Sweboz (Germans) slightly underpowered

[Frostwulf]

It seems to me that the Sweboz units in general are a bit underpowered. Im only comparing the Sweboz units to the Roman units as I feel the Celtic units are way overpowered. I think that the Swaiut(tribal) units in general are well done with the exception of maybe a bump in morale. I also think that the Merjoz (elite axe) should have an increased attack value. I would like to see a few more elite units though none should surpass the stats of the hundaskapiz or the Gastiz. I think these are well done and should be the best Sweboz infantry units.

I stated in https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=83475 that I thought the Celt cavalry was weaker than it should be. I didnt see the Remi Mairepos (Belgae heavy cavalry) or the Brihentin (Gallic noble cavalry), therefore I stand corrected that they do have appropriate cavalry. The Sweboz on the other hand do not have adequate cavalry. The Sweboz are missing both heavy and noble cavalry. Ariovistus was mounted and had cavalry with him in his meeting with Caesar. While the Celt cavalry mostly defeated the Roman cavalry up till the Romans started using Celt cavalry, the German cavalry consistently defeated the Celt cavalry. The Sweboz heavy and noble cavalry should be better then the Celt cavalry. I understand that the Germans historically were mostly infantry, but they did have outstanding cavalry and was hoping that they will be added.

[ElectricEel]

It seems to me that the Sweboz units in general are a bit underpowered. Keep in mind that the Sweboz have access to a line of religious buildings that can give their units a +2 experience boost (in addition to the +1 boost from the game fields). Of course, if the romans have access to a similar boost, that can be ignored when comparing the two (I haven't played as Rome yet in EB). Though I do think the basic clubmen are overpriced (or should have their stats upgraded to be closer to the spearmen).

The Sweboz on the other hand do not have adequate cavalry. The Sweboz are missing both heavy and noble cavalry. From what little I know of the subject, I must agree. There was a little discussion of this in this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=82561).

I think a new German cavalry unit is being added, but that's a 'wait-and-see' issue ;)
The ridoharjoz aren't actually bad, they're just lighter than the hippophiles among us would like.

...they should do well enough on flank and rear charges and as router-chasers, and ought to be able to cream the Celtic Leuce Epos types in a straight fight due to their higher base combat skills (the latter are of the underhand cav spear type with very low base attack, high delay, high charge and AP - not a very good combination against high-skill low-armour enemies like the Sweboz obviously).

[Kralizec]

...they should do well enough on flank and rear charges and as router-chasers, and ought to be able to cream the Celtic Leuce Epos types in a straight fight due to their higher base combat skills (the latter are of the underhand cav spear type with very low base attack, high delay, high charge and AP - not a very good combination against high-skill low-armour enemies like the Sweboz obviously).

Hmm, I always figured the Leuce Epos would win because the lethality of overhand spear attacks like that of the Ridoharjoz have a low lethality, wich makes the base attack value deceptive. The only way to be sure is to fire up a custom battle, though.

Leuce Epos are still much better at skirmishing though IMO, the Ridoharjoz
have a higher missile value, but their range is considerably shorter and they carry only 2 javelins versus 5 for the Leuce Epos.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Based on my experience as Aedui: the Leuce Epos are just as advertised, a somewhat undervalued light cavalry force which can go toe to toe with most medium and light cavalry and even beat them.

Ridoharjoz aren't that good. Not at all: they appear to break much faster. However their wedge formation should make up for this in the dense forests: it already is considerably difficult to maintain your battle lines with units that can do the shieldwall formation - so any good charge, even from the lightest of cavalry in the rear is just enough to split your lines apart.

[LordCurlyton]

Everyone always knocks the Ridharjoz and Clubmen; I dunno why. I'm not a historical expert, but I can't recall any tales of the Fearsome Germanic Heavy Cavalry Charges, its more the Fearsome Whacked-Out-Berserk Infantry Charge. Ergo, at BEST, they should only get a "medium cavalry" that would be roughly on par with, say, Hippeis, since Hippeis perform well enough, but definitely not anything like Successor cavalry. Also, my in-game experience with Ridharjoz and Clubmen is nothing but positive. Even without a charge bonus at all (my only complaint, since even sword cav get a charge bonus of some type) Ridharjoz eat Leuce Epos alive and spit the remains back out. And I like Leuce Epos, too, but Ridharjoz are much better at dealing with the enemies for which they are surrounded by. The clubmen, too, are pretty darn awesome. That AP places a hurting on folks like the Romans, and they are FAST. In fact, most of the German army is FAST. Which is awesome in so many ways.

[Watchman]

I know enough about Caesar's Gallic campaigns to know he tended to rely pretty heavily on Germanic mercs and allies for his cavalry arm - and those were apparently usually more than able to whip markedly superior numbers of their Gallic peers. Not that he didn't employ a lot of Gauls for the same purpose too, but the Germans were apparently of markedly higher calibre all other things being equal.
:thinking:
Wonder if you could scratch-build a decent heavy-cavalry placeholder from the Gastiz model and pulling them stats out of Tha Sombrero...? :sombrero:

[Frostwulf]

Keep in mind that the Sweboz have access to a line of religious buildings that can give their units a +2 experience boost (in addition to the +1 boost from the game fields). Of course, if the romans have access to a similar boost, that can be ignored when comparing the two (I haven't played as Rome yet in EB). Though I do think the basic clubmen are overpriced (or should have their stats upgraded to be closer to the spearmen)
I was going by the base morale, as Im sure most factions have some sort of morale boosters such as buildings etc. etc. As far as the pricing of units, some do seem more expensive then should be but Im not familiar enough with the issues that go into it to make much of a statement.
Also thanks for the info on the other thread :yes:


I'm not a historical expert, but I can't recall any tales of the Fearsome Germanic Heavy Cavalry Charges, its more the Fearsome Whacked-Out-Berserk Infantry Charge. Ergo, at BEST, they should only get a "medium cavalry" that would be roughly on par with, say, Hippeis, since Hippeis perform well enough, but definitely not anything like Successor cavalry.
I agree with Mightypeon when he says:

What I think is historically incorrect is the pathethic german Cavalry.
Historically, Caesar made great use of German mercenary Cavalry units in his Gaullish wars, where they proved to be significantly better than their Gaullish equivalents.
Caesars cavalry while in Gaul were attacked by 800 German cavalry. The 800 Germans charged the 2000-3500 Roman cavalry, routed them and chased them all the way back to Caesars base camp 2 miles away. Caesar used the Germans in their own fighting style (as did other Roman commanders in later dates) to great effect as shock troops. The German cavalry was better then the Gallic cavalry which in turn were generally better then their Roman counter parts.

[Pharnakes]

Surely the Germanics never fielded anything even closley on a par with the Brehihntin and the Belgae heavies (can't remeber the name) though?

[Watchman]

Why not ? They had both a well-equipped if small warrior aristocracy, a decent equestrian warfare tradition (and regarded saddles as being crutches for weenies who couldn't ride properly...), and bad attitude a-plenty which is quite important particularly in cavalry warfare. Fewer than their Gallic peers perhaps, but I don't really see any reason why they would've been any worse.

[Pharnakes]

I don't realy know why not, all I know is that I've never heard of germanic heavy cavalry.

Anyway, I'm sure I saw somethoing somewhere about the Seboz getting a few more cavalry units, prehaps even some heavies, and maybe even in the next release, but I can't rememember where, or even if, to be honest...

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Unfortunately, it's not possible to make the famous Double-Riders, but surely the Germans deserve a better cavalry. From what I recall, Ariovist's cavalry has beaten the hell of a twice as strong celtic cavalry unit during Caesar's campaign in Gaul.

[QwertyMIDX]

One of the major advantages of the Germanic cavalry was just that, the double riders. 50 Horses meant 100 men, which is a hell of thing. We actually tried to implement them in game with a light, super fast infantry unit, but had no luck. Who knows, maybe we'll try again. Also, the Ridoharjoz have a charge bonus, it's in the mid 20s iirc. In the unit card you see the charge for the primary weapon (jav) not for the secondary (spear).

[Lowenklee]

"We actually tried to implement them in game with a light, super fast infantry unit, but had no luck".

I think I recall the unit in question (assuming it was included in an official release)...bare chested with light blue trousers aremd with a short sword, or possibly a seax-type long knife?

At either rate I was somewhat dissapointed to find their absence in the latest build. I found them to be quite useful in their intended role, as well as for flanking and routing pinned enemy light and medium infantry. If I remember correctly these units were listed as the Hundaskapiz no?

Returning to the subject of the Ridoharjoz, I find them to be a superior cavalry and make very ample use of them in my german campaigns. They are superbly quick footed, and when combined with their great stamina are often able to exhaust even superiorly armored medium and heavy cavalry. Once exhausted of course it's a simply matter to turn and attack with the enemy routing quite quickly.

Being able to drive or divert enemy cavalry away from the infantry lines usually leaves the enemy dangerously vulnerable to the superior speed and/or stamina of german infantry (at least in the case of the romans). The celts, once enticed to charge without cavalry support, usually succumb to the barrage of frame or the returning german cavalry.

The Ridoharjoz might do well to be supplemented by a suitable medium infantry with an increased staying power during melee to approximate the two-riders tactics the germans used...but I don't think of it as required in order to balance the german faction. If I may offer a tip to other players...learn to fight effectively in the forests, allow heavier cavalry to engage while keeping the Ridoharjoz hidden. Once the enemy cavalry is pinned and tired hit them...well the rest is obvious.

p.s.

Hopefuly without sidetracking the topic too far i'd like to air the very few of my complaints thus far with the german faction. First would be the depiction of certain units, for example the current Hundaskapiz and Gastiz. They seem very migration period to me. This is based purely on a gut feeling more than any sort of evidence. With what evidence or inspiration is this sort of heavy chain wearing infantry unit borne out, or is that even chainmail?

Also the Gaizaharjoz just seem...off. Would red have been such a commonly available color for them by means of Madder or Red Alder? What was the inspiration for the depiction of vivid green on the shields? I am unfortunatly ignorant of the plant or mineral from which vivid greens can be extracted although i suspect it's mineral based.

The only cited work I see in the biblio is Mr. Schutz's "The Prehistory of Germanic Europe" but I'm sure there must also have been marvelous turns of phrase from contemporaneous sources that inspired the look of the above mentioned units.

Also, perhaps a proper elite infantry type would be helpful in balancing the faction with late period romans and other mediteraneans. Whether that be the Merjoz, Sahsnotoz, or the Wodanawolfoz (a reskin of which might also be nice as they seem rather less than intimidating at present) while retaining the herthoz and gastiz as heavy line infantry.

The current candidates for an elite infantry group suffer when engaged with even rank and file enemy infantry for any amount of time and, in my experience, lack a certain punch.

If the lack of any germanic heavy hitters is intentional (and I can certainly win campaigns without one) then perhaps a readjustment of unit price and/or unit numbers would be helpful?

...Oh, and i'm greatly looking forward to the german ethnic traits and unit readjustments already hinted at. Great job guys, you are my daily history lesson!

[Ludens]

Hopefuly without sidetracking the topic too far i'd like to air the very few of my complaints thus far with the german faction. First would be the depiction of certain units, for example the current Hundaskapiz and Gastiz. They seem very migration period to me. This is based purely on a gut feeling more than any sort of evidence. With what evidence or inspiration is this sort of heavy chain wearing infantry unit borne out, or is that even chainmail?

Also the Gaizaharjoz just seem...off. Would red have been such a commonly available color for them by means of Madder or Red Alder? What was the inspiration for the depiction of vivid green on the shields? I am unfortunatly ignorant of the plant or mineral from which vivid greens can be extracted although i suspect it's mineral based.
I can't find the topic right now, but Safe once stated that both Hundaskapiz and Gastiz are overarmoured for the early period. He mentioned that the team discussed an Iron age reform for the Germans that would enable the current armoured Gastiz. The Gaizaharjoz skin is IIRC being redone.

[Lowenklee]

Thanks for the reply Ludens. I'll dig around for the mentioned thread once I have a free moment. Hopefully these changes will make it in for the next release...although I am somewhat confused about the iron age reform concept for the german faction.

Certainly protogermans had achieved iron age technology centuries before the beginning of the EB timeframe as it was my understanding that limited scale production of poor quality ironware began relatively early in protogermanic scandinavian cultures.

The only germanic iron-age reform I can think of would relate to the increase in ironware production following technical know-how introduced by contact with gallic peoples, but I think that was centuries before the EB timeline as well?

I guess I should start digging for that particular thread from Safe for answers :book:

[blitzkrieg80]

good points, guys.

thank you for taking the time to write out some constructive criticism!

I noticed the comment "lack of heavy hitters" but this follows the idea that the Germanic nobility is anachronistically overarmored- it seems to me that these ideas are contradictory. Either they are all similarly basic and bare, or the elite units have armor which is questionable. Mail is relatively easy to make and not so unique and hard to replicate a smithing process like pattern-welding, the Germanics happened to live in areas of Europe with less resources than their Celtic neighbors but that does not mean they were more primitive in intellect or less developed culturally. La Tene-Carpathian cultural interaction and influence would have been relatively common, so I do not see any reason why elite Europeans of warrior aristocracy of any ethnicity would not have mail, which would have been acquired from warfare and trade. I would completely agree that the units are too Migration Age if these were not elite units.

I completely agree on the Gaizaharjoz color- it has been brought up before, hopefully changed for the next build.

Keep up the comments!

[Lowenklee]

Thanks for the informative post Blitzkrieg,

However I never intentionally characterized the early germans as "primitive in intellect or less developed culturally". The stone age and bronze age scandinavian-baltic history and it's evolution into the early germanic people is a favorite historical topic of mine. I am quite aware of the wealth of culture associated with this period and place. However this does not translate into material wealth for this cultural group during the EB timeframe.

This would have it's effects on the scale of production for certain iron works such as iron armor wouldn't it? Specifically with regard to chainmail and it's place in early germanic culture, I just wouldn't care to characterize chainmail as commonplace enough even among the aristocracy to warrant being able to field numerous premigration era units of chainmail wearing infantry.

I can imagine aquiring mail from beaten enemies would have viable but not large scale, afterall swords alone were uncommon amoung the early germans. I can also imagine that, much as it is in the present day, one is not likely to trade high quality armor to a potentially dangerous neighbor one may soon end up fighting. To regularly be able to equip aristocrats in mail the early germans would have needed a mean to domestically produce it.

There must certainly have been a high cost associated with the import of large amounts of the required higher grade iron ore than the domestically available bog iron and the time/labour required for it's manufacture (which would not have been something within the means of just any iron smith) which might have made mail prohibitivly expensive for even many of the germanic chieftains?

As I understand it, the relatively high level of armarment made available to celtic aristocracy was in part made possible by the system of large farm estates that yielded much in the way of personal wealth to celtic nobles. Unless I am incorrect no such system existed in early germanic culture?

I'm not entirely sure the early tribal political system and land resources of the ancient germans allowed for that degree of personal wealth to field whole units of chainmail clad infantry. I'm always interested in having my opinion persuaded though.

If a reform reflecting an increase in available wealth (perhaps triggered by expansion into celtic or italic lands) is afforded the Sweboz in the next EB release than I'd happily concede the plausibility of the Herthoz as mail clad. But the current graphic depiction of the Gastiz and Herthoz seems out of place with the other depictions of germanic units.

In the meantime I wouldn't care to associate the comment "heavy hitters" with a heavily armored infantry. The Gaesatae are evidence enough against this.

What i'm hoping for (and only if the historical evidence supports this) is an improvement in the charge effectiveness and defensive staying power of certain units in keeping with their unit card descriptions. Maybe not so much the Merjoz (as others seem to have more success with them) but the Sahsnotoz just seem a little underpowered for a "fierce and valiant" sword bearing war band fighting in dense formation.

Pardon my confusing english, it is not my first language :clown:

[Sarcasm]

It's so bloody good to read a discussion going on like this, especially when compared with some other threads. Keep it up guys, I'll be here to read it. :book:

[blitzkrieg80]

Your English is flawless, sorry Lowenklee- I didn't mean to imply that you were saying the Germanics were primitve, but I find it to be a common judgement since they were largely dependent on Celtic metalworks, so that was not a specific comment to you. You have a great point about fielding a large scale RTW units-worth of mail which I can not immediately explain concerning EB and their depiction because I am relatively new to the team and that aspect was unaccounted, but I will try and find that information out, so I can defend those units, besides supplement with anything else ~:) it very well might be something we need to address, but it certainly is a delicate and difficult balance to keep the Germanics from being generic and weak, yet accurate- LUCKILY, thanks to the active interest of players/testers/forum'ers we can beat it into bloody submission until it looks right ~;) I have been recently trying to brainstorm some ways to re-invent some of the less unique units like the tribal units so the Sweboz can have comparably diverse units to the Celts, Greeks, ect... also I really like the ideas suggested of another calvary unit, and I would LOVE for the Germanic med/elite foot-units to have their stats increased, so I'll bring up all of these great points mentioned by all of you throughout the thread.

As I said before, keep the suggestions flowing... sorry I don't have anything just yet to keep a debate going- but I'll try ~;)

[Watchman]

I can imagine aquiring mail from beaten enemies would have viable but not large scale, afterall swords alone were uncommon amoung the early germans. I can also imagine that, much as it is in the present day, one is not likely to trade high quality armor to a potentially dangerous neighbor one may soon end up fighting. To regularly be able to equip aristocrats in mail the early germans would have needed a mean to domestically produce it.The funny thing is, in practice the potential future issues inherent in trading away advanced military gear to a potential foe didn't actually bother people. Or rather, they might bother rulers and suchlike, but their enterprising underlings tended to be only too happy to sell them off anyway.

The way Frankish kings repeatedly banned the sale of high-quality swords to Vikings (to little effect) is a poignant illustration of this phenomenom. People are greedy little buggers.

Moreover, if I've understood correctly it wasn't too unusual for Germanic mercenaries to fight for Celtic paymasters (among others), which would be another source of armour - both as loot, and as tokens of gratitude and friendship from the employer. Given the prestige associated with such gear, odds are they'd occasionally be given away as diplomatic gifts to foster goodwill in allied chieftains etc. Didn't the Celtic big shots pretty much have a practice of demonstrating their wealth and power with lavish gifts to followers, clients and so on ?


There must certainly have been a high cost associated with the import of large amounts of the required higher grade iron ore than the domestically available bog iron and the time/labour required for it's manufacture (which would not have been something within the means of just any iron smith) which might have made mail prohibitivly expensive for even many of the germanic chieftains? If the smith knows how to draw wire, then he can make mail. It's not so much difficult as rather tedious and very time-consuming. And as for the iron, I'm under the impression you want it to be pretty soft (ie. the opposite of what goes into cutting edges) since the whole point of the stuff is that it deforms under the blow and absorbs its energy while simultaneously preventing the sharp stuff from getting as far as the meat under the armour where it could do major harm.
I've no idea of the quality of raw iron available to the Germans at the time, but if it was good enough for spear-and axe-heads it ought to make the cut for mail too.

It'd have to be damn near uselessly low-grade if it didn't, anyway, AFAIK.

[Lowenklee]

Thanks for the replies Blitzkrieg and Watchman,

Hmm, it's an interesting point Watchman. While i'm familiar with the extensive use of germanic manpower for mercenary work in later Roman times i'm not so sure at what point in history this became a widespread phenomenon. Perhaps you could shed some light on this for me?
I doubt the Romans made much use of them prior to their expansion northwards into Gaul, so that leaves the Gauls themselves and perhaps eastern european elements.

I'll also have to plead ignorance as to the exact nature of trade between early germans and neighboring celts or eastern cultures. Blitzkrieg did mention the carpathian cultures. What high value items would the germans have traded to procure large amounts of mail or weaponry other than baltic amber? The idea of large scale trade for mail or weapons also seems to contradict the notion of the scarcity of iron weaponry and armor within early german society.

Perhaps an answer to the above to points could lead to the basis for a germanic reform sometime within the Eb timeframe? The idea itself is quite exciting.

As I mentioned earlier, i've no doubt that an ironware industry was in place early on in scandic-germanic society buts it's the scale and sophistication during the start of the EB timeframe that I question (chain wearing Gastiz and Herthoz are recruitable from the very beginning).

To my knowledge, ironware manufacture increased in volume following the introduction of technical know how from celtic neighbors centuries earlier. This information concerned the extraction of small amounts of iron ore from bogs and swamps in which deposits form due to exposure of iron elements in the water to air. Traditionally it is considered quite soft and poor stock as it contains many impurities. It also happens to be painstakingly tedious and unpleasant work.
I'd be interested in knowing the actual nature of early metal working among germans...such as what folding or laminant process may have been used to make better use of such poor quality iron.

Watchman i'm under the impression the over lapping ring design of mail is whats intended to provide the bulk of the protection from missile fire, spears, and knives/swords, this would require that the rings stay interlinked even under stress. Given the unrivited nature of early mail i'm actually quite curious to what extant soft iron mail would provide adequate protection before "splitting"?

Also I suppose it really depends on the answer to the above question concerning early german methods of removing or compensating for ore impurities. An unaccounted for concentration of impurities in an axe head or
spearhead can lead to disastrous structural weakness as i'm sure you know, but that same possibility for structural weakness could lead to the drawing of iron wire as an impossibility without great losses due to breakage no?
If later germanic sagas and mythos are indicative smiths were a very secretive group that kept ore extraction and metal working techniques very secret.

I wonder how many smiths actually could refine poor quality ore enough to be drawn into wires. I also wonder if large industrial smithing complexes were present within early german society as they were among the celts? I happen to know for bronze age materials that a large bulk of bronzeware for military use actually came from only a handful of places. Presumably these were the only places where the sufficient technical know how or natural resources existed.

This is a very interesting topic of conversation and I don't mean to pester with these inquires. I'll willingly concede my ignorance on many of the finer points! This just happens to be a great forum on which to air my curiosity.
I wouldn't wish to hold you up from EB work, I look forward to the fruits of your labor Blitzkrieg.

Perhaps if your time permits you could shed some light on the above questions Watchman?

[blitzkrieg80]

I have just recently brought up the idea of a late reform for the Sweboz, (many of us like it!) so that could partially qualify the armored units like [edit] the Herthoz and suggested the creation of a new heavy-ish cavalry unit for the Germanics that will be on par with the Greek/Celtic heavy cavalry- mailed with charging-spear/sword. There is some archaeological evidence of lance, spurs, sword- possibly implying such a cavalry force. Only time will tell if this becomes real :7fortuneteller:

The other unit concerns have been made more aware also, such as with the Merjoz.

[russia almighty]

Aww man my favorite faction getting mauled .


Curse ye bastards!

[Watchman]

Thanks for the replies Blitzkrieg and Watchman,

Hmm, it's an interesting point Watchman. While i'm familiar with the extensive use of germanic manpower for mercenary work in later Roman times i'm not so sure at what point in history this became a widespread phenomenon. Perhaps you could shed some light on this for me?
I doubt the Romans made much use of them prior to their expansion northwards into Gaul, so that leaves the Gauls themselves and perhaps eastern european elements.Naturally. And they'd make use of mercenaries and allies like everyone else according to situation, whatever their lofty warrior ideals might theoretically have against the idea.


I'll also have to plead ignorance as to the exact nature of trade between early germans and neighboring celts or eastern cultures. Blitzkrieg did mention the carpathian cultures. What high value items would the germans have traded to procure large amounts of mail or weaponry other than baltic amber?The services of skilled and willing fighters have usually been regarded as valuable you know... But other stuff I can think off the top of my head include various furs and hides (sealskins were exported from the Baltic already around Stone Age - and finds of Aegean bronze swords ought to suggest what kind of stuff might filter the other way - and some Finns were still paying their taxes in squirrel hides by the Early Modern period), walrus tusks from the far north, and probably also assorted craft products already for their exoticism. Salt from some regions too, probably. Less high-profile but rather larger-volume stuff would include things like fish, wool, metal (such as Swedish copper) both raw and worked, maybe honey... all the odds and ends common people now traded.


The idea of large scale trade for mail or weapons also seems to contradict the notion of the scarcity of iron weaponry and armor within early german society. Large scale, hardly. Enough to outfit some of the senior nobility and their retinues, why not ? (Remember that the Gastiz/Herthoz are actually the only ones in armour; the current Gastiz-model Hundaskaspiz are a placeholder AFAIK, and the Ridoharjoz are also nobles...)


To my knowledge, ironware manufacture increased in volume following the introduction of technical know how from celtic neighbors centuries earlier. This information concerned the extraction of small amounts of iron ore from bogs and swamps in which deposits form due to exposure of iron elements in the water to air. Traditionally it is considered quite soft and poor stock as it contains many impurities. It also happens to be painstakingly tedious and unpleasant work.
I'd be interested in knowing the actual nature of early metal working among germans...such as what folding or laminant process may have been used to make better use of such poor quality iron.From the museum here I got the impression ironworking spread into Scandinavia already before the main Celtic expansion across Europe - the most logical route would be the very ancient Amber Road, as that one went directly into the proto-Celtic heartlands. The Germans could hardly have failed to pick it up as well. Anyway, by what I know of it whatever its quality issues might be bog iron (slightly a misnomer - around here at least you coud fish the stuff up from lakes too) formed a perfectly serviceable basis for the Northern European Iron Age. If it's good enough for spears and axes and eventually swords, it's sure as Heck good enough for mail.
Heat and hammer iron enough, and most of the impurities go as far as I'm aware of. Apparently the iron-prospectors carried out a preliminary reduction on-site in small furnaces (to get rid of crystallized water and such) so they wouldn't be hauling overmuch useless slag back home.


Watchman i'm under the impression the over lapping ring design of mail is whats intended to provide the bulk of the protection from missile fire, spears, and knives/swords, this would require that the rings stay interlinked even under stress. Given the unrivited nature of early mail i'm actually quite curious to what extant soft iron mail would provide adequate protection before "splitting"? "Butted" mail only really has trouble with pointy things, which obviously have a relatively easy time forcing a link open. Much Celtic mail was left that way by what I've read (although the Romans apparently insisted on properly closing all the links in theirs), and far as I know it performs against most things beyond the pointy stuff essentially as well as "closed" mail does. Mail largely relies on the sheer difficulty of cutting through the overlapping links, the diffusion of the impact energy into the yieldings but difficult to breach structure, and the fact it becomes functionally a smooth surface if the blow comes in at too shallow an angle, and thus glances off.

And you want the links to be soft and flexible, iron or mild steel (bronze behaves much the same AFAIK). If they're soft and tough, they'll just deform under a blow for the most part. That's okay, since it's more or less part of the whole "absorptive" operative idea of the armour. If you make them hard - high-carbon steel and such - you strip them of their ability to "give in" under a blow and instead render them brittle - and that's Bad News because not only will they shatter, they will also be driven into the wound that much easier which isn't exactly pleasant.


Also I suppose it really depends on the answer to the above question concerning early german methods of removing or compensating for ore impurities. An unaccounted for concentration of impurities in an axe head or spearhead can lead to disastrous structural weakness as i'm sure you know, but that same possibility for structural weakness could lead to the drawing of iron wire as an impossibility without great losses due to breakage no?So ? One very convenient thing about metals is their recyclability - if a part of the iron wire turns out to have an unacceptably high slag content (likely going to become apparent already during the drawing process), just put that bit aside, work with the rest, and melt and remake the deficient part later. It's actually much less a problem with wire than it is with weapons (nevermind, God forbid, long swords) far as I can figure, since you're here cutting the wire into short segments and the process of working it into thin bars for drawing ought to already get rid of much of the slag deposits. With the weapons you're making a more or less big lump that really should not have weak spots if possible, but I would imagine there is rather less concern with mail given the small size of the component parts and the way it works by "cumulative" effect.


If later germanic sagas and mythos are indicative smiths were a very secretive group that kept ore extraction and metal working techniques very secret. I wonder about that ore extraction bit. I'm under the impression that part of the process was usually handled by other folks, the smith's main concern being working the metal rather than producing it. But certainly it has always been very typical that specialists who covered and important and demanding profession were regarded (and regarded themselves as) somehow special or downright arcane in premodern societies, with all kinds of ritual and sundry being tacked on both their status and work. (The cathedral-builders' fraternities the Freemasons grew out of would be a Medieval example, not that most craft guilds did not have their elements of mysticism.) In many sub-Saharan African cultures the blacksmith was regarded as a kind of shaman or witchman all but equal to, if different from, the primary specialists of the supernatural for example.


I also wonder if large industrial smithing complexes were present within early german society as they were among the celts? I happen to know for bronze age materials that a large bulk of bronzeware for military use actually came from only a handful of places. Presumably these were the only places where the sufficient technical know how or natural resources existed. Bronze isn't readily comparable as with that stuff you had the peculiar availability issues of tin and copper to deal with (namely, the two rarely turn out in the same region). Iron is by far more abundant in many parts, or in Northern Europe anyway (although Sweden is rotten with copper, and the "tin isles" of Britain weren't that far away by sea...). Specialist stuff like swords would almost certainly have been mainly Celtic and other imports (although doubtless a powerful king or prosperous chieftain or community could also sponsor the presence of a specialist with the necessary skills - just think of the profit they could turn from selling his wares further, or the presitge and followers the head honcho would get by giving real swords as gifts...), but as things like axes and spears and arrows were both by far easier to make and vitally important to everyday life their production would by necessity already have been handled locally.

[Lowenklee]

"I have just recently brought up the idea of a late reform for the Sweboz, (many of us like it!) so that could partially qualify the armored units like the "Hundred" (upscaled for use as a late reform unit?) and suggested the creation of a new heavy-ish cavalry unit for the Germanics that will be on par with the Greek/Celtic heavy cavalry- mailed with charging-spear/sword.
Only time will tell if this becomes real.
The other unit concerns have been made more aware also, such as with the Merjoz".

I am very excited about a Sweboz reform, it really does sound like a terrific idea.

As regards the Hundred, I shouldn't think there is a need to make them exclusively a late reform unit. There's no reason to believe the system of military recruitment among the germans changed significantly during the three centuries covered by EB.

If anything i'm curious about which element of the sebjo the hundaskapiz represent, are they the greater body of the gau's lower nobility gathered into a single unit? Or perhaps each unit represents an elected erlaz (if that word should be appropriate) of the sebjo assembling the household men and the extended kin group?

If the latter is the case then it's worth mentioning that not all of the men fielded within the unit would have likely been aristocratic with access to the more extravagant arms and armor.

The tendency of such peoples to fight together in extended kin groups would seem to suggest the latter was perhaps more likely? It is however somewhat vague with what was meant by Tacitus. Whatever the case I rather like the idea of the early hundaskapiz being fast moving close infantry support for advancing cavalry.

Speaking of cavalry, i'm quite happy with the Ridoharjoz but would relish the chance to use a prereform medium/light-medium german cavalry. Lances would initially seem more appropriate for the early period, although I'm not up to date on the developments of early iron age cavalry swords among either the germans or neighboring people. Perhaps someone has some insights?

Your posts are always informative Watchman,

But I must say that I'm not sure how much we are in disagreement concerning mail armor. Perhaps my posts have been poorly illustrative of my position. I initially regarded the large scale availability of mail clad german units as perhaps more of a migration period phenomenon somewhat out of place during the beginning of the EB timeframe. I still stand by that position, my concern is primarily one of scale.

As I posted earlier, I am well aware that rudimentary iron age technology was available quite early on among scandic and baltic peoples. In fact, I believe some quite old finds of iron implements were discovered in your area of the Baltic. Certainly the protogermanic iron age predates most significant contact with mainland La tene peoples. I'm also aware of role played by certain mineral additives and smithing techniques in contributing to a superior alloy and flexibility in iron weaponry. What i'm not so sure about is how well aware the early germans were of this!

However, I digress...

"Large scale, hardly. Enough to outfit some of the senior nobility and their retinues, why not ? (Remember that the Gastiz/Herthoz are actually the only ones in armour; the current Gastiz-model Hundaskaspiz are a placeholder AFAIK, and the Ridoharjoz are also nobles...)"

Hmm, I don't have a problem at all with the Ridoharjoz. I'm not sure why they were brought up? Concerning my use of the term "large scale", that is in my opinion what is currently depicted in the EB mod. I have many many family members in my Sweboz campaign and each of them takes to the field with his numerous herthoz fully clad in mail. Even if we discount the Gastiz and Hundaskapiz this to me constitutes "large scale" availability.

Of course I also posted...

"If a reform reflecting an increase in available wealth (perhaps triggered by expansion into celtic or italic lands) is afforded the Sweboz in the next EB release than I'd happily concede the plausibility of the Herthoz as mail clad".

The above remains my position although I should have included the Gastiz in that statement as well. A Sweboz reform would change everything as a gradual transition to greater material wealth due to territorial expansion, trade, prizes won through military service to foreigners, or whatever historical changes occurred as german populations expanded and came into greater prominence can be more accurately represented. Such wealth would have probably made the manufacture or purchase of mail armor more plausible.

However, I maintain 272bc is simply too early for such advancements. Perhaps it is here we must simply agree to disagree?

I spent several hours yesterday searching for evidence of mail wearing germans during the EB timeframe, the closest I arrived at was the following account from Tacitus.

"Neither in truth do they abound in iron, as from the fashion of their weapons may be gathered...In their equipment they show no ostentation; only that their shields are diversified and adorned with curious colours. With coats of mail very few are furnished..."

I know it's Tacitus so we must be careful. But this account gives a first century c.e. view of the germans as still being defficient in iron arms.

This is consistent with my reading on archeological findings and classical writings which seem to strongly suggest, for whatever reason, a significant scarcity of iron martial implements for early germans. This makes, to my thinking, the current depiction of the Herthoz unlikely from a historical standpoint.

Consequently for a future EB release I suggest it may be a fairer compromise to have the pre-reform Sweboz general's skin remain a depiction of a mail clad aristocrat while changing the accompanying herthoz skins to something more along the lines of heavy leathers or furs. I'll no longer address the current depiction of the Gastiz or the Hundazskapiz given their status as placeholders.

Your common sense insights are very welcome and perhaps you are in possession of more specific information that compels your position. Do share if so! I am presently reading an interesting article on the Jastorf culture documenting recent grave excavations as well as several articles on the history of balto skandic metallurgy (regretably all are short but do provide interesting leads). Perhaps if new pertinent information arises it would be worth starting a new thread?

[Frostwulf]

Surely the Germanics never fielded anything even closley on a par with the Brehihntin and the Belgae heavies (can't remeber the name) though?

Goldsworthy “Caesar”-The Germans had some 800 horsemen still guarding their encampment. Caesar had 5,000 cavalry, although if these were performing their duties as a patrolling and screening force properly, then they would not all have been concentrated in one place. Even so, the Gallic auxiliaries probably had a significant numerical advantage, and were mounted on larger horses than their opponents, which makes it all the more notable that the Germans quickly gained an advantage. In Caesar's account the Germans charged first, chasing away part of the Gallic cavalry, but were in turn met by their supports. Many of the Germans then dismounted to fight on foot-perhaps with the support of the picked infantrymen who regularly supported the horsemen of some Germanic tribes. The Gauls were routed and fled, spreading panic amongst a large part of the auxiliary and allied cavalry who galloped in terror back to the main force, which was probably several miles away.” pg.274

Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"Although not more than eight hundred German horsemen were present, as soon as they caught sight of Caesar's cavalry they charged and 'soon threw them into disorder'-all five thousand of them. The Celts did not break immediately, 'but in their turn, made a stand' and a sharp fight ensued in which the Germans, 'overthrowing a great many of our men, put the rest to flight'. pg.230-231

Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"Caesar sent out his Gallic cavalry to engage them but these, being identical to the enemy but far fewer in numbers, quickly got into difficulties. Casesar now sent in his four hundred German riders, whom he had held back as a reserve, and 'their charge overpowered the enemy, who were put to flight and fell back with heavy loss on their main body'. The town surrendered." pg.232

Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"It was the German cavalry, possibly with their own light infantry in support even though they are not mentioned, who made the breakthrough.
At length the German horse gained the top of some rising ground on the right, dislodged some of the enemy, and chased them with heavy loss to a river where Vercingetorix's infantry was posted. At this the res of his cavalry fled, afraid of being surrounded, and were cut down in numbers all over the field.pg. 234

Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"Once more Caesar had kept his German cavalry back as a reserve for the crucial moment; when these were committed, the enemy was quickly routed." pg.234

Michael P. Speidel-"Riding for Caesar"-"Caesar threw his Germani into the fray-'some four hundred horsemen he had with him from the beginning'. the Gauls, unable to withstand their onslaught, broke and fled. Caesar's horse guard thus saved him from being trapped in certain defeat.
Holding back reserves until the decisive moment, Caesar had won by tactical skill. It is nevertheless astonishing that only four hundred men made such a difference. They must have been the kind of men Caesar's own army feared, 'huge, unbelievably bold and expert fighters'."pg.12

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

Goldsworthy “Caesar”-“The tactics and the quality of the Germanic warriors usually gave them the edge over the Gaulish cavalry”. Pg 229

Michael P. Speidel-"Riding for Caesar"-"The emperor chose Batavians not for being foreigners, but for being the finest horsemen anywhere. His legate in Lower Germany no doubt picked them from tribal warriors who as allies had proven their horsemanship and fighting skill."pg.16 This quote is speaking of Augustus.

You will notice that some of these are the same stories told by the different authors, I just figured it would be good to see the different perspectives from each. Goldsworthy and Sidnell deal with J.Caesar when talking of the Germanic cavalry during EB's time frame. Speidel takes it further down the line with the varying "Caesar's" with the same kind of results as you have read here. Each of these authors have other exploits of the Germanic cavalry in their books that Im not going to bother with as this should be enough examples. So as far as the Germanic cavalry being on par with the Brihentin or the Remi Mairepos I would say that are not on par with them. I say they are much superior!


There is some archaeological evidence of lance, spurs, sword- possibly implying such a cavalry force.
Speidel talks about this in his book "Ancient Germanic Warriors". He says "Tacitus, as we have seen, says that some first-century Germanic warriors fought with long spears, but scholars wondered whether he meant only foot or both foot and horse. Scene 5 of Trajan's Column answers that question, as do lance blades found in graves containing spurs:"pg 136
Also of mention is that there are many "charges" done with Germanic cavalry that disperses their enemies. Some of the conflicts mentioned seem to promote at least to me the idea of heavy cavalry.

Other things of note for the cavalry is:
Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"In 55 BC two German tribes, the Usipetes and Tenctheri, migrated into Gaul. They scored an early success when their cavalry demonstrated the great stamina of their shaggy little mounts by making what would normally have been a three-day march in one night. The Gallic Menapii were taken by surprise and slaughtered."pg.230
Also there is mention by both Sidnell and Speidel of the cavalry fording rivers in full armor in both Britain and Egypt.
I agree with Watchman for the most part on distribution, though I am terribly weak on that subject. Be as it may and regardless of the situation of the armor, the Germanics still overcame their enemies and at greater odds.

[Frostwulf]

I was wondering what time period the reform for Sweboz would take place? I also was wondering if the barratus(sp?) or war chant was going to be used. If it is going to be implemented will it morale or other things?

[Lowenklee]

The following passage is pasted directly from the wiki article on "Germanic peoples". I think it may lay interesting groundwork for establishing a Sweboz reform date.


"The development of La Tene culture extended to the north around 200-150 BC, including the North German Plain, Denmark and Southern Scandinavia".

"In certain cremation graves, situated at some distance from other graves, Celtic metalwork appears: brooches and swords, together with wagons, Roman cauldrons and drinking vessels. The area of these rich graves is the same as the places where later (first century AD) princely graves are found. A ruling class seems to have emerged, distinguished by the possession of large farms and rich gravegifts such as weapons for the men and silver objects for the women, imported earthenware and Celtic items".

Sources as follows,

Parker Pearson 1989:202

Runes around the North Sea and on the Continent AD 150-700 - Looijenga, Jantina Helena - II.2, From the pre-Roman Iron Age to the late-Germanic Iron Age, University of Groningen, 1997.

The dissertation piece written by Dr. Jantina Helena Looijenga goes on to state,


"This process continued throughout the beginning of this era and is especially noticeable in Jutland and on Funen. The first historical contacts with the Romans took place during this period. The journey of the Cimbri and Teutons from Jutland, at the end of the second century BC, possibly resulted from different motives: e.g. internal struggles for power, overpopulation, climatic changes and long-distance trade, which included the import of prestige goods.

The pre-Roman Iron Age Germanic society hardly knew any private property (perhaps apart from cattle), and certainly no privately owned land, since this was common property (Hedeager 1992a:245). The agriculture of the celtic fieldsystem could not expand much and an increase of agricultural production was not possible, which put a strain on society. The first four centuries AD saw a reorganisation of the villages, the redistribution of land, improved tools and a larger produce of the fields.

Hedeager (1992a:245) conjectures that the early weapon deposits, and perhaps also the bog offerings of people in the north of Jutland, bear witness of internal conflicts. The differentiation process that may have started at around 150 BC continued till the development of royal power centres centuries later (Hedeager 1992a:244ff.).

With the increase of the number of landowners (and private property), new tensions and conflicts could originate within the community. The accumulation of property produced a new elite. Social status became important, which was expressed by the possession of prestige
goods (Hedeager 1988a:137ff.). Literacy, used for spiritual or profane purposes, may be expected to have developed among high-placed persons or privileged groups".

The dissertation is available as a pdf download if anyone is interested in reading it in full. A simple google search should suffice.

[Frostwulf]

Thanks for the info Lowenklee, :beam:

[keravnos]

This is VERY, VERY interesting stuff.

I will echo Sarcasm here, and congratulate all of you on excellent comments made.

[Digby Tatham Warter]

Thankyou for the excellent read gentlemen.

So, from reading Caesers account of the germanic mercs in action(been a while since I read his account), what sort of stats would make germanic cav fair, a higher charge and attack, to represent what appears to be their obviously superior ferocity?

Seen as germanic cav didn't seem to be available in large numbers, would a smaller unit size of say 80 men instead of 100(huge unit size) be in order? Perphaps this is better than just making them expensive(to keep the numbers low)?

[Frostwulf]

Im a bit hesitant to reply as I dont know how the stats are applied or what they are based on. If the stats are straight forward then I would base the German cavalry similar to the Remi Mairepos but I would give them a stronger charge and attack factor as well as higher morale. I didnt find anything on how many casualties the Germans took but there must have been enough of them left to continually chase off the Gauls. If this is the case and with the number of Gauls they were facing I would give their defense at least on par with the Remi Mairepos if not higher.

[blitzkrieg80]

This discussion and supplimentary citations are indeed very interesting :thumbsup: thanks to you guys who spend time carefully supporting your arguments with real evidence and clear logic. This thread does much to support the continued development and evolution of the Sweboz faction, so great job people! Keep up the good work done by supplying proof whether it be logic (as most of the time we must go on with so few sources) or actual references, for these kinds of changes we're actually noting to consider/propose to the team, such as with the new cavalry and reform. The Sweboz have been neglected in the consuming greatness of so many other great elements of EBness but not for long! :yes:

If anybody wants to disagree, POST IT! We need information, we need dialogue and comments and the synthesis that can only come through the interaction of your great minds, devout and casual, fan and historian alike. Please try to base your argument on game balance or historical/archaeological evidence because that will be most effective.

:7fortuneteller: Good news! Thanks to the great generosity of Shigawire, I will have additional resources so that I may truly begin translating/reconstructing ProtoGermanic for the Sweboz voice mod

[QwertyMIDX]

Im a bit hesitant to reply as I dont know how the stats are applied or what they are based on. If the stats are straight forward then I would base the German cavalry similar to the Remi Mairepos but I would give them a stronger charge and attack factor as well as higher morale. I didnt find anything on how many casualties the Germans took but there must have been enough of them left to continually chase off the Gauls. If this is the case and with the number of Gauls they were facing I would give their defense at least on par with the Remi Mairepos if not higher.


Why do you use the Remi Mairepos as your base? They weren't fighting them in any of the examples you mentioned.

[Laundreu]

Why do you use the Remi Mairepos as your base? They weren't fighting them in any of the examples you mentioned.

Quite. Wouldn't the Brihentin work better, if indeed Celtic heavy cavalry needs to be the base used?

[QwertyMIDX]

In fact in most of the examples we're not even talking about heavy cavalry, but about light cavalry like the Luce Epos (that unit is actually sort of a conglomeration of the light and medium cavalry of gaul, but its the closest we can get).

[Frostwulf]

Why do you use the Remi Mairepos as your base? They weren't fighting them in any of the examples you mentioned.

Quite. Wouldn't the Brihentin work better, if indeed Celtic heavy cavalry needs to be the base used?

The reason for using the Remi Mairepos is for their defensive skill based on skill not on armor as well as their high moral. The stats for the Brihentin are very similar to the Remi Mairepos. Also there were Belgic troops at Alesia though I do not know if they were mounted or not.


In fact in most of the examples we're not even talking about heavy cavalry, but about light cavalry like the Luce Epos (that unit is actually sort of a conglomeration of the light and medium cavalry of gaul, but its the closest we can get).
Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"Given the Celtic reputation as mounted warriors and of Gaul as a source of horses, it was inevitable that cavalry should play a major role in Caesar's campaigns there. His Gallic auxiliary cavalry fought in their native equipment in units led by their own chieftains, although large groupings of units would be put under a Roman officer. Most would have helmets of various designs, the best of which formed the basis of Roman legionary helmets, having cheek-pieces and good protection for the back of the neck. Those that could afford them would have chain mail shirts, and this would apply to an increasing number of warriors as the rewards of Roman service were accrued. All would have carried shields and various styles of spear, many of them suitable for both throwing and thrusting, in addition to long-bladed swords." pg.220

Caesar started with his cavalry in 58 BC. and it was in 55 BC when the Germans defeated Caesar's cavalry. The Gallic cavalry had roughly 3 years to better equip themselves with Roman war materials. Mail shirts, shields, various styles of spears and long-bladed swords sound like heavy cavalry to me.

Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"He completed the initial conquest by the end of the following year, 57 BC, by defeating a confederation of the Belgic tribes of the north east. Learning that the combined Belgic army was approaching the River Sambre, he crossed and fortified a strong position on the far bank to await their attack. Greatly outnumbered by enemies with a 'great reputation for bravery', Caesar began tentatively by sending out the cavalry to test them and 'soon found that his troops were as good as theirs'." pg.221

Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"Caesar sent out his Gallic cavalry to engage them but these, being identical to the enemy but far fewer in numbers, quickly got into difficulties. Sombre now sent in his four hundred German riders, whom he had held back as a reserve, and 'their charge overpowered the enemy, who were put to flight and fell back with heavy loss on their main body'. The town surrendered." pg.232

Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"a tendency encouraged by the fact that his cavalry were usually fighting against identical opponents (his auxiliaries had to bare their right shoulders in battle to distinguish themselves from the foe)." pg.223

These statements seem to me that there was Brihentin as they had the same equipment as Caesar's cavalry. Im sure not all were Brihentin but there must have been many that were. Vercingetorix had around 15000 cavalry at his disposal, many of them had to be chieftains and their body guards just as in Caesar's cavalry.

Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"Caesar reinforced his outnumbered cavalry with light infantry, hurriedly trained to cooperate closely in amongst the squadrons. Here Caesar was clearly drawing on his experiences in Gaul. For his German horseman, at least, this was merely a return to what had been their mode of operation before Caesar had turned them into his reserve shock force." pg.248

This last statement shows that under Caesar they didnt always have the light infantry with them.

Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-One might expect that the combination of the long-famed Celtic prowess as mounted warriors with this new state-of-the-art military equipment (to which add spurs, superior ironwork in their weapons and armour and, at first, larger horses) would have proved unstoppable, yet it is the German cavalry who really stand out in Caesar's accounts and we are specifically told they did not have the advantage of saddles. Indeed, Caesar makes clear that the Germans positively scorned such aids as a sign of weakness:' In their eyes it is the height of effeminacy and shame to use a saddle, and they do not hesitate to engage the largest force of cavalry riding saddled horses, however small their own numbers may be'." pg.228

[Watchman]

Just a general reminder, but the distinction between "light" and "heavy" cavalry isn't really one of equipement but of primary tactical role - "heavies" being those trained and intented for shock action rather than skirmishing and such. It's just that the heavier equipement tends to be concentrated among the shock types for some fairly obvious practical reasons.

Remember also the Equites Auxilia Gallorum - much of Caesar's better-equipped Gallic cavalry would in EB terms be that rather than full-blown Brihentin.

Note also that in many instances the Germans were employed as a reserve that was only committed after the enemy cavalry was already fully engaged - and in cavalry battles it by and large tends to be the side that last has uncommitted squadrons that wins. Could really just be that old Julius didn't relly trust his Gauls all that much and thus used them for the somewhat attrition-heavy duty of tying down the enemy horse before sending in his more reliable Germans to smash the engaged and disordered foe with minimal casualties to themselves...

Anyway, in general I'd say that the Ridonharjoz do not need to be able to beat Brihentin or Remi one-on-one (which would be pretty difficult anyway given the importance of armour in the RTW system, and the fact the RHs wear just shirt and pants against the Gauls' and Belgaes' mail and helmets...); they just need to be able to reasonably reliably beat the lighter Epos, after which they can proceed to swamp the presumably rather few Gallic heavies by numbers. After all, you don't need to be better than the enemy elite so long as your rank and file is sufficiently superior to his rank and file...

Which is really probably the same thing as happened with the infantry during the more succesful Germanic invasions. The better Celtic warriors were probably rather superior to the majority of the invading tribesmen, but that didn't really matter as the rank-and-file Germanic tribal warriors were better than the low-quality militias and greenhorn lower warriors that made up the majority of the Celtic armies at that point... once the chaff had been dealt with the few harder nuts were easy enough to get rid of.

[Frostwulf]

Well I guess this is were we start disagreeing Watchman.

Just a general reminder, but the distinction between "light" and "heavy" cavalry isn't really one of equipement but of primary tactical role - "heavies" being those trained and intented for shock action rather than skirmishing and such. It's just that the heavier equipement tends to be concentrated among the shock types for some fairly obvious practical reasons.

Michael P. Speidel "Riding for Caesar"-"Caesar's German horsemen had served well as a crack battlefield unit and an escort."pg.15

Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"Caesar reinforced his outnumbered cavalry with light infantry, hurriedly trained to cooperate closely in amongst the squadrons. Here Caesar was clearly drawing on his experiences in Gaul. For his German horseman, at least, this was merely a return to what had been their mode of operation before Caesar had turned them into his reserve shock force." pg.248


Remember also the Equites Auxilia Gallorum - much of Caesar's better-equipped Gallic cavalry would in EB terms be that rather than full-blown Brihentin.
Why? These units did have chieftains and their retainers, they had the arms and armor of the Brihentin. If we are talking historical here, there isnt any difference that Im aware of. Caesar did use his Gallic units in many ways, raiding, mop-up,charging other cavalry and infantry etc. etc. The Germans were simply better.


Note also that in many instances the Germans were employed as a reserve that was only committed after the enemy cavalry was already fully engaged - and in cavalry battles it by and large tends to be the side that last has uncommitted squadrons that wins. Could really just be that old Julius didn't relly trust his Gauls all that much and thus used them for the somewhat attrition-heavy duty of tying down the enemy horse before sending in his more reliable Germans to smash the engaged and disordered foe with minimal casualties to themselves...


Goldsworthy “Caesar”-The Germans had some 800 horsemen still guarding their encampment. Caesar had 5,000 cavalry, although if these were performing their duties as a patrolling and screening force properly, then they would not all have been concentrated in one place. Even so, the Gallic auxiliaries probably had a significant numerical advantage, and were mounted on larger horses than their opponents, which makes it all the more notable that the Germans quickly gained an advantage. In Caesar's account the Germans charged first, chasing away part of the Gallic cavalry, but were in turn met by their supports. Many of the Germans then dismounted to fight on foot-perhaps with the support of the picked infantrymen who regularly supported the horsemen of some Germanic tribes. The Gauls were routed and fled, spreading panic amongst a large part of the auxiliary and allied cavalry who galloped in terror back to the main force, which was probably several miles away.” pg.274

Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"Although not more than eight hundred German horsemen were present, as soon as they caught sight of Caesar's cavalry they charged and 'soon threw them into disorder'-all five thousand of them. The Celts did not break immediately, 'but in their turn, made a stand' and a sharp fight ensued in which the Germans, 'overthrowing a great many of our men, put the rest to flight'. pg.230-231

This battle happened before the Germans were with Caesar, they didnt have attrition units here and all units were committed from the begining. It was strictly the Germans vs. the numerically superior Gauls, and the Germans won.

Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"It was the German cavalry, possibly with their own light infantry in support even though they are not mentioned, who made the breakthrough.
At length the German horse gained the top of some rising ground on the right, dislodged some of the enemy, and chased them with heavy loss to a river where Vercingetorix's infantry was posted. At this the res of his cavalry fled, afraid of being surrounded, and were cut down in numbers all over the field.pg. 234

This is one of the instances where there was a non-charge, non-reserve situation. There are others. You are correct in that Caesar was lacking in trust in the Gallic cavalry during the Vercingetorix uprising. Prior to and after there doesnt seem to be the lack of trust as before.


Anyway, in general I'd say that the Ridonharjoz do not need to be able to beat Brihentin or Remi one-on-one (which would be pretty difficult anyway given the importance of armour in the RTW system, and the fact the RHs wear just shirt and pants against the Gauls' and Belgaes' mail and helmets...); they just need to be able to reasonably reliably beat the lighter Epos, after which they can proceed to swamp the presumably rather few Gallic heavies by numbers. After all, you don't need to be better than the enemy elite so long as your rank and file is sufficiently superior to his rank and file...

I agree that the Ridonharjoz do not need to be able to beat Brihentin or Remi one-on-one, there should be a heavy German cavalry as well as a Noble German cavalry and each should be stronger then there Celtic counterparts. One thing you seem to be neglecting is that the Gauls seriously outnumbered Caesars cavalry. If you will look at the above quotes the Gauls had the same type of units that Caesar did. Caesar's Gallic cavalry would get swamped and have to be rescued by the Germans. The Germans though greatly outnumbered would attack and chase off the Gauls, including the elites. Some times this was done with charges other times it would be stand and fight situations, and the Germans always came out on top even though inferior in numbers.


Which is really probably the same thing as happened with the infantry during the more succesful Germanic invasions. The better Celtic warriors were probably rather superior to the majority of the invading tribesmen, but that didn't really matter as the rank-and-file Germanic tribal warriors were better than the low-quality militias and greenhorn lower warriors that made up the majority of the Celtic armies at that point... once the chaff had been dealt with the few harder nuts were easy enough to get rid of.
15,000 German warriors(Suebi) were dominating several Gallic factions and thats why they called for Caesar. The Germans were outnumbered and still managed to win. There should have been at least that many elites from the Gauls.

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

[Zero1]

Well, I'm back after having been gone for a very long time 'looong story, don't need to bore the EB team and others with details' but I'm here to lend my weight to this particular issue.

Now, my knowledge of the early Germanic peoples is modest in comparison to many here but I daresay I have something of a working knowledge, that said, I think it would be fair to give the Sweboz a significant bump in calvary and I more or less echo Frostwulf's sentiments/arguments on this point.

I also think it makes sense for the Sweboz as a faction to have a rather large berth of sorts between their units I.E. well armored heavies and not so well armored lights with little in between. I feel this would best echo how the Germanic peoples tended to fight and operate I.E. with a large number of light infantry/calvary/general soldiery supporting a smaller 'core' armored noble elite. If one examines how the Germanic peoples of later ages fought and how that tradition influenced the later medieval periods they more or less followed that model, and I see no reason why earlier 'proto' Germanic peoples would deviate much from that, indeed, there is even evidence supporting just an assumption.

I bring this up also because it makes sense from a gameplay standpoint, having a sort of tribal and forested faction centered around northern Europe with a force consisting of a large number of unarmored but nevertheless skilled and reliable light infantry supporting a crack force of heavily armed/armored nobility would balance out the region nicely with the more 'balanced' infantry-centric Romans to the south and less extreme in their unit division Celtic counterparts to the west.

To address this issue I would suggest leaving such units as the Gastiz and Sweboz general as-is, maybe even make them a little stronger, BUT, making them FAR FAR FAR more expensive to reflect how rare and valuable they were as well as their noble status, as well as adding a similarly armed/armored calvary compartment which is equally expensive. Personally, I'd like to see this as more of something you have to 'build up' to and less of a 'reform', it seems to me that the development of these forces could be better represented through old-fashioned building upgrades, time and effort rather then with a hard capped 'reform date' as such.

Just two cents from a long time fan coming back from a far too long absence =D.

[Lowenklee]

Thanks for the info Frostwulf.

Let me ask for a bit of clarification on a few points.

Would it be accurate to characterize the use of the double rider as a cultural norm among native Germanic cavalry? Should the Ridoharjoz in fact be represented this way...technical limitations not withstanding?

There seems to be conflicting accounts. Were these two men sitting in tandem atop the horse? Or, was there a single rider alongside which ran another? Tacitus' account seem to suggest the latter. In the case of Caesar we have the Sweboz specifically mentioned as frequently dismounting from their horses to engage the enemy, conspicuously absent is the mentioning of a second rider or galloper. However I have a feeling I'm missing a source...in fact I know I am.

Also, what are your thoughts on the evolution of arms and armament among the German cavalry as frontier tribes increasingly found themselves rendering military service to Gallic and Roman employers? More specifically, within the EB time frame would it be accurate to characterize the standard Germanic cavalry in use as lightly equipped? Or, do you see a trend toward, or is there evidence to suggest the existence of more heavily armored (i.e. expensive) Germanic cavalry?



Well, I'm back after having been gone for a very long time 'looong story, don't need to bore the EB team and others with details' but I'm here to lend my weight to this particular issue.

Now, my knowledge of the early Germanic peoples is modest in comparison to many here but I daresay I have something of a working knowledge, that said, I think it would be fair to give the Sweboz a significant bump in calvary and I more or less echo Frostwulf's sentiments/arguments on this point.

I also think it makes sense for the Sweboz as a faction to have a rather large berth of sorts between their units I.E. well armored heavies and not so well armored lights with little in between. I feel this would best echo how the Germanic peoples tended to fight and operate I.E. with a large number of light infantry/calvary/general soldiery supporting a smaller 'core' armored noble elite. If one examines how the Germanic peoples of later ages fought and how that tradition influenced the later medieval periods they more or less followed that model, and I see no reason why earlier 'proto' Germanic peoples would deviate much from that, indeed, there is even evidence supporting just an assumption.

I bring this up also because it makes sense from a gameplay standpoint, having a sort of tribal and forested faction centered around northern Europe with a force consisting of a large number of unarmored but nevertheless skilled and reliable light infantry supporting a crack force of heavily armed/armored nobility would balance out the region nicely with the more 'balanced' infantry-centric Romans to the south and less extreme in their unit division Celtic counterparts to the west.

To address this issue I would suggest leaving such units as the Gastiz and Sweboz general as-is, maybe even make them a little stronger, BUT, making them FAR FAR FAR more expensive to reflect how rare and valuable they were as well as their noble status, as well as adding a similarly armed/armored calvary compartment which is equally expensive. Personally, I'd like to see this as more of something you have to 'build up' to and less of a 'reform', it seems to me that the development of these forces could be better represented through old-fashioned building upgrades, time and effort rather then with a hard capped 'reform date' as such.

Just two cents from a long time fan coming back from a far too long absence =D.

I'll respectfully disagree, a reform suits the situation better I should think. If a sudden pronounced increase in material wealth and the concentration of that wealth in the hands of an aristocracy was made possible by increased contact with Celtic neighbors then we are talking about sudden external stimuli and not a natural progression of the earlier social customs.

The egalitarian nature of early Germanic society and the rudimentary nature of Germanic agricultural practice made it very unlikely that an affluent land owning aristocracy could have emerged and amassed the personal wealth required to field such infantry as the current Gastiz and Herthoz without this external stimuli. It's only after this stimuli that we begin to find signs of the immergence of a priveleged aristocracy, and then only in those tribes that occupied the frontier with Celtic lands.

The "pre-reform" nature of germanic society would also suggest less of a gap between the haves and have nots in terms of how warriors were equipped on the battlefield. Small but significant differences probably abounded, such as sword and horse ownership. But I doubt differences in armament were that severe. Just my opinion though!


P.s.
welcome back!

[blitzkrieg80]

This is great discussion here, please continue. Thank you so much for your interest and devotion! :applause:

I would say that any culture who practices agriculture around 300BC is not very egalitarian, because agriculture in practice makes those who hoard and own "haves" and those of less means "have nots" and thus aristocracy begins to grow and have influence rather quickly- I think the typical depiction of the Germans as democratic and egalitarian is really more of a "noble savage" characterization that was invented to contrast the Romans' sensibility.

On the other hand, I think the material wealth of the Germanics was a result of Celtic influence, but wasn't a result of cultural/societal influence unless we're speaking militarily, because the loan-word vocabulary we find in the various old Germanic languages shows a steady flow of brunjo "mail/body-armor", isarna "iron", "wire", rik "power/authority" but not land-use or aristocratic composition. The Sweboz reform we're proposing would be more directly because of increased pressure/migration coupled with increased mobilization/militarization which would bring about the conquest and acquisition of metallurgical sources that would allow heavier armor and a larger warrior aristocracy. I am hoping we can make the conditional reform dependent on the Sweboz possessing 1 city in a mountainous/ore-rich region with significant MIC, besides large markets to simulate the trade network necessary to equip the new Sweboz nation. The two times are currently dubbed by me, Druhteztîdiz - "Time of the Warband" (only Sweboz Reform) and Theudôztîdiz - "Time of the Tribe" (pre-Reform period for Sweboz). This is based on the vocabulary of "king" that originated in primary usage as Theudanaz "Lord of the people" then became less used while Druhtinaz "Lord of the warband" was more popular later, this before the "of the kindred" dynasty/lineage-based title seen finally in Kuniz/Cyning. The unconditional reform date will be 140BC so the AI can actually take advantage of it and the conditional reform date will start 190BC... I find it awesome that these dates seem to coincide with the dates Lowenklee mentioned from the Wikipedia information (not that I'll ever claim that is a valid authority).

One of the considerations we have to make within the unit list is space and so that might limit some of the heavy infantry even though I would fully support the idea of a heavy infantry/retinue. The early sword-unit is going to be renamed to reflect their status as thegnoz/retinue so this sort of class differentiation is going to be implemented- I am so very happy to hear your own comments that this stuff is missing.

I think the Ridaharjoz is the only unit which shouldn't get its' name changed by me and I feel that it doesn't need any stat change either because it is an effective unit but not incredible, similar to the Leuce Epos which shouldn't outshine other cavarly but shouldn't be worthless.

The initial heavy cavalry unit I have proposed is actually a noble cavalry or as I call it for now (until I have my additional Proto-Germanic sources): Ehwathegnoz (Companion Cavalry) :grin: because I think the idea that they would be retinue, thegnoz or gesithas is implicit and of course they would be very similar to Brihentin, being the forebearers of knights, although the standard thegn would not be mounted, as seen in the Harthaz/Sahsthegnaz. Indeed, much of the time cavalry did not fight from horseback, Celts included, because the stirrup was not invented so the ability to have a "platform" is much reduced, but this reasoning allows me to justify within my mind the idea of a Sweboz heavy cavalry, despite records stating infantry being more common. Unfortunately the RTW engine does not allow dismounting for combat of noble cavalry, but if the Brihentin exist, so too would the elites of the Sweboz, but they will definitely be a reform unit. I think they need to cost a lot (elephantish) to reflect their rarity in large-scale army-use. Another possibility is to half their troop number, but this might not be possible.

I am also thinking of adding a medium cavalry unit, so I am wondering what you guys have in mind for the heavy cavalry/noble cavarly that is not the unit I just mentioned? The idea of a regional Tencteri unit has been discussed and this could be a medium cavalry (unarmored) type similar to the Remi. Is there another idea you guys have in mind?

The Merjoz will definitely be changed since 2-handed Huscarl axes were not in use, so the question is whether we keep a shock axe unit or use that space for another? I would really like to keep 1 axe unit, give it 1-handed axe with shield and make it naked ~;p but I know I will always have trouble defending the use of axes in "ironless" Germania even though they had to chop wood somehow and the fact that Bronze Age cultures had had them in use for a long time. I have found some information about axes found in the Netherlands and of course in the Carpathians, but is there anything that you guys know that could be added? Feel free to tell me how much you don't like the idea.

I have no idea if this will get me beheaded, although these are just ideas being thrown around anyways, but I just felt excited enough to let you guys have a sneak-peak and am interested to know what you guys think ~:)

[Watchman]

I don't think there have been serious arguments put forth for the Germans having been economically equal - which is indeed virtually impossible anyway, even if actively attempted. There would naturally have been those who owned richer farmland (or more of it), were more succesful in trade, invested the "spoils of war" wisely or just luckily, and so on and so on. The point is that they were politically equal - all free men had the same basic political rights irrespective of wealth level and such, although naturally the prosperous had that much easier time amassing influence through all manner of clients and followers.

Given the importance the culture by all accounts attached to warfare, it would also seem perfectly logical that the wealthy invested in gear that both made them better at it, and showed off their prosperity - "luxury" items like swords, horses and armour, not as such available to the common tribal warrior owing to their ruinous expense.

[blitzkrieg80]

Although it can be argued that no government fits the mold I refer to, I still cannot agree with the idea that egalitarianism was truly existent in ancient Germania, although I pretty much agree with everything you say. So compared to other cultures it can be said they were more politically equal before their assembly and had higher social mobility, but the usage of "wise" men" as the priest-like judicial authorities (who could be influenced) and big men / lords who rallied followers and kin for the majority of votes, then so family and status meant a great deal regardless of equality, as recorded by Tacitus in his relation of how they chose their kings. I would say that describes an aristocracy exactly, especially considering the idea that participation in battle was required when called upon. The "thing" although seemingly a democratic assembly was in practice more an affirmation of society and government, ritual participation that satisfied disconent through its seeming fair distribution of rights to the common man, who as always is the backbone of society. Just like a "pep rally" at high school, the morale of the people is heightened by its encouragement and pretend participation of everyone within its activities but the true benefactors and deciders are a select few. The more tribal the government the more equal it will seem but in the end the wise men / most influencial (chieftain and bodyguard, elders, priests) always decide how things turn out even if a common man can lead a decisive battle and possibly move up in station. I know, it's a petty argument, but the idea of a "noble savage" is just that kind of romanticism that distorts perception from practice. If other cultures' societies have stricter caste structures and less social mobility then shame on them, but that doesn't change the inequality of Germanic society which was very Indo-European and quite developed even in 300BC.

[Watchman]

Meh. That's how it always ends up working out in democratic systems anyway - when everyone has one vote, the guy with the real power is the one who can one way or another convince the owners of those votes that his idea is the best etc, just as in autocratic systems the power lies with whoever has the ruler's ear (or acts as his brain). The Graeco-Romans for example (what they now actually bothered practicing the "one man one vote" stuff) tended to do that with good old-fashioned rhetoric and general BSing. Far as I know things hadn't changed much by the American and French Revolutions...

If you have a clan/tribal social structure on top of that (not that comparable institutions were exactly uncommon in the Mediterranean republics either), well, duh; all other things being equal relatives tend to stick together, especially when the clan and family are ultimately the root sources of security and support in the absence of proper impartial authorities. Didn't the Athenians employ a corps of Scythian mercs as a kind of communal police independent of local tribal and family loyalties for one example ?

[blitzkrieg80]

Yeah, it's true I am very bitchy when it comes to democracy and it's false representation, especially in America where there is no democracy at all yet we say we have it more than any other- rather pathetic... and it's true that the nature of man is to give up power to leaders and be swayed and for some to sway others and manipulate them... so, pardon my passion for arguing ~;) because I think we agree, actually.

The benefit and virtue of a military democracy is the fact that those in power actually do a great deal of service unlike modern day politicians who are leeches... but some might try and manipulate the military system regardless, yet the basis is much more proper than being a draft-dodging, spoiled, oil-tycoon

[Frostwulf]

Would it be accurate to characterize the use of the double rider as a cultural norm among native Germanic cavalry? Should the Ridoharjoz in fact be represented this way...technical limitations not withstanding?

There seems to be conflicting accounts. Were these two men sitting in tandem atop the horse? Or, was there a single rider alongside which ran another? Tacitus' account seem to suggest the latter. In the case of Caesar we have the Sweboz specifically mentioned as frequently dismounting from their horses to engage the enemy, conspicuously absent is the mentioning of a second rider or galloper. However I have a feeling I'm missing a source...in fact I know I am.

Phillip Sidnell "Warhorse"-"The Germans were trained in the use of a special battle technique. They had a force of six thousand cavalry, each of whom had selected from the whole army, for his personal protection, one infantryman of outstanding courage and speed of foot. These accompanied the cavalry in battle and acted as a support for them to fall back upon. In a critical situation they ran to the rescue and surrounded any cavalryman who had been unhorsed by a severe wound. They acquired such agility by practice, that in a long advance or a quick retreat they could hand on to the horsees' manes and keep pace with them.
Caesar reports this tactic as something novel, but his descriptions of later fights demonstrate that some Gallic cavalry were familiar with the practice, and he would employ it himself in the Civil War. Of course, similar methods had been employed by various people over the centuries, notably the Numidians but also the Romans themselves at Capua in the Second Punic War." pg. 229

Cultural norm Im not sure, as there were many tribes,Sugambri,Ubii,Tencteri, Batavi and others of whom I havent found out about their battle styles.
For traveling they may have rode together on the same horse but when it came to battle they did not. The runner would grab the main and enter battle. It has been said that the Romans liked to use the native units in their native fighting style, including Caesar. Their are times when Caesars troops would attack without the runners, times when they would dismount to fight and times when they would charge headlong into battle. In the second encounter Caesar had with the Germans, the Germans charged his cavalry then dismounted. This is the 800 vs. the up to 5000 battle already described in this thread.


Also, what are your thoughts on the evolution of arms and armament among the German cavalry as frontier tribes increasingly found themselves rendering military service to Gallic and Roman employers? More specifically, within the EB time frame would it be accurate to characterize the standard Germanic cavalry in use as lightly equipped? Or, do you see a trend toward, or is there evidence to suggest the existence of more heavily armored (i.e. expensive) Germanic cavalry?

My guess to this would be the same as what was going on with the Gallic cavalry. They would eventually be better armed and armoured in Roman service.
Ill have to return to this later as Im being pressed for time, I did want get to the Teutons,Cimbri and Ambrones and their arms and armorment, but that will have to come later.

[PSYCHO V]

15,000 German warriors(Suebi) were dominating several Gallic factions and thats why they called for Caesar. The Germans were outnumbered and still managed to win.....Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"Greatly outnumbered by enemies with a 'great reputation for bravery', Caesar began tentatively by sending out the cavalry to test them and 'soon found that his troops were as good as theirs'"....Goldsworthy “Caesar”-The Germans had some 800 horsemen..Caesar had 5,000 cavalry, although if these were performing their duties as a patrolling and screening force properly, then they would not all have been concentrated in one place. Even so, the Gallic auxiliaries probably had a significant numerical advantage, and were mounted on larger horses than their opponents, which makes it all the more notable that the Germans quickly gained an advantage."....


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!


my2bob

[blitzkrieg80]

Suffice to say, if you took the time to actually read all the material / consider all the data and see the bigger picture, you wouldn't keep making all these ridiculous statements.
To disagree and say so is one thing, but making judgements that you have no authority on (like what someone would think if they read something) is inappropriate.

[Watchman]

By what I've seen mentioned of it the horse stock available to the Germans wasn't exactly awe-inspiring (Caesar apparently remounted his mercs on imported Spanish beasts at one point), which might actually directly explain the relative lightness of equipement of their cavalry - the poor beasts may well have already been heavily enough burdened by the warrior and his weapons without the weighty metal body armour being added into the equation.

On the same vein it would seem unlikely that their "horse runners" were carried by the animals except in dire emergencies, to conserve the already-taxed stamina of the animals and maintain a reasonable turn of speed.

Anyway, I'd hazard a guess that such hamippoi-type light support infantry and their equivalents (such as the "chariot runners" of old) normally operated behind the squadrons they were attached to for entirely practical reasons.
First off, if they were directly mixed into the ranks the formation of the cavalry proper would have to be left rather loose to accommodate the men in the intervals, which would seem to go directly against some of the very basic principles of how close-combat cavalry is formed into squadrons.
Second, the speed the cavalry could maneuver in would be directly dictated by the top running speed of the infantry, and while a fleet-footed human does accelerate faster than a horse the latter tends to be by far faster over any longer distance. Moreover one suspects it would create problems of maneuvering, as the mens packed in the intervals would quite likely get in the way if the horses had to wheel or turn this way or that.
Third, when the infantry are one mass behind the squadron they can in certain situations give the horses the impression that they are being chased, which may trigger one interesting facet of the animals' herd instinct - the stampede. When the herd is on the move, and they can clearly feel the anxiety of both their closely packed peers and their riders, and closely "pursued" by smaller creatures, it should be rather obvious what sort of scenarios the horses instinctively associate the situation with; and the safest thing for them to do in such cases is to keep on going forwards, even over obstacles they would normally flatly refuse to have anything to do with... like closely packed bodies of infantry. I understand this sort of creative use of the skittish animals' natural "fight or flight" responses is just about the only way to get them to physically charge into close-order infantry en masse, and given the general extreme importance of psychological factors in cavalry attacks (particularly against infantry) has a number of other benefits. ('Course, if the waiting infantry nonetheless hold steady without wavering and have spears, the front rank horses will still get skewered...)
Fourth, mixing the infantry among the horses would not seem terribly useful most of the time. Not only would, as already mentioned, they be frankly getting in the way of both the horses and riders much of the time, they'd force the cavalry to adopt a looser order than is really good for shock actions while contributing little "weight" and impact (both physical and psychological) to the mixed formation, and conversely detaching them for other duties - close terrain combat, flanking, pinning etc. - ought to be quite complicated. On the other hand if they acted as a distinct unit both they and the cavalry they supported could go their separate ways if tactically necessary, and on the attack the massed horsemen would deploy their full physical and psychological weight with the added bonus of the horses being hopefully convinced they must keep going forwards. Naturally they are going to outpace their support infantry at high speeds (the stuff about hanging onto tails and manes sounds primarily like a good way to get kicked by accident or out of sheer irritation...), but it is questionable if this were exactly a problem during such maneuvers anyway. If the cavalry then gets locked into a pitched melee, be it against horse or foot, the infantry could then try to wrap around the flanks or work their way through the ranks to pitch in the melee among the horses once they catch up. In battles between cavalry units the latter was AFAIK often decisive, if one side lacked such support - the nimble infantrymen being able to duck between and under the struggling beasts and do all kinds of nasty things. Conversely against infantry that refused to present a suitable weak spot in the line for the cavalry to attack (the usefulness of the cavalry wedge against infantry being, AFAIK, that the whole thing could be easily steered into just such a soft spot) the light infantry could be sent forth to pin the enemy formation down at the front, while the cavalry swung around and struck at their flanks - a mounted attack against an unformed side having a tendency to trigger mass panic but fast, particularly in already engaged formations.

Or that's my take on it anyway.

When it comes down to that there's actually a whole lot of units in EB that could be used for such hamippoi duty, the most obvious requirements being fast legs and preferably a decent moral backbone for frontal pinning. Actual fighting ability of course hardly hurts, and should they have spears for anti-cavalry bonuses all the better.
...which description really more or less covers most Sweboz infantry when you think about it. The Swainoz would appear to me like a particularly good choice though - being skirmishers rather than real line infantry they'll mostly be running all around the place and flanks anyway, and will obviously benefit from close horse support; on the other hand they seem tough enough that their presence in support of friendly cav should be well able to have a decisive effect, especially against enemy horse.

Most other factions have something comparable available. The Celts could do worse than using Lugoae or those shortsword guys for similar purposes, or just about any fast infantry not immediately needed in the main line really. Iberia is just rotten with suitable troops - even the local spear-carrying light skirmishers might well do the job - while the Koinon ought to be able to get some decent mileage out of the Ekdromoi Hoplitai...

[Lowenklee]

Good points guys,

"I would say that any culture who practices agriculture around 300BC is not very egalitarian, because agriculture in practice makes those who hoard and own "haves" and those of less means "have nots" and thus aristocracy begins to grow and have influence rather quickly- I think the typical depiction of the Germans as democratic and egalitarian is really more of a "noble savage" characterization that was invented to contrast the Romans' sensibility".

Well here's what Caesar had to say,

"The nation of the Suevi is by far the largest and the most warlike nation of all the Germans. They are said to possess a hundred cantons, from each of which they yearly send from their territories for the purpose of war a thousand armed men: the others who remain at home, maintain [both] themselves and those-engaged in the expedition. The latter again, in their turn, are in arms the year after: the former remain at home. Thus neither husbandry, nor the art and practice of war are neglected. But among them there exists no private and separate land; nor are they permitted to remain more than one year in one place for the purpose of residence. They do not live much on corn, but subsist for the most part on milk and flesh..."

I'm not prepared to call Caesar and romantic but I do understand your point.

Even in using the term egalitarian I do make allowance for a healthy dose of cynicism, human behavior doesn't differ that dramatically regardless of the political structure in place. But there does seem to be a consistent characterization of the Germans that, a description of which other than egalitarian, I haven't sufficient eloquence to give justice to. At any rate Watchman did a fine job of that in an earlier post.


"...The Sweboz reform we're proposing would be more directly because of increased pressure/migration coupled with increased mobilization/militarization which would bring about the conquest and acquisition of metallurgical sources that would allow heavier armor and a larger warrior aristocracy...".

...I am hoping we can make the conditional reform dependent on the Sweboz possessing 1 city in a mountainous/ore-rich region with significant MIC, besides large markets to simulate the trade network necessary to equip the new Sweboz nation...I find it awesome that these dates seem to coincide with the dates Lowenklee mentioned from the Wikipedia information (not that I'll ever claim that is a valid authority)...

I'm in total agreement with that suggested implementation of a Sweboz reform! This to me makes the most sense in terms of the development of the German faction. While I am in no position to discount the importance of more peaceful means of cultural cross pollination I do concur that military expansion more likely contributed to the rapid development of a large affluent aristocracy. Thank you for the insights into Germanic linguistic developments, thats very interesting indeed. Do you recommend a single reference book on proto-Germanic/old German languages as a starting place for further study?

About the Wiki source, I referenced only two specific quotes.

But, those quotes weren't posted here until after I checked the sources myself. I first read the dissertation piece in full and verified Dr. Looijenga's credentials. I also tried to be clear in presenting the work as a thesis dissertation as opposed to a formal academic publication. Dr. Looijenga's thesis is available in full as a pdf and is sponsored by Prof. Dr. T. Hofstra professor of protogermanic languages and literature at the university or Groningen.
Prof. Pearson is well known enough, professor of archeology at Sheffield...but I did order his book for context's sake before posting here. I don't trust Wiki at face value and mainly use it for it's bibliography:beam:

Next on my list is the article "Early Germanic Warfare by E. A. Thompson" a twenty-eight page article first published in 1958. It's available from the Oxford University Press, I'm just reluctant to spend money on it sight unseen. Has anyone by chance read this yet?

In terms of unit stats and composition I should perhaps point out a certain thing? Ignoring the Brihentin and Remi Mairepos for the moment, if it should be accepted that Germanic light cavalry was superior to at the least it's light counterpart among the Celts then I believe it a worthwhile effort to continue looking into the creation of a suitable light infantry compromise to approximate the German cavalry tendency of dismounting or bringing an accompanying warrior racing on foot into combat.

While the Celts seem to be mentioned as not unfamiliar with this practice the Germans are distinctly noted for it. I apologize for seemingly harping on this but I believe this to be a potentially important cultural trait.
As is the Ridoharjoz will fail in direct confrontation against an equal number of Leuce Epos. This does not seem to be an accurate representation of the superiority of Germanic light cavalry or?

The LE also possess the “fast moving” stat. Perhaps the Ridoharjoz should have superior mobility and perhaps even stamina in the absence of stats to properly approximate a dismounted combatant or much in the way of armor in their graphic depiction? I was actually shocked as I assumed they already possessed these advantages.

I've read nothing yet to suggest that the early German cavalry mentioned in the classical texts were heavily armored as they scored victories against greater numbers of Celtic cavalry. So, any later evolution of Germanic heavy cavalry doesn't address the current deficiencies of the Ridoharjoz.

Speaking of horses, an interesting thread came to mind as I thought about a possible post reform heavy cavalry for the Germans. Psycho V, perhaps you recall this thread?...

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=42138

Here is a teaser, courtesy of Frisian28ad,

http://www.home.zonnet.nl/postbus/images/rom6.jpg

What ever became of this? Was it decided that the Batavian elite cavalry was simply too late a development within the EB time frame? Beautiful picture though.

The basic idea behind the Marjoz seems fine to me even if we accept the theory of iron scarcity among the prereform Germans. Although it would be ideal to find a historically verifiable unit, given the scarcity of detailed information, you may simply have to suffice with sn educated guess in the name of playability? Besides, the axe is an efficient and effective use of iron. Any discussion on the size of the axe is another matter and reminds me of an amusing thread pertaining to Ethiopians and dinosaurs:laugh4:

[blitzkrieg80]

Sorry for the comment about Wikipedia, it is more of a disclaimer for criticism against me than anything ~:) because I find many people use Wikipedia like it is the ultimate authority and I myself love to use Wikipedia for easy reference. Thanks for pointing out those specific references because I will probably be using them as basis for the reform dates and having real work/thesis to quote is much better than general Wikipedia so I am glad you did the work of tracking down the information already ~:thumb:

There are specific texts which are best for learning the various old Germanic languages (Old English, Old Norse, Gothic, ect.) but I assume that you don't want such a long-term and challenging endeavor but rather "a single" book which might have elements of the linguistic similarities but be an easy ready and have some interesting information. My Old English professor reccomended this book to me at one point, which I got easily from Amazon: D.H. Green's Language and history in the early Germanic world Cambridge University Press 1998. Although this book might not be the easiest read, because it is packed with information and highly academic, it is possibly the best book I've ever read on the subject. He uses the various old Germanic cognates and texts as much of his basis (rather than conjecture) and he stays true to what can be proven while still elaborating much detail that is otherwise overlooked, such as the fact that the true Germanic word for lord was similar to OE frea, ON Freyr rather than Herr, because Herr originally means "hoary" or "grey" and is directly from the influence of Latin senior, whereas Frau comes from the IE root pro- similar to Latin Principes, "(one who propels) foward", or "first". The book has devoted sections pertaining to loan-word traffic in Contact with the Celts, the migration of the Goths, Germanic loanwords into Latin, and Latin loanwords in Germanic. There is even some Proto-Germanic discussion in the book, but not so much, because most Proto-Germanic isn't widely accepted in the academic world, but what can be claimed to be known is used by him, although he never states it as fact but rather as different possibilities of word transformation.

I find many other books on Germanic history, warfare and such to be rather general, always talking about the same basic and easy to find information of late Germanics and never really using any evidence that can prove anything meaningful. Herwig Wolfram's History of the Goths is pretty awesome though and there's others that don't come readily to mind, but Malcolm Todd is one I do not like much at all. It's funny because I think most would like the easy general reference of Todd and hate Green- but that's exactly why I like Green, because I don't need to read Wikipedia-type information in a volume.

[Watchman]

The LE also possess the “fast moving” stat. Perhaps the Ridoharjoz should have superior mobility and perhaps even stamina in the absence of stats to properly approximate a dismounted combatant or much in the way of armor in their graphic depiction? I was actually shocked as I assumed they already possessed these advantages.Both the RH and LE ride "light" or "medium" horses, which both use the fs_fast_horse skeleton. :shrug: Lightly equipped guys on quick horses tend to be pretty fast. Moreover, making the RH faster and/or more "enduring" would hardly appear logically justifiable given the rather small and unimpressive horses they had to make do with most of the time. Deep forests with scant good farmland kinda suck for horse breeding after all.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Both the RH and LE ride "light" or "medium" horses, which both use the fs_fast_horse skeleton. :shrug: Lightly equipped guys on quick horses tend to be pretty fast. Moreover, making the RH faster and/or more "enduring" would hardly appear logically justifiable given the rather small and unimpressive horses they had to make do with most of the time. Deep forests with scant good farmland kinda suck for horse breeding after all.
Dear Watchman,

I'm sorry, but most of what you write in this thread is more a guess than anything else. Size of the horse has generally not much to do with its endurance, or speed, or durability (hope this words applies to animals in the english language~D). Ever heard of the Iceland-horse? I know it's a breed not existant in EB-timeframe, but these horses are very durable, and quite speedy as well - and all that despite of the harsh and cold climate, the long periods of darkness and the presumably meager pastures available to them.

The "Pro-better-German-Cav-Faction" in this thread has delivered a quite sufficient amount of proof for the need for a better cavalry. I understand that, concur and I kindly ask the mighty EB-Thengaz for better Ridoharjoz, a German reform and heavy cavalry.:yes:

[Lowenklee]

Thanks for the information Blitzkrieg80. My thanks to you as well Watchman, i suspect how the Germans may have implemented close infantry support for thier cavalry will involve lots more information to know with any degree of certainty. I grew up around horses..well ponies actually, and can certainly speculate how it may have been done. But speculation is a facr cry from factual knowledge.

Where we disagree however is with the inferiority of the native mounts available to the Germans. If these early mounts were anything like the native ponies and pony-like horse still used in rural communities of the Alps, Germany, and Scandanavia, then I must come to their defense.

“small and unimpressive...” is highly subjective. Ponies and pony-like horses (henceforth I will use the term pony for all small breeds for simplicity although I understand it to be inaccurate) are the aboriginal horse type and make excellent mounts in their larger varieties. These small shaggy mounts come precisely from lands unsuitable for the cultivation of large herds of standard horse and yield a superior animal for rough broken ground.

Speaking from personal experience, my village breeds ponies which I have much experience being around and observing during our spring festivals. I've also ridden Halflingers many many times as a younger man while in the Italian Tirol, these small animals have no problems carrying a rider at a brisk pace. I've also have seen first hand the hauling strength of Scandinavian ponies and the Icelandic pony during my stays at farm hostels while traveling farther north from home.

These native types of ponies are wonderfully hardy and even tempered. They have great stamina, disproportionate strength from their sturdy muscular bodies and short legs, are sure footed and quick footed. Ponies are capable of admiralable bursts of speed as well as they are better able to leverage their strength due to being closer to the ground and having more compact builds. Its for this reason I suggested the superior speed, not to suggest ponies are “faster” than horses but I wouldn't know how else to represent the quick turning ability and agility of a pony or pony-like horse not impaired by an armor wearing rider or, as is currently not implemented, a second infantryman holding on to the mane.

Ponies also tend to be more durable to inclement weather and able to live off a far less nutritional vegetation than finely bred horses, so for luggage transport you just bring more ponies! They do quite fine ranged in the open and left to graze. So perhaps the Ridoharjoz should have a lower upkeep cost! Or perhaps I'm getting a little carried away now:laugh4:

The German cavalryman carried little else than his spear and shield, rode saddleless, and was documented as covering large tracts of ground quickly,

“They (Caesar refers to the Usipetes and the Tenchtheri), finding themselves, after they had tried all means, unable either to force a passage on account of their deficiency in shipping, or cross by stealth on account of the guards of the Menapii, pretended to return to their own settlements and districts; and, after having proceeded three days' march, returned; and their cavalry having performed the whole of this journey in one night, cut off the Menapii”

Sounds like a light highly mobile cavalry to me, a cavalry not impaired by any inferiority on the part of their sturdy ponies? Whatever advantages spanish mounts may have provided the Germans seemed to have done quite well for themselves with their smaller shaggy mounts.

And, it makes more sense to me that a lightly armed rider riding bareback on a pony makes a quicker (not faster, just quicker) and more nimble opponent.

Anyway, I'm a little defensive perhaps as I grew up around such animals. But I maintain that the stamina of the Ridoharjoz should be superior. Small legs may make for a slower animal but a ponies big barrel chest and compact musculature, I might argue, makes for larger lungs and greater stamina.

I also have articles from a travel log (some entries dating to the 19th century) with very interesting accounts of local breeds of horses as far east as the Himalayas. Time and again and from several differing western authors, the stamina of small shaggy horses is related as being superior to all but the most exceptional of more “noble” breeds. I shall search for this article tomorrow if anyone is interested, it may be a bit off topic though?

All this aside the documented evidence suggests that Germanic light cavalry, for whatever reason, were able to consistently defeat larger bodies of Celtic cavalry in direct combat. Presently the Ridoharjoz are handily beaten by the Leuce Epos in direct conflict.

It's not really that important if a reform introduces a superior German cavalry. I'm simply nitpicking potential historical inconsistencies as a means of possibly opening up new ideas for units and unit balance. I'm happy with the Ridoharjoz as is.

Here's a small shaggy pony for reference. It's an Icelandic pony.

http://www.joesz.com/im/IcelandicPony.jpg

photography by Joe Szurszewski.

[the_handsome_viking]

I think that certain club soldiers should be definitely more powerful, because according to what I've read on the subject, it wasn't so much a lack of weapons technology or resources for club warriors, but in many cases an actual natural preference for the advantages of the weapon, for example, the Eastern Romans recognized its potential and used Germanic club warriors against various Sassanid Cataphracts to stunning effect, though this was much later on than the period in EB, this ancient weapons potential would not have changed.

Also the Germans seem to lack berserker elites wearing wolf hoods or bear hoods which were actually pretty common believe it or not.

[Lowenklee]

Also the Germans seem to lack berserker elites wearing wolf hoods or bear hoods which were actually pretty common believe it or not.

Sources please?

[Sarcasm]

My God man! It was in vanilla RTW! Get your act together!





:clown:

[Sarcasm]

Btw, I should probably drop a line or two about ponies here.

During the Cantabrian wars, the natives used ponies rather than proper horses as their primary mount. And it was not because of it's speed but rather for their stamina, resistance to the bad weather and ability to operate successfully in rugged terrain or even low vegetation.

The more southerly Iberian breeds were certainly much faster and could catch the ponies that the Cantabrians used, or even the small horses the Numidians rode when Hispanic Auxilia campaigned in Africa. The trick in both cases for the locals was to use rough terrain as a place to strike and which to retreat afterwards.

Anthony can probably also tell of stories of Irish ponies giving headaches to more heavily armed cavalry (like late Armorican cavalry, or Norman knights) by operating in wooded or boggy country.

[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!

First of all your throwing quotes together and Im not sure which one(s) your having problems with. The ones on this thread answer here but the others you must be talking about lets discuss this on this thread https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=83475

To disagree and say so is one thing, but making judgements that you have no authority on (like what someone would think if they read something) is inappropriate.

Agreed and thank you.


Also the Germans seem to lack berserker elites wearing wolf hoods or bear hoods which were actually pretty common believe it or not.

Sorry, as much as I would like to see a beserker style unit I have a hard time believing there were enough around to produce even one unit. I have to agree with Lowenklee and would like to see the source. I hope your not referring to speidels "Ancient Germanic Warriors".


All this aside the documented evidence suggests that Germanic light cavalry, for whatever reason, were able to consistently defeat larger bodies of Celtic cavalry in direct combat. Presently the Ridoharjoz are handily beaten by the Leuce Epos in direct conflict.

I completely agree with Lowenklee's above statement

To all the EB guys please answer these questions.
First of all what is the arms and armor of the Luece Epos?
Second Where are all the chieftains during these battles? Were they all on foot? Did they simply not engage in fighting therefore losing prestige in the eyes of their followers? If they did fight woundnt they be Brihentin and therefore engage the German units?
Third what cavalry units use these arms and armor - Mail shirts, shields, various styles of spears and long-bladed swords?

Lastly as far as Germans and armor it seems the majority went without armor.

Malcolm Todd "The Early Germans"-"Body armor was virtually unknown among the German people in their early contests with Rome and indeed for centuries after that." pg.39

John Warry "Warfare in the Classical World"-"Nor were the Germans ill-armed. Their cavalry wore lofty plumes on helmets grotesquely shaped like animal heads. Their breastplates were of iron and they carried two javelins each and heavy swords for hand to hand fighting." pg.132

John warry is speaking of the Teutons,Cimbri and Ambrones here. With this I think that the reform of 190bc seems fair. But again Im weak on this subject.

[blitzkrieg80]

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.

I personally would like a wolf-skin/"werewolf" if you will/berserkr type unit based on common Indo European wolf-cults, shamanistic rituals, totemism. Of course there is no direct evidence of this being in use other than widespread records of Indo-Europeans worshipping the wolf and dressing like them, naming themselves after the wolf, and late Germanics following this practice, I should not have to go into the berserkr which is widely attested (Bǫðvar Bjarki! haha, how's that John) but other examples as such with the "boar" being a representation of a god's protection (Freyr! back to the original Germanic word for lord ~:)) and subsequent decoration/invocation on helmets as mentioned in Beowulf, and many other accounts, and esp. found at Sutton Hoo. The "Seafarer" is an Old English poem with many shamanistic allusions including ecstatic trance and astral travel and if Christian monks are recording theses things which is against Christian teachings, then they must be based on a core practice maintained from those early times. I could scramble together more vague shamanistic/totem worship/shapeshifting references within Germanic and provide the examples I mentioned for Indo-European (such as the infamous Dacians' use).... BUT like I said there is nothing that we can dig up and say "ah hah!" so I won't waste my time at the moment. So, IMO it cannot be argued that it's pure fantasy to have a drugged out naked wolf/berserk type unit for the Germanics, but fiction and unproven enough that it should not be in EB.

[Frostwulf]

blitzkrieg80 If you wouldnt mind I have a question for you on this thread https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=83475 I'm trying to keep this thread to the German topic.

As for your second paragraph I mostly agree with you. I do believe there is enough evidence for what I call the "true" beserker, those of the viking type. I know Speidel in his book has a wider definition of beserker, but just in my opinion the ones he talks about are not in the same mold as the Norse ones. Also just to make things clearer its not just the Norse that have beserkers, they are just the well known ones. My only problem is with what I said earlier that there is just not enough of these type of individuals around to make up a unit. This again being my opinion based on the books and articles I have read.

[blitzkrieg80]

I agree they would also not be common enough to justify a unit, but I am planning a character trait, although I have not developed the idea yet (like Proto-Germanic or whatnot)- Shapechanger: "believes himself able to transform into an animal, +2 morale to troops on battlefield, -1 command, -1 Management... so it would still exist and no one can claim that that character does not believe it to be so whether it was historically common or not, like madness and Roman Emperors ~:)

Frostwulf, I don't see any question to me on the other thread? Are you asking for me to justify keeping the Ridoharjoz at their current strength? Or the question on this thread concerning weapons, ect... you say "these arms and armor" but then don't specify? I can't really answer for decisions of the Celtic Faction people concerning who has what, nor the specifics of their leadership in battle during that era... otherwise I'm pretty sure the Brihentin are only buildable post-reform similar to the non-existent Sweboz reform and they have a cavalry spear, sword, mail and helm, although generals are early Brihentin... the Leuce Epos (just checking the EDU) has javelins, cavalry spear, leather armor, helm... sorry I didn't think theres paltry answers merited a different post.

[Watchman]

Where we disagree however is with the inferiority of the native mounts available to the Germans. If these early mounts were anything like the native ponies and pony-like horse still used in rural communities of the Alps, Germany, and Scandanavia, then I must come to their defense.

“small and unimpressive...” is highly subjective. Ponies and pony-like horses (henceforth I will use the term pony for all small breeds for simplicity although I understand it to be inaccurate) are the aboriginal horse type and make excellent mounts in their larger varieties. These small shaggy mounts come precisely from lands unsuitable for the cultivation of large herds of standard horse and yield a superior animal for rough broken ground.
---
It's not really that important if a reform introduces a superior German cavalry. I'm simply nitpicking potential historical inconsistencies as a means of possibly opening up new ideas for units and unit balance. I'm happy with the Ridoharjoz as is.No offense, but I'm afraid your analysis is falling prey to what could be maliciously termed "fanboyism" here. To put the counter-argument in very simple and brief terms: historically, nobody ever used them little tough horses as the war-mount of choice if and when something bigger and stronger was available and sustainable. And there were some pretty good reasons for that.

Oh, the little critters may be hardy and enduring, well able to "live off the land" (although grazing takes so much time the usefulness of this to a military unit is a bit debatable), and decent enough for overland transportation; but what is needed of a warhorse is a fair bit different. People did not devote enormous time, attention and resources to producing specialized breeds for the job just for fun after all. The little horses were used when nothing better was available for one reason or another; I don't think anyone ever hesitated to swap when something bigger and stronger became an option.

[Frostwulf]

The little horses were used when nothing better was available for one reason or another; I don't think anyone ever hesitated to swap when something bigger and stronger became an option.

I agree. The bigger and stronger horses had advantages of kinetic energy for charges, leverage for the height, speed(most of the time) and later in history strength for the heavier armor and arms. From my readings the viking raiders did the same thing, they would raid or conquer and area and "trade up" their horses. The little horses did their job well, but they just weren't as good as the larger ones with the exception of stamina which generally was impressive.

Sorry blitz I wrote the question to late, but its there now. The question does have an effect on this thread as to the relation of German unit to Celtic unit. I chose to put in on the other thread since that is where it was started. It is an important subject for the German troops, as now they will be guided by the idea that the Celtic "heyday" is over with. It shouldn't be that difficult to come up with the author(s) and book(s) that the team is using that they based the idea that the Celtic "heyday" is over with. I would think this kind of information would be one gladly shared by the team so others who have an interest in this can read it themselves without bothering the team. So if you don't mind could you get us this information?

[Lowenklee]

No offense, but I'm afraid your analysis is falling prey to what could be maliciously termed "fanboyism" here. To put the counter-argument in very simple and brief terms: historically, nobody ever used them little tough horses as the war-mount of choice if and when something bigger and stronger was available and sustainable. And there were some pretty good reasons for that. Oh, the little critters may be hardy and enduring, well able to "live off the land" (although grazing takes so much time the usefulness of this to a military unit is a bit debatable), and decent enough for overland transportation; but what is needed of a warhorse is a fair bit different. People did not devote enormous time, attention and resources to producing specialized breeds for the job just for fun after all. The little horses were used when nothing better was available for one reason or another; I don't think anyone ever hesitated to swap when something bigger and stronger became an option.


Hello Watchman,

Thanks for the reply but there's no fanboism on my part. I'm not emotionally invested in any one specific faction or unit. I'm more concerned with the enjoyment and educational merit of the mod as a whole. This forum presents a wonderful chance to explore such subjects and I approach this discussion with a lighthearted curiosity, no offense taken:beam:

On the issue of horses I just happen to have a background growing up with small native breeds and am personally familiar with their historical use in southern Germany and Tirol where, often times, ponies were specifically desired over horses due to their hardiness, stamina, and sure footedness. Ponies also tended to be cheaper for a number of obvious reasons.

I'd also like to mention that I have no evidence to suggest the Germans actually used ponies other then reasonable likelihood and the existence of such small native horses, some with long histories of use, within German speaking countries today. It's conjecture on my part.

My point however was that the use of ponies or small horses does not equal inferiority. The small steppe ponies employed by, among others, the Mongols make as good an example as any to illustrate that. Regardless of the merits of larger horses German cavalry are documented as being quite able to successfully engage and route larger numbers of opposing Celtic cavalry, this isn't currently represented, so to refocus on the original issue with the Ridoharjoz...

As currently implemented within the mod, a player may be led to believe that the ancient Germans fielded poor quality cavalry compared to the Celtic light cavalry. If this is not the EB team's position then perhaps something is amiss with unit balance? Even with the inclusion of a Sweboz reform the ability to recruit heavier cavalry does not really address the Ridoharjoz question.

If an implementation for swift runner accompaniment is impossible, or some novel approach to approximate dismounting during close-in fighting is impossible, should the Ridoharjoz be compensated with a stat adjustment to give them an advantage over the Leuce Epos? If not, why?

*edit*


"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".

Whoops, seems I missed that post. Thanks Blitzkrieg, apparently I have my answer! I still hold out hope that the Hrussáthêwáz might make an appearance and I"m still interested in your thoughts on the Batavian cavalry? Perhaps there is information on the Batavian cavalry thats more within the EB timeframe? It's so hard to find specific unit references for the various Germanic tribes it seems such a waste to not use what little we do have.

[the_handsome_viking]

Sources please?

Ancient Germanic Warriors

Warrior Styles From Trajan's Column to Icelandic Sagas

Michael P. Speidel.

I made a thread about it a while ago to see if anyone else has read it.

It was something of a famous Indo-European warrior style, or warrior thing to emulate the wolf and wear wolf hoods.

When it comes to the Germanic people, there are clear depictions of wolf hood wearing germans on trajan's column scene 36, you also see depictions of bear hooded Germans.

As I've said before, it was a very big thing amongst the Indo-Europeans to emulate various animals I suppose they saw something quite likeable in, and this is why you have examples of Romans, Germans, Greeks etc wearing wolf hoods or referring to Wolf skin clad bersekers and elite warriors.

We know that there were clearly Wolf skin wearing warriors in the late Roman empire, and we definitely know they existed to some extent still in the middle ages, the top of a seventh century scabbered from Gutenstein shows a wolf headed warrior with a giant sword, he also seems to be wearing chain mail.

A silver foil from Obrigheim, depicts a wolf skin wearing warrior offering his sword to Woden. A bronze die from torslunda depicts Woden with a twin-dragon helmet and a wolf headed warrior standing near him drawing his sword and holding a spear.

I can understand that a lot of people get wary when it comes to things like depictions of ancient Germanic warriors wearing things like wolf hoods, at least elite berserker types or sort of moral boosting elite soldiers, but it seems evidently clear that not only did they exist amongst the Germans, but that it was something commong throughout the Indo-European world in general.

There should be at least one band of German warriors in EB that wear wolf skins because it seemed to be quite a common thing in general, or at least perhaps the standard bearers in German units could wear wolf hoods.

[the_handsome_viking]

My God man! It was in vanilla RTW! Get your act together!





:clown:

It wasn't that far off then. Some German warriors carried war clubs, and EB's revised version has some German warriors still carrying war clubs.

[the_handsome_viking]

Sorry, as much as I would like to see a beserker style unit I have a hard time believing there were enough around to produce even one unit. I have to agree with Lowenklee and would like to see the source. I hope your not referring to speidels "Ancient Germanic Warriors".

I am.

And I started a thread on it a while back asking if anyone else had read it. Though I don't agree with everything in it, it did make a pretty strong case for the existance of wolf skin wearing warriors amongst the Germans.

[the_handsome_viking]

This is great discussion here, please continue. Thank you so much for your interest and devotion! :applause:

I would say that any culture who practices agriculture around 300BC is not very egalitarian, because agriculture in practice makes those who hoard and own "haves" and those of less means "have nots" and thus aristocracy begins to grow and have influence rather quickly- I think the typical depiction of the Germans as democratic and egalitarian is really more of a "noble savage" characterization that was invented to contrast the Romans' sensibility.

On the other hand, I think the material wealth of the Germanics was a result of Celtic influence, but wasn't a result of cultural/societal influence unless we're speaking militarily, because the loan-word vocabulary we find in the various old Germanic languages shows a steady flow of brunjo "mail/body-armor", isarna "iron", "wire", rik "power/authority" but not land-use or aristocratic composition. The Sweboz reform we're proposing would be more directly because of increased pressure/migration coupled with increased mobilization/militarization which would bring about the conquest and acquisition of metallurgical sources that would allow heavier armor and a larger warrior aristocracy. I am hoping we can make the conditional reform dependent on the Sweboz possessing 1 city in a mountainous/ore-rich region with significant MIC, besides large markets to simulate the trade network necessary to equip the new Sweboz nation. The two times are currently dubbed by me, Druhteztîdiz - "Time of the Warband" (only Sweboz Reform) and Theudôztîdiz - "Time of the Tribe" (pre-Reform period for Sweboz). This is based on the vocabulary of "king" that originated in primary usage as Theudanaz "Lord of the people" then became less used while Druhtinaz "Lord of the warband" was more popular later, this before the "of the kindred" dynasty/lineage-based title seen finally in Kuniz/Cyning. The unconditional reform date will be 140BC so the AI can actually take advantage of it and the conditional reform date will start 190BC... I find it awesome that these dates seem to coincide with the dates Lowenklee mentioned from the Wikipedia information (not that I'll ever claim that is a valid authority).

One of the considerations we have to make within the unit list is space and so that might limit some of the heavy infantry even though I would fully support the idea of a heavy infantry/retinue. The early sword-unit is going to be renamed to reflect their status as thegnoz/retinue so this sort of class differentiation is going to be implemented- I am so very happy to hear your own comments that this stuff is missing.

I think the Ridaharjoz is the only unit which shouldn't get its' name changed by me and I feel that it doesn't need any stat change either because it is an effective unit but not incredible, similar to the Leuce Epos which shouldn't outshine other cavarly but shouldn't be worthless.

The initial heavy cavalry unit I have proposed is actually a noble cavalry or as I call it for now (until I have my additional Proto-Germanic sources): Ehwathegnoz (Companion Cavalry) :grin: because I think the idea that they would be retinue, thegnoz or gesithas is implicit and of course they would be very similar to Brihentin, being the forebearers of knights, although the standard thegn would not be mounted, as seen in the Harthaz/Sahsthegnaz. Indeed, much of the time cavalry did not fight from horseback, Celts included, because the stirrup was not invented so the ability to have a "platform" is much reduced, but this reasoning allows me to justify within my mind the idea of a Sweboz heavy cavalry, despite records stating infantry being more common. Unfortunately the RTW engine does not allow dismounting for combat of noble cavalry, but if the Brihentin exist, so too would the elites of the Sweboz, but they will definitely be a reform unit. I think they need to cost a lot (elephantish) to reflect their rarity in large-scale army-use. Another possibility is to half their troop number, but this might not be possible.

I am also thinking of adding a medium cavalry unit, so I am wondering what you guys have in mind for the heavy cavalry/noble cavarly that is not the unit I just mentioned? The idea of a regional Tencteri unit has been discussed and this could be a medium cavalry (unarmored) type similar to the Remi. Is there another idea you guys have in mind?

The Merjoz will definitely be changed since 2-handed Huscarl axes were not in use, so the question is whether we keep a shock axe unit or use that space for another? I would really like to keep 1 axe unit, give it 1-handed axe with shield and make it naked ~;p but I know I will always have trouble defending the use of axes in "ironless" Germania even though they had to chop wood somehow and the fact that Bronze Age cultures had had them in use for a long time. I have found some information about axes found in the Netherlands and of course in the Carpathians, but is there anything that you guys know that could be added? Feel free to tell me how much you don't like the idea.

I have no idea if this will get me beheaded, although these are just ideas being thrown around anyways, but I just felt excited enough to let you guys have a sneak-peak and am interested to know what you guys think ~:)


You get my vote for the simple fact that you mentioned naked men.

[Frostwulf]

I am.

And I started a thread on it a while back asking if anyone else had read it. Though I don't agree with everything in it, it did make a pretty strong case for the existance of wolf skin wearing warriors amongst the Germans.

I liked Spiedel's book and I thought it was well written. I had a few problems with his book. The first one may get me jumped on but I'm just trying to be honest here. I tend to be wary when I read a history book by a German about Germans, just as I would a Spaniard writing about historical Spain, a Frenchman about France, etc. etc. From my experience in these type of readings some tend to become enamored with their subject and over glorify them. In Spiedel's book I saw a little of this but nothing I think that would skew his historical perspective. The second problem I had was in this book he didn't talk enough about the Germanic tribes enough. I know the sources are small and thats why he relied so much on the column. As far as purposes in EB there also wasn't much mention of performance in battles of varying units. My last criticism is his criteria for beserkers. It seemed to me that Speidel was saying all you had to do was fight naked and your a beserker. I always think of the Norse type for being what I call a "true" beserker. I thought he did put some real interesting information in there and I really enjoyed the book. I like that he uses allot of references and he seemed logical to me. His book "Riding with Caesar" I thought was even better.

I also agree with you that he did make a strong case for the wolf warriors, but in EB with no references in battle all you can do is make supposition on their effectiveness. I think it would be fair to assume that the wolf warriors would be a stronger unit then the average tribal unit, but by how much is hard to say. And by the way thanks again for mentioning this book in your last post, I doubt I ever would have heard of it if you didn't post about it.

[the_handsome_viking]

I liked Spiedel's book and I thought it was well written. I had a few problems with his book. The first one may get me jumped on but I'm just trying to be honest here. I tend to be wary when I read a history book by a German about Germans, just as I would a Spaniard writing about historical Spain, a Frenchman about France, etc. etc.

I completely understand the logic behind this judgement, but interestingly enough he didn't really glam the Germans up very much. I read the book because I wanted to know more about Indo European ghost faced warriors, I sort of always find the psychological impact of aesthetics to be quite fascinating and primal, and still highly effective.



From my experience in these type of readings some tend to become enamored with their subject and over glorify them. In Spiedel's book I saw a little of this but nothing I think that would skew his historical perspective. The second problem I had was in this book he didn't talk enough about the Germanic tribes enough.

In the thread I made on the book my major criticism was that I felt that economics and enviroment had a greater impact upon the Germanic Warriors weaponry and tactics moreso than a tradional warrior style, that said I undoubtably think that these appreciations for ancient warrior styles were persistent, effective and can still be seen to this day to some degree, and in that I found the book quite interesting.

I've never been fond of the notion of filthy mentally retarded barbarians weilding primitive weapons due to the simple fact that it just didn't seem that rational and I always felt a fairly close affinity to them in general.

When I encountered the arguments about club warriors I rolled my eyes a little but upon actually reading the guys arguments, I became somewhat convinced that this wasn't so much a primitive stereotype but actually a weapon selective for its low cost, and practicality, in short, it was a bloody effective weapon, it took down heavily armored cataphracts for example, so these club weilding Germans weren't all that daft.

My view of a Germanic warrior of the period is still essentially a man wearing a colored tunic, perhpas a cape, armed with a bossed round shield and holding several frame, I'm quite convinced that there would have been elite warriors within these extremely vicious fighting cultures that would have, like many other Indo Europeans saw the shock effect and psychological, dehumanising advantages of basically wearing a wolf hood, we know that this persisted through history, we know that myths like the werewolf and historical factual peoples like the berserkers actually do seem to make it evidently clear that this practice wasn't all that especially rare and most likely did have some sort of factor with the Germanic peoples collisions with Rome.

In the mod we have club warriors, we have ghost warriors such as the wolves of woden, (I forget the Germanic spelling) and both of these warrior styles seem to be discussed in the book, I just don't see why the wolf hooded berserkers are that far fetched.

I'm not just supporting this for fun or a love of the aesthetics of it, I just think that it wasn't such a far fetched Idea. If anyone can discredit the book thats fair enough, objectivly speaking, truth is paramount and I have no shame in accepting that I might have goten suckered into a dodgy historians rhetoric, but really, I don't see anything that far fetched about the concept of wolf hoods being worn by certain warriors.


I know the sources are small and thats why he relied so much on the column. As far as purposes in EB there also wasn't much mention of performance in battles of varying units. My last criticism is his criteria for beserkers. It seemed to me that Speidel was saying all you had to do was fight naked and your a beserker.

Perhaps he simplified it a bit but I definitely recall him discussing the psychology of someone that goes into the berserker state and the value of the aesthetics, one thing I felt was a bit suspicious about his book was that it was actually really really easy and enjoyable to read, you can fly through chapters without realizing it.

I personally thought his arguments for the evolution of the Germanic crown were very intersting and I was actually quite convinced by them.


I always think of the Norse type for being what I call a "true" beserker. I thought he did put some real interesting information in there and I really enjoyed the book. I like that he uses allot of references and he seemed logical to me. His book "Riding with Caesar" I thought was even better.

I've not read riding with caesar but I'll probably get round to it eventually, a lot of his references actually I felt were really good, like the horse stabbers sections, I actually rolled my eyes a few times at the start of chapters thinking "er, ok" but upon looking at the plates and reading the sources it started to seem quite convincing, what was actually also interesting was that the ironic stereotype of a sort of insane barbarian, actually sort of came up again, but transformed itself into something that actually seemed a bit more logical than most people would give the stereotypes credit for.

The horse stabbing technique was nothing short of extremely physcially demanding trickery and if pulled off is perhaps one of the most effective anti cavalry tricks in history, it is essentially tricking a rider into thinking he has an easy target, sliding under the horse and killing it, taking the horse down then taking down the rider, that is nothing short of brave and clever.

I'd personally rather train athousand bears to desire to copulate with war horses and sort of just set them loose and laugh from a distance, but that's me, but either way, I do respect the horse stabbing technique also.


I also agree with you that he did make a strong case for the wolf warriors, but in EB with no references in battle all you can do is make supposition on their effectiveness. I think it would be fair to assume that the wolf warriors would be a stronger unit then the average tribal unit, but by how much is hard to say.

It's definitely something a historical accuracy mod should heavily debate before releasing, I totally agree there and I'm not quite sure how people on the forum react to things like comparitive historical and cultural study, linguistic study, and experimental archeology, which could all have to be used if you were to sort of scratch out a sort of general idea as to how these warriors fought, what their purpous was and what kind of effect they had on people.

In Late Roman times and Early Medieval times these wolf skin wearing warriors seemed to definitely come over as quite a scary lot, which was probably the whole point in general, but unfortunatly I can't seem to find many contemporary EB period references to how they would fight, I can sort of just assume they would have fought like the army of the dead warriors depicted in EB, basically a shocking warrior type.

If I was to outline a sort of idea as to how I'd assume them to fight however based on what I've read, I would say they should have the capacity to hide in tall grass sort of similar to the Iberians, definitely have an intimidation factor which would make them somewhat tactically ideal for anyone wanting to ambush and scare the pants off (did Romans wear pants?) their enemies.

As for what weapons they would use? I'm really not sure, I can't really see them as a ranged weapon sort, if they sort of emulated the wolf I can see them just charging in very quickly, lightly armored and using perhaps a slashing weapon. Medieval depictions of these warriors show them weilding spears and swords, so really, who knows.

Perhaps its safe to assume that they would just fight like a band of wolves...loyal, swift, vicious and cunning.

[QUOTE=Frostwulf]And by the way thanks again for mentioning this book in your last post, I doubt I ever would have heard of it if you didn't post about it.

It's no problem, I sort of assumed it was a fairly rare book when I saw that there were no reviews for it on Amazon.

It was also eye catching because it was somewhat expensive, but really, a look at the free contents made me really want to read it when I saw the words "frightening warriors" and the subsection "ghosts".

[Lowenklee]

The problem is that there isn't much in the way of evidence to support the existence of such a warrior cult within the EB timeframe. Even if the likelihood exists that such men existed as wore animal skins in imitation of wolves and bears it may prove presumptuous to classify them as a warrior caste. We simply do not know enough.

Especially with the potentially inflammatory nature of this type of depiction it's my opinion the EB team should exercise caution and insist on solid information before proceeding with this sort of unit. With such information being currently lacking I'm personally opposed to the fabrication of a unit based *purely* on conjecture.

Besides, i'm sure there are other more evidentially supportable unit suggestions?

[the_handsome_viking]

The problem is that there isn't much in the way of evidence to support the existence of such a warrior cult within the EB timeframe. Even if the likelihood exists that such men existed as wore animal skins in imitation of wolves and bears it may prove presumptuous to classify them as a warrior caste. We simply do not know enough.

Especially with the potentially inflammatory nature of this type of depiction it's my opinion the EB team should exercise caution and insist on solid information before proceeding with this sort of unit. With such information being currently lacking I'm personally opposed to the fabrication of a unit based on conjecture.

Besides, i'm sure there are other more evidentially supportable unit suggestions?

Hawk men.

[Frostwulf]

Hawk men.

LOL, guess that beats pheasant men.
I do agree with your responses to my post.I also agree with your view of the German warriors. The Germans did have elites as they were generally a chieftains or nobleman's bodyguard but there would have been others as well.


My point however was that the use of ponies or small horses does not equal inferiority. The small steppe ponies employed by, among others, the Mongols make as good an example as any to illustrate that. Regardless of the merits of larger horses German cavalry are documented as being quite able to successfully engage and route larger numbers of opposing Celtic cavalry, this isn't currently represented, so to refocus on the original issue with the Ridoharjoz...

As currently implemented within the mod, a player may be led to believe that the ancient Germans fielded poor quality cavalry compared to the Celtic light cavalry. If this is not the EB team's position then perhaps something is amiss with unit balance? Even with the inclusion of a Sweboz reform the ability to recruit heavier cavalry does not really address the Ridoharjoz question.

I still disagree with you on the pony vs. larger horse debate I do completely agree with you on the documentation of the superior German cavalry.


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 this isn't a hit on you, but it's hard for me to buy this exaggeration. I see others putting forth the same claim that all the Celtic "elites" were wiped out in this civil war. Yet not one has put down any information to confirm this nor any information contrary to these quotes below:

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"-" The complex web of clientage and alliance which Caesar reveals in Gaul was largely based on the outcome of frequent wars. The theater of combat was where many personal and tribal relations were tested, broken and forged. We may suppose conflicts ranged from great wars associated with migrations of whole peoples to mere brigandage, inter-family feuds, and cattle raids by individual warriors seeking quick wealth and prestige. Probably most Celtic warfare was on a small scale, involving no more then a few score men on each side. The population was growing and states were developing in late Iron age Gaul, and this may have led to an increase in the scale of warfare. But it is clear that the vast armies commanded by Vercingetorix and others were assemble only as a response to the great threat from Rome (p.127). In fact, Rome changed the very rules of Celtic warfare, bringing large armies into an area where, internally at least, they may have been much rarer before. Certainly, the Gaul described and conquered by Caesar showed no signs of exhaustion by internal wars-it was a rich and prosperous land-so means were evidently found for limiting the damage war could cause. Caesar says that the Druids were involved in disputes and in the decision to wage war, providing some evidence for the existence of limiting social mechanisms. War did not threaten the fabric of society as a whole, even if the fortunes of the individual clans and tribes did wax and wane. It would be probably also be wrong to think that love of war was confined to the nobility, at the expense of the suffering of a pacifist peasantry: admiration for the warrior ethic appears to have been general, and was not restricted to men either (see box). Violence was endemic, but sufficiently intermittent for most people to get on with their lives successfully most of the time: warlike display was at least as important as actual fighting." pg. 74

The italics in this last quote are what I added from when I posted this on another thread. The bold I added for obvious reasons.

Its one thing for the Celts to be overpowered but now the Germans are being diminished due to this exaggeration. Both of these books are easily accessed through just about any local library.

Does anyone else have a problem with this exaggeration? If there is any information to contradict this please put down the author and book(article etc.). If I'm wrong on this-great, if not-great. The only thing that should matter is getting as close to historical as possible.

[the_handsome_viking]

I personally don't feel that the Celts are overpowered, they typically seem to have a bit of trouble with the Germans, at least when I play the game, and I typically enjoy fighting ther Germans the most because though different to the Celts they are similar in the sense that they are somewhat heroic for a lack of a better term.

The difficulty with the nature of the Celtic situation was that basically they were a loose patchwork quilt of tribes bound by a similar culture and language which is probably why some people will argue that Celts didn't actually exist at all.

I personally think they did and feel that denying their existance based on a multi ethnic or highly stately nature would be like saying the Romans didn't exist because the republic was made up of a multitude of Italic peoples not just the Latins, and some non-Italic people too, though I'd say these peoples differences were probably more distinct than the differences between the Celtic tribes, but even then the revision process is constantly in progress.

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.

Now whether or not this is true, who knows, but his reasoning for many other Celts being softer was more that they had become too civilized, which isn't too far fetched and idea due to the seemingly liberalistic nature of the Celts with their tendnancy towards living in free states.

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.

The question now really is, what made them saps when it came to the Romans? civil war? possibly, being pressed by both Germans and Romans? that could be it, or perhaps it was the simple political fragmented nature of the civilization in general that made them weaker.

In terms of gaming I think the solution would be to have various celtic settlements not being able to initially produce as adept warriors as more eastern and northern cultures to sort of keep in line with the notion that these people had become more business and state orientated than like the more vicious Northern and Eastern Celts.

But in many ways these factors are already in place in the modification anyway.

The Celts seem quite powerful at times in the Mod but really the Germans seem to be explosivly expansionist, which seems quite realistic, they are also bloody good fighters.

Perhaps this is a problem that only EB2 will be able to fully solve.

[Frostwulf]

I personally think they did and feel that denying their existance based on a multi ethnic or highly stately nature would be like saying the Romans didn't exist because the republic was made up of a multitude of Italic peoples not just the Latins, and some non-Italic people too, though I'd say these peoples differences were probably more distinct than the differences between the Celtic tribes, but even then the revision process is constantly in progress.

Thanks for replying, I agree with you exactly for the reasons you state. Yes they constantly fought but they shared the same language and culture.

I answered allot of what you said on this thread https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=83475
The reason it's being posted there is most of your statements are answered in this thread. I also want to keep this mostly with the Germans. I'm trying not to blend the two threads. Go to the last page.


The Celts seem quite powerful at times in the Mod but really the Germans seem to be explosivly expansionist, which seems quite realistic, they are also bloody good fighters.
I agree that the Germans were "bloody good fighters" :beam: I just feel that in comparison to the Celts that is not shown. In general the Romans should be stronger then the Germans and in general the Germans should be stronger then the Celts. Its not that way in EB.

What I'm trying to get at is the Germans consistently beat the Gauls during this period, but with the units the Celts get this wouldn't happen. The Celtic units are much more powerful then the Germanic units because of this exaggeration that the Germans were fighting "weaker" Celts. Not only are the Celtic units more powerful then the Germans they are more powerful then the Roman units. You have several Celtic elite units as powerful or more powerful then the Praetorian guard.
I'll restate that the Germans are being diminished because of this exaggeration.

[blitzkrieg80]

actually there are Hawk men in EB- Habukoz Swaiut (or however that word of questionable Proto-Germanic origin is spelled [my version is Habukadruhtiz]), of course habuka is not a definitively proven source of the Chauci name, it is very likely and better than nothing ~:)

The Wolves of Wodan should be renamed to "Host" of Wodan (wolves being the wolf-skin concept, completely separate) if it were to stay, but their subjective existence is also not quite justifiable either, besides the general lack of unit space... so don't count on seeing them, especially alongside a berserkr

No worries guys, the great thing about discussion and academia is that one doesn't have to feel personally attacked, because the information should speak for itself. So I agree my argument is pathetically weak for the Celts being overall less than their prime during the Germanic invasions- I don't claim to be an expert ~;p I have not read any argument put forth that they were at their prime then so I still believe that peculiar circumstances were afoot- unfortunately both oral cultures did not bother to mention their own military strength and tradition in relation to generations past concerning that era. I am trying to get Anthony who is an expert to put his 2 bits on that thread, so have patience.

I think the Celts should be stronger than the Romans- they sacked their ass early and kicked it aplenty in comparison to a large-scale lucky conquest by Rome. I think the Germans should be stronger than the Celts and Romans because obviously the Germans formed the real military power in the late Roman era for good reason. It's interesting that the pacification of the Celts is mentioned as being possibly in part from their redirection to business and infrastructure orientation, which sounds exactly like how the Anglo-Saxons handed Celtic Britain it's ass (can't forget the Picts who really caused it to happen). When a civilization doesn't bother protecting itself, like France in WW2, it pathetically gives up without much of a fight. This is no disparage against France- they had more tanks and heavier tanks than the Germans at the time, so they weren't pacifists, but when it came time to fight to the end like they did heroically in WW1, they stopped way short. I don't know why I brought that up, it's totally inappropriate to ancient warfare :wall:

[Watchman]

"Germans should be stronger than Celts" is an absurd statement in the context. The former only began making any major inroads against the latter centuries after the starting-date of the mod, as for that matter was the case with the Romans. It should be pretty darn obvious this was due to changing fortunes at the strategic level (such as both the Romans and Germans having gotten sufficiently organized and well armed) and not some "inherent" difference in strenght.
Moreover it contains an element of selling the rightly feared Celtic warrior class rather short.


This is no disparage against France- they had more tanks and heavier tanks than the Germans at the time, so they weren't pacifists, but when it came time to fight to the end like they did heroically in WW1, they stopped way short.France suffered the highest proportional casualties in WW1 you know. They lost something like one-fifth of an entire generation there. Small wonder they weren't keen on repeating the experience.

And yes, it's very irrelevant to the discussion.

[Sarcasm]

And coming from an equally costly defeat at the Franco-Prussian war, which the idiot Napoleon III instigated.

No offence but Americans are very quick to downplay the French in WW2. Guess it comes from never having to fight a major modern fight on their own soil.

All strategic and tactical blunders aside, having had the mobile crack element of their army cut-off or destroyed and half the country lost, what were they supposed to do? Sedan, Dunkirk and El Alamein are more than enough examples of French bravery in spite of overwhelming odds.

Really...

[QwertyMIDX]

Off topic! :hijacked:

[Sarcasm]

My bad.

[blitzkrieg80]

Nah, my bad. ~:doh:
It's true that if the French populace had the right to bear arms then it would be much more reasonable for them to keep resisting but being unarmed makes them akin to peasants, so I agree that the French weren't nec. extraodinarily cowardly but somewhat practical. Although my point was that the French proved themselves capable of not giving up so easily regardless- being a coward is still being a coward- being American has nothing to do with it. Similarly, America was quite cowardly to join both wars only at the end and try to claim credit by swooping in at the last minute while sacrificing nothing in comparison to others. By your own argument, unless you partook in a modern war on YOUR soil then you are just as unknowlegeable as I toward the subject.

One can argue that warfare is wrong, but it cannot be argued that one can surrender and then have the right to anything except honorable suicide or slavery. Surrendering after bearing arms and engaging an enemy is like a brawl where one of the combatants decides they don't want to get hurt anymore and they'll just stop- it's rather ridiculous. One is better off fighting to the death or being a complete tool- so the cultural misconception that other civilizations won't follow through with killing/enslaving their people (and neighbors who look similar but aren't considered their people) especially after a fight is naive and most likely one of the primary causes of conquest of Celtic Gaul and most of Europe. The Celts of Gaul and Iberia put up a better fight than most as well. I personally firmly believe that danger can happen to myself anywhere at any time and do not have the ridiculous notion that I am being "protected", so when random people kill students or smash into businessmen sitting in their cozy trade-tower, I am not surprised- it's too bad, but it's very naive of them. Guns and bombs have nothing to do with anything either, it just takes a random pissed off person to stab you. Therefore, even in this high tech. business and infrastructure-minded society, the people are pathetically weak and one has to have the ability to defend themselves because others won't do it for them... That was the weakness of Post-Roman Celtic Britain, the Roman Empire, and possibly Celtic Gaul, as has been mentioned, when the small elite is exhausted the majority has to pick up the slack and the culture which has the freedom to do that will succeed.

[Sarcasm]

Well I didn't, but the generation just prior to mine did (1974). We had our Vietnam, except it was on our soil.

And I was referring to the usual jokes of "What are French good for? Surrendering." It's part of American pop culture, to the point where you can actually sense it through your television shows overseas.

And I'll just have to disagree with you on the fighting part.

Last post on this btw. Promise.

[Frostwulf]

actually there are Hawk men in EB- Habukoz Swaiut (or however that word of questionable Proto-Germanic origin is spelled [my version is Habukadruhtiz]), of course habuka is not a definitively proven source of the Chauci name, it is very likely and better than nothing

The Wolves of Wodan should be renamed to "Host" of Wodan (wolves being the wolf-skin concept, completely separate) if it were to stay, but their subjective existence is also not quite justifiable either, besides the general lack of unit space... so don't count on seeing them, especially alongside a berserkr

Thanks for the info Blitz. One of the reasons I like the Sweboz is for the tribal aspect of it.


I am trying to get Anthony who is an expert to put his 2 bits on that thread, so have patience.
Most excellent, I hope he is willing to give author and book names.


"Germans should be stronger than Celts" is an absurd statement in the context. The former only began making any major inroads against the latter centuries after the starting-date of the mod, as for that matter was the case with the Romans. It should be pretty darn obvious this was due to changing fortunes at the strategic level (such as both the Romans and Germans having gotten sufficiently organized and well armed) and not some "inherent" difference in strenght.
Moreover it contains an element of selling the rightly feared Celtic warrior class rather short.

When I say the Germans should be stronger I'm referring to the units. One reason they may have taken along time to make major inroads is because they havent migrated there yet. You also have to remember that the Belgae ended up in Gaul and the TCA (Teutons,Cimbri,Ambrones) stomped around in Gaul for awhile. As far as the Celtic warrior one on one against a Roman I would put my money on the Celt almost every time for two reasons. First is the Celt trained for individual combat where the Roman trained in units. Secondly the Celt in general is a larger and stronger man which is a big asset in melee combat. The Celt vs the German I would put my money on the German for the simple reason that the German tended to be a larger man and would have the same individual fighting style as the Celt. I'm not selling the Celt warrior short, I think in EB he is overpowered.

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

[Redmeth]

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

I don't have any quotes to support this, but think about it who fought for Caesar? The Germans did and of course he(Caesar) praised their prowess in battle perhaps exagerating a bit (not a lot).
Regarding EB perhaps the Ridoharjoz could be tweaked but this subject has already been thoroughly discussed throughout the topic.

[blitzkrieg80]

sorry to go way off topic, last for me on that too- I Promise! :ahh:

I think I neglected to respond to the idea, but the Batavian guard/ cavalry is a very late unit and too much of Roman influence to be justified for EB. The Batavi were considered off-shoots from the Chatti I believe and much later than the early tribal configuration that's trying to be represented- I would argue that Chauci, Cherusci, and Chatti are even late tribes rather than having a solid identity at the start of EB, which would mean they should also not be included, but because they are among some of the earliest mentioned after the Hermunduri and Suebi, I think it is good to keep them for flavor. Therefore, the Batavi tribe was interesting and unique, but not very important long-term besides being late, although much more important than other tribes who flat-out disappeared like the Cherusci. The Ubi and many others fall into the same category, very interesting, but just not widespread and early enough to justify a unit.

The only reason I am proposing a heavy cavalry is because the idea of the heavy cavalry will be based on Germanic origin, the use of retainers who are armed and armored, but on horseback. There should be very little Roman influence other than helmet technology, ect. because that sort of cultural exchange did not happen until just before the end of EB. The Celts might have influenced the Germanics partly through technology- the byrnie mail-coat and high quality double-edged iron swords, but the concept of horsemen and retainers is truly Germanic and not borrowed whatsoever. The lack of contemporary primary sources stating so is not evidence to the contrary whatsoever, especially in light of the ulterior motivation for such writers to portray the Germanics as different and backward. It is common sense that a warrior aristocracy was a predominant feature of Germanic culture- Bronze Age cultures were signifcantly composed of such and it is highly unlikely that any culture would revert backwards from such an evolved social state, even if politically semi-autonomous and dispersed. The use of horses among Indo Europeans and their travel from their homeland where pastoralism most likely originated is a great example of how a heavy cavalry (earlier- chariots! ganauta and OE gesitha, ect. implies a relationship of past tense sometimes (seen easily in modern German past participle) or "as a result" in the same sense, also a sense of "with" comparable to L "con" and more importantly- "to come together/togetherness", thus ga-nauta is "enjoy together" = "comrade", rather than "enjoyer" which we have sure evidence for (rather than speculation in Saxnot) and thus what I am picking for the sword-warrior. Also after comparing sword terms, even though Sahs comes from a very common Indo European root for "saw," it does not have as many cognates (Gothic) as PGmc heru which actually is more popular with compound names and kennings as well. So we have an exact compound-word cognate and common basis, so herunauta is good for me. We also do not have to change the unit because the title implies their luck and quality in having a sword, but does not denote any special status otherwise, so a group of poor bullies could be so just because they found or earned them, rather than having to be prestigious warriors like retainers and hearth-troop. Sorry if this seems inappropriate and unrelated, but I wanted to explain because I was embarassed about Sahsthegnoz which was artificial in comparison.

[Frostwulf]

I don't have any quotes to support this, but think about it who fought for Caesar? The Germans did and of course he(Caesar) praised their prowess in battle perhaps exagerating a bit (not a lot).
Regarding EB perhaps the Ridoharjoz could be tweaked but this subject has already been thoroughly discussed throughout the topic.

The Gauls also fought for and against Caesar. He praised the Belgae for their toughness, his elite 10th legion, Germans both for and against him. He praised those who fought with valor whether friend or foe.


PS- I am going to try and get the Ridaharjoz upgraded instead of any new cavalry, because a new unit is going to be much harder to find space for (because the model needs to be Germanic), besides the fact that I am convinced by the evidence given (good job, people!) that the Ridoharjoz is an equal to the Leuce Epos. I still think the Celts were fielding quality troops less effectively by the time they got swamped but cannot put forth any proof worth mentioning.

I agreed with your post up until here. Take into consideration not only the quotes I provided but also since the 4th century there has been infighting amongst the Celts as well as the Germans. Why all of a sudden would it be so drastic here and not in the po valley and other places where such documentation shows? The archaeological evidence speaks against this. Hopefully Anthony will provide us with some information, preferably with sources.:beam:

As far as your pps, very interesting stuff.

[Frostwulf]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf

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

I don't have any quotes to support this, but think about it who fought for Caesar? The Germans did and of course he(Caesar) praised their prowess in battle perhaps exagerating a bit (not a lot).
Regarding EB perhaps the Ridoharjoz could be tweaked but this subject has already been thoroughly discussed throughout the topic.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Redmeth
I don't have any quotes to support this, but think about it who fought for Caesar? The Germans did and of course he(Caesar) praised their prowess in battle perhaps exagerating a bit (not a lot).
Regarding EB perhaps the Ridoharjoz could be tweaked but this subject has already been thoroughly discussed throughout the topic.

The Gauls also fought for and against Caesar. He praised the Belgae for their toughness, his elite 10th legion, Germans both for and against him. He praised those who fought with valor whether friend or foe.

This is what I get for posting while my eyes are half shut. Redmeth its not Caesar who is saying this quote, its the author Goldsworthy in his book "Caesar"

[Watchman]

You know, I kinda took a look at the EDU and I'll have to say all this talk about the Sweboz being "too weak" compared to the Celts (or conversely the Celts being "too strong") is almost entirely Simply Not True. The damn Swainoz, wet-behind-the-ears pups that they are, are pretty much the equals of the Belgae Batacorii, and the various tribe-specific spear guys and the Frameharjoz are at least the equals if not betters of the Gaeroas and Gaelaiche. The Sahsnotoz have the edge on the Botroas and are the lessers of the Bataroas and Milnaht solely on basis of lack of armour. Heck, the Frankamannoz (the "levy" unit of the Sweboz) can go head on with the lighter representatives of the Celtic warrior class and not do half badly, although I wouldn't expect them to win. Didn't bother comparing the elites, but they ought to be more or less matched as well.

The Celts do have way better access to armour (at least after the reforms start kicking in) though, but then again isn't that what the Sweboz have their clubmen and Wodanawulfaz and Merjoz and whatnots for ?

I'll have to agree that the Ridonharjoz are really statted a bit on the low side IMHO, although that's my opinion on the overhand spear cavalry units in general. No wonder they don't do too spectacularly against the Epos.

[the_handsome_viking]

Thanks for replying, I agree with you exactly for the reasons you state. Yes they constantly fought but they shared the same language and culture.

I answered allot of what you said on this thread https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=83475
The reason it's being posted there is most of your statements are answered in this thread. I also want to keep this mostly with the Germans. I'm trying not to blend the two threads. Go to the last page.

Done.



I agree that the Germans were "bloody good fighters" :beam: I just feel that in comparison to the Celts that is not shown. In general the Romans should be stronger then the Germans and in general the Germans should be stronger then the Celts. Its not that way in EB.

I'm not too sure, I definitely think there should be a few more Germanic units, and the arguments for a heavier German cavalry seem quite convincing, I mean it would essentialy only require these Germans to basically fight in the normal Germanic cavalry tradition but with heavy armor and a sword for close combat, but when it comes to the subject of the toughness of the Germans, I've had full stacked battles against the Germans full stacked armies, and actually, though inflicitng major casualities on both sides, had to retreat back to my settlement because the numbers were deteriorating too much.

I was very surprised that I couldn't have just out done the Germans with my Belgic spearmen and geasate, but well, they ended up losing the battle, though we inflicted heavy losses upon the enemy.

In general, the Germans are easily my favorite enemies, they are also apparently the toughest with perhaps the Romans riveling them closely.(I've always forgotten to actually impliment the script for the game... so I've never fought Rome at her full strength).

The Germans do seem a bit tougher as a general rule, and their cavalry and infantry seem to be a bit more expensive also when you hire them as mercinaries, infact, I typically consider the Germans to be my first choice when it comes to mercinaries, and that their Celtic equivilents, though good, are not as good as the Germans.

That's just my personal preference though. It also seemed to be Caesars personal preference also, that said he did also have mercinaries from all over, including Celtic ones.


What I'm trying to get at is the Germans consistently beat the Gauls during this period, but with the units the Celts get this wouldn't happen. The Celtic units are much more powerful then the Germanic units because of this exaggeration that the Germans were fighting "weaker" Celts. Not only are the Celtic units more powerful then the Germans they are more powerful then the Roman units. You have several Celtic elite units as powerful or more powerful then the Praetorian guard.
I'll restate that the Germans are being diminished because of this exaggeration.

Like I said, I can't say that I've observed this very much, the Germans do seem to be considerably tougher, not technologically superior though they seem to make good use of what little they have and fight boldly against the Celts, infact I often have had to reform my tactics when it comes to fighting the Germans because they often will push back just as hard as I push them, and unlike a lot of the southern peoples, they don't seem to bottle out very quickly.

I'm not sure is that's very historically accurate, I guess it would depend on the level of training of the fighters involved, a professional will have been conditioned to not have a psychological barrier when it comes to fighting and will not flee as quickly as someone who has just grown up being your average urbanite.

Another interesting issue would be the level of toughness of the average Celt over the average southern urbanite. Urban enviroments can toughen people up, but then again a more rural lifestyle can also make you very hardy and self relient, especially in a culture that most logically would have had a heavy focus on martial training. Perhaps this is going off a bit.

In short, it seems like the Germanic people all seemed to rally to the call of battle, that fighting was a very importent factor top down in German culture as opposed to Celtic societies where you had a distinct and well equipped warrior class, so it might make sense that you have very adept Celtic warriors with very good equipment perhaps having an edge over lots of Germans, but as a general rule have the Germans as tougher than the Celts.

If I've said anything incorrect then fair enough, learning is totally beneficial and all jokes asside, this modification does have a very large capacity to be used as an educational tool.

[Frostwulf]

You know, I kinda took a look at the EDU and I'll have to say all this talk about the Sweboz being "too weak" compared to the Celts (or conversely the Celts being "too strong") is almost entirely Simply Not True. The damn Swainoz, wet-behind-the-ears pups that they are, are pretty much the equals of the Belgae Batacorii, and the various tribe-specific spear guys and the Frameharjoz are at least the equals if not betters of the Gaeroas and Gaelaiche. The Sahsnotoz have the edge on the Botroas and are the lessers of the Bataroas and Milnaht solely on basis of lack of armour. Heck, the Frankamannoz (the "levy" unit of the Sweboz) can go head on with the lighter representatives of the Celtic warrior class and not do half badly, although I wouldn't expect them to win. Didn't bother comparing the elites, but they ought to be more or less matched as well.

Arghh these names are killing me!:dizzy2:
Starting with the German Swainoz skirmishers are superior to the Balroae skirmishers except defense is the same. The German Bugimannoz archers are inferior to the Sotaroas archers except bow attack is the same and the Laosatae is superior except for sling and morale which is the same.Frankamannoz the German levy units are superior to the Lugoae Celtic levy units. Here I run into problems on who to compare units to which units. Laecha Celtic light infantry are superior to Franamannoz levy but on par with the swaiut units. For the German swaiut units(they are roughly the same except for Bastarnoz and they only have 80 men),Frameharjoz and Aljaz-Gae are about the same and compared with the Celtic units they tend to be about the same (cemmeinarn,Batacorii,Daernaghta,Bagaudas,Gaelaiche,Gaeroas etc.). then you have merjoz axe is inferior to ordmahornaghta only in moral. Wodanawulfoz is inferior to pictone neitos except moral is the same. The German Sahsnotoz you have discussed but they are also inferior to moral and also inferior to the Cwmyr. Now you have the next level of units which the Germans have only the Gaizarjoz which could be compared with the Mori Gaesum. The Celts also have the Neitos,kluddargos,calawre, and Deaisbard. For the top elite the German Gastiz and Hundaskapiz are totally outclassed by the Arjos, Carnute Cingetos, Gaesatae, Rycalawre,Solduros and Uachtarac DuboGaiscaocha.

[blitzkrieg80]

No errors to speak of, you seem very knowledgeable to me (especially concerning Indo-Europeans) Handsome Viking, as almost everybody commenting here seems well-read. Great job to all of you who actually quote and cite, while I am relatively lazy in that respect atm (I don't happen to own Caesar's Gallic Wars either- which reminds me to find a good translation because I haven't learned Latin yet ~:doh:).

I haven't looked at the EDU specifically but the Factions should be well balanced by now so I'm glad to hear that they are by Watchman's account and your own, Handsome Viking<--funny name, btw- reminds me of a great line and scene of the Jomsvikings(see my quote of Sigurd in my sig. he has one of his executioner's hold his hair to keep it fair while he's being beheaded then pulls and get's the guys hands chopped off! it's so hilarious... then the leader comes over and asks him his name and offers him quarter because he has luck!).

[edit] sorry, didn't see your recent post Frostwulf... how are they inferior/superior? are you speaking of results from testing? Those are good things to mention/look at, so thank you for taking the time to write it.

So it's well agreed upon that the Ridaharjoz needs a boost, but what specifically might help the unit while keeping it balanced?

I so very much want to add an Eastern Germanic tribal unit but unfortunately there's so little information on them during EB's timeline except assumptions made concerning the Przeworsk culture and Vandals.... Does anybody happen to have any ideas or knowledge on this?

[Lowenklee]

You know, I kinda took a look at the EDU and I'll have to say all this talk about the Sweboz being "too weak" compared to the Celts (or conversely the Celts being "too strong") is almost entirely Simply Not True. The damn Swainoz, wet-behind-the-ears pups that they are, are pretty much the equals of the Belgae Batacorii, and the various tribe-specific spear guys and the Frameharjoz are at least the equals if not betters of the Gaeroas and Gaelaiche. The Sahsnotoz have the edge on the Botroas and are the lessers of the Bataroas and Milnaht solely on basis of lack of armour. Heck, the Frankamannoz (the "levy" unit of the Sweboz) can go head on with the lighter representatives of the Celtic warrior class and not do half badly, although I wouldn't expect them to win. Didn't bother comparing the elites, but they ought to be more or less matched as well.

The Celts do have way better access to armour (at least after the reforms start kicking in) though, but then again isn't that what the Sweboz have their clubmen and Wodanawulfaz and Merjoz and whatnots for ?

I'll have to agree that the Ridonharjoz are really statted a bit on the low side IMHO, although that's my opinion on the overhand spear cavalry units in general. No wonder they don't do too spectacularly against the Epos.

For whats it worth, I find the Sweboz to be eminently playable as is. It has been some months since my last Sweboz campaign but, as I recall, I faced little in the way of insurmountable obstacles where battles were concerned. Naturally the later developments in Roman military reform made things difficult. But then again things were supposed to be difficult against the Roman military juggernaut. Against the Celts I feared only the Gesatae and later warrior elites such as the Solduros and Carnutes Cingetos (sp?)...also quite a plausible state of affairs.
Other than the historical accuracy or viability of unit depictions and the small issue of the Ridoharjoz (of whom, even with present stats, I make good use) I think the current balance between the Celts and Germans is well done.

I think the problem lies in the alternative history nature of EB. The represented factions simply do not act in a historically accurate manner...at least it's quite rare when they do. As Watchman stated earlier, many of the inroads made by the Germans were at a much later date that the start of EB and a result of complicated circumstances. It's the circumstances that the AI fails to replicate.

Although it may seem like an odd idea of sorts but I'd actually be in favor of denying the Sweboz early elite troops other than the Herthoz, keep the hundaskapiz as an early inferior shock infantry similar in use to the Merjoz but otherwise limit the Sweboz to light cavalry, tribal militias, and tribal warbands? Force the Germans to take a more defensive position along the rhine while focusing more on economic development and expansion into the east. The first goal for the Germans, from a gameplay perspective, might be the consolidation of the various Gau and control over the Baltic and it's amber trade?

Even if Gallic aggression forces the German faction east this would be ok as long as the baltic region offers enough economic gains for growth. While I still believe the Ridoharjoz shouldn't be inferior to the lightest Gallic cavalry (on which point a partial concensus seems to have been reached) I am against an attempt to make the German faction the equals of Gaul prior to any evidence we have attesting to that. Keep the early Germans fairly simple.
Save the upgrades, nobles, and proper elite troops for the 140'ish b.c.e. reform date before giving the Sweboz a viable means of facing Gaul and Rome head to head?

What do you think?

ps.

Blitzkrieg80,

A fascinating read regarding the Herunauta, i'm sadly not yet in possession of a proper book on the subject but am in great anticipation of its arrival soon. Also I'm in agreement regarding the Batavians...mostly. I agree that their mentioning in the classical sources dates too late for EB. I'd hoped that there's be information about the cavalry tradition of the Batavians going back far enought to be of use. There is a particular mask

[Caratacos]

When I say the Germans should be stronger I'm referring to the units.

Well when a game is called "Total War" and is primarily concerned with armies stronger units equals stronger faction. To be honest I've never seen the Sweboz struggle in any of my campaigns -- and they are being led by the AI!


One reason they may have taken along time to make major inroads is because they havent migrated there yet.

I wonder what was preventing their migration there? Resistance maybe?


You also have to remember that the Belgae ended up in Gaul and the TCA (Teutons,Cimbri,Ambrones) stomped around in Gaul for awhile.

Did not they have celts in their number? And didn't their leaders speak celtic, bear celtic names and use celtic weaponry?


As far as the Celtic warrior one on one against a Roman I would put my money on the Celt almost every time for two reasons. First is the Celt trained for individual combat where the Roman trained in units. Secondly the Celt in general is a larger and stronger man which is a big asset in melee combat. The Celt vs the German I would put my money on the German for the simple reason that the German tended to be a larger man and would have the same individual fighting style as the Celt. I'm not selling the Celt warrior short, I think in EB he is overpowered.

Yes you are correct about the differring fighting styles but that didn't count for everything. There were instances where Romans fought one-on-one duels with celtic champions and won (though participation in these was eventually outlawed by the Republic)
Also your use of "Celt", "German" and "Roman" seems to be ethnic. Celtic is not an ethnic term by any means. The lands that housed celtic speakers had many different ethnicities that used celtic language and customs. So how can one speak of Celts being shorter than Germans or taller than Romans? There were big men in their ranks sure, but what culture doesn't have their brutes?


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

It is no surprise that anyone can steamroll after winning a victory. This is common throughout history (and also in RTW). The winners have won loot and land/food-- and the experience of winning. On the flipside the losers not only have to deal with the problem of less warriors on which to depend but also the same internal problems that added to their disunity and defeat in the first place (which probably got a whole lot worse after the defeat). It doesn't come down to the fact that they faced bigger men with bigger swords and could no longer win-- this is oversimplified madness.

At the end of the day the game has to be balanced. It is to my judgement. Why change it?

[russia almighty]

Yes you are correct about the differring fighting styles but that didn't count for everything. There were instances where Romans fought one-on-one duels with celtic champions and won (though participation in these was eventually outlawed by the Republic)
Also your use of "Celt", "German" and "Roman" seems to be ethnic. Celtic is not an ethnic term by any means. The lands that housed celtic speakers had many different ethnicities that used celtic language and customs. So how can one speak of Celts being shorter than Germans or taller than Romans? There were big men in their ranks sure, but what culture doesn't have their brutes?


Do tell about this . That tells people had huge cajones back then if they left the comforts of line combat to go one on one with a brute.

[Watchman]

Not really. Size and brawn by themselves aren't really worth a thing in battle, not compared to skill, training, specialized physical conditioning, psychological factors and war gear. Renaissance masters-at-arms scorned "oxen" who fought with mere strenght and aggression.

It's not what you have, but knowing how to use what you have as it were. The greater the degree of skill involved the less differences in size and such matter.


then you have merjoz axe is inferior to ordmahornaghta only in moral.Nah, the Ordmhornaghta have a slight advantage in both armour and defense skill. But then they cost almost double, and their availability is very limited too...


Wodanawulfoz is inferior to pictone neitos except moral is the same.Inferior ? How exactly ? The Wulfaz have a slightly higher total defense score, and while their axes lose out to the Neitos' swords in lethality (0.165 to 0.225) they've almost the same attack (10 to 11) - but get AP.


The German Sahsnotoz you have discussed but they are also inferior to moral and also inferior to the Cwmyr.The Cwmyr are one of the funky Briton "hero" units, and have nothing directly comparable in most factions' rosters (the Aedui Carnutes represent the same principle in a much more elite version).


Now you have the next level of units which the Germans have only the Gaizarjoz which could be compared with the Mori Gaesum.Not really - the Mori have phalanx and armour, while the Gaisaz are really just high-end AP spearmen.


The Celts also have the Neitos,kluddargos,calawre, and Deaisbard. For the top elite the German Gastiz and Hundaskapiz are totally outclassed by the Arjos, Carnute Cingetos, Gaesatae, Rycalawre,Solduros and Uachtarac DuboGaiscaocha.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.

You're forgetting something here now. The later high-end Celtic units are good (but also quite expensive) because of their excellent war gear, which is the reason the comparatively lightly armed Gastiz become outmatched. This is one of those "suck it down like a man" issues, as it's a flat historical fact the Celts were richer and better equipped on the average and moreover had a proper warrior class which could invest in such gear. The Gastiz more or less represent the comparable segment of Germanic society in its entirety. On the other hand they're available far sooner and the German roster doesn't have any particular shortage of AP-armed units to swamp the heavier (and not very numerous - 30 is their standard base size) Celtic units with...

Use them tactics. Isn't that what clever people used to even disparities in equipement and such ? I've read some Germans or Belgae or whatnot for example sought to fight the Romans on marshy ground, where the heavily-armed legionaries had constant problems with their footing but the lightly equipped barbarians used to the conditions had little trouble. (The Romans apparently eventually sent in similarly acclimated local auxiliaries to deal with the matter, but that's beside the point.)

[Caratacos]

Uhh you seem to have an extra Frostwulf quote at the bottom of that post, Watchman :wink2:


almighty Do tell about this . That tells people had huge cajones back then if they left the comforts of line combat to go one on one with a brute.

Well it would be the generals or officers that'd take part in these duels not rank and file spearmen (the "line combat" guys). No doubt anyone willing to take on another in a battle to the death has got something... cojones or otherwise. But it wouldn't be too different from the one-on-one training that these Roman officers would have experienced for years.

But yes, brute force is best only if you can hit your opponent... anyone remember that duel in 13th Warrior? " New shield!"

[Watchman]

Oh, right. I copy-pasted it into the field for reference and forgot to delete it in the end. Thanks for pointing out.

In the martial-arts dojo thingy my brother goes to, "Chuck Norris Barroom Haymaker" is a running joke.

[Frostwulf]

[edit] sorry, didn't see your recent post Frostwulf... how are they inferior/superior? are you speaking of results from testing? Those are good things to mention/look at, so thank you for taking the time to write it.

No problems at all. The inferior and superior for me was based on the cards by Arkatreides. I was using the attack, defense and moral based on the cards.


Other than the historical accuracy or viability of unit depictions and the small issue of the Ridoharjoz (of whom, even with present stats, I make good use) I think the current balance between the Celts and Germans is well done.


I hope I'm not misunderstanding you here, but to me historical accuracy is what I'm more interested in. Balance is nice but I would rather have historical accuracy on the units and make up balance elsewhere.


Even if Gallic aggression forces the German faction east this would be ok as long as the baltic region offers enough economic gains for growth. While I still believe the Ridoharjoz shouldn't be inferior to the lightest Gallic cavalry (on which point a partial concensus seems to have been reached) I am against an attempt to make the German faction the equals of Gaul prior to any evidence we have attesting to that. Keep the early Germans fairly simple.

I would still like to know why it would be the light Gallic cavalry and not the heavier cavalry. The quotes I posted show no reason to assume these were "weaker" Celts then before. The arms and armor of the Celtic cavalry of Caesar's time show them to be a heavier cavalry. Did I miss some information that dispute the two quotes I posted?


Well when a game is called "Total War" and is primarily concerned with armies stronger units equals stronger faction. To be honest I've never seen the Sweboz struggle in any of my campaigns -- and they are being led by the AI!
I was just comparing the units based on the cards and I didnt think they were historically accurate.

I wonder what was preventing their migration there? Resistance maybe?
Absolutely! Its quite possible the Celts,Scythians or other peoples were keeping them back. There are a multitude of probable reasons, we dont know for sure which one or combination thereof it is.

Did not they have celts in their number? And didn't their leaders speak celtic, bear celtic names and use celtic weaponry?
Yep, there were Celts among their number. Yep I would think that they used Celtic weaponry. Most authors tend to believe the TCA to be German and the majority of the wanderers were the TCA. There is no doubt to me that the Celtic weaponry helped the TCA in their combat. I also believe the TCA were Germanic as well. During the TCA's wanderings I believe most of the combat was done by them. But it is worth mentioning that the Tigurines (Celts) defeated a Roman army at this time.


Yes you are correct about the differring fighting styles but that didn't count for everything. There were instances where Romans fought one-on-one duels with celtic champions and won (though participation in these was eventually outlawed by the Republic)
Also your use of "Celt", "German" and "Roman" seems to be ethnic. Celtic is not an ethnic term by any means. The lands that housed celtic speakers had many different ethnicities that used celtic language and customs. So how can one speak of Celts being shorter than Germans or taller than Romans? There were big men in their ranks sure, but what culture doesn't have their brutes?
My statement about the duel was in general situations.On another thread I discussed Marcus Claudius Marcellus vs. Viridomarus showing the smaller Roman defeating the larger Celt.I disagree with you about ethnicities, by the time Celts became Celts they would have had a different gene pool then other peoples. Just like all groups you have varying genes but they still have much in common. The British Celts would start to vary from their mainland brethren because of different intermingling. For the height thing Ill refer to Safe in the Gaesatae way too overpowered thread.


It is often noted, that germanics were taller than celts and those were taller than romans.
If the average germanic men reached 175cm - 178 cm (archaelogical findings) and the average roman soldier (not citizen, even here we talk about roman soldiers in the pre-imperial time era, before the most roman units were made of mercenaries from foreign lands) reached ca. 160cm - 165cm, we can guess how tall a typical male celt had grown.
Something between the two numbers i guess.
But 6'2 is definately a super-size man and not the average.
Sure exceptions existed, like for example Teutobod, War-chieftain of the Teutones and numerous others, but we should still stick to the average height of warriors during this time.



It is no surprise that anyone can steamroll after winning a victory. This is common throughout history (and also in RTW). The winners have won loot and land/food-- and the experience of winning. On the flipside the losers not only have to deal with the problem of less warriors on which to depend but also the same internal problems that added to their disunity and defeat in the first place (which probably got a whole lot worse after the defeat). It doesn't come down to the fact that they faced bigger men with bigger swords and could no longer win-- this is oversimplified madness.

At the end of the day the game has to be balanced. It is to my judgement. Why change it?
To me what it comes down to is the martial ability of the units. The Germans began as mercenaries and ended subjugating the Gauls in that area. Its not always a steamroller effect in history. In this particular case the reason is the martial ability of the Germans which not only does Caesar comment on but the Gauls themselves were saying so.
As far as the end of the day, I want to play a historically accurate game. I want as realistic units as possible and figure another way to balance the game, otherwise we might as well play vanilla RTW.


Do tell about this . That tells people had huge cajones back then if they left the comforts of line combat to go one on one with a brute.
I agree with you. I think of the scene in "Troy" where Pitt comes out to face that huge guy and stabs him in the neck.


Not really. Size and brawn by themselves aren't really worth a thing in battle, not compared to skill, training, specialized physical conditioning, psychological factors and war gear. Renaissance masters-at-arms scorned "oxen" who fought with mere strenght and aggression.
For the most part I agree with you, but again all things being in general the size and brawn will help you get through that armor and could stun you as well. I know this is different then boxing but there is that saying, "A punchers chance".

You're forgetting something here now. The later high-end Celtic units are good (but also quite expensive) because of their excellent war gear, which is the reason the comparatively lightly armed Gastiz become outmatched. This is one of those "suck it down like a man" issues, as it's a flat historical fact the Celts were richer and better equipped on the average and moreover had a proper warrior class which could invest in such gearInferior ? How exactly ? The Wulfaz have a slightly higher total defense score, and while their axes lose out to the Neitos' swords in lethality (0.165 to 0.225) they've almost the same attack (10 to 11) - but get AP.[/quote]
:oops: You are correct. I must be blind or looking at the wrong unit.

As far as the other comparisons I believe you, I just went by the cards not knowing the other things like phalanx, spear and etc. I did do a one on one battle with the Gaesatae, both playing and playing against. The Gaesatae win every time.


You're forgetting something here now. The later high-end Celtic units are good (but also quite expensive) because of their excellent war gear, which is the reason the comparatively lightly armed Gastiz become outmatched. This is one of those "suck it down like a man" issues, as it's a flat historical fact the Celts were richer and better equipped on the average and moreover had a proper warrior class which could invest in such gear
I completely agree that the Celts had better arms and armor. The Celtic cavalry had better arms and armor then the Germans during Caesar's time. The German cavalry consistently beat up on them even though outnumbered. I believe the same to be true of the foot soldier.

[Watchman]

Heavy armoured cavalry has always been prohibitively expensive to raise and maintain, even among peoples who had no shortage of horses (ie. steppe nomads). It duly stands to reason that even if the overall "weight" of Celtic cavalry had increased by Caesar's time for various reasons, the easy majority would still have been of the lighter Epos type for the simple fact it was way easier for a warrior to afford a horse and that level of war gear, than both Brihentin-level gear and a horse capable of carrying it without problems.


For the most part I agree with you, but again all things being in general the size and brawn will help you get through that armor and could stun you as well. I know this is different then boxing but there is that saying, "A punchers chance".Size doesn't have that much to do with it. The degree of physical conditioning, ie. how much explosive power you can coax out of your physique to put behind the strike, does.

Put this way, Bruce Lee will hit way harder than a weightlifter a head taller.

It's not like being large wasn't conditionally quite useful (better reach for example, potentially more "horsepower" when suitably conditioned, potentially quite intimidating); but it's only that if you know how to actually use it for effect, and the other guy doesn't know how to deal with it - and well-trained warriors do.


To me what it comes down to is the martial ability of the units. The Germans began as mercenaries and ended subjugating the Gauls in that area. Its not always a steamroller effect in history. In this particular case the reason is the martial ability of the Germans which not only does Caesar comment on but the Gauls themselves were saying so.Or it could just be the Germans had figured out better tactics... or, as has been argued, the Celts were sufficiently short on real warriors that the average level of fighting ability very much favoured the Germans.

Speaking of the height issue, wasn't the (nominal) entry requirement for the Legions 170+ cm ? And those were citizens...

[Frostwulf]

Heavy armoured cavalry has always been prohibitively expensive to raise and maintain, even among peoples who had no shortage of horses (ie. steppe nomads). It duly stands to reason that even if the overall "weight" of Celtic cavalry had increased by Caesar's time for various reasons, the easy majority would still have been of the lighter Epos type for the simple fact it was way easier for a warrior to afford a horse and that level of war gear, than both Brihentin-level gear and a horse capable of carrying it without problems.

I could be wrong but I would think most of the Gallic horses are the same. I'm fairly sure the larger warhorse came several hundreds of years later. As far as the arms and armour and what Caesar says it fits what heavy cavalry would have. I'm sure it would have been expensive but allot of the cavalry was made up of chieftains and their retinues.


Size doesn't have that much to do with it. The degree of physical conditioning, ie. how much explosive power you can coax out of your physique to put behind the strike, does.

I agree with you. What I'm trying to convey is that in general the large man will have more muscle and mass therefore more kinetic energy. So if you have two people with the same ability's the larger one in general will be able to put out more energy.


Put this way, Bruce Lee will hit way harder than a weightlifter a head taller.

It's not like being large wasn't conditionally quite useful (better reach for example, potentially more "horsepower" when suitably conditioned, potentially quite intimidating); but it's only that if you know how to actually use it for effect, and the other guy doesn't know how to deal with it - and well-trained warriors do.

Again I agree with you. I would say that a weightlifter properly trained would be able to hit harder then Lee.


Or it could just be the Germans had figured out better tactics... or, as has been argued, the Celts were sufficiently short on real warriors that the average level of fighting ability very much favoured the Germans.
Yes either of these are viable, though I tend to disagree with the Celtic warriors being weaker because of the information I read. I'm going to try to do more research on this subject soon. Summers for me are very busy but I will try to find time for this.


Speaking of the height issue, wasn't the (nominal) entry requirement for the Legions 170+ cm ? And those were citizens...
I know Ive seen something like this before. I cant recall if it was for a special or elite legion or if it had something to do with Celtic/Germanic recruits of later times.

[the_handsome_viking]

I know Ive seen something like this before. I cant recall if it was for a special or elite legion or if it had something to do with Celtic/Germanic recruits of later times.

I'm not sure how much you trust Osprey but from what I've read in "Roman Legionary 58BC-AD69" it would seem that the height preference and criteria changed, quite understandably, depending on the region, for example, in Northern Europe the height requirments and definitions of too short would change, whereas in other regions where men were a bit smaller, the height requirement would lower.

Generally speaking, all martial arts conversations asside and hypothetical super blows and what not, a bigger man typically is more intimidating and will win in a scrap, a smaller man can win if he is well trained and armed, a big man is a good target for missle weapons.

I guess when it comes to Roman warfare you should be big enough, strong enough fit enough and couragous enough to be able to hold a line and stab and slash efficiently.

[Frostwulf]

As far as the information given in Osprey I never had any qualms with them. I have read 4 and thought they were good but real basic. And for the rest of your statements viking I agree with you.

[the_handsome_viking]

To attempt to resserect this thread.

From De Bello Gallico.


To this Ariovistus replied, that "the right of war was, that they who had conquered should govern those whom they had conquered, in what manner they pleased; that in that way the Roman people were wont to govern the nations which they had conquered, not according to the dictation of any other, but according to their own discretion. If he for his part did not dictate to the Roman people as to the manner in which they were to exercise their right, he ought not to be obstructed by the Roman people in his right; that the Aedui, inasmuch as they had tried the fortune of war and had engaged in arms and been conquered, had become tributaries to him; that Caesar was doing a great injustice, in that by his arrival he was making his revenues less valuable to him; that he should not restore their hostages to the Aedui, but should not make war wrongfully either upon them or their allies, if they abided by that which had been agreed on, and paid their tribute annually: if they did not continue to do that, the Roman people's name of 'brothers' would avail them naught. As to Caesar's threatening him, that he would not overlook the wrongs of the Aedui, [he said] that no one had ever entered into a contest with him [Ariovistus] without utter ruin to himself. That Caesar might enter the lists when he chose; he would feel what the invincible Germans, well-trained [as they were] beyond all others to arms, who for fourteen years had not been beneath a roof, could achieve by their valor."

Perhaps the Germans do deserve something of a status boost. The question for me though is what would the standard equipment of Ariovistus's army have been?

[Sarcasm]

In 14 years of campaign in rich Gaul? I'd say very well equipped.

[the_handsome_viking]

In 14 years of campaign in rich Gaul? I'd say very well equipped.

They definitely wouldn't have fought in the what I'd describe as the bare minium kit of a Germanic warrior, that being a shield, possibly with a shield boss and a few frame.

I'd imagine lots of superior Celtic equipment being used. Longswords, Longer shields, various types of helmets and undoubtably a few with chainmail.

[Sarcasm]

A lot of the higher chieftains would undoubtedly have Celtic equipment, by importing, stealing or having been gifted it by their employers. We know the Germans already copied things like spearheads and shields, so I figured they'd be armed just like a well equipped Celtic army.

Oh, and let's not forget the horsies.

[the_handsome_viking]

A lot of the higher chieftains would undoubtedly have Celtic equipment, by importing, stealing or having been gifted it by their employers. We know the Germans already copied things like spearheads and shields, so I figured they'd be armed just like a well equipped Celtic army.

Oh, and let's not forget the horsies.

Did you deliberatly call them horsies?

[Sarcasm]

I figured if we have a whole thread devoted to you taking a picture of a cute bunny, I'd get away with saying "horsies".



























:clown:

[Watchman]

On a bit different topic, you know how the current Hundaskaspiz are a placeholder ? I've just been thinking if there were not a better placeholder solution possible, to represent them being the pick of the common warriors of the tribe rather than the nobility and their role as "point man" shock troops. Would it seem like a feasible idea to make them use some suitable "commoner" skin/model (say, Frameharjoz, as those are basically the standard "universal troopers" of the Sweboz), amp the stats, lower the base size to something like 30, muck around with the prices, and slap the "command" trait on the unit - essentially making them a Germanic version of the Casse "hero" units, what now far more humbly armed ?

Just a thought.

[NeoSpartan]

I figured if we have a whole thread devoted to you taking a picture of a cute bunny, I'd get away with saying "horsies".



























:clown:

u guys........ need to get out some more

[the_handsome_viking]

I figured if we have a whole thread devoted to you taking a picture of a cute bunny, I'd get away with saying "horsies".



























:clown:

What thread?

[blitzkrieg80]

CAN WE NOT QUOTE EMPTY SPACE? It is quite annoying to need to scroll down for no good reason, especially for OT nonsense... Just don't quote a huge block of nothing. Seriously, don't do it.

Model space/skin usage determines much of how the future units will look, but as it turns out i have decided on the Hundafulkan using the same model as the Baldrōz ("Bold ones" or "Heroes"). Lightly armored, spear being their primary weapon... although i'm not quite sure if i want to use an axe or sword for secondary, both being problematic for them.

[Frostwulf]

Perhaps the Germans do deserve something of a status boost. The question for me though is what would the standard equipment of Ariovistus's army have been?

In 14 years of campaign in rich Gaul? I'd say very well equipped.

They definitely wouldn't have fought in the what I'd describe as the bare minium kit of a Germanic warrior, that being a shield, possibly with a shield boss and a few frame.

I'd imagine lots of superior Celtic equipment being used. Longswords, Longer shields, various types of helmets and undoubtably a few with chainmail.

A lot of the higher chieftains would undoubtedly have Celtic equipment, by importing, stealing or having been gifted it by their employers. We know the Germans already copied things like spearheads and shields, so I figured they'd be armed just like a well equipped Celtic army.

According to John Warry "Warfare in the Classical World" on pg.161 he list's number of soldiers as:
Caesar: 21000 Legionaries plus Gallic horse (4000) and other auxiliaries
Ariovistus: Germans tribal levy en masse (from community of 120,000); includes 6000 horse-men with 6000 footmen and 16000 light infantry.

He doesn't go into detail of the troop make up other then making the distinction of light infantry. It seems of the 22000 troops, 6000 of them had decent armor. That of course is pure speculation on my part. But it is also worth noting of the arms and armor of the TCA, roughly 50 years earlier.


On a bit different topic, you know how the current Hundaskaspiz are a placeholder ? I've just been thinking if there were not a better placeholder solution possible, to represent them being the pick of the common warriors of the tribe rather than the nobility and their role as "point man" shock troops. Would it seem like a feasible idea to make them use some suitable "commoner" skin/model (say, Frameharjoz, as those are basically the standard "universal troopers" of the Sweboz), amp the stats, lower the base size to something like 30, muck around with the prices, and slap the "command" trait on the unit - essentially making them a Germanic version of the Casse "hero" units, what now far more humbly armed ?


Model space/skin usage determines much of how the future units will look, but as it turns out i have decided on the Hundafulkan using the same model as the Baldrōz ("Bold ones" or "Heroes"). Lightly armored, spear being their primary weapon... although i'm not quite sure if i want to use an axe or sword for secondary, both being problematic for them.
I think both of you guys have good idea's on this. There are things I would still like to see for the Germans though.
Cavalry:I would like to see a heavy cavalry unit, not well armored but high attack and a high skilled defense. Perhaps a noble cavalry along the same lines as the heavy cavalry with better armor.

Infantry: An increase to morale to most of the units. Perhaps an increase in attack and defense to some of the units?

I did a few tests with some units and some things that surprised me. The Heruskoz lost to the Batacorii every time. According to the stats on the cards this shouldn't have happened. The Laecha (Gaul) were also prone to losing against Frameharjoz. Is there another way to gauge a units stats other then doing tests unit vs unit or the cards? The cards are not portraying the stats as I would expect them to. I also don't have enough time to test unit vs unit.
I also tests on Cohors Imperatoria vs Solduros and both were of equal soldiers, not units (300men each). The Solduros won. If I went unit on unit the Cohors won.
I don't agree with the idea that its ok to have Celt elite units stronger then their Roman counter parts. The excuse that they have fewer in number, have less soldiers,cost more and are rare still doesn't matter. I still believe the Soduros,Rycalwre and etc. should have slight reductions and bring them at best on par with the Cohors Reformata. Reduce the Cost of these Celt elite units and make them more available.
One other idea, increase the morale for the Batacorii. The Belgae where known for their bravery and according to the cards they are average Celt morale. Also increase the morale of the veteran Cohors Evocata should be increased.
Again Im going by the cards on morale so I very well could be wrong on how this works.

[Watchman]

Personally, I prefer looking up the stats in export_descr_units.txt. Pretty much the only thing you don't see there is the units' movement speeds (which are governed by what skeletons they've been defined to use in descr_model_battle.txt).

[blitzkrieg80]

rather than messing with stats that already seem to work, I think it would be cool to have more regionals, such as a Cimbri, or Rugi variants... The Wōdanezharīz is a Harii regional now of the Lugii, so no worries for anyone missing the berserkr-like guy, but he's been reconceptualized as a cultist of Wodan, no wolf about him, just good ole ecstatic "inspiration" of the god of change (wind/travel) himself.

[Frostwulf]

Thanks for the info. Watchman.

rather than messing with stats that already seem to work, I think it would be cool to have more regionals, such as a Cimbri, or Rugi variants... The Wōdanezharīz is a Harii regional now of the Lugii, so no worries for anyone missing the berserkr-like guy, but he's been reconceptualized as a cultist of Wodan, no wolf about him, just good ole ecstatic "inspiration" of the god of change (wind/travel) himself.
The only reason I would like to see the stat changes is that I think they are off historically. I really like the idea of regionals, there are many things that can be done with that. Also is there still better cavalry in the works?

[Watchman]

Off and off. I would think that stats that have the Germanic tribal levies the virtual equals of the Celtic warrior class (bar the effects of armour later) were downright generous.

[Frostwulf]

Off and off. I would think that stats that have the Germanic tribal levies the virtual equals of the Celtic warrior class (bar the effects of armour later) were downright generous.
The Germans should be superior to them. From the post Viking put down, De Bello Gallico. say's that the Germans defeated their nobility(elites),cavalry etc. not to mention this:

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

[Redmeth]

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

I don't mean to be rude but that's like the 100th time you quoted that line, we got the picture, don't you also have more sources?

And also, Caesar's campaigns are just a moment in time when perhaps the Celts were in decline and the German warriors that rode with Caesar were veterans of elite status and probably very well equipped from all the raiding, can you generalize this to every single German tribesman that picked up a weapon?

[blitzkrieg80]

Well if we increased the morale/training of German units it would have to be higher end units, since it's ridiculous for any levy/low class to be very good against professional warriors, and the cost would increase tremendously, because that's how the system works... so i don't think that's a solution.... on the other hand, if we pick some units to make more elite since the Harii unit has been taken away as a region-wide elite unit, that might be much more do-able and realistic...

yes, a Brihentin reskin is something I plan on having implemented as a post-reform expensive companion cavalry. At the moment there is no way to get another cavalry unless we can figure out another faction's model we can reskin. Anybody know of any other factions who have Germanic-looking at all cavalry?

[Frostwulf]

I don't mean to be rude but that's like the 100th time you quoted that line, we got the picture, don't you also have more sources?
Unless I misunderstood Watchman he is saying that the German tribal units being on par with the Celtic warrior class is generous seems to say that he thinks the Celts should be stronger. I put this quote down for a reminder of what others had said. As far as sources for the subject of 71BC-50BC I'm using James,Warry,Speidel,Goldsworthy,Sidnell for the most part but also some from Todd and one quote from Wolfram. Sorry if this isn't enough sources, I actually have been looking for others that go in depth on this area.


And also, Caesar's campaigns are just a moment in time when perhaps the Celts were in decline and the German warriors that rode with Caesar were veterans of elite status and probably very well equipped from all the raiding, can you generalize this to every single German tribesman that picked up a weapon?
From what I gather from the above authors the Celt's were not on a decline until the coming of the Germans and Romans. The German cavalry from varying tribes were just tough, even before they rode with Caesar. I don't generalize saying the Germans were well equipped. The Germans in general were not very well equipped and neither were the ones that routed Caesars cavalry or the ones that destroyed the Menapii. Even though the Germans were not well equipped for the most part they managed to defeat the Celts consistently.

[Frostwulf]

Well if we increased the morale/training of German units it would have to be higher end units, since it's ridiculous for any levy/low class to be very good against professional warriors, and the cost would increase tremendously, because that's how the system works... so i don't think that's a solution.... on the other hand, if we pick some units to make more elite since the Harii unit has been taken away as a region-wide elite unit, that might be much more do-able and realistic...
All I'm saying is that most of the Swaiut have an 11 morale and it should be a little more then their Celt counter parts who also have an 11 morale. I am by no means saying the German Swaiut units should be able to take on elites on equal terms and win. I am saying that the German mid line units should be able to beat the Celt mid line units consistently.


yes, a Brihentin reskin is something I plan on having implemented as a post-reform expensive companion cavalry. At the moment there is no way to get another cavalry unless we can figure out another faction's model we can reskin. Anybody know of any other factions who have Germanic-looking at all cavalry?
Glad to hear that.:beam:

[Watchman]

Frosty, I think you're forgetting that there is IRL far more to winning wars and battles than the calibre of soldiery - as indeed many an EB player knows as well, especially if they like playing factions near the Grey Death... :beam:

Frankly, it is quite likely that all other things being equal a random member of the Celtic warrior class was a better fighter than the equally random German tribesman. This is suggested already by the simple difference in the time both could dedicate to combat training (given that both got engaged in small-scale raids on a regular basis) - the difference between a specialist and a part-timer.

My bet is that where the Germans were superior (eventually anyway) was tactics, "what the weak use to overcome the strong" as it's also been described. The shieldwall, which they appear to have been very fond of but which was apparently rather rare among the Celts, is basically the formation for multiplying the fighting power of not-so-well-armed or -trained troops; part-time militias fighting in such fashion regularly proved themselves the match of even quite high-calibre troops, assuming enough confidence and a passable degree of arms and skill. The individual tribal warrior may well have been outmatched by his better-trained Celtic opponent, but there was a lot of the tribesmen - certainly a deeper pool than of the Celtic specialists - and mutual support and cohesion, the raison d'êtres of the shieldwall, very much make a battlefield formation unit more than the sum of its parts.

It is also entirely possible that they lucked out in terms of leaders. A sufficiently capable commander could regularly win battles that lesser leaders would almost certainly have lost, and in the right circumstances tear an empire apart. Given the issues the Celts had with their fighting manpower pool I doubt if it would have taken too many bloody routs in the hands of a capable German war chief or few to leave them so weak that even if the original "great leaders" died off the balance of power would have been irrecovably skewed in favour of the encroaching Germans.

[blitzkrieg80]

Wow, I like that train of thought concerning tactics, Watchman, because ususally people argue how stupid barbarians were in comparison to Romans/Greeks, and although the shieldwall (described as phalanx by Caesar) was used, nobody really points out how effective and brilliant it was until medieval times when in fact it is along the lines of the best you can get, the legion and phalanx being the ultimate derivatives of a shieldwall... it's funny that in the Civil War even people still stood in lines- brilliant! :applause:

*How's this idea guys... what if there were some better accessible +command or +morale traits for German family members, which would make their performance not a SURE thing, but dependable on the general and situation?

[Caratacos]

Thanks Watchman, you said what I have been trying to say this whole time... but was unable to in such a succint and well articulated way. I completely agree with you here :2thumbsup:.

[blitzkrieg80]

I must add that any argument that the Celts were better warriors because they had more time to devote to training doesn't exactly have support, because both had a warrior aristocracy... So neither (of them) had an advantage in quality or training, just real world factors like arms/armor. One might argue that Tacitus said so and so, but that is hardly proof... Tacitus may be the only source concerning the time, but he calls them "Germans" for Christ's sake, something that is a fact that they never called themselves unless it was to explain their identity to their retarded neighbors- that's evidence enough to say he's full of it... Distinct grave sites found with greater riches does not prove anything either, other than those noblemen had more wealth... it's just a simple fact that the lower classes do farming and grunt-work, and it's really doubtful that the upper classes would participate for personal fun. Cultures who have drastic changes in their infrastructure as proposed by an egalitarian-to-aristocracy switch would then have traces of that change and difference in their oral culture... there is no evidence of that concerning Germanic culture, in fact, the culture shows itself to be very solid and steady... the few linguistic changes which happen are in terms of kingship because of their unique curbing of that power, but otherwise... loan-words for trade from Romans, so we know they didn't have a money-market system... what else? they borrow the word for a byrnie mailcoat...

[Frostwulf]

Frankly, it is quite likely that all other things being equal a random member of the Celtic warrior class was a better fighter than the equally random German tribesman. This is suggested already by the simple difference in the time both could dedicate to combat training (given that both got engaged in small-scale raids on a regular basis) - the difference between a specialist and a part-timer.
I agree with this statement, barring wars and things being abnormal. The elite Celts and Germans would be better for the reasons you gave. The difference for the average German tribesman is from what I understand is he trained but he may not have had the practical experience of training in groups nor real experience in raids.Things of course change when it comes to wars or major raids.

My bet is that where the Germans were superior (eventually anyway) was tactics, "what the weak use to overcome the strong" as it's also been described. The shieldwall, which they appear to have been very fond of but which was apparently rather rare among the Celts, is basically the formation for multiplying the fighting power of not-so-well-armed or -trained troops; part-time militias fighting in such fashion regularly proved themselves the match of even quite high-calibre troops, assuming enough confidence and a passable degree of arms and skill. The individual tribal warrior may well have been outmatched by his better-trained Celtic opponent, but there was a lot of the tribesmen - certainly a deeper pool than of the Celtic specialists - and mutual support and cohesion, the raison d'êtres of the shieldwall, very much make a battlefield formation unit more than the sum of its parts.

It is also entirely possible that they lucked out in terms of leaders. A sufficiently capable commander could regularly win battles that lesser leaders would almost certainly have lost, and in the right circumstances tear an empire apart. Given the issues the Celts had with their fighting manpower pool I doubt if it would have taken too many bloody routs in the hands of a capable German war chief or few to leave them so weak that even if the original "great leaders" died off the balance of power would have been irrecovably skewed in favour of the encroaching Germans.
These are as usual, logical statements. Here is something to back up your hunch. I have to paraphrase Caesar here but when he was addressing his troops he talked about how sneaky the Germans were and thats why they beat the Celts. Also Caesar did call Ariovistus a good leader and from what I read he was.
Now here are the reasons why I don't think it was just tactics or good leadership. The Celts were very well versed in battle field formations as represented at Telemon, Alesia and others. Caesar talks of pinning Celt shields together with pilum just before they clash with the Romans. So they did have close formation tactics.
The Battle of Magetobriga in which the Aedui were to come to an end was a pitched battle. It was the 15000 German merceniaries that won the battle. From here the Germans go on to subjugate the Sequani.
When Caesar talks of the Germans being sneaky its because of the morale of Caesars troops. Allot of Caesars junior officers were getting worried at the tales the Celts were saying of the Germans. Caesar had to down play the Germans as well as up lift his own men for morale's sake. At the Battle of Magetobriga Ariovistus was in charge of his own men but to my knowledge not the leader of the battle.
The Celts told tales of these well trained savage men who were superior to all (that is before Caesar came though) in arms. The Celts and the Romans feared the Germans as it is mentioned many times. You also have to take into consideration Caesars comments like what he said of the German cavalry and also his 3000 German foot soldiers used against Pompey. Caesar talks of the valor and ferocity of the German troops.
Take a look at some of the battles between the Germans and the Celts. The Germans destroyed the Menapii, The 800 cavalry already talked about routing the 5000 Roman/Celtic cavalry.


Thanks Watchman, you said what I have been trying to say this whole time... but was unable to in such a succint and well articulated way. I completely agree with you here
I think your selling yourself short. I for one understood what you were saying and for the most part agreed with you. I just think the soldiers do make more of a difference then you give them credit for. I really think Caesar would have failed if he didnt have the quality of troops he had with him.


I must add that any argument that the Celts were better warriors because they had more time to devote to training doesn't exactly have support, because both had a warrior aristocracy... So neither (of them) had an advantage in quality or training, just real world factors like arms/armor.
I agree with you here except for the quality of the warriors. I believe the German warrior to be superior. Why do I believe this, because allot of the ancient authors and people who lived and saw these things said so, including the Celts themselves.

One might argue that Tacitus said so and so, but that is hardly proof... Tacitus may be the only source concerning the time, but he calls them "Germans" for Christ's sake, something that is a fact that they never called themselves unless it was to explain their identity to their retarded neighbors- that's evidence enough to say he's full of it... Distinct grave sites found with greater riches does not prove anything either, other than those noblemen had more wealth... it's just a simple fact that the lower classes do farming and grunt-work, and it's really doubtful that the upper classes would participate for personal fun.
I wouldn't dismiss any of the ancient authors out of hand for misunderstandings they had. You are correct though that the only time the Germans of this period referred to themselves as Germans instead of their tribal names was for the understanding of the Romans and others.

[Frostwulf]

Why is it that allot of you on these forums think that the Celts should be as powerful as they are in respect to units? Why is it ok to have Celt elite units higher then there German counter parts not to mention the Romans!

[Watchman]

The differences between the Celt and Sweboz elites stem primarily from the level of equipement carried, which obviously is purely a factor of resources and as such has nothing to do with the warriors themselves. Complaining about that is roughly akin to complaining about the Roman heavy infantry being better armoured than most "barbarian" equivalents.

Didn't we already go this over once, anyway ?

As for the Romans, please keep in mind the differences in the whole underlying military philosophy. The whole point of the Celtic system was the creation of mighty warrior-heroes; anyone who reached the elite status was quaranteed to be one hard case indeed. The Romans, conversely, were soldiers in the modern sense; their whole way of war was based on iron discipline, seamless teamwork and well-practised drill. The actual skill of the individual soldier was somewhat secondary to his "moral fibre", ability to carry out orders posthaste and operate as part of his unit. A veteran or elite soldier produced by such system is not so much a better warrior as that much better a cog in the war machine - better able to carry out his orders and hold his nerve in the face of often quite extreme adversity.

Moreover, looking at the stats I don't really see where the Roman high-end infantry - Antesigniani, Evocatae, Praetorians (who incidentally are AFAIK statted a bit wrong, and should have a bit more armour) - are supposed to be meaningfully inferior to their Celtic peers. Anything but. They're more or less matched in stats actually, and both the Evocatae and Praetorians come in meaningfully larger units (base size 50) than the high-end Celtic units while the Antesigniani (who are not actually line troops anyway) have equal numbers. And man for man the Romans are cheaper. Oh, the 0.225 lethality of the Celtic longswords certainly beats the 0.13 of the gladius, but I'd imagine the nasty AP pila more than compensated.

[Caratacos]

These are as usual, logical statements. Here is something to back up your hunch. I have to paraphrase Caesar here but when he was addressing his troops he talked about how sneaky the Germans were and thats why they beat the Celts. Also Caesar did call Ariovistus a good leader and from what I read he was.
Now here are the reasons why I don't think it was just tactics or good leadership. The Celts were very well versed in battle field formations as represented at Telemon, Alesia and others. Caesar talks of pinning Celt shields together with pilum just before they clash with the Romans. So they did have close formation tactics.
The Battle of Magetobriga in which the Aedui were to come to an end was a pitched battle. It was the 15000 German merceniaries that won the battle. From here the Germans go on to subjugate the Sequani.
When Caesar talks of the Germans being sneaky its because of the morale of Caesars troops. Allot of Caesars junior officers were getting worried at the tales the Celts were saying of the Germans. Caesar had to down play the Germans as well as up lift his own men for morale's sake. At the Battle of Magetobriga Ariovistus was in charge of his own men but to my knowledge not the leader of the battle.
The Celts told tales of these well trained savage men who were superior to all (that is before Caesar came though) in arms. The Celts and the Romans feared the Germans as it is mentioned many times. You also have to take into consideration Caesars comments like what he said of the German cavalry and also his 3000 German foot soldiers used against Pompey. Caesar talks of the valor and ferocity of the German troops.
Take a look at some of the battles between the Germans and the Celts. The Germans destroyed the Menapii, The 800 cavalry already talked about routing the 5000 Roman/Celtic cavalry.

This all makes complete sense. The Gallic armies were no stranger to battlefield tactics or manuovers-- which at no point does Watchman deny. Also it does not contradict Watchman's argument-- that the Germans used superiour tactics (possibly even an innovation made and used by Ariovistus himself--? my idea) and that it was this fact that contributed considerably to their victories. Among other things.


I agree with you here except for the quality of the warriors. I believe the German warrior to be superior. Why do I believe this, because allot of the ancient authors and people who lived and saw these things said so, including the Celts themselves.

Well if the attribute of "sneakiness" can be used for propagandic purposes could not the attribute of "martial prowess" be used in the same way? To explain defeats such as that in A.D 9...? As did those Gauls who were defeated by Ariovistus and co. You have selected the meanings that best suit your argument here... which is still valid, but noted.

Clearly the Germans were capable warriors but in no ancient source have I specifically read that "German warriors are superior to Celtic warriors". And even then I'd seriously question their reasoning.

But this argument does seem to be going around in circles... perhaps we should agree to disagree?

Either way I think that the stats will stay the same unless by some finding of new evidence... which is... unlikely.

Also I'd just like to add that it has been a very informative and enjoyable discussion :yes:

[Watchman]

Heck, the German tactical formations weren't even necessarily inherently superior to the Celtic ones. Put this way, the Germanic tribal-levy spearmen may well have fought in shieldwalls because they had to in order to compensate for their relatively poor equipement and training, particularly against well-equipped and -trained opponents like the Romans and the Celtic warrior class, whereas the better-trained and more confident Celtic longswordmen could afford - and for that matter probably needed - to fight in more open order. Of course the Celts had their share of spearmen better suited for close-packed ranks and the Germans their mobile loose-order shock infantry as well...

Their warlords may just have eventually worked out the best ways to get the most out of the troops at their disposal, to which the at that point rather frazzled Celts were not able to respond in time.

[the_handsome_viking]

Well if we increased the morale/training of German units it would have to be higher end units, since it's ridiculous for any levy/low class to be very good against professional warriors, and the cost would increase tremendously, because that's how the system works... so i don't think that's a solution.... on the other hand, if we pick some units to make more elite since the Harii unit has been taken away as a region-wide elite unit, that might be much more do-able and realistic...

yes, a Brihentin reskin is something I plan on having implemented as a post-reform expensive companion cavalry. At the moment there is no way to get another cavalry unless we can figure out another faction's model we can reskin. Anybody know of any other factions who have Germanic-looking at all cavalry?

What becomes quite clear about the Roman accounts of the Germans is that though they often lacked the resources to produce the equipment that their enemies could afford, they made up for in inginuity and tactics, and that a dence shield wall and phalanx, as well as somewhat bold and unconventional anti cavalry measures, night raids and long speared cavalry charges were definitely things these people were use to implimenting in battle.

Just one quick question though, why dont gastiz and what not have helmets?

[Watchman]

Maybe they think it unmanly to wear one ?

[the_handsome_viking]

Maybe they think it unmanly to wear one ?

I can see the arguments for them wanting to show their lovely hair, but they don't really have long hair.

Why go to all the effort of having that lush equipment and not at least wear a basic helmet?

[Watchman]

Why do the Gaesatae go nekkid ? Maybe they want to show their disdain of the enemy's weapons or something. I've read Persian warrior nobles did that at one point too.

[the_handsome_viking]

Why do the Gaesatae go nekkid ? Maybe they want to show their disdain of the enemy's weapons or something. I've read Persian warrior nobles did that at one point too.

Because a flapping penis flying towards you attached to a muscle man with a sword and shield is a bit more intimidating than some guy whos armed to the teeth with good chain mail and a sturdy sheild, overarmed fighting spear and well made sword whos wearing trousers boots and a cape, yet with no helmet to protect his head.

Also the Gastiz seem to be equipped better because they have managed to get gear from their conquests. I don't see why a logical professional fighting man wouldnt sooner or later realize that the head is quite importent if they want to survive.

[the_handsome_viking]

From what I have read though in general, it seems that the average German was a bit tougher and probably much more used to fighting in dence formation than the lower end Celtic warrior.

I think where the Celts however outdid the Germans was in their arms and armor and they were probably wealthier in general, and though wealth doesn't obviously produce good results, it can be helpful for encouraging men to train on a regular basis.

[Watchman]

Hey, don't ask me to understand the often somewhat crackpot thinking of ancient warrior elites. They more often than not had a seriously strange brew of odd magical and symbolic stuff going, not rarely with pure machismo thrown in. The results could be some rather counterintuitive practices.

I'm just offering guesses as to possible explanations. Didn't the Dacians also often fight bareheaded to demonstrate their bravery and scorn of death to the gods ?

[the_handsome_viking]

Hey, don't ask me to understand the often somewhat crackpot thinking of ancient warrior elites. They more often than not had a seriously strange brew of odd magical and symbolic stuff going, not rarely with pure machismo thrown in. The results could be some rather counterintuitive practices.

I'm just offering guesses as to possible explanations. Didn't the Dacians also often fight bareheaded to demonstrate their bravery and scorn of death to the gods ?

Well I think in the case of the Germanic unit im talking about it would be more a question of why the model designer chose not to give them helmets. They are one of my favorite units by the way.

A lack of armor can be for mobility it can also say that you're not afraid, it can also obviously have religious significance, it can also be to simply make your fellow soldiers recognize you on the battlefield, sort off like medieval heraldry. Many german helmets had openings in them to allow their hair to hang through.

I just think the more professional and experienced a warrior becomes, the more economic they become and practical they become, There are Celtic units such as the solduri that exhibbit this, better armor, less likely to run headlong into a fight, they don't have much to prove, they are already super elites.

[blitzkrieg80]

helms are almost useless and much more valuable because of their rarity compared to a mailshirt because of their relatively useless aspect... think about it, if you get hit in the head with a sword, you're dead with a helm or not... THUS if any Germanic warrior had resources it was spent on body protection which is a much larger target and has a greater chance of survival from a blow. by this logic they did not need, want, or use helms, which makes more sense than any mass-production of a dumb helmet which gets in your way and does nothing, it was a total waste of metal... those who DID have nice metal helms among the Germanics were truly important men, this is the origin of the Germanic crown.

the only reason other cultures use helms is their excess of wealth, not because they work... even today the only reason helmets work is because of the invention of shrapnel-like warfare... a classic example is Star Wars, where the storm troopers run around in full armor but still die by the simplest pistol shot, so what is the point in wearing armor? there isn't any.... mailshirts can block arrows easily though, so they can be quite valuable in that respect, but an arrow can still go into your eye with a helm.

now, the Reformed Hearth-troop should have helms because they have greater access to resources, but otherwise only leaders would have them and highly important ones at that.

words such as Old English cynehelm, Old High German chuninchelm "crown" give us insight into this, as well as Tacitus' account "a few have a breastplate, one or two at most a metal helmet," as well as the persisence of this tradition for quite some time, as seen in illustrations of the Utrecht Psalter, where groups of warriors are without helm and leaders are generally with helm.

[Watchman]

Uh - helmets were usually the first pieces of defensive gear warriors made a point of aquiring after a shield you know. They cost pennies compared to body armour. People were generally aware of the importance of the old brainbox, and the skull only goes so far for protecting the squishy innards. A decent helmet was quite often literally the difference between life and death, as it deflected or slowed down stuff that would otherwise have ventilated your cranium, all the more so as due to considerations of visibility the degree to which you could defend the noggin with a shield was somewhat restricted.

[blitzkrieg80]

uh, only by weak warriors... i don't see how you can defend the ability of a helm to block any decently perfomed blow... like plenty of policemen will tell you they'd rather have a helmet than a kevlar vest? brainbox aside, mathmatical probability was known through common sense

[Watchman]

A rounded, smooth, padded metal shell stops and deflects a whole lot thank you very much. And way more than your poor skull by its lonesome certainly. Not the really hardcore stuff - direct hits from heavy axes and maces for example - of course, but keeps your noggin intact against lighter weapons, glancing hits, arrows etc. by far better than nothing.

And that's just simple light "skull caps". Once the armourers get creative you find stuff like the later-end Roman helmets, Medieval "great bascinets" (a larger helm worn over a smaller one), visored helmets with optional extra armour plates and cleverly articulated "folding" face defenses... and that just in the European context.

Modern military gear has no bearing on the issue. Just as a little reminder tempered steel armour was still a valid defense against rifles in 1870.

[blitzkrieg80]

modern military gear as i describe has nothing to do with it, its the idea of common sense... the reason policemen use vests is the larger area/target, it's mathmatics, probability, common sense... it's true that helmets are cheaper, but body armor would still be preferred by any warrior... another factor is the fact that mailshirts can be reused if damaged, so they can be taken off of the battlefield, where early helmets weren't exactly "patch"-able... i am no metalsmith, but it would have to be reworked right, especially more so than rings on mail?

heres some evidence for you:
"h&#230;fd him on earme eorla &#254;rītig hildegeatwa, &#254;ā hē tō holme stāg" (Beowulf 2361-2362, Mitchell & Robinson 1998),
which I translate "had with him in arm the battlegear of thirty noblemen, when he went into the sea" which is in reference to a failed sea-raid on Friesland (Netherlands) where Beowulf's king Hygelāc is killed in battle and he retreats with booty in hand... the term "battlegear" in this context (as well as in ON ger&#240;, OHG garawida) is meant to imply a mailshirt, a rather large/thick stack ~;p there is no mention of helms, because even a warrior who can carry 30 mailshirts can't possibly swim with helmets that don't compact/ fold together ~;) but more importantly, the tradition was that the mailshirt was more important and more easily plunderable

another thing is that a true warrior would rather have a sword than a helmet for the amount of resources involved... the helmet was in wide use among cultures who had extra resources or had such crappy body armor that it was considered of comparable value

[Sarcasm]

That is certainly not an universal preference. I've got plenty of examples of people going deliberately for helmets instead of metal armour, though you are right in the sidearm. Most do prefer a sword instead of a helmet, though you can still find some examples that are an exception to that general rule.

[the_handsome_viking]

helms are almost useless and much more valuable because of their rarity compared to a mailshirt because of their relatively useless aspect... think about it, if you get hit in the head with a sword, you're dead with a helm or not...

I don't agree. Some weapons would be better suited for this objective than others, but I think it's safe to say that if helmets didn't protect peoples heads at least to a fairly high extent, nobody would bother wearing them. Now axes I can understand, the falx I can understand but general sword blows? no, most likely any decently made helmet will protect your head from the glance or strike of a sword blow, Besides, we know for a fact that some Germans wore them and they most definitely started wearing them more and more as soon as they got access to more resources.


THUS if any Germanic warrior had resources it was spent on body protection which is a much larger target and has a greater chance of survival from a blow. by this logic they did not need, want, or use helms, which makes more sense than any mass-production of a dumb helmet which gets in your way and does nothing, it was a total waste of metal... those who DID have nice metal helms among the Germanics were truly important men, this is the origin of the Germanic crown.

Absolutely, as it said in the Germanic warrior, but it also says that it could withstand glances from swords. But lets face it, sooner or later one will realize that a helmet is vital because the human skull just isn't that sturdy on its own. Tacitus points out that they wore both leather caps and helmets when they had the chance, the prominent Germanic warriors undoubtably wore helmets, probably more for a symbolic factor than a defencive factor but when it comes to a heavily armed and equipped Germanic unit, why not wear helmets? they had the money and resources to have them and we know that during the Migration Period the Germans did get access to more materials and undoubtably did start producing more and more in terms of arms and armor, including helmets.

I can understand the importence of identity on the battlefield and how men being men obviously enjoy having their lovely long hair seen to all but really, helmets are good and any seasoned warrior Germanic or not would sooner or later realize the value of the helmet.


the only reason other cultures use helms is their excess of wealth, not because they work... even today the only reason helmets work is because of the invention of shrapnel-like warfare... a classic example is Star Wars, where the storm troopers run around in full armor but still die by the simplest pistol shot, so what is the point in wearing armor? there isn't any.... mailshirts can block arrows easily though, so they can be quite valuable in that respect, but an arrow can still go into your eye with a helm.

Yeah but you can still get hit in the neck wearing mailshirts, so why wear mailshirts? obviously theres always room for danger in most mass produced armor and this really didn't ever stop being a problem until full plate armored soldiers started to show up where really the only major defence against them was the gun, the warhammer, the club and the crossbow to some extent, obviously a helmet being a helmet will add yet another layer of protection to your skull. Theres enough re enactment guys out there that have had swords glance off their helmets to know that the helmet obviously works.



now, the Reformed Hearth-troop should have helms because they have greater access to resources, but otherwise only leaders would have them and highly important ones at that.

I totally understand the correlation between lack of helmets of the Germans and lack of resources, but in the case of the Gastiz, they have resources, why not wear a helmet?



words such as Old English cynehelm, Old High German chuninchelm "crown" give us insight into this, as well as Tacitus' account "a few have a breastplate, one or two at most a metal helmet," as well as the persisence of this tradition for quite some time, as seen in illustrations of the Utrecht Psalter, where groups of warriors are without helm and leaders are generally with helm.

Yes, and the reasons for this are a combination of factors such as warrior status and resources within the Germanic territories, what I've always admired about the Germanic people was that they made do with really what they had and still gave the premiere civilizations a run for their money, heck they eventually beat them, but I really don't agree that a helmet is essentially a useless piece of equipment and really don't see why Gastiz being soldiers for hire by trade who have had access to good equipment, wouldn't just end up wearing a helmet.

[blitzkrieg80]

WHAT?! Come on, of course men who can lift 30 mailshirts and carry them, swimming from the Netherlands to Sweden is a universal... can't everyone do that? ~;)

Watchman, i appreciate your detailed elaboration of the advantages of a helm.... even if i don't agree with their actual effectiveness against a large degree of force

well of course i agree that helms were used by Germanic warriors, because there is no reason NOT to take advantage of something, but it wasn't a high priority compared to swords and mailshirts... my extreme opinion is to reinforce that it's not as useful as you guys keep trying to say they are... i'm sorry it's simply wrong to say that any helm of 270BC can save someone's life from a good sword to the head... where is the logic in that? come on... that's just silly... are we speaking of lame-ass swords or what? a good sword is a good sword and it's whole purpose is that it can go through mail even, nonetheless a dinky 270BC helm.... yes glancing blows would be deflected and a helm is better than nothing, of course, but helmets are as useful as bracers and leg armor, which is NOT very useful...

Handsome, your point was that "if they didn't protect, then nobody would wear them" and that is RIGHT... just because "civilized" men wore helmets that doesn't justify their use... and just because "barbarians" didn't wear them that doesn't mean they aren't effective, but if we use common sense and think about how much force is in a sword blow and the fact that the sword is sharp, i think it's safe to say that the helm might as well not be there... why would anybody use swords unless they worked? glancing blows don't even necessarily kill unarmored men- that's the definition of the term... by increasing the probability of survival through extra pieces of armor, a warrior does his job which is kill more by not dying and living to kill more, but that doesn't change the grim reality of certain death if you're head gets hit by a decent weapon (as in not a crappy arrow which 'glances'). Like in modern times, the helmet is almost ONLY useful at protection from missles...

the leather skullcap found on the Tollund Man, as Sarcasm loves to point out, and i love to hear mentioned, is a good example of how helms were used by Germanic tribes, but they certainly weren't considered important... it would be an extra... any Celtic helm in earlier times, and Roman helms in later times would have been used if found or acquired intact... so ACTUALLY that is a good argument for why mailshirts were actually developed and made locally by Germanics even if borrowed technology because otherwise there should be more helms and there isn't...

of course there are always exceptions to the rule, but that's why helms are portrayed the way they are with the Germanics..... Sarcasm and I agree actually that there should be more leather skullcaps, but i REALLY don't want to see another weird red cap... that makes me want to kill myself it's so ridiculous and the sad thing is that nobody wants it in the game and yet it's been in the build for over a year or more without anybody taking it out :wall: so i would prefer NOTHING as opposed to Attack of the Shriners

[Watchman]

The Celts wore helmets. And while they were certainly more 'civilized' than contemporary Germans, they're normally ranked as "barbarians" by the same observers.

Anyway, swords are kinda sucky at cutting through metal. Mail stops most blades pretty much cold, although heavy blows may still impart enough blunt trauma to make that a cold comfort (the heavy Medieval "mail-killer" war swords worked on this principle AFAIK; probably falchions too). The pointy stuff, and "mass" weapons like axes and maces, does way better. Solid angled metal surfaces are worse - plate armour, remember ? A good helmet is essentially plate spot protection for the head, and will tend to bounce most hits - and the solid ones will still lose about all their energy cutting and deforming the metal, probably never reaching the head itself in the first place nevermind now through the ubiquitous padding (layered textile and such being also pretty good a stopping blades, and kinetic energy too).

Heavy blows from heavy weapons to the head are so dangerous not so much because they were actually necessarily all that better at actually getting through the helmet, but because their sheer kinetic energy can cause concussions right through it and because the spine isn't all that strong at the neck. Dying of a broken neck despite the helmet having by and large stopped the blow sort of sucks.

Also, your assessement of the supposed uselessness of helmets against about anything but missiles is most definitely not supported by either the archeological or written record, nor practical experiments made on the subject.

And as mentioned, helmets are ultimately very cheap compared to metal body armour. Just about any decently equipped warrior could in most times afford one, but things like long swords and body armour are an entirely different story. The bit about Beowulf clearly misses this. Mail took a very long time to make and was thus very expensive; ergo, it was also very valuable, "the battlegear of noblemen", and being also very useful would obviously be prioritized quite highly for looting. Heck, victorious armies normally made a point of diligently stripping dead foes of their armour and recycling the stuff is possible - often the only way many warriors could get their hands of decent armour anyway. The Bayeux Tapestry casually presents few such scenes. And the only reason the grave-pits of Visby yielded such useful amounts of period armour is the fact the victors left the field in pursuit in the immediate aftermath of the battle, and when they returned few days later the bodies were no more in a lootable condition due to the summer heat...

[the_handsome_viking]

WHAT?! Come on, of course men who can lift 30 mailshirts and carry them, swimming from the Netherlands to Sweden is a universal... can't everyone do that? ~;)

Don't you think there was something somewhat homo erotic about beowulf eventually beating up basically a big snake by giving it a death cuddle?


Watchman, i appreciate your detailed elaboration of the advantages of a helm.... even if i don't agree with their actual effectiveness against a large degree of force

well of course i agree that helms were used by Germanic warriors, because there is no reason NOT to take advantage of something, but it wasn't a high priority compared to swords and mailshirts... my extreme opinion is to reinforce that it's not as useful as you guys keep trying to say they are... i'm sorry it's simply wrong to say that any helm of 270BC can save someone's life from a good sword to the head... where is the logic in that? come on... that's just silly... are we speaking of lame-ass swords or what? a good sword is a good sword and it's whole purpose is that it can go through mail even, nonetheless a dinky 270BC helm....

I would sort of assume that the whole purpose of the sword initially was just to hack people to bits and that anti sword armors developed much later. It's safe to imagine the possibility of the sword basically being an evolution of the more ancient axe which became superior to the axe due to the hacking efficiency, in short an axe runs the risk of getting stuck in a face or chest, a sword is more designed to tear right through the person with a longer connection reach than the sharp part of an axe.

From what I've read the evolution of the more narrow tipped longsword was a Frankish innovation and was a measure used to deal with chainmail, in short a fine tip can pick through the rings better and can therefore allow more damage to be done with a good thrust. I don't think the best way to deal with chain armor really has ever been to slice at it.

Now perhaps with enough velocity behind the strike a Celtic longsword will do a lot of damage to a helmet and mail shirt and shield, but in general strikes I think that the longsword wouldn't really do much other than give you a nasty bruise if it connects.

Though it's not the right thread to post it in, I've always been somewhat suspcious about the underpowered Celtic charge and the removal of that old jump up and swing down charge attack.


yes glancing blows would be deflected and a helm is better than nothing, of course, but helmets are as useful as bracers and leg armor, which is NOT very useful...

If someone runs up with a sword and swings hard enough they could split the helmet or crush the helmet that is indeed possible, but shield to shield combat with you both trying to basically scrape away at each other, I can see the mail shirt and the helmet coming in very handy.


Handsome, your point was that "if they didn't protect, then nobody would wear them" and that is RIGHT... just because "civilized" men wore helmets that doesn't justify their use... and just because "barbarians" didn't wear them that doesn't mean they aren't effective, but if we use common sense and think about how much force is in a sword blow and the fact that the sword is sharp, i think it's safe to say that the helm might as well not be there...

I can see there being a natural inclination for more experienced warriors to realize that a lot of their defence and safety measures don't really need to be there once they have fought enough to be comfortable in combat, perhaps even leaving the head unprotected would be a good way to lure your enemy into striking a particular area and basically taking them down as they make an opening.

But this is just guessing here, but obviously the more confident people get with fighting the more refined and at a glance, risky their strategies become. For example the Germanic strategy of basically appearing like a weak and easy target for cavalry and then waiting for the horses to get close enough before sliding under the horse and stabbing it in the gut then dispatching the rider. That was quite cunning. I'd also really love to see a unit like that in the game if its possible, that would be absolutly beautiful to see.

But yeah back to my point, the nature of a helmet will protect your head, it is just basically a slightly more elevated outer layer to protect the skull, typically designed in a way that it can deflect a blow and this reduce and disperce the velocity of the blow and avoid concentration of impact. In short a rounded pointy helmet will probably glance off a blow better than well, a helmet shaped like a bucket, unless its a very very well reinforced bucket which was likely the case of the famous sugarloaf helm, but even then that was often pointed at the top too.

Interestingly enough the reason why television were originally designed with a rounded screen, I KID YOU NOT, at least in the United Kingdom, was because the makers of televisions realized that people had a tendancy to throw things at their television, so by making the screen rounder it obviously would withstand a blow a lot more, infact believe it or not an older rounded screen tv will actually absorb a multitude of high impacts before eventually imploding. Interesting stuff.

But the same principle applies here, it's a combination of a hardened material, this being metal and a typically curved helmet shape in general that will make your head just a bit less of an easy target for an enemy weapon.

It is entirely possible to propose that the Germanic tribes were actually very organized when it came to warfare and their economic situation aka their lack of resources resulted in the development of a style of warfare that essentially made the most out of light equipment, for example the club, rather than seeming like a cheap desperation weapon, was simply a cost effective anti armor weapon that, as history has proven, could be used to take down cataphracts.

Perhaps Germans realized that clearer vision and superior mobility due to lighter equipment gave them an advantage over heavier armored foes that they couldn't really compete on equal terms with anyway in terms of heavy equipment, and therefore had a tendancy not to use helmets but in general, the helmet is a good piece of equipment and the Germanic people undoubtably started to make more and more helmets during the Migration Period.

It is I suppose slightly possible that at this time the Germans were undergoing maybe a process of becoming a little bit softer and maybe became more defencive in terms of their fighting philosophies, I mean, sliding under a horse and stabbing it at the last moment is pretty darned risky and is 100% ballsy. But I personally feel that their martial traditions would have been in tact and that all that had really changed was these people were opening up better trade routes and aquiring territories that gave them access to resources they had been needing all along and that is the reason why Germanic armor boomed later on.


why would anybody use swords unless they worked? glancing blows don't even necessarily kill unarmored men- that's the definition of the term... by increasing the probability of survival through extra pieces of armor, a warrior does his job which is kill more by not dying and living to kill more, but that doesn't change the grim reality of certain death if you're head gets hit by a decent weapon (as in not a crappy arrow which 'glances'). Like in modern times, the helmet is almost ONLY useful at protection from missles...

Well hypothetically a good stone, well aimed with enough velocity could take down a cataphract, but what is probable and what is possible are two different things. The higher the skill level the more they can squeeze out of a resource, that is true, but in general your average joe Isn't usually a super and really would probably be much more comfortable with a good spear or a war hammer or a crossbow and maybe some decent armor than basically just some cotton trousers, a cloak and a sling.

If you were an expert at dodging, of course armor will lose its importence but most people aren't experts and really the more layers of security you wrap around a man the higher the chances will be that he will be secure in battle and be confident enough to fight to his fullest capacity.


the leather skullcap found on the Tollund Man, as Sarcasm loves to point out, and i love to hear mentioned, is a good example of how helms were used by Germanic tribes, but they certainly weren't considered important... it would be an extra... any Celtic helm in earlier times, and Roman helms in later times would have been used if found or acquired intact... so ACTUALLY that is a good argument for why mailshirts were actually developed and made locally by Germanics even if borrowed technology because otherwise there should be more helms and there isn't...

of course there are always exceptions to the rule, but that's why helms are portrayed the way they are with the Germanics..... Sarcasm and I agree actually that there should be more leather skullcaps, but i REALLY don't want to see another weird red cap... that makes me want to kill myself it's so ridiculous and the sad thing is that nobody wants it in the game and yet it's been in the build for over a year or more without anybody taking it out :wall: so i would prefer NOTHING as opposed to Attack of the Shriners

I still want to see wolf hoods...

[Sarcasm]

On the Tollund man, the guy's a lowly man, with probably not much in the way of wealth so I figure that is a civilian hat, not a helmet. However it does prove a point that they did make stuff out of rigid stitched leather, and it can be a good alternative to say, going bareheaded if we want variety.

Now, on the helmets. A few ancient examples:




Against the broad swords of the Gauls, with which they aimed their blows at the enemy's head, he made his men wear smooth iron helmets, by which the swords were soon blunted, and broken; and because the Roman shield, which was of wood, was not proof against the stroke, he directed them to border it round with a thin plate of brass. He also taught them the use of the long spear; with which they engaged in close fighting, and receiving the blow of the sword on their shield, made their thrust with the spear. The Gallic iron was soft and poorly beaten; the edge of the sword was soon bent by means of the brass plate, and the weapon became unserviceable. By this improvement in their weapons, the Romans obtained a cheap and easy victory; many of the Gauls were cut to pieces, and the rest saved themselves by flight.




Knowing that the prowess of the barbarians lay chiefly in their swords, which they plied in true barbaric fashion, and with no skill at all, in mere slashing blows at head and shoulders, 4 he had helmets forged for most of his men which were all iron and smooth of surface, that the enemy's swords might slip off from them or be shattered by them. He also had the long shields of his men rimmed round with bronze, since their wood could not of itself ward off the enemy's blows. The soldiers themselves he trained to use their long javelins like spears,— to thrust them under the enemy's swords and catch the downward strokes upon them.

And there's plenty more. I just figured it was easier to to steal from Zak :beam:

You even have cases of pikemen in the 17th century, ditching a padded jacket or even a half-plate cuirass with tassels, because of the heat, and keeping their morrions.

[blitzkrieg80]

Also, your assessement of the supposed uselessness of helmets against about anything but missiles is most definitely not supported by either the archeological or written record, nor practical experiments made on the subject.

oh yeah, like what? or does everything in the world get to fall into the category of your side of the argument because that's convenient? please DO cite those scientific studies or practical experiments.

Theres a huge difference in helment technology between 270BC and 1600AD... I'm not saying medieval helmets are as useless, but you better believe that they aren't the same as anicent helmets, or were they just making crappy armor inbetween for fun?

Of course the Romans praise themselves for being defensive, that's nothing new, which includes attributing everything to their equipment. Now, I'd like to see a Celtic quote praising helmets in the same manner set during the EB era (not some late Irish account)... that would be much more convincing, since their ideology was based on heroic warfare and not equipment, so if they talked about it, it would actually mean something... otherwise, it's like using a information from a drunk about some type of alcohol, "Schnapps is the best" and then saying "aha! see he likes it"

Also, of course everybody uses things to their advantage, but that doesn't change what a thing is or how it's viewed by those people... Bows were not respected by the warrior class of the Germanics, besides being ineffective against armor, it was considered an unskilled weapon (a tool for practical use, rather than tool for war) like an axe and thus only the lowest classes used them, but that doesn't mean they weren't used... but to say that Germanics used bow and arrow, so thus they liked to use them, and that's completely wrong... it's just a matter of not being stupid enough to let the enemy have an easy advantage.

Sarcasm, you're right that Tollund man doesn't portray any kind of high quality leather helm, but as you said it proves they were used... very much unfortunately imo, in natual circumstances leather just doesn't remain to be found for modern archaeologists.

This is ridiculous to keep arguing further over... the question of WHY the Germanics didn't have helms in that period has been answered, but since I know some of you have to have the last word, go for it. I suppose we can find another topic to just endlessly argue over in circular logic, never giving ground, as the tradition seems to go...

[Watchman]

I'd think it said a whole lot the Romans copied Celtic helmet designs you know. Clearly, the latter didn't exactly scorn the things. Indeed if one were to make a guess from the more extravagantly decorated designs, and the detail the otherwise butt naked Gaesatae apparently kept their helmets on if they possessed one, they attributed a fair bit of importance to the metal pots.

One-piece high-quality bronze helmets go back to at least the Assyrians, and the Mediterranean didn't lack behind too much. The Romans were copying quality one-piece iron types from the Celts already before the shift to Common Era. The economic problems of the Late Antiquity led to the adoption of the cheaper built-up "spangenhelm" type from the East, which remained the European norm until around the 1200s AD or so after which metallurgy was again up to the challenge of monolith helmets. They may have started using them a bit earlier somewhere East though.

The sheer popularity of some kind of head defense, if nothing more than thickly rolled cloth wrapped around the head or a simple leather cap, would seem to me to quite overwhelmingly suggest the warriors of old in general valued their noggins pretty highly, and as armour design and use is a rather Darwinian field for obvious reasons I'd think it were not exactly far-fetched to assume they had good reasons to insist on some head covering.

As for empiric evidence, I don't think there's exactly a shortage of head defenses with varying degrees of battle damage from archeological finds, from which a fair lot can be deduced. Neither is there any great shortage of references to the defensive qualities of helmets in diverse surviving writings AFAIK. And people have crafted as-faithful-to-original-as-now-possible replicas of different helmet designs, and destruction-tested them with similarly faithful replicas of period weapons (the usual, not surprising, finding being that the things are a pain and a half to get through even in far more optimum conditions than an actual battle allows). There was for example this one time this one master of a weird Japanese swordsmanship technique that basically consists of cutting objects tried to cut through an accurate replica of a Medieval Japanese kabuto helm (the things are of "spangenhelm" construction in Western terms). Well, he did actually manage to inflict a real breach on the thing, but had the helmet been on someone's head the blade would never have gotten even close to his skull before it ran out of momentum...


From what I've read the evolution of the more narrow tipped longsword was a Frankish innovation and was a measure used to deal with chainmail, in short a fine tip can pick through the rings better and can therefore allow more damage to be done with a good thrust. I don't think the best way to deal with chain armor really has ever been to slice at it.It was actually a common Medieval European trend from something like the late 1200s or so onwards to start making swords with increasingly acute points. The reason was quite simply that mail was getting increasingly common, and trying to cut it with a sword mostly just damages the edge. Heavy blows with heavy blades being a bit different story, which is why there developed the "sword of war", a rather large and heavy version of the straight cutting sword. For example I've seen references to a surviving fragment of a Hospitaller training manual that recommends using the edge to hurt and distract the opponent, so you can finish him off with a thrust.

The actual mechanic is that the tip slips into an individual ring and then tries to burst it from the inside; and as the only further rings that need to be broken or displaced for the weapon to sink deep, the narrower the blade the less resistance it encounters. Similar if slightly different considerations apply to penetrating any armour - the old "force focused on small area" thing. The ultimate battlefield expression of this principle, as swords go, were probably the estocs (known under a very bewildering array of names in different languages), which were basically long, narrow, stiff iron bars tapering to a point. Most had no edge at all. Being rather specialised (the German and Swedish names for this type of sword translate roughly as "armour sticker"), they were normally employed as special-purpose sidearms and not primary weapons.

Conversely the problem with a sword cut against armour is just its wide impact area (the same which makes it useful against flesh); the force of the blow is spread and diffused widely and thus forcing a breach at any one point is difficult, and even if it is managed a lot of energy is spent on breaking the armour progressively further away from where the initial penetration was achieved to allow the blade to progress deeper. Axes largely avoid this problem due to having a rather smaller edge area, and due to their deliberately tip-heavy design generally have rather more force behind it.

[the_handsome_viking]

It was actually a common Medieval European trend from something like the late 1200s or so onwards to start making swords with increasingly acute points. The reason was quite simply that mail was getting increasingly common, and trying to cut it with a sword mostly just damages the edge. Heavy blows with heavy blades being a bit different story, which is why there developed the "sword of war", a rather large and heavy version of the straight cutting sword. For example I've seen references to a surviving fragment of a Hospitaller training manual that recommends using the edge to hurt and distract the opponent, so you can finish him off with a thrust.

That's basically what I said, though the Idea was around well before the 1200's and is undoubtably a reaction to the rise in the apperence of mail on the battlefield.


The actual mechanic is that the tip slips into an individual ring and then tries to burst it from the inside; and as the only further rings that need to be broken or displaced for the weapon to sink deep, the narrower the blade the less resistance it encounters. Similar if slightly different considerations apply to penetrating any armour - the old "force focused on small area" thing. The ultimate battlefield expression of this principle, as swords go, were probably the estocs (known under a very bewildering array of names in different languages), which were basically long, narrow, stiff iron bars tapering to a point. Most had no edge at all. Being rather specialised (the German and Swedish names for this type of sword translate roughly as "armour sticker"), they were normally employed as special-purpose sidearms and not primary weapons.

Conversely the problem with a sword cut against armour is just its wide impact area (the same which makes it useful against flesh); the force of the blow is spread and diffused widely and thus forcing a breach at any one point is difficult, and even if it is managed a lot of energy is spent on breaking the armour progressively further away from where the initial penetration was achieved to allow the blade to progress deeper. Axes largely avoid this problem due to having a rather smaller edge area, and due to their deliberately tip-heavy design generally have rather more force behind it.

Also the nature of chainmail being somewhat flexible and mobile in nature makes cutting it actually surprisingly difficult with just one or two hacks. It's much more logical to try and exploit the mechanics of chainmail by a good fine tipped thrust from a sword or spear that trying to hack it open.

[Frostwulf]

The differences between the Celt and Sweboz elites stem primarily from the level of equipement carried, which obviously is purely a factor of resources and as such has nothing to do with the warriors themselves. Complaining about that is roughly akin to complaining about the Roman heavy infantry being better armored than most "barbarian" equivalents.
Are not the elites of both Sweboz and Celt using the same equipment? Would they not have the mail coats,shields helmets and etc? Was it not mentioned of the TSA that they did indeed have such equipment? Wouldn't Ariovistus and his retainer's have the same equipment? If they have the same equipment why are the Celtic units better? Why are the Arjos (Arverni Guard) better and cheaper then the Gastiz and Hundaskapiz. For that matter why is the Hundaskapiz more expensive then the Gasitiz? (yes Im going by the cards again :wall: ) They guy who did the cards did a good job it's just hard to know the other things about the units that will make a difference.


As for the Romans, please keep in mind the differences in the whole underlying military philosophy. The whole point of the Celtic system was the creation of mighty warrior-heroes; anyone who reached the elite status was quaranteed to be one hard case indeed. The Romans, conversely, were soldiers in the modern sense; their whole way of war was based on iron discipline, seamless teamwork and well-practised drill. The actual skill of the individual soldier was somewhat secondary to his "moral fibre", ability to carry out orders posthaste and operate as part of his unit. A veteran or elite soldier produced by such system is not so much a better warrior as that much better a cog in the war machine - better able to carry out his orders and hold his nerve in the face of often quite extreme adversity.
Considering most of the battles in which the Celts and Roman took place were not based on individuals battling but groups of people battling shouldn't the ones who train as a unit and not an individual be better? You can see this in today's sports of teams of players who have lesser individual ability defeating those teams with greater individual skill because the first team plays as a team, while the second team does not(US "Dream Team" being defeated by a college team). The second team usually has its glory hounds and therefore the individual comes first the team is secondary. The Romans usually beat their opponents through discipline and tactics. You saying that a veteran or elite soldier produced by such system is not so much a better warrior as that much better a cog in the war machine - better able to carry out his orders and hold his nerve in the face of often quite extreme adversity, this is not all though.The experienced Roman soldier would be better at dispatching his enemies and would have learned to defend better, just as a veteran Celt or German would have.The Romans had their turn in rotation fighting on the front lines. Look at the exploits of the Legio X, these are the guys that were trying to tear the shields away from the Germans of Ariovistus, also the steadfast "brick wall" against others. The tenth was always the legion that pressed the battle through experience of working together and skill at arms. When the Sugambri attacked the Romans it was the veterans who banded together and fought their way through to safety, only to see 3 of their lesser experienced cohorts get annihilated.

Moreover, looking at the stats I don't really see where the Roman high-end infantry - Antesigniani, Evocatae, Praetorians (who incidentally are AFAIK statted a bit wrong, and should have a bit more armour) - are supposed to be meaningfully inferior to their Celtic peers. Anything but. They're more or less matched in stats actually, and both the Evocatae and Praetorians come in meaningfully larger units (base size 50) than the high-end Celtic units while the Antesigniani (who are not actually line troops anyway) have equal numbers. And man for man the Romans are cheaper. Oh, the 0.225 lethality of the Celtic longswords certainly beats the 0.13 of the gladius, but I'd imagine the nasty AP pila more than compensated.
The stats to me that are irrelevant in this is the cost and the number of soldiers in the unit. These should not be used as an excuse to make a unit more or less powerful in other areas. Cost should be used to balance things out. The attack, defense and morale(number of troops as well, but not to be used for balancing) on the other hand should be as historically accurate as possible. As far as the stats (again according to the cards) the Romans still end up on the lesser side, slightly less armor here, less morale there, less attack etc. Yes the stats are slight, but shouldn't they be in the Romans favor? If I'm wrong on the stats because of what I'm using please correct me.


Clearly the Germans were capable warriors but in no ancient source have I specifically read that "German warriors are superior to Celtic warriors". And even then I'd seriously question their reasoning.
Strabo says that the Germans are like the Celts in almost every way except more ferocious. While this is not an author the Gauls of the time did say " the Germans were a race of huge stature, incredible courage and skill with weapons".
These were the only ones of this era that I'm aware of though I do believe Caesar made some comparison of this sort.
Also there is this:
Goldsworthy “Caesar”-Throughout the Gallic campaigns German warriors consistently defeated their Gallic counterparts, each success adding to their fierce reputation. Pg.274 (sorry Redmeth, I know this is the 101st time)

Goldsworthy “Caesar” -“The tactics and the quality of the Germanic warriors usually gave them the edge over the Gaulish cavalry”. Pg 229


The quality of the Germanic warrior and the tactics are what count. Even if it was just the tactics, shouldnt this be represented in the unit stats?
Also I'd just like to add that it has been a very informative and enjoyable discussion
I agree

[blitzkrieg80]

Stabo's Germans were largely Celtic, as we've discussed with the Belgians, ect. The Greeks and Romans did not clearly have any idea of the peoples of the Germanic language... I'm more concerned with adding style and art to the Germanics, which has been largely ignored/forsaken because there is hardly any evidence during the EB time period (they simply were not simple), but the Germans should get some AP boost on their clubs which might actually be a large deciding factor for German warrior vs armored Celts and Romans... some basic leather armor for the "Proven" Spearmen (Dugunthiz/Framaharjoz) is being discussed as well, since surely they would have protected (and we have evidence of hardened leather use) their standard and most numerous unit, the "hoplite" of Germanic warfare... the "Hundred" I am considering getting rid of completely, because it was mentioned solely by Tacitus and later mentioned only because of Tacitus' work, and AFAIK (since there it is not perserved in any tradition) it was just a levy system, not an actual troop type, for instance, why has that not survived into Dark Ages/Germanic medieval accounts if it was so important? There should be some trace but there isn't, other than the tax system in England which points again to a levy/tax numbering/accounting system, as well as simply liking the number "hundred." Also, what would be different from the "Hundred" unit? They would be Spearmen and not much different from Dugunthiz... that whole concept is better represented in other units, which would to an advantage make more room for something else... it doesn't even have it's own skin yet... my point being no worries on their cost if they are gone ~:) Although I will keep in mind that anything similar to the Hundred/Gastiz should be cheap in comparison of the Celtic ranks, but many of the factors are part of a system, such as trained units cost more, just like different weapons always have the same stats regardless of skill level.

[Andronikos]

Very nice discussion. I think that Celts are very well done. They need only more types of "normal" infantry like the Kludacori (I believe they were in Easter preview). Adding more "supersoldiers" like Cordinau Orca (may preview) is only trying of patience of Sweboz fans. :beam:
On the other hand Sweboz need some champions: some good cavalry and heavier units. It would be good to make a reform for them because celtic strong units are available very late (in my Aedui campain I am close to victory and can only dream about Time of soldiers and sweboz units are a bit stronger than my pre-soldiers age warriors).
And perhaps Germans could have wolf-hooded berserkers before the reform as a counterpart to gaesatae. :beam:

[blitzkrieg80]

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

Well I recently invented a "shape-strong" trait which will exist where the Family Member "thinks" they're a shapeshifter as a berserkr or wulf-skin ~:) but that's the closest we'll get to cult warriors (other than the regional Harii) because the idea that they'd be available commonly or in large groups was more of a Norse tradition, although they certainly existed cross-Indo-Europe in smaller less known circumstances. Think in terms of local bands of men or gangs, where it's kind of a small elite club of badass insane warriors rather than a fieldable troop selection used on a whole army-scale.

[the_handsome_viking]

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

Well I recently invented a "shape-strong" trait which will exist where the Family Member "thinks" they're a shapeshifter as a berserkr or wulf-skin ~:) but that's the closest we'll get to cult warriors (other than the regional Harii) because the idea that they'd be available commonly or in large groups was more of a Norse tradition, although they certainly existed cross-Indo-Europe in smaller less known circumstances. Think in terms of local bands of men or gangs, where it's kind of a small elite club of badass insane warriors rather than a fieldable troop selection used on a whole army-scale.


Why not make them mercinaries or a unit that can only be recruited in certain areas or under certain religious conditions?

There may still be criticisms of the book but really, Speidel's Ancient Germanic Warriors still does give a fairly idiot proof list of potential units to be put into the the mod and could very well be used to solve the problem of Sweboz "underpowered" status.

Throughout this discussion one thing has become especially clear, the Germans were often very organized, very hardy, and it wasn't uncommon to see them fighting in a very disciplined way for example when Julius Caesar eventually expelled the Germanic ex-allied army though the Germans were the first to attack the fight was long lived and the second phase of the fight basically was up against an army adopting a more defencive strategy that once again, was a long fight that the Germans almost won, and even when the Romans won the fight the leader, Ariovistus had a small escape boat already set up to help him well....bugger off really, and though seemingly cowardly, does show a high degree of organization and planning.

Caesar himself did afterall point out that these men were highly disciplined.

My take on the situation, though I've probably said it before, is this, the Germans were highly tactical when it came to fighting, any notions of them being insane barbarians really have no grounding in fact, and in many ways one of the primary motivations of the Germans for becoming so tactical would have most likely been their lack of resources.

I propose that the creation of any new units for the Germanic factions should
not just be newly skinned units with alternate stats but actually set up and designed specifically to viewed as a tactical unit with a specific purpose in mind, as for implimenting these effectivly? thats a question of trial and error.

I've noticed that shield walls are possible with certain units that really didn't seem to be possible before so obviously you can edit the spacing of units, you can also make new animations for more complex fighting techniques and allowed these fighting techniques to be seen in all their glory.

One thing I would definitely like to see is Germanic horse stabber units with the required animations implimented (skidding to the ground and stabbing upwards) with the capacity to take down a horse if done correctly but also with a very high risk factor and lots of room forever, so that essentially what you have is, if high statused enough, you have something of a jack in the box unit that appears to be a lightly armed infantry type, the favorite targets of cavalry, that get lured into attacking them only to then have their horses gutted under them.

I'm not arguing that you guys can change the very nature of the game, but a few status tricks and a new group of animations could make this possible and look quite good, just a suggestion really.

[blitzkrieg80]

I agree with you, but delusion and superstition isn't necessarily reality, it can be argued that Caligula made his horse Consul as a tactful insult and statement of superiority. The Hamarammaz trait doesn't make a judgement, it just says he believes he's a shapeshifter, and explains that while troops have increased morale, he has less commmand and management because of his deranged state.
I like the idea of new units and conceptually/tactic-specific unique and interesting units, maybe you could elaborate further (such as Spiedel's list of units? i don't have the book or have read it) on the thread or by PM? Also certain formation density techniques and new animations sound very interesting, but I of course do not know what you're refering to specifically.

[Frostwulf]

Stabo's Germans were largely Celtic, as we've discussed with the Belgians, ect. The Greeks and Romans did not clearly have any idea of the peoples of the Germanic language.
I'm going to have to disagree with this statement.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/7A*.html
Were they 100 percent in the division of Lugii,Germani or Gaul, very doubtful. As far as Strabo read the names he puts down as German and those are the ones we call today German. On a side note I'm withdrawing the Germans being more ferocious then the Celts until I can find out who did say that, I don't believe it was Strabo. As for the rest of your statements Blitz they are interesting.


Adding more "supersoldiers" like Cordinau Orca (may preview) is only trying of patience of Sweboz fans
I wouldn't say its just a Sweboz issue, for me its a matter of realism.

On the other hand Sweboz need some champions: some good cavalry and heavier units. It would be good to make a reform for them because celtic strong units are available very late
I like it!

And perhaps Germans could have wolf-hooded berserkers before the reform as a counterpart to gaesatae
I don't believe there would have been enough "berserker" type people around to make such a unit, at least in the Viking model.

Well I recently invented a "shape-strong" trait which will exist where the Family Member "thinks" they're a shapeshifter as a berserkr or wulf-skin but that's the closest we'll get to cult warriors (other than the regional Harii) because the idea that they'd be available commonly or in large groups was more of a Norse tradition, although they certainly existed cross-Indo-Europe in smaller less known circumstances. Think in terms of local bands of men or gangs, where it's kind of a small elite club of badass insane warriors rather than a fieldable troop selection used on a whole army-scale
Hmm like what I wrote above but better detail, I agree with you :yes:


There may still be criticisms of the book but really, Speidel's Ancient Germanic Warriors still does give a fairly idiot proof list of potential units to be put into the the mod and could very well be used to solve the problem of Sweboz "underpowered" status.
Personally I liked the book and thought it well written. My only problem was that I would have liked to have read where there were battles involving such units.

Throughout this discussion one thing has become especially clear, the Germans were often very organized, very hardy, and it wasn't uncommon to see them fighting in a very disciplined way for example when Julius Caesar eventually expelled the Germanic mercinary army though the Germans were the first to attack the fight was long lived and the second phase of the fight basically was up against an army adopting a more defencive strategy that once again, was a long fight that the Germans almost won, and even when the Romans won the fight the leader, Ariovistus had a small escape boat already set up to help him well....bugger off really, and though seemingly cowardly, does show a high degree of organization and planning.
I agree with this. Caesar and the elite tenth were pushing back the Suebi, but the Germans were pushing back the Romans on the other side.

Blitz why is the Celtic elite stronger then the German ones? Why is the morale of the Germans about the same when historically it should be higher? The Germans consistently defeated the Celts so why is there this disparity? I wont get into the Romans on this thread as they belong to the Celts overpowered thread.

[blitzkrieg80]

There is a stat system that applies no matter what... certain factions get certain things because of their situations, such as the Germans get free armor bonuses on non-armored units because of their general lack of armor and resources in order to balance them better, but otherwise everything is exactly the same for all spearmen, or all armored warriors, ect... I'm not saying it's a historical situation because the system is a system, if we wanted to be historical there would have to be specific bonuses and balances between every faction with every other faction and it's almost impossible to justify a certain culture is "stronger" or "more effective", so it's not really as great of a way of doing things as a straight uniform system... I can argue for an increase in the training/morale, ect but the cost goes up as well... the weapons and armor can be fiddled with a little bit, but mostly they're still restriced by historical resources... maybe I can argue for an increase in the formation densities and defensive skill as the best way to go, as many of you have mentioned, but many people will just argue they are strong enough, so it might be better to revamp the heavy units and make new ones and see if they fill the role of combating whatever heavy units the Celtics can field? I haven't had the chance to test the units myself, so i believe you guys when you say they're near equal or not as effective. I don't want the Germanics to seem inaccurately weak or backward/simple, but I don't want to reform a very solid and well designed system, nonetheless have the sway to do so if I wanted to... I can influence future changes and I can argue for logical exceptions for the faction such as some slight boosts, and maybe actually get it if i am very very lucky. So keep in mind that I am very aware of your suggestions and agree with them, but cannot make such changes overnight. Some units, such as the levies, should not be superior, they're emergency cheap resources plain and simple... not weaker, but not better.

[Moros]

I'm going to have to disagree with this statement.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/7A*.html
Were they 100 percent in the division of Lugii,Germani or Gaul, very doubtful. As far as Strabo read the names he puts down as German and those are the ones we call today German. On a side note I'm withdrawing the Germans being more ferocious then the Celts until I can find out who did say that, I don't believe it was Strabo. As for the rest of your statements Blitz they are interesting.

Well, Caesar said the Belgae and the Helvettii were more fierce/brave because they were closer (place) to the germans (de bello Gallico, the very first sentences). So you could say that it means indirectly that the germans would be more fierce than the average celt. However that's not a real waterproof statement.


Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur. Hi omnes lingua, institutis, legibus inter se differunt. Gallos ab Aquitanis Garumna flumen, a Belgis Matrona et Sequana dividit. Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae, propterea quod a cultu atque humanitate provinciae longissime absunt, minimeque ad eos mercatores saepe commeant atque ea quae ad effeminandos animos pertinent important, proximique sunt Germanis, qui trans Rhenum incolunt, quibuscum continenter bellum gerunt. Qua de causa Helvetii quoque reliquos Gallos virtute praecedunt, quod fere cotidianis proeliis cum Germanis contendunt, cum aut suis finibus eos prohibent aut ipsi in eorum finibus bellum gerunt. Eorum una, pars, quam Gallos obtinere dictum est, initium capit a flumine Rhodano, continetur Garumna flumine, Oceano, finibus Belgarum, attingit etiam ab Sequanis et Helvetiis flumen Rhenum, vergit ad septentriones. Belgae ab extremis Galliae finibus oriuntur, pertinent ad inferiorem partem fluminis Rheni, spectant in septentrionem et orientem solem. Aquitania a Garumna flumine ad Pyrenaeos montes et eam partem Oceani quae est ad Hispaniam pertinet; spectat inter occasum solis et septentriones.
Bolded text says something like this (translated freely and very fast):
Of all these the Belgae are the bravest, because the are the farthest from the cultivated and human (read: roman) provinces, and not the least because salesmen barely visit them which doesn't weaken (literally: wominizes) their spirits/minds and most important because they are the closest to the Germans.

The Helvetii are braver than the other (except for the Belgae) gauls because they battle 'daily' with the Germans, to defend their borders or even to fare (Is that the correct word in Enlgish) war in their (=Germans) territory.

EDIT: This may not be a perfect translation but you got the idea. (Note I have to translate to dutch first and then to English, so that leaves room for errors)

[the_handsome_viking]

I agree with you, but delusion and superstition isn't necessarily reality, it can be argued that Caligula made his horse Consul as a tactful insult and statement of superiority. The Hamarammaz trait doesn't make a judgement, it just says he believes he's a shapeshifter, and explains that while troops have increased morale, he has less commmand and management because of his deranged state.
I like the idea of new units and conceptually/tactic-specific unique and interesting units, maybe you could elaborate further (such as Spiedel's list of units? i don't have the book or have read it) on the thread or by PM? Also certain formation density techniques and new animations sound very interesting, but I of course do not know what you're refering to specifically.

I'd be more than happy to write down the units for you.

Would you like it to be in here? or in PM?

[The Wicked]

Well those guys dont seem to be underpowered :laugh4:
http://stevequayle.com/Giants/Artist.renders/Artist.renders.pics/giants_battle.lg.jpg

[blitzkrieg80]

damn! i'm gonna put that on my desktop- thanks ~:) you know, I knew EB was missing something... now the Germanic peoples will finally get some true historical representation- supersized :7wizard: i wonder if a mini-mod could be made to do that?? something like the big-head cheats used to be..... the very very sad thing is that website that hosts the beautiful artwork ACTUALLY believes in 36 feet tall giants whose remains were supposedly found... that's almost as bad as the Germanic tribes website that says the word Teutons comes from Tiw :no:

Moros, your translation is fine, pretty good if you ask me- i usually prefer true to meaning translations rather than artificial modern English anyways, but it was almost perfect for modern English regardless.

[Frostwulf]

First off Blitz, I would like to thank you for the time you take to respond to these threads and to all of the EB team that does spend much of their own time for the benefit of others by making this mod.


I can argue for an increase in the training/morale, ect but the cost goes up as well... the weapons and armor can be fiddled with a little bit, but mostly they're still restriced by historical resources... maybe I can argue for an increase in the formation densities and defensive skill as the best way to go, as many of you have mentioned, but many people will just argue they are strong enough
I personally don't mind if the cost goes up, I'm liking the idea of having the most historical units as possible. If the units cost more to balance out the game that is ok with me, perhaps others would disagree. I like your ideas here as that is what I believe to be historically accurate. What I am curious about is what the others could bring to counter this other than supposition. Is there any historical documentation or modern authors to counter the idea the Germans were defeating the Celts consistently or having a higher morale?


so it might be better to revamp the heavy units and make new ones and see if they fill the role of combating whatever heavy units the Celtics can field
The one thing that bothers me on this is that they might start to out strip the Romans which should not happen. As with the Celts, the Romans beat the Germans the majority of the time. That is why I didn't have a problem with the stats of the Gastiz.

However that's not a real waterproof statement.

I agree with you on this, there would have to be more. The reason I do believe that the Germans are more fierce is from the battles, the people of the time and their sayings as well as modern authors analysis of the situations.

EDIT: This may not be a perfect translation but you got the idea. (Note I have to translate to dutch first and then to English, so that leaves room for errors)
From the way I remember the translation that is pretty much on target as to what Caesar had written.

Well those guys dont seem to be underpowered
LOL

[Lowenklee]

Well those guys dont seem to be underpowered :laugh4:
...

That is truly the most hilarious picture I have seen in quite some time! But whats implied is hardly funny. I've abstained from continuing to post much in this thread because, in the absence of specific confirmation of a Sweboz reform, i'm not entirely sure what productiveness can be derived from doing so, but also because I often (perhaps wrongly so) suspect an emotional attachment by some to a highly romantic portrayal of Germandom...especially the notion that the Germans possessed a uniquely vigorous ferocity that afforded them a margin of military superiority. Unit elan is believable and documented but to categorically characterize the menfolk of a whole people as superiorly "fierce" strikes me as bit sentimental.

I'll give a modern comparison which perhaps reveals my own bias...

Where I am originally (southern Germany) from certain slavs have a similar reputation (specifically the men) ill tempered, fight loving, and hardy people. The people (typically older) who propagate this belief would claim that it's basis is first hand observation (this from people who largely have little personal experience with our slavic fellow europeans outside of wartime rememberences)...and perhaps it is a genuine cultural phenomenon...although I suspect it's the typical paranoia of an established and affluent people towards poorer "unruly" neighbors or a vestige of wartime hyper-rhetoric.
Anyway since the collapse of the Soviet Union many slavs have come to the region, many from poor underprivileged backgrounds, and many seem to behave in a way that (if taken with a preexistent bias) seems in support of this stereotype. But none of this, however accurate or inaccurate, changes the historic facts of my countries military involvement in eastern europe...an involvment best described as unequal in our favor.

Similarly many of us here are aware that the Romans possessed a certain fixation concerning northern europeans. The Romans were both compelled by the stature and fairness of complexion and horrified of the perceived incivility of these people. It almost seems to be a source of salacious amusement for the Romans to categorize the various "races" of barbarians by such stimulating traits as there nobleness and pride or equally excitingly their ferocity appetite for battle.

I think we must be very cautious in what motivations we allow our opinions to be informed by and proceed with an eye for realism rather than romanticism:beam:

Now keep posting those informative quotes and educate this poor slobs! :whip:


*edit*

picture attachment removed!

I should add, for the sake of honest disclosure, that I am in fact German...from the Schwabian alps to be exact. So my interest in seeing the Sweboz accurately represented is motivated by personal matters as well. Perhaps this is why i'm a little shy in proposing too much without a structure within which to work...I see enough in the local heimatsmuseum that defies objectivity regarding the local history to wish that upon this great mod. And yes, slavs are very interesting and diverse cultural group. Their increased presence has added much needed color and energy to the local area.

[blitzkrieg80]

I don't mean to be rude, but can we PLEASE- NOT quote huge images (or blank space), or otherwise every reply/quote post will have those images and it will fill up all the space instead of text... thank you

good post Lowenklee, I agree with those statements, Slavic peoples are very interesting also, especially how some seem to think they spontaneously generated because their identity is covered by other peoples whom they fought with or coexisted beside for so much of the Ancient era until the Dark Ages.
I would love to confirm the creation of a Sweboz reform, but unfortunately i have received no response on that, hopefully when other things are finished that will definitely be given the time and effort needed for implementation in the next public build.

[the_handsome_viking]

That is truly the most hilarious picture I have seen in quite some time! But whats implied is hardly funny. I've abstained from continuing to post much in this thread because, in the absence of specific confirmation of a Sweboz reform, i'm not entirely sure what productiveness can be derived from doing so, but also because I often (perhaps wrongly so) suspect an emotional attachment by some to a highly romantic portrayal of Germandom...especially the notion that the Germans possessed a uniquely vigorous ferocity that afforded them a margin of military superiority. Unit elan is believable and documented but to categorically characterize the menfolk of a whole people as superiorly "fierce" strikes me as bit sentimental.

I often joke with friends that one of the major ironies of history is really that Scandinavians basically produced some of the most vicious and effective warriors in history, but modern Scandinavians are observably extremely peaceful and friendly, they seem quite a jolly and happy people in general, to the point that it makes me feel very different in comparison, infact I've often called them elf people.

I'm not meaning to insult them when I say this, I have nothing but the upmost respect for the Scandinavians which I feel they deserve. They have extremely developed countries typically, and pretty much world leaders as far as technology is concerned.

Black metal is quite nice too.


I'll give a modern comparison which perhaps reveals my own bias...

Where I am originally (southern Germany) from certain slavs have a similar reputation (specifically the men) ill tempered, fight loving, and hardy people. The people (typically older) who propagate this belief would claim that it's basis is first hand observation (this from people who largely have little personal experience with our slavic fellow europeans outside of wartime rememberences)...and perhaps it is a genuine cultural phenomenon...although I suspect it's the typical paranoia of an established and affluent people towards poorer "unruly" neighbors or a vestige of wartime hyper-rhetoric.
Anyway since the collapse of the Soviet Union many slavs have come to the region, many from poor underprivileged backgrounds, and many seem to behave in a way that (if taken with a preexistent bias) seems in support of this stereotype. But none of this, however accurate or inaccurate, changes the historic facts of my countries military involvement in eastern europe...an involvment best described as unequal in our favor.

Here in the UK the stereotype of Slavic people seems to be that they are hardy people who are typically quite quiet and polite but will fight viciously if provoked, this is especially true of the men. The women are generally considered to be pretty and I suppose their is a stereotype that they are also slutty.

I've observed all of these factors other than the slutty one, but then again I think that British women typically are complete whores in general from what I've observed having lived my entire life in Britain and descended from British stock, so perhaps Slavic womens sexual behaviour maybe stands out a bit more in countries with women that don't have a tendancy to drink as much as men and what not.

Generally speaking though, I think that the Slavs are some of the hardiest folk on earth and I have a great deal of respect for the Russians and Poles in particular, I sort of feel like the vicious warfare of the Eastern regions has produced a people that had little or no choice but to become extremely hard and cunning and that is why Slavic people to this day are still typically reputed to be tough and cunning.

The German stereotype I've observed is usually that they are extremely intelligent, efficient, but a little bit cold and sometimes don't catch onto the humor of things very easily, there is also a stereotype of German males being somewhat flamboyantly dressed or having a tendancy to wear fairly expensive designer clothes.

All Kraftwerk jokes aside, I've observed a German tendancy for them to wear extremely expensive designer clothes that makes them stand out amongst a British population, especially in Scotland where people, especially chavs, are content to wear flurescent shell suits and burburry caps(depressing I know).

I guess what I'm saying is that the stereotype of German viciousness and perhaps a superiority in terms of being vicious could be founded upon a basic observable truth, they did afterall essentially win in the end. Or it could simply be that these people retained their more brutally practical Indo-European traditions the longest and therefore didn't fall into decandence like the Celts and Romans seemed to do towards the end.

It is a very interesting factor that Julius Caesar mentioned that many Celts had become soft because they had become too civilized, and in terms of political Geography, that isn't such a silly concept. The more centralized Celtic powers basically lived in a territory that their culture had ruled for ages, they were as I have said before, the major power in Europe at one point, and the political nature of the Celtic territories seemed to be one of a more low intensity ritualistic warfare, rather than total war. They also seemed to be generally good at diplomacy(for example the Helvetti managed to get through the territories of the Sequani with little difficulty) and they also seemed to be extensive traders, so the chances of them just becoming lavish businessmen and merchents and therefore less adept in terms of military ferocity, isn't so far fetched.

Perhaps the German people were fiercer in general.

There is a stereotype that Scottish people are extremely ferocious and violent and that they drink a lot, theres also a stereotype that they are generally quite witty, excentic and prone to overdrinking.

I can honestly say that all of those stereotypes are very much true.



Similarly many of us here are aware that the Romans possessed a certain fixation concerning northern europeans. The Romans were both compelled by the stature and fairness of complexion and horrified of the perceived incivility of these people. It almost seems to be a source of salacious amusement for the Romans to categorize the various "races" of barbarians by such stimulating traits as there nobleness and pride or equally excitingly their ferocity appetite for battle.

I think we must be very cautious in what motivations we allow our opinions to be informed by and proceed with an eye for realism rather than romanticism:beam:

Now keep posting those informative quotes and educate this poor slobs! :whip:


*edit*

picture attachment removed!

I should add, for the sake of honest disclosure, that I am in fact German...from the Schwabian alps to be exact. So my interest in seeing the Sweboz accurately represented is motivated by personal matters as well. Perhaps this is why i'm a little shy in proposing too much without a structure within which to work...I see enough in the local heimatsmuseum that defies objectivity regarding the local history to wish that upon this great mod. And yes, slavs are very interesting and diverse cultural group. Their increased presence has added much needed color and energy to the local area.

I have limited Germanic ancestry, but I'm interested in collective European cultures in general and want to see them portrayed accuratly. I think that popular view and historical stereotype don't always correlate to each other.

For example, there is a popular view that the Romans put down anything that wasn't Roman, and despite the fact that this obviously was the case at times, it was not always like this and the Romans, even the extremely adept ones like Julius Caesar, didn't hold back from complimenting their enemies at times. Interestingly enough a lot of the backing we have for the arguments that the Germans were typically well disciplined comes mostly from Roman sources, thats pretty interesting.

I think that the Romans too have suffered from modern stereotyping, they are typically seen as the polar opposite of barbarian passion and savagry, a cold, mindless, soldier robot, hiding in his dence formation and stealing victories from the individualistic barbarian. This stereotype just isn't the case, the Roman soldiers were very much as passionate and prone to commiting individual acts of glory as much as the barbarian peoples, they realized that formation, tactics and indurence training were the difference between victory and defeat obviously, but this didn't kill off their natural and healthy capacity to feel compelled to charge an enemy line and dispatch a few men. The Titus Pulo and Lucius Veranus examples are especially true in this case.

I'd imagine the stereotype of the Romans eventually was that they were greedy and war mad.

[Moros]

It is a very interesting factor that Julius Caesar mentioned that many Celts had become soft because they had become too civilized, and in terms of political Geography, that isn't such a silly concept. The more centralized Celtic powers basically lived in a territory that their culture had ruled for ages, they were as I have said before, the major power in Europe at one point, and the political nature of the Celtic territories seemed to be one of a more low intensity ritualistic warfare, rather than total war. They also seemed to be generally good at diplomacy(for example the Helvetti managed to get through the territories of the Sequani with little difficulty) and they also seemed to be extensive traders, so the chances of them just becoming lavish businessmen and merchents and therefore less adept in terms of military ferocity, isn't so far fetched.

Perhaps the German people were fiercer in general.
That would be possible. Ofcourse something like fiercness can't really be measured. But I think that in the eyes of caesar them Germans seemed more fierce.

Now about that "effeminandos animos" caused by the few Mercatori. Well I don't think it really has to do with these. I think that we agree that for example the Belgae (Nervii in particiular) are said to be fierce combattants, if not the fiercest of all Gauls. Well, if I recall correctly the Belgae were also master traders, which isn't that much known. Caesar apparantly didn't. So I don't think this logic of luxury produces weak men, is true or at least always true. If it's one thing the Romans envied the Gauls about it probably is their richeness. I mean the average Celt had more decorated cloths and stuff than the average roman of that era. I think it's just Caesar and other being somewhat influenced with some Stoïc ideas. However what is true is that we all know that the germans indeed must be hardy folks. (Most guys from that time were compared to us.) But Germans on average must be hardy, that doesn't mean that they would be fierce combatants, however the descriptions of germans fighting does give the impression they were. And Ibelieve they were. But then again I think most celts also were quite fierce.


For example, there is a popular view that the Romans put down anything that wasn't Roman, and despite the fact that this obviously was the case at times, it was not always like this and the Romans, even the extremely adept ones like Julius Caesar, didn't hold back from complimenting their enemies at times. Interestingly enough a lot of the backing we have for the arguments that the Germans were typically well disciplined comes mostly from Roman sources, thats pretty interesting.

That's true. I believe to remember that Caesar did complement Vercingetorix a few times. And I truely belive that C. did respect V. quite a bit. Tough we musn't forget that the Romans had other motifs to compliment their foes. If they got defeated, then the least you could do is state how big and strong you advissary was. It's less embarassing to lose a fight from a giant than to lose a fight from a midget. But then again it's also more glorious to win from a giant than from a midget. After battle it's always benefitial to claim that your advissary was strong. How many times did the romans say they beaten an amry of unbelievable size (litteraly unbelievable) with almost incredible (litteraly incredible) low casualties on their side? Many times, almost every time perhaps.
However I do believe Germans were disciplined and could form formations and everything. If you can learn animals how to walk in formation... Reallly even the dumbest of men can do that, and even the dumbest of man can realize that it's beneficial to do it. And the dumbest can certainly also copy those he encounters. The Germans weren't dumbest of men, they would be as smart as the averag Roman I guess, so they most certainly were able to this. And thus probably did.

[blank]

However I do believe Germans were disciplined and could form formations and everything. If you can learn animals how to walk in formation... Reallly even the dumbest of men can do that, and even the dumbest of man can realize that it's beneficial to do it. And the dumbest can certainly also copy those he encounters. The Germans weren't dumbest of men, they would be as smart as the averag Roman I guess, so they most certainly were able to this. And thus probably did.

I agree, a similar example is the Iberian peninsula tribes (barring some under Carthaginian influence, obviously): they were considered largely unorganized and unable to unite, yet they were a huge pain in the ass for any invader due to their ''unconventional'' tactics, which to me seem quite similar to those of the Germanics. Namely, the attitude of ''do whatever you need as long as you win'', but also the ambushing and fluid movement of their units, which seemed haphazard to their adversaries, but was, in fact, very coordinated.

IMO the general hardiness of the Germans could be compared to those of the earlier Spartans, in that defeat wasn't an option (barring the fact that Spartans were rather stuck in their archaic formations and etiquette, unlike the Germans).

About the (north)eastern people, there does seem to be a general attitude of ''sticking it to the man'', a good example is of course the Finns, who are rather fanatic about their independence at times. About the Balts, we're more similar to the western democracies than to the Slavs these days, but we're still quite adamant about our independence, you could even say ''nationalistic'' sometimes (mostly were certain foreign powers are concerned *cough*Russia*cough*), my guess is because of the waves of occupants and invaders we've had (Teutons, Swedes, Danes, more Germans, Russians, Germans again, and then some more Russians).

About the part of our women being good-looking, i can vouch for that :2thumbsup:

[Musopticon?]

We're just the best mix of genetic heritages this side of Earth.

*Mus is a Finn*

[LusitanianWolf]

Nice discussion, too bad is too big to make me read everything...



And perhaps Germans could have wolf-hooded berserkers before the reform as a counterpart to gaesatae
Thats an thing I would love to see here. I didnt played the sweboz in my early EB times just because there werent berzerkers. I'm playing now and loving, but I sttill feel the lack of them.


I don't believe there would have been enough "berserker" type people around to make such a unit, at least in the Viking model.
Why dont make very small units (like 30 or less in huge size) but with scare enemy troops, inspire allies, 2 or 3 hitpoints good stats and armour piercing? They should be more an psicological weapon than somethong else, I think.

Or at least do some kind of wolf hooded ambusher unit. Or put an warwolf units, like vannilla wardogs :clown: but I want to see any wolf thing on sweboz


One thing I would definitely like to see is Germanic horse stabber units with the required animations implimented (skidding to the ground and stabbing upwards) with the capacity to take down a horse if done correctly but also with a very high risk factor and lots of room forever, so that essentially what you have is, if high statused enough, you have something of a jack in the box unit that appears to be a lightly armed infantry type, the favorite targets of cavalry, that get lured into attacking them only to then have their horses gutted under them.
Wow, that should be very cool, can anyone do that?

[the_handsome_viking]

That would be possible. Ofcourse something like fiercness can't really be measured. But I think that in the eyes of caesar them Germans seemed more fierce.

Hypothetically it could be, it just has to be completely thoroughly defined and then have its root causes identified, then comparitive studies conducted.

As for the fierceness of the ancient Germans, we might not know that any time soon. I get the feeling that border warriors typically are fierce because they have to fight on a regular basis against invading cultures, so an overall Germanic fierceness might not be so common, but definitely the border Germans should be super feirce.


Now about that "effeminandos animos" caused by the few Mercatori. Well I don't think it really has to do with these. I think that we agree that for example the Belgae (Nervii in particiular) are said to be fierce combattants, if not the fiercest of all Gauls. Well, if I recall correctly the Belgae were also master traders, which isn't that much known. Caesar apparantly didn't. So I don't think this logic of luxury produces weak men, is true or at least always true.

Hypothetically, one could live in a state of absolute luxury, but if mentally disciplined enough, could keep themselves super combat ready, but more often than not the easier life gets the less hardy people become, like the skills of the hunder pretty much went into decline as soon as the farmer came along and eventually hunting was more of a sport than a needed method of survival.

Perhaps the Belgae were just one of these societies that had both luxury, wealth and extremely well thoughtout martial traditions.


If it's one thing the Romans envied the Gauls about it probably is their richeness. I mean the average Celt had more decorated cloths and stuff than the average roman of that era. I think it's just Caesar and other being somewhat influenced with some Stoïc ideas. However what is true is that we all know that the germans indeed must be hardy folks. (Most guys from that time were compared to us.) But Germans on average must be hardy, that doesn't mean that they would be fierce combatants, however the descriptions of germans fighting does give the impression they were. And Ibelieve they were. But then again I think most celts also were quite fierce.

I still think that parimiter Celts, islander Celts and Celtic elites should still be especially fierce and the warrior elites well equipped. I also think that what the Celts lack in general ferocity they should make up for in technological edge over the Germans. The Celts made quite significant contributions to ancient military equipment and this should not be overlooked.

I'm very tempted to suggest that perhaps more armoed or lightly armored units should be avaliable earlier on for the Aedui and the Arverni. Perhaps early dismounted nobles, or early dismounted warriors, because we know that at the starting period of the EB timeline that fully armored and helmeted, well equipped Celtic nobles did exist.

Perhaps their cavalry should also be boosted a little bit more, they were apparently quite effective.



That's true. I believe to remember that Caesar did complement Vercingetorix a few times. And I truely belive that C. did respect V. quite a bit. Tough we musn't forget that the Romans had other motifs to compliment their foes. If they got defeated, then the least you could do is state how big and strong you advissary was. It's less embarassing to lose a fight from a giant than to lose a fight from a midget. But then again it's also more glorious to win from a giant than from a midget. After battle it's always benefitial to claim that your advissary was strong. How many times did the romans say they beaten an amry of unbelievable size (litteraly unbelievable) with almost incredible (litteraly incredible) low casualties on their side? Many times, almost every time perhaps.
However I do believe Germans were disciplined and could form formations and everything. If you can learn animals how to walk in formation... Reallly even the dumbest of men can do that, and even the dumbest of man can realize that it's beneficial to do it. And the dumbest can certainly also copy those he encounters. The Germans weren't dumbest of men, they would be as smart as the averag Roman I guess, so they most certainly were able to this. And thus probably did.

Generally speaking it is always wise to not completely put down your enemy especially if they can beat you, but I think that the Celts and the Germans, for the Romans at least, were fairly tough foes, the latter eventually defeating them and inheriting the civilization.

[Moros]

Generally speaking it is always wise to not completely put down your enemy especially if they can beat you, but I think that the Celts and the Germans, for the Romans at least, were fairly tough foes, the latter eventually defeating them and inheriting the civilization.
Indeed but the Romans did almost always, if not always. And not a little bit either.

Also I agree with you that the Celts should get some more lighter infantry. I mean we all know there were a lot of heavy troops but we all know they were smaller in numbers. However reducing this by making all armoured troops avaible at the end of the game, isn't that great at all.

Also Hypothetically it is possible to...means it is isn't possible.

[the_handsome_viking]

Also Hypothetically it is possible to...means it is isn't possible.

Theres not much evidence to suggest that it's impossible to measure it, infact the more people understand about geneitcs the brain and human behaviour in general, the more we understand about people and the easier it becomes to quantifiy and measure various traits in humans.

Like I said it would just need a hard line definition of ferocity, then various tests conducted to see what parts of the brain or what genes typically produce ferocity, then its a question of the measurement of frequencies of these traits within a population to see what the measure of ferocity is. If its more cultural leaning its a question of seeing what cultural or enviromental stimulants induces the most ferocious reactions from people in general and then a similar data gathering process would be implimented and comparitive studies conducted to produce a list of ferocity rankings. Or method that includes both factors.

Generally speaking the nature of cause and effect and the basic fact that the human personality is essentially just a very complex survivalistic mechanism makes it entirely possible that we could basically measure every aspect of a person.

Science and psychology aren't quite there yet, but they are definitely making advances and that doesn't seem to be showing any signs of slowing down.

On the subject of the Celts however, I think heavier infantry should be avaliable earlier, though in smaller amounts, or perhaps only recruitable in certain regions because really, we know they existed and the peoples that adopted chainmail and what not must have seen it up close and personal enough in a high enough quantity for them to fee it was worth emulating.

[Moros]

I think that the Romans too have suffered from modern stereotyping, they are typically seen as the polar opposite of barbarian passion and savagry, a cold, mindless, soldier robot, hiding in his dence formation and stealing victories from the individualistic barbarian. This stereotype just isn't the case, the Roman soldiers were very much as passionate and prone to commiting individual acts of glory as much as the barbarian peoples, they realized that formation, tactics and indurence training were the difference between victory and defeat obviously, but this didn't kill off their natural and healthy capacity to feel compelled to charge an enemy line and dispatch a few men. The Titus Pulo and Lucius Veranus examples are especially true in this case.

I'd imagine the stereotype of the Romans eventually was that they were greedy and war mad.
vs.



Caesar singulis legionibus singulos legatos et quaestorem praefecit, uti eos testes suae quisque virtutis haberet; ipse a dextro cornu, quod eam partem minime firmam hostium esse animadverterat, proelium commisit. Ita nostri acriter in hostes signo dato impetum fecerunt itaque hostes repente celeriterque procurrerunt, ut spatium pila in hostes coiciendi non daretur. Relictis pilis comminus gladiis pugnatum est. At Germani celeriter ex consuetudine sua phalange facta impetus gladiorum exceperunt. Reperti sunt complures nostri qui in phalanga insilirent et scuta manibus revellerent et desuper vulnerarent. Cum hostium acies a sinistro cornu pulsa atque in fugam coniecta esset, a dextro cornu vehementer multitudine suorum nostram aciem premebant. Id cum animadvertisset P. Crassus adulescens, qui equitatui praeerat, quod expeditior erat quam ii qui inter aciem versabantur, tertiam aciem laborantibus nostris subsidio misit.

The ex consuetudine especially is interesting. That means it that the first thing they would do would be to form a "phalanx" not to charge. Which indicates that the "phalanx" not was something they did a few time, or occasionally, not even often, but rather as a rule.

[Moros]

On the subject of the Celts however, I think heavier infantry should be avaliable earlier, though in smaller amounts, or perhaps only recruitable in certain regions because really, we know they existed and the peoples that adopted chainmail and what not must have seen it up close and personal enough in a high enough quantity for them to fee it was worth emulating.
I agree completely.

Tough I still think you underrate the complexity of mother nature. ~:)

[the_handsome_viking]

vs.



The ex consuetudine especially is interesting. That means it that the first thing they would do would be to form a "phalanx" not to charge. Which indicates that the "phalanx" not was something they did a few time, or occasionally, not even often, but rather as a rule.

I'm not quite sure what the second paragraph said, nor what the "vs" meant.

[the_handsome_viking]

I agree completely.

Tough I still think you underrate the complexity of mother nature. ~:)

Not at all, I am afterall a product of the complexity of mother nature, with senses that allow me to navigate the chaos and seek to make sense of it.

I personally am quite optimistic about the intellectual powers of humans and believe that if humans can identify something in their universe, that chances are they can map it, measure it, quantify it and then exploit it to boost their own chances of long term survival.

Heart transplants, infrared, ultra violet tanning beds, the combunstion engine, wind power, the many uses of fire, various tools made from various metals, humans have a knack for innovating and exploiting their enviroment.

For example, the stone age solutreens of France, once they figured out the nature of certain rock types, would produce extremely sharp and effective flints through a flaking process realizing that applying pressure to the side of a stone at a key angle would cause it to fracture in flakes, and thererfore if you did that all over one edge methodically you would get a very sharp edge, and if you did this all round, you would produce an extremely sharp and dangerous flint.

I believe one day we will fully understand the personality and fully be able to measure it.

But thats a little off topic, but I suppose the whole EB thing is just an attempt to understand the nature of civilization anyway and really it says a lot about a species who find a great deal of fun to be had in playing games that revolve around economy building, army building and territory conquering, and fighting in general.

Perhaps those Solduri Celts should become avaliable sooner, also I'd imagine the Carnutes should also be more avaliable sooner seeing as they are essentially equipped like cavalry that we know existed 300bc and simply wear a specialized helmet type.

And dismounted nobles and people of the warrior class would have undoubtably worn body armor to some extent, nobles understandably would be more heavily armed but perhaps this is something that we should discuss in the Celtic thread.

[the_handsome_viking]

De Bello Gallico.

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


"caes.gal.6.24": [6.24] And there was formerly a time when the Gauls excelled the Germans in prowess, and waged war on them offensively, and, on
account of the great number of their people and the insufficiency of their land, sent colonies over the Rhine. Accordingly, the Volcae Tectosages, seized on
those parts of Germany which are the most fruitful [and lie] around the Hercynian forest, (which, I perceive, was known by report to Eratosthenes and
some other Greeks, and which they call Orcynia), and settled there. Which nation to this time retains its position in those settlements, and has a very high
character for justice and military merit; now also they continue in the same scarcity, indigence, hardihood, as the Germans, and use the same food and
dress; but their proximity to the Province and knowledge of commodities from countries beyond the sea supplies to the Gauls many things tending to
luxury as well as civilization. Accustomed by degrees to be overmatched and worsted in many engagements, they do not even compare themselves to the
Germans in prowess.

[Moros]

I'm not quite sure what the second paragraph said, nor what the "vs" meant.
The sentence in bold translated quickly and freely in English:

But the Germans quickly formed a phalanx out of habit/ like they always do (I can't find the right english expression) and holded the charge of the swords (= the romans swords).

That in contradiction to the idea/image of what a lot of people have about the germans being hordes of cavemen charging without thinking,...
+

The ex consuetudine especially is interesting. That means it that the first thing they would do would be to form a "phalanx" not to charge. Which indicates that the "phalanx" not was something they did a few time, or occasionally, not even often, but rather as a rule.

[Moros]

De Bello Gallico.

This may also validate some theories or reinforce some arguments that the Celts had fallen into decadance slightly or that the Germans were tougher fighters in general.
I'm going to look that up in latin cause this might be a first, but I think I'm going to understand the latin better than the english version. :skull:

[the_handsome_viking]

I'm going to look that up in latin cause this might be a first, but I think I'm going to understand the latin better than the english version. :skull:

How did the translation go?

[ElectricEel]

How did the translation go?
Your english is fairly good. There were a few minor mistakes ('excelled' -> 'exceeded', 'seized on' -> 'seized', 'worsted' -> 'bested'; 'I perceive' sounds strange and is redundant, though it probably sounds better in latin - in english, it should be 'I have heard/am told/have read', or not be there at all). Not knowing latin, I can't comment on the accuracy of the translation. It should be more understandable with better formatting (I believe that's the word?):


"caes.gal.6.24": [6.24] And there was formerly a time when the Gauls excelled the Germans in prowess, and waged war on them offensively, and, on account of the great number of their people and the insufficiency of their land, sent colonies over the Rhine. Accordingly, the Volcae Tectosages, seized on those parts of Germany which are the most fruitful [and lie] around the Hercynian forest, (which, I perceive, was known by report to Eratosthenes and some other Greeks, and which they call Orcynia), and settled there. Which nation to this time retains its position in those settlements, and has a very high character for justice and military merit; now also they continue in the same scarcity, indigence, hardihood, as the Germans, and use the same food and dress; but their proximity to the Province and knowledge of commodities from countries beyond the sea supplies to the Gauls many things tending to luxury as well as civilization. Accustomed by degrees to be overmatched and worsted in many engagements, they do not even compare themselves to the Germans in prowess.

[Moros]

How did the translation go?
Still needs to be done. Perhaps if I get in the mood I'll see if I can translate it this evening. lol.

[the_handsome_viking]

Still needs to be done. Perhaps if I get in the mood I'll see if I can translate it this evening. lol.

Lovely.

[ElectricEel]

Looks like I misunderstood. Sorry :clown:

[the_handsome_viking]

Looks like I misunderstood. Sorry :clown:

No problem.

[Frostwulf]

As for the fierceness of the ancient Germans, we might not know that any time soon. I get the feeling that border warriors typically are fierce because they have to fight on a regular basis against invading cultures, so an overall Germanic fierceness might not be so common, but definitely the border Germans should be super feirce.
It seems to me that the fierce label was applied to most Germans, even the ones that came later during the wanderings. This could of course be stereotyping by the Romans and others.

I still think that parimiter Celts, islander Celts and Celtic elites should still be especially fierce and the warrior elites well equipped. I also think that what the Celts lack in general ferocity they should make up for in technological edge over the Germans. The Celts made quite significant contributions to ancient military equipment and this should not be overlooked.

I personally don't have a problem with the Celts having a technological edge over the Germans, but the problem lies with the Germans being able to beat the Celts on a reasonably consistent bases.

I'm very tempted to suggest that perhaps more armoed or lightly armored units should be avaliable earlier on for the Aedui and the Arverni. Perhaps early dismounted nobles, or early dismounted warriors, because we know that at the starting period of the EB timeline that fully armored and helmeted, well equipped Celtic nobles did exist.

Perhaps their cavalry should also be boosted a little bit more, they were apparently quite effective.

I think this is a good idea. Give them better equipped units earlier and stronger cavalry to me would be fair. I do believe that the Celts started making Chain shirts as early as 300 BC.

De Bello Gallico.

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

Quote:
"caes.gal.6.24": [6.24] And there was formerly a time when the Gauls excelled the Germans in prowess, and waged war on them offensively, and, on
account of the great number of their people and the insufficiency of their land, sent colonies over the Rhine. Accordingly, the Volcae Tectosages, seized on
those parts of Germany which are the most fruitful [and lie] around the Hercynian forest, (which, I perceive, was known by report to Eratosthenes and
some other Greeks, and which they call Orcynia), and settled there. Which nation to this time retains its position in those settlements, and has a very high
character for justice and military merit; now also they continue in the same scarcity, indigence, hardihood, as the Germans, and use the same food and
dress; but their proximity to the Province and knowledge of commodities from countries beyond the sea supplies to the Gauls many things tending to
luxury as well as civilization. Accustomed by degrees to be overmatched and worsted in many engagements, they do not even compare themselves to the
Germans in prowess.
I'm going to do some supposition here and really don't have much to back this up with. I don't have a problem believing the Celts could have more prowess and valor over the Germans. The problem would be when and which Germans. I do not believe JC was talking of recent years when he made this statement. The reason I believe it to be long ago is from the things that happened in the history of this area. If you start with the TCA(around 120BC), for the most part the Gauls couldn't stop them (Boii repelled them and the Celt-Iberians after a few years repelled them). Therefore I don't believe the statement of the Celts prowess being greater would apply here. So could this statement apply to the time between 100BC and 71 BC? I'm thinking not because you still have the migrations of the Batavi,Chatti,Sugambri, and other Germanic tribes entering into the area of the Rhine. I would think that if this was the time JC was talking about then the colonies didn't even last a generation. I'm also sure that the Germans by 100BC had already entered into the Rhine area, and if so they pushed any Celts there out or absorbed them.
You could consider this statement to be pre 120 BC, but then you would have to deal with the Belgae. I believe the Belgae arrived in northern Gaul around 200-250 BC and therefore forcing their way into northern Gaul and eventually being "Celticized". So it is my assumption that the Celts that JC was referring to were before 250 BC and they were attacking the Germans that would have lived in the Rhine area at that time. On top of everything where was Caesar getting this information from. Most of the things that were happening in front of him he could write on with authority (perhaps biased) as he was there. But as far as the Celtic prowess over the Germans I'm thinking this had to be well before his time. We certainly know that the Germans of this time were superior in valor and prowess. Again I'll state at the moment I don't really have anything to back this up with.

[the_handsome_viking]

It seems to me that the fierce label was applied to most Germans, even the ones that came later during the wanderings. This could of course be stereotyping by the Romans and others.

I personally don't have a problem with the Celts having a technological edge over the Germans, but the problem lies with the Germans being able to beat the Celts on a reasonably consistent bases.

I think this is a good idea. Give them better equipped units earlier and stronger cavalry to me would be fair. I do believe that the Celts started making Chain shirts as early as 300 BC.

I'm going to do some supposition here and really don't have much to back this up with. I don't have a problem believing the Celts could have more prowess and valor over the Germans. The problem would be when and which Germans. I do not believe JC was talking of recent years when he made this statement. The reason I believe it to be long ago is from the things that happened in the history of this area. If you start with the TCA(around 120BC), for the most part the Gauls couldn't stop them (Boii repelled them and the Celt-Iberians after a few years repelled them). Therefore I don't believe the statement of the Celts prowess being greater would apply here. So could this statement apply to the time between 100BC and 71 BC? I'm thinking not because you still have the migrations of the Batavi,Chatti,Sugambri, and other Germanic tribes entering into the area of the Rhine. I would think that if this was the time JC was talking about then the colonies didn't even last a generation. I'm also sure that the Germans by 100BC had already entered into the Rhine area, and if so they pushed any Celts there out or absorbed them.
You could consider this statement to be pre 120 BC, but then you would have to deal with the Belgae. I believe the Belgae arrived in northern Gaul around 200-250 BC and therefore forcing their way into northern Gaul and eventually being "Celticized". So it is my assumption that the Celts that JC was referring to were before 250 BC and they were attacking the Germans that would have lived in the Rhine area at that time. On top of everything where was Caesar getting this information from. Most of the things that were happening in front of him he could write on with authority (perhaps biased) as he was there. But as far as the Celtic prowess over the Germans I'm thinking this had to be well before his time. We certainly know that the Germans of this time were superior in valor and prowess. Again I'll state at the moment I don't really have anything to back this up with.

I'm not sure if theres any confusion or anything like that but the reason I posted that quote was because bascially Julius Caesar was saying that there was at one point a time when the Celts were tougher than the Germans, however that in his time, the Germans had been long tougher than the Celts, and in many ways adding validity to the arguments on this thread that the Germans were generally tougher than the Celts.

[Frostwulf]

I'm not sure if theres any confusion or anything like that but the reason I posted that quote was because bascially Julius Caesar was saying that there was at one point a time when the Celts were tougher than the Germans, however that in his time, the Germans had been long tougher than the Celts, and in many ways adding validity to the arguments on this thread that the Germans were generally tougher than the Celts.
Thats the way I took your posting to be. I was just trying to surmise the statement of when the Celts would have (if at all) would have been tougher.

[the_handsome_viking]

Thats the way I took your posting to be. I was just trying to surmise the statement of when the Celts would have (if at all) would have been tougher.

They must have been fairly tough to have conquered the territory they did.

[Frostwulf]

They must have been fairly tough to have conquered the territory they did
I completely agree. It wasn't that they were just tough martially as attested by the land conquered but also the writings and the fear they generated in their enemies. The Celts were also as already mentioned were an ingenious people as shown by the arms,armor and artistic items produced. There are many things to admire in the Celts, in which the Romans for one copied from them. While I think the Celts out stripped the Germans in arms and armor, the superior prowess and valor I believe belong to the Germans.
In general I believe things to be like this:
Infantry: Romans>Germans>Celts
Cavalry: Germans>Celts>Romans
Siege: Romans>Celts>-

[dezzerx]

Hi, I've been lurking at this discussion for quite some time and I have read it with great intrest. There is just one question I have and that is why there wouldn't be enough "Berserkers" available to field a unit sizeable enought to be represented in the game while the Gauls seem to have no trouble finding Naked Fanatics?

Just something I was thinking about and since you guys seem to know history way better then me I thought this would be the right place to ask :P

Thanks

[Frostwulf]

Hi, I've been lurking at this discussion for quite some time and I have read it with great intrest. There is just one question I have and that is why there wouldn't be enough "Berserkers" available to field a unit sizeable enought to be represented in the game while the Gauls seem to have no trouble finding Naked Fanatics?

Just something I was thinking about and since you guys seem to know history way better then me I thought this would be the right place to ask :P

Thanks
I would love to have some type of berserker unit. The problem is that according to what I have read you find very few berserker's mentioned together in any of the old writings like the prose edda. I found a few references to body guards being made up of berserker's but this was rare to my knowledge. As far as the Naked Fanatics(Gaesatae) there are writings up groups of up to 30,000 of them fielded in armies. Telemon is a battle in which there were 15,000 Gaesatae, they became pin cushions by the Romans. From what I read on the Gaesatae, which basically entails the battle of Telemon I'm not very impressed with them. I know there is a tale of a Gaesatae pulling a pilum out of himself and continuing on to fight, though I can't recall where I read this. There are other stories like this among other tribes such as the Germans performing the fountain of Tyr.

[dezzerx]

Ah! Thanks learned something new yet again, thanks mate ;)

Btw, the fountain of Tyr is pretty hard stuff :D

[the_handsome_viking]

I completely agree. It wasn't that they were just tough martially as attested by the land conquered but also the writings and the fear they generated in their enemies. The Celts were also as already mentioned were an ingenious people as shown by the arms,armor and artistic items produced. There are many things to admire in the Celts, in which the Romans for one copied from them. While I think the Celts out stripped the Germans in arms and armor, the superior prowess and valor I believe belong to the Germans.
In general I believe things to be like this:
Infantry: Romans>Germans>Celts
Cavalry: Germans>Celts>Romans
Siege: Romans>Celts>-

I pretty much agree with all of that but I still think Celtic warrior caste members of both infantry and cavalry would have been pretty darned dangerous in general, especially if they belonged to a more resourcful tribe.

I've been looking a lot recently at Celtic helmet types across the Celtic territories and I can honestly say that I'm convinced that the manufacture of a standard issue-ish helmet must have occured, and that the personalization of things like armor was much less common than things like sword hilts.

One thing most artists will tell you is that when you are asked to make a helmet or asked to draw someone or sculpt something in general, or if you simply want to do these things yourself, you often don't follow a very careful replication process, you often just let your imagination run wild, a great many Celtic helmet types across the board all show distinct manufactural traits, there is cleary a tried and tested type of helmet that smiths knew how to make for a very long time that they knew would work and I have reason to believe that because of this Helmets were probably a lot more common, I'd assume the same is with body armor though I am still researchingf at at the moment.

I pretty much just want to see if I can find any evidence to make or break the better armored Celtic warrior caste argument. I'm personally leaning more towards them being typically better equipped than they currently are represented.

Maybe I'm just worrying about nothing though, EB2 will allow you to equip your awrriors better anyway.

Just one question, I would say in general hardiness the Germans were tougher, we both agree on this, but do you think that the well equipped Celtic cavalry elites would have been typically weaker than the Germanic equivilent? or do you think that the General Celtic cavalryman with perhaps just a helmet, and more a desire to be fast rather than heavily armored, would have been weaker than the general Germanic cavalryman?

[SaFe]

To be honest this thread makes me happy.
I wished i had those support the days i worked as faction coordinator for the Sweboz:sweatdrop:

A few thoughts about the last 5 pages of interesting discussion:

Firstly the mentioned reform was planned as a "triggering event" the moment the Sweboz began to capture gallic territory.(Capture and not just raid)
Then the access for their warriors to better armor and weapons should be secured. The recruitment of Gastiz and other "late" units should then be possible.
It was thought of a way if...and...then... command line:
If Sweboz captures (Arverni/Aedui) province X and it is already BC100 then unitz (Gastiz for example) is recruitable.

As i'm no longer involved in the working i'm not sure what has happened in this part of the work.

Second the cavalry:
I was nearly stoned to death while mentioning medium germanic cavalry once:-)
Even the Cimbri made use of them that early, although the unit should be small and very, very expensive.
Sadly the best way to show germanic kind of cavalry warfare is not possible.
The famous combination of light cavalry (Ridoharjoz) and fast and very agile unarmoured men armed with long knives or short stabbing spears.
This combination was so succesfull vs. better armoured gallic cavalry that the romans were very eager to get their hands on germanic mercenary cavalry.
My hopes to implement this were sadly not fullfilled, but perhaps in EB2 there is a little hope to display this important unit of "doublefighters".

Third Gastiz and Hundaskapiz:
The current appearance is work in progress as far as i know, they are both to well equipped and should be changed.

The same for the Wodanawulfoz. This unit should be renamed, reworked and most of all reskinned afap. The current display as regional Haari is unhistorical.
It happened more than once that germanic warriors blackened their bodies and attacked at night (Germanicus' wars for example) The best idea would be to give some germanic units the "ability button" to blacken their skin during night attacks, but i don't think this is possible as a ability)
The current unit just looks curious and fits not in the historical approach on the nations and tribes EB tries to accomplish.
The original idea behind the Wodanawulfoz was some kind of wolf-warriors - who were, for example eagerly employed as mercenaries in later times (as shown on Trajan's column b.t.w.) and also during Caesar's campaign against Pompeius.

Bear-warriors were also not unheard of, to be honest the vanilla berserkers (appearance) were not that far from the truth.

Germanic warriors (as native indians b.t.w.) had a very close association to "totem" animals.
Bear and wolf-skins were very common as kind of "uniform" for bands of warriors (Kriegerbünde). Those bands of warriors were - in game terms - small units, often very dedicated to a god and not only a single tribe.


The whole discussion about stats and costs of units.
I looked at the unit cards and reworked them for myself. Cheaper costs for units recruitment, more expensive to maintain and some units need a morale boost.
The list is ca. 70% finished and i hope somebody of the germanic crew will look over it, but they showed no interest yet.

I'm really interested in the way the team will display the Herthoz (the elite bodyguard) as they should be absolute elite shock unit with very high morale.

Blitzkrieg, b.t.w. i would not give them helmets, it would be better to give them some kind of fantastic haircut like the original Gaizaharjoz.
Personal haircuts were very important for germanic nobles or succesful veterans (soap and a comb were typically placed in a small pouch at the warrior's waist)

The colour red for clothing should also be available only for the Kuniganz, the Harjanaz (General and captains in game-terms) and the Herthoz.

The red cloaks for the Gaizaharjoz is therefore wrong.

About the discusion of the combat abilities for a gallic elite warrior and a germanic elite warrior.
Well, i think nobody knows for sure, but as a whole "group" for EB the germanics seemed fiercer and more warlike and although they had worser equipment (the troopers, not the warrior elite) even after raids and conquest the've won the upper hand vs. their traditional enemies.

The aspect of civil war and decline i would not count in, because if we assume such a thing the germanic tribes were constantly in a kind of "civil war".


Hopefully this discussion will live on...

[the_handsome_viking]

To be honest this thread makes me happy.
I wished i had those support the days i worked as faction coordinator for the Sweboz:sweatdrop:

A few thoughts about the last 5 pages of interesting discussion:

Firstly the mentioned reform was planned as a "triggering event" the moment the Sweboz began to capture gallic territory.(Capture and not just raid)
Then the access for their warriors to better armor and weapons should be secured. The recruitment of Gastiz and other "late" units should then be possible.
It was thought of a way if...and...then... command line:
If Sweboz captures (Arverni/Aedui) province X and it is already BC100 then unitz (Gastiz for example) is recruitable.


As i'm no longer involved in the working i'm not sure what has happened in this part of the work.

Will you still continue to help out?



Second the cavalry:
I was nearly stoned to death while mentioning medium germanic cavalry once:-)
Even the Cimbri made use of them that early, although the unit should be small and very, very expensive.
Sadly the best way to show germanic kind of cavalry warfare is not possible.
The famous combination of light cavalry (Ridoharjoz) and fast and very agile unarmoured men armed with long knives or short stabbing spears.
This combination was so succesfull vs. better armoured gallic cavalry that the romans were very eager to get their hands on germanic mercenary cavalry.
My hopes to implement this were sadly not fullfilled, but perhaps in EB2 there is a little hope to display this important unit of "doublefighters".

Ironically theres enough evidence to argue for a stone throwing Germanic unit.

You could just have two seperate units and advise the player to couple them together to obtain maximum effect.


Third Gastiz and Hundaskapiz:
The current appearance is work in progress as far as i know, they are both to well equipped and should be changed.

The same for the Wodanawulfoz. This unit should be renamed, reworked and most of all reskinned afap. The current display as regional Haari is unhistorical.
It happened more than once that germanic warriors blackened their bodies and attacked at night (Germanicus' wars for example) The best idea would be to give some germanic units the "ability button" to blacken their skin during night attacks, but i don't think this is possible as a ability)
The current unit just looks curious and fits not in the historical approach on the nations and tribes EB tries to accomplish.
The original idea behind the Wodanawulfoz was some kind of wolf-warriors - who were, for example eagerly employed as mercenaries in later times (as shown on Trajan's column b.t.w.) and also during Caesar's campaign against Pompeius.

I personally find that the scare tactics argument is quite convincing and literally thought that this unit was created within references to Tacitus's Germania.


Now the Aryans, besides their forces, in which they surpass the several nations just recounted, are in their persons stern and truculent; and even humour and improve their natural grimness and ferocity by art and time. They wear black shields, their bodies are painted black, they choose dark nights for engaging in battle; and by the very awe and ghastly hue of their army, strike the enemy with dread, as none can bear this their aspect so surprising and as it were quite infernal. For, in all battles the eyes are vanquished first.

I definitely think a reskin is in order though, they sort of look like a MANOWAR cover at the moment.


Bear-warriors were also not unheard of, to be honest the vanilla berserkers (appearance) were not that far from the truth.

I still don't see why wolf hood and bear hood warriors aren't in EB already, I guess it's just a question of compliling irrefutable evidence of the existance of these fighting men.


Germanic warriors (as native indians b.t.w.) had a very close association to "totem" animals.
Bear and wolf-skins were very common as kind of "uniform" for bands of warriors (Kriegerbünde). Those bands of warriors were - in game terms - small units, often very dedicated to a god and not only a single tribe.

It's an overtly and ancient Indo-European tradition to basically try and both psychologically empower yourself with the use of aesthetics and to scare the pants off the enemy via the same methodology, there were undoubtably bands of Germanic warriors that fought like wolf packs.

If you have any pictures or supporting evidence of them I'd be happy to see it, at the moment I just have a few references, and a few pictures from the Trajans column to prove their existance.



Blitzkrieg, b.t.w. i would not give them helmets, it would be better to give them some kind of fantastic haircut like the original Gaizaharjoz.
Personal haircuts were very important for germanic nobles or succesful veterans (soap and a comb were typically placed in a small pouch at the warrior's waist)

What about the General, or Faction leader wearing a Germanic cross band crown? or a unit of fairly well armored and Helmeted warriors who inspire other warriors? like the ones seen in pictures on trajan's column?



About the discusion of the combat abilities for a gallic elite warrior and a germanic elite warrior.
Well, i think nobody knows for sure, but as a whole "group" for EB the germanics seemed fiercer and more warlike and although they had worser equipment (the troopers, not the warrior elite) even after raids and conquest the've won the upper hand vs. their traditional enemies.

This debate is getting quite interesting to the point that it may even be a good idea to create a new thread called Celts vs Germans. Obviously not with the objective of trying to put down both sides, but to basically just compile lots of inforamation in a semi-competitive enviroment so that we can shed importent amounts of light on both the Celts and Germans.

Interestingly enough I think that the Celts main advantage was in many was their superior craftsmenship and technological advantage over most of their foes initially. I was at the Museum yesterday basically looking at the differences in quality between Celtic arms and Roman arms and I can honestly say that the Celts surpassed the Romans in terms of mass manufacturing high quality weapons, easily. This is actually a testament to the Romans for defeating their Celtic foes eventually because really, had the Celts actually go their act together and stopped their elite classes from basically engaging in this ego stroking single combat, one man, vs everyone warfare philosophy, they may just very well have conquered the world.

I think one thing that seems to be overwhelmingly clear about the Celtic warrior elite was a focus on individualism, self sufficiency, and heroic swordsmanship, and I'd say that the Celtic sword infantry charge should be boosted significantly, that armor shoudl be a little more common, helmets definitely much more common, and that the sword animations should be altered to be a bit more flamboyant, that was all very characteristic of Celtic swordsmanship.

What the Germans lacked in weapons technology and resources they obviously made up for in tactics and hardiness, the same could be said for the Romans, especially in the creation of their "tire the enemy out "tactic. Their revolutions in formation were not actually unique completely to the Romans, the Celts also did things like this as the Romans said, and left gaps open to allow injured or tired soldiers to fall back and fresh ones to pour in, but it was easily the Romans that mastered this and really figured out that the best way to win a fight was to be able to take verything the enemy can throw at you and then attack them once they are off balance.


The aspect of civil war and decline i would not count in, because if we assume such a thing the germanic tribes were constantly in a kind of "civil war".


Hopefully this discussion will live on...

Civil war to a certain degree or endemic warfare naturally occurs between lose confederations and landmasses of tribal societies, obviously, but there was actually an extremely intense conflict raging between the Aedui, and Arverni, etc that had brought in an entirely new Germanic power, and the Aedui had become extremely damaged during the conflict, the political nature of the conflict also was very twisted also, so it is possible to make a case for the argument that the overall Celtic fighting capacity had been weakened slightly because of a much more intense level of warfare raging on.

[Frostwulf]

I pretty much agree with all of that but I still think Celtic warrior caste members of both infantry and cavalry would have been pretty darned dangerous in general, especially if they belonged to a more resourcful tribe.
Then we agree :yes:


I pretty much just want to see if I can find any evidence to make or break the better armored Celtic warrior caste argument. I'm personally leaning more towards them being typically better equipped than they currently are represented.
Which argument are you referring to? Are you referring to the Celts being better armoured then the Romans?


Just one question, I would say in general hardiness the Germans were tougher, we both agree on this, but do you think that the well equipped Celtic cavalry elites would have been typically weaker than the Germanic equivilent? or do you think that the General Celtic cavalryman with perhaps just a helmet, and more a desire to be fast rather than heavily armored, would have been weaker than the general Germanic cavalryman?
My belief from what I read is that the Germanic cavalry were superior to the well equipped elite Celtic cavalry and any lesser cavalry of the Celts. It was Caesar's cavalry which were scattered by the 800 and by his description his cavalry had mail,swords and spears.

It's seems like its been a long time since you posted SaFe, welcome back.


If Sweboz captures (Arverni/Aedui) province X and it is already BC100 then unitz (Gastiz for example) is recruitable.
This could be cool.

Even the Cimbri made use of them that early, although the unit should be small and very, very expensive.
I'm not so sure I would agree this about them being a small unit. While they couldn't match the numbers of the Celts, in some instances they came close. The Suevi under Ariovistus had 6,000 cavalry, the Sugambri went raiding with 2,000 cavalry and the 800 that attacked Caesar's cavalry were the ones that were guarding the camp, the rest had gone raiding.

Third Gastiz and Hundaskapiz:
The current appearance is work in progress as far as i know, they are both to well equipped and should be changed.
How would you suggest going about making German elites?

It happened more than once that germanic warriors blackened their bodies and attacked at night (Germanicus' wars for example) The best idea would be to give some germanic units the "ability button" to blacken their skin during night attacks, but i don't think this is possible as a ability)
This would be very nice if it were possible.

The whole discussion about stats and costs of units.
I looked at the unit cards and reworked them for myself. Cheaper costs for units recruitment, more expensive to maintain and some units need a morale boost.
The list is ca. 70% finished and i hope somebody of the germanic crew will look over it, but they showed no interest yet.
I would like to see these if your able to put them on here.

About the discusion of the combat abilities for a gallic elite warrior and a germanic elite warrior.
Well, i think nobody knows for sure, but as a whole "group" for EB the germanics seemed fiercer and more warlike and although they had worser equipment (the troopers, not the warrior elite) even after raids and conquest the've won the upper hand vs. their traditional enemies.

The aspect of civil war and decline i would not count in, because if we assume such a thing the germanic tribes were constantly in a kind of "civil war".

I completely agree with what your saying here. For the last sentence you have the example of the Romans being invited to watch 2 German tribes fight in which (possibly) 60,000 Germans died.


I think one thing that seems to be overwhelmingly clear about the Celtic warrior elite was a focus on individualism, self sufficiency, and heroic swordsmanship, and I'd say that the Celtic sword infantry charge should be boosted significantly, that armor shoudl be a little more common, helmets definitely much more common, and that the sword animations should be altered to be a bit more flamboyant, that was all very characteristic of Celtic swordsmanship.

From what I have read this is correct. The Celts while having formations still tended to fight as individuals.


Civil war to a certain degree or endemic warfare naturally occurs between lose confederations and landmasses of tribal societies, obviously, but there was actually an extremely intense conflict raging between the Aedui, and Arverni, etc that had brought in an entirely new Germanic power, and the Aedui had become extremely damaged during the conflict, the political nature of the conflict also was very twisted also, so it is possible to make a case for the argument that the overall Celtic fighting capacity had been weakened slightly because of a much more intense level of warfare raging on.
I don't believe this conflict to be any more severe then any of the others that have happened in years past. The Arverni became weakened by their encounter with Rome in 123BC but they still had powerful allies in the Sequani. The Celts would still have the cultural inhibitors that would have prevented the devastation some say happened.I believe that it was an external force that caused the destruction of the Aedui, the Germans. It was the Germans that brought low the Aedui and the Sequani in the Battle of Magetobriga. You also have to take into account Simon James and Adrien Goldsworthy as well. What I would like to know is where there is any information of the Celts becoming weaker because of this internal conflict.

[the_handsome_viking]

Then we agree :yes:

Awsome.



Which argument are you referring to? Are you referring to the Celts being better armoured then the Romans?

Not better armored than the Roman legionaries full stop, some undoubtably would have been better armored, across the board? no, but I think that the Celts had nothing stopping them from producing armor in high enough quantities for me to make the argument that they should have more armored units earlier on. I was simply trying to "make" or "break" the argument by logically and objectivly questioning my own, and others ideas and views on the Celts.



My belief from what I read is that the Germanic cavalry were superior to the well equipped elite Celtic cavalry and any lesser cavalry of the Celts. It was Caesar's cavalry which were scattered by the 800 and by his description his cavalry had mail,swords and spears.

But you agree that Celtic elite cavalry should be much tougher in the game? and also more accessable earlier on?


From what I have read this is correct. The Celts while having formations still tended to fight as individuals.

It wasn't so much also a form or barbarity and lack of military and cultural sophistication, this is paramount to understanding the Celts, in more technologically and in my opinion much more advanced and civilized times, in the 14th cenutry onwards, knights often fought under strict codes of conduct which strayed very much from the brutal practicality seen in total war orientated battles and conflicts of old.

There is something almost instinctual in certain people to want a very clean and cerimonial fight, it would seem that the very culturally rich and technologically adept Celts were literally obsessed with heroic deeds on the battlefield and epic single combat.

In the end of the day though, war isnt a game, fighting isnt for fun, and anyone that thinks it is is in for a big surprise, the nature of war and survivalism is utterly brutal and you must be relentless, wicked and vicious in order to win, if you aren't going to be this way then theres no point in fighting in the first place.

I can respect the Celts very civilized philosophy on warfare but really it's not the way I would fight my enemies, the way I see it is any enemy that deserves respect and a fair fight shouldn't be your enemy in the first place.

Sorry to deter from the subject.




I don't believe this conflict to be any more severe then any of the others that have happened in years past. The Arverni became weakened by their encounter with Rome in 123BC but they still had powerful allies in the Sequani. The Celts would still have the cultural inhibitors that would have prevented the devastation some say happened.I believe that it was an external force that caused the destruction of the Aedui, the Germans. It was the Germans that brought low the Aedui and the Sequani in the Battle of Magetobriga. You also have to take into account Simon James and Adrien Goldsworthy as well. What I would like to know is where there is any information of the Celts becoming weaker because of this internal conflict.


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.

I think that the Celts weren't necissarily all suffering terribly, I've sort of outlined my argument about the visciousness of parimiter Celts before, as in islander Iberian, Belgic etc Celtic folk were quite adept and viscious when it came to fighting, but I do think that there is a lot to be taken into consideration when it comes to the fact that the Aedui and Arverni were knocking lumps out of each other and calling in backup from all angles.

[Zero1]

Just throwing in my two cents again.

I think that the Gaulish civil war was definitely a determining factor in the decline of the Celts and their later 'inferior' soldiery, for all extensive purposes the Gauls were killing off each other's professional soldiery and noble classes for centuries and by the time the Romans came upon them they were levying citizenry enmasse to fight due to a stunning lack of professional soldiery.

I also think the Gauls should have access to heavily armored infantry far earlier, as others have said they had access to advanced metallurgy during the time period and there is no reason why they shouldn't.

As far as the Germans, I think a good balance which also echoes historical accuracy would be to give them superior light/medium infantry it makes sense to me from reading accounts and from a personal contemplative standpoint that due to their environment they would be more accustomed to fighting and fighting exceptionally well with lighter arms then their Celtic neighbors. The Celts for their part should have access to a wider variety of armored/heavy troops at a cheaper cost as well as have much earlier access to them, as far as Germanic heavy soldiery I feel they should be limited to two noble units, one mounted, one infantry, be very VEEEERY expensive, available only mid-way into the game but be EXTREMELY good at what they do I.E. function as Shock Troops with virtually no equals in the region.

I feel this would not only serve as historically accurate but also balance out the region very well by sticking a very light/medium infantry reliant faction right in the middle of Europe in the way of various expanding powers.

As far as cavalry goes, I find it improbable that the Germanic cavalry was indeed far superior to the Celtic cavalry due to the inferior horses that and as far as is known the Germanic people did not as of yet have as much of an equestrian culture as the Celts, my personal view on the matter is that the Germanic cavalry managed to defeat their Celtic counterparts through usage of mixed-unit tactics which are difficult to emulate via the RTW engine I.E. more then one rider on a single horse and whatnot.

I don't claim to be an expert on this but I daresay I'm knowledgeable enough to form an educated position on the matter, but if I'm factually mistaken on any point please feel free to correct me.

Thanks for your time :bow:

[TheTank]

The red cloaks for the Gaizaharjoz is therefore wrong.

Hello Safe,
The Gaizaharjoz doesn't have red cloaks..
Below how I intended the Gaizaharjoz unit.

Sweboz
https://usera.imagecave.com/TheTank/sw1jh2.jpg

Rebel
https://usera.imagecave.com/TheTank/sw2se9.jpg

Currently the Gaizaharjoz unit is bugged in the latest release of EB.
Stefan25 has fixed the issue but the results will be seen in the next release of EB.

[SaFe]

I would suggest to give the Gaizaharjoz - though they're some kind of veteran "overlong" lances wielding warriors - a rather normal haircut - suebian knot or normal knot and spare this haircut for the Herthoz or Gastiz as the more fantastic the haircut the richer and more noble a germanic warrior would have been seen by his compatriots. As we know germanics took much pride in their hair cuts and often dyed their hair too for important reasons.
The current haircut of the Gastiz is rather "normal" and especially the Herthoz should look like something special - fantastic haircut, variants of the typical suebian knot and rich colours for their clothes.
The red colour of the tunic should be spared for Herthoz or Gastiz perhaps.
Red for clothes was the colour of the noble and richest men of the tribe.

[TheTank]

I would suggest to give the Gaizaharjoz - though they're some kind of veteran "overlong" lances wielding warriors - a rather normal haircut - suebian knot or normal knot and spare this haircut for the Herthoz or Gastiz as the more fantastic the haircut the richer and more noble a germanic warrior would have been seen by his compatriots.
The current haircut of the Gastiz is rather "normal" and especially the Herthoz should look like something special - fantastic haircut, variants of the typical suebian knot and rich colours for their clothes.
The red colour of the tunic should be spared for Herthoz or Gastiz perhaps.
Red for clothes was the colour of the noble and richest men of the tribe.


Safe,

I didn't changed much regarding the haircut/beard of the gaizaharjoz unit and because of this I find your comment regarding the hair of this unit a bit strange.
The only think that is changed regarding the hair/beard is they have less detail.
This is change was done because we needed to bring down the poly count for this unit..

Well for the red tunic of the Sweboz gaizaharjoz.
We can always move the Sweboz skin to the merc slot so it will represent a wealthy merc unit.
The downside is that we have to make a new skin for the Sweboz version of the gaizaharjoz unit.

[SaFe]

The Tank,

well, these are just suggestions.
The Gaizaharjoz was always wip during the time i was fc.
I think the perfect and wonderul hairstyle should belong to a more "fitting" elite unit(Herthoz or Gastiz, i prefer Herthoz), but perhaps thats just me.
The Gastiz look rather boring (their hairstyle i mean) and the equipment has to change also, so perhaps their hairstyle could be changed too.
About the gaizahrjoz - i would not make them available as mercs.

B.t.w. europeans could have watched ARTE tonight. A very interesting documention about germanic style of life, religion, burials, combat styles, etc...
Very interesting and again many archaeologist agreed that germanics had not so few iron weapons many of us believed (or better were told again and again with a rather disturbing small-mindedness) till now, though the archaeologist agreed that swords were of poorer quality than roman or celtic weapons.

Every warrior was buried with his weapons, but almost every time burned with them before his ash was buried ina urn. Weapons were even destroyed to fit into the urn along with the ash.
The fear of "wiederg&#228;nger" - the living dead was vey common among germanic beliefs, and so the body had to be burned along with his weapons.

Also the battle between Ariovist and Caesar was mentioned and the typical germanic wedge formations shown, which really should be implemented.

About the daily life and the worship of gods were also very informative arguments and aspects even i heard never much from.

A real, real interesting broadcast from a french/german/danish tv-team, though to make it more interesting it made use of "narrators" -Storytellers that explained scenes that were filemed with actors. A wise woman from the Suebians under Ariovist and later a soldier-mate from Arminius,

B.t.w. The "animal-warriors" were also mentioned again.
I totally agree with the people who want to implement wolf- and bear-warriors.
The original Wodanawulfoz skin(for those who can remember) without the historical wrong black mullets would make the perfect Wolf-warrior. Add a good wolf-cloak and we will have a historical accurate and very interesting unit.
The skin uses the Sahsnotoz unit slot with a other texture, so hopefully there is a chance for this unit.

[dezzerx]

B.t.w. europeans could have watched ARTE tonight. A very interesting documention about germanic style of life, religion, burials, combat styles, etc...
Very interesting and again many archaeologist agree that germanics had not so few iron weapons many of us believed (or better were told again and again with a rather disturbing small-mindedness) till now, thougn the archaeologist agreed that sword were of poorer quality than roman or celtic weapons.



Oh damn, would have loved watching that. Is it online somewhere perhaps?

[blitzkrieg80]

Wedge formation is impossible for infantty even if we wish it were so. :cry: the Jugunthiz / Dugunthiz, Youth/Proven spearmen structure of the wedge formation WILL be represented though ~:)

There will be no work on the Gaizaharjoz' hair because there is more important work to be done, such as with the crazy non-hair of the Hearth-troop, who btw need to be completely redone, it is high on my priority list. the Gaizaharjoz is possibly the best looking and most accurate Germanic noble warrior in the game (great job, Tank!), so I really don't understand why MORE work needs to be done for that one... the Framaharjoz needs to be redone for sure

The problem with the "Wolves of Wodan" all along has been the association between Harii, Wolves, and Wodan- ?!? that is the strangest thing I can think of... they are COMPLETELY separate... It is SUCH a fact that Wodan (Odin) was not worshipped as we know him in Norse culture, until VERY late... which means the primary war-god is Tyr, much evidenced... with fertility gods like Frea and Thor also more important... Wodan is like "Mercury/Hermes" for a reason though, god of change "wind/travel/inspiration" and thus god of shamanic ecstasy (later runes)... Harii by themselves work fine working from Tacitus' account primarily but it's not unbelievable... I have yet to actually read documentation of other similar black painted warriors and tactics... it is very true though, that the living dead were very much predominant in Germanic mythology... like draugar! Grettir's fight with Glam... awesome! (he rides a house!) one of the coolest motifs, used in Lord of the Rings even, is fighting the undead spirit who guards his treasure horde... c'mon- you know you love it ~;)

one of the reasons for the look of the Harii regional "Hosts of Wodan" unit is it is using a skin of a Celtic model... if we wanted to change him, NO UNIT... there is no extra space... the Cherusci swordsman uses the extra sword-space, replacing that horrible red shriner hat unit. keep that in mind.

i totally admit that mullets are unacceptable for any individual, fictionalized or living... where's it at?! BURN HIM

and speaking of wulf-skins, i have figured out a way to get both bear and wolf-skin warriors into the game (not because people ask, although I realize people want it- because I too have thought it missing) but- how? using the Merjoz slot (since this warrior is completely baseless) and take away the one element people have to argue about concerning history- the drugged-fanatic/berserk-like nature... so instead, we will have them fight as great warriors, but no ecstatic trance or frenzy. this is in the works as the number 1 priority now, since the Germanic General aka đruxtīnaz (incredibly beautiful btw) is done, thanks to the mighty Blank. Don't worry about losing the Merjoz-like unit though, because a two-handed spiked (ample evidence has been found for some wicked/nasty pieces) clubman has been promised who doesn't use a Germanic model slot.

interesting bit of info about the TV program, SaFe... i wish i lived in europe ~:doh:

I completely agree that the repeated reference to Germania being iron-poor by Romans is complete propoganda and much used as a technique to make the Germans (such as with Tacitus) seem like noble savages... they might have been poor compared to others, but that is no qualification in itself.

PS- I forgot to mention for all who do not know... the idea of FAST infantry to accompany Horsemen has been tried and it doesn't work, similar to the wedge formation for infantry... it isn't missing from the game because we don't like the idea- RTW hardcode sucks, pretty simple.

[the_handsome_viking]

The Tank,


Every warrior was buried with his weapons, but almost every time burned with them before his ash was buried ina urn. Weapons were even destroyed to fit into the urn along with the ash.
The fear of "wiedergänger" - the living dead was vey common among germanic beliefs, and so the body had to be burned along with his weapons.

Is this also the probable origin of some warriors descision to dress up as the undead to scare the crap out of their enemies?

[the_handsome_viking]

Wedge formation is impossible for infantty even if we wish it were so. :cry: the Jugunthiz / Dugunthiz, Youth/Proven spearmen structure of the wedge formation WILL be represented though ~:)

There will be no work on the Gaizaharjoz' hair because there is more important work to be done, such as with the crazy non-hair of the Hearth-troop, who btw need to be completely redone, it is high on my priority list. the Gaizaharjoz is possibly the best looking and most accurate Germanic noble warrior in the game (great job, Tank!), so I really don't understand why MORE work needs to be done for that one... the Framaharjoz needs to be redone for sure

The problem with the "Wolves of Wodan" all along has been the association between Harii, Wolves, and Wodan- ?!? that is the strangest thing I can think of... they are COMPLETELY separate... It is SUCH a fact that Wodan (Odin) was not worshipped as we know him in Norse culture, until VERY late... which means the primary war-god is Tyr, much evidenced... with fertility gods like Frea and Thor also more important... Wodan is like "Mercury/Hermes" for a reason though, god of change "wind/travel/inspiration" and thus god of shamanic ecstasy (later runes)... Harii by themselves work fine working from Tacitus' account primarily but it's not unbelievable... I have yet to actually read documentation of other similar black painted warriors and tactics... it is very true though, that the living dead were very much predominant in Germanic mythology... like draugar! Grettir's fight with Glam... awesome! (he rides a house!) one of the coolest motifs, used in Lord of the Rings even, is fighting the undead spirit who guards his treasure horde... c'mon- you know you love it ~;)

one of the reasons for the look of the Harii regional "Hosts of Wodan" unit is it is using a skin of a Celtic model... if we wanted to change him, NO UNIT... there is no extra space... the Cherusci swordsman uses the extra sword-space, replacing that horrible red shriner hat unit. keep that in mind.

i totally admit that mullets are unacceptable for any individual, fictionalized or living... where's it at?! BURN HIM

and speaking of wulf-skins, i have figured out a way to get both bear and wolf-skin warriors into the game (not because people ask, although I realize people want it- because I too have thought it missing) but- how? using the Merjoz slot (since this warrior is completely baseless) and take away the one element people have to argue about concerning history- the drugged-fanatic/berserk-like nature... so instead, we will have them fight as great warriors, but no ecstatic trance or frenzy. this is in the works as the number 1 priority now, since the Germanic General aka đruxtīnaz (incredibly beautiful btw) is done, thanks to the mighty Blank. Don't worry about losing the Merjoz-like unit though, because a two-handed spiked (ample evidence has been found for some wicked/nasty pieces) clubman has been promised who doesn't use a Germanic model slot.

interesting bit of info about the TV program, SaFe... i wish i lived in europe ~:doh:

I completely agree that the repeated reference to Germania being iron-poor by Romans is complete propoganda and much used as a technique to make the Germans (such as with Tacitus) seem like noble savages... they might have been poor compared to others, but that is no qualification in itself.

PS- I forgot to mention for all who do not know... the idea of FAST infantry to accompany Horsemen has been tried and it doesn't work, similar to the wedge formation for infantry... it isn't missing from the game because we don't like the idea- RTW hardcode sucks, pretty simple.

Though I do personally feel quite sympathetic towards the Idea that Iron and various other resources weren't as easilly accessable for the Germanic people I have read of examples of very large smithys that could be used for manufacturing surplus arms of high quality, so I definitely don't think that they were as overwhelmingly ill equipped as many would believe, but I generally think that their heavy emphasis on spear and shield formation fighting was motivated more by resources than a simple interest in dence formation.

The psychological impact restrictions actually have on people I personally think is really fascinating in that it can drive people to creating new technologies and techniques because their creative power is sort of forced out of them, I think that the ancient Germanic people were a lot more innovative than many give them credit for.

I once again say this as someone of minimal Germanic ancestry, (I'm a low lander Scot and I have distinct and traceable Anglo-Saxon ancestry like many or most lowlander Scots)

[Frostwulf]

Not better armored than the Roman legionaries full stop, some undoubtably would have been better armored, across the board? no, but I think that the Celts had nothing stopping them from producing armor in high enough quantities for me to make the argument that they should have more armored units earlier on. I was simply trying to "make" or "break" the argument by logically and objectivly questioning my own, and others ideas and views on the Celts.
Considering the game starts in 270 something BC and the Celts started making chain around 300 BC there is no reason not to have Celtic armored units earlier. Connolly's book "Greece and Rome at War" does a good job at describing the arms and armor of the Romans and Celts during these periods, might be worth while to look at. I wonder if its possible to make a limit on the amount of armored units in the beginning of the game to reflect the scarcity at that time?maybe some kind of limit coding(before 250 BC Aedui can only have 4 solduros or something along those lines)?

But you agree that Celtic elite cavalry should be much tougher in the game? and also more accessable earlier on?
I said they should be tougher in another thread but that was before I saw the Remi Mairepos and the Brihentin, they could be bumped a little but also would be acceptable the way they are. As far as being available earlier I would think they could, especially if they can do the limit coding as I mentioned earlier.

It wasn't so much also a form or barbarity and lack of military and cultural sophistication, this is paramount to understanding the Celts, in more technologically and in my opinion much more advanced and civilized times, in the 14th cenutry onwards, knights often fought under strict codes of conduct which strayed very much from the brutal practicality seen in total war orientated battles and conflicts of old.

There is something almost instinctual in certain people to want a very clean and cerimonial fight, it would seem that the very culturally rich and technologically adept Celts were literally obsessed with heroic deeds on the battlefield and epic single combat.

In the end of the day though, war isnt a game, fighting isnt for fun, and anyone that thinks it is is in for a big surprise, the nature of war and survivalism is utterly brutal and you must be relentless, wicked and vicious in order to win, if you aren't going to be this way then theres no point in fighting in the first place.

I can respect the Celts very civilized philosophy on warfare but really it's not the way I would fight my enemies, the way I see it is any enemy that deserves respect and a fair fight shouldn't be your enemy in the first place.

I agree with this statement, thats the way that I understand it as well.

I think that the Celts weren't necissarily all suffering terribly, I've sort of outlined my argument about the visciousness of parimiter Celts before, as in islander Iberian, Belgic etc Celtic folk were quite adept and viscious when it came to fighting, but I do think that there is a lot to be taken into consideration when it comes to the fact that the Aedui and Arverni were knocking lumps out of each other and calling in backup from all angles.
I agree with your idea, but I would have to throw in the Arverni,Aedui and Sequani(and their clients) as well. They would surely have some good veterans in their midst from the fighting they did. The Celts as the Germans had infighting and I believe the Celts had their inhibitors to prevent serious damage as mentioned by Goldsworthy and James. What you have in bold is what I have been saying, its when the Germans come in and kill off the Aedui Nobility,Senate and etc. It wasn't from the infighting but with the coming of the German mercenaries that this happened. The Aedui and the Sequani/Arverni had been fighting back and forth then the Sequani invited the Germans in around 71BC. It was at this time that the Aedui were getting slammed and then they gave hostages to the Sequani(sued for peace). The Germans began to take the land of the Sequani and so the Gauls(Aedui,Sequani,Arverni and clients) joined in the battle of Magetobriga.


Magetobriga



Related Biographies:
Ariovistus

Related Subjects:
Suebi



Unknown site of a military engagement fought in 61 BCE between the Gallic tribes of the Aedui, Averni and Sequani on one side and the Germanic Suebi, under their King Ariovistus. The Suebi had moved into the region of Gaul comprising modern Alsace and had emerged as a powerful rival to the Gauls on the Rhine. Hoping to evict the unwelcome Germans, the local peoples, headed by the Aedui, confronted Ariovistus in the field. The resulting battle was a display of the martial superiority of the Suebi, for the tribes were crushed. Ariovistus established his rule over much of eastern Gaul. By 58 BCE, Rome was willing to listen to the pleas of the Gallic chieftains, and war erupted once again.
Citation Information:
Text Citation: Bunson, Matthew. "Magetobriga." Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 1994. Facts On File, Inc. Ancient History & Culture.
I hope I wasn't misunderstanding what you were getting at.

I think that the Gaulish civil war was definitely a determining factor in the decline of the Celts and their later 'inferior' soldiery, for all extensive purposes the Gauls were killing off each other's professional soldiery and noble classes for centuries and by the time the Romans came upon them they were levying citizenry enmasse to fight due to a stunning lack of professional soldiery.
Zero where did you get this information from. Everything I have read which even talks about the subject is contradictory to this. I have been asking this question but no one seems to have an answer to it, if you do please state the source.

I also think the Gauls should have access to heavily armored infantry far earlier, as others have said they had access to advanced metallurgy during the time period and there is no reason why they shouldn't.

I completely agree.

As far as the Germans, I think a good balance which also echoes historical accuracy would be to give them superior light/medium infantry it makes sense to me from reading accounts and from a personal contemplative standpoint that due to their environment they would be more accustomed to fighting and fighting exceptionally well with lighter arms then their Celtic neighbors. The Celts for their part should have access to a wider variety of armored/heavy troops at a cheaper cost as well as have much earlier access to them
I agree with this except I'm not so sure about the cheaper cost, I don't know if that would balance out the game.

as far as Germanic heavy soldiery I feel they should be limited to two noble units, one mounted, one infantry, be very VEEEERY expensive, available only mid-way into the game but be EXTREMELY good at what they do I.E. function as Shock Troops with virtually no equals in the region.
Interesting but why two noble units only? Also when you say virtually no equals in the region I'm fine with as long as your not counting the Romans.

As far as cavalry goes, I find it improbable that the Germanic cavalry was indeed far superior to the Celtic cavalry due to the inferior horses that and as far as is known the Germanic people did not as of yet have as much of an equestrian culture as the Celts, my personal view on the matter is that the Germanic cavalry managed to defeat their Celtic counterparts through usage of mixed-unit tactics which are difficult to emulate via the RTW engine I.E. more then one rider on a single horse and whatnot.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1572850&postcount=26
This link is just some of the incidents of the Germanic cavalry, there were many others as well. Goldsworth says "Even so, the Gallic auxiliaries probably had a significant numerical advantage, and were mounted on larger horses than their opponents, which makes it all the more notable that the Germans quickly gained an advantage." The Germans didn't always use the runner with them as shown in Alesia and some of the other battles. The methods used by the Germans don't necessarily have to be shown as long as the numbers reflect their ability to defeat their opponent.


Very interesting and again many archaeologist agreed that germanics had not so few iron weapons many of us believed (or better were told again and again with a rather disturbing small-mindedness) till now, though the archaeologist agreed that swords were of poorer quality than roman or celtic weapons.

I believe Malcolm Todd mentioned this in his book "Early Germans"

[the_handsome_viking]

Considering the game starts in 270 something BC and the Celts started making chain around 300 BC there is no reason not to have Celtic armored units earlier. Connolly's book "Greece and Rome at War" does a good job at describing the arms and armor of the Romans and Celts during these periods, might be worth while to look at. I wonder if its possible to make a limit on the amount of armored units in the beginning of the game to reflect the scarcity at that time?maybe some kind of limit coding(before 250 BC Aedui can only have 4 solduros or something along those lines)?

I will look out for this book at some point in the future.


I said they should be tougher in another thread but that was before I saw the Remi Mairepos and the Brihentin, they could be bumped a little but also would be acceptable the way they are. As far as being available earlier I would think they could, especially if they can do the limit coding as I mentioned earlier.

A limitation on the amount of forces you can produce would be a massive advantage in terms of historical accuracy, especially if the amount of units you could produce would reflect your peoples resources, that would add a whole new and more realistic dynamic on the games geopolitics, for example invading a region for its surplus of metal so you can bolster your heavily armored units, that would be amazingly fun, sending spies around to study the resources of neighboring territories.

I agree with this statement, thats the way that I understand it as well.


I agree with your idea, but I would have to throw in the Arverni,Aedui and Sequani(and their clients) as well. They would surely have some good veterans in their midst from the fighting they did. The Celts as the Germans had infighting and I believe the Celts had their inhibitors to prevent serious damage as mentioned by Goldsworthy and James. What you have in bold is what I have been saying, its when the Germans come in and kill off the Aedui Nobility,Senate and etc. It wasn't from the infighting but with the coming of the German mercenaries that this happened. The Aedui and the Sequani/Arverni had been fighting back and forth then the Sequani invited the Germans in around 71BC. It was at this time that the Aedui were getting slammed and then they gave hostages to the Sequani(sued for peace). The Germans began to take the land of the Sequani and so the Gauls(Aedui,Sequani,Arverni and clients) joined in the battle of Magetobriga.

I think we are in agreement then, for the record the infight I was referring to would include the situation that unfolded with the German mercinaries just deciding to take over, I consider that to be an extention of the infighting because really they were only there because the Sequani invited them over, much to their later shame.

[blitzkrieg80]

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

Game limitations are very much a real issue and there's no way to limit the number of x troop... that is precisely why the reforms make such a nicely armored unit possible only later... besides the fact that you WANT the reforms for that... if you already had the unit, why would anyone bother?

[Frostwulf]

I think we are in agreement then, for the record the infight I was referring to would include the situation that unfolded with the German mercinaries just deciding to take over, I consider that to be an extention of the infighting because really they were only there because the Sequani invited them over, much to their later shame.
Then yes we would be in agreement.

Game limitations are very much a real issue and there's no way to limit the number of x troop...
That could have been good if it were possible.


besides the fact that you WANT the reforms for that... if you already had the unit, why would anyone bother?
You would be able to have more units later on and potential better units as well.

Ill post a question for you on Celts overpowered Blitz because I'm trying to keep this to German related topics. I hope your able to answer it.

[Frostwulf]

Thomas S. Burns-"Rome and the Barbarians 100B.C.-A.D. 400"
The theory that has been advanced in this chapter as the most likely is that the material influence of Jastorf slowly expanded into an area in which oppida were already in a state of heightened turmoil from unknown but sui generis causes. In their efforts to restore order and to achieve a new local hegemony, the leaders of some or all oppida in southern Germany turned to mercenary recruitment in an effort to upset the balance of power that was perpetuating endemic warfare. By necessity they turned outside the oppida zone itself because the men within it were already committed to one side or another. This combative climate attracted the attention of young men seeking profit through arms. Rather than one or two large groups of people migrating many hundred kilometers over exceedingly rugged terrain-and that is precisely the view given in the ancient sources-it seems much more likely that the Romans first confronted numerous groups calling themselves or being identified first by the Celts and then later by the Romans with the same two or three names, which are themselves Celtic or derivative of Celtic terms. These various groups consolidated briefly when Roman legions approached. Chronologically their appearance in the in the historical records seems to coincide with an early, but not the first, stage of the diruption of oppida settlements east of the Rhine. This seems to have occurred at least two generations before their general collapse. pg.85

Burns is putting forth the theory that the TCA were called in as mercenaries in the oppidas of Southern Germany and that ended up disrupting the Celtic oppida settlements.
Some of his reasoning for this theory is that the oppida did not seem to be destroyed by a cataclysm(battle or natural) and they didn't collapse at the same time. Burns figures that if the TCA numbered 300,000 they could have overwhelmed any of the oppida. Also "The gradual denouement of oppida in the area of southern Germany does not correlate with the type of invasions attested to in the literature for the Cimbri and Teutones. Moreover, the archaeological data assembled from the areas most likely to have produced "invaders: strongly suggest that anybody coming from those areas would have been very hard-pressed to besiege oppida."

Thomas S. Burns-"Rome and the Barbarians 100B.C.-A.D. 400"
An attractive theory is that the oppida destroyed one another in a series of hegemonic struggles such as we see half century or so later in Gaul in the opening book of Caesar's narrative. Just as the origins of the great wall may lie in the needs of new elites that came to power during civil wars, so too their abandonment may have so shaken the authority of the leading families and their religious and ideological underpinnings that in this one area oppida civilization, in effect, imploded. Elsewhere Caesar cut this scenario, always possible given the highly competitive nature of Celtic elite families, short. The Cimbri and Teutones may fit obliquely into this scenario, perhaps as recruits drawn into Celtic civil wars. They may also have profited as recruiters themselves from the societal self-questioning that these wars may have produced. pg.78

Before the " devastating Celtic civil" war theorists start saying "see see, proof", here is what he says in the very next paragraph.

Thomas S. Burns-"Rome and the Barbarians 100B.C.-A.D. 400"
Several facts are worth recalling in this context. There was no such thing as a unified Celtic civilization. When it came to political and military power, whatever was going on in Bavaria need not have had any parallel in Gaul. Although Caesar's account opens with some of the oppida in Gaul at war over regional hegemony, there is no hint that Gallic oppida were on the edge of a general disillusion. Nor is there any indication whatsoever that the basic ethos of living in these large manufacturing and marketing centers was questioned in Gaul. Instead, in Gaul there was a heated realignment of allies and aristocratic families. This process had reached a level of regional warfare, in which a few principal oppida were struggling for interregional supremacy. Onto this stage strode Caesar, who quickly became the major player pg.78-79

Another thing of interest:

Thomas S. Burns-"Rome and the Barbarians 100B.C.-A.D. 400"
If this scenario approaches historical reality, then if foreshadows the circumstances surrounding Roman involvement in Gaul under Julius Caesar by half a century. The oppida in souther Germany were more likely to have first turned to "Germanic" sources of recruits simply because of proximity and necessity. pg.86
I thought this theory was of interest because it relates to my thoughts on Ariovistus and the Suebi and how they gained control of parts of central Gaul. I was wondering what others thought of this theory of Burns, I personally don't buy into it.

[Frostwulf]

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

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

Venceslas Kruta-"The Celts"-"The prestige of the Celtic heroic ideal was probably undimmed by the settlement of the armed groups that criss-crossed Europe in the 3rd century BCE in search of battles and adventure. Similarly, by establishing a warrior aristocracy, especially the cavalry, in the oppida, the old principles were maintained." pg.204

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

Venceslas Kruta-"The Celts"-"Celtic cavalry by the beginning of the 1st century BCE, as shown on a panel of the Gundestrup Cauldron and several other illustrations, had saddled horses with full harness, ridden by cavalrymen wearing spurs. The frequency with which these spurs are found when excavating oppida may reflect a proportionate concentration of cavalry troops. Their equipment consisted of the long sword, but also a spear, helmet and shield, sometimes also a coat of mail or light breastplate.
Trained in formation manoeuvres, the cavalry became the Celtic armies strike force; the effectiveness of its charge could determine the outcome of a battle." pg.110

Venceslas Kruta-"The Celts"-"These elite troops were well trained and drilled, but, engaged as they were in all the battles of a Celtic world on the defensive, their numbers eventually dwindled. As they did so, they lost their effectiveness. Caesar makes it clear that the enfeeblement of these elite units was the key to the defeat of the Gaulish cities." pg.110

Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"Most of the tribes raised horses for riding, which were of a smaller size than most modern mounts bu of good quality. Gallic cavalry were famous, and the mounted arm of the professional Roman army would subsequently copy many aspect of equipment, training and terminology from them. However, while very effective in a charge, the cavalry of the tribes, which inevitably consisted of the wealthier warriors, often showed little enthusiasm or aptitude for such important roles as patrolling." pg.204

Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"Both sides sent forward their cavalry, and the allied horsemen gained a slight advantage over the Belgian horse before Caesar withdrew them. Realising that a full-scale battle was not going to develop, the legions were ordered back to camp to rest. Reaching the same conclusion, the Begic commanders sent a part of the army fo ford the River Aisne and either threaten the Roman supply line by capturing the fort protecting the bridge, or draw Caesar off by ravaging the lands of his new found allies, the Remi." pg.241

Later in 51 B.C.

Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-" There were frequent skirmishes-both sides were using German troops, for Commius had managed to persuade 500 of these to join the Bellovaci-and on one occasion the Gauls ambushed and cut up a foraging party of the Remi who were fighting as Roman allies." pg.352

I believe the Remi were outnumbered and caught off guard when this happened, I put this quote in to show that Caesar had been using Remi cavalry.
These were to show that the cavalry were indeed the elite shock troops of Gaul. These were not just Leuce Epos but Brihentin and Remi Mairepos.

I have some more quotes on the German cavalry coming up next, the purpose is to show the clear superiority of the German cavalry over the Gallic cavalry.

[blitzkrieg80]

eh, great selection of quotes, but this is the Sweboz thread ~;)

I don't suppose we can focus on the Cimbri, so we might have that unit... we need details, like what armor, since a "breastplate" might not seem realistic, recruiting them in Jutland.

I found some other possible models for the basis of the Cimbri regional skin:
1.(hellenistic_cavalry_prodromoi) ! armored and non-skirmisher! GERMANIC skin FREE
2.(belgae_cavalry_taramonnos_myrcharn) skirmisher and ! large skeleton! GERMANIC skin FREE
3..(dacian_cavalry_tarabostes) ! armored and non-skirmisher medium cavalry! GERMANIC and MERC skin FREE

[Sirfiggin]

How about this: German reforms. I'm no expert, so I can't say when they happen (do they have the general gallic reform?) but at first the Sweboz only get the "angry savage" barbarian infantry- great shock units with high attack but little or no armor and fragile morale, but then, say when the Romans reach the Marian age or the Sweboz win enough battles against them, they train more professional, but still true barbarian; heavy cavalry, infantry, missile and light artillery (if not too unhistorical) also, were did the Suebi King who fought Caesar get such good horsemen when the germans don't get cavalry the game?

[blitzkrieg80]

thanks for the comment.

well, 1 added HVY cavalry already in the game, and after this upcoming work, 1 added MED cavalry, which = 3 cav and that should represent those cool guys Caesar admired on the other side of the Rhine...

Sweboz Reforms already planned... the tentative plan is: no recruitable Bodyguard before the Reform and no Heavy cavalry either, but afterwards those units are available to reflect increased access to iron and metallurgical centers/ weapon market...

otherwise, there are some happy stat changes coming which involve Clubmen not being fodder and hopefully a more expensive and more effective light cavalry... the Chatii spearman will be a nice high quality regional of the "Proven" Spearman. the Chatti clubman will indeed be a shock troop but with less defense because of zeal... a wolf-skin shock troop who lives on the fringe of society's borders deep in the forest, so only recruitable as a MERC similar to the Gastiz. The black skinned Harii regional will be changed to a night-raider who merely references the practice used in Lugi territory. leather helms all around on appropriate units... denser formations for appropriate units, to represent the shield-wall in the absence of phalanx ability, such as for the pike unit, whose name is going to be AWESOME (it's a suprise)

[Frostwulf]

eh, great selection of quotes, but this is the Sweboz thread
The reason for the quotes is to back up some of my claims, I ran short of time and was not able to continue my quotes. The quotes I posted of the Celtic cavalry do have a relevance which I will put down at the end of the quotes on this post.

were did the Suebi King who fought Caesar get such good horsemen when the germans don't get cavalry the game?
There is German cavalry currently in the game, but they are not of the quality of the ones of Ariovistus nor of the Germanic mercenary cavalry Caesar had.

Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"A cavalry combat took place in the fields outside the town, and the Romans eventually won this when Caesar threw in his band of 400 Germans."pg.323
This took place at the town of Noviodunum.


Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"On the following day the Gaulish cavalry attacked in three groups-one striking the heead of the column and th eothers threatening the flanks. Caesar's cavalry were heavily outnumbered but he likewise divided them into three groups and moved up the infantry as close support whenever they were hard pressed. The legionaries could not catch the enemy horsemen, but they provided a solid block for their own horsemen to rally behind and re-form. In the end the Germans won the combat on the right, routing the warriors facing them and causing the rest to withdraw. pg.335

Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"The Romans began to work on a monumental set of siegeworks, with a rampart stretching for 11 miles and including twenty-three fortlets as well as larger camps in which the soldiers would rest. The Gauls did not let this go unmolested and sent their cavalry down to attack. They were met by the auxiliary and allied cavalry, but it was not unitl Caesar committed his reserve of German horsemen and formed up some of the legionaries in support that the Gauls were driven back."pg.336-337
At Alesia.


Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"As a gesture of confidence, Caesar sent his cavalry out from the lines to engage the horsemen of the relief force. A whirling fight developed and lasted throughout the afternoon, and seemed for a long time to have been going the Gauls' way,when once again Caesar's German cavalry charged and won the day for the Romans." pg.339-340
When Gallic relief forces showed up at Alesia.

There is an obvious theme here. The outnumbered Roman(Gallic allies) cavalry is having problems with the Gallic("rebel") cavalry and income the outnumbered German cavalry to save the day.

As to how the Germanic cavalry worked:

Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"Ariovistus' horsemen worked closely with picked light infantry-who in later centuries were known to the Germans as the 'hundred'(centeni)-capable over short distances of keeping pace with the horses by grabbing onto their manes. The warriors on foot acted as a solid support, behind which the cavalry could retreat if worsted, and rest and re-form before advancing again. The tactics and quality of the Germanic warriors usually gave them the edge over Gaulish cavalry." pg.229

The German cavalry as explained above didnt have the light infantry intermingled with them when they engaged their enemies. I'm sure they did fight with them at times but in general they were simply support.

So your asking why did I revist this subject! The reason is Blitz did something I didnt think anyone would be able to accomplish, he got heavy cavalry for the Sweboz!WOOT! I think it's a very good thing. The problem I have with this is as follows:


Why do you use the Remi Mairepos as your base? They weren't fighting them in any of the examples you mentioned.
The Remi were not mentioned in my earlier quotes but Caesar did have them in his Cavalry, so yes the German cavalry did fight the Remi. 800 German cavalry charged and defeated 5,000 of Caesar's cavalry which would have included Remi Mairepos.


In fact in most of the examples we're not even talking about heavy cavalry, but about light cavalry like the Luce Epos (that unit is actually sort of a conglomeration of the light and medium cavalry of gaul, but its the closest we can get).

Not only did I show that most of the units Caesar fought against were NOT Luce Epos in this https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1578793&postcount=37 I added even more from more authors a couple of posts ago.https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1656696&postcount=219 These quotes saying "elite","shock" etc. not to mention the arms and armorment of the cavalry that Caesar used and that was used against him show without a doubt that these units are brihentin and Remi Mairepos.

I also added more 2 more authors and their quotes and books which dispells the devastating "Gallic Civil War" theory.

What I'm getting at is that the stats that are to be awarded to the German heavy cavalry will be woefully inadequate from a historical perspective. The German cavalry consistantly defeated a numerically superior Gallic cavalry. The stats that the German cavalry have will be at best marginally better, certainly not even close to doing what they did historically.

Blitz like I said before you did something I didn't think would happen and I glad for that. I will try to get more TCA information to you, but most likely it will be or their movements and vague remarks on their martial prowess. What you got from Plutarch is the most descriptive I have come across but I will continue to look.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Hm, to me, Sweboz was one of the most difficult factions to fight against, as Romani (second only to horse archer factions)... Gameplay-wise they don't seem too underpowered to me... Any tips on how to beat them with Camillan units and bad economy?

[Sarcasm]

Hm, to me, Sweboz was one of the most difficult factions to fight against, as Romani (second only to horse archer factions)... Gameplay-wise they don't seem too underpowered to me... Any tips on how to beat them with Camillan units and bad economy?

Break them at your walls, and then counter-attack directly at their cities. If you don't want them after that, then just give them to a buffer faction or allow it to rebel, taking down all the buildings inside.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Thanks, that's what I should do! ~:) Additionally, I should probably create a better spy network in order not to be surprised by their reinforcements when counter-attacking their cities. One problem though, is Germanic family members: starting out with nothing or very few units, outside the city I besiege, they hire mercs from 2 zones, and suddenly come at me with a full stack of ridoharjoz and gastiz, and as if it wasn't enough, the enemy general already had 8 command stars :skull: I've had that at least twice :shrug: But with good spy network and slower advance + siege defense/sally, I should be fine, I hope ~:)

[PSYCHO V]

The reason for the quotes is to back up some of my claims, I ran short of time and was not able to continue my quotes. The quotes I posted of the Celtic cavalry do have a relevance which I will put down at the end of the quotes on this post..

I’ve said this elsewhere, but quoting the same select examples over and over again does not a compelling argument make.


800 German cavalry charged and defeated 5,000 of Caesar's cavalry.

Oh brother, here we go again. The mighty 800! ..evidence of the Master Race!
So these 800 defeated 5000 enemy cavalry. What about the 400 Gauls who defeated 4,000, or the 4,000 Romans and Gauls who defeated 6,000 German cavalry!? Do you see anyone else grabbing a few incidents in isolation, devoid of context and making grandiose claims?


I will continue to look.

Please do


What I'm getting at is that the stats that are to be awarded to the German heavy cavalry will be woefully inadequate from a historical perspective..

According to you


The German cavalry consistantly defeated a numerically superior Gallic cavalry..

According to you


The stats that the German cavalry have will be at best marginally better, certainly not even close to doing what they did historically..

According to you



There is German cavalry currently in the game, but they are not of the quality of the ones of Ariovistus nor of the Germanic mercenary cavalry Caesar had..

According to you


There is an obvious theme here..

Ain’t that the truth!

[Frostwulf]

I’ve said this elsewhere, but quoting the same select examples over and over again does not a compelling argument make.
From this time period there are not very many examples which are as detailed as Caesar's. For the time frame of EB you have the TCA and a very few others. I am using multiple authors with their own analysis on the subject.


Oh brother, here we go again. The mighty 800! ..evidence of the Master Race!
So these 800 defeated 5000 enemy cavalry. What about the 400 Gauls who defeated 4,000, or the 4,000 Romans and Gauls who defeated 6,000 German cavalry!? Do you see anyone else grabbing a few incidents in isolation, devoid of context and making grandiose claims?
Please expand on this, what battles are you referring to? The last one of the 6,000 Germans seems to be the battle with Ariovistus, please give more information on this, I would like to see what you have on it.If it is on the battle with Ariovistus there was skirmishing going on but not much information after that. For them being the master race, hardly. The Germans were defeated regularly by the Romans, as were the Gauls. The grandoise claims? Goldsworthy, Sidnell,Speidel, etc. etc. pretty much say it was impressive. Perhaps I'm missing your meaning, but if you mean isolated incidents such as Caesar's campaign, then yea I guess I would be.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
The German cavalry consistantly defeated a numerically superior Gallic cavalry..

According to you
And Sidnell,Goldsworthy and Speidel

As for the rest of the things you put down the "According to you" yea when it comes to the EB thing it is the way I believe. As far as the Germans being superior to the Gauls, that's not just me, thats also from the authors I had quotes from.

[burn_again]

I could have needed a heavier cavalry unit in my Sweboz campaigns, but as a student of history I have to agree with Psycho that you cannot project evidence from Caesar's time to the whole EB timeframe. Even if there was evidence about such a powerful cavalry around the time of Caesar's wars in Gaul, and if such a unit would be included in the game, it should not be available before somewhere between 70 - 50 BC.
In terms of gameplay I think that this whole discussion if celtic or germanic cavalry is better is rather pointless. The Sweboz have a huge advantage over the Gauls because they are surrounded by Eleutheroi provinces. I have played several campaigns where I gave all reforms to the Celts from the beginning and although they recruited Brihentin and all the other post-reform units they were absolutely no match for the Sweboz and the Romans.

[SaFe]

While Psycho has a point in his proofed knowledge of the celtic tribes he simply ignore some authors he doesn't like as Frostwulf shows.

Also Psycho should know, that the numbers Caesar mentioned are laughable.
I admire his knowledge about celts, but it is rather disturbing that he mentions numbers of whom he know are wrong.

Every historian could take this numbers and show with simple archaelogical findings that the climate and agriculture in germanic territory could not feed such numbers of healthy male adults who could fight as warriors. There is simply no chance that Ariovist and his Suebians could have an army of so many thousands of warriors.
It is rather so that the Suebians and their allied tribesmen were numerally in the minority at the battle vs. Caesar and his legions.

By now we should all know about roman acquaintance with numbers.
They are simply wrong as well as i don't believe in 800 germanic horsemen vs. thousands of gallic horsemen.

It would show much more fairness, if we just don't pick the writers we like and ignore the others.

[burn_again]

I'm no expert in that field of study, so I have no idea if there are any writers ignored or not. I'm just pretty sure that the germanics of 50 BC were different from the germanics of 270 BC. As long as this is reflected in some kind of reform, I have no problem with heavier units.
I'd like to see a medium and a heavy cavalry unit as Blitzkrieg proposed - but I don't care that much wether they are better than Brihentin or not. Somehow I even think it's realistic in the game when you can beat a strong enemy because of better tactics and/or better economy.

[Geoffrey S]

From this time period there are not very many examples which are as detailed as Caesar's.
Detail should in no way imply better accuracy compared to other authors; it just means there are more things to check carefully.

[Frostwulf]

I could have needed a heavier cavalry unit in my Sweboz campaigns, but as a student of history I have to agree with Psycho that you cannot project evidence from Caesar's time to the whole EB timeframe. Even if there was evidence about such a powerful cavalry around the time of Caesar's wars in Gaul, and if such a unit would be included in the game, it should not be available before somewhere between 70 - 50 BC.

As far as the time frame is concerned the Germans really don't appear till the Bastarnae around 200BC, then the TCA around 113BC and finally with Ariovistus in 71BC, these of course of written sources. If your going to include Sweboz there is no reason not to include these cavalry units. The cavalry that Caesar encounters (with a few exclusions like Ariovistus) were not well armored yet were able to rout numerically superior Gallic troops. There is no reason to assume these cavalry units would not have been around. If you do consider the armored cavalry units you have to look to the TCA which is thought to have left around 120 BC, they did have armored cavalry.


In terms of gameplay I think that this whole discussion if celtic or germanic cavalry is better is rather pointless. The Sweboz have a huge advantage over the Gauls because they are surrounded by Eleutheroi provinces. I have played several campaigns where I gave all reforms to the Celts from the beginning and although they recruited Brihentin and all the other post-reform units they were absolutely no match for the Sweboz and the Romans.

So would you rather have realistic units or should some game play issues be changed? I personally would rather have the realistic units. Tone down the Eleuthori around the Gallic areas if thats whats needed. One of the threads that was started before was complaining of the Celts being to powerful.

Also Psycho should know, that the numbers Caesar mentioned are laughable.
I admire his knowledge about celts, but it is rather disturbing that he mentions numbers of whom he know are wrong.


Every historian could take this numbers and show with simple archaelogical findings that the climate and agriculture in germanic territory could not feed such numbers of healthy male adults who could fight as warriors. There is simply no chance that Ariovist and his Suebians could have an army of so many thousands of warriors.
It is rather so that the Suebians and their allied tribesmen were numerally in the minority at the battle vs. Caesar and his legions.

Taking into the account of Caesar and his battle with Ariovistus John Warry puts the numbers as:
Caesar:21,000 legionairs plus 4,000 Gallic horse and other auxillaries
Ariovistus: (from a community of 120,000) 6,000 horsemen, 6,000 footmen, 16,000 light infantry.
I don't have a problem with these numbers. In general it is thought Caesar exaggerated his enemies numbers but by how much is uncertain. I also would be careful with what archeology can provide as it can often be misread.


By now we should all know about roman acquaintance with numbers.
They are simply wrong as well as i don't believe in 800 germanic horsemen vs. thousands of gallic horsemen.
I do believe this. It was after all Caesar's troops that were defeated and it is a rare thing to put your own numbers higher. After reading from the different authors, I think the numbers are realistic.


I'm no expert in that field of study, so I have no idea if there are any writers ignored or not. I'm just pretty sure that the germanics of 50 BC were different from the germanics of 270 BC. As long as this is reflected in some kind of reform, I have no problem with heavier units.
I think there is a reformed planned around 150 BC which would make sense as the TCA were to begin their trek around 30yrs later. As far as them being much different from 270 till 50BC only for the armored units, which would still leave a heavy cavalry such as most of those that Caesar came across, not heavily armored.

I'd like to see a medium and a heavy cavalry unit as Blitzkrieg proposed - but I don't care that much wether they are better than Brihentin or not. Somehow I even think it's realistic in the game when you can beat a strong enemy because of better tactics and/or better economy.
This would get down to the realistic units again. You can curb unit output by other ways like cost. You can still have it realistic with better tactics and economy but I think the units realism is more important. If the units aren't important why have this mod? The reason for this mod to begin with is because the EB guys felt that vanilla RTW didn't have realistic units.The goal is realism and you can lock down economy and realistic units.


Detail should in no way imply better accuracy compared to other authors; it just means there are more things to check carefully.
I completely agree with you. I have to go with more modern authors because I don't have the time nor the expertise to compile the information they have. I use multiple authors trying to get a consensus on historical happenings to see if most agree, and to date on this time period and situations they do.The authors I use such as Goldsworthy, Warry and etc. don't just use Caesar, but Tacitus and others.

Since I'm not sure which battles Psyco V was talking about I'll make a guess about the 4,000 Gallic cavalry vs 6,000 cavalry as being that as Ariovistus. If thats the case then you could be right, but very doubtful you are. Caesar never elaborates about the cavalry in the battle. He mentions several skirmishes they had prior but says nothing one way or the other. Sidnell seems to think that because of the terrain they were in the cavalry fought on foot.
As far as the 400 defeating the 4,000 that sounds like the Helvetii defeating Caesar's 4,000 cavalry. Caesar's cavalry ended up getting spread out and the 400 Helvetii charged them and chased them off. There were no Germans involved here.

[blitzkrieg80]

Wait... how do we know about the ACTUAL productivity in agriculture concerning a people during a time period we don't even have references to until almost 200 years later?! That seems absurd to me. Even if we knew FOR SURE what technology they were limited to (which we don't- we have theories based on evidence of a select few, as is the case for all ancient Germanic evidence- we do NOT have a comprehensive sample of the entire population of the area) there are still other methods to feed and support a population which include but are not limited to fishing, hunting, pastoralism and gathering practices that can supplement and add to any baseline "theory" historians have about how much population an area can support. It can't even be claimed that a single iota of information is FOR SURE even from the strongest cases available in archaeological and linguistic evidence, since literary evidence is completely lacking.

Pastoralists can be said to be of such low populations because it is science fact that their methods of food acquisition are based on their animals' needs and an environment based on quantifiable factors. The Huns in similar propogandic tendencies (as said of the Germans) are called HORDES even though pastoralist populations are limited by their lifeways and huge areas of steppe can still only support so many. Of course saying "that small group over there kicked mine with less than half our number" isn't going to come across naturally for any proud people.

Now if that is the same reasoning to claim that Germans could not possibly field an army of 4,000, it is not wrong to use similar logic concerning enivromental facts and lifeways, but where is this evidence? I find it very hard to believe that agriculturalists (whose purpose is to support larger populations than nomads and pastoralists) can't even support a very small number of warriors like 4,000 in all of Germania, especially considering a diet consisting of readily available fish on the coastline or game in vast forestland. Surely their agricultural practices were limited by the cold climate of the North and the lack of a heavy iron tool technology, but if that was the case, how did the Germans EVER field an army to cause the "Migration Age" without a population to migrate? We know that not all Germanic warriors were considered professional and were part-time, so it really can't be said that they were lacking in manpower.


Good point, Frostwulf, we don't even know a single thing for sure before the Bastarnae who we know almost nothing, and much is also NOT known about the Teutons, Cimbri, and Ambrones, so Caesar is are earliest (although certainly biased) authority. Tacitus isn't even very good but quite valuable in comparison to nothing. Jordanes is similarly useful but limited.

There is absolutely no reason that a unit should unbalanced for any reason. There is no winner or loser in an open-ended computer game and it is up to different players playing different teams to use their differently balanced game pieces to achieve victory. I find it odd that our new Germanic heavy cavalry unit needs to be further pumped up in stats which is among the best if not THE BEST unit available for its region. Why have a battle at all if you want to decide its result?


Psycho, it seems ridiculous to me to claim that someone needs to lay out every possible context behind a citation when the whole point of doing the citation is so someone can check it and make up their mind for themselves (although you're right it is not an effective way to do an argument). It seems to me there is no validity to your criticism if you want someone to go beyond using EVIDENCE, which is all that is available... ok, Classical writers tend to exagerate and history is not truth but perspective, but what CAN we know then? NOTHING. By your own logic, you'd say that nothing can be said about any archaeological finds because we have to know the context first, even though that is where context comes from (chicken before the egg)... who defines when someone has achieved the appropriate context? Argument is all well and fine and the whole purpose of citation is to have arguments about data and reference, but to claim that someone needs more than that like rhetoric seems less much like you want to find truth (since you're speaking openly WITHOUT citation) and more like you want to create an effect, persuading people, rather than informing.

[PSYCHO V]

Also Psycho should know, that the numbers Caesar mentioned are laughable.
I admire his knowledge about celts, but it is rather disturbing that he mentions numbers of whom he know are wrong. .

~:) Then why are you so hung up on citing the example of 800 German cavalry?



Taking into the account of Caesar and his battle with Ariovistus John Warry puts the numbers as:
Caesar:21,000 legionairs plus 4,000 Gallic horse and other auxillaries
Ariovistus: (from a community of 120,000) 6,000 horsemen, 6,000 footmen, 16,000 light infantry.
I don't have a problem with these numbers. .

I believe Caesar had 6 legions, so he may have had a little more than 21k, we don’t know for sure as several legions were under strength.

But this begs the question.... :helloo:

By your rationale Frosty, if 6 Legions defeated 120,000 Germans but 11 Legions were defeated by 80,000 Gauls..shouldn’t we all be jumping up and down claiming that the ‘Gauls were better than the Germans most of the time’! :charge:


~:flirt:



I use multiple authors trying to get a consensus on historical happenings to see if most agree, and to date on this time period and situations they do.

I’m afraid that is just your interpretation. You take quotes like Goldsworthy on how during the Gallic campaign the German horse appeared superior and want to extrapolate that (devoid of context) to several hundred years prior. See my post in the "Celts are overpowered" thread for more detailed cross analysis.



Since I'm not sure which battles Psyco V was talking about I'll make a guess about the 4,000 Gallic cavalry vs 6,000 cavalry as being that as Ariovistus. If thats the case then you could be right. Caesar never elaborates about the cavalry in the battle. He mentions several skirmishes they had prior but says nothing one way or the other.

Yup



As far as the 400 defeating the 4,000 that sounds like the Helvetii defeating Caesar's 4,000 cavalry. Caesar's cavalry ended up getting spread out and the 400 Helvetii charged them and chased them off. There were no Germans involved here.

No Germans..so?

The point is anyone can grab an isolated incident out of any semblance of context and start making grandiose claims. What about the alleged force of 430,000 Germans who threw down their arms and fled in panic at the sight of 8 Legions in open country ...when 330,000 Gauls attacked 11 well entrenched Legions? Should we assume all Germans were cowards and the Gauls brave and ferocious warriors? :yes:



This would get down to the realistic units again. The goal is realism …and realistic units.

Yup, which is what EB have. They don’t take Imperial Legions and use them as a bench-mark for all Romans throughout several hundred years of history prior… nor do they take Germanic feat of arms in the mid 1st BC – 1st C Ad and do the same.


my2bob

[PSYCHO V]

Psycho, it seems ridiculous to be to claim that someone needs to lay out every possible context behind a citation.

I didn't ask him to “lay out” any context. I merely encouraged him to consider context before grabbing a few select pieces of data and jumping to conclusions. See my analogy of the 5 blind men and elephant in the “Celts are overpowered thread”.


you're right it is not an effective way to do an argument.

It just turns into ‘noise’



It seems to me there is no validity to your criticism if you want someone to go beyond using EVIDENCE, which is all that is available... ok, Classical writers tend to exagerate and history is not truth but perspective, but what CAN we know then? NOTHING. By your own logic, you'd say that nothing can be said about any archaeological finds because we have to know the context first…etc etc.

Ridiculous... of course we can know something, but we are still learning. Hence when we come across data, we need to cross-reference it with everything else we know about the subject. This is not only true for history / archaeology but for every scientific discipline.

Been to the doctors lately? If you turn up complaining of a number of ailments, one of which is numbness in the legs, your doctor won’t jump up and go “right… early stages of gangrene, we’re going to have to cut that leg off I’m afraid!” He look at the big picture and your ailments in context to all available data.


my2bob

[PSYCHO V]

While Psycho has a point in his proofed knowledge of the celtic tribes he simply ignore some authors he doesn't like as Frostwulf shows..

:2thumbsup: What prey tell have I ignored?


Also Psycho should know, that the numbers Caesar mentioned are laughable.
I admire his knowledge about celts, but it is rather disturbing that he mentions numbers of whom he know are wrong. .

The numbers are inconsequential… you’ve missed the wood through the trees here my friend.
The whole point here is demonstrating how flawed the idea is that you can take select data, devoid of context, and draw conclusions from it.


By now we should all know about roman acquaintance with numbers. They are simply wrong as well as i don't believe in 800 germanic horsemen vs. thousands of gallic horsemen. .

I rest my case.


It would show much more fairness, if we just don't pick the writers we like and ignore the others.

Ain’t that the truth!

[Zero1]

Hello, again deciding to add my two cents.

Now while I admit that my knowledge of the Celts and Germans of the classical erra, which my community college professors and friends/family find impressive, is meager in comparison to many here...that said, after reading this over it seems to me that Frostwulf is using single incidents to support some sort of agenda...specifically that the Germanic peoples were superior to the Celts and the Romans superior to everyone...if that's the case then isn't this exactly the kind of over simplification that EB seeks to avoid?, Isn't this the same kind of ethnocentric nationalistic nosense that spurred on the legendary and sometimes ridiculous Greek language arguments?

If I'm wrong, which I hope I am, please correct me

[Frostwulf]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Also Psycho should know, that the numbers Caesar mentioned are laughable.
I admire his knowledge about celts, but it is rather disturbing that he mentions numbers of whom he know are wrong. .

Then why are you so hung up on citing the example of 800 German cavalry?

:oops: Sorry this wasn't my quote, it was safe's. I accidentally added it to my post.:embarassed: I'm not hung up on the 800, thats just one of the examples I used along with the Sugambri and the German mercenaries of Caesar.


I believe Caesar had 6 legions, so he may have had a little more than 21k, we don’t know for sure as several legions were under strength.

But this begs the question....

By your rationale Frosty, if 6 Legions defeated 120,000 Germans but 11 Legions were defeated by 80,000 Gauls..shouldn’t we all be jumping up and down claiming that the ‘Gauls were better than the Germans most of the time’!
It wasn't 120,000 combatants, the total number of people (woman,children,warriors etc.) is 120,000. For combatants you have 6,000 horsemen, 6,000 footmen, 16,000 light infantry. As far as the 80,000 Gauls I dont know of which battle you are referring to.


I’m afraid that is just your interpretation. You take quotes like Goldsworthy on how during the Gallic campaign the German horse appeared superior and want to extrapolate that (devoid of context) to several hundred years prior. See my post in the "Celts are overpowered" thread for more detailed cross analysis.

I did and put a reply that basically says that this is the only written information of battles other then the TCA. With the TCA the battles are not well documented while with Caesar they are. All we know is that the TCA (granted they had Celts among them) defeated some Roman armies. These are the same type armies who defeated the Gauls in 120's BC. We don't know what the situation was when the TCA was rebuffed by the Boii and the Scordisci nor do we know what the situation when the TCA was in Spain for a few years. We do know fairly well how the TCA was deployed and some of the tactics they used against the Romans, both before and after Marius. We also know how the southern Gauls(Arverni,Allobreges etc.) were dealt with by the Romans. There is some that can be done by proxy here.


No Germans..so?

The point is anyone can grab an isolated incident out of any semblance of context and start making grandiose claims. What about the alleged force of 430,000 Germans who threw down their arms and fled in panic at the sight of 8 Legions in open country ...when 330,000 Gauls attacked 11 well entrenched Legions? Should we assume all Germans were cowards and the Gauls brave and ferocious warriors?
No Germans=thought we were only talking to them, didnt know what you were getting at till now.
430,000 tribesmen most were not warriors.
Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"The legions marched out in three columns, which could readily be converted into the battle line of the triplex acies, and advanced the 8 miles to the German camp.The Usipetes and Tencteri were surprise and leaderless, so that what followed was more of a massacre than a battle." pg.275
I have a hard time believing that this was open country and yet being able to be taken by surprise.
For the most part when I talk of battle sequences I do put down factors that are relevant, I don't just throw out numbers.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1572850&postcount=26


(although you're right it is not an effective way to do an argument)

It just turns into ‘noise’
Ill have to disagree with you guys on this. Putting quotes gives validity to an argument. I'm sorry but just because you say something is so doesn't mean I will believe you. If you get a quote from a noted scholar then it holds more weight. The quotes I put down are perfectly legitimate and in context, I even went so far as to type out an entire Simon James page to prove it wasn't out of context, yet there will be some that just don't want to believe it and want me to type out the whole book.


Hello, again deciding to add my two cents.

Now while I admit that my knowledge of the Celts and Germans of the classical erra, which my community college professors and friends/family find impressive, is meager in comparison to many here...that said, after reading this over it seems to me that Frostwulf is using single incidents to support some sort of agenda...specifically that the Germanic peoples were superior to the Celts and the Romans superior to everyone...if that's the case then isn't this exactly the kind of over simplification that EB seeks to avoid?, Isn't this the same kind of ethnocentric nationalistic nosense that spurred on the legendary and sometimes ridiculous Greek language arguments?

If I'm wrong, which I hope I am, please correct me
What are you considering single incidents? If you are referring to the Germans in the Gallic war, then yes. If your saying a single battle then you are incorrect. The reason for most of this thread was to push for a heavy German cavalry and to increase the strength and moral of some of their units, to flesh them out by using scholars of history and archeology. True most of the data comes from the Gallic war, but do you know of a better source? Outside the TCA and Gallic war time frames, where can we get some information? When I said that the Romans >Germans>Gauls it's based on the battles that were fought and the circumstances behind them, yes this part was simplistic and a generalization. I showed how the German cavalry was superior to the Gallic cavalry and that there was a need for an improvement from the only German cavalry now in the game.How is this "ethnocentric nationalistic nonsense"?

[blitzkrieg80]

Frostwulf, when I say that using quotes exclusively is not an effective way of argumention, it doesn't mean you at all, but is rather meant as factual... if you re-read what i posted, you'll see i support your use of citation and quotes because that's the only thing that can be claimed at all where otherwise there is only ignorance and a void of information. Using facts is where it's at and quoting is doing that, which I applaud you for, something I do not always do because i do not have time to dig out books and my university access these days is limited.

You don't need to repeat yourself, although I understand you're only trying to defend your argument. You've done that.

You mentioned something of tactics concerning the Cimbri, Teutons, ect... it would be awesome if we could recreate a historical battle with that knoweldge. Currently I am wondering if the word "breastplate" mentioned in reference to the Cimbri might not actually be mail since the word for mail originates in "breast" and such can be easily mistranslated. I am also wondering what evidence we could use besides the Hjortspring deposit (which supports mail) to support a more diversified armor assortment and actually portray some kind of Gallic breastplate or whatever was used.

[Frostwulf]

Sorry for the misunderstanding Blitz. As far as the TCA the quote is an iron breastplate, I might have some more information on this in a few days, but I should at least be able to get some of the battle information for you.

[blitzkrieg80]

thanks! i will try to keep you guys posted on the progress of the unit development.

no need to apologize- i just wanted to make clear that what i value most is the ability to cite evidence and scholarship on material, even if rhetoric has its value. those of us who merely talk cannot err talk ~:)

[Frostwulf]

This is an attempt to summerize things.
To the statement:

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

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

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

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

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

The Oxford Classical Dictionary-"The conventional view is that German language and culture originated in northern Germany and land about the western Baltic from about 500BC. Movement of peoples, leading to the reversal of Celtic expansion and Germanic contact with the Mediterranean world, took place from 300BC. In the west, this included the Cimbric migration of the 2nd cent. BC -probably also the date of German settlement across the lower Rhine. The early 1st cen. saw teh arrival of the Suebi on the upper Rhin. In the east, the Germanic Bastarnae appeared on the borders of Thrace as early as 200BC; and the same period saw the establishment of the distant ancestors of, amongst others, Burgundians, Goths, and Vandals, between the Oder and the Vistula." pg. 635 Contributers: Anderson,Much,L.Schmidt,E.A.Thompson,M.Todd,P.Heather

The Germans reversed the Celtic expansion. If the Celts had been defeating the Germans for centuries, then how could this happen? If the Celts were so tough, why were they reversed during their expansion phase?

If around 400BC the Celts began to expand, why did it take around 100 years to reach Thrace and Macedonia?

*Atlas of the Celts-"Broadly following the course of the Danube, Celtic war parties and their families, reinforced by latecomers who could find no place in an overcrowded Italy, traveled more than 1500 kilometers (1000) miles eastwards across Euope. Progress was slow and, we may suppose, completely disorganized." pg.63

This is similar to what I was saying about the Germans.

Dissenting view:

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


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

The rank lack of succesful German expansion at Celtic expense for centuries sounds pretty conclusive to me, doubly so given the highly warlike nature of both peoples.


The Germans prior the 2nd C BC were generally beholden to the Celts.
D.H. Green “Language and History in the early Germanic World”-“Although the earlier view that the Celts established a political hegemony over Germanic tribes may no longer be acceptable, the cultural flow, as revealed by archaeological finds, is clearly from the Celtic south to the German north."


The subject of the supposed "Devastating Civil 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


Simon James "The World of the Celts"-" The complex web of clientage and alliance which Caesar reveals in Gaul was largely based on the outcome of frequent wars. The theater of combat was where many personal and tribal relations were tested, broken and forged. We may suppose conflicts ranged from great wars associated with migrations of whole peoples to mere brigandage, inter-family feuds, and cattle raids by individual warriors seeking quick wealth and prestige. Probably most Celtic warfare was on a small scale, involving no more then a few score men on each side. The population was growing and states were developing in late Iron age Gaul, and this may have led to an increase in the scale of warfare. But it is clear that the vast armies commanded by Vercingetorix and others were assemble only as a response to the great threat from Rome (p.127). In fact, Rome changed the very rules of Celtic warfare, bringing large armies into an area where, internally at least, they may have been much rarer before. Certainly, the Gaul described and conquered by Caesar showed no signs of exhaustion by internal wars-it was a rich and prosperous land-so means were evidently found for limiting the damage war could cause. Caesar says that the Druids were involved in disputes and in the decision to wage war, providing some evidence for the existence of limiting social mechanisms. War did not threaten the fabric of society as a whole, even if the fortunes of the individual clans and tribes did wax and wane. It would be probably also be wrong to think that love of war was confined to the nobility, at the expense of the suffering of a pacifist peasantry: admiration for the warrior ethic appears to have been general, and was not restricted to men either (see box). Violence was endemic, but sufficiently intermittent for most people to get on with their lives successfully most of the time: warlike display was at least as important as actual fighting." pg. 74

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


Dissenting view:

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Troop quality of Germans:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1660128&postcount=223
This is during Caesar's Gallic war campaign. I believe there's no reason to believe that the Germans or the Celts would be much different from 270BC till Caesar's time. The equipment of the Celts may have been better by Caesars time but the Germans were still superior to them.

Dissenting view:
It all revolves around the supposed "Devastating Civil War" theory.

Troop quality of Gauls:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1656696&postcount=219
The Gallic troops had moved from mostly footmen to cavalry, and the majority of the elites were cavalry. As shown by the wars the Gauls were certainly not short on cavalry.

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

Dissenting view:
It all revolves around the supposed "Devastating Civil War" theory.

Quotes to be cleaned up:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1662546&postcount=235

By your rationale Frosty, if 6 Legions defeated 120,000 Germans but 11 Legions were defeated by 80,000 Gauls..shouldn’t we all be jumping up and down claiming that the ‘Gauls were better than the Germans most of the time’
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1661502&postcount=265

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

It wasn't 120,000 combatants, the total number of people (woman,children,warriors etc.) is 120,000. For combatants you have 6,000 horsemen, 6,000 footmen, 16,000 light infantry.

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"Upon these they set their women, who with tears and outstretched hands entreated the men, as they marched out to fight, not to deliver them into Roman slavery." Book 1, 51

Just like the others,Helvetii, Usipetes and Tencteri etc. had non-combatants(woman,children etc.) thats why you end up with the large numbers in these cases.


What about the alleged force of 430,000 Germans who threw down their arms and fled in panic at the sight of 8 Legions in open country
Again another you brought up multiple times and I answered multiple times.

Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"The legions marched out in three columns, which could readily be converted into the battle line of the triplex acies, and advanced the 8 miles to the German camp.The Usipetes and Tencteri were surprised and leaderless, so that what followed was more of a massacre than a battle." pg.275

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"Triple line of columns was formed, and the eight mile march was so speedily accomplished that Caesar reached the the enemy's camp before the Germans could have any inkling of what was toward".Book 4,14

Another multiple statement:

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

Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-" The convoys of the Helvetii moved onwards, and Caesar followed them, sending his 4,000 cavalry out in advance. Amongst them was a sizeable force of Aedui led by Dumnorix, the same chieftain who had allied with Orgetorix and then aided the Helvetii. Advancing too carelessly, the allied cavalry were ambushed and beaten by a force of Helvetion cavalry a fraction of their size." pg.215

Caesar "The Gallic War"-" Caesar discovered the unsuccessful cavalry engagement of a few days before, that Dumnorix and his horsemen (he was commander of the body of horse sent by the Aedui to the aid of Caesar) had started the retreat, and that by their retreat the remainder of the horse had been stricken with panic. All this Caesar learnt, and to confirm these suspicions he had indisputable facts. Dumnorix had brought the Helvetii through the borders of the Sequani; he had caused hostages to be given between them; he had done all this not only without orders from his state or from Caesar, but even without the knowledge of either; he was now accused by the magistrate of the Aedui. Caesar deemed all this to be cause enough for him either to punish Dumnorix himself, or to command the state so to do." Book 1, 19
Caesars cavalry were duped by Dumnorix and surprised, thats why they retreated.



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

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

This again shows the superiority of the German horse vs. the cream of the crop of the Celts, and 800 of the Germanic cavalry ran of around 5000 of the Gallic cavalry which included the Remi. Caesar never mentions how good his Gallic cavalry only his German cavalry, why do you think that is?

When it comes to evidence, the dissenters have nothing at all.


* "Atlas of the Celts";Dr. Barry Raftery; Dr.Jane McIntosh, Clint Twist

[Watchman]

For someone who'd read his Sidnell, you seem to quite actively ignore the man's repeated discussions on the importance of momentum, speed and shock in the inherently highly volatile field of cavalry combat. Heck, Romans at least once appear to have been put pretty much the whole cataphract force of an Armenian army to flight just by hitting them suddenly in the flank with light infantry from a direction they thought was secure.

Not to forget his talk about the victory in a horse fight tending to go to the side who last has fresh and uncommitted reserves - which is exactly what Caesar usually used his Germans as. The Gauls would take the initial brunt of the fighting, and the Germans would be thrown in once the moment was judged suitable to tip the balance and put the engaged enemy cavalry to flight.

Bet you the main reason he did it that way was because he regarded the hired Germans as more politically reliable than the Gauls.

[Frostwulf]

For someone who'd read his Sidnell, you seem to quite actively ignore the man's repeated discussions on the importance of momentum, speed and shock in the inherently highly volatile field of cavalry combat. Heck, Romans at least once appear to have been put pretty much the whole cataphract force of an Armenian army to flight just by hitting them suddenly in the flank with light infantry from a direction they thought was secure.

Not to forget his talk about the victory in a horse fight tending to go to the side who last has fresh and uncommitted reserves - which is exactly what Caesar usually used his Germans as. The Gauls would take the initial brunt of the fighting, and the Germans would be thrown in once the moment was judged suitable to tip the balance and put the engaged enemy cavalry to flight.

We will skip Ariovistus who did well against the Romans and go with the Usipetes and Tencteri.

Goldsworthy “Caesar”-The Germans had some 800 horsemen still guarding their encampment. Caesar had 5,000 cavalry, although if these were performing their duties as a patrolling and screening force properly, then they would not all have been concentrated in one place. Even so, the Gallic auxiliaries probably had a significant numerical advantage, and were mounted on larger horses than their opponents, which makes it all the more notable that the Germans quickly gained an advantage. In Caesar's account the Germans charged first, chasing away part of the Gallic cavalry, but were in turn met by their supports. Many of the Germans then dismounted to fight on foot-perhaps with the support of the picked infantrymen who regularly supported the horsemen of some Germanic tribes. The Gauls were routed and fled, spreading panic amongst a large part of the auxiliary and allied cavalry who galloped in terror back to the main force, which was probably several miles away.” pg.274

Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"Although not more than eight hundred German horsemen were present, as soon as they caught sight of Caesar's cavalry they charged and 'soon threw them into disorder'-all five thousand of them. The Celts did not break immediately, 'but in their turn, made a stand' and a sharp fight ensued in which the Germans, 'overthrowing a great many of our men, put the rest to flight'. pg.230-231

The Germans charged first then later in came more Gallic cavalry, no reserves and a pitched battle after the first charge.

Caesars German mercenaries:

Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"On the following day the Gaulish cavalry attacked in three groups-one striking the head of the column and the others threatening the flanks. Caesar's cavalry were heavily outnumbered but he likewise divided them into three groups and moved up the infantry as close support whenever they were hard pressed. The legionaries could not catch the enemy horsemen, but they provided a solid block for their own horsemen to rally behind and re-form. In the end the Germans won the combat on the right, routing the warriors facing them and causing the rest to withdraw. pg.335

The charge began with the Gauls but ended with the heavily outnumbered German cavalry defeating them. No reserves, no initial brunt excuse, simply the martial ability of the Germans defeated the more numerous Gauls.

Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"It was the German cavalry, possibly with their own light infantry in support even though they are not mentioned, who made the breakthrough.
At length the German horse gained the top of some rising ground on the right, dislodged some of the enemy, and chased them with heavy loss to a river where Vercingetorix's infantry was posted. At this the rest of his cavalry fled, afraid of being surrounded, and were cut down in numbers all over the field.pg. 234

The Germans fought there way to the top and dislodged the Gauls, I don't recall if there was an initial charge(I figure there must have been) but they fought there way up to the top of the hill.


Bet you the main reason he did it that way was because he regarded the hired Germans as more politically reliable than the Gauls.
What about that Caesar considered the Aedui to be his closest allies even though they came real close to mutiny and also the Remi who stood by Caesar the whole time. The Cavalry Caesar had by the time he gained the Germans had been with him for 5 or 6 years.

Speaking of Sidnell:
Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-One might expect that the combination of the long-famed Celtic prowess as mounted warriors with this new state-of-the-art military equipment (to which add spurs, superior ironwork in their weapons and armour and, at first, larger horses) would have proved unstoppable, yet it is the German cavalry who really stand out in Caesar's accounts and we are specifically told they did not have the advantage of saddles. Indeed, Caesar makes clear that the Germans positively scorned such aids as a sign of weakness:' In their eyes it is the height of effeminacy and shame to use a saddle, and they do not hesitate to engage the largest force of cavalry riding saddled horses, however small their own numbers may be'." pg.228

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

Michael P. Speidel-"Riding for Caesar"-"Caesar threw his Germani into the fray-'some four hundred horsemen he had with him from the beginning'. the Gauls, unable to withstand their onslaught, broke and fled. Caesar's horse guard thus saved him from being trapped in certain defeat.
Holding back reserves until the decisive moment, Caesar had won by tactical skill. It is nevertheless astonishing that only four hundred men made such a difference. They must have been the kind of men Caesar's own army feared, 'huge, unbelievably bold and expert fighters'."pg.12

All 3 of these authors were impressed with the Germans! I wasn't ignoring what he was saying, I was simply agreeing with him.

[Charge]

Gauls are more powerful than germans in EB??? And there is historicity? I will check it soon; (completely agree, that germans was most superior warriors, both infantry and cavalry, in barbarian world, especially in Ceasar's times!)

[Moros]

Err... first of all The Game starts much earlier than Caesar. Second of all I think it's hard to say which civilization is the strongest and has the best warriors. What we do know from Archeology is that the gauls had better supplies of Iron and that the average Gaul wore more Armour than the average German, during most if not our complete time period.

EB tries to portray all factions equally detailled and correctly. And as you see we and a lot of fans weren't comletly pleased with our German units. Currently we have reworked them and in our opinion did a better job of reflecting their historical strenghts, weaponry, armour, looks, stats...

Also this particular dicussion isn't about whether one civilization was superior or not, but about game balancing. And as our germans got a whole new unit roster and has been worked on a whole lot, thanks to Blitz (great work!), w can assure that the gameplaybalance of the germans, has been reworked. And will be much more historical accurate and better balanced in the next version.

great discussion none the less.

[blitzkrieg80]

You 'bout summed it up quite well, Moros, and thank you for the acknowledgement, TRULY, it wasn't easy and hopefully this evolution will satisfy all of these issues, balance and historical. I am VERY excited about the next release because there are so many changes and hopefully I have done the Germanic peoples justice, but as always, I will be first person to admit I am not perfect, so there might be some fine-tuning (so bring on the feedback) such as with the Reforms which haven't been implemented in any previous version.

The main problem is that potentially any faction is playable (not really a problem) so game-balance-wise we don't want to have any faction stand out as ALWAYS the unstoppable juggernaut, it just doesn't make sense. Also, a certain amount of free will in the shaping of history is a wholly desirable element in the RTW engine, which does not allow overbalancing and certain history, besides the fact that the Germans were just not THAT active until Caesar's time, and I would argue that it's not because of Caesar at all (although certainly the ability to rally a large collective army against a particular foe is an element, smaller forces were always common). The Time of the Warband was the reason ~;) shameless promotion of my reform, haha, ok I'm being silly, but anyways.

We're appreciative of the thoughtful discussions, though, so don't get us wrong.

[Frostwulf]

Err... first of all The Game starts much earlier than Caesar. Second of all I think it's hard to say which civilization is the strongest and has the best warriors. What we do know from Archeology is that the gauls had better supplies of Iron and that the average Gaul wore more Armour than the average German, during most if not our complete time period.
This is true, yet even though the Gauls had more armor they still were being defeated by the Germans in Caesar's time. As far as events and battles prior to Caesar we only know the Germans had reversed the Celtic expansion. Later we have the TCA who were deflected by the Boii but the circumstances are unknown. The TCA had defeated Romans who in the 120'sBC had defeated the Celts and we know more of the circumstances of these battles. The Roman soldiers would have been of the same type who fought both the Gauls and the TCA. I still don't think there would be much difference between 270BC and Caesars time for the Germans. As for the Celts they moved more to a cavalry elite starting around 250BC(Kruta).
Thanks for the info Moros, its nice to know a bit of the behind the scenes things.


The main problem is that potentially any faction is playable (not really a problem) so game-balance-wise we don't want to have any faction stand out as ALWAYS the unstoppable juggernaut, it just doesn't make sense. Also, a certain amount of free will in the shaping of history is a wholly desirable element in the RTW engine, which does not allow overbalancing and certain history, besides the fact that the Germans were just not THAT active until Caesar's time,
I agree with the juggernaut thing, but I guess for the Germans not being to active would be a matter of opinion. You do have the Bastarnae/Scirii going to the Black Sea area and causing problems around 200-250 BC, and there is the situation with reversing the Celts.
I know game balance is very important but I personally would rather have more realistic units offset by cost or some other form of balance. Regardless of what I say, I don't have to go through the headache and the time consumed to make this work. I'm sure you will do a great job at this. I would also like to thank you guys that take time out to respond, it is appreciated.

Blitz I told you I would put down some more TCA material. I don't think this will help you but I will put it down anyway.

Fighting Techniques of the Ancient World-"Aquae Sextae 102BC
Marius ordered Claudius Marcellus to hide 3000 men in the hills. Marius then instructed his legionaries to all the Germans to charge uphill; they were to throw pila once the Germans were in range. The Germans charged up the hill, where their formation was disrupted by the slope, the rocky terrain , and the volleys of pila from the Romans above, which inflicted heavier casualties than usual, due to the Germans dense formation and lack of armour. A shoving and stabbing match then ensued, in which the Romans, with the gladius, better training and uphill position, had a decisive advantage. The Germans were pushed back down onto the plain, where they tried to form a shield wall. It was now that Marcellus cohorts charged down from the hills behind the Teutones and hit them in the rear, just as Marius attacked their front. The Germans rear routed, scattering the front ranks, and the entire army fell apart. Plutarch estimates that 100,000 Germans were killed." pg.58
The 100,000 would include woman and children.

I do have information on the battle of Vercellae against the Cimbri but its about the same as above. If you want it the information Ill put it down for you.

[Erebus26]

Never mind the Romans - the 'Germans' were the uber warriors of the age and could beat anyone! You've made some excellent points Frostwulf but besides from Ariovistus' defeat of the weakened Aedui can you give me a list of battles where the 'Germans' defeated the 'Gauls' in battle? And I don't mean Gallic Cavalry against German Cavalry during Caesar's conquest, or the battles of the TCA - as they were most likely a mixture of different tribal groupings.

As I've stated in the 'Celtic Overpowered' thread - I don't think there was much difference between the tribal groupings on either side of Rhine. This was a political statement by Caesar so he could raise his profile with the people of Rome to say that he had conquered Gaul. Again with the supposed German threat to Gaul prior to Caesar's invasion - again this was Caesar playing at politics so he had the excuse of intervening in Gaul. At the time of his invasion, Caesar had enemies like Cato within the senate who were trying to strip of his military power and his governorship of Transalpine Gaul. So what better excuse than to tell of massed Helveti and Suebi tribesman spilling into Gaul, near to the boundaries of a Roman Province.