The Celtic Legions

http://www.kriegsreisende.de/antike/kelten.htm

Quote:

---

Eine wesentliche Grundlage für den Solddienst der Kelten war immer gewesen, dass sie sich verschiedenen zerstrittenen, aber zahlungskräftigen Mächten anbieten konnten. So gesehen bildeten die langen Kriege in Sizilien, Italien, Griechenland und Kleinasien das ideale Biotop, in dem sie wirken konnten. Je mehr die Römer allerdings jede Konkurrenz ausschalteten und den ganzen Mittelmeerraum unter ihre Herrschaft brachten, kam den Kelten einfach die Kundschaft abhanden. Es blieb eigentlich nur Rom, das zu dieser Zeit aber nur in Ausnahmefällen Söldner beschäftigte. Es ist deshalb eine Ironie der Geschichte, dass die Eroberung Galliens durch Cäsar (58-51) hauptsächlich mit Legionen durchgeführt wurde, die in den Provinzen "Gallia Cisalpina" und "Gallia Narbonensis" ausgehoben worden waren. Es waren also meist keltische Legionäre, mit denen Cäsar die Kelten Galliens unterwarf, die dann ebenfalls für lange Zeit die Reihen der Legionen füllten.

---

The Celts were widely spread as Mercenaries, and Rome has risen many Legionaires in Gallia (indeed, most of Julius Caesar's Men were Gauls). Also Chartage, Macedon and even Egypt hired the Celts for Mercanaries. To display this properly I would rather say we need two new Units:

Celtic Legionaires
and
Celtic Mercanaries

Celtic Legionaires should be avarible to House Julier after the Gaius Marius Event (As House Julier will capture the named Provinces Gallia Cisalpina and Gallia Narbonensis). They have the same Armor and fighting style as the Romans and serve them, but due to their huge size and warlike Religion they are far better in Combat. They can easyly be made by adding beards to the Legionaires' faces, giving them a diffrent voicetype and of course improove their combat-odds. The combination of barbarian wildness and the Legion's discipline is an almost invincible weapon...

Celtic Mercanaries should be avarible to Chartage, the Greek Factions, Egypt and in northern Italy. They should be a Merc-Variant of Swordsmen made for the Gauls and be quite powerful. As Mediterrainian Tyrants loved that well-trustable Warriors to fight their enemys, I have no doubt that everybody playing Macedon or Chartage will love their Merc-Unit too.

No...

The Julii shouldn't be able to train Gaulish units unless they're mercs - if you want Gaulish legionaries then build some Gaulish peasants, disband them in a place that can build Legions, and then build --- it's how it would've happened probably. THen again, I'm a big supporter of the Homeland ideas.

I'd have to go no... mainly because their won't really be to much more in the way of "mercanary" units, maily because the normal units will be counted as mercanary. And as for the legion thing, I'm against it mainly because Rome hogs to many troops as it is, and the more interesting factions need them. ~D

I don't see how Gallic legionaries would have been very different from Italians... Celts will be available to many factions as mercenaries. Galatians done by me (cept for the skins of course), some celtic mercenary units will be done by the Gaul, Briton, and Iberia people, I'm sure. Celtic culture was very different in different areas, so this heterogeny should be taken into account. Stefan, you might get more than you bargained for, except the Gallic legion.

Quote:

---

I'd have to go no... mainly because their won't really be to much more in the way of "mercanary" units, maily because the normal units will be counted as mercanary. And as for the legion thing, I'm against it mainly because Rome hogs to many troops as it is, and the more interesting factions need them.

---

You be nice to rome, damn you! ~:cheers:

Remember, there are -4- Roman factions, so the total of unique units will be divided by four in considering how many unit slots are "taken" by Rome rather than more "interesting" factions ;)

Right now, actually, the roman factions are way down on the list of number of unique units defined per faction.

I vote no on the Celtic legion. The Celtic mercenaries idea might be usable, but should be later in the game. Perhaps triggered by the Marian reforms.

Nah. What's the difference who you use as recruits? This would mean we'd have to make spanish legionnaires, german legionnaires, greek legionnaires, and so on... any 'barbarian wildness' you could have got suppressed during the legionnaire training. In fact, I think the 'wild' legionnary would be less effective in a warfare like Roman, which required strict discipline. While the religion and morale can be simulated by buildings.
And yeah, what Khel said. Rome has little units now, and could use some more diversity, especially since they've already lost pigs, dogs, gladiators, arcani and who knows what else. But I don't think it should be different kinds of legionnaries. That's not the way to go.

No and no.

There can be regional specific Celt mercs but not a pan-mediterranean unit...

I have two suggested Celtic mercs in my Briton list, and Pyscho V has suggested plenty in Gaul, I believe. A single 'Celtic mercenary' would not actually represent, at all, the wide breadth of the various Celtic peoples who sold their services to whoever would pay them, considering, depending on where they were from, they used different weapons, had different appearances, different armor, etc. A mercenary from Celtiberia is going to look plenty different from a mercenary from Briton.

As for Celtic legions, what's the difference between a Celt being trained to be a legionarre, than a Roman? Nothing. I mean, if you take a Roman boy, and trained him to fight like a Gaesatae, is he going to be naturally inclined to try and march in a tight formation? Of course not. The only thing like this I could think of were the 'imitation legions' of the Gallatians, and I don't actually know if they existed, just heard some things about them.

Afraid I'll have to cast my two votes as No as well

If you go down that track, your going to have a hell of a lot of different types of legionaries. Legions raised in Pontus, legions raised in Greece, Legions raised in Germania etc etc etc ad naseum. I don’t think the benefit warrants the effort even if we had unlimited unit spots..which we don’t.

Ranika, the mercs I’ve done are for the Gauls. To make some historic mercs for the Romans all you would need to do is add the Teutonic Cavalry and (Gallic) Leus Epos unit (as per EB Gaul list) to the .txt as mercs enabled.

Aren't mercs recruitable by anyone in the region though that buys them? Or can they be confined to only a single faction?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

Aren't mercs recruitable by anyone in the region though that buys them? Or can they be confined to only a single faction?

---

arr..good point. Not sure

In any event, the AI doesn't seem to buy mercs. It'd be more of a player decision to buy 'historic' mercs, so that shouldn't be TOO big of a worry, but it'd be nice if mercs were confinable to factions, without making them a trainable unit.

The mercs ARE linked to specific factions.

How so? The trait that makes a unit a merc says that it means it's available to all factions, I don't quite follow. Can units be mercenaries without that trait?

I think your wrong... any faction can buy them, but only a few can bribe them, which is what the whole faction owner thing is.

Haven't you noticed that some merc units aren't available to every faction?

Are you sure even about bribing them? As the Gauls, Greeks, and Germans, I've bribed the Illyrians in Illyria (which had all Illyrian mercs for the force in the city), and they joined my army.

And no, I've never seen any merc not available to everyone. As Parthia, I could could get barbarian infantry in Gaul and such.

Could you buy Hoplite Mercs or Cretan Archers with them?

I don't recall, actually. I should think so, considering I could get infantrymen from Gaul, which seems stupid to me, especially if mercs can be confined to factions, and I can't get hoplites, which are closer to Parthia. But if they are confinable, then, how is it decided what factions can hire what?

As an aside, will there be different types of Hoplite mercenaries? I'm fairly sure hoplites in Greece would be different than Sicilians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

But if they are confinable, then, how is it decided what factions can hire what?

---

IIRC, one of the txt files is dedicated to describe what units are mercs or not. Then in the units file, the faction that can buy them, has it's name assigned to it, just like any other trainable one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

As an aside, will there be different types of Hoplite mercenaries? I'm fairly sure hoplites in Greece would be different than Sicilians.

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urnamma

I don't see how Gallic legionaries would have been very different from Italians...

---

They would have been much larger in stature mainly. The Romans were known as a very slight people while the Celts were known to be taller and stronger.

That's not necessarily true. For one, I believe a legionarre was required to be around 6 feet tall, wasn't he? Irregardless, some Celts were relatively short. Gauls were not necessarily bigger than opposing Roman soldiers. And in either event, they Celtic legionarre would act and work identically to the Roman on the field. They wouldn't engage in any type of 'wildness', their training would organize them in the manner common to Romans. A Gallic soldier does not instinctively engage in combat in the way they did, they fought that way because it's how they were trained to.

The point is, technically, what would be the difference of a Celtic legionarre to a Roman, in the game? There wouldn't be one. They used same weapons, equipment, and organization as Romans, once conquered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

That's not necessarily true.

---

Yes it is. Read the histories of the time. The romans were known as a slight people compared to barbarian peoples like the Gauls and Germans. Probably because the barbarians ate a bunch more meat aside from any genetic factors. Caesar actually mentions the disparity in size in several places in his account of his campaigns in Gaul.

I have read the accounts of the time. However, it's notable that much of what Romans, including Caesar had to say about the Gauls, was meant to show them as being a large, beastly people, which would trump up glory in victory over them.

However, from the remains of the Gauls, they were not necessarily larger than Romans. Their armor, their weapons, their clothing, could all fit on a Roman soldier relatively fine. If they were so much bigger than the Romans, that wouldn't happen. They would've been slightly larger than them, on average, over the whole of the populations, but Roman soldiers were large men themselves. A Celtic legionarre would not be distinguisable from a Roman one. They'd both have their faces shaved, their hair cut short, wear the same armor, and look the same relative size on the field. Gauls were not hulking masses of human beings, and Romans were not that small of people. Another example of the lack of any major size disparities, Gauls would take Roman armor off dead enemies, and wear it. If Romans were so much smaller, how would that fit? They would be painfully crammed into it, too much for the armor to do them any good. According to the Romans, the Gauls were also filthy and uneducated, niether of which is true. Roman propaganda doesn't count as actual historical evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

However, from the remains of the Gauls, they were not necessarily larger than Romans. Their armor, their weapons, their clothing, could all fit on a Roman soldier relatively fine. If they were so much bigger than the Romans, that wouldn't happen.

---

Got a source for that? Even Greek historians of the time say that the Celts were of a large stature.

Their size cant be entirely blamed on propaganda. Most propaganda requires a seed of truth.

arr, not quite. According to Goldsworthy the average Roman in this period was around 5'7". The average Gaul was roughly 6'1", average German roughly 6'3", based on skeletal remains. There's alos plenty of literary evidence suggesting how much shorter those Italian boys were. The Gauls in the "Gallic War" even make fun of the Romans for their stature..till they put them to the sword. One for the little guys.

...even so, still doesn't warrant the inclusion of Gallic legions imho.

The source I'd say is in armor. And skeletal remains say a lot about average size, but what was the average size of a soldier? And would it look different on the field? And, would it make a viable unit just because of a slight height difference?

Gauls, likewise, were not very kind to the appearance of Romans, including, admittedly, height, but they also commented on the smell of Romans (one of the reasons to leave Rome, it was filthy, apparently, in their eyes), and numerous other things. Even if they were about 4 inches taller, that'd not translated well into the game. Irregardless, their size was not a major enough factor in saying that they should have their own unit.