masters of most of Europe. If they were useless fighters, there would be some different culture in place of them, it's that simple. They had dominion over the territory for quite some time, and though we seem to agree that the Germans were very hardy folk and undoubtably adept warriors, if the Celts were such major pushovers it's safe to say that the Germans would have overun them very quickly. The fact that it was the Romans(with Celtic and Germanic aid) who took down the mainland European Celts goes to show you that it did take a while to eventually get them and outclass their fighting methods.

I am making a lot of assumptions just now though, and I'll happily admit it, it's just one of the subjects that really makes me wonder. Perhaps it was a combination of all the above mentioned factors that made the Celts lose dominion over Europe. Perhaps the bulk of them became too civilized, we all know they were quite liberalistic people so that old habbit of becoming too comfortable and sappy could have sapped their fighting prowess, perhaps the political climate of the time made it every difficult to mount a proper offence to the Romans(send an army out to fight them, have your settlement attacked by a rival Celtic tribe, so stay put and wait to get sieged by the Romans, undoubtably with the help of other Celts, which isn't that unrealistic a concept, during the Mongol invasions of Poland and Hungary, Polish and Hungarian nobles were still highly concerned with fighting other Polish and Hungarian nobles, despite the fact that there was a major outsider threat in the area).

Undoubtably the Roman military training and philosophy gave them a major advantage, and undoubtably Julius Caesar was a man of exceptional intelligence, regimented equipment, another key factor, superior logistics, another key factor.

I do agree though that the Celtic cavalry should be a bit more powerful, or at least a bit more accessable.

[Frostwulf]

Not always. My point is when it comes to grand things like the crumbling of Empires or whatnot there are greater things at play than how good the victors soldiers are. But what makes a unit strong? Training is good but if the army is overly fatigued, worried about the home situation, mutinous-- does not have confidence in their leaders the training won't be put to best use.
So what point is this for EB? If you want to get into this for the historical perspective ok, but how this has a role in EB I dont know.


Through comparisons made by Watchman and yourself it appears to me that they are quite even when you face similar units against each other... but this doesn't seem to be enough for you... what would you have? Slightly beefed up Germans so that their skills overcome their lesser quality armour and weapons? Downplay the Celtic units so that they are skilless but with nice shiny armour and swords?
It seems to me like you want it so that in every campaign the inevitable conclusion of the Germans "stomping all over Gaul". Two problems. 1) It would take away the fun/balance away from the game-- which at the end of the day it is. And 2) The point of playing is to change history-- not to repeat it. And if playing as either the Averni or Aedui one can unify Gaul under a strong leadership and defend well against the Romans or Sweboz I don't see a problem in the plausibility (historically) of that.

You misunderstand me then. EB was created to be a more historically accurate game. So if the Germans historically beat up on the Celts why would it be ok to have the Celts be stronger units? I would beef up the Germans a little bit but I would most definitely reduce the Celtic elite units so they dont outstrip the Romans, just as you said. There are other ways of making EB competitive like economics. How is it balanced to make the Celtic units more powerful, let alone what of historical accuracy? The point is to change history, but EB is also about historical accuracy. Make the Celtic units cheaper but not as powerful.

[Caratacos]

So what point is this for EB? If you want to get into this for the historical perspective ok, but how this has a role in EB I dont know.

My point is (and forgive me if I have misread your argument) that just because a culture or state or Empire fell in history it is not necessarily a reflection if the skills of the armies it fielded.


You misunderstand me then. EB was created to be a more historically accurate game. So if the Germans historically beat up on the Celts why would it be ok to have the Celts be stronger units? I would beef up the Germans a little bit but I would most definitely reduce the Celtic elite units so they dont outstrip the Romans, just as you said. There are other ways of making EB competitive like economics. How is it balanced to make the Celtic units more powerful, let alone what of historical accuracy? The point is to change history, but EB is also about historical accuracy. Make the Celtic units cheaper but not as powerful.

EB starts in 272BC long before Caesar or Ariovistus-- and long before some of these elite units are even available in game (having to go through reforms and such). So if in a campaign they become available the player is probably in a strong enough position that justifies fielding these elites.

I'm not sure that the Celtic elites are stronger than the Roman or German elites in the game. If I can quote Watchman
Save for the 2 HP and the frighten_foot thing the Gastiz shuld actually be about equally matched on the Gaesatae. They're nearly even with Solduri and Rycalawre too, and should be able to give the Arjos and Carnutes a close run thing. The Uachtarac, meh. Extremely limited availability and hardly ever going to be a common feature in Briton armies.
And I can't imagine that the Celtic elites outstrip the later (post Marian) Roman legionnaires either (Say, the Evocata or something-- though I don't know the stats off the top of my head-- so don't kill me if i'm wrong).

[QwertyMIDX]

Its also worth considering that the celtic elite units are rare, take long reforms to get, and have very small numbers of men in their units. In terms of rank-and-file (the basic warrior class for the celts, Gaeroas, Gaelaiche, Bataroas, and Botroas) are pretty generally outclassed by their germanic counterparts. I think you're seeing a lot of things that aren't actually there, and ignoring a lot of things that are in terms of stats.

[Frostwulf]

The skulls would undoubtably change as peoples mixed, which is why I basically said that whatever the proto Indo European skull type was like, we won't really know now because they mixed so much.

Undoubtably originally there would have most likely been key features which is just a product of genetic isolation, they definitely wouldn't be distinct enough to be an entirely seperate race.

I think we agree on this one, maybe there was a bit of confusion though.
I believe we are along the same lines on this, but I will try to get a hold of J.A. MacCulloch's book, "The Religion of the Ancient Celts" . I'm curious how he based his findings, hopefully this will be explained.


I personally think that the Romans won becuase Julius Caesar was nothing short of a super genius who knew exactly how to form temporary alliencies to get what he wanted, and knew exactly how to take down a liberalistic warrior culture made up of free states and naturally riddled with petty rivalries. Not to mention the fact that I suppose the location of the Romans in central Italy basically made them subject to attacks from everyone and naturally hardened them up into a brutally practical people who eventually realized that one of the major keys to success on the battlefield wasn't the weaponry and how well you could use your weapons but in many ways down to how hard you could be hit and keep going and absorb the attacks of your enemies.

I agree that very few men could have done what Caesar did. Where I may deviate from you is that I don't believe Caesar would have succeeded with lesser troops. If he didn't have units like the tenth legion he could have and in my opinion would have failed. The tenth and some of his other units held firm while others wavered. In a few battles this would have become a rout and would have been devastating for Caesar.

I was agreeing with you up until this point:

I guess now we really have to think about the Celtic advantage they had at one point that allowed them to be the masters of most of Europe. If they were useless fighters, there would be some different culture in place of them, it's that simple. They had dominion over the territory for quite some time, and though we seem to agree that the Germans were very hardy folk and undoubtably adept warriors, if the Celts were such major pushovers it's safe to say that the Germans would have overun them very quickly. The fact that it was the Romans(with Celtic and Germanic aid) who took down the mainland European Celts goes to show you that it did take a while to eventually get them and outclass their fighting methods.
Something to take into consideration, who in Europe did they fight. I personally think the Celts were very tough, they did take out most of the indigenous peoples in Europe. But to call them masters of Europe would be having to ignore Italy and Greece. To my knowledge the Celts had one major incursion into Greece, but quickly afterward they were chased out. Greece at this time was weekend, but they still were able to push out the Celts. As far as Italy is concerned I talked about it already in this thread. I feel like I showed that the Celts were outclassed by the Romans. In the 4th Century after the Celts sacked Rome then what? The Romans consistently defeated them all the while embroiled in other disputes and wars. The Celts most certainly a tough people did win against the Romans, but it was the Romans who won most of the time.
When it comes to the Germans, where were they most of the time? Historically we don't really hear about them till around 200 BC. Before 200 BC did they meet up with the Celts and if they did what happened? The only thing that I'm aware of was when the TCA started southward and look at the results. Before the TCA, how did the Belgae get to where they were(I consider them German when they first arrived)? When the Suebi arrived we have written records of those actions, and what were the results. The Celts were not wimps by any imagination, there martial ability shows in the records of their enemies and of the foes the conquered. I just think the Romans and the Germans were tougher.
I agree with your paragraph after this one, there were many factors that hurt the Celts. I believe the lack of unity and infighting is a big contributing factor for them losing to Caesar.


My point is (and forgive me if I have misread your argument) that just because a culture or state or Empire fell in history it is not necessarily a reflection if the skills of the armies it fielded.
I don't disagree with you on this. I will say that would the Huns,Mongels or Romans have done as well as they did without the quality of their troops? I'll also say that of the Celts, If it wasn't for their martial skill would they have been able to spread over Europe like they did? I'm thinking we also are roughly of the same thought on this subject, that there are many factors involved.




EB starts in 272BC long before Caesar or Ariovistus-- and long before some of these elite units are even available in game (having to go through reforms and such). So if in a campaign they become available the player is probably in a strong enough position that justifies fielding these elites.

I'm not sure that the Celtic elites are stronger than the Roman or German elites in the game. If I can quote Watchman
Save for the 2 HP and the frighten_foot thing the Gastiz shuld actually be about equally matched on the Gaesatae. They're nearly even with Solduri and Rycalawre too, and should be able to give the Arjos and Carnutes a close run thing. The Uachtarac, meh. Extremely limited availability and hardly ever going to be a common feature in Briton armies.
And I can't imagine that the Celtic elites outstrip the later (post Marian) Roman legionnaires either (Say, the Evocata or something-- though I don't know the stats off the top of my head-- so don't kill me if i'm wrong).

Watchman and QwertyMIDX know these things much more than I. Just by going with the stats the Celts do have stronger units then post Marian. If you go to this link you can compare them. But also the cards dont have all the information so my analysis may be incorrect. This is the link I was talking about.https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=80557


Its also worth considering that the celtic elite units are rare, take long reforms to get, and have very small numbers of men in their units. In terms of rank-and-file (the basic warrior class for the celts, Gaeroas, Gaelaiche, Bataroas, and Botroas) are pretty generally outclassed by their germanic counterparts. I think you're seeing a lot of things that aren't actually there, and ignoring a lot of things that are in terms of stats.

I have no doubt on your knowledge in this area, but I will do a few tests. I will take one unit vs. one unit and play both sides twice and let the computer run them both and see what happens. I already did this with the Gaesatae, and they won every time. I still think their are moral disparities amongst the Romans, Germans and Celts.

One last point I would like to make. I appreciate the time the guys have put into making this mod. I may not agree with them on a few items but they have done a great job. I just hope the people who work on this mod. dont think I'm attacking them in anyway.

[the_handsome_viking]

I agree that very few men could have done what Caesar did. Where I may deviate from you is that I don't believe Caesar would have succeeded with lesser troops. If he didn't have units like the tenth legion he could have and in my opinion would have failed. The tenth and some of his other units held firm while others wavered. In a few battles this would have become a rout and would have been devastating for Caesar.

There's actually no disagreement here, I specifically said that the political climate of the Italian peninsula carved the population into brutally effective warriors, the Legions were undoubtably excellent fighters and arguably the most effective fighting force on earth. However, I do believe that Julius Caesar's genius played a crucial part in the downfall of Celtic civilization on mainland Europe.



I was agreeing with you up until this point:

Something to take into consideration, who in Europe did they fight. I personally think the Celts were very tough, they did take out most of the indigenous peoples in Europe. But to call them masters of Europe would be having to ignore Italy and Greece.

By 400bc there really was no other culture in Europe that had as much territory as the Celts, this is what I am referring to when I call them the masters of Europe.


To my knowledge the Celts had one major incursion into Greece, but quickly afterward they were chased out. Greece at this time was weekend, but they still were able to push out the Celts.

Still a branch of this Celtic wave stayed in their territories and really only ended up getting conquered by the Romans later on, so they were good enough to invade and settle.


As far as Italy is concerned I talked about it already in this thread. I feel like I showed that the Celts were outclassed by the Romans. In the 4th Century after the Celts sacked Rome then what? The Romans consistently defeated them all the while embroiled in other disputes and wars.

The Celts seemingly were outclassed much later on after the sack of Rome, but the issue really comes down to how much we can really trust Roman sources. I think I've said that a number of times.


The Celts most certainly a tough people did win against the Romans, but it was the Romans who won most of the time.
When it comes to the Germans, where were they most of the time? Historically we don't really hear about them till around 200 BC.

In Germania and undoubtably trying to push into Celtic territories, that remained Celtic, which implies that the Celts seemed to be capable enough of fight off the Germans. The issues surrounding the Belgae asside in terms of their ethnic makeup, they were basically Celts and they were fighting against the Germans on a regular basis, and their existance does pretty much imply that the Celts were not getting beaten left right and center by the Germans.



Before 200 BC did they meet up with the Celts and if they did what happened? The only thing that I'm aware of was when the TCA started southward and look at the results. Before the TCA, how did the Belgae get to where they were(I consider them German when they first arrived)? When the Suebi arrived we have written records of those actions, and what were the results. The Celts were not wimps by any imagination, there martial ability shows in the records of their enemies and of the foes the conquered. I just think the Romans and the Germans were tougher.
I agree with your paragraph after this one, there were many factors that hurt the Celts. I believe the lack of unity and infighting is a big contributing factor for them losing to Caesar.

I'm personally leaning towards the opinions that the Celts on the Iberian peninsula, particularly the mountain areas, and coastal areas, the Britons, and Caledonians and the Celts on the Northern and Eastern parimiter as well as the Alpine Celts, were probably the most vicious and because they were actually on the fringe of other cultures and therefore more likely to have experienced total war rather than tribal and ritualistic war which probably occured on a low intensity throughout the bulk of Celtic territory.

I also think that the average Celt probably, like what Julius Caesar was saying, were basically getting too soft, surrounded by Celtic folk, with quite a multitude of gold mines in their territories and probably quite a lot of successful trade and business ventures going on which would have understandably obstructed the typical process of ritual warfare. the Parimiter Celts on the other hand had to be vicious and vigerous in order to survive.

Now if we were to look at toughness as seperate from technological advantage, then I think that it is highly likely that the enviroment the Germans lived in made the average German much tougher than the Average Celt, and that Celtic warrior classes were Indeed tough having been raised to be warriors and undoubtably bred from the finest fighting stock, the Celts afterall, like many other ancient peoples were very big on proto-eugenics.

For example the Celtic religion held the belief that a child didn't have a soul until after several days (I think 9) during this period the child would be examined for deformities or disabilites, and if the child was found to be disadvantaged in any way, it would be killed and the killing would not religiously offend the Celtic parents and the Celtic society they belonged to.

If we can assume that the typical wargear of the average Celtic soldier would be a shield and a spear, then the typical German armed with the same would probably outclass the average Celt, minus the ones that lived in the territories I mentioned above where more traditionalistic intense warfare occured and culture war skirmishes occured.

In terms of technological edge though, the Celts do seem to have had more access to Iron and were extremely good Iron workers and are thought to be the inventors of chainmail, the longsword, they were the same people that produced the helmet types the Romans ended up using, and the Iberian Celts produced the sword that the famous Roman legionary used.

So, the Celts would have had a very distinct advantage technologically over the Germans, and we can assume that the warrior elite would be much more likely to be not only tougher fighters than average, but also better armored and equipped, but obviously a minority.

I think that because of this Celtic elites should be a bit tougher than most Germans, and at least as tough as most of the very tough Germans, but their main advantage should come in terms of their technological superiority in terms of arms and armor.

As for the Romans, refrom Romans were equipped universally with gear that Celtic nobles typically had, and were trained to basically exploit the flaws in Celtic tactics from noble infantry and regular infantry, so undoubtably should be better and tougher with toughness and moral superior only second to the most extreme berserker types found within both Celtic and German society.

In terms of EB though, I think that this sort of setup is already in place, the Germans do always seem to be tougher than my average units and really only my elites and more extreme Belgae troops are capable of really fighting back the Germans.

[Fenrhyl]

I, as an anthropologist, can certify that nearly every comment about skull types, would-be races and other pseudo-scientific comment about ino-european expansion is absolute RUBISH.

[the_handsome_viking]

I, as an anthropologist, can certify that nearly every comment about skull types, would-be races and other pseudo-scientific comment about ino-european expansion is absolute RUBISH.

What is pseudo-scientific about the fact that different genetic clusters often produce people of a distinct phenotype that makes it possible to distinguish one group from another group based on skull type?

Also what is pseudo scientific about the Indo-European expansion? the kurgan hypothesis is pretty much accepted by everyone and is backed up by archeology and population genetics.

[zonks32]

The hair conversation aside though.


I'll ask the question. How much can we trust Roman accounts? at least when it comes to battles?

How can we believe in any history?, Governments were liars then, just as they are now.
Any written history is the "perception of the writer".
Just because its written in a book does not make it fact, you all spend a lot of time arguing about this or that, and the truth is you are probably all wrong.
Sorry if that annoys some people.

[Foot]

How can we believe in any history?, Governments were liars then, just as they are now.
Any written history is the "perception of the writer".
Just because its written in a book does not make it fact, you all spend a lot of time arguing about this or that, and the truth is you are probably all wrong.
Sorry if that annoys some people.

Have you ever studied history. There are ways to limit how the bias of the writer interferes with the facts of the story. There is no doubt that there are some truths hidden in every lie, it wouldn't be a good lie if there wasn't, and it is up to the good historian to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Foot

[Geoffrey S]

How can we believe in any history?, Governments were liars then, just as they are now.
Any written history is the "perception of the writer".
Just because its written in a book does not make it fact, you all spend a lot of time arguing about this or that, and the truth is you are probably all wrong.
Sorry if that annoys some people.
D'oh. If history were just a matter of paraphrasing older writings and taking things at face value there wouldn't be a point in having historians who, you know, research things now would there?

Finding out the exact truth is in almost all cases is a dream confined to the nineteenth century and Rankean historians, and your statement is one that has seen a far more extensive analysis in the twentieth century. I suggest that if you wish to form an opinion relevant to the study of history in the present, that you do some research into the influence of Postmodernism on history. The opinion you convey is your post is outdated and the debate has moved far beyond it, so if you're really interested in the implications of your view you'll be sure to find a fascinating debate.

Remember, for starters, that much information about the past is recovered from implicit rather than explicit sources and does not rely on the author's intentions, which indeed is always biased in some regard (either on purpose of subconsciously). Historians, decent ones at least, do not really solely on the explicit statements of a source but take into account other evidence, the conscious bias of the author, the nature of the source, even what the survival of the source says about the priorities of those who preserved it... the list could be endless and allows for much information to be acquired from even the seemingly most useless source. No, absolute facts are largely impossible and many interpretations are likely, but isn't that the case even in modern day media?

[blitzkrieg80]

I, as an anthropologist, can certify that nearly every comment about skull types, would-be races and other pseudo-scientific comment about ino-european expansion is absolute RUBISH.

I, as a linguist/philologist, can certify that skulls DO exists (i have one), and denial of clear evidence of Indo-European material culture/language spread is absolute pseudo-science and RUBISHish


How can we believe in any history?, Governments were liars then, just as they are now.
Any written history is the "perception of the writer".
Just because its written in a book does not make it fact, you all spend a lot of time arguing about this or that, and the truth is you are probably all wrong.
Sorry if that annoys some people.

A wise person realizes that all of reality is a matter of perception (SEE Plato's Allegory of the Cave) and therefore does not let any outside sources sway him/her to believe something based on face value and rather judges it in comparison to all of the things he/she knows and verifies it through experimentation and thus can believe it true to the extent that it holds up to the conditions pressed upon it... Only sheep believe what is told/read as if it were fact...
http://re3.mm-a4.yimg.com/image/3016665464 "Big man, pig man, ha ha charade you are" http://re3.mm-a4.yimg.com/image/3016665464 oh I love the Classics.
Yet the dogs and pigs are no better... so we all must ask ourselves, which are we?

[the_handsome_viking]

How can we believe in any history?, Governments were liars then, just as they are now.
Any written history is the "perception of the writer".
Just because its written in a book does not make it fact, you all spend a lot of time arguing about this or that, and the truth is you are probably all wrong.
Sorry if that annoys some people.

Actually I've said several times now we can't truly trust any written source, hence the reason you have comparitive and cross referencing and study, for example, does a written record stand up to archeological fact? does a population movement and conquest stand up to population genetic trends?

Lots of governments contain people that are liars but really to say that government full stop by default is full of liars really is a bit of a groundless absolute.

I've noticed theres lots of cliche sayings around nowdays like "power corrupts", my usual response is, "the people that say that often never have any power at all and therefore couldn't possibly understand the effects of power".

I think too much power given to the wrong people, those being often less intelligent and consequently more short sighted people will become easily corrupted by large amounts of power, but does power corrupt as a whole? no.

[Frostwulf]

By 400bc there really was no other culture in Europe that had as much territory as the Celts, this is what I am referring to when I call them the masters of Europe.
True and in this I would agree.


Still a branch of this Celtic wave stayed in their territories and really only ended up getting conquered by the Romans later on, so they were good enough to invade and settle.
I was kind of thinking they were under the rule of one of the Greek/Macedonian kings. I thought they were using them as troops and/or mercenaries, I could be confusing them with something else though.


The Celts seemingly were outclassed much later on after the sack of Rome, but the issue really comes down to how much we can really trust Roman sources. I think I've said that a number of times.

Between 390 and 367 there appears to be no conflict between the Celts and Rome. Starting around 367 the Romans defeat the Celts the majority of the time. This is the link to my argument on the subject,courtesy of Watchman. .https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1559843&postcount=144


In Germania and undoubtably trying to push into Celtic territories, that remained Celtic, which implies that the Celts seemed to be capable enough of fight off the Germans. The issues surrounding the Belgae asside in terms of their ethnic makeup, they were basically Celts and they were fighting against the Germans on a regular basis, and their existance does pretty much imply that the Celts were not getting beaten left right and center by the Germans.

Maybe there was a misunderstanding here or I'm not sure what your getting at. If the Belgae were German, which I believe they were, they would have had to defeat some Celts to arrive at the Northern coast. I do believe they became Celticised through culture and admixture of the two people's. Other then the Belgae I haven't heard of any Germans making inroads until the TCA. I have no doubt that there was raiding on both ends, Celts raiding Germans and vice versa. Why there were no other incursions I don't know why. It could have been the German migrations hadn't reached this area yet, the Germans couldn't overcome the Celtic oppida(I read that somewhere, cant recall where though) or simply as you put it, they couldn't overcome the Celts.

I'm personally leaning towards the opinions that the Celts on the Iberian peninsula, particularly the mountain areas, and coastal areas, the Britons, and Caledonians and the Celts on the Northern and Eastern parimiter as well as the Alpine Celts, were probably the most vicious and because they were actually on the fringe of other cultures and therefore more likely to have experienced total war rather than tribal and ritualistic war which probably occured on a low intensity throughout the bulk of Celtic territory.
An interesting opinion, and it does make since to me. I believe according to Caesar it was the Belgae who were the fiercest of all the Celts with the Nervii being the fiercest of all the Belgae. The Iberian Celts were ones to give Rome a very hard time. It was also the Iberian Celts who after a few years repulsed the TCA.

I also think that the average Celt probably, like what Julius Caesar was saying, were basically getting too soft, surrounded by Celtic folk, with quite a multitude of gold mines in their territories and probably quite a lot of successful trade and business ventures going on which would have understandably obstructed the typical process of ritual warfare. the Parimiter Celts on the other hand had to be vicious and vigerous in order to survive.
I would agree with you on the southern Celts getting soft. But as far as the Sequani, Arverni, Aedui and others in this area I would disagree. They would still be battle hardened from fighting each other and the Germans. What you said with the perimeter Celts I would agree with.

Now if we were to look at toughness as seperate from technological advantage, then I think that it is highly likely that the enviroment the Germans lived in made the average German much tougher than the Average Celt, and that Celtic warrior classes were Indeed tough having been raised to be warriors and undoubtably bred from the finest fighting stock, the Celts afterall, like many other ancient peoples were very big on proto-eugenics.

For example the Celtic religion held the belief that a child didn't have a soul until after several days (I think 9) during this period the child would be examined for deformities or disabilites, and if the child was found to be disadvantaged in any way, it would be killed and the killing would not religiously offend the Celtic parents and the Celtic society they belonged to.

I agree with you. Kind of funny but never really thought of proto-eugenics before, though the Spartans did practice this.

If we can assume that the typical wargear of the average Celtic soldier would be a shield and a spear, then the typical German armed with the same would probably outclass the average Celt, minus the ones that lived in the territories I mentioned above where more traditionalistic intense warfare occured and culture war skirmishes occured.
I would say that the Germans outclassed the Celts in general, regardless of the territory. The written records that I know of which is basically from Caesar and Tacitus bares this out.

I think that because of this Celtic elites should be a bit tougher than most Germans, and at least as tough as most of the very tough Germans, but their main advantage should come in terms of their technological superiority in terms of arms and armor.
I agree here and with the one you posted below.


I, as an anthropologist, can certify that nearly every comment about skull types, would-be races and other pseudo-scientific comment about ino-european expansion is absolute RUBISH.
I wouldnt mind seeing you expand on this on another thread. I completely disagree with you as of now but would like to see why you have this theory.

[Sarcasm]

There is a distinction between Celtiberians and Iberian Celts.

[the_handsome_viking]

True and in this I would agree.


I was kind of thinking they were under the rule of one of the Greek/Macedonian kings. I thought they were using them as troops and/or mercenaries, I could be confusing them with something else though.[/QUOTE]

Nah, Galatia was fairly successful, these Celts could and did live surrounded by mostly hellenic people and thrive and they did often engage in border skirmishes and did also attempt land grabs, that were often unsuccessful granted, but the reverse also wasn't that successful either. So in short the Celtic invasion into the territory did leave its mark and the Celts did have a surprisingly decent amount of staying power.

The Romans however ended up essentially conquering the Galatians by simply incorporating the territory into the Empire, but a lot of this was through diplomacy and administrative reforms rather than the more dynamic conquests of Gaul.



Maybe there was a misunderstanding here or I'm not sure what your getting at. If the Belgae were German, which I believe they were, they would have had to defeat some Celts to arrive at the Northern coast. I do believe they became Celticised through culture and admixture of the two people's. Other then the Belgae I haven't heard of any Germans making inroads until the TCA. I have no doubt that there was raiding on both ends, Celts raiding Germans and vice versa. Why there were no other incursions I don't know why. It could have been the German migrations hadn't reached this area yet, the Germans couldn't overcome the Celtic oppida(I read that somewhere, cant recall where though) or simply as you put it, they couldn't overcome the Celts.

I would consider the Belgae to be a mixture persoanlly but more Celtic leaning than German due to the fact that Julius Caesar says they were getting into regular scraps with other Germans.


I would agree with you on the southern Celts getting soft. But as far as the Sequani, Arverni, Aedui and others in this area I would disagree. They would still be battle hardened from fighting each other and the Germans. What you said with the perimeter Celts I would agree with.

Perhaps the Idea that the Celtic powers had been weakened overall through civil war is more exclusive to the Arverni and Aedui rather than all Celts in general.

Overall it seems that we are agreeing on most things.

[Frostwulf]

There is a distinction between Celtiberians and Iberian Celts.
Celtiberians being a mixture of the Celts and Iberians and Iberian Celts being Celts who lived in that area? If thats what your referring to, good point. To my knowledge it was the Celtiberians who were giving Rome a hard time, not the Iberian Celts as I said.


Nah, Galatia was fairly successful, these Celts could and did live surrounded by mostly hellenic people and thrive and they did often engage in border skirmishes and did also attempt land grabs, that were often unsuccessful granted, but the reverse also wasn't that successful either. So in short the Celtic invasion into the territory did leave its mark and the Celts did have a surprisingly decent amount of staying power.

The Romans however ended up essentially conquering the Galatians by simply incorporating the territory into the Empire, but a lot of this was through diplomacy and administrative reforms rather than the more dynamic conquests of Gaul.

I was thinking that in northern Greece there were a couple of tribes of Celts who ended up staying and were used by the Greeks. I might indeed be getting them up with the ones who became Galatians. The rest of what you say I would agree with.

I would consider the Belgae to be a mixture persoanlly but more Celtic leaning than German due to the fact that Julius Caesar says they were getting into regular scraps with other Germans.
I would agree with you during Caesar's time and even before that they would be a mixture. What I'm getting at is there had to be a base German group to arrive in that area to get to the mixture of the two. The Germans also fought one another just as the Celts fought each other.

Perhaps the Idea that the Celtic powers had been weakened overall through civil war is more exclusive to the Arverni and Aedui rather than all Celts in general.

Overall it seems that we are agreeing on most things.
I'm still not convinced that the Arverni,Aedui,Sequani and etc. that is was any thing excessive. I just haven't read anything to the contrary of Simon James or A. Goldsworthy. But yes very little disagreement between us.

[Sarcasm]

Celtiberians being a mixture of the Celts and Iberians and Iberian Celts being Celts who lived in that area? If thats what your referring to, good point. To my knowledge it was the Celtiberians who were giving Rome a hard time, not the Iberian Celts as I said.

I figured you were talking about the more catastrophic defeats the Romans had in that time, relating to Celts. So yes, that's what I meant.

The Celtiberians were Iberians who had mingled somewhat with Celts and had a substantial Celtic influence. Romans and Carthies liked that they were disciplined as the Iberians and fierce and warlike as the Celts.

The Iberian Celts were mostly in the northernmost part of the peninsula, particularly the Northwest, which had (even during different times) close ties with Britain and Ireland. To be fair they did give the Romans trouble...massive deportations, mass murders, entire cities were burnt to the ground in order to defeat them. Some resisted well into the time of Augustus.

[Sarcasm]

I'm still not convinced that the Arverni,Aedui,Sequani and etc. that is was any thing excessive. I just haven't read anything to the contrary of Simon James or A. Goldsworthy. But yes very little disagreement between us.

I don't understand why you can't picture that a civil war between the major powers in Gaul (and both among the top 5 most powerful realms of the Celts), would lead to a major destabilization of the region, and eventually leading to them being so damn bloodied that any loss that their field army could incur, would be catastrophic, especially to an already limited number warrior class.

There's literally dozens of cases in history where rival regional powers are too busy fighting each other to notice emerging enemies, that in the long run would eventually consume them both.

The only thing I can agree with you on the Celts being overpowered is their levies and slingers. Maybe.

[Watchman]

Not to forget that such unpleasant conditions doubtless motivated many an up and coming young warrior to search his fortunes elsewhere. Celtic mercenaries fought for pretty much everyone anyway; wouldn't be a great leap to sign up for the Romans, especially as they certainly looked like one powerful bunch with money to spare and battles to fight...

[Frostwulf]

I don't understand why you can't picture that a civil war between the major powers in Gaul (and both among the top 5 most powerful realms of the Celts), would lead to a major destabilization of the region, and eventually leading to them being so damn bloodied that any loss that their field army could incur, would be catastrophic, especially to an already limited number warrior class.

There's literally dozens of cases in history where rival regional powers are too busy fighting each other to notice emerging enemies, that in the long run would eventually consume them both.

Sarcasm I can picture this with no problem. The problem lies with the limiting factors that occurred within the Celtic Realms. Have not the Celtic peoples been raiding, in-fighting and fighting since the 4th century BC? Yet there is no cry of "these are weaker Celts" or "spent" Celts. What makes this "civil war" time period different what so ever from any in previous era's? The Sequani brought over the Germans to help against the Aedui over a trade rout dispute, do you really think this is the first time such things occurred? Again ever since the 4th century there has been inter-tribal conflict. I haven't read anything on these forums about the Arverni and Allobroges being weaker Celts during their defeat at the Romans hands in the 120's BC. I keep reading about on these forums how devastating this "civil war" was, but no one puts any sources or quotes down. If you have something that conflicts with what Simon James or Adrian Goldsworthy says I would love to read about it. I just believe the conflict is being exaggerated.

Not to forget that such unpleasant conditions doubtless motivated many an up and coming young warrior to search his fortunes elsewhere. Celtic mercenaries fought for pretty much everyone anyway; wouldn't be a great leap to sign up for the Romans, especially as they certainly looked like one powerful bunch with money to spare and battles to fight...
I agree, Celtic mercenaries have been used since the 4th century. Of course I would think the if the Celts homeland was under attack he would be unlikely to leave it to become a mercenary. I'm fairly sure most would stay to defend their home.

[Watchman]

Caesar's cavalry was mostly Gauls, remember ? The way the warrior class thought was obviously rather more complex than "stay defending your homeland".

[The Celt]

Sarcasm I can picture this with no problem. The problem lies with the limiting factors that occurred within the Celtic Realms. Have not the Celtic peoples been raiding, in-fighting and fighting since the 4th century BC? Yet there is no cry of "these are weaker Celts" or "spent" Celts. What makes this "civil war" time period different what so ever from any in previous era's? The Sequani brought over the Germans to help against the Aedui over a trade rout dispute, do you really think this is the first time such things occurred? Again ever since the 4th century there has been inter-tribal conflict. I haven't read anything on these forums about the Arverni and Allobroges being weaker Celts during their defeat at the Romans hands in the 120's BC. I keep reading about on these forums how devastating this "civil war" was, but no one puts any sources or quotes down. If you have something that conflicts with what Simon James or Adrian Goldsworthy says I would love to read about it. I just believe the conflict is being exaggerated.
.
So, according to your logic, we shouldn't call all those conflicts within the Roman Empire between rival Emperors or generals Civil Wars because, since the 3rd century AD, they happened quite often? :dizzy2: Not that I'm saying that the Celts were an empire or anything. Hell, they were far from it. However, just because its not the first "Civil War" in Gaul doesn't mean it's not a "Civil War".(Depending on your definition of Civil War that is.)

But then again, the Roman army wasn't considerably "weaker" during the Age of Crisis or the 5th century. They just weren't as numerous, and had to rely on foreign aid like the foederati.(Much like the Sequani hiring Germans to help them in fighting the Aedui, only I don't think the Germans were allowed to settle afterward.:book: )

I honestly can't tell if I'm agreeing with you or disagreeing with you Frostwulf. Maybe I'll just sit back and watch from a afar instead....

[Frostwulf]

Caesar's cavalry was mostly Gauls, remember ? The way the warrior class thought was obviously rather more complex than "stay defending your homeland".
Something you also need to consider though. When Caesar confronted the Helvetii some of his Gallic troops defected to the Helvetii. When Caesar went to war with Vercingetorix about the only Gauls he could rely on were the Aedui, and that was after he confronted them for wavering as his allies. When I say the Celt's homeland, I'm referring to the land each tribe owned. If Caesar would have gone to crush the Aedui homeland(territory) I believe most of the Aedui in his charge would have left him and joined their own people for defense. If Caesar was going against the Arverni I dont see any of the Aedui having much problem helping the Romans beat up on them.


So, according to your logic, we shouldn't call all those conflicts within the Roman Empire between rival Emperors or generals Civil Wars because, since the 3rd century AD, they happened quite often? Not that I'm saying that the Celts were an empire or anything. Hell, they were far from it. However, just because its not the first "Civil War" in Gaul doesn't mean it's not a "Civil War".(Depending on your definition of Civil War that is.)
I think your misunderstanding the situation. Some are saying that the "Civil War" with the Sequani,Arverni vs. the Aedui (there were others involved) in 70-60 BC was devastating and nearly brought all these tribes to ruin. I am disagreeing with this on the basis of the findings of Simon James and the writing of A. Goldsworthy. My point about the in-fighting in the earlier years is that they didn't have the same kind of claims as being catastrophic as the one in the 70-60BC. It doesnt have anything to do with the amount of in-fighting it's just the level of devastation claimed.

I honestly can't tell if I'm agreeing with you or disagreeing with you Frostwulf. Maybe I'll just sit back and watch from a afar instead....
I hope you don't. I disagree with watchman and others, but I learn from them as well. Anything you have to offer whether we agree or not is to me a good thing.

[Watchman]

Something you also need to consider though. When Caesar confronted the Helvetii some of his Gallic troops defected to the Helvetii. When Caesar went to war with Vercingetorix about the only Gauls he could rely on were the Aedui, and that was after he confronted them for wavering as his allies. When I say the Celt's homeland, I'm referring to the land each tribe owned. If Caesar would have gone to crush the Aedui homeland(territory) I believe most of the Aedui in his charge would have left him and joined their own people for defense. If Caesar was going against the Arverni I dont see any of the Aedui having much problem helping the Romans beat up on them.Well, sure. Dunno about the incident with the Helvetii, but otherwise you're talking about warriors already affiliated with one tribe, region or whatever or another. Of course they'd be sensitive to threats to those; that's their personal property, friends and family at stake there after all.

But any such community can only support a limited number of the as-such rather unproductive warrior class. The surplus would have had to go find their fortunes elsewhere, very much like the younger sons of Medieval warrior aristocracy, becoming essentially unattached mercenaries (if not outright brigands - the difference between the two was probably rather muddy) until they found a patron whose retainer they could become or won enough loot and/or land as mercenaries to "settle down" so to speak. Wandering warrior cults like the Gaesatae may well have been an institutionalized version of this, although one gets the impression they were more out to die heroically than become rich - I've read that institution had largely died out by the end of 2nd century BC or somesuch, which if true could be taken as a symptom of there for one reason or another no longer being such a surplus of "unemployed" young warriors, or a sign that they had by and large taken to seeling their fortunes in another fashion.

In any case, if the economic base of a Celtic community was severely distrupted (for example due to particularly intense conflicts and raiding) it duly follows that the number of "standing" warriors it could support decreased - and the same would logically apply to more expensive war gear becoming common, as more resources would be needed to equip and support such well-armed warriors. It then follows that this would create a larger surplus of unemployed "free agent" warriors looking for a patron or a war to fight in in order to support themselves in a manner befitting their status, and unlikely to be excessively picky about their paymasters or who they were to fight against.

One would imagine the steady pay and "killer rep" of the post-Marian Roman army, and the prospect of loot in the feud between the Aedui and Arverni, attracted many of such rootless warriors. And the worse the infrastructural damage from the latter got the less the communities would be able to maintain their "standing" pool of warriors, and the more fickle the loyalties of mercenaries (who have always tended to become unruly if the paycheck runs into problems), and the greater the attraction of wealthy and succesful leaders... like, say, a certain balding Roman.

[The Celt]

Something you also need to consider though. When Caesar confronted the Helvetii some of his Gallic troops defected to the Helvetii. When Caesar went to war with Vercingetorix about the only Gauls he could rely on were the Aedui, and that was after he confronted them for wavering as his allies. When I say the Celt's homeland, I'm referring to the land each tribe owned. If Caesar would have gone to crush the Aedui homeland(territory) I believe most of the Aedui in his charge would have left him and joined their own people for defense. If Caesar was going against the Arverni I dont see any of the Aedui having much problem helping the Romans beat up on them.


I think your misunderstanding the situation. Some are saying that the "Civil War" with the Sequani,Arverni vs. the Aedui (there were others involved) in 70-60 BC was devastating and nearly brought all these tribes to ruin. I am disagreeing with this on the basis of the findings of Simon James and the writing of A. Goldsworthy. My point about the in-fighting in the earlier years is that they didn't have the same kind of claims as being catastrophic as the one in the 70-60BC. It doesnt have anything to do with the amount of in-fighting it's just the level of devastation claimed.

Yeah thats what I was thinking. No offense but it was kinda hard trying to read that paragraph I hardly tell what you were saying. I now understand that your saying the Celts during 70-60BC were not as weak and devastated as people are assuming, and that there are solid sources stating otherwise.:2thumbsup:

I admit, the only place where I've read this "Caesar vs. The Pussy Celts" theory is the EB forums. Books on the subject are not of the same opinion from what I can tell.(Granted, they base their stuff on James & Goldsworthy's research) They say that the Celts were not "weak" at all, just not as organized as the Romans, and that were used to a very different way of fighting a war then Caesar's men were. :yes:

[Watchman]

Then again, most of what I've read of Celtic politics in easily accessible books was really pretty vague and general. The ones I've seen pretty much don't even mention the Aedui-Arverni one-upmanship issue (or any major tribal divisions for that matter), and what they have on Celtic warfare patterns seemed to concern itself all but entirely on the business-as-usual back-and-forth raiding which was pretty much the operative norm in such "hero" societies - and the argument here is after all that the power struggle in Gaul went way beyond that in scale and intensity.

Sort of like the difference between the standard Medieval feudal-baron squabbling and the Hundred Years' War if I've understood correctly.

[the_handsome_viking]

Just out of curiosity, and it does actually have relevance to the overall subject, do you guys think that the Helvetii were actually ravanging the lands of the Aedui?

Theres just something quite suspicious about the idea that the Helvetii were actually ravaging lands, when they had already shown signs of wanting to avoid conflicts and engaged in acts of surprisingly effective and efficient deplomacy with tribes like the Sequani, who were initially against them.

It is odd that a group of people that would seek to avoid conflict initially with other tribes, with all their belongings on their backs and their families and what not, would suddenly just decide to pick a fight with the Aedui immediatly after all the bloody hard work and conflict avoiding stuff they had undergone.

I guess what I'm getting at is, could Julius Caesar have simply lied so that he could go to war with them? or perhaps, worringly, he might have been a genuinely deluded man.

Theres something quite comical about reading Julius Caesars books in that he always seems to be sort of wandering along trying to do the good thing then decides that the best course of action for maybe someone forgetting to say maybe, return a pair of fur skin boots to some local chieften is automatically logical reason to assume that that person is plotting to attack Rome and therefore has to be attacked and destroyed.

Going back onto the point, the Aedui apparently asking for help, or getting help from Caesar does imply that they were in something of a weakened state of the Helvetti were really considered a major threat. But really, the real question is, how much of a threat were they? was Caesar just looking for trouble?

[The Celt]

Then again, most of what I've read of Celtic politics in easily accessible books was really pretty vague and general. The ones I've seen pretty much don't even mention the Aedui-Arverni one-upmanship issue (or any major tribal divisions for that matter), and what they have on Celtic warfare patterns seemed to concern itself all but entirely on the business-as-usual back-and-forth raiding which was pretty much the operative norm in such "hero" societies - and the argument here is after all that the power struggle in Gaul went way beyond that in scale and intensity.

Sort of like the difference between the standard Medieval feudal-baron squabbling and the Hundred Years' War if I've understood correctly.
Excellent point Watchman! I too have noticed that these two tribes are barely mentioned in most books about the Celts.(Gaul itself tends to get glanced over anyway. In favor of the more popular image of the "Celts" I.e Ireland & Scotland)

[Lowenklee]

Well to address the confusion about the Aedui Arverni rivalry...I also can't find direct documentation for this. Undoubtably the Aedui and Arverni were two powerful tribes. The Aedui seemed to have inherited their position after the collapse of the Bituriges. The Arverni i'm not so sure about other than they were allied with the powerful Allobroges during the Roman campaign against them in 121bce.

What we do know is that the Sequani were among the Arverni's allies and were in in conflict with the Aedui who lived nearby across the Arar river. At some point around 70bce the dispute between the Aedui and the Arverni turned violent. The Sequani enlisted the aid of Ariovistus the Suebian. The rest is well documented by Caesar.

So, is it safe to conclude that a conflict between the Aedui and an Arverni ally, the Sequani, left both sides vulnerable to Ariovistus' invasion and conquest of both their lands? If so that might qualify the "pussy celts" statement somewhat.

It's also worth pointing out that the Arverni and Aedui only represent two Celtic tribal confederations...I'm sure that if it weren't a matter of limited faction slots the Allobroges might just have easily been included. The Aquitanii were also quite the regional powerhouse. It's a shame that the faction limit precludes their inclusion.

[The Celt]

Well to address the confusion about the Aedui Arverni rivalry...I also can't find direct documentation for this. Undoubtably the Aedui and Arverni were two powerful tribes. The Aedui seemed to have inherited their position after the collapse of the Bituriges. The Arverni i'm not so sure about other than they were allied with the powerful Allobroges during the Roman campaign against them in 121bce.

What we do know is that the Sequani were among the Arverni's allies and were in in conflict with the Aedui who lived nearby across the Arar river. At some point around 70bce the dispute between the Aedui and the Arverni turned violent. The Sequani enlisted the aid of Ariovistus the Suebian. The rest is well documented by Caesar.

So, is it safe to conclude that a conflict between the Aedui and an Arverni ally, the Sequani, left both sides vulnerable to Ariovistus' invasion and conquest of both their lands? If so that might qualify the "pussy celts" statement somewhat.

It's also worth pointing out that the Arverni and Aedui only represent two Celtic tribal confederations...I'm sure that if it weren't a matter of limited faction slots the Allobroges might just have easily been included. The Aquitanii were also quite the regional powerhouse. It's a shame that the faction limit precludes their inclusion.
So if we had enough faction slots, Gaul would look quite a bit like France not long after Charlemagne's Empire collapsed.:whip:

[the_handsome_viking]

So if we had enough faction slots, Gaul would look quite a bit like France not long after Charlemagne's Empire collapsed.:whip:

It didn't really collapse, it was just broken down into more easily administrational regions, three infact, West Francia, Middle Francia and East Francia.

The map would look more like modern Europe than Carolingian Europe, I'm not sure if that makes us look better or worse.

[Watchman]

Please now. These days we have proper Westphalian territorial states in place. They had nominal kings and to a greater or lesser degree intractable barons.

[the_handsome_viking]

Please now. These days we have proper Westphalian territorial states in place. They had nominal kings and to a greater or lesser degree intractable barons.

Yeah, but they had better clothes.

Actually on a serious note, you could argue that not very much has changed, replace kings with political leaders and barons with business men and you have pretty much the same thing. The EU is actually surpringly a lot like Frankish Feifdom, but instead of a Fief being a little economic unit overseen by a lord, you have a country acting as an economic unit.

Perhaps this seems especially true when you live in the United Kingdom and take into consideration that after Thatcher, the government pretty much doesn't own anything other than the NHS(which is falling to bits) and the Royal Mail.

Scary stuff really.

[The Celt]

It didn't really collapse, it was just broken down into more easily administrational regions, three infact, West Francia, Middle Francia and East Francia.

The map would look more like modern Europe than Carolingian Europe, I'm not sure if that makes us look better or worse.
Yes and then the Barons/Vassal Kings/Dukes gradually gained more power than the King of W.Francia(France) such as Aquitaine and Normandy for example. But your right, directly after his death Chuck's Kingdom was divided among his sons, and divided even further after that.

Watchman's right BTW, Europe is much more peaceful and united now then it ever was before. Not that it will be that way forever......:laugh4: and whats wrong with genes, T-shirts and expensive suites?

[the_handsome_viking]

Yes and then the Barons/Vassal Kings/Dukes gradually gained more power than the King of W.Francia(France) such as Aquitaine and Normandy for example. But your right, directly after his death Chuck's Kingdom was divided among his sons, and divided even further after that.

Watchman's right BTW, Europe is much more peaceful and united now then it ever was before. Not that it will be that way forever......:laugh4: and whats wrong with genes, T-shirts and expensive suites?

In this situation, I'd honestly say pictures are better than words.

http://student.maxwell.syr.edu/anderson/frankish_soldier.jpg

VS.

http://maxham.com/mark/pics/gay-french-superhero-1.jpg

[Lowenklee]

Just out of curiosity, and it does actually have relevance to the overall subject, do you guys think that the Helvetii were actually ravanging the lands of the Aedui?

Theres just something quite suspicious about the idea that the Helvetii were actually ravaging lands, when they had already shown signs of wanting to avoid conflicts and engaged in acts of surprisingly effective and efficient deplomacy with tribes like the Sequani, who were initially against them.

It is odd that a group of people that would seek to avoid conflict initially with other tribes, with all their belongings on their backs and their families and what not, would suddenly just decide to pick a fight with the Aedui immediatly after all the bloody hard work and conflict avoiding stuff they had undergone.

I guess what I'm getting at is, could Julius Caesar have simply lied so that he could go to war with them? or perhaps, worringly, he might have been a genuinely deluded man.

Theres something quite comical about reading Julius Caesars books in that he always seems to be sort of wandering along trying to do the good thing then decides that the best course of action for maybe someone forgetting to say maybe, return a pair of fur skin boots to some local chieften is automatically logical reason to assume that that person is plotting to attack Rome and therefore has to be attacked and destroyed.

Going back onto the point, the Aedui apparently asking for help, or getting help from Caesar does imply that they were in something of a weakened state of the Helvetti were really considered a major threat. But really, the real question is, how much of a threat were they? was Caesar just looking for trouble?

Caesar was always looking for trouble. Caesar was an opportunistic punk. My only regret with EB is his absence from the timeline. Oh how irrationally happy, no...jubilant, how jubilant I would be at having a chance to smush his brussel sprout shaped head into the rich gallic soil. I would quite literally dance with joy. But alas one can only dream:balloon2:

Caesar's motives must always be taken with skepticism. As I understand it his Gallic commentaries were meant to be publicly read back in Rome. This was no doubt an effort to prostelitize(sp?) his own greatness more than to inform the public of the general state of affairs in Gaul.

I for one don't believe the Helvetii were ravaging anyone although in the absence of a king they may have been somewhat unruly, i'm not sure how the succession was handled following Orgetorix. It would be rather ironic though wouldn't it? I don't believe Dumnorix was that naive. I also don't recall reading that Dumnorix requested any help from Rome?

[Watchman]

Factually, regardless of however good intentions they may have had that many people on the move pretty much just aren't going to be able to feed themselves without "living off the land". Which, as one historian drily put it, is "a polite euphemism for some very rude activities".

Odds are Caesar didn't have to look very far for an excuse in the case he felt one was needed.

[the_handsome_viking]

Caesar was always looking for trouble. Caesar was an opportunistic punk. My only regret with EB is his absence from the timeline. Oh how irrationally happy, no...jubilant, how jubilant I would be at having a chance to smush his brussel sprout shaped head into the rich gallic soil. I would quite literally dance with joy. But alas one can only dream:balloon2:

I must say I really like the venomous tone you have when it comes to Julius Caesar.

I honestly think someone could write a really good comedy about him, where it basically just depicts him as the same man, but actually very much oblivious to all of the subtleties of ancient politics. The man may very well have been one of these really warped geniuses that honestly didn't know his arse from his elbow when it came to politics, but was an absolute expert at war.

Thus a group of people moving through someone elses territory was automatically an invasion and automatically a threat to Rome and therefore Rome had no choice but to conquer the entire region of Gaul just to protect Gaul from itself.

P.S. Are you sure Julius Caesar isn't in the game? I mean, Hannibal showed up in Spain at one point, and I killed him and his army. I remember admiring the modernized Hoplite units and then noticed that the General was called Hannibal, so I mobalized one of my best armies and took him down and murdered him in the woods.

Moving back to the subject of the Helvetti, who I personally don't think were actually invading or causing much trouble in the first place, this is quite a funny part in De Bello Gallico, that sort of adds a layer of validation to the concept of Julius Caesar being absolutly oblivious to everything that was going on.


To these words Caesar thus replied: - that "on that very account he felt less hesitation, because he kept in remembrance those circumstances which the Helvetian embassadors had mentioned, and that he felt the more indignant at them, in proportion as they had happened undeservedly to the Roman people: for if they had been conscious of having done any wrong, it would not have been difficult to be on their guard, but for that very reason had they been deceived, because neither were they aware that any offense had been given by them, on account of which they should be afraid, nor did they think that they ought to be afraid without cause.

I'm pretty sure a lot of Celtic peoples were surprised and therefore "insulting" to Julius Caesar in their tendancy to not actually know what they had done wrong. Most likely because any offense was actually probably something that existed only in his own mind. That said, It does also seem like he was just desperate for an attempt at revenge on many Celtic peoples, which means he could just be a very skilled ultra nationalist.

It's either that or the man was literally so clever that he realized that essnetially, if you have two factions on earth, Romans and Non-Romans that you can bet your bottom dollar that if there is one group that is unpredictable and dangerous to his and his peoples own existance, it is the Non-Romans and therefore conquering them as fast as possible is one sure way to ensure the existance and survival of your people.

The irony of that would however be that he caused a civil war and undoubtably set into motion a string of events that would ultimatly result in the demise of the Roman Empire which believe it or not, many, many Roman, Christian Scholars actually believed was deserved due to Romes apparent past sins.

These past sins undoubtably would have been in many ways the ones commited by Julius Caesar and arguably the man that made the Roman Empire in the first place.

All that said, the man is one of histories major super geniuses.


Caesar's motives must always be taken with skepticism. As I understand it his Gallic commentaries were meant to be publicly read back in Rome. This was no doubt an effort to prostelitize(sp?) his own greatness more than to inform the public of the general state of affairs in Gaul.

He also enjoyed talking about himself in the third person, he probably had a sock puppet also.


I for one don't believe the Helvetii were ravaging anyone although in the absence of a king they may have been somewhat unruly, i'm not sure how the succession was handled following Orgetorix. It would be rather ironic though wouldn't it? I don't believe Dumnorix was that naive. I also don't recall reading that Dumnorix requested any help from Rome?

I think the irony here is really in the fact that when the Helvetti wanted to pass through Roman guarded territory initially, after the Romans said no, after fortifying the area and after a few skirmishes between the Romans and the Helvetti, the Helvetti essentially just decided that it was pointless in their situation to fight and simply went to move through another route, and even managed to get the right to move through the territory of an enemy tribe just through a bit of diplomacy and networking, only of couse (according to Caesar) to then randomly decide to attack the Aedui, who had close ties with the people who chased them away from their first route in the first place?

Sorry, I think it's evidently clear that Julius Caesar is a down right liar, either that or a complete mental case.

There is another interesting historical comparison to this situation, but much later than the time period we are discussing. The Goths were pushed into Roman territory by the Hunnic movements. The Goths were then put into a situation by the Romans where they basically had little or no choice but to arm themselves and fight the Romans, the only other alternative if you consider it an alternative was to basically starve to death and continue selling their children as slaves to the Romans in exchange for rotton food.

The Romans consistently have a very interesting way of driving people to violence. Infact I'm honestly starting to form the opinion that the wild eyed savage war loving barbarians that we typically consider to come in the form of the Celts, Germans etc, were infact the Romans all along.

[Captian Cornelius]

Caesar was always looking for trouble. Caesar was an opportunistic punk. My only regret with EB is his absence from the timeline. Oh how irrationally happy, no...jubilant, how jubilant I would be at having a chance to smush his brussel sprout shaped head into the rich gallic soil. I would quite literally dance with joy. But alas one can only dream:balloon2:

Someone likes the barbarian factions a little too much.

[the_handsome_viking]

Someone likes the barbarian factions a little too much.

The more I start to feel that the Barbarians were perhaps just nicer softer people most of the time, the more I start to like the Romans.

[the_handsome_viking]

Factually, regardless of however good intentions they may have had that many people on the move pretty much just aren't going to be able to feed themselves without "living off the land". Which, as one historian drily put it, is "a polite euphemism for some very rude activities".

Odds are Caesar didn't have to look very far for an excuse in the case he felt one was needed.

That is often the case when it comes to the situation with say, the Goths, they didn't really have much time to prepare for a migraiton.

The Helvetti on the other hand had prepared extensivly for their move, loony toons Caesar said so himself in his own book.

[Lowenklee]

Someone likes the barbarian factions a little too much.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[the_handsome_viking]

For these Divitiacus the Aeduan spoke and told him: "That there were two parties in the whole of Gaul: that the Aedui stood at the head of one of these, the Arverni of the other. After these had been violently struggling with one another for the superiority for many years, it came to pass that the Germans were called in for hire by the Arverni and the Sequani. That about 15,000 of them [i.e. of the Germans] had at first crossed the Rhine: but after that these wild and savage men had become enamored of the lands and the refinement and the abundance of the Gauls, more were brought over, that there were now as many as 120,000 of them in Gaul: that with these the Aedui and their dependents had repeatedly struggled in arms - that they had been routed, and had sustained a great calamity - had lost all their nobility, all their senate, all their cavalry. And that broken by such engagements and calamities, although they had formerly been very powerful in Gaul, both from their own valor and from the Roman people's hospitality and friendship, they were now compelled to give the chief nobles of their state, as hostages to the Sequani, and to bind their state by an oath, that they would neither demand hostages in return, nor supplicate aid from the Roman people, nor refuse to be forever under their sway and empire.

From De Bello Gallico.

That seems quite convincing in the sense that the Aedui at least had had a lot of their forces destroyed in war.

[Sarcasm]

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

Seems to be a general trend with Celts. What, getting our asses kicked by the picts and the irish? Hell, call some Anglo-Saxons.

[the_handsome_viking]

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

Seems to be a general trend with Celts. What, getting our asses kicked by the picts and the irish? Hell, call some Anglo-Saxons.

They were Celts too.

There is though an interesting and consistent trend throughout history that basically, if put into one simple rule, would go like this.

Immigration, unless completely under the direct control of natives, will often wreck the native society and have it fall into the hands of the immigrants who will in turn simply create a society of their own in place of it.

In a Celtic power war the Arverni brought in Germans who ended up trying to rule the roost, the Aedui responded to this by bringing in the Romans, who ended up ruling the roost, who ended up much later on bringing in the Germans to fight on the frontiers, who ended up ruling the roost.

That said, I wouldn't exactly say that the Germans would be an example of immigrants who wrecked the society they entered many improved it, the power though undoubtably fell out of the Romans hands though.

As for the Romans and the Celts? I'm really starting to wonder if the Celts actually had a very good quality of life when compared to the Romans. We know they had walled cities and quite a number of them, and we know that they were quite easy going when it came to things like sex, women, law, elections and at times even enemy tribes wandering through their territories "like the Helvetti example".

Perhaps something wonderful was lost because of the Gallic wars.

[Sarcasm]

They were Celts too.

There is though an interesting and consistent trend throughout history that basically, if put into one simple rule, would go like this.

Immigration, unless completely under the direct control of natives, will often wreck the native society and have it fall into the hands of the immigrants who will in turn simply create a society of their own in place of it.

In a Celtic power war the Arverni brought in Germans who ended up trying to rule the roost, the Aedui responded to this by bringing in the Romans, who ended up ruling the roost, who ended up much later on bringing in the Germans to fight on the frontiers, who ended up ruling the roost.

That said, I wouldn't exactly say that the Germans would be an example of immigrants who wrecked the society they entered many improved it, the power though undoubtably fell out of the Romans hands though.

That's sort of the point of the analogy. They were all celts, or demi-celts. Britons are getting trashed by picts, and bring in Irish mercs. Irish mercs get restless and burn half the country, get some Anglo-Saxons to take care of it. Anglo-Saxons get a foothold in britain, call in the Irish and the Picts to fight them. See the pattern forming here? ~;)

I wouldn't say that about immigration in general. We're talking about a huge intake (even by today's standards) of armed men.


As for the Romans and the Celts? I'm really starting to wonder if the Celts actually had a very good quality of life when compared to the Romans. We know they had walled cities and quite a number of them, and we know that they were quite easy going when it came to things like sex, women, law, elections and at times even enemy tribes wandering through their territories "like the Helvetti example".

Perhaps something wonderful was lost because of the Gallic wars.

I have no real doubt that the Celts of Gaul had a good life for the most part. Every single source we have on them, shows them to be a prosperous and sophisticated people.

Well, we'll never know will we?

[the_handsome_viking]

That's sort of the point of the analogy. They were all celts, or demi-celts. Britons are getting trashed by picts, and bring in Irish mercs. Irish mercs get restless and burn half the country, get some Anglo-Saxons to take care of it. Anglo-Saxons get a foothold in britain, call in the Irish and the Picts to fight them. See the pattern forming here? ~;)

Gotcha, and yes the pattern is so shockingly obvious that I'm surprised people are still missing it.


I wouldn't say that about immigration in general. We're talking about a huge intake (even by today's standards) of armed men.

In general, it's not always a bad thing, often it has short term benefits and long term negatives, the Arverni got their little victory over the Aedui, and simply imported a new enemy into the territory.

The Aedui got their support from the Romans, they ended up losing everything.

Short term gain, long term disaster.




I have no real doubt that the Celts of Gaul had a good life for the most part. Every single source we have on them, shows them to be a prosperous and sophisticated people.

Well, we'll never know will we?

We know enough to know that if anything is to be agreed upon, regardless of their true military capabilities at the time, they were undoubtably a civilized people in all senses and that there was absolutly nothing barbaric, backwards or primitive about them.

[Watchman]

The Helvetti on the other hand had prepared extensivly for their move, loony toons Caesar said so himself in his own book.So ? Canned food didn't exactly exist yet, and pretty much all the dry-land cargo haulers available worked on animal power. Not good for hauling food for any real number of people for any real period over any real distance, as time and again known from other contexts. Pretty much the only way to Helvetii could have avoided having to "forage" for their sustenance would have been using the same method the Byzantines used to convoy the First Crusade through their lands with minimum disturbance - they created a chain of "supply depots" which the transiting hordes tapped, and pointedly closely monitored the passage of the columns with their troops to ensure nobody got any stupid opportunistic ideas.

I rather doubt if the Gauls would even have been capable of that level of preparation however.

[the_handsome_viking]

So ? Canned food didn't exactly exist yet, and pretty much all the dry-land cargo haulers available worked on animal power. Not good for hauling food for any real number of people for any real period over any real distance, as time and again known from other contexts. Pretty much the only way to Helvetii could have avoided having to "forage" for their sustenance would have been using the same method the Byzantines used to convoy the First Crusade through their lands with minimum disturbance - they created a chain of "supply depots" which the transiting hordes tapped, and pointedly closely monitored the passage of the columns with their troops to ensure nobody got any stupid opportunistic ideas.

I rather doubt if the Gauls would even have been capable of that level of preparation however.

Well obviously by the middle ages the civilizations of Europe and Asia minor etc were significantly more developed than the civilizations we are talking about in the case of the Helvetti, that said, they had prepared very extensivly according to Caesar.


"caes.gal.1.5": [1.5] After his death, the Helvetii nevertheless attempt to do that which they had resolved on, namely, to go forth from their territories.
When they thought that they were at length prepared for this undertaking, they set fire to all their towns, in number about twelve-to their villages about four
hundred-and to the private dwellings that remained; they burn up all the corn, except what they intend to carry with them; that after destroying the hope of
a return home, they might be the more ready for undergoing all dangers. They order every one to carry forth from home for himself provisions for three
months, ready ground. They persuade the Rauraci, and the Tulingi, and the Latobrigi, their neighbors, to adopt the same plan, and after burning down their
towns and villages, to set out with them: and they admit to their party and unite to themselves as confederates the Boii, who had dwelt on the other side of
the Rhine, and had crossed over into the Norican territory, and assaulted Noreia.

It wasn't some crackpot idea hatched by some opertunistic young war buck war leader that wanted to pick a fight or two to make a name for himself or earn a bit of money, it was a long planned out and well argued descision that they had made which made them attempt to move territory. The idea that they were actually picking fights along the way is highly suspicious.

Julius Caesar seemed to be highly suspicious of the Helvetii, They did afterall inflict two defeats upon the Romans previously and Caesar himself repeatedly mentions grudgingly that the Helvetii had killed Roman armies before.

This whole situation seems like Caesar seeing an opertune moment to get revenge. Thats just my opinion but really, it seems exactly like what happened in this respect.

[Captian Cornelius]

We know enough to know that if anything is to be agreed upon, regardless of their true military capabilities at the time, they were undoubtably a civilized people in all senses and that there was absolutly nothing barbaric, backwards or primitive about them.

Minus the whole human sacrifice thing, of course the Romans had just stoped doing that.

[Orb]

Minus the whole human sacrifice thing, of course the Romans had just stoped doing that.

Gladiatorial games were basically just an extension of the whole human sacrifice thing.

[The Celt]

Minus the whole human sacrifice thing, of course the Romans had just stoped doing that.
Didn't they sacrifice virgins to Jupiter during a time of crisis? During the Republic that is, as far as the Empire is concerned Orb hit it on the head. As for the Celts, they used Prisoners of War or Criminals for their sacrifices.(Much like the Gladiator games which were used as criminal executions most of the time.)

[the_handsome_viking]

Minus the whole human sacrifice thing, of course the Romans had just stoped doing that.

The Romans preferred the more civilized concepts of attempting to make their favorite horses consuls and priests.

[Captian Cornelius]

Gladiatorial games were basically just an extension of the whole human sacrifice thing.
During the Eb time period Death matches were acutually pretty rare. It wasn't untill Nero used them as Capital punishment when they really caught on.


Didn't they sacrifice virgins to Jupiter during a time of crisis? During the Republic that is, as far as the Empire is concerned Orb hit it on the head. As for the Celts, they used Prisoners of War or Criminals for their sacrifices.(Much like the Gladiator games which were used as criminal executions most of the time.)

I'm not sure really, Most the human sacrifices were to mars and were able men I belive.



I honestly think someone could write a really good comedy about him, where it basically just depicts him as the same man, but actually very much oblivious to all of the subtleties of ancient politics. The man may very well have been one of these really warped geniuses that honestly didn't know his arse from his elbow when it came to politics, but was an absolute expert at war.

Funny thing about that, I always pictured Julius Caesar as a more Graceful version of George W. Bush.

[Redmeth]

Funny thing about that, I always pictured Julius Caesar as a more Graceful version of George W. Bush.

So you mean bush is an expert at politics or war? Anyway I don't see how you could compare Bush to Caesar :dizzy2:

[Captian Cornelius]

So you mean bush is an expert at politics or war? Anyway I don't see how you could compare Bush to Caesar :dizzy2:
Mostly the way the Gallic war and the Iraq war were started.

[The Celt]

Mostly the way the Gallic war and the Iraq war were started.
Well there are similarities but I've always compared Lincoln to Caesar.:whip:

Bush on the other hand is Nero all the way,:wall: and that's an insult to Nero.

[Captian Cornelius]

Well there are similarities but I've always compared Lincoln to Caesar.:whip:

Bush on the other hand is Nero all the way,:wall: and that's an insult to Nero.

Nero was actually quite popular amongst the majority of Romans at the time. it was Tacitus ' writings (jerk) and that Christianity is a major religion is why he comes of as so bad.

[Watchman]

I'd say Bush was more of a Caligula. He's certainly got about as good sense when it comes to advisors...
Although C. might actually win that contest. I doubt the horse made too many harmful decisions after all. ~;p

:stop:
...yes officer.

[the_handsome_viking]

Condoleezza Rice is sort of like a horse.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

This is like the thread that won't die or something... :skull:

[the_handsome_viking]

Funny thing about that, I always pictured Julius Caesar as a more Graceful version of George W. Bush.

If by "like Julius Caesar" you mean a guy who somehow managed to figure out how to formulate a political, military and cultural setup that managed to make first world developed countries with the most technologically sophisitcated militaries on earth's citizens actually be at risk of harm from third world country militias, then yes, I'd agree.

[The Celt]

Nero was actually quite popular amongst the majority of Romans at the time. it was Tacitus ' writings (jerk) and that Christianity is a major religion is why he comes of as so bad.
This is true Nero was actually one of the best Emperors in the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Maybe Bush has more in common with Honorius.(That is, if Honorius was ruling at the Hight of the Empire rather than the Fall)

[Watchman]

He's certainly working hard on the "fall" part anyway...
:sweatdrop:
...I'll go sleep now.

[The Celt]

He's certainly working hard on the "fall" part anyway...
:sweatdrop:
...I'll go sleep now.
He's the decider! And he decides that Washington will never fall..............because he just fed him this morning!

[NeoSpartan]

Ok, how the fudge do we go from the Gauls, Germanic tribes, and Romans (pre & post marian), to George W. Bush and Roman emperors?????

:focus:

[Frostwulf]

But any such community can only support a limited number of the as-such rather unproductive warrior class. The surplus would have had to go find their fortunes elsewhere, very much like the younger sons of Medieval warrior aristocracy, becoming essentially unattached mercenaries (if not outright brigands - the difference between the two was probably rather muddy) until they found a patron whose retainer they could become or won enough loot and/or land as mercenaries to "settle down" so to speak. Wandering warrior cults like the Gaesatae may well have been an institutionalized version of this, although one gets the impression they were more out to die heroically than become rich - I've read that institution had largely died out by the end of 2nd century BC or somesuch, which if true could be taken as a symptom of there for one reason or another no longer being such a surplus of "unemployed" young warriors, or a sign that they had by and large taken to seeling their fortunes in another fashion.
I agree that the surplus of the warriors would go mercenary or find other means of support. I don't know about the Gaesatae as I haven't found any real in depth information on them. If you know of any please let me know, I've been looking on and off for it. Which institution died out by the 2nd century? If you are referring to the Gaesatae that's what I have read as well. If your talking about the raiding and retinue building I would disagree with you. According to Caesar the reason the Helvetii departed their homeland was because of the lack of raiding-lifestyle.


In any case, if the economic base of a Celtic community was severely distrupted (for example due to particularly intense conflicts and raiding) it duly follows that the number of "standing" warriors it could support decreased - and the same would logically apply to more expensive war gear becoming common, as more resources would be needed to equip and support such well-armed warriors. It then follows that this would create a larger surplus of unemployed "free agent" warriors looking for a patron or a war to fight in in order to support themselves in a manner befitting their status, and unlikely to be excessively picky about their paymasters or who they were to fight against.
I hope Im not misunderstanding you. During the time of the "Civil War" in the 70-60BC there would doubtfully be a surplus as they were still combating the Germans at the time. If your talking about after such wars then yes I would agree with you. They would have to find a way to make a living, mercenary,raids of varying scale etc.

One would imagine the steady pay and "killer rep" of the post-Marian Roman army, and the prospect of loot in the feud between the Aedui and Arverni, attracted many of such rootless warriors. And the worse the infrastructural damage from the latter got the less the communities would be able to maintain their "standing" pool of warriors, and the more fickle the loyalties of mercenaries (who have always tended to become unruly if the paycheck runs into problems), and the greater the attraction of wealthy and succesful leaders... like, say, a certain balding Roman.
I agree with you, if your referring to the non-involved Celts such as the Parisii,Veneti,Belgae, etc.(some of these may have been slightly involved).

So Ill try to sum up things. If there were Celts not involved in defending or warring with their homelands, then yes the surplus would be there and they would try to find a way to support themselves. I hope this is what you were getting at. With outside influences this could cause major problems, but in-fighting seems to have been regulated.


Yeah thats what I was thinking. No offense but it was kinda hard trying to read that paragraph I hardly tell what you were saying. I now understand that your saying the Celts during 70-60BC were not as weak and devastated as people are assuming, and that there are solid sources stating otherwise.
No offense what so ever. But yes you have my point on this.


I admit, the only place where I've read this "Caesar vs. The Pussy Celts" theory is the EB forums. Books on the subject are not of the same opinion from what I can tell.(Granted, they base their stuff on James & Goldsworthy's research) They say that the Celts were not "weak" at all, just not as organized as the Romans, and that were used to a very different way of fighting a war then Caesar's men were

Then again, most of what I've read of Celtic politics in easily accessible books was really pretty vague and general. The ones I've seen pretty much don't even mention the Aedui-Arverni one-upmanship issue (or any major tribal divisions for that matter), and what they have on Celtic warfare patterns seemed to concern itself all but entirely on the business-as-usual back-and-forth raiding which was pretty much the operative norm in such "hero" societies - and the argument here is after all that the power struggle in Gaul went way beyond that in scale and intensity.

Sort of like the difference between the standard Medieval feudal-baron squabbling and the Hundred Years' War if I've understood correctly.
Of all the books on this subject I've read its been the same as you guys. Either the situation is not mentioned or its as if there was nothing unusual going on during this time. James and Goldsworthy are the only one's who mention things of this subject.

Just out of curiosity, and it does actually have relevance to the overall subject, do you guys think that the Helvetii were actually ravanging the lands of the Aedui?
As much as I would like to get into this subject there is some more reading I would like to do.

So, is it safe to conclude that a conflict between the Aedui and an Arverni ally, the Sequani, left both sides vulnerable to Ariovistus' invasion and conquest of both their lands? If so that might qualify the "pussy celts" statement somewhat.

I agreed with your first two paragraphs. I believe if anything that Ariovistus may have superseded the Celtic limiters and therefore bringing both the Aedui and Arverni(and supporters) down. I don't think it was the infighting but the external force that may have brought them low. Irregardless it wouldn't be all of Gaul was subjected to this as some have stated. The Germans when they came in would still be fighting the "stronger" Celts, not to mention tribes like the menapii who were not part of the "Civil War"



Quote:
For these Divitiacus the Aeduan spoke and told him: "That there were two parties in the whole of Gaul: that the Aedui stood at the head of one of these, the Arverni of the other. After these had been violently struggling with one another for the superiority for many years, it came to pass that the Germans were called in for hire by the Arverni and the Sequani. That about 15,000 of them [i.e. of the Germans] had at first crossed the Rhine: but after that these wild and savage men had become enamored of the lands and the refinement and the abundance of the Gauls, more were brought over, that there were now as many as 120,000 of them in Gaul: that with these the Aedui and their dependents had repeatedly struggled in arms - that they had been routed, and had sustained a great calamity - had lost all their nobility, all their senate, all their cavalry. And that broken by such engagements and calamities, although they had formerly been very powerful in Gaul, both from their own valor and from the Roman people's hospitality and friendship, they were now compelled to give the chief nobles of their state, as hostages to the Sequani, and to bind their state by an oath, that they would neither demand hostages in return, nor supplicate aid from the Roman people, nor refuse to be forever under their sway and empire.

From De Bello Gallico.

That seems quite convincing in the sense that the Aedui at least had had a lot of their forces destroyed in war.
I was skipping the Helvetii subject and scrolled down to this which seems to support what I was responding to Lowenklee about. From here the Germans go on to subjugate the Sequani, who in turn were defeated by Caesar. Of course it was Caesar who for the most part finished the rest of Gaul.

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

I'm not sure I would agree with this. It sounds to me like the Germans were brought over to break a stalemate. I also keep thinking of the warfare limiting factors of the Celts.

[Watchman]

I would imagine both sides started ignoring the normal "rules of engagement" pretty fast once it dawned to them just how hard a fight for how high stakes they were having. Major wars have a habit of doing that, all the more the longer they go on.

You know what the rightfully infamous WW1 gas warfare started out with ? Tear gas grenades... what it escalated to sounds downright nightmarish as mere text.

[Sarcasm]

I'm not sure I would agree with this. It sounds to me like the Germans were brought over to break a stalemate. I also keep thinking of the warfare limiting factors of the Celts.

Well the Arverni had been clearly getting an increasing influence in the affairs of Gaul, even so far as to threaten trade with Massilia.

[The Celt]

Well the Arverni had been clearly getting an increasing influence in the affairs of Gaul, even so far as to threaten trade with Massilia.
Which is how Caesar got involved since Massilia was a Roman vassal/province at this time and they called on him for help.:book:

[Frostwulf]

I would imagine both sides started ignoring the normal "rules of engagement" pretty fast once it dawned to them just how hard a fight for how high stakes they were having. Major wars have a habit of doing that, all the more the longer they go on.
I just read something today on this subject that said that it came to a head in one pitched battle. I will have to verify this with other authors though.

Well the Arverni had been clearly getting an increasing influence in the affairs of Gaul, even so far as to threaten trade with Massilia.
The Arverni were very powerful but I thought they just traded with Massilia. I never heard of them competing with Massilia, could be I don't know.

Which is how Caesar got involved since Massilia was a Roman vassal/province at this time and they called on him for help.
The Saluvii attacked Massilia in 124 BC and the Romans helped Massilia during this time. The Allobroges wouldn't surrender the leaders of the Saluvii to the Romans so this started a war.The Allobroges and Arverni were defeated in battle by Rome. Caesar came later around 58 BC.

[the_handsome_viking]

I would imagine both sides started ignoring the normal "rules of engagement" pretty fast once it dawned to them just how hard a fight for how high stakes they were having. Major wars have a habit of doing that, all the more the longer they go on.

You know what the rightfully infamous WW1 gas warfare started out with ? Tear gas grenades... what it escalated to sounds downright nightmarish as mere text.

Do you have any quotations from soldiers that experienced it? and if so could you IM them to me?

[Watchman]

I just read something today on this subject that said that it came to a head in one pitched battle. I will have to verify this with other authors though....so ?


Do you have any quotations from soldiers that experienced it? and if so could you IM them to me?Naw. I do most of my reading offline.

[Boudicea]

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

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

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

I wondered in the future would your mod reflect this?

[The Celt]

The Saluvii attacked Massilia in 124 BC and the Romans helped Massilia during this time. The Allobroges wouldn't surrender the leaders of the Saluvii to the Romans so this started a war.The Allobroges and Arverni were defeated in battle by Rome. Caesar came later around 58 BC.
Well that'll show me to check my sources!:laugh4:


@Boudicea: That theory is interesting, but it also conflicts with the more archaeological backed theory that the Celts showed up sometime much later.(Can't say for sure, I think around Mycenaean Greece maybe?) Emerging from possibly around the Caucuses MTs, and migrated west gradually alongside the Italics(Romans, Samnites, etc.) and settled in Germany, Bohemia and Switzerland. A time known as the "Hellstat"(Sp?)era, before later being driven West and South by the Germanics into Gaul, Britian, and N.Italy.(There were already Celts in those regions of course, but thats when the well known Tribes like the Boii, Arverni, Casse, Remi etc showed up.) I believe Britain had become an Island long before that had happened however.

[Sarcasm]

The Arverni were very powerful but I thought they just traded with Massilia. I never heard of them competing with Massilia, could be I don't know.

Think of Massilia as the interface between the Mediterranean world and the continental (as in Gallic) world. There's massive amounts of trade going through it, and in order to reach the rest of gaul the trade route must cross Arverni lands. Taxing and downright raiding is an awesome way to get wealth in order to fight your wars.

[Frostwulf]

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


Celtic history is being rewritten as far as Britain is concerned with the 'Celtic History' in Britain being mostly a fantasy the proposed slaying of Celts by the Saxons being one of the myths plus others. A few books are released on the subject and of which i am studying one. Francis Pryor also has done some extensive research on this.
If you wouldn't mind expanding a bit on the Saxon and Celt part.

Basically it is now thought that before Britain became an Island 9,000 - 10,000 years BC Celts from Northern Spain came to Britain. Then as Britain became an Island these Spanish Celts were the Ancient Britons and although traded with European Celts and shared a similiar language were quite seperate.
The Celts going from Northern Spain to Britain also what I read. But I'm very much doubting they showed up that early.


@Boudicea: That theory is interesting, but it also conflicts with the more archaeological backed theory that the Celts showed up sometime much later.(Can't say for sure, I think around Mycenaean Greece maybe?) Emerging from possibly around the Caucuses MTs, and migrated west gradually alongside the Italics(Romans, Samnites, etc.) and settled in Germany, Bohemia and Switzerland. A time known as the "Hellstat"(Sp?)era, before later being driven West and South by the Germanics into Gaul, Britian, and N.Italy.(There were already Celts in those regions of course, but thats when the well known Tribes like the Boii, Arverni, Casse, Remi etc showed up.) I believe Britain had become an Island long before that had happened however.
This is the way I understood things to happen.

Think of Massilia as the interface between the Mediterranean world and the continental (as in Gallic) world. There's massive amounts of trade going through it, and in order to reach the rest of gaul the trade route must cross Arverni lands. Taxing and downright raiding is an awesome way to get wealth in order to fight your wars.
I see what your getting at and it does make sense to me.

[blitzkrieg80]

There is definitely some planned if not already implemented regional unit recruitment overlap between British Celts and Iberian Celts that represents that they had common ancestors/culture, seen in the movements of the Megalith cultures... sorry, but I don't remember if it was Spanish troops who could build their own in Britain or the British who could build their own in Iberia, but the logic is that idea that ancient travelers from Spain made up at least a small fragment of British culture.... I have read that is where the supposed "black Irish" come from and why the Picts are such a mixed and non-specific ethnicity, among other reasons of course, concerning the Picts.

[Starforge]

Excellent discussion for a while there. Going to have to crack open some new books in my spare time :).

As to the OP stating that the Celts are overpowered...I'm not seeing it. I'm a veteran RTW and mods player playing on h/h and while the fights are tough - they are still beatable. By 220BC I had all of Italy, France, Spain, North Africa almost to Egypt and parts of Germany destroying their respective native factions. Marching or shipping full stacks into the areas that needed pacification:whip: accepting losses where needed and beating the natives down works wonders. Rome's units may not be the absolute best but they just keep coming.:smash:

Tactics on the battle map as others have alluded is the key. As Rome - you simply can't run over everyone like you can in some other mods. It's unfortunate that there is a 20 unit cap per side on the battle map (unless you like the AI commanding allies :thumbsdown: ) which results in you not being able to take advantage of the greater manpower of Rome as you could in RL. Not much to do about this save multiple attrition attacks.

Excellent mod. Definitely glad I found this site.

[econ21]

It's unfortunate that there is a 20 unit cap per side on the battle map (unless you like the AI commanding allies :thumbsdown: ) which results in you not being able to take advantage of the greater manpower of Rome as you could in RL.

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

[Sarcasm]

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

Much like Herodotus, Caesar was a little too eager to make the numbers of his enemies a little greater than they should.

[QwertyMIDX]

Think of Massilia as the interface between the Mediterranean world and the continental (as in Gallic) world. There's massive amounts of trade going through it, and in order to reach the rest of gaul the trade route must cross Arverni lands. Taxing and downright raiding is an awesome way to get wealth in order to fight your wars.

Cunliffe's Greeks, Romans and Barbarians has a lot on this topic.

[Watchman]

From my armchair, I had thought the Romans were typically outnumbered when fighting the Celts? The siege (or rather attempted relief of) Alesia springing to mind. The numerical disadvantage reported in some of the fights against the Britons (e.g. the defeat of Boudicca) was also extreme.Those were also popular uprisings IIRC, with the due result that a lot of the numbers were pretty much the Celtic equivalent of angry peasants with pitchforks - largely useless chaff in a real battle against proper troops.

[Starforge]

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

Somewhat true....but that was much later after the reforms. I'm still using some original (experienced - worth keeping) and Polybius units. I can still win even when outnumbered sometimes (though it's tougher on hard). Alot depends upon what type and mix of units they've fielded. I actually have more trouble with the better or elite hoplite units than I do against the Celtic tribes.

[Boudicea]

For all what the Romans were have supposed to have done they did like to over egg it. This is why Britain BC is really fascinating for me and I'm just getting into it. There was a programme made on one of the history channels called 'Britain BC' (researched by Francis Pryor) and it is a real eye opener, it was for me at least. For too long in the UK Britains history has been started from when the Romans invaded but as has been proved the Romans nearly wiped out a History thousands of years older than their own.

Britain for example had, laws, civilisation, Roads plus other things the Romans were given credit for. There is a myth that farming was brought to England from the Middle East, this has been discounted as well. There is a copper mine in North Wales that was thought to be Roman but on further digging it is now proved to be 3,500 years old at least and proves that Britain was trading with mainland Europe as the copper lumps and the tin from Cornwall were taken to Europe and made into swords/jewellery and other stuff. Because Britains at that time were using Celtic swords jewellery does not make them Celtic it means they were trading.

One of the most fascinating piece of research is through the DNA and it sold me to the cause, lol. The DNA they used was the Female DNA that exists in all of us and it provides an unbroken chain and is more reliable and Oxford University carried out the research. They research the 9,000 year old skeleton at cheddar gorge. The DNA collected was compared to the local village and was found to still exist near exactly in local people today. What does this prove? It proves that ancient Britons were not wiped out as was thought before. There a few books on it as I said before. I'm no expert but this is fascinating. As for the first Britons there is a definite link with Spain, or rather the Catalan region this would also explain why the languages were similar between Britain and mainland Europe. The term 'Celt' or 'Celtic' was first seen in 4oo BC and then not until the 17th century if I understood that part right. I'm not the expert that should be explaining this but if you interested Download the programme from Digital Distractions and see it for yourself.

[Moros]

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

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

[The Celt]

To bad you can't read all the interesting posts of the EBHQ. Cause thier posts are much more interesting then most books or tv programmes.
How is that news?:laugh4: