Printable View
The main problem is using the Roman faction concept during the Middle Republic time frame. I think it would make more sense to have two scenarios: a single Roman faction scenario starting in 275-264 BC and running to about 100 BC, and a multiple Roman faction scenario picking up there and running until perhaps 50 AD. Put the Marian reforms right in between.
Or at least make taking Segesta difficult.
Now if CA would just let me have the code...
The various cisalpine Gaul warriors in the second part of the 3th century were sometimes almost identical to their Roman enemies in terms of equipment, at least as far as findings can tell. A good deal of them used the pila and the Montefortino helm, and various swords. The exact nature of the shield in this specific region is hard to track down, and the thueros might be subject to changes. It may have fused to a new type similar to scuta, analog to the adaption of the pila.
Hmm. I gather then that the Roman frontier in northern Italy remained essentially stable for quite a while when they were busy elsewhere (say, against Carthage and in the Balkans butting heads with the Greeks, Macs and Illyrians) and they only later on turned that way. Now, everything I've read of them suggests the Celts, like other "barbarians", were a rather warlike bunch who considered raiding and smaller-scale fighting pretty much the "business as usual" of living and not something particularly extraordinary. No doubt there were many small border wars and skirmishes fought in the region in the meantime, and of course the tribes would be butting heads with each other too.
However, it seems somewhat dubious that this sort of squabbling would "wear them out" too much unless other factors were involved; after all, that sort of comparatively low-intenstity bloodletting was pretty much the norm for the assorted "northern barbarians" all the way to the Vikings, and one would presume the communities involved limited their warmaking as necessary after suffering casualties. Very few societies voluntarily weaken themselves excessively without good reasons, after all, and I've gotten the impression the Cisalpines weren't much involved in the sort of apparently rather drawn-out and bitter large-scale power struggle that went on in Gaul proper.
In other words, I find it doubtful the warrior classes of the Cisalpine Gaul would've gotten that threadbare merely from the standard low-level conflicts. Were they employed as mercenaries to a large degree somewhere ? That, and likely rising casualty rates from skirmishes with the increasingly sophisticated and powerful Romans (who no doubt mounted punitive expeditions into the region too), would sound like a more likely cause if one has to go by straight speculation.
The Romans didn't truly expand into the region until relatively late, that is true, but they did place military colonies in the area to keep an eye on them, and they did mount punitive raids. Battles were fairly common and from the ovatio and triumph lists it is clear that while no real war was going on, the fighting was somewhat heavy.
Rome did suffer defeats of course, but they were cunning in fighting the tribes one (or a few) at a time, making sure they didn't get a massive coalition against them.
That way they would hold the edge in quality (the Gauls could easily match them in numbers with levies), that way they could crush the military elite, at least for a generation.
Julius Caesar's account of his expedition into Britain shows that the British Celts had a fairly good grasp of tactics, and tactics that utterly flummoxed Caesar too. Their highly mobile armies kept Caesar's army concentrated and unable to embark on any serious conquering, and Caesar himself describes their hit and run style tactics working on a rotation basis: constantly keeping his forces pinned down in combat whilst rotating their own units to prevent fatigue. This alone shows the Celts to have a fairly decent grasp of warfare, tactics and organisation, and that they didn't just employ a mad charge.