Impossible: there were no Galatians in 480BCE. This was the late Halstatt era and no Celts had ventured East of Austria in significant numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying Pig
Printable View
Impossible: there were no Galatians in 480BCE. This was the late Halstatt era and no Celts had ventured East of Austria in significant numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying Pig
I don't have any experience either, but its curved point would make it less suitable for thrusting than a spear, and the long handle inhibits the ability for parrying and fast strikes because the wielders body would get in the way. You also don't get the momentum you would when you would swing it, hence it wouldn't be AP. That's why it's got a low attack value. Perhaps a bit too low, but the AP should compensate for that. A wider spacing would be more realistic, but do soldiers still obey the spacing rules when in combat? To my knowledge the engine does not give troops a penalty for being to close together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
I cannot answer the gaesatae question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
If your understanding is fine then I can no longer help you, and on your part there should not be a need for further questions on this topic? If indeed your understanding is not in fact fine, please read Miklos Szabo and Andre Rapin. Then get a greek copy of Polybius' Histories and translate it for yourself so that you may better understand the mistakes in the English copies you are now reading.
I have read both Szabo and Rapin and no where do they support your claims. I,m not trying to insult you but I have noticed this is your way of avoiding a losing argument. I asked you some simple questions and you have chosen not to answer them. I will try once more:Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
1. You claim that "As the historic counterpart, these represent relatively small groups of fanatics common within the much larger formation of Gaesatae (spearmen; the term used as the spear was the most common weapon)."
Again I ask you where is it written any where of this? Where is it written that there was a small group of fanatics within the Gaesatae? Now either you have writings on this or you don't, you made this claim how about backing it up?
2.You claim that the EB stats for the Gaesatae are fine, what are you basing this on?
Nothing you have posted addresses either of these questions, you simply put down what most historians say, that the Gaesatae are mercenaries. Why don't you show me where Szabo or Rapin support your claims or anyone for that matter?
It is difficult to measure a response...
So that I may better understand why these questions continue, can you please tell me; are you young, old, or in between? Also, what is your level of education in general terms? I assume you are a native English speaker as you use these translations of Polybius. Overall, this will greatly aid in designing a proper reply.
I've just returned from the field, I'm very tired, have several sherd counts to record, and don't have much time, but I'll help if your questions are indeed sincere.
Pretend he's as smart as you.
i would treat it as a 2-handed sword...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
As you have it...
Rapin
Weaponry
Combat Techniques
In the 3rd century BC, the Macedonian phalanx, which succeeded those assembled by Philip of Macedon and Alexander the Great, had became an academic model for Mediterranean armies. This apparently invulnerable block several rows deep, bristling with spears, proved increasingly static due to the complex maneuvers needed for facing the enemy on all sides. The ploy the Celts adopted to confuse and destabilize this compact mass of men was the dynamic onslaught of their foot soldiers, whose effectiveness lay in the sheer force of their initial attack. The violence of this onslaught was crucial to the success of the operation and justified the need to be able to dash unimpeded into the enemy lines. The rapid expansion of the Celts into eastern Europe is sufficient proof of the success of this assault tactic, which was even effective against the heavily armed hoplite solders. However, the tactic cost many lives and much energy, and could rarely be performed more than once. Hence the cliches in battle accounts, which stress the Gauls apparent indifference to death, or their sudden despair when their frontal attack was not immediately successful.
-------------------------------
As this was a synthetic work, Rapin did not provide the citation for each assertion. Yet, it is clear the evidence for Rapin's claims can largely only come from Polybius and Pausanias. Thus, Rapin's claim relates to the tactics employed by some elements within the Gaesatae (from Gaulish gaesum or those of the throwing-spear) formations. Not the entire contingent. These formation-breakers were the fanatics.
Turning to...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Szado
Mercenary Activity
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Although only mentioned by name once, much of this chapter is actually about the Gaesatae. This chapter points out that the Mediterranean world saw them as mercenaries, whereas they appear to have been largely landless young adult males recruited in relatively large groups.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andreae
The Image of the Celts in Etruscan, Greek, and Roman Art
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In this chapter you'll note many depictions of Celt warriors as nearly naked. These are the Roman and Greek stereotypical Celt warrior, the character they most feared, none other than the battle field bogyman, or the naked fanatic; aka the formation-breakers. They were feared because, without their formations the Mediterranean type armies were not well matched.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right, the Romans were very aware of Celtic battle field tactics (see Battle of Faesulae). Thus, at Telamon as the formation-breakers were forming up, the Latins countered with light missile infantry, so the attempt to rush the Romans and break their formation only partly materialized. If you still do not understand how this fits together you need to retranslate Polybius. With a more accurate translation all your questions should be answered.
There is one encounter in which the Romans lost to a Gaulish army containing Gaesatae.
Leading up to Telamon, the Gaesatae and crew (warriors from the Boii, Taurisci, and Insubres) apparently ambushed and defeated a force of Romans at Faesulae. 6,000 Romans were said to have died in that battle. The Roman survivors were forced to retreat atop a hill, which the Gaesatae and allies besieged until they recieved news of a large Roman force heading their way, thus causing them to head back to their homelands.
While on their way back on that road is where get the events that lead up to the famous Telamon battle.
Hi, I'm not sure if you can remember me from the old Germanics thread a while ago but I remember you, it's nice to see you are still on the forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
To be totally honest, the consistent trend from my research has been the the Gaesatae were something of an organization of mercanaries, they most likely had quite a number of weapons, and fighting styles, which would include the berserker like fighting of the famous naked Gaesatae, possibly their numbers and diversity in terms of arms and methods of combat could be what led Classical writers to assume that they were a tribe, this is however obviously not the case, they were mercenaries.
They saw a lot of action in the Po-Valley and probably throughout Europe. They made quite an impact on the Romans in the various conflicts they engaged in, obviously they were good, some of them fought naked, if they did take drugs I've not really seen much in the way of physical evidence for it, I could be wrong though, I know that obviously things like alcohol were wide spread amongst the Celtic world and there is apparently Halstatt period evidence of Cannibis being used, but this could just be an Indo-European thing in generanl for example the Scythians smoked it, the ancient and later Germanic peoples smoked it, or at least did something with it, so it is't all that far fetched that these types of early forms of PCP could have existed, I just personally have seen little evidence for it.
I personally feel the best way to represent the "livishly equipped" Gaesatae would be as quite a diverse group of mercenaries, some very well armed and armored, some exhibiting the shock troop status, I know drugs were used in war but I can't specifically say that the Gaesatae deserve their 2 hit point etc stuff.
For the record, I know for a fact that you don't always need drugs to be extremely brave, religion and extreme conviction can often create people who are like this, for example the Knights Templar often believed that dying in battle against the enemies of Christiandom gave them an automatic place in heaven, or at least bolstered the chances of giving them an automatic place in heaven, I recall reading one account where a Knights Templar seemed genuinely very excited and happy that he was going to go out a Muslim enemy who out numbered him because this would grant him an automatic place in heaven, this is very psychologically close to the older styles of berserkers and really to berserk is a psychological thing, not so much a specific product of a specific religion, some human beings as a general rule can work them up into this extactic frenzy, the biology of it could be discussed but I don't feel it really has to.
I persoanlly feel that the Naked Gaesatae should be represented as elite berserker shock troops, not so much super men, just very physically capable elite shock troops, they should scare the pants off their enemies (no semi-pun intended) and should have extremely high moral, as for being super soldiers? no. only 1 hit point required.
And lets face it, even if they did have these drugs that made it hard for them to get killed, they would die from their wounds later on once the drugs wore off.
On the subject of the civil war, from what I last read we seemed to agree. There was indeed a devistating civil and Roman accounts do seem to make this clear, but I think that there is a whole number of factors which contributed to the decline of Celtic power in Gaul.
I will list a few(including the obvious).
1)It wasn't really a civil war as it was a war between seperate polticial entities, only on the cultural and possibly semi-Ethnic level was it a civil war, and even then possibly not.
2)There was indeed a power struggle for a sort of centralization attempt in Gaul at the time, this had exhausted forces on both sides of the war, which is why they ultimatly started to bring in foriegners which was for them a major mistake and an all too common one in the history of Civilization.
3)Julius Caesar was as skilled a general as he was a politician, the Romans were experts at dipolamacy, alliances making and alliance breaking, this contriubted to the conquest of Gaul.
4)Though it is most likely that at one point some Germanic peoples had been under the administrative control of a Celtic elite, which isn't that far fetched as Celtic culture, especially in terms of weapons technology was extremely successful and far ranging, it is clear that the Germanic peoples had become exceptionally tough despite having something of a constant resource crisis(which arguably could have contributed to the rise of their famous levels of discipline)and when they entered the conflict, especially under the form of elite mercenaries, it was going to be an exceptionally hard fight for many Celtic people to engage in, at least for those within close proximity to this large group of mercenaries turn pseudo-settlers, as for whether or not Ariovistus, if he had not conflicted with Caesar would have dominated Gaul? I personally doubt it as the Instability was somewhat isolated, more self sufficient tribes would have most likely been able to repell them or at least check their advance and once wind had been taken out of the sails of Ariovistus if he was to attempt empire, he would have been forced to really settle, reform the organization of his army and people, make alliances with surrounding tribes and ultimatly would have just produced another tribe in Gaul. The Celtic response to the Cimbri(whether they were Celtic or German, though they were possibly a mixture of both be it ethnic, linguistic or cultural) is what sort of motivates my opinion here as many Celtic tribes seemed to be totally capable of repelling the Cimbri from their lands, the nature of the old Celtic way of life probably was a bit more self sufficient and geard for warfare than the later.
5)The decline in use of hill forts, and a less aggressive view of foriegners probably made their decline more likely, Caesar himself says that the Gauls had become quite soft whereas groups like the Belgae who were not unfamiliar with regular warfare, were much more up for a fight, the resserection of Celtic aggressive attitudes for the Gauls seems to have come too little too late.
6)The fact that the Cimbri really, for a lack of better words, gave the Romans some very firm defeats forced the Romans, or perhaps we should say, Marius, to revise and reform the Roman military, this reformation was successful, and turned the Romans into arguable the premiere fighting people of earth at least in terms of military consistency, which contributed to their successes in Gaul and against the Germans(though the Armies of Ariovistus were arguably a total match for the Romans, being technically professional, organized in Germanic fashion, well equipped from their conquest and successes and well experienced, perhaps this being one of the most vital factors).
7)Roman society, possibly as a result of georgraphical location had been almost in a constant state of warfare, they had suffered horrendous defeats and they had attain extremely amazing victories, their very survival depended on their capacity to fight viciously, ruthlessly and efficiently, and by the time of the Gallic wars, they were definitely seasoned experts in war economy, organization, they had land, men and resources to draw from, so really, they were a major force to be reckoned with.
I could probably name more reasons for it but I would say that I don't think the "civil war" was the major reason for the defeat, but obviously in a few areas in Gaul there was genuine fatigue setting in that the Germans and Romans capitalized on, but was this the only reason for the Roman conquest of Gaul? no, of course not.
Which Romans wrote about this supposed "devastating civil war" between the Gauls?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
I do not think theres a specific mention of the Aedui/Arverni/Sequanni situations being mentioned in Roman records, other than Caesar saying that their was some conflict over river tolls leading to and from their areas. The Civil war idea was put forth, I think, by Ranika?
The overall idea iirc is that the constant infighting in Gaul coupled with this "civil war" type atmosphere between the Aedui and allies vs. the Arverni/Sequani and allies helped contributed to the Arverni/Sequani looking to the Germans and their warriros for help. One of the main argument is that Germanic help would not have been needed at all were the Gallic military alive and well.
Heres an interesting tidbit from the book The Celts (A History) by Daithi O'Hogain p. 138-139:
Quote:
There was, of course, little the Celts in Cisalpine Gaul could do, and Transalpine Gaul was at the same time being seized with a panic of insecurity. This derived largely from the Roman threat, which was giving rise to civil wars between the inhabitants of that region. The Aedui had begun to challenge the weakened Arverni and their allies, the Sequani, and around 71 B.C. these two tribes brought in some Germanic mercenaries to assist them. The result was that the king of the Germanic Seubi, Ariovistus, got a foothold among the Sequani, who came more and more under his control. He occupied all their towns, and began to settle large numbers of Germans in their territory.
The Aedui mustered as many of their neighbors as they could, and spearheaded resistance against Ariovistus. In 61 B.C., however, Arivistus scored a massive victory over a united force of several Celtic tribes at Admagetobriga (In Alcase), after which he began to penetrate further into Celtic territories in Switzerland and eastern France. He now demanded as hostages the children of the Gaulish leaders, and began to issue commands to thee leaders at will. Refusal to obey these commands resulted in torture or death. The Aedui, who he saw as the major stumbling block to his ambitions, had lost many of their best warriors and virtually the whole of their national council. In their hour of desperation, one of the leaders of the Aedui, Divicaicus, went to Rome requesting aid against the Germans, reminding them of the alliance contracted between them two generations before and promising that his tribe would be loyal to the Roman interest. The wolf was at the door, and Celtic Gaul was beginning to doubt its own resources for survival.
The author goes on to describe the pressure from the Romans, Germans, and in the east, Dacians under Burebista, helped to contribute to the takeover/decline of Celtic regions across Europe, each in their own way.
Seeing as no - one has noticed this, the Casse don't have a version of the Gaesatae.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
'Nuff said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Power2the1
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
That's what I said on the previous page - there are British naked berserkers (Ranika has called them "Uirodusios") but they don't have the same stats as the Gaesatae.Quote:
Originally Posted by strategos alexandros
you dont think, elmetiacos, that the "prime of life, finely accoutred" fearsome Gaesatae of Polybius' description, or the visually comparable nude Galatian berserkers of terracotta and sculptures, should be treated separately from run-of-the-mill non-professional Celtic warriors who still fought nude in the old way?
Do you perhaps think we are stupid? Try any more remarks like that, that attack EB members, past or present, and I'll be closing this thread down.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobf
Foot
Julius Caesar, De Bello Gallico, Book 1Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
It is evidently clear that there was indeed a power struggle at the time which had taken it's toll on both sides of the conflict, this is what provoked these very powerful Celtic tribes seeking foreign assistance.Quote:
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.
Also watch your tone in future when posting to me.
If you had bothered to read my post, you would have seen that I was actually arguing against their stats, you simpleton.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobf
Very little in ancient history is clear, especially not when concerning groups such as the Celts, the matters are complex, convoluted and often require constant cross studies and cross referencing.Quote:
It seems like such a clear question.
A troll like yourself, especially one who evidently struggles with basic reading and comprehension skills, is not in the position to tell anyone to basically stay off the thread. You're at the bottom of the intellectual food chain on this forum from what I've observed and heard and really you are not doing "your side" any favors.Quote:
Don't even bother answering if all you've got is speculation and conjecture.
As far as the British Isles go their was possibly the proto-Fianna of Ireland. They though Mercenaries were a little more, and quite similar to the Gaesatae.Quote:
Originally Posted by strategos alexandros
I disagree with the question...Quote:
Originally Posted by paullus
"run-of the mill non-professional" implies that the Gaesatae were professional soldiers in the modern sense, in contrast to any of the Britons. Can we say that they were and that their insular counterparts were not? "Still fought nude in the old way" implies that fighting nude had once been the default tactic for all Celtic warriors, but that this practice was limited to a small number of warriors in Gaul in the late 3rd Century BC, whereas it continued to be generally of the Britons. Again, why do you feel we can say this?
The Aedui and Sequani calling in German allies to defend them from the Arverni is a long way from the whole of Gaul being devastated by a "civil war". Sounds like normal tribal politics backed up by a little extra muscle.Quote:
Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking
That was exactly it, but those tribes happened to be extremely powerful and influential tribes, this is what my point in my post to frostwulf. The "civil war" as many call it, which Isn't that fair as Gaul wasn't considered a single political entity really at the time by the Celts, was obviously not a civil war but a conflict in the region of Gaul between, as I have said, several very powerful tribes, not everyone was necessiarily effected by at the start but they undoubtably got effected by it by the end it would seem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
The reasons for the Gauls losing the conflict is very complicated, and I have listed quite a few, what I feel are valid reasons, as to how and why they lost.
the uirodosios are not limited only to britain, elmetiacos. they're also available in boii territories, and several other areas (i think).
Instead of closing the thread getting rid of the offensive party might be a wiser choice. It is not the first time and he has been warned before too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
I really don't know how I did that. I completely misunderstood your post, and I really apologize for responding like I did. Foolish.Quote:
Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking
In regards to Ranika: I haven't been warned before, but I'm sorry for bringing it up.
Is snip sarcasm or an insult?Quote:
Originally Posted by lobf
If not then: It's no problem, we all make mistakes. Apology accepted.
As far as civil war between gauls goes, recent archeological findings point towards constant fights in ancient gaul. This, and the writings of caesar, tend to prove that global fighting was the rule in Gaul from the 2nd century BC to the roman conquest.
I'd recommand reading J-L Bruneaux "Les religions gauloises" to any person willing to understand the concepts and beliefs of warfare among the gauls (the author strongly suggests the whole affair was primarily religious). Such beliefs led the construction of huge trophé were the dead bodies (heads excepted, they were taken by the victors) and weapons of the defeated army were exposed and left to rot as an offering to the pagus' god of the victors. I know 2 of those were found, indicating large battles were fought between neighbours, some of the tribes identified thanks to the remains of the tropé (sorry, my greek is awful). There may be more.
"snip" just means that I didn't want to quote everything you said, so I snipped it from the quote to simply refer to the entire post.Quote:
Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking
Yeah, that was a terrible mistake, I'm glad you understand.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
There's something about heaping up the equipment of defeated enemies and leaving it all to rot in the Tain Bo Cuailgne isn't there? Do you know where these two Gaulish sites are?
Very good post, I briefly touched on this religious aspect a bit, above. Very well done. About 5 years ago I remember reading about one of these sites, with a wooden temple at I believe Ribmont scr Ancr????, found in northeast france??? Several hundred posed and/or beheaded bodies found therein or round a bout? Plus, given what is known about the development of weapons and tactics, why would these warriors go into battle naked? Actually, Polybius tells us why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenrhyl
My mistake, the site name is Ribemont-sur-Ancre.
http://www.ribemontsurancre.cg80.fr/images/vue3.jpg
http://www.ribemontsurancre.cg80.fr/
Don't look here if you are weak of heart.
http://www.ribemontsurancre.cg80.fr/images/histoss8.jpg
This may be Belgy?
My French is not good, yet here in English...
This assumption was amply confirmed by the work of students from the University of Amiens directed by Jean-Louis Cadoux, which explored the different loci revealed by aerial photography from 1968 to 1987: the great temple, theatre, a spa and a craft area.
In 1982, Jean-Louis Cadoux discovered a strange structure made of human bones, since called the "ossuary," which indicated that the Gallo-Roman sanctuary was of Gaulish origin. The following years revealed that it was a large quadrangular enclosure bounded by a ditch. This and the adjacent area was strewn with human remains and iron weapons. By 1987 the identification of a vast and intricate burial of human remains confirmed the infeasibility of continued exploration with the available means and time, thus an investigation using academic standards was planned.
The necessary prerequisites (a multidisciplinary team with technical support, access to the property, permission to store and study the archaeological artifacts and research data) were collected and a new excavation program was begun by Jean-Louis Brunaux in 1990. This was due to the concerted efforts of the General Council, served by Alain Gest, the local representative, the CNRS, superintendent Ecole Normale, with financial support from the Culture Ministry, which made possible the new excavation program, with the creation of the Regional Archaeological Center and plans to develop the site.
Twelve additional years of excavations demonstrated that this site was not a typical Gallic temple, rather it was a memorial that commemorated (with trophies) an important battle that took place on the banks of the Anchor River, in the first decades of the third century BC. In this place the victors brought all the remains of their enemies and deposed them within a "sacred grove" (the quadrangular enclosure whose interior space was abandoned to the vegetation).
This place was respected and honoured by the Gauls for two and a half centuries. Only in the year 30 BC, as the Gallic Ambiani (after the region of Amiens), who had served in the Roman army, carefully dismantled the outdated facilities of their ancestors and replaced it with one inspired by the Roman temple. This place, was likely dedicated to public worship, which was improved until the 3rd century AD.
Fifty dead warriors, according to the site, in a sort of Gaulish war memorial.
Going off at a tangent slightly, I suppose this is the "Hero Cult Shrine" equivalent for Gauls and Britons. I'll try and conjure up a suitable name unless someone else has an idea.
edit- didn't mean to post here
:ahh: Bones! ~:mecry:Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
Why I Never! How dare...
You mean living creatures die!?!? my world is upside down. :uhoh2:
next I suppose I might learn that the Earth changes temperature, 'warming' and 'cooling' as it revolves around the sun in an elipse!?
That was for the very young and those that may honour and respect the dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
That may be another topic altogether, yet without your elipse, one may call this a year, and as each season follows another, it may indeed warm and cool. This, as night follows day a temperature change may occur, as we know little of how the sun expends its fuel. A quick burn, a slow burn, or a cyclical burn???
Why you wanna know where do getai drugs come from? curiosity or something.....else?....lol:laugh4: :laugh4:
My French is not good, but I think the 50 may be from another nearby locus excavated in 2001?Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
Well I guess indirectly you answered my questions. There is no specific writing that says "As the historic counterpart, these represent relatively small groups of fanatics common within the much larger formation of Gaesatae (spearmen; the term used as the spear was the most common weapon)."This is as I figured, complete supposition on your part.
Not true, if you look at Celtic tactics from the 4th century to 50BC in almost every battle had the same tactic, which involved all of the infantry, not just the elite Gaesatae you claim to exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
As you can see this has no real bearing on the Gaesatae situation. This was used before and after the Gaesatae and whether they were present or not. Your conjecture doesn't work.Quote:
Adrian Goldsworthy-“Roman Warfare”-“ Tactics were simple, and relied on a headlong charge by a screaming mass of warriors. The first charge of a Gallic army was a dreadful thing, but the Romans believed that if they could withstand this onslaught then the Gauls would steadily tire and become vulnerable. Classical literature claims that the barbarians were poorly conditioned and easily tired by strenuous activity and heat. But probably the main reason why the Romans were likely to win a prolonged combat was their triplex acies formation that allowed them to reinforce threatened parts of the line. Individually the Romans were better equipped and armoured than the majority of Celtic warriors, but there is little indication of the great superiority which Caesar’s troops in the first century BC would display against similar Gallic opponents.” pg.88
Nothing in this quote of Rapin supports an elite group among the Gaesatae. It was a dynamic onslaught of their foot soldiers, a mass charge of all the infantry as both Rapin and Goldsworthy say. Nowhere do they say anything of specialized, hand picked or elite units being the main charge, its the mass of the warriors charging. This tactic was used by all the infantry.Quote:
Rapin
Weaponry
Combat Techniques
In the 3rd century BC, the Macedonian phalanx, which succeeded those assembled by Philip of Macedon and Alexander the Great, had became an academic model for Mediterranean armies. This apparently invulnerable block several rows deep, bristling with spears, proved increasingly static due to the complex maneuvers needed for facing the enemy on all sides. The ploy the Celts adopted to confuse and destabilize this compact mass of men was the dynamic onslaught of their foot soldiers, whose effectiveness lay in the sheer force of their initial attack. The violence of this onslaught was crucial to the success of the operation and justified the need to be able to dash unimpeded into the enemy lines. The rapid expansion of the Celts into eastern Europe is sufficient proof of the success of this assault tactic, which was even effective against the heavily armed hoplite solders. However, the tactic cost many lives and much energy, and could rarely be performed more than once. Hence the cliches in battle accounts, which stress the Gauls apparent indifference to death, or their sudden despair when their frontal attack was not immediately successful.
-------------------------------
Ok, all this says is what I have said also, they are mercenaries. But you will notice they were recruited(Gaesatae) in large groups. No where does Szabo say anything about a small group of elite among the Gaesatae. I have no qualms at all with what Szabo says; it is what most historians say who the Gaesatae were.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
Again this certainly doesn't support your claim of a small group of elite among the naked fanatics.Quote:
This Celtic "industry" of professional warmongering was one of the most important markets in the north, with its constant turnover of Alpine and Cisalpine Gauls, and would seem to explain the etymology suggested by Polybius for the name of the Gaesatae, who reached Italy in 225BC. "They are called Gaesatae because they are mercenaries, which is the meaning of this word." Actually, it involved the "negotiated migration" of certain tribe called in to bolster the resistance of the Cisalpine races against the Roman Rebublic.Szabo The Celts, pg.354
Again I have no problem with this, as mentioned Telemon the Romans where apprehensive. But again the majority of the Celts were unarmored. You notice the "stereotypical Celt warrior" and not the elite specialized killing machines we are to believe the Gaesatae are. Again this doesn't support your argument in the least. The Greeks and the Romans viewed all the Celtic warriors this way, battle mad. When he says formation breakers it goes right back to what Goldsworthy,James, Connoly and others have said; the mass charge. They aren't talking just of elite warriors,they are talking of the mass of Celtic warriors as a whole making the charge, the whole mass is the formation breakers not just a group of elites.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
I'm familiar with the battle of Faesulae:Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
At Faesulae they were ambushed and the ones that survived made it to a hill. Are you saying the Romans are aware of ambush tactics? There is no mention of tactics at Faesulae, there is of course those mentioned at Telemon.Quote:
John Drogo Montagu- "Battles of the Greek & Roman Worlds"-"At daybreak the Romans spotted the cavalry and advanced against them, while the cavalry, following instructions, withdrew toward Faesulae with the Romans in pursuit. At the site of the ambush the Gauls sprang up and charged. In the ensuing fight the Romans were outnumbered and lost 6,000 men. The rest fled to a hill which the Gauls tried to seize but without success, and so they put a cavalry guard on it, determined to have another try next day. Meanwhile the consul Lucius Aemilius Papus, in charge of a second Roman army near the Adriatic, had heard of the invasion of Etruruia and had hurried south, reaching the battlefield at the crucial moment. He camped near the enemy and lit camp fires. When the Gauls saw the flames, they realized the truth of the situation and decided to pull out before dawn and make for home." pg.176
The formation breakers is the typical Celt warrior, not just the Gaesatae. You are reading way to much into this.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
I understand what your saying, and its all speculation and most, if not all fail to support your argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
Nothing you have posted shows directly of elites among the Gaesatae, in fact most of what you posted goes against that.
And for the last part, there is still no justification for the stats of the Gaesatae as shown by their battlefield performance. Even if you want to claim they were involved at Thermoplyae, they were not successful there either.
Unfortunately we don't know much except what you said. But what is interesting is that the Romans being outnumbered prior to the ambush and then being even more outnumbered where still able to hold the hill. Of course the hill did provide some natural defense but this battle is difficult determine what really happened as it didn't go into the same detail as Clastidium and Telemon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Power2the1
Of course I remember you, and its nice to finally see you writing again.Quote:
Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking
As far as the rest of your post on the Gaesatae I agree that they were a form of mercenary, I haven't deviated from that. The problem is the high stats for the Gaesatae is wrong in my opinion due to their battlefield performance, there has been nothing to contradict this yet.
As far as the supposed "Devastating Civil War" I will address this on the proper thread.
@everyone Where is the battlefield performance of the Gaesatae that supports their stats? I still don't see any proof of an "elite" Gaesatae, just those that are off base and wishful thinking.
Still you have your finely stereotypical understanding? So you think that a Gaulish army of the era under consideration consisted entirely of 'the tip of the spear?' And that the naked Greek and Roman art depicted the typical Gaulish foot? Have you gotten a greek copy of Polybius' Histories and translated it for yourself yet? Do you want me to do for you, what you are unwilling to do for yourself? Please, continue frost-wulf, thrill me with your acumen.
Ribemont sur Ancre (Ribemont near the Ancre river) is in France. Since this topic sounds interesting to some of you, i'll read again the book and give you more details.
If you found sources in french, i can translate them for you. That's my current job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
He's a classicist; which, is a polite way of calling him a Romanophile.
Why don't you guys like, I don't know, ignore him? He's a trouble maker; he doesn't bring up any good points except to troll.
In part I just assume he is very young and for other reasons not able to process large amounts of information. I understand the problem is that he can’t conceptualize the abstract, yet very real convergence of tumult, spectacle, chaos, escalating fear, unexpected speed, and a thunderous impact; followed by the perception of impeding pain, a sudden horrid dead, and total uncontrolled feelings of panic. If he could, I'm sure he would also have more of a problem fitting this into the stats of a game piece. Yet above all else he appears unable to get a grip on the possiblity that not everyone can be the disposable foci of collision, as this is a task best saved for the callow, dim witted, and inexperienced; after spending great energy to destabilize, the majority follow on, slower yet better armed and protected to exploit. Thus, armed with the vast insights he professes, for him I’m sure the issue of battle field tactic vs individual ablity is indeed very simple.
As Bernard says the stereo typical Celt in there eyes was the naked warrior. In some of the classical writings they also considered those non armored to be naked. You are simply reading to much in to Benards statement as you were with Szabo and Rapin. You are welcome to show me where it says that the 'naked fanatics' were the 'tip of the spear'.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
You forgot to add Germanophile and now probably Grecophile.Quote:
Originally Posted by russia almighty
I really don't think this is a fair statement. I'm not to much into supposition like most of those who disagree with me, but I prefer to have professional opinion that can be checked on. So now because I don't agree with the "Devastating Civil War"(and used professional opinion) and with the Gaesatae and voice my opinion that makes me a troll?Quote:
Originally Posted by russia almighty
Your last statement is in contrast to what Goldsworthy and Connoly and other historians said. They say the better armed leaders and their contingents lead first as is to be expected for that kind of society. Again this is complete speculation on your part, and I'm sure you will have nothing to back it up with other then conjecture.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
I haven't professed any sort of vast insights, that would be you reading into things again. I fully admit I'm just a guy who enjoys and reads history. The only reason I may disagree with something is from said readings and then I will state as to why, and try to back it up with professional opinion.
So far you have proven nothing. You have put down both Szabo and Rapin to show your point of an elite among the Gaesatae and have most assuredly failed there. The only point you somewhat have is that of Andraee Bernard, and thats tenuous at best. The only thing I have seen from you on this thread thus far is statements you cant back up, attempts to demean me, quotes that in no way conform to your supposition and one statement from Bernard that you extrapolated (weakly at that) to support your point.
this is not appropriate conversation... is it all your will to have this thread locked and/or worse consequences? please try to behave like adults. :bow:
I don't agree at all with the personal attacks being made, Frostwulf has an excellent point- these things are very interpretative, thus why evidence is useful...
OT- Cmacq, you shouldn't be talking shit- for the record, you totally misinterpreted that essay you referenced concerning How (non)Indo-European is the Germanic Lexicon? by Salmons(?)... if you really think that the evidence used proves a non-IE element, it makes me wonder... the writer himself pretty much states the evidence available proves the opposite.
what i don't agree with is that Germanic or Celtic kings sacrificed themselves on the frontline on every battle possible and thus never won a single battle because the general died far too early: 'leading first' is in relation to more cowardly nobility/commanders who hide behind the ranks. this by no means implies they are the front line... ancient peoples have a common sense concerning probability and sharp objects flying at them, esp. when no armor invented to date can protect a person from a random shot into the eye 100% esp. if one wants to have vision... even mechanical tanks have openings to see... it is possible that a war-leader might be at the front during a charge late in the battle, but never at the beginning when they knew to expect shots fired. svínfylking and ord formation elaborated on by non-Roman literary sources (since not being a coward is seen as frontline to 'civilized') concerning Germanic warriors and their wedges imply that the king is behind 'able warriors', beside 'loyal bodyguards' and generally flanked by supporting troops. If the youth stood behind, it would be much easier to run away (fight or flight is a well known animal behavior- it would be unnatural NOT to experience it- and unnatural not to recognize that one has to worry about it, EVEN in heroic culture... bards' very existence is to reinforce the behavior of the warrior! OT- exactly why modern nations promote cowardice!)... thus, primarily worthless people stood in front if not at the baggage train (Germanic bowmen), the young and generally less useful would fight with make-do weapons (Greek levy skirmisher anyone?) at the frontline as human-'shields' or 'targets' and benefit as receivers of experience which earns them a place among the 'Proven' where they prob won't be killed in later life. The youth can be given advice by older veterans behind them in this way, besides motivating them to do well before their eyes. it may seem too similar to Roman velite / hastati / principes / triarii but its a cross-cultural common sense that older and experienced troops are nice to keep around rather than cowardly youth.
visual aid:
https://img458.imageshack.us/img458/...edgexr8.th.jpg
btw, how would Ariovistus row across the Rhine (nonetheless survive) from the frontline of battle when he lost against Caesar?
I tend to agree with cmacq. Frostwulf doesn't appear to offer a tenable argument in reply...certainly with no supporting data.
mere seems toYes, I believe this was the site of a significant battle between the invading Belgae and the group of maritime Gauls known as Armoricans. The Belgae appear to have been victorious and impaled the beheaded enemy leaders and elite. I believe they have found several hundred bodies at the site, giving evidence of the scale of the conflict. The Belgae appear to then have overun the Western seaboard until their expulsion across the Seine by the Carnutes and the Aedui confederacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
Simply put Frostwulf:
1) Don't call your opinion the professional opinion while using Roman-focused authors, and at the same time denouncing all other points that use Gallic-focused authors as "reading too much into it."
2) Romans exaggerate the number of their enemies.
3) Gaesatae in EB represents the elites of the Gallic army. All detailed accounts of armies from all places at all times have elites and they will eat levies for breakfast, so why assume that a roughly-described army like a Gallic one would be any different?
Personally I had never got the chance to fight them with my own elites, having only played Romani a bit in 0.81 and having beaten them with levies only (in VH/VH). But from what I hear they certainly don't do as well as other elites (specialists not withstanding). So from the point of view of balancing the game according to history, it's accurate.
4) Battles are decided by a lot more than numbers and the quality of your elite units.
5) There are theses two things in studying history called "extrapolation" and "reading between the lines". They are not perfect, but they are the best we've got until archeology (or time travel) can prove or disprove them.
6) Be more open-minded. There could be other interpretations to the works of authors and ancient sources other than your own. Unless you can phone up these authors (or invent a time machine to talk to those ancient authors) and ask them directly what they meant, accept that it is possible you can be wrong and others can be right.
On a totally separate note. From the terracotta army of the (not really) first emperor of China are front rank warriors that wore VERY LIGHT armor, or simply their THIN ROBES, who had NO SHIELDS and used IRON BARS or BARE HANDS as their weapons. From their placement and battle stances, military historians deduced that they were most likely used as shock troops to mess up the enemy ranks.
While this does not prove naked elite shock warriors existed in Gaul, it does prove that they could have, as the feat could be accomplished by such lightly armed and armored troops.
I should have gone more in depth on my response, but you seem to have taken care of it. I didn't mean my statement to come off as the leader being at the pinnacle of the charge, it would be as you and the book said. There are to many instances of leaders escaping for them to be personally at the head of the charge.Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
I didn't say that, I said this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallel Pain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
No disagreement here, I have said it multiple times in different threads.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallel Pain
The army wouldn't be different, the Gauls had some very good troops. The problem lies with the Gaesatae and their stats, if you look at the battles they participated in, they were sub-par.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallel Pain
Do custom battles with one unit of Gaesatae and one unit of whatever you choose, that is the best way to judge an individual units power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallel Pain
Agreed, but during those battles you can see how certain units perform, such as the Gaesatae.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallel Pain
I have no problem with this, but it does matter how much of a stretch the extrapolation is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallel Pain
I have been proven wrong several times, and when I am I freely admit it(though its not much fun being wrong :beam: )As far as the authors and ancient sources I agree with you. On another thread I had to use three different versions of Caesar's "The Gallic War" to show the intent of Caesar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallel Pain
As far as there being an "elite" among the Gaesatae I would have no real objection to it in the confines of them being the bodyguard of Concolitanus and Aneroëstes. These "elite" would have been better because they would have been hand chosen(most likely) just like any other bodyguard. The problem still remains the same though, their battlefield performance.
Charging first only mean the possibility of becoming a casualty is increased by something like 5%. And when you have like 300 bodyguard ready to give you his horse or take a hit for you, it only really increase by 1% or something. (Proven again at the other side of the world. During the Three Kingdoms era (and not from RoTK) while the commanding general often did not charge first, the subordinate generals did, and that's where people like Lu Bu and Zhao Yun got their fame. All those generals always charge first, and still came out very much alive most of the time even when they were defeated. It was also the same during the Sengoku Jidai Japan with only a handful of exceptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Eh, no. That is the WORST way to judge an individual unit's power. The BEST way is to go online with either two accounts or a friend. Both get one general, with one side one Gaesatae and the other whatever. For map choose the grassland plain thingi where it's totally flat grass. Then when the battle starts, both take their general off to the side somewhere and let the two other units duke it out head on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Even then, it doesn't take into account the specific tactical functions units are designed for either. Some units are just not designed to hold their ground in melee, some specialize in taking out armored units, some (like the Gaesatae) are designed to kick ass in a forward, infantry line battle, and they suck at all other jobs. Then there are some that's designed to be a jack-of-all-trade but can't really stand out in any area and are just used as fodder to wear down the enemy. So really, it would only make sense if you do the online-game test I mentioned with Gaesatae vs some other unit designed to kick ass in straight melee (armor-breaking specialists not withstanding). In which case, a lot of people have mentioned that Gaesatae gets easily defeated by these other units.
And even with all that, it's only unit power, not campaign balance, which is what the balancing is supposed to be based on.
I believe someone already told you in another thread that one on one in custom battle counts for nothing in unit balance. For one it doesn't take into account the cost and availability during campaign. For another the unit get a huge morale boost by having the general. The first time you complained, you haven't played a campaign with or against them. If you still haven't go play a campaign before coming back to complain any further.
They were deemed to be an acceptable level by historians (indeed done by one), so I don't see why you're complaining about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
So let's see you throw out all books focusing on Romans start pulling out some books focusing on Celts to source your complains.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
That's what I'm talking about. The others have pulled out a lot of examples in which the Gauls won, as well as talked about ones that the Romans didn't write down but proved by archeology and others that the Romans just manipulated the story. The EB team has decided to take this as evidence that the Celts doesn't suck, but were quite good. But you systematically rejects everything the team says as "misinterpretation" and refuse to accept there's a possibility the team could be right. Please be more open minded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
And again, if I can beat them with levies, they then most certainly don't stand up well to other elites (just like what other members said). So the stats most certainly is very balanced according to history.
Now you're just being argumentative and antagonistic. Try reading the discussion you commented on "1%." You also might try using some mathmatical/empirical skills, because 1% is a lot, especially on the battlefield. Unless you claim to be a veteran of several wars, you and I both don't have a clue about how 'battle fatigue' would wear down even the bravest of warriors in a hero culture to the point that the instrinct of self-preservation cannot be suppressed. It is a fact that even 'berserkr'-type warriors want to kill as much as possible, have as much victory/glory/fame as possible, and therefore need to live, recognize that and desire to do so. The idea that they aren't afraid to die doesn't touch this. I am not afraid to die, but that doesn't mean i am going to walk in front of a moving car who has no chance to avoid me due to physics/obliviousness... and i still don't back down to vehicles on foot when i know they see me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallel Pain
Your point on this does not need to be made because nobody is holding a strong opinion. Frostwulf already admitted he wasn't talking about this. If you want to disagree on other points, go ahead. Otherwise, save yourself some face.
Eh, if that 1% is 1 battle out of 100, then na it's not tha big. If it's 1 person in 100, yes it's quite big. But I was saying the former.
As for the rest of that. I was just saying that the huge amount of times leaders got away from battles they lost can happen even if they charged first, so the rest of those is umm...not even on the argument?
true- ''leading the way" and carrying victory isn't the same as holding the line... prob. why cavarly had a function distinct from uber-knights... i shouldn't be generalizing ~:doh:
Are you frostwuf?Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
I will not say anything about the battle display of the 2hitpoint warriors from gaul, as i'm not able to play EB anymore, because of a very bad pc, but i think it is sadly common these days here to attack members for their views.
I agree with Blitzkrieg considering not to agree with Frostwulf on all aspects of germanics, celts and romans in comparison, but at least he gives us every time the data he quotes from without reinterpreting it for his personal position.
Quotes like "why don't we ignore him" are just laughable and this is perhaps one of the reasons some "oldtimers" like Handsome Viking and me (still more pre-historical than him i think:laugh4:) doesn't give much input these days.
I really miss the days we could discuss in a very fine matter (a nice Hello to Teleklos and blitz b.t.w.)
Perhaps calling respected modern authors "romanophiles" is a little over the top also.
About Berserkers and drug-driven elite warriors:
As far as i know these are not presented in EB except the Gaesatae and rightly so. (Arguing that the display of Wolf-Warriors and Bear-Warriors is missing in the germanic roster, the current Wargoz are not correctly displayed as mercenary elite, as Blitzkrieg will agree i think) Still i would never suggest giving them these incredible stats or even 2 HP.
Concluding this, we should never forget who came up with the uber warrior from Gaul on this boards, perhaps then we can reconsider our thought on them.
1) Every single historian ever lived has reinterpreted his sources for his personal position
2) Elite, yes, but I have yet to see someone prove to me that Gaesatae are uber supermen in the game or that there is anything incredible about their stats.
3) Even if not by you, he obviously was a member of the team well respected by others.
On this whole argument:
Everyone is trying to interpret history, and both sides have evidence to back their view. So as long as you accept that "there is a high enough possibility the EB team can be right" (which doesn't need to reach 50%, considering the lack of information we have about these people, 20~30% in your view is fine) then you have to accept why the team designed it this way. Yes, they could be wrong, but so could you. If in your view the possibility is so low it's not worth mentioning, then go fix the stats yourselves. If you refuse to accept there is a possibility at all (which, from all the "these are fantasy units", seems often to be the case) then there's no point debating as you wont' accept anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallel Pain
I think you responded to me with your answer, so i will try to answer.
1) You're right, but there is a difference in a modern day historian with access to all available data and a historian in the ancient times with mostly "mouth to mouth" knowledge. Look for example what we learned these days about the battle in Teutoburg Forest comparing the knowledge our grandfathers had.
2) I already said it is not possible to give a answer about the unit's perfomance in battle as i can no longer play EB, but after all we know about those elite unit, 2 HP in comparison to most other elite units seems not right in my opinion. To be honest it is not the stats of the unit that is disturbing, but rather the way of discussion in this thread.
3) Sadly Ranika(the celtic expert and i learned a lot during our many discussions from him) is not around anymore, he would give you the better answer.
I can surely respect other views, but i can and never will respect a person's view backed up by quotes from a book that never existed. Perhaps you know what i mean, but i will not going deeper into this sad example of "scholarship".
All right, I am now REALLY confused, and I ask all the complainers to help me out.
Since lately I had read so much complains about how Gaesatae are overpowered supermen, I thought I'd give it a try myself.
So I turned to the really unrealistic custom battle and pit one polybian principate against one Gaesatae. The map is grassy flatland and obviously medium difficulty.
My only tactics were 1) to put my men with fire at will on to get both javelin off before melee 2) put them in five ranks deep as I usually do with infantry on huge 3) put them in guard formation and wait until the Gaesatae are at "Tired" before turning it off and attacking them.
The result? Gaestae won, but only 37 Gaesatae are left at the end of the day (I had 3 principate left). I am already here wondering, a polybian principate cost 1647 minai while a Gaestae cost a whopping 3457. Something's wrong here. I mean I can do a lot better if I just wait until they are exhausted and not turn guard mode off.
And sure enough, this time Gaestae won after killing my general, but I had 40 guys left to Gaestae's 67 (after healing) and I already found out the longer the fight dragged on the more casualties the Gaestae would take. And I figured if I don't chase after it every time it pulls back but only when it's about stationary or close, I could do even better.
And sure enough, this time my principate gave the Gaestae a complete thrashing, killing its general and routing it at 30 men with 63 left.
And I repeated it. This time we both lost our general (I lost it a bit later than he did) the Gaestae won with 60 men left and I only had 6. I went "hey! this must be what those complainers are talking about!"
Saddly, I was mistaken. On the next try, I won with 72 men remaining and the Gaestae routed with 47 men left, its general having died. But even if he didn't I would have won.
And again it was repeated. I won with 70 men remaining and the Gaestae again routed at 47 men.
So I am here thinking: There must be something wrong. Surely a unit that can't even readily beat a polybian principate would not be called "uber supermen".
So I decided to try pitting the camillan principate against it. Unfortunately after pressing the random button for about 300 times (seriously I spent like half an hour clicking) and after seeing every single recruitable Romani unit EXCEPT the camillan principate, I decided to go for the next best thing.
And the unit I chose was Allied Samnite Medium Spearmen, at 15xx minai (forgot to write it down, you guys can go check). It's stats is very close to that of the camillan principate and it uses a spear like the camillan principate
I tried it three times. Sure enough the Gaestae won all three times. But the remaining men were: first time 94 Gaestae to 56 Samnite, second 84 to 8, third 71 to 11. With one single Allied Samnite Medium Spearmen at less then half the cost (and it using spear which isn't that good against infantry), I readily took down average about 25~35 men from the Gaestae unit.
I look at the statistics and thought "with two units of samnites I can beat one unit of Gaestae." I tried, and sure enough, the surrounded Gaestae was beat with me having a total of 158 samnites left to 22 fleeing Gaestae (and I haven't killed his general yet).
So now I am really confused. Gaestae can't even readily win against polybian principate in guard mode, and when fighting with both units I had more than enough time to run another heavy infantry to its rear to throw stuff at it or charge it. Give me two units of half-decent swordsmen each with cost at about 1500~1600, which is less than half of the Gaestae's cost, and I'll kick its ass.
So now I am really confused. If anything, for its cost, Gaestae is a unit of slightly-underpowered swordsmen. So why are so many people complaining that its overpowered? I can't even classify this unit as elite. If this is the elite of the Gallic faction, I'd hate to see what their levies are.
As for the book that never existed, I suppose you meant
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ghlight=cycles
Well just so you know after reading through the entire bloody discussion for two hours from 4~6 in the morning, Riadach failed MISERABLLY at convincing me that Ranika is wrong. If only all of you just take into account Ranika is not here to defend himself and the team has had to defend him from things they remember he having said.
Riadach on the other hand blindly attacked the person right near the start and refuse to accept some of them are placeholders, others are attempts at making the language sound old, while even more are just trying to fit stuff into the game engine
Even the choosing of the word "cycle" had to be explained, and since I was just talking to my brother about it yesterday, I'll use it as an analogy. My mom asked me what manga is. I told her it's Japanese comic book. My brother jokingly said that if I said that to any manga fan they'll strangle me. I shrugged and laughed with him. Well that's exactly what Riadach did. He tried to strangle Ranika for using the wrong term that really has a similar level of mistake (and if Riadach comes and read this I bet he'll try to strangle me).
Not to mention Urnamma pretty much threw most of his argument out the window with proper research, which Riadach on the other hand either interpret them and push them as his own arguments, or just flatly refuse to acknowledge them. Then he tries to go out like a martyr.
I'm sorry but the impression I get is an arrogant ass twice as close-minded as Frostwulf in the other thread (sorry Frostwulf, it's 6:30am and while there are lots of people I know personally who are a lot worse than you I can't think right now) with an undergrad under his belt and thinks he's the know-it-all in his field. Even a PHD in English Literature would not make such a claim and make a mess of a debate about English Literature that he did.
The thread preceded like every other thread. First it was genuine. Then the OP degenerated into attack. Some of the wise guys caution him but he ignores them. Then they debate and it gets hotter and hotter, with half of his opponents dropping out half way through because they found out he would never accept anything short of a signed statement by a PHD and they obviously had not the time. Meanwhile, the more sensitive half, continued to defend their friend but the OP refuse to believe any word of it as he has already established himself as the know-it-all of the subject (to himself obviously), and finally one of the friends of the accused had enough and closed the thread.
Hi, Safe.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
Actually the wolf-warriors ARE statted as elite mercenaries... but using the stat-system which is systematic and equally applied, they simply can't be compared to mail-shirt battle-worms. It's sad, but that's the case- this is a result of the very definition of those wolf-warriors who are on the fringes of society and not partaking in deep Celtic trade and cannot be said to have been successful on conscription appearance with the gear they might acquire through conquest later. OT- Warg means one who deserved strangulation, interesting, which is better to think of as their name origin, imo, than previously thought as stranglers.
have i told everyone that the Proto-Germanic voice mod isn't going to happen? why? because it's Pre-Germanic Indo-European, baby! :7fortuneteller: and it's very close to completion, pretty crazy to look at with only 2/3 stages of Grimm's law, but anyhoo, just like to tell people my new name which I think is very apt, as opposed to Pre-Proto ~;p
I really don't agree at all that anybody has 'quote' work that doesn't exist... or did i miss something? DONT RESPOND TO THIS BECAUSE I KNOW WHERE YOURE GOING. My point is that nobody has proof of such an accusation so riding that trendy-train is not cool.
and it REALLY makes sense that i am Frostwulf, because i like to purposely argue with myself? ha. i supposed i am not a German-hater like some people who know who they are, who have made statements and work to that effect.
There are a numer of reasons for that:Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallel Pain
1) The Gaesatae are often overestimated. Heck, I reckon they'll be toast when pitted against Pantodapoi Phalangitai. And those aren't exactly the most uber-phalanx unit around either, now are they?
2) The real use of Gaesatae is as a mobile reserve to plug a hole or two. They aren't as effective in an all-out charge; nor are they really exceptional fighters. But they do cause a morale drop for infantry units nearby, and they do pack some serious punch with their javelins. That makes them excellent second-line units: the main, easily to replace bulk of your army holds the enemy; the gaesatae treat 'em on some javelins and intimidating gestures (or sth?). Then when the main line get's in a difficult position or when it is about to break through you give the Gaesatae a go. You can also deploy them on the flanks; especially if the flanks are two units deep.
Still: if the Gaesatae get caught in melee too early; or worse yet: are targeted by Peltastai and similar nasty skimirshers -- then it's over with the nudism and fanatism (see the AAR fora... :wink: ).
:bow: Yea, in a battle (not a 1vs1 unit test) they have nothing of supermen, and I've been cought more the once overestimating their prowess, as I've been also cought kicking their nudist ass more then once...
Probably not then! But there must have been some similar subcultures somewhere in Asia, no? Or mercs from Austria that had travlled through Hellas?Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
HeheheheheQuote:
Originally Posted by Parallel Pain
I decided to stay away from this thread... but to Help Parallel of Pain out of his confusing I wil post here the same thing I and others have posted in other places.
1st re-read what "Tellos Athenaios" said. A LOT of people give too much hype to the Gaesatae. And this gets in head of people who say Gaesatae are too strong (no they are not, they are just stong like all other elites).
2nd. Don't test in Costum as u already know, get in MP and test there :yes:
3rd. Frostwolf argues that Gaesate (along with Soldurus and Cornute, maybe Neitos too) have their stats too high because:
.... "drum roll"....
They preform well in EB battles, as they come very close to beat/could beat Cohortes Imperatoria (although they are not "elite" per say they are really good infantry), Hypaspistai, Dorkim Afrikanim Aloophim (Elite African Infantry), Thorakitai Agematos Basilikou (Hellenic Elite Spearmen), etc.
Now the REASON why the Gaesates should NOT preform so well in battle is beacause:
..."drum roll"....
1. In 50some BC Celts ALWAYS got beat by Ceasar and the German General guy (forgot his name).
2. In Telemon the Gaesatae did not preform well. The battle before it (forgot the name) was an ambush so it doesn't count.
3..... in case my memory fails me.
In other words, what this means in regards to EB:
A. Gaesate should get manhandled by Cohorts (pre & post marian), and all other elite infantry-non-phalanx units in the game.
B. Gaesate should preform in hand to hand combat like a good mid-range unit... like Pricipes, Hoplies, Pezetaroi (sp) without phalanx mode.
-----------
Also don't forget, Unit Cost, where they can be trained, and availability (which will be shown in EBII thanks to MTWII recruitment pool system) are not considered in the argument against Gaesate.
-As frost, Safe, and maybe somebody else said: "Costs are Irrelevant" (praphrasing a bit), causing me to go creazy saying "**** No" in the Germans & Celtic thread.
I hope this clears ur consusion. :beam:
Oh, not this again! "Like the Parthian boot, eh?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallel Pain
Right. 1, If you have fanatics, and the word means spearmen, then obviously not all spearmen are fanatics and so some are a distinct group.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
2 is an opinion. No challenges acceptable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voltaire
as for the 480 bc, they're certainly not in xerxes' army, but Herodotus does describe that one little tribe that migrated into Anatolia from beyond Thrace, had light hair and big bodies, and carried heavy spears. Anyone remember that? I can't find the reference on a brief search.
Neospartan, that seems like a good summation of most of the argument. The one thing I would add is the use of drugs, which I hope we've moved past by rewriting part of the unit description.
edit: just for fun...an etruscan gaesatus merc?
https://img134.imageshack.us/img134/...aesatusqu9.jpg
The Phrygians? The Cimmerians? A lot of people in earlier decades fell down the big trapdoor of pseudo-science, assuming that "Cimmerian" must be related to "Cymru" and so they were the ancestors of the Celts, but Cymru is the modern Welsh form of *Kom-mrog- meaning someone from the same country - contrast the Gaulish tribe the Allomroges, the "foreigners", who although they'd become Celts by Caesar's time were presumably regarded as having non-Gaulish origins.Quote:
Originally Posted by paullus
Paullus: I'm going to postulate that it is just an Etruscan, sans-clothes. The helmet is more Phrygian-Thracian which doesn't strike me as something a Gaul would wear, especially not in the Etruscan time period. Also, the sword looks more like a xiphos or kopis weapon based on the handle and the way he holds it. I think the shield is just an aspis that is in perspective, making it look taller than wide, given the angle. He is also wearing Greek style greaves, which would seem strange even on a mercanary if he was Gallic. Also, AFAIK, alot of Etruscan art show men wearing very little clothing, except for a cloak, like this guy. I think it was an aesthetic choice by the artists rather than an accurate reflection of RL, similar to the nude pezhetairoi and other greeks on the Alexander Sarcophogus (sp?).
That's just my opinion.
Chairman
everyone around the soldier is wearing full armor, and in spite of the Etruscan style aspis, helmet, sword, and greaves, he wears a woad-colored cloak in the Celtic tradition and--a tell-tale detail--a chain link belt.
And no, Elmetiacos, its a much smaller tribe than either of thus. Some tiny people in Anatolia near the Trallians.
Hmm... I'm kinda stumped then, but my gut tells me that aside from the characteristic blue cloak (yeah, I know it's the obvious clue in that direction, but...) and the chain link belt (which is hard to see, and I don't what to make of) he doesn't seem very Gallic. All of his equipment is within the traditional range of Greco-Hellenistic-Roman military equipment, which would only make sense on a Gaul either in Massilia or another Greek colony (though the phrygian helmet would seem rather odd at that point) or as a Galatian mercanary in Egypt or Syria (but only at a later date than the painting and far away from Etruria). Also, the way he wears his cloak reminds me of the Royal pages of Alexander's court (or just the way that Hellens in general wore their cloaks). I don't claim to be an expert so... I don't know. You definitively know more about the galatians in Greek lands, so in that sense the blue cloak would point straight to a Celtic origin, but my gut feeling still says native Etruscan. Maybe someone else with a better knowledge of ancient Italy can help.
Chairman
I feel we must be very objective about this so this thread doesn't sort of go off the beaten track too much.
Did the Gaesatae exist? yes.
What were they exactly?: Quite an elaborate group of mercenaries and soldiers possibly similar to the Fianna(now though this is Irish keep in mind that a lot of cross studies between continental sources and Irish sources show a common theme repeating throughout the Celtic world)
Were they well equipped?: YesDid some of them fight naked?: yes.Quote:
23 The Gaesatae, having collected a richly equipped and formidable force, crossed the Alps, and descended into the plain of the Po in the eighth year after the partition of Picenum.
Was there a religious reason for them fighting naked?: Possibly, but there are possibly other reasons for this and the Celts were not the only one to use naked warriors. There could have also been simply practicality reasons for this.Quote:
Very terrifying too were the appearance and the gestures of the naked warriors in front, 8 all in the prime of life, and finely built men, and all in the leading companies richly adorned with gold torques and armlets.
Did all Gaesatae fight naked?: Probably not as the nature of Mercenary life, especially in the form of a fairly large and complicated organization of Mercenaries who didn't come under the administrative rule of any local tribe would have to be quite versatile, they definitely had money and resources and as I've said before probably were very equipped as a general rule.Quote:
but the Gaesatae had discarded these garments owing to their proud confidence in themselves, and stood naked, with nothing but their arms, in front of the whole army, thinking that thus they would be more efficient, as some of the ground was overgrown with bramblesa which would catch in their clothes and impede the use of their weapons.
Were the Gaesatae elite?: By definition yes, as the very nature of such sought after professional soldiers requires an elite status, they also seemed to have quite a high degree of relative freedom from the social obligations of their neighbours, historically speaking it would seem that their allies contacted them expected positive results, so yes in that sense they were elite, if they were anything comparable to say, the Fianna then yes they were elite.
Were the Gaesatae capable of pulling javelines out of themselves and throwing them back at their enemies?: It is possible for men to do this, there are accounts of Celts doing this, was it a general rule? it is unknowen but Celts full stop were known for their battle fanaticism.
Did the Gaesatae use special drugs that were similar to PCP?: Drug use was common throughout the ancient world but there is no conclusive evidnece of this, berserker studies have been conducted to see if battle frenzy was aided by drugs like Alcohol or Mushrooms etc, and some have concluded that it was more along the lines that the warrior worked themselves up into a psychological frenzy that allowed them to perform above and beyond the regular man and what most people would expect from a human being, the Celts definitely had soldiers like this, they possibly did exist amongst the Gaesatae, especially if there was a religious element within the organization, the existance of naked warriors within their ranks would make this highly likely, but as for the drugs they used or whether or not they even used drugs? this is unknown.(unless someone can provide evidence)
fair hair and complextion is hardly a Celtic or Germanic exclusive trait ~:) in fact, we can be guaranteed that all Indo-Europeans have the strain to some degree.... but i am inclined to agree that the mail is particularly interesting clue pointing in that direction. of course one doesn't need to be Indo-European at all to be pale and ruddy too
let's keep in mind the powerful and highly unknown peoples of the area which could easily be in the background, such as Lusatians! as well as Raetians.
What the Handsome Viking said.
I don't worry too much about the Gaesatae stats; what I do question is some naked Celtic berserkers being better than other naked Celtic berserkers, but that's possibly for another thread.
I agree with Blitzkreig. Actually not just indoeuropeans have that kind of complexion. Arabs too. My uncle is an Arab, and he has arab ancestry all the way through, but he is blande haired and blue eyed. my other uncle has a fair complexion too (only dirt blond and blue eyes) only Dad has a rudy complexion and hazel eyes out of the brothers. (I myself have light brown hair and dark eyes, both not on my mom's side-though I'm not rudy).
there was also a legend about an arab named zarqaa' al-yamaamah. she lived in a now extinct tribe, and she was famous for her deep blue eyes, and piercing sight (she was before Europeans were even heard of in Arabia), hence her name, Zarqaa'
Well, they were lavishly equipped professional warriors who were either fully or semi independant, people did seem to know quite a lot about them and if they were anything like the Irish version of them the Fianna, then they probably were pretty darned good, but this argument can go the other way, a mercenary may not be as inclined to go full berserk as they are wanting to make money in the end of the day, a tribalistic naked berserk on the other time wouldn't be as interested in the material reward and probably would be motivated by something a bit higher, loyalty to friends family and loved ones and/or religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
Berserkers are a pretty complex subject believe it or not, for a bunch of often naked men.
I agree with you that the two accounts is the best way, but otherwise playing one unit against the other is very good. The only problem is for units under the control of the AI tend to do irritating things, such as the Gaesatae running away to throw javelins again. When they do this they suffer casualties. I tend to play 3 rounds as the Gaesatae vs. whatever unit, then I play 3 rounds as the whatever unit vs. the Gaesatae.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallel Pain
I only recall one and he only played from some kind of bodyguard. Later after my post he tried the Gaesatae against that bodyguard unit and the Gaesatae won. Generally on a unit to unit battle the player on equal terms will beat the AI. When I do these battles the only thing I do is click on my unit and then click attack, thats it the AI does the rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallel Pain
If you have read this the you must know my reasons, but just in case you missed it I will state them again. In EB they try to be as historically accurate as possible. I believe you should make the units historically accurate first then change things for game balance, to me the units come first. You can always make the unit cheaper or more expensive or adjusting things other ways, but accuracy of the units I believe was the first purpose of EB.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallel Pain
The extrapolation came from one on the forum, not the historian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallel Pain
I did make a response to this(and your other questions) on another thread but was told I could get banned for it. Look under threads started by me and you will see it, it was locked. But I will answer this question since you did put it down here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallel Pain
The first set of books listed are from the EB suggested books and the ones I quoted from will have an * by them:
Warfare in the Classical World-John Warry*/, Warfare in the Ancient World-multiple authors/,Warfare in Antiquity-Delbruck/, The Roman Army at War 100B.C-AD 200*/The Complete Roman Army-Goldsworthy/ Warhorse: Cavalry in Ancient Warfare-Sidnell*/, Greeks, Romans, and Barbarians: Spheres of interaction-Cunliffe*/, The Extraordinary Voyage of Pytheas the Greek-Cunliffe/, In the Name of Rome-Goldsworthy*/,Caesar(life of a colossus)-Goldsworthy*/, The Prehistory of Germanic Europe-Schutz/,The Ancient Celts-Cunliffe*/, The Celtic Empire-Ellis*/, The Celts-multiple authors(edited by Kruta)*/, Celts and the Classical World-Rankin*
These are some of the others I read which would hardly be "Roman-focused authors" such as Romans and Celts-Ellis*, The Celts-Kruta(different then the one mentioned above)*,Lords of Battle-Allen*,The World of The Celts-James*,*Atlas of the Celts-Dr. Barry Raftery; Dr.Jane McIntosh, Clint Twist*, Celtic Chiefdom, Celtic State-multiple authors*,France(Cambridge Illustrated History)-Jones*, The Celtic Atlas-multiple authors*,European Iron Age-Collis* and more.
If your talking about this thread Faesulae is the only one mentioned that I recall. But this is a good example of what I was saying on the other thread(locked one) Someone says there is some archaeological evidence and instantly you assume it to be true, so lets see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallel Pain
Where can I read about this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenrhyl
@the_handsome_viking
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=151
Very well said. I would like to address further but this post is already to long and I am short of time.
Did you read that I beat the Gaestae with Polybian Principate in guard mode?
That pretty much settles everything, especially when in history Principate made up about 2/7 of a maniple when the elite naked fanatics only made up like less than 1/10 of the Gallic army, it being the "elite" and all.
You know what that means? That means in a 3000 Gaul vs 2200 Roman battle in the game, there will be less than 300 Gaestae against about 300 principate and 300 allied troops of slightly lesser quality. On top of that, there will be 300 velite and 300 allied skirmishers. Now if, besides the AI general and his bodyguard, the rest of their army are levies, and the AI also played historically (or at least according to how so many books you stated said they just charged head on) that would mean Gaestae gets its ass kicked to the moon. With the Gaestae gone, the rest of that Gallic army is good as dead. It quite heavily outnumbered the Romans too. But then I guess it was able to do that from the low quality levies.
It seems pretty accurate to me.
So I don't know why you are arguing for the Gaestae to be nerfed and not arguing for the team to crack the game code and design a new AI for the Gauls.
Ok, so the team doesn't know how to do that, and now the AI has an army not following history and don't fight like the Gauls did in history, well the player often doesn't either. Most players are running skirmishers around the flanks to shoot rears when in history they would never get the chance, and not using the triple checkers, and having more cavalry than the Romans used, etc. So it's fair.
And really, have you gone and played a campaign yet? The campaign is supposed to be historically accurate, not custom battles. The huge morale boost of the general unit alone is enough to throw everything off.
You know, the conclusion I have reached right now is that you are a terrible tactician who don't know how to beat the Gaestae at all, and therefore you try to run to history to justify your idea that they should be nerfed. For elite units, thanks to low armor, they suck.
And as for you and all others complaining about 2 hp, I'd rather have more men than 2 hp. I'm sure we've all swarmed generals in the original RTW before and killed them, and THEY had 2 hp.
As for all the other things, the only ones worth answering to are:
1) There are qualified historians on the EB team.
2) As they have qualified historians on the team, I give them the benefit of the doubt just as I do to scientists proposing stuff like string theory, and I accept that while they could be wrong, they could also be right. While the same can be said for your sources, it certainly can't be said for you.
Hmmm.. I could swear I read this thread was clo.. OH!
Oh this is the Gaesatae Overpowered thread, I though I was reading the Celtic Overpowered thread!
Can someone explain to me the difference between the two?
Bahahahaha!
"Come, have a seat - and let us seriously discuss the nature of these big, wild naked men with luscious, huge swords!"
Tell me, Parallel Pain, have you got a sword?
:weirdthread:
I think that this thread should be locked because it was started with another question ...
Does anyone remember WHY this thread was created?
I think not .. because no one looks the FIRST post and they just think this is just another gaesatae owerpowered thread ..
Also .. I thought that people in the org are friendly but recent posts here have made me think otherwise ...
:weirdthread:
Actually I do, whether or not the Gaestae used drugs.
But heck someone brought up it was overpowered again, so I answered, with hard game test statistics too.
As for my sword, it's in my brain somewhere.