Unit strength

What are the historical basis of certain units being stronger than each other?

A comparison I've always questioned was why is the Northern Gallic Swordsmen tougher than the Southern? He has four more armor points, but what historical basis lead to make the team make this decision?

Sorry, more questions...
-Why are the Germanic Levies stronger than the Celtic levies?
-What makes the Elite African Phalanx worse than the Elite Mak's and Selucids?
-Why are the Gaestae slightly stronger than the Galatian Wild men?

I know these question sound noobish, but it's always been a point of curiosity for me. How did the team give the units stats in comparison to each other? Why are very similar units stronger and weaker?

Gaesatae took drugs, and were insane. Galatian Wild men were simply insane.

Frankly, the Maks and Seleucids used their phalanxes far more than Carthaginians, and were more militarily minded anyways.

The similarities are simply the units types. Their cultures differ wildly. Generally, the Germanics were more aggresive than the Celts, and had to fight harder to survive, while the Celts lived somewhat more comfortable lives.

I'm clearly not the man you're looking for but I can guess the Mak/Seleucid elite phalanxes are better than the African ones because of the tradition of phalanx warfare ingrained in successor militaries, wheras I think the Carthaginians somewhat copied/adopted the formation and therefore would have had less expertise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kekailoa

A comparison I've always questioned was why is the Northern Gallic Swordsmen tougher than the Southern? He has four more armor points, but what historical basis lead to make the team make this decision?

---

Gaul was pretty rich AFAIK. Ergo the local warrior class was on the average decked out in more junk, such as now helmets here.

Quote:

---

-Why are the Germanic Levies stronger than the Celtic levies?

---

Note that they're stronger by mere one point of attack... write that down to more practice in minor local scuffles and tribal raids. The Celts had a true warrior class that normally did the fighting, and the commoners were only mobilised in major emergencies. The Germanics weren't prosperous enough to afford such fancy arrangements and instead operated mostly on a straight "peasant-soldier" principle - every able-bodied freeman was expected to turn up with his weapons for a conflict, and they had a *lot* of those...

[QUOTE=kekailoa;2288039
A comparison I've always questioned was why is the Northern Gallic Swordsmen tougher than the Southern? He has four more armor points, but what historical basis lead to make the team make this decision?
[/QUOTE] as Nietzsche said what doesn´t kill you make you stronger so you can´t compare someone who lives in italy with nice sunny weather and good farm lands with a decent amount of trade to someone living in the forests of armorica hunting wild boars and fighting off all sort of dangers either wolfs bears or the worst beast of all your neighbours :inquisitive:

I'm not sure if that answer works. The fact that Northern Gallic swordmen have more armour than their southern counterparts shows nothing to do with their quality of life. And besides which, Gaul doesn't extend to Italy, and the Northern bits of Italy are just as inhospitable as the rest of Gaul. The Celts were generally farmers anyways, the fact that warrior classes have differences shouldn't have to do with their main population.

My theory is that the team just has sources that describe the Southern Gauls as having less armour (They're bare-chested in EB) than the Northerners (Who seem to have chainmail underneath their shirt)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moonburn

as Nietzsche said what doesn´t kill you make you stronger so you can´t compare someone who lives in italy with nice sunny weather and good farm lands with a decent amount of trade to someone living in the forests of armorica hunting wild boars and fighting off all sort of dangers either wolfs bears or the worst beast of all your neighbours :inquisitive:

---

I agree with AVSM. I don't agree with this answer. The Southern Gallic swordsmen dealt with just as much as the Northern, and the difference is not in the defense skill, but the armor. This seems like an answer very much based on stereotypes and Asterix comics.

@Watchmen- I would assume that the Southern parts of Gaul were a little more exposed to the armor-bearing cultures of the Mediterranean, and also according to what I have read, the more successful and economically prosperous Gallic states were to the South (closer to the trade routes and civilized culture). That would seem to me that the richer an area, the more decked out a warrior would be. Also, a large number of armor and helmet finds have been in Northern Italy, along with I believe a few chainmail discoveries. But then again, the southern states were somewhat softer than the northern, so the Northern warriors might be more warlike.

Thank you for your previous answers, too. I had a basic idea about the levy question, and that was pretty much what I was thinking. And with the phalanx question, that makes a lot of sense and should have occurred to me earlier. :sweatdrop: I have a few more questions, unfortunately...

-Why are the Caledonian Noble cav, the Pannonian/Celto-Germanic cav and the Irish cav so similar in stats and armament? Is there a historical basis?
-Why are the German heavy cavalry so strong? I know they're hard to get to and produce in large amounts, but even with the account of the German cavalry in Ceasar's Gallic wars, what evidence for them being so strong is there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

Gaul doesn't extend to Italy, and the Northern bits of Italy are just as inhospitable as the rest of Gaul.

---

Yeah it does. What about the Po Valley, Cisalpine Gaul and the like? You can't discount them just because they aren't inside modern France.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

And besides which, Gaul doesn't extend to Italy, and the Northern bits of Italy are just as inhospitable as the rest of Gaul.

---

...what part of either is supposed to be "inhospitable", anyway ? Far as I know Gaul/France has some of the best farmland and nicest climate in Europe, and by the standards of the Mediterranean climate zone the Po valley is a major breadbasket...

Quote:

---

...than the Northerners (Who seem to have chainmail underneath their shirt)

---

what :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kekailoa

I would assume that the Southern parts of Gaul were a little more exposed to the armor-bearing cultures of the Mediterranean, and also according to what I have read, the more successful and economically prosperous Gallic states were to the South (closer to the trade routes and civilized culture). That would seem to me that the richer an area, the more decked out a warrior would be. Also, a large number of armor and helmet finds have been in Northern Italy, along with I believe a few chainmail discoveries. But then again, the southern states were somewhat softer than the northern, so the Northern warriors might be more warlike.

---

Gaul straddles several trade routes running from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic and further north towards the North Sea and the Danish Straits, though. All those major rivers and relatively few geographical obstacles = profit!
Also important well into the Early Modern era if not later.
Also, and this I suspect is probably the key thing, AFAIK of the various Celtic-dominated regions of Europe Gaul was the furthest along in socioeconomic developements towards a proto-industrial urban society. Ie. the local warrior class is depicted as comparatively well armed on account of having much easier access to at least the relatively basic end of armour such as helmets due to straight economics; the greater the local production capacity the lower the comparative price of such gear and the humbler the warriors who can afford such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by /Bean\

Yeah it does. What about the Po Valley, Cisalpine Gaul and the like? You can't discount them just because they aren't inside modern France.

---

Dude, "Gaul" is above all a geographical region covering mainly the French "hexagon" - that is, within the "natural" geographical barriers. Northern Italy (or rather more specifically the Po valley area) was known as "Cisalpine Gaul" simply because it had been colonised by Gauls; geographically it was most certainly a separate region, what with the Alps in the way.

But we're talking about climtate and southern and northern Gauls. The physical borders of Gaul don't make that much of a difference, as long as Gauls existed in the area in question.

I'm not actually sure why I used "Inhospitable", but the basic point that Southern Gaul and Northern Gaul didn't differ extraordinarily in quality of life stands.

As the the Northern gallic swordsmen, I recalled their unit pic as having chainmail with a shirt covering it. If not, I was talking out of my ass, because I don't stray near Western Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by /Bean\

But we're talking about climtate and southern and northern Gauls.

---

Gaul proper has an oceanic climate (except maybe the southern Mediterranean coast); the Po valley is firmly in the "cisalpine" Mediterranean climate zone. Your point ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

As the the Northern gallic swordsmen, I recalled their unit pic as having chainmail with a shirt covering it. If not, I was talking out of my ass, because I don't stray near Western Europe.

---

Yes you were. :yes:
Also a mail shirt is worth 6 points of armour by its lonesome...

well It's not too much of a difference thus It could be related to the northern guy wearing a shirt(because its cold) and the southern one not(because its warmer) at least today there is somewhat a climate difference between the nomandy and the region around orange, at least there was last time i checked.

I would agree with bean as they are southern and northern gauls(who also live in Cisalpine Gaul and the mediterranean coast) not inhabitants of northern and southern gaul.

I'm not saying they are the same climate. I'm saying that Cisalpine Gaul should be counted as Southern Gaul, because it is inhabited by Gauls, it's in the south and has a rough geographical similarity with the rest of Southern Gaul (obviously meaning the parts along the Med and near the Alps, not meaning places like Aquitane.)

The problem with the climate argument is that you can recruit Southern Gallic swordsmen in Camulsoladae (spell check) and Ictis, and the climate there is much like Normandy, Belgium and Brittany. (IIRC, the reason for them being there was the migration of southern gallic tribes and belgaic tribes to the region and being known by the same name and cultural oddities as some of the mainland tribes).

Btw, does anyone have any answers to my later question?

The northern version comes with a shirt, the southern without. Working on the principle of WYSIWYG, the shirt adds one point of armour according to our system. It is as simple as that. No interesting conspiracy theories. This ain't Dan Brown's head, ya know.

Foot

Also the Northern guy wears a helmet, which is good for 3 more points (and the merc version has cheekpieces for a further point)...

Arguably the names "Northern" and "Southern" are rather misleading, given for example that the latter is the staple swordsman type on the British Isles and in north-central Europe; it's really more of a "Gallic" and "Not Gallic" division, which is why I assume an economic logic behind the division.

Still can't figure out why the Gaelaiche (the basic Gallic spearmen, to the more ubiquitous Gaeroas what the Bataroas are to the Botroas more or less) are a reform unit though...