No, its not, in fact it makes no sense like that, well done.
Printable View
No, its not, in fact it makes no sense like that, well done.
Oh I know that such things happened. It is the way it is written. for example "Roman greed". A completely unscientific statement. As if all Romans were greedy and Roman expansion was driven by greed. I haven't read this specific author but he sounds biased and unprofessional in this quote, and I guess he is. Many people pretend to be an authority, or are called such by some people, but this kind of bias and sentimental involvement and message disqualifies him. Using nationalistic prejudice is not welcome in science and is unprofessional.
Sorry maybe let's just stop this and continue with the initial discussion.
Maybe he does have a bias, hard to tell from three sentences though. I'd put money down that you're a fan of the romans though.
As it seems this thread will not go back to its original topic...
i throw in my thoughts:
Naturally authors are biased. It depend totally on the sources the use, as they have to use information from ancient writers.
Here starts the problem:
We have neither celtic or germanic written account during this timeframe and so we have to stick with romans and greeks. Along with their totally unrealistic numbers they show the romans usually in better light than their opponents, BUT in modern times we should know the following:
Romans behaved very badly in new conquered - or better romanized celtic or germanic regions if the tribes didn't exactly do what romans wanted them to do. They crucified, enslaved, killed for "sport" and raped and...
Germanics behaved real badly when raiding roman or celtic territories or in later times conquering them. They nailed the heads of their enemies at trees, hung them from trees, throw them in moors, cut their sinews, so they can't run away...
Celt behaved very badly when conquering or raiding foreign lands. They raped, murderers and likely sometimes even tortured their enemies too...
So, what do we learn - all those cultures did those things and they did those things even to their "relatives" - other culturally related tribes or other political roman factions - too.
Point is:
Neither romans nor celtic or germanic people were angels, but they weren't devils either.
Interesting discussion.
Thanks for the interesting info, Psycho. If you don't mind, could you tell a thing or two about who the Galatians were and why they migrated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casuir
No I wouldn't call myself a "fan" of the Romans. I didn't deny they often behaved in a brutal and cruel way as described in that quote. I'm studying ancient history at university and I think a modern historian should try to avoid any kind of bias or steroetypes like "greedy Romans", "uncivilised barbarians" and so on. That was all I wanted to say. I fully agree with what SaFe said, that's why I didn't like the "greedy, evil Romans vs innocent, poor Celts" mood of the quote. A historian should not mark events as good or bad out of personal preference.
sorry again for hijacking the thread.
Through out history this has been the most NATURAL thing to do. Everybody did it.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
HOWEVER, the problem is that the general public is not told about this horrid acts with this amount of DETAIL.
That's true. The problem is that we have only very very few sources and non of them is without bias. It's a pitty we don't have more things from the celts, parthians, germanics and so on. Of course they would contain the same things the Romans wrote just the other way round when it comes to cruelty and such but it would make things much easier for us.
Wasn´t that a sort of offering to the gods ?Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
The Parthians weren't conquered by Rome or any other power (basicly a coup by a former Persian satrap)Quote:
Originally Posted by L.C.Cinna
Their problem was that they weren't real Persians, the Sassanians were and they neglected the historical legacy of the former and changed certain parts of historical accounts to better fit certain Zoroastrian prophecies.
Sure, those victims were offering to the gods, but the roman gladiator-fights were also a religious thing in the beginning and ended as a brutal sports for the plebs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teutobod II
Every culture or nation exaggerate the cruelties of their enemies.
The Aedui for example told the romans how cruel and evil the suebian warking Ariovist was, to enlist the romans for their side against the germanics.
I doubt that the suebians were really this cruel, as they brought their families with them and had to arrange themselves with the native gauls somehow.
It was not a clever thing, because so good old Julius Caesar had his invitation to "free" the poor gauls.
That, and they destroyed all the Parthian written history in good o'l fashioned book-burnings.(Thank you Ardashir I. :idea2: )Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenring
Re clubs:
Psycho is absolutely right. The club or cudgel, when made out of wood or otherwise, is a surprisingly effective weapon.
A blunt force weapon is not about the material used, but about the weight involved. Probably the most damaging historically speaking are the Arab 'amud or the Nubian basalt-headed maces. There are firsthand accounts of 'amud weighing 10-15kg (yes, that heavy), and also crushing helmeted heads into a lopsided bowl full of brain soup.
From testing maces vs. clubs on various types of armor, metal or otherwise, I can tell you that clubs are about .03 less effective than most mace types, excepting flanged maces of the East Greeks and Parthians. That is to say, they managed to defeat armor and 'kill' the wearer a significant percentage of the time.
I'm not sure I know enough about the topic to argue as eloquently as Psycho has here, but I would like to add one bit. Written sources will always favor the Romans, because they, umm, wrote them. Archeology has only just begun to unravel the complexity of Celtic society and warfare.
Psycho: as far as Cunliffe is concerned, a (albeit much truncated) Boii kingdom existed until about ~100 A.D. Are you disputing that? I'm a bit confused, I would like a clarification of your point where you mentioned the defeat by the Dacians.
Btw, Anthony is quite right about the Germanic vassals of the Boii, at least with regard to current scholarly opinions. Excavations in Austria and Czech have confirmed large amounts of tributary items of Germanic origin at the sites of principle Boii-controlled Oppidae concurrent with the layers precisely dated with contemporary Roman pottery. This in itself (the very abundance of items) is as good an indication as any with regard to tributary payments.
Further, the very expanse of the dated areas mean that the Boii of central Europe controlled a vast area at their height.
So on that note:The Boii should definitely be a faction for EB2 correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by Urnamma
The first one's all metal though. A hexagonal or octagonal iron bar about a meter long with a sword handle, by what I've read. Cost like the dickies too, given that it took the metal of something like five swords to make one and the Middle East isn't exactly swimming in iron to begin with. Bet you the concept was copied off those Byzantine and Sassanid heavy maces (as pre-Conquest Arabs mainly stuck to swords and spears), the former which were apparently something of a source of awe and fear well into the Middle Ages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Urnamma
While it is true that in blunt-trauma weapons like maces weight, leverage and how the impact is conveyed to the target is more important, one somewhat suspects most wood had a bad tendency to yield and deform in such encounters with metal which would presumably sort of dampen the effect. That people seem to always have made a point of sticking all kinds of metal reinforcements and contact surface add-ons to the hefty lenghts of wood they intend to go clobber armoured fellers with would seem to hint in the same direction.
And there was presumably a practical reason even a small solid metal business end was preferred to all-wood pummeling instruments as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urnamma
This is simply wrong.
Anthony said the Cimbri were vassals of the Boii.
I will not argue about some minor germanic vassals of the Boii - perhaps refugees from other tribes, but it is absolutely incorrect to assume the Boii very the masters of important germanic tribes.
I find it very irritating to back up your assumption by the findings of germanic craft items - we could assume that numerous gallic tribes were vassals of north-germanic tribes, because in their territory many celtic made crafts were found - which is also wrong.
Raiding and trade goes in two ways.
The only point we can be sure of is that at some time the Cimbri during their migration, tried to invade Boii territory and were repulsed, because of the strong defense position the Boii had. I find it very believeable that there was no major battles, because of the strong oppidas the Boii had during these times and so the Cimbrii wandered off to find better and easier lands to conquer and places to live.
About the wooden club:
Yes, it is a weapon with great impact, but after all we know is was not a esteemed weapon for germanic warriors.
More than often the importance of the frame and the shield as well as sword are mentioned.
Rituals of young men on their way to adulthood had to do with swords, if germanics warriors lost their shield on the battlefield it was a great shame for them and to fight in their - for western "barbarians" rather disciplined way they had to use the spear(frame).
Even the renowned far ranged spear throwing ability of germanic warriors is often mentioned.
Clubs were the weapon of the poor man - simple as that.
About this i would be careful, if fear some people would also like to include the Lugians as a faction of celtic overlords ruling germanic vassals.:wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celt
But that is another theme...
Less is sometimes more concerning the inclusion of numerous celtic factions.
They're needed for reasons you've already stated, to keep the sweboz in check, as it is they have to easy a time expanding into eastern and central europe.
To me the purpose of this thread was to show that the Celtic units are more powerful then they should be.
With EB we should be looking at the units themselves from a historical perspective as best we can. The units should be accessed points based on the armor value, weapons, skill, morale and special abilities (hide in woods,charge etc). Some of these factors can be determined in a fairly scientific/historical fashion such as the weapons and armor. The rest has to come from the historical writings and archaeology of the battlefield, there is no other way.Quote:
Originally Posted by SwebozGaztiz
I havent played EB enough to see how things transition, Ive played battles and looked at stats. It seems to me from a historical perspective that in the west the Praetorian guard should be the strongest infantry unit. The reason I say this is because they took the best men from the Roman legions and gave them the best equipment available. But in EB the Celts have more powerful units then the Praetorian guard. Its not just these units either, there are several others that seemed mismatched to me.
This is what Im referring to, I dont believe this is reflected properly in EB. Yes Romans and the Greeks do exaggerate but that doesnt change the situation of Roman superiority of arms.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
What do you base this on? If you mean by relative that the Celts were stronger at this time because there opponents were weaker I agree. If this is the case you might as well ignore the rest of this section. Who did the Celts really fight of consequence during the 5th and 4th centuries other then the Greeks? During the late 4th centry to the early 3rd Century BC we find them attacking pre-Camillus Rome and other Italic/Etruscan peoples. If you look at the battles during this time Rome won most of the battles, including Camillus defeating the Celts in 367 BC.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Most of the battles you listed the Celts outnumbered the Romans, and after some of these battles the Romans avenged themselves on the Celts.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Arrentium-Picenum:(283 BC) Britomaris of the Senones was defeated.
Faesulae-Telamon (224BC)
Battle of the Boii-Battle of Mutina (194 BC)
As you already know there are plenty of battles in which the Romans defeated the Celts.
Cant argue with you on this particular battle, except for the numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_TelamonQuote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
I wont disagree with your first statement, the Celts were tough! The second statement about attrition and the second quote doesnt matter to much to me as I am looking for statistical points for units, not the war. That being said, Rome in the 3rd century BC was at war with Carthage, Illyria,Macedon, Etruscans, etc. etc. Who were the southern Gauls at war with? Yes they raided one another but to my knowledge there was no major infighting during this time. Did the Gauls have a low birth rate or something?Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
I know you keep talking about merciless slaughters and horrid atrocity's of war that the Romans did. Which one of these people didnt commit any kind of slaughters or atrocity's:Germans,Celts,Samnites,Etruscans etc. etc. Ill give you a hint, it wasnt the Celts, they were as guilty as all of them.
The numbers do count against the devastation claim of the civil war as it shows that there were plenty of people around and were not completely ground down due to civil war. In history there are many peoples who received their veteran status through war. If the Celts were battling amongst themselves they would have vital war experience. If these wars are long drawn out events then training would take place in addition to the war experience. During these times it is rare for entire armies to be wiped out. If these people had enough people to continue these wars they would be getting war exp. I dont buy that all the experienced soldiers were wiped out and only green troops were left. If you look into the Mogadishu (blackhawk down) situation, the constant warfare and experience is shown. The U.S. expected little resistance from the Somalia's because they didnt really have a standing army. What they forgot to take into account is the constant battling between the warlords which gave the Somalia's battle hardened veterans. There are many more historical precedents for such cases, it is the norm!Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Roman records are not completely accurate but nor are they entirely false. You can use the Records and educated assumptions to determine what happened. Will this be 100% correct? Of course not but it is the best that can be done. From these records and educated assumptions we can see that the Romans bested the Celts most of the time. Yes archaeology can play a role in discovering some of the facts of battlefields, but just like other things these can be misinterpreted. I still stand by the statement that most historians will claim that the Romans were victors most of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Tim Newark-editor of Military Illustrated/Peter Connolly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Connolly /Peter Berresford Ellis(considered the foremost authority on the Celts). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Berresford_Ellis .These authors say it happened, why would it be hard to believe? Ellis in his book Celt and Roman mentions several others like this that happened. What could there be against this? Also there is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viridomarus This post doesnt really have anything to do with accessing statistics to units.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
My point was to say that the Romans prior to Caesar did go into southern Gaul. Transalpine Gaul according to Barry Cunliffe ("The Ancient Celts") was annexed in 123 BC, over 60 years prior to Caesar entering Gaul. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transalpine_Gaul This doesnt have anything to do with accessing points to units.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Why doesnt it stand up? Rome at this time as I stated earlier was dealing with multiple opponents. This hypothesis holds up much more then the constant tribal struggles you suggest for the Celts. Again there are many peoples that went through tribal conflicts (Germans, Scythians, Sarmatians, etc.) and Civil wars and still were able to expand. Am I misunderstanding what your getting at here? Also I have never suggested the Celts were a walk over. If you look at my posts I say that the Celts are tough. The only thing I have suggested is that the Romans and Germans are overall better skilled and I dont see that reflected in the unit stats. I still maintain that the Celts were tough and fierce. This post doesnt really have anything to do with accessing points to units.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
I still maintain that Vercingetorix had elite units(5,000 Arverni guard) trained units (Peter_Connolly states that Vercingetorix took time to train his units) and experienced troops from the constant tribal warfare.
I agree fully with this statement. I also agree that a united Belgae confederation would have defeated Caesar. Well I need to break off and end this as its getting a bit long.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
I do appreciate the way this thread has been going. Even though there is disagreement its still Civil :yes: Ive been working alot lately with not much sleep so if I put something in here that was offensive I apologize as it wasnt my intent. Also I know this is dominated by Psyco V quotes, but I intend to try to address others such as Watchman and a later time.
I did a long and intelligent reply, but then lost it.
Which stats are you looking at in particular?
Gaesatae are drugged up maniacs, drilled, disciplined, obscenely brave and conditioned mercenaries. The Praetorians are basically limited to coups.
Not a fair comparison since Praetorians have a bugged armor stat; its lower than Cohors Imperatoria even though they have two greaves more. I'm guessing that they should have 14 or 15 armor rather than 10, which would put them at 13 attack, 0.13 lethality, and 31 defense. Coupled with the fact that they come in neat 100 men cohorts, they would readily beat the crap out of any of those 60 in a unit Celtic elites. Actually, even without the +4 armour, Praetorians are still superior to any Celtic units, so I don't know what uber unit you are talking about. Remember that Caesar was always trying to avoid fighting the Averni guard head-on in battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Orb the stats Im talking about are the ones listed for the units. The attack value, defense value and etc. What Im trying to say that if the Praetorian Guard unit came up against a unit of Gaesatae, Uachtarach or the Carnute cingetos, it seems to me the Praetorian Guard wins.About the Carnute cingetos if I thought druids were exempted from military service.Also Im going to make another reply on the Gaesatae thread, if you have the chance I would appreciate a reply.
The Romans were the dominant force by 200 BC. The Romans were victorious over Boii in 191 BC which sealed it. There were still Celts and Italic tribes in this area, but they wore the yoke of the Romans. There was a revolt in 175 BC but this was "quickly suppressed, with no great effort". According to Livy Cisalpine Gaul was a province by 170 BC, but Peter B. Ellis disputes this and figures 81 BC is more accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
In general terms I tend to agree with you on the Celts having a more individual fighting style with the Romans being team or unit oriented. Im not sure if you meant to say the Celtic units should be stronger or not but if you did I disagree with you. The cohesion of Roman units trained to fight together is more effective the individuals put together to fight as a unit. One on One Id say the Celt in general would win because of their size and type of training. In battles such as these units reigned supreme, not individuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thaatu
I completely agree with everything SaFe has to say here, especially the last statement. Not to mention archaeology does have its problems with interpretation of items found.Urnamma I do have an interest in archaeology, where can I find more information on these sites?Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
I listed some of the units at the top of this post but there are others of lesser strength and ability that seem off to me. I know the Arverni Guard were tough but I dont ever remember reading about Caesar avoiding a head on battle as he had tried to get Vercingetorix into open warfare.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffBag
'Orb the stats Im talking about are the ones listed for the units. The attack value, defense value and etc. What Im trying to say that if the Praetorian Guard unit came up against a unit of Gaesatae, Uachtarach or the Carnute cingetos, it seems to me the Praetorian Guard wins.About the Carnute cingetos if I thought druids were exempted from military service.Also Im going to make another reply on the Gaesatae thread, if you have the chance I would appreciate a reply.'
Yes, but which units' stats specifically? Where is the Celtic superiority you're alluding to?
Druids did fight on several occasions, but you'll have to ask a Celtic historian about that, I'm just a traitor.
I'm pretty sure the Cingetos aren't Druids per ce, but a sort of elite "temple guard" with close associations with them.
Anyway, "palace guard" units like the Praetorians, stationed in an imperial capital far from the constant low-intensity action of the ever-troubled borders, have always tended towards a nasty tendency to becoming "parade units" of rather lower military calibre than their running costs and prestige would make one except, with entry requirements having a bad habit of degenerating into issues of pure politics, favouritism and brown-nosing (not to say outright bribery...). Although I understand the Praetorians were relatively well able to maintain their military usefulness.
If you mean the Cisalpines, come on now. They were like the Po river valley vs. the whole rest of the peninsula, with no quarantees of any kind of assistance from either the mountain tribes or the Transalpines (who in any case were busy fighting each other and the Germans). If nothing else the Romans were able to wear them down by sheer attrition over time, nevermind now "turning" them bit by bit to their own side. It doesn't take great genius to realize being a subject-ally tends to be preferable to being eradicated, all the more so given the rather Assyrian approach the Romans had to intractability. Not that a very vae victis approach to defeated foes wasn't rather more the norm than the exception those days anyway, but I understand the Romans were fairly good at exploiting it as a psychological weapon.Quote:
That being said, Rome in the 3rd century BC was at war with Carthage, Illyria,Macedon, Etruscans, etc. etc. Who were the southern Gauls at war with? Yes they raided one another but to my knowledge there was no major infighting during this time. Did the Gauls have a low birth rate or something?
As for the Mediterranean coast of southern Gaul, the fact the Romans could easily ship in armies from Italy and the close trading links might have something to do with the way it fell into Roman orbit quite early on. Plus weren't there a few major Greek trading colonies like Massilia there, independent of the major Gallic powers and by what I've seen mentioned of them in passing relatively willing to enter into associations with major powers (both the Romans and Carthaginians had such client-cities in Iberia as well, I understand) ?
You're missing the point of the division of labour in Celtic society and warfare. The fighting was done by the warrior class (and mercenaries); the commoner levy only became involved in dire emergencies (primarily the defense of their homes, I understand) and was not normally mobilized for offensive operations (with the possible exception of the segments providing the missile troops), ie. not only was their training rather poor but whatever combat experience they might earn was very sporadic, often quite brief and dismal, and quite possibly finished with getting massacred or sold into slavery.Quote:
The numbers do count against the devastation claim of the civil war as it shows that there were plenty of people around and were not completely ground down due to civil war. In history there are many peoples who received their veteran status through war. If the Celts were battling amongst themselves they would have vital war experience. If these wars are long drawn out events then training would take place in addition to the war experience. During these times it is rare for entire armies to be wiped out. If these people had enough people to continue these wars they would be getting war exp.
Do recall that the Celts did not ascribe to the same sort of fully tribal warfare as the Germans for example did.
Oh come on. The warlords had thousands of irregular Tupac Army gunmen who had to chew drugs to deal with their fear, and had never been told blasting away at full auto is chiefly a good way to waste ammunition. The fighting lasted for something like half a day, and the total American casualties amounted to under twenty.Quote:
If you look into the Mogadishu (blackhawk down) situation, the constant warfare and experience is shown. The U.S. expected little resistance from the Somalia's because they didnt really have a standing army. What they forgot to take into account is the constant battling between the warlords which gave the Somalia's battle hardened veterans.
You try to do battle with comparable forces against an opponent of comparably vastly higher calibre in the context of premodern warfare, and what you most get is an utter massacre. Which in fact seems to more often than not have been exactly the result whenever the Celts had to try to fight the Romans head on mainly with their tribal levies, and duly why for example (AFAIK) Vercingetorix's strategy was one of harassement and guerilla warfare, not pitched battle (which in turn Caesar did his best to force). Any rag-tag bunch of bandits and angry natives can pull off frustrating guerilla warfare well enough.
I'd say JB was talking tactically - that is, contain and thus render impotent such elite heavies while the rest of their army is destroyed, after which it's entirely irrelevant how badass they are. Strategically Caesar of course wanted to force a decisive pitched battle where his superior troops could tear the heart out of the resistance (and scare the rest into submission), rather than try to manage an intractable province crawling with elusive and persistent bandits and guerillas.Quote:
I know the Arverni Guard were tough but I dont ever remember reading about Caesar avoiding a head on battle as he had tried to get Vercingetorix into open warfare.
If the germans were the masters of the celts before rome than why is it that their culture didn't achieve dominance of europe until the the 5th aand 6th centuries A.D.. The celtic culture had been on the rise well before that as stated before this culture was dominant and using metal weaponry in the B.C. era while the germans when the romans first encountered them were using sharpened hardened sticks, stones, and clubs not counting the aristocracy who raided celtic lands. I got my sources from books that I got at my public library including History of the Celts, History of Northern Europe, and The Rise and Fall of the Roman empire.
As far as i know nobody said germanics were the overlords of celts before rome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfman25
Naturally they ruled over the celts that stayed in those areas the germanics conquered.
Now concerning your question about germanics used only stones, clubs and hardened sticks when encountering romans for the first time:
What we know today is the following - the first germanics the romans encountered were the tribes of the Cimbri, Ambroni and Teutoni(the Teutoni were half celtic though).
Those tribes wandered for many, many years through celtic ruled territory - raided, plundered and sometimes lived a few months in "peace" with the celtic natives, where surely some trading took part also.
Don't you think, they got their hands during this time on enough better weapons as stones and wooden clubs?
No, it seems some of the discussion members here think, that the germanics saw some fine swords, axes and other weapons - and finally throw them away because they loved their wooden clubs so much:wall:
Yes, it is known that the Cimbri for example offered all the captured weapons and armor of the romans to their gods (along with the captured romans b.t.w.) after winning a battle vs. the romans.
But this didn't happen every time - they wandered over many years through today's' Europe and had enough good weapons at least for their best warriors captured by this time.
Same with my next argumentation point:
Ariovist, War-king of the suebian federation conquered the lands of the Aedui, beat them in battle and was de facto overlord of the gauls living in this area for a few years.
So, nobody thinks he equipped his warrior elite with the best weapons available?
Again no - some of us still think the germaics ignored those weapons and stuck to their wooden clubs...Funny idea...
The suebians (he had also Harudes and men from other tribes with him) under Ariovists command were excellent warriors.
They were not poor farmes but trained and very experienced fighters.
( Remark - even poor farmers in germanic society had more than enough combat experience though )
Those warrios knew a good weapon when they saw it and would have take the most advantage of their situation in a foreign land.
Please guys, stop thinking of germanics only as savage wooden-club wielding and stone throwing idiots, who ignored better weapons and were unable to produce own iron weapons.
Not only me tried to explain many times why we had so few proofs of germanic iron weapons finds (for example they burned their dead before A.D., so we had simply no weapon finds here, as those weapons were given from father or uncle to son or nephew) and it seems some of us here ignore the fact that the germanics produced iron weapons too.
(Raseneisen is the german word for the material they used, not sure of the english word for the iron, it was of poorer quality than celtic iron, but still they used it)
As i want to come to a end here -
Germanics - at least the better warriors in a tribe - when they encountered romans were equipped with weapons of good celtic quality ( raiding, conquering and trading, even some of own fabrication )
I wouldn't believe solely the roman biased books about their savage and barbarian enemies not able to take advantage of raided and traded better quality weapons.
It is just wrong and incorrect to assume only germanic aristocracy was able to afford those iron weapons, this may be true for some tribes that lived far from celtic territory, but even here we have the known fact that they produced weapons made of Raseneisen, but is simply wrong for the mentioned tribes above.
On reason why romans often described germanics as only using spears and shields may be the fact that the mostly fought against them in this way.
Germanics tried to stay together in battle and tried to hold a line unlike the way they are often displayed.
For this fighting method the use of throwing and stabbing spears was necessary.
Thanks for your attention:bow:
One thought for a Germanic reform: due to more contact with Rome (won battles and hired mercs) they had more Roman equipment, the swords got shorter and looked more like a gladius, to the end of the EB timeframe...Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
hum..... I don't quite think so.... you are streching it a bit TOO much here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teutobod II
Concerning your argument Teutobod II:
Well, naturally raided and traded equipment became more roman during the last decades of EB's timeframe, but we should stick with celtic and germanic-styled sword for the germanic units.
I once made plans for a germanic reform, especially for Gastiz and Herthoz units, but i really don't know what became of this plans.
Surely the germanics need a reform too, because Gastiz as example are much too well equiped for the beginning time they are hireable and their equipment should change after the reform.
If you check in the script file, you can see there's a proposed Iron Reform for the germans in there.
Indeed. I think the original debate here still stands. So... bump.
No as cited it is from Daithi O Hogain, Professor of Celtic Studies, University of Dublin. I believe he is para-phrasing Siculus amongst others.Quote:
Originally Posted by L.C.Cinna
I assume you have similar problems with the likes of Tacitus’ Roman “Pillagers of the world” etc etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by L.C.Cinna
Unfortunately, I believe you’ve jumped to all sorts of assumptions here and missed the wood through the trees. These are the Roman accounts and neither the aforementioned scholar nor I believe they should be taken on face value. Whilst there is often truth still there, accounts tend to be wrapped up in a whole lot of bolox. …best examples Livy & Caesar imho.
“Unscientific”? As a student of ancient history I’m sure you’d be well aware that ‘Romanic’ historians wrote for their audience under the patronage of a Roman leader / family. Hence we do have ‘biased’ / politically expedient Roman accounts condemning the actions of other Romans / Roman dynasties / families, etc. eg. Plutarch, Poseidonius, Polybius, etc etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by L.C.Cinna
Again, I believe you are the one adding the qualitative dimension here. The only ones who mention “barbarians”, “greed” etc are the Roman / Greek historians themselves. The addition of the “evil” / “poor” nomenclatures are entirely your doing..no doubt to make your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by L.C.Cinna
All I ask is that people look at the facts in a holistic manner and don’t regress to 2D stereo-types. One needs to keep an open mind and refrain from knee-jerk assumptions whenever others recount less that flattering aspects of their own pets. Fact is often stranger and more complex than fiction.
Absolutely!Quote:
Originally Posted by L.C.Cinna
“This account means no more than that they had trans-Rhenine origins. We know they were a Celtic people.” – Finding The Celts, T.G.E PowellQuote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
And how pre-tell have you come to that conclusion?Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
Yes amongst the Germanics post (in some cases several hundred years) the period EB is depicting here. You can’t just extrapolate anachronistic data.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
One can claim that the Germanics of this period were all (bar the poor) well equipped with swords, spears, etc that subsequently mysteriously disappeared from the material record but I believe otherwise. Whilst the likes of Tacitus need to be taken with a grain of salt as he has a propensity to over generalise, I do not believe his work a complete fiction / he lost his marbles when describing the Germanic tribes of the early 1st C AD. His account happens to be reflected in the material record.
“The Germans wear no breastplates or helmets. Their shields are not reinforced with either iron or leather, but are painted wood or wicker work. Spears, of a sort , are limited to their front rank. The rest have only clubs burnt at the end, or with short metal points” – ‘Anals of Imperial Rome’, Tactitus II.10).
Now obviously there would be exceptions to the above descript, as aptly recognised by EB, but what we need to acknowledge here is his points of note / the generic norm. To continually deny / refuse to acknowledge facts (ie Germanic did indeed use clubs on a large scale) because it didn’t fit in with preconceived ideas or was believed to infer a primitive condition on the user… is imho, unacceptable in the objective quest for historical truth.
Yup, exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Urnamma
Yup, the Gauls had no idea how bad things could get :wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
“no major battles” / “repulsed, because of the strong defense position”. Again how have you come to that conclusion? Is this recognition that one can not acknowledge that the uber Germans / Cimbri could ever be beaten by the inferior Gauls / Boii? I certainly hope not.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
Not sure what you are asking here? The aforementioned slaughter of the Boii by the Dacians is attested in several classical accounts as well as the material record. …?Quote:
Originally Posted by Urnamma
One can’t attribute these material finds to the Cimbri, the chronological dating of the material just doesn’t support this hypothesis. There is no sudden deposit … rather this was a increasing phenomina prior the Cimbri arrival that most attribute primarily to trade. The likes of Kuta, Powell, etc state quite clearly that these finds are predominantly the remnants of an extensive trade network with peoples north of the Danube / through the lands of the Aravisci and Osi and up the Oder River (to a lesser extent the Elbe and Vistula). This very trade may have actually contributed to luring the Cimbri through this otherwise / relatively inhospitable landscape. Yes there were some obvious items of tribute (and we have no doubt local peoples both Celtic and Germanic had become clients of the Boii), but the material is shown to have come from a very wide area, including parts where to our current knowledge, the Cimbri never ventured. Now that itself doesn’t necessarily preclude the Cimbri coming by this material through many distant hands but considering the chronological dating of the finds I believe the hypothesis that the deposit of this material was result of the Cimbri offering tribute… to be a mere flight of fancy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Urnamma
my2bob
No prob, working a lot myself… and no offence intended here...and sorry for the delay in response.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
TrueQuote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Having had this discussion with you, funnily enough, this doesn’t surprise me. If I may make a humble suggestion, please start a campaign and play it through. You may just find (like others here) that EB has done both Romans, Celts (amongst others) due justiceQuote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Well for one I believe you are again trying to court the argument in terms of your pre-conceived understanding of Imperial Rome….ignoring the importance of chronology in the process. You can’t extrapolate an elite unit to a period decades if not centuries prior. By the same rationale one could claim that US forces were always superior to French because the modern US Home Gaurd could always best the Napoleonic Imperial Guard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
In the 4th C BC the Praetorian Guard didn’t even exist. When the unit did begin to evolve in the 3rd C BC, it wasn’t anything significant.
On the writings of scholars that are far more learned than I.. Hogain states that following the Roman slaughter at Allia (the so-called ‘infaustus dies’ - “unlucky day”), “Roman historians were anxious to disguise the fact that in this period (4th / early 3rd C BC), the Celts had military superiority in Italy”.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Arrr..Everyone! Remember ‘these Gauls’ who you believe were of “inferior skill” were in fact cherished as mercenaries throughout the entire ancient world / from Iberia to the Indus. There was a very good reason for this and I have to say, it had nothing to do with them lacking any skill / being a push over in battle / or in any other way inferior.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Oh please! Don’t throw up accounts of Camillus as fact, next you’ll be claiming Roman accounts of Remus and Romulus were fact too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Powell, Hogain and Kuta note that following Allia, Revisionist Roman historians “invented a campaign of resistance” led by the ‘renowned’ Roman General Camillus who supposedly returned from exile to save Rome. They have this Camillus confronting the Gauls about the ransom and (according to Plutarch at least), Camillus ordered them to depart without their gold, for “it was customary with the Romans to deliver their country with iron, not with gold!”. Both Plutarch and Livy then give a dramatic “fictional” account of a Gallic rout in Rome and then a final huge / “great victory on the road to Gabii”. Livy then cites several “fictitious” Roman victories but all the while fails to explain why the Gauls were able to raid with impunity during the period (raiding which he himself acknowledges)…often unchallenged in small bands. One such so-called “victory” that was actually based on fact was an incident in 349 BC when the Romans confronted a band of Gallic raiders who had just raided several Roman towns. When the two sides lined up for battle, the Roman army failed to attack. The Gauls, burdened with booty merely turned their backs and continued home untouched, happy with their spoils. In an attempt to cover for Rome’s overt failure / weakness, the incident was henceforth presented as a victory and the road along which the Gauls travelled was named Gallica (‘the Gaulish Way’).
The Roman weakness is further born out by the Roman relief when Transalpine Gauls crossed the Alps wanting a piece of the action. Initially a disaster for the Romans, in the end the Transalpine Gauls (Arverni, Allobroges, Cadurci, etc) fell out with the Cisalpine Gauls (Insubres, Senones, etc)… feelings that were part of broader Gallic politics in Transalpine proper. The conflict came to a head in 299 BC when the combined group had returned from a raid deep into Roman territory. When “burdened with a great quantity of booty”, they quarrelled over the division and in the end ended up destroying most of the spoils “as well as the best part of their own forces”. Following this slaughter, the opportunistic Romans noted the weakness of the Cisalpine Gauls and decided to finally push north. Thus in 296 BC, the Gauls (still reeling from the slaughter with their brethren) sought an alliance with their former enemies, the Etruscans, Samnites and Umbrians.
Other scholars believe that Celtic superiority lasted much later in the period . Eg. Powell states that he believed the Romans were the weaker party for far longer, that “the Romans finally managed to turned the tide of Gaulish supremacy from the victory at the battle of Telamon (225 BC)”
So you acknowledge that Roman sources are biased, that they play down, dismiss or ignore Roman defeats yet you are willing to take them on face value because that is what you wish to believe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
An “educated assumption” is looking at the issue in a holistic manner and not assuming things that fit a pre-conceived idea. Looking to the Romans to tell us who won most of the battles is like looking to G.W Bush to tell us if there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Again, one needs to consider the whole picture…including archaeological as well as literary evidence, length of conflicts, resources invested, freedom of movement of the various factions, incidence of raids, anthropological data, etc etc.
Livy may claim that over a half a million Gauls and Samnites were defeated in one battle by four Roman legions, or Plutarch claim that Roman legions jogged half a mile in mid summer and fought for a day against the Cimbri but “were so tough that not a single Roman was seen short of breath or had a bead of sweat” … but the more discerning eye with note the obvious bolox.
Firstly, I’d suggest not relying too heavily on what you read on the net / places like wiki. The ‘info’ is usually provided by those who have no more understanding than you or I.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Secondly, you can’t cite Newark as an expert on the Gauls and whilst I personally adore Ellis, he does tend to be prone to over stating things.
Thirdly, neither Ellis, Connolly nor any other scholar to date has stated that Livy’s account is undeniable fact, they merely recount the telling of the tail. Quite to the contrary in fact, many are explicit in denouncing the account as “dramatic fiction”, which is the point I made previously. James calls it “works of propaganda”, Collis “a dramatised account”, Cunliffe “an entertaining tail”, Hogain “a dramatised anecdote”.
Hogain continues, “that besides strengthening military morale and serving feelings of Roman patriotism, there was a further purpose to such stories, that of family propaganda - for Roman aristocrats of later centuries found it expedient to invent accounts of how their illustrious ancestors had saved the city in times of need”.
In the midst (349-348 BC) of the fictional campaign of Camillus, Livy gives an account of Titus Manlius slaying a huge Celt in single combat, taking his huge torc and the name “Torquatus” for himself. Livy even goes so far as to tell the tale of Marcus Valerius (from Camillus’ forces) slaying a Celt of similar stature after the later was set upon and blinded by a raven! :yes: :clown:
If one had any appreciation for Celtic culture, one would note the propaganda / message that Livy wished to convey by the telling of these tails. Devoid of roman success, Livy / others invented accounts and used cultural features dear to the Celts to claim supremacy of the Roman cause and power of arms.
Lol… I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood the text. Cunliffe was talking about what the Romans claimed. The Romans hadn’t conquered Gaul at all.. merely a small part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
The Arverni had previously led a large alliance in bitter civil war against the northern Aedui and their confederates. The Arverni Alliance had been victorious and by the beginning of the 2nd C BC, had reduced their enemies to clientage. The Romans were concerned about this turn of events and accordingly sought a casus belli to both weaken the power of the Arverni and gain loot. That opportunity apparently came with the Salluvii. The Romans subsequently sent two consular armies and several Elephants against the Arverni. At the Battle of Vindalium (121 BC) some of the Gallic cavalry were put to flight at the sight of the Elephants. The uncertainty quickly turned to tragedy as the Elephants born down on the bewildered Gauls. When this heavily armoured / veteran force tried to withdraw back across the Rhone, panic set in and the crowded Gallic pontoon bridges collapsed, drowning almost the entire force.
This defeat critically weakened the Arverni and after the Romans made a nominal alliance with their enemy the Aedui, the Romans extended their influence in the south / establish the province of Narbonesis (very bottom of Gaul). The Aedui now emboldened sought to wrest control back from the Arverni and thus the final chapter to this tragic event played out. By the mid 1st C BC, the conflict had all but wiped out the Gallic warrior class.
Which is the whole point I’ve made about this debate.
Your starting to sound like a Roman apologist seeking to argue and end point rather that addressing the actual points of the debate. Next you’ll be claiming, like Livy, that Roman’s weren’t defeated by Gauls, they (a whole consular army) were wiped out by falling trees!Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
The point I made was in response to the claim that “most of the time” the Romans were victorous..therefore they were almost always superior and this therefore should be born out in EB stats.
I have argued several points to the contrary;
A) The above rationale is flawed as it ignores a great deal of additional data
B) Not all battles (esp Roman losses) were recorded
C) Those that are recorded have often been distorted by the gloss of Roman propaganda
D) Many so-called Roman victories were no more than the slaughter non-combatants seeking to defend themselves.
E) One needs to consider chronology and actually play the game before coming to conclusions.
With regard to numbers, the numbers are fairly even in most cases. Much more so than Roman historians would usually like us to believe. I have already recounted Livy’s tale of Romans facing half a million in battle.
I was actually being conservative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Again drawing from what the aforementioned scholars have written on the subject, the Gauls were heavily outnumbered at Telamon, almost 2 to 1. According to Roman sources, the Gauls started the campaign with 50,000 foot and 20,000 cavalry. The Romans had never faced such a number of Gauls since they sacked the city over a century prior. The inter-Gallic conflict previously mentioned in 299 BC and the subsequent one in 236 BC had severely weakened the Cisalpine Gauls and the Romans had only had to deal with small bands. When the Romans got news of this force, bolstered by large contingents of experienced Transalpine troops, they apparently went mad with fear. Plutarch states “never before nor since were so many thousands of Romans called upon to bear arms at once”. The Romans went on to sacrifice a Greek man and women and a Gallic man and women to propitiate the gods.
Far from the Romans being confident that they had “superior skill” and would thus “most likely be victorious”, they feared the worse. They feared fighting a large experienced force of Gauls.
This Gallic force that Roman historians claim was 70,000 (which is unlikely at the outset) was then forced to leave several thousand to garrison their rear when they were threatened by the Veneti.. It is believed that less that 45,000 marched south. In response (from Roman records), the Romans had mustered several legions and around 100,000 auxilaries / allies. In addition to this they had hundreds of thousands of additional troops spread out along the Gallic line of advance.
Some of these later Roman troops the Gauls bested to sack / loot several to towns in Etruria before heading to Rome. Here they defeated a large Roman army sent to stop them (point of note that again this defeat is relegated to a relative foot note and the leader’s name omitted). By the time both sides faced each other at Telamon, the Gauls would have fielded no more than 30,000 – 40,000 troops. The Romans 70,000 – 80,000. The Gauls, despite their bravery, didn’t stand a chance.
Look the point is very simple. Consider WWII for a moment. One can’t take Hitler’s ‘Home Guard’ circa 1944 complete with units of ‘Hitler Youth’ and assume a correct qualitative evaluation on the standard of German armed forces throughout the conflict. We all know that Germany had very well trained / experienced troops at the outset of the war but as a result of defeat / casualties they could not sustain, their forces had progressively suffered in quality the closer the end came.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
I’m merely making the same point about the Gauls. Once that balance of power shifted, and horrendous casualties sustainted, there was no turning back. The Gauls couldn’t sustain the number of warriors required to stem the super power of Rome.
Again everyone!Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
I’m sorry but your wrong on this account. Yes the Germans, Celts, Samnites, Etruscans, etc did terrible things, they weren’t angels by any stretch, but they didn’t engage in systematic genocide like the Romans did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
I believe that to be extremely simplistic, albeit flawed thinking. By the same rationale, Hitler’s “Home Guard” should have been elite veterans after 6 long years of war. Same deal. If you kill all your troops, yes you can continue the conflict but don’t expect the mobilised militia to count for much. They are not the same as properly trained and equipped troops. The efficient Germans took several years of peace to prepare for WWII and even then some generals though it too soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Sure, but I’m afraid you have extrapolated a circumstance very different to that which we are discussing here. Of course troops acquire experience over time …If They Live! A dead veteran is no good to anyone..and this was the problem for the Gauls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
The inter gang / tribal conflict of Somalia is very much removed from the blood letting of the Gallic civil war. At the point that the Gallic warrior class was wiped out, the Germans then the Romans became involved. The Gauls didn’t have time for a new generation of warriors to rise to the fore nor for their militia to be mobilised and gain some semblance of experience. It is true that by the battle of Georgovia and Alesia, over a decade had passed and many young Gallic youths had appeared as novice warriors. This is born out in the archaeology record as previously mentioned. But these boys were no where near the same quality of their adult predecessors.
Why you say? ..Well you stated that Rome couldn’t conquer the Gauls because they were distracted fighting Carthage. The point I made was that during the same period (ie when the Romans were supposedly busy fighting Carthage), they managed to conquer other (non Gallic) peoples, thus the hypothesis “does not stand up critical analysis”.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
my2bob
@Psycho:
Concerning the Belgae and here especially the Nervii:
In the future it would be better if you quote my complete sentences, i never disputet that the Nervii were celtic. I just said that they themselves seemed to be proud of germanic heritage - which is wrong.
Concerning the wooden club:
For the typical germanic style of warfare in open field battles the wooden club wouldn't fit.
Also it was in germanic society a sign of wealth to have good quality weapons ( the spear as standard weapon for every warrior doesn't count here ).
A self-made wooden club was ..
a) a poor weapon for germanic battle tactics except ambushes and
b) a weapon without showing the wielders wealth.
So we can assume that it was definately not the most loved weapon of free men or even nobles.
I will ignore your mentioning about "continual denying" here, because it is you who seems to totally ignore the well-known fact about the reason for the lack of weapons, armor or even tools of trade as grave givings again and again.
I would also suggest if you would take a look at your own sentences. You say germanics use clubs on a large scale, but here also we have no other source as Tacitus (and one picture on a roman column) whom you seem to believe only if it fits you.
Naturally you will also not find archaelogical proofs of your point here, because of the germanic tradition of burning of their dead.
Final note from me concerning clubs:
I said never that clubs were not used. I only said that by all we know about germanic sense of honour concerning weapons and style of warfare before AD the club was not the most loved weapon.
Concerning the swords:
Again Tacitus. If Tacitus is your source here than i hope you don't forget to mention the beastmen of the northeastern tribes. You should read something about the iron finds in germanic lands and also i'm sure we both don't know at what time those sword-rituals started.
Interesting that the Cheruscii ( a tribe that existed well before the time you mentioned ) named themselves Sword-People in their own language without any access to swords or the knowledge to fabricate them as you seem to imply.
Concerning Ariovist and his conquest of the Aedui:
Gallic propaganda tour 73BC :dizzy2:
Concerning the Cimbrii and Boii:
Cheap shot from you and not your usual style - i never said that the Cimbri or Ambronii were better combatants than their Boii counterparts. But it is well known that the Boii had a very good defensive position and no major battle between those tribes are mentioned, so we can assume that the wandering germanic tribes gave up and marched on for easier targets. Surely some fighting took place, but perhaps you could find some evidence of major battles between them. But it seems logical, that the Cimbrii who travelled along with their families would not try to asault fortified oppida's or even try to lay some kind of siege. Even against the romans they tried to fight open field battles and the Boii would have been very dumb to fulfill the germanics their wishes, as they had a better position.
Hopefully we could agree at least at some points here.
Wish you well
Orb what Im trying to say, apparently not very well is that the attack factor and defense factors are higher in Celtic units then on the Roman and German units albiet sometimes slightly. I simply just disagree with the numbers is all.
I agree with you on this, I should have chosen a different unit for an example. Your last sentence is true as well in that they did have some constant warfare experience. Marcus Aurelius and a few others used them in combat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Not that this has a bearing on this topic...Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
For Cisalpines are you talking about the Boii and their allying themselves with the Etruscans and Samnites to attack the Romans(295 BC - Battle of Sentinum , 283 BC - Battle of Lake Vadimo etc,etc)? Are you talking about the Insubres, Cenomani, Lingones and Senones who were also allied to the Boii? Who were attacking the Celts in Cisalpine? The Romans won through major battles not just piecemeal. Yes after these battles some of the tribes would join the Romans, but they were for the most part conquered.
Romans wear them down through attrition? Again look at who Rome was fighting during this time. Rome had way more foes then the Celts did in Cisalpine! How is it that the Celts are susceptible to attrition yet the Romans are not? It was the loss in 191BC of the Boii that ended any real Celtic problems in Cisapine.
Im not going to completely disagree with you on this.I have not done much studying on this subject. "The Celts fought as a tribal army and were probably divided into septs or sub-divisions of the tribe just as they were 2000 years later at Culloden"/ "The Celtic military system, as it survived in Scotland in 1745, was that every male over the 'age of choice', usually seventeen years old, and fit enough to carry arms was automatically part of the 'regiment' of his clan or tribe. The chieftain was the automatic commander. Brother fought with brother, father with son." -Peter EllisQuote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I have 4 books that deal with the Celts but only Celt&Roman-Peter Ellis even comes close to addressing this issue. What Ellis is saying seems to differ from what your saying. Ellis does mention an Elite upper class but in no way says anything about them being the only warriors. If you know where I can find out information on this subject please post it, Id like to know which book or article etc. I just dont have anything that addresses this subject.
Im just repeating what the commander of the Delta's said. Yes they chewed drugs but he also said they had considerable experience from constant in-fighting amongst themselves. This wasnt the one day event your mentioning, its the time they were there and the problems they had with the soms. The soms knew what they were doing and were not green, thats what Im getting at. Of course the U.S. is going to thump on the soms, better equipment and better training. But what would have been the course if the soms had no practical experience?This isnt a new thing, in the U.S. civil war, the U.S. revolution, medieval warfare and etc. soldiers get experience fighting in wars therefore becoming more effective warriors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I dont remember reading about Vercingetorix guerilla warfare though I do know that he had some problems with others not associated with Vercingetorix. Regardless Vercingetorix didnt want a pitched battle simply because the Romans had overall better soldiers. Not that his soldiers were inexperienced, after all Vercingetorix did spend around a year getting his people trained. The Celts must have had some warfare experience from the raids and infighting. But what it comes down to is the Romans had the better soldiers, this is due to their tactics and discipline.
About the Arverni Guard, I still dont remember Caesar saying anything or doing anything to avoid them. Where was this mentioned?
As far as the Germans are concerned Im thinking it would be easier to start a new thread on them then to continue with them here.
Let me point out somethign, all wars are different. What happens in one civil war, does not happen in all civil wars, there are too many variables involved. With that in mind I continue:Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
You state: If the Celts were battling amongst themselves they would have vital war experience.If these wars are long drawn out events then training would take place in addition to the war experience. During these times it is rare for entire armies to be wiped out.
-Says who? Depending on the intensity of a conflict a nation will either drain its expireinced forces and adult males, or it will end up with a good number of expirienced soldiers. Also, not only do entire Armies are destroyed but entire towns and populations are exterminated too. Again it all depends on the intensity of the conflict, and what the winning side decides to do when they conquer enemy towns. In the case of the Gallic Civil war killing for killing's sake was common practice. To illustrate this point, think of General Sherman marching throught the South in the American Civil War.
You also state: If these people had enough people to continue these wars they would be getting war exp.
-Or they could have just as easely field young men and boys to battle, as the war drags on and the casualties mount.
Now this is just off, seriously: I dont buy that all the experienced soldiers were wiped out and only green troops were left. If you look into the Mogadishu (blackhawk down) situation, the constant warfare and experience is shown. The U.S. expected little resistance from the Somalia's because they didnt really have a standing army. What they forgot to take into account is the constant battling between the warlords which gave the Somalia's battle hardened veterans.
First, soldiers and adult males were dying out, and young men and boys are then FIELDED into battle with some/no trainning.
Now, in Mogadishu the US sent in an EXTRACTION team of Rangers and Delta Force supported by Transport Black Hawck helicopters. And those soldiers were to be picked up by a small convoy of Hummvees and trucks along with the prisoners. All these men were fighting against and ENTIRE CITY, where men and children, doped up, and wielding AKs where going after them. And, at the end of the day, 19 US soldiers (R.I.P) were killed, and one taken prisoner.
Another point about the ongoing Somali civil war. In this particular conflict you don't see towns burnt to the ground and entire populations massacered. So far the capital city, Mogadishu. has exchanged many hands from local War Chiefs, the Islamists, to the National Somali gov't (which is exiled in Ethiopa).
How many times will I have to repeat this, I wonder ? Whatever the shortcomings of the armies it produced (especially right after being formed, when the soldiers weren't yet "knit" to units), the militia system gave the Romans a huge manpower pool to draw on, plus allies and subjects on top of that. Look at the way they just kept conjuring up new fully equipped legions during Hannibal's rampage; they suffered truly catastrophic casualties on several occasions, but that in no way kept them from raising enough armies to contain the Big H in Italy and simultaneously press the Carthies back on at least two other theaters - and I'd be surprised if they didn't have to deal with a couple of opportunistic Celtic raids on the side to boot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
The Celtic "heroic" system may have produced better warriors, but it could never have absorbed such appalling losses with such ease and kept on going. Its warriors took a long time to train to the required level of skill and courage, and serious setbacks and casualties could well mean they had to wait for a more or less entirely new generation of warriors to "grow to the role" so to speak.
And the Romans were stubborn. Bulldogs, figuratively speaking. Both strategically and tactically they had a noticeable tendency towards sheer bloody-minded tenacity, trying to just plain outlast and wear out the opponent on the battlefield, and on larger scale they typically just kept throwing armies at the salient problem until it had had enough and either collapsed or went away.
The Cisalpine Gauls may have been able to raid deep down the Italian peninsula, but they apaprently never established permanent footholds there (probably as even trying would have subjected them to an endless stream of angry militiamen from the assorted rather territorial Latin peoples). What that means is that they did damage, but hardly something the Romans and others could not recover from - there was always someone willing to take over the devastated farmland, and duly fill the rosters of the militia (and under the professional legions, well, there was always all kinds of flotsam and jetsam willing to enlist in exchange of steady meals and a roof over their heads). Once the Romans grew relatively strong enough to start hitting back, however, the Cisalpines with their rather smaller territoty and decidely poorer rate of replacing casualties would have been in major strategic trouble - and the bloodletting and quakes inside the Celtic world did not help one bit.
I'd say it's cutting corners a bit too close to assume the fighting tradition of the Highland clans can be taken as a representative of Celtic armies a good two millenia earlier in any but the most vague sense. In any case I understand the Highlanders' main punch came from their warrior nobles, the gentry, who were supported by the deep but by far less formidable rank and file commoners of the clans. The aristocrats, well equipped and trained, formed the front ranks and led their fellows forward by example; the common clansmen, little more than mobs of tribal irregulars really, followed to the best of their ability, and provided the numbers. If one wants to find analogies to for example the Gallic armies of Antiquity, about most that can be said is that the gentry were roughly analogous to the warrior class of old (at least in their military function) and the rank-and-file to the emergency tribal levies. But frankly I have a feeling the Highland tradition was closer to a true "tribal" or perhaps a quasi-feudal form of warfare, than the ancient Celtic system with its specialized warrior class that normally all but monopolized warfare.Quote:
Im not going to completely disagree with you on this.I have not done much studying on this subject. "The Celts fought as a tribal army and were probably divided into septs or sub-divisions of the tribe just as they were 2000 years later at Culloden"/ "The Celtic military system, as it survived in Scotland in 1745, was that every male over the 'age of choice', usually seventeen years old, and fit enough to carry arms was automatically part of the 'regiment' of his clan or tribe. The chieftain was the automatic commander. Brother fought with brother, father with son." -Peter Ellis
I have 4 books that deal with the Celts but only Celt&Roman-Peter Ellis even comes close to addressing this issue. What Ellis is saying seems to differ from what your saying. Ellis does mention an Elite upper class but in no way says anything about them being the only warriors. If you know where I can find out information on this subject please post it, Id like to know which book or article etc. I just dont have anything that addresses this subject.
Experience in banditry, pillaging and fighting equally incompetent gunmen in clumsy skirmishes that would make any trained officer weep in despair hardly builds a fighting force capable of taking on well-equipped soldiers trained to do the whole thing right from the start. What such troops mostly learn that way is competence in banditry, not soldiering. It takes dedicated drill and training to turn volatile rabble into dependable soldiers.Quote:
This isnt a new thing, in the U.S. civil war, the U.S. revolution, medieval warfare and etc. soldiers get experience fighting in wars therefore becoming more effective warriors.
And the thing is, the Celts had no institutionalized methods for doing so quickly. Their whole military tradition was based on patiently building up experience and war gear over a long period (and, obviously, the slow learners Darwinizing in the process...), with a mighty hero as the end product. What they would have needed at the time the Romans and Germans began to invade Celtic territory with serious intent was a system that would have allowed the mobilizing of commoners into effective fighting units, in the manner of the citizen-soldiers of Classical Greece and Republican Rome or the every-man-a-warrior approach of the Germans and others with less specialized division of labour.
I would actually hazard a guess the Celts on the whole just plain could not let go of their old "hero" system even when it was visibly failing them; it seems to have been very deeply integrated into their society and worldview, and they would not have been neither the first nor the last ones to sink grimly holding onto a dear but useless if not outright harmful relic.
I just finish posting and what happens :inquisitive:
Im glad to see you back again Psyco :laugh4:
Im sure I dont understand the mechanics of the game so I hope you dont mind answering my questions. Do the Celtic units degrade to reflect there loss in power? Are the 4th and 5th century Celtic units better then the 3rd century Celts who's armor began to improve then (according to Ellis)? If I was to take a 4th or 5th century Celtic unit against a 2nd century Celt unit of the same level(elite vs elite) would the 4th-5th be stronger, if so why? Again this is going strictly by the stats of the overall unit, not whats going on around him. In other words would an Arverni Guard unit be beaten by an elite 4th-5th century elite unit, and if so why(both game and historically, only referring to the units ability).
This is what Im wondering if EB is doing about using stats from one era to another. Would an elite Celtic unit from the 3rd cent. beat the 1st cent. praetorian? About the same question as above. Do you believe that 5th and 4th century Celts transported by time or whatever could defeat like Celts in the 2nd century, historically speaking and game speaking? Are you saying that the 5th and 4th cent. Celts are more powerful to their enemies as compared to the Celts of the 2nd cent. vs their enemies?Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
I was thinking of them as a group and forgetting about them as mercenaries. Yes they were known for their cavalry.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
So are you saying Camillus was not a real person or his feats were exaggerated? If you say exaggerated I would agree with you up to a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
the rest of your quote Ill address after your next quote.
We both agree that the romans exaggerate, but you are doing exactly the same thing you accuse me of doing! You take what you want to read from the Romans (battle losses, cruelty,or Celtic stories of heroism, etc), but you wont take the opposite view(Celtic losses, cruelty, stories of Roman heroism etc). Your sources, yes the modern ones are just as bias! More on this below.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
I completely agree with you on wikipedia, I use them rarely for the problems you say. I used them for the authors for the sake of verification.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
None of the authors I mentioned seem to have a problem with the duels. "but the Romans had even beaten the Celts at their own game. Challenged to single combat by the chieftan of the Insurbres, M.Claudius Marcellus accepted" -Newark. He goes on to tell of how Marcellus won."The surprise is that the consul Claudius Marcellu accepted the challenge in spit of the law forbidding single combat by Roman officers. He succeded in slaying Viridomarus and the Celtic army crumble before a renewed Roman attack"-Ellis
These quotes sound like they believe it to me. The Titus Manlius one also finds its way into Ellis's book, he even goes on to mention more. The Roman troops would have witnessed these events and if the person involved said it happened dont you think that a least one of the Romans would have let the cat out of the bag? With these guys being of high rank and political dont you think that their enemies would have made a stink about it?What facts are there to disprove these duels? Is it impossible for a Roman to beat a Celt in a duel? I think that its interesting that your quoted authors seem to think that it is.
I considered Transalpine Gaul as southern Gaul. I only meant that the Romans had entered into and annexed Transalpine Gaul, just the southern part of Gaul not its entirety.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Im not a Roman appologist, I see their failings. Of course the falling tree's is just plain dumb. A) Archealogical data? can be very misleading and the interpretation can be way off.B) Agreed, and I assume nearly 100percent wins were.C)agreed.D)I disagree, most troop types are mentioned when they did have battles.They may mention slaughters but those arent battles. E) YeaQuote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Excellent analogy. I just not sure its applicable. Ill have to read more on the Gallic infighting.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
I must be missing something. Im saying that Rome was caught up with many enemies and they would have had the same hard time as the Celts. Just because the Celts gave way doesnt mean the Romans didnt have the same problems. The Romans were successfully attacking the Celts,Illyrians,Greeks and etc. why would it only befall the Celts that they lose to attrition? I must be missing something. Sorry Psyco your just going to have to break out the crayons for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Alot of these last ones were rushed as Im pressed for time, sorry about that. Psyco if you wouldnt mind putting down the first names of the authors you mentioned, Id like to find more out about them.
why would it only befall the Celts that they lose to attrition?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Its been like the 5th time it has been said. The Romans, Celts and Germans had different ways of producing and training armies.
--The Romans would call up men from its territories and allies. Train them, and drill them to fight as a unit and throw them into battle. IF that army failled (as in the case against Hannibal), the Romans simply called up more men.
--Each German tribe had most of its men be able to double as Soldiers and Farmers/Craftmen/etc.
--Celts, had a warrior class that did the fighting, the farmers/craftmen/etc did not fight UNLESS in times of dire need. AND unlike the Romans these "Levies" were not trainned and drilled to fight as a unit.
----Also, Celtic warrior class was NOT trained from training camps or anything like that.
Another point I would like to make. The Romans were able to crunch out men like a paper mill to go against Pyross (sp), Hannibal, etc. because Rome exerted direct political, economic and administrative control from all its territories. Where at a flick of a finger during Republican eras the Senate could reduce land requirments and raise extra legions. And during Imperial times there was no shortege of men willing to join the well fed Legions.
The Celts were not an ORGANIZED NATION. There were different tribes who formed and broke alliances depending on what tribe was stronger and RARELY EVER came together as a Single Gallic Nation.
Not only is it hard to crunch out new fighting men by it self. But the tribes RARELY EVER decided to all produce new Warriors at the same time, and all spend the amount of resources nessesary to do so.
Gday Frostwulf ...I'll have to get back to you.
And this is exactly what I was responding to. They were taking pride in their achievements having come from what was later called the land of the Germani. ie “we chose to migrate and by feats of valour fought our way here and seized all this land above the Seine.” They were NOT making / inferring some imagined statement about how great they were by trying to associate themselves with the Germanics.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
Well several depictions actually… but yes, as you acknowledge often, our information is sparse so we can only look at the available data and make an educated assessment to the best of our abilities / go with the “most likely scenario”. Literary sources and archaeological records (eg aforementioned Roman features) tell us that the club featured predominantly ..along with the framae, in Germanic forces of the period. That doesn’t mean all / the majority used them, but they were used on a scale worthy of note.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
This is what I have always argued.
Have I misunderstood you here ? .. because to my recollection, you have consistently fought against any depiction of Germanics wielding clubs. Further, to ignore the data we have and instead rely exclusively on what one personally supposes considering an envisioned “sense of honour concerning weapons”..is not objective science, historical inquiry.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
And as I have state previously, you can’t cite Germanic funerary rites as an excuse. The Belgae also engaged in the antiquated practice yet their culture offers us some of the richest archaeology finds to date.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
How do you figure that?Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
I have to say I’m rather shocked here SaFe. You seem to be ignoring some key features of Germanic culture..at least in our period. We are not talking about Celts here with their highly stratified society, and social mobility..we are talking about Germanics who in this period and for many centuries later prided themselves on their egalitarian social structures. The recognition of the ‘volk’ and the democratic principles that underlie much of our modern Western civilisation.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
The Germanics didn’t start adopting Celtic cultural features until the end of the period we are discussing and then into the first several centuries AD, culminating in the great Germanic migrations of the 4th and 5th C AD. I’m sure their would have been some consideration given one’s arms, when they were not provided by the ‘volk’ as they apparently were in some case..and I’m sure Germanic warlords were well equipped and their sub-leaders increasingly so by the turn of the millennium / year ‘0’, but one can’t project an anachronistic, dare I say Celticised opinion of a people in an attempt to rationalise a condition not supported by any other means / data.
Probably true, for we know that the Germanics were always eager to get their hands on Gallic and Roman swords. But mere preference is very different to what you are suggesting here. I’m sure Roman legionaries would have all preferred the beautiful mounts, equipment and conditions enjoyed by their commanders..but far from being ‘primitive’ their kit often proved adequate / better suited to deal with the challenges they faced.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
As both of us have already acknowledged several times, one needs to take accounts with a grain of salt … but not throw the whole thing out just because we don’t like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
Whats the deal with the swords, I thought we were talking about clubs? What’s your point here? How many Celtic tribes do you think named themselves after gods!?Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
Then why assume the Boii avoided pitched battle? We just don’t know.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
We can’t assume anything of the sort. All we know is that the Cimbri were repulsed. To try an embellish an event because it fits with a pre-conceived idea is not an admirable undertaking imho.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
“Logical”?.. Speculative at best. If I may - point out the inherent problem here. Romans, Greeks, Carthaginains, etc all had extremely strong fortifications but they didn’t always cower behind their walls. They would prefer to march out, often regardless of numbers, and meet their enemy in battle than suffer the privations of a siege and the ravaging of their territory. The Boii (who you acknowledge were a regional power at the time) would have likely done the same, but we will never know for sure unless we actually discover a battle site and remove all doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
Well we both seem to agree that it’s highly improbable that the Cimbri were reduce to being clients of the Boii… and the Aedui no doubt did play up the suffering under the Seubi.. but I wouldn’t label / dismiss the later as outright propagandaQuote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
Same mate. Contrary to what you may or may not believe, I don't hate you.. or the Germans. Quite the contrary in fact. :yes: ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
my2bob
Great discussion, please get going, i`m actually saving the pages in my PC to read it later on!!! I haven`t got a bvetter place to learn about Celtic or Germanic ancient way of battle than here!!! This discussion has a hugh fan here!!!
Only two precistions:That thing about the evolution of the quality of german troops troughout the WWII, isn`t precisely right, and your reasoning there is appallingly simplistic given that particular conflict. But it was just an example, not big deal. However, I would happily discuss that thing with you, but I don`t wanna poison this pristine topic with XX century events.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
:uhoh2:Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
That sounded kinda queer :biker:
:grin: :grin: :grin:
Cheers, keep on rolling!!!!
Reading that Camillian campaigns were ficticius enlightend me. Really I was always confused by reading how the Romans so decisivelly beat the celts and still were unable to prevent the looting of their northern most provincies. Also, If they had defeated them like that, why so frightened in telamon?
It kinda makes sence.
Regarding the club; in open battle it's a handy weapon as it doesn't really matter where you hit it will always hurt. Even if you hit a shield, the blunt force imposed could still break your arm if you're not carefull.
Cheers...
Cheers...
This has nothing to do with the relatively open-ended "history anew" idea of the game. And in the game the erosion of the Celtic military system would come from an increased inability to train and maintain the types of units that represent the actual warrior class, through simple collapse of the taxpaying population base through repeated violent conquest of settlements (think "enslave" and "exterminate") and the devastation of the economical and military infrastructure (ie. dismantling of buildings for cash, probably simply to deny their use to your foe in a settlement you don't even intend to keep).Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
In EB terms the Gallic situation at the eve of the main invasions by the Romans and Germans would quite simply be represented by the armies being made up chiefly of Lugoae and those shortsword guys (the militia-type troops) plus the various ranged troops, with a sprinkling of few but probably quite formidable representatives of the warrior class - by that point more likely than not including very high-end units like Brihentin, Solduri and the various faction-specific elite. These obviously also pretty much slaughter the Celtic militias in straight fights, which rather well illustrates why exactly the levies did not tend to aquire much experience.
The major problem would be that the facilities to train such high-end troops would only be present in a very few important settlements that had had a priority on being defended and thus escaped the worst of the damage. Against this would then be thrown the ability of the Sweboz and post-Marian Romani factions to spam capable soldiery from damn near every settlement, and mercs and local auxiliaries on top of that...
There was never a collapse in the quality of the Celtic warrior class involved in the equation (beyond neophyte replacements of course not being nearly as tough as fully learned grizzled warriors), but quite simply an inability to raise and maintain them in sufficient numbers.
I know that this Germanic discussion is off-topic in here but I need to interfere.
towards Psycho V and SaFe
on the Nervi, who said in front of the Romans to be of Germanic origin in order to be more honored, which is a fact of at least a later period! I quote Tacitus, the only source about it afaik: "TREVERI ET NERVI CIRCA AFFECTATIONEM GERMANICAE ORIGINIS ULTRO AMBITIOSI SUNT, TAMQUAM PER HANC GLORIAM SANGUINIS A SIMILTUDINE ET INERTIA GALLORUM SEPERANTUR."
translated in English quite freely: The Treverians and Nervians praise themselves too much for their claim on Germanic origin, in order to prevent from being mixed up with gallic inertness by such noble blood.
Is is a fact that those tribes were Celtic, while the Treverians were germanised in much later times, the Nervians mixed up with the poor rest of the defeated Cimbri and Teutons, which finally settled in the lands of the Belgae and therefore the Nervians are right to claim a bit of Germanic origin in Roman times..
on the clubs:
I agree with SaFe that clubs were most likely not the prefered weapon of the free or rich tribesmen. it must have been the weapon of the very poor tribesmen which weren't able to afford even a spear, which was the absolute main weapon of free Germanics, while the rich ones used swords. I agree that some used clubs but surely not the majority. But why the trouble? We have a Germanic club unit in EB, but we have even more Germanic units which are equipped with spears or swords, which is correct from my point of view...
Those'd have to be very poor people indeed, as AFAIK in comparatively low-tech and sylvan cultures like the Germans the "universal weapon" was the spear already due to its role as a hunting tool. You try to club a deer or any other skittish herbivore with fast legs... Tossing something pointy at it worked rather better overall.
Stone maces are know from late Stone Age Scandinavia. They appear primarily in the context of coastal seal-hunting settlements, and it is thought they were used to kill seals caught on ice without damaging the valuable pelts. Although as there was doubtless friction over hunting territory between rival groups, given the considerable value of sealskin as a trade item, it is theorized they may as well or even instead been used to settle such disputed the old-fashioned way... The latter would probably make them the first weapons purpose-made for killing other humans.
Anyway, I suspect the Germans chiefly employed clubs as "cheap and cheerful" backup weapons among the poorer tribesmen, with the due developement that some took a liking to the more "up close and personal" fighting style involved and started using them as primary weapons instead of spears. But I'd be very surprised if such "primary weapon" clubs had not shortly began sporting all kinds of appliqué spikes, studs, and other details common to blunt-instrument weaponry. Long wooden clubs with rows of bronze studs as the contact point are known to have been occasionally used by Medieval warriors after all, and as such small reinforcement bits could easily enough be crafted of all kinds of scrap metal hey would hardly have been a very expensive addition to a humble but aggressive tribesman's club.
Plus they look way cooler than a plain wooden stick. That alone would probably have been reason enough for many to apply such extra pieces...
Well unfortunately I wont be posting much for the next few weeks as work and other things have priority. I do appreciate the discourse we have had though we may not agree with one another. I do have a couple of statements and questions.
1. I understand that your saying the Celts had mostly a trained Warrior class. That being so how were they trained?
2. Who can you recommend reading that discusses about this situation of training? Also who do you suggest for finding more information about the infighting in Gaul? If I didnt misunderstand you was there infighting in Celtiberia and britain as well?
The questions I raised above are what are causing me the most problems, thats why I want to find out more.I try to read both sides because I believe most authors are biased toward whom they are writing about. The bias varies in degrees but never the less it there. Ill be trying to find a book about the romans of this period as well as the Celts. Im hoping that some one can get me the information prior to Sunday if possible.
This is the way I understood it to be as well. Ill also throw in that the TCA(Teutons,Cimbri,Ambrones) had some Celtic admixture as they lived in close approximation to the Celts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varg1204
Im wanting to start a new thread on the Germans but first have to read up more on the Celts and also have to find the time.
Ok….. no, the game mechanics do not allow EB to do so and your missing the point here. EB is not seeking to replicate the course of history / guarantee the Celts are defeated and the Romans victorious. Otherwise everything would be strictly scripted and the player afforded little / no choice. In fact if one wishes to have history represented accurately, you’d be watching a documentary…not gaming at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Now you claim the Celts are over powered in EB but do so whilst projecting a simplified / generic view of Roman superiority devoid of any consideration of time, circumstance, etc. EB is a game that provides the player with a historically accurate paradigm to explore the ancient world of ‘what if’. Hence the Celts in EB are not depicted in a weakened state no more than the Romans (any other faction) are depicted when they happened to be starving, emaciated, flighty / green, tactically rebellious, etc etc. EB have (after a great deal of research and debate) taken what a standard / reasonably generic unit was like and reflected that in game. Using what one may call intrinsic value devoid of other 'short term' / circumstantial / ‘environmental’ factors that deviated them from their 'norm'.
The EB world, whilst limited by historical constraints, provides a mechanism to greatly diverge from ‘history’ as we know it. Thus, one may find EB’s Celtic factions in a stronger position in game (ie wealth / heavy units, etc) that what they were in real life depending on gameplay / AI player choices. To force any faction, whether it be Celtic, Roman, Greek, Iberian, Germanic etc etc into a pre-conceived box devoid of any historical imperative is a grave injustice to those peoples, history and contrary to the principles and directives of EB.
If I personally had a choice between taking an actual 4th / 5th C BC Gaul or a 1st C BC Gaul for a body guard, I’d be taking the 4th / 5th C BC Gaul. Not because on any difference in intrinsic value but because by the 1st C BC, the Gallic states weren’t in a position to properly supply, equip and train their warrior elites to the same proficiency.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
As I answered you before…
I don’t know how else I can spell this out. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Yes …because by the 2nd C BC the Celts were on the decline. Their neighbours had gotten stronger so there was more incentive to kill the guy next door and make off quick with your spoils rather than track hundreds / thousands of miles into uncertainty and try and lug the stuff home through unfamiliar, inhospitable terrain. This internal blood letting with the growing power of their neighbours completely tipped the balance of power. Few peoples / states in history have manage to successfully fend off several strong powers whilst engaging in a bloody civil war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Not just the cavalry my friend. Celtic Gauls (As oppose to Romanised Gauls) were being use for elite body guards well into the 1st C AD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
What part of ‘fiction’ do you not understand?. This ‘Arthurian’ Camillus character may well have existed (with or without a magical sword) / we will never know for sure.. but his feats / campaign are the work of a creative mind according to the world’s top scholars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Well? You got my attention. I was looking forward to the said critique of our “modern sources” ~:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Newark and Ellis you mean…ignoring (I might add) my comments on both. Newark isn’t what one would call a Celtic expert and takes things on face / Roman value.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Do you know why there was “surprise”? Read Goldsworthy on the strict Roman law pertaining to leaving one’s station to seek single combat. It’s a dramatic fabrication by Livy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Ellis is recounting the tale exactly as Livy had written it. He is not claiming it as unequivocal fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Again, as previously stated, I love Ellis but he’s prone to over stating. I could write a whole thesis on all of the aforementioned Scholars but I just don’t have the time and you’ll either have to take me at my word or do your own reading.
So you’re willing to dismiss the opinions of some of the worlds leading scholars because….?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
I don’t know what else to say?
I have tried to coin the debate in simple terms.
Now this will no doubt sound condescending but that is not my intention. If you are serious about debating this issue, may I suggest the following readings;
For the fictious campaign of Camillus; Livy (5.49), Plutarch, Camillos (29), Dionysius of Halicarnassus (13.6; 14.9), Appian’s ‘Celtica’ (1.1, 4-9 ..well the fragment we have), Frontinus’ ‘Strategematon’ (2.6.1;3.13.1) .. and then read ‘Camillus: Indo European Religion as Roman History’, Georges Dumezil.
For other early fictious Roman wars / victories against the Celts – Florus (1.7 (1.13)), Livy (6.42; 7.1-15, 22-26), Dionysius of Halicarnassus (13.6; 14.8-10;15.1), Dio Cassius (7.24), Diodorus (14.5-7), Appian’s ‘Celtica’ (1.1-2 ..again from the fragments we have), Frontinus’ ‘Strategematon’ (2.4.5) ..and then ‘Sur l’Historie des Celtes’, Arbois de Jubainville …if you can manage to get a copy ..let alone in English.
Once read, then come back and explain / debate with me about how great / superior the Romans were in the 5th, 4th and early 3rd C BC.
~:) Good to hearQuote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
I had assumed you already had. What I’d like to know however, is how one comes to the conclusion that “The Celts were not devastated in Gaul until the Germanic invasions of the 400's”?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Yes plenty of people, as there were in Nazi Germany, circa 1945. Numbers prove nothing. Large numbers of trained well equipped forces count for everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
:laugh4: :smash: :2thumbsup: Ok… where’s those crayons!Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Ok for starters, you clearly stated that you believed the Romans couldn’t / most likely didn't conquer the Gauls because they were distracted fighting Carthage. “There was a reason why the Romans had not succeeded in conquering Transalpine Gaul in the previous 300 years of conflict…because of the other wars going on like with carthage..”
Now, when this statement was critically examined / debunked it appears you wished to ignore the former debate and present a new line of inquiry… “attrition”..shifting focus. That’s fine but you probably should concede the former point if you believe it no longer tenable / you no longer wish to defend it…else I’ll just keep rabbiting on about it. ~;p
I believe what you’ve missed here is context. You claim that the Romans suffered attrition too / fought other ‘factions’. This therefore (according to your implied rationale) excludes the likelihood of such circumstances / suppositions as an inherent Celtic weakness being due to conditions. I believe the rationale is inherently flawed / wrong because it ignores context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Context! Again if I may use the WWII analogy. How many millions of men did the Soviets loose on their push to Berlin? Did it strategically cripple or weaken them, no! They had the momentum, supplies, resources, etc to absorb the losses. By 1944 the Germans didn’t, their state was exhausted. The situation though markedly different in many regards reflects the situation between the Romans and the Celts.. The Roman juggernaut lumbered on regardless of cost. Any historian will tell you that few / if any state could sustain the casualties Rome could and still push on. Even the great Hannibal was forced to acknowledge this.
Ok, sorry. So what was your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
What exactly are you talking about here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
my2bob
ok i deffinitly agree there over powered i had 2 units of Spartan hoplites against a unit of Galatian soldiers from the Ptolmaioi all units had 9 chevrons gold weapons/armor i had the charge bonus and in the charge enemy lost about 15 units i lost about 20 sodiers then in the battle i killed about another 70 and lost my whole army of spatans (one was a general) and yes it was a custom battle about 6 made it off the field alive
If you've given units extra / "gold chevrons", then you have distorted units beyond what EB ever intended. EB has balanced the game very carefully at the generic level. It's highly unlikely you'll ever field elite units with everything (chevrons, armour, etc) maxed out in game / in EB.Quote:
Originally Posted by pockettank
Again I urge all to play through a campaign and not just look at a few units, UI cards or the occasional custom battles
my2bob
And please, use full stops!
Actually that might fit the game even better:p remember when the Celtic invasions occured, the Celts sacked Delphi, Rome and got as far as Gallatia proving the phalanx was no match for their elites.
I think the games quite accurate after all we've seen/debated here. Even if Psycho is proved wrong by future research (hey for all we know, romans and Celts and Sueboz could all be making fun of us when they wrote their accounts and forged evidences to make it appear there was battle only in truth, they were all drinking buddies), by his (and a lot of scholars) interpretation of events, EB tends to be quite correct.
Cheers...
In all fairness, I understand they enjoyed enough numerical superiority to simply envelop the phalanxes and roll them up from the flanks. The Macs weren't exactly in the best of shape around the time AFAIK, the Seleucids busy elsewhere (judging by the way it took them a few years to haul in a proper army to deal with the rampaging Galatians), and the peninsular poleis... well, they were never too good at cooperating until absolutely necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by mAIOR
idk the best iv got was a general he came with 7 chevrons and silver weapons/bronze armor through bribing an enemy he was 10 command/influence and 9 management... cost a hell of a lot tho lmao oh and i eventually got him 10 managment and 9 chevrons PLUS all the morale boost stuff then died to a horde of sweboz coming down on small greece :( (btw i was as KH about to take over the north of it)
Since it was already brought up here, do you think the Celts were really able to sack Delphi? The "gods raining fire" and defeating them sounds kinda iffy to me, and I've read about how a large gold/artifact find had a lot of stuff probably from Delphi.
Yes, tales of the Gauls being defeated by Greeks gods and the ghosts of warriors past is obvious bolox …as unlikely as the accounts of them ripping babies from mothers stomachs to drink the infants blood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fondor_Yards
Again, many if not most scholars (admittedly I have primarily studied Celtic ones) believe that the Gauls did indeed sack Delphi and sought to withdraw with the loot. Then once burdened / so encumbered, Greek forces engaged in a guerrilla campaign of ambush / hit and run on the now disorganised Gauls, inflicting significant casualties.
The Greeks like the Romans, often fail to acknowledge that Gauls were not always seeking permanent conquest but rather, more often than not, loot, plunder and glory. Thus when a large Gallic raiding party withdrew, both Greeks and Romans were tempted to cite fiction / fanciful interpretations of the reason for their doing so. Imaginary victories / campaigns, acts of gods, etc etc. As already mentioned, the Romans even named a road after a supposed Gallic rout that never happened.
my2bob
Sorry to dig this one up but can I ask what the sources are that you are drawing this stuff from because it's fairly interesting and I;ve gotten involved in a discussion at the .c0mmie over some of this stuff (yes, there are intelligent discussion there, try not to faint).
Just to add a stone to Psycho V building :
Every single french translation of Livy works about Cammilius and the gauls' sacking of Rome clearly states that it is PURE FANTASY and indeed the whole stuff is incoherent.
Furthermore, as a swordsman (beginner) i second Psycho V about the club. If it is heavy enough and balanced in a proper way it can bring down anything. A club does not say you are backwards, it says you are poor.
The difference tends to be rather moot on a large scale though.
That's usually what rich people say. Most of the time to convince themselves of their superiority over poor people.
I think it is rubbish.
Given that wealth, on a societal level, tends to be linked to methods of production, organization etc...
Although I'll give you the Germans had a fair bit of handicap in mainly possessing a bunch of woods not terribly well suited for farming.
Well finally I can respond once again. I even had time to read some more. Im going to start off stating again that the Celts were a tough lot, Connolly states that under a good general the Celts make excellent soldiers. Dyson states that the subjugation of the Gauls involded some of the most brutal fighting and serious losses in Roman military history. The Spartans and some others were impressed with the mercenary cavalry of the Celts. This all being said, the Romans were still better at skill of arms. I still believe that the Celts are overpowered both compared to the Romans and the Germans. I will not contend with the Germans at this time, Ill eventually start a new thread on them.
Ill make the claim that the Belgae were indeed making this statement that they were descended from the Germans and were a mix of Celt-Germanic peoples. "Certain tribes of Gaul, such as the Aedui, boasted of Germanic descent. The Belgae also were a mixture of German and Celt." Pg.19. "After their defeat, the Belgae, a group of mixed Celtic and German origins, were treated with comparative moderation." pg.128. H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical world".Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
/ "Caesar considered all the Belgae were Gauls, but also claims that many of them were descended from German settlers. As we have already seen, the distinction between Gaul and German was not always as clear as our ancient source suggest but there may well have been some truth in this.At the end of the first century AD Tacitus also believed that the Nervii and the Treveri were both Germanic." pg.238 Adrian Goldsworthy "Caesar"/
http://www.duerinck.com/tribes1.html While I havent read all the resources listed on this site, I have read a bit by Herbert Schutz and he acknowledges Caesars claim of the Belgae being of German ancestry. Look what is posted under the Belgae on this site and check it out.
One last one to look at is Barry Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"-"All we can do is to accept the ethnic identifications made by the Roman commentators". pg.238. I would suggest reading from pg.237-238 to get a good idea at what he is getting at. Arghhh I shouldnt have put this here, oh well more on the Germans on new thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Authors who put this in matter of fact statements: Connolly "Greece and Rome at War"-"The most noteworthy of these heroes was Marcus Claudius Marcellus, who killed the Gallic chieftain Viridomarus in single combat in 222bc. He went on to become Rome's most successful general against Hannibal during his campaigns in Italy". pg.114. "During the conflict the Gallic chieftain Viridomarus challenged him to single combat and although Marcellus was nearing 50 he accepted the challenge and killed Viridomarus". pg. 146Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
/ H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical world"- "One of these, at Clastidium in 223BC, was notable for another example of single combat. The consul M. Claudius Marcellus killed the Insubrian leader, Virduromarus". pg.114
/ Adrian Goldsworthy "In The Name Of Rome"-"Then, deciding that Britomarus himself wore the finest equipment, The Roman consul spurred ahead of his men to reach the king. The two leaders met between the rival lines. Marcellus drove his spear into the Gaul's body, knocking him from his horse, and then finished him off with a second and a third blow, before dismounting to strip the corpse." Pg.42
/ Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier"-"The battles saw heroic actions on both sides. The Roman commander Marcellus, won the spolia opima for slaying the Gallic chieftain Virdumarus at Clastidium, for which the Roman poet Naevius wrote a play celebrating the events." pg.32
/David Matz "An Ancient Rome Chronology, 264-27 B.C." -"The outcome was decided when the Roman commander Marcus Claudius Marcellus, overcame the chieftan of the Insubres, a certain Viridomarus in single combat" pg.77
/Peter B. Ellis "The Celtic Empire"-"Here we find a surprising development. It appears that Viridomar offered a challenge, in the traditional Celtic fashion, to the Roman General, Marcus Claudius Marcellus, to settle the issue by combat to the death. Surprisingly, the Roman General accepted. He succeeded in slaying Viridomar and the Celtic army crumbled before a renewed Roman charge." pg.41 this isnt the way livy wrote it, he is interpreting the story himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
The only thing I could find remotely contrary to this is in Cunliffe's "The Ancient Celts"- in referring to the parallelism between the two stories of Valerius and Manlius: "The parallelism between the two stories may suggest the repetition of a single incident or even a fictitious embroidery, but the fact that Livy had access to the tradition suggests that single combat was a feature of Celtic behavior in Italy." pg.102 Even this says it MAY be fictitious, not that it is fictitious.Not one author I have read denies or seems to doubt what happened with Marcellus. Even though Manlius is a different story this is where the only dissension I could find, and thats with Cunliffe. And even in this statement he is not sure. As far as Manlius it seems some authors are suspect of the story, but this is not true of Marcellus.
I dont agree with you on the Nazi Germany thing but I do agree with trained and equipped forces.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Hardly debunked or ignored and the attrition situation will be discussed later. A brief history is in order here.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
390 bc. Rome sacked and loses dominant position in Latin League. War with Tarquinii in 388 and 386. Rome/Latin League continue conquest of Italy against the Etruscans and Volsci.In 367bc. Celts show up again and are routed.Rome continues once again concentrating on Italy against the Latins and others. In 360/361bc Gauls attack again and are defeated first near Rome then near Tibur. Ill make out a chronology later but it keeps going on and on about wars with Samnites,Etruscans,Greeks,Illyrians etc. etc.
Rome was first and foremost interested in conquering southern Italy then moving up to the north. Most of their resources were spent conquering everything south of Cisalpine Gaul.
Connolly "Greece and Rome at War": after losing 13,000 men to the Gauls in 284-"In an act of massive retaliation the Romans crossed the mountain into the Senonic homeland and drove the entire tribe out of Italy."pg.90-"The Boii, who had captured Bologna from the Etruscans and had settled in the area, now also crossed the Apenines but were defeated in central Etruria. The following year they crossed the mountains again and were once more defeated. They sued for peace. The Romans, preoccupied with the situation in central Italy, agreed to the treaty which lasted for 50 years. With the fall of Samnium, Rome controlled almost the whole of peninsular Italy. Only the Greek cities of the south remained outside the Roman alliance. In order to consolidate her position Rome began to put pressure on these Greek states to try to force them into alliance." Pg. 90: This is the beginning of the Pyrric wars.
/Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier"-Rome continued to strengthen its hold in central Italy. The wars against the Samnites ground on. In Etruria internal strife increased. The population in the Celtic homeland was again growing. In 284bc Gauls invaded the territory of Arretium and started a sequence of events that ended with the near extermination of the Senones.
/Ellis "The Celtic Empire"- referring to the defeats of Celts and Etruscans in 283:"For the first time, Rome was confident of her northern boundaries. She now turned her greedy eyes towards the Greek city states of southern Italy-Magna Graeca." pg.33
/Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"-"By the 330's Rome had recovered sufficiently to begin a new expansionist drive, and, to secure its northern frontier, a peace treaty was negotiated with the Senones in 334".pg.77:"After the First Punic War(264-41bc) Rome's attention turned once more to the north, and in 232 the territory of the Senones was confiscated and made over to Italian settlement. pg77
Connolly "Greece and Rome at War"- "In 225 the Celts crossed the Apennines with an army of 70,000 men. It was bad timing for the Celts as the Romans, free of any other commitment, were able to devote their entire resources to the war." pg.146-"The threat of yet another invasion was over. The Romans vowed it would be the last. The legions now invaded the Po valley itself." pg. 146
/Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier"-"By 225bc the Romans felt that war with the Gauls was imminent. Rumors about the recruitment of the transalpine Gauls by the Celts in Italy had certainly reached them. They stepped up their own precautions, making peace with Hasdrubal in Spain in order to free themselves from concerns over that area, and recruiting strong armies and gathering stores." pg.29
/Simon James "The World of The Celts"-"An uneasy peace followed due to Rome's distraction by war with Carthage; this lasted for a generation, until 232bc, when Rome seized the land of the Senones and parcelled it out to her own colonists." pg.35: "Hannibal's final defeat at Zama in 202bc, however, left the battle-hardened Romans free to resume the conquest of the north, and the Boii and the Insubres were eventually subdued in the 190's".
/Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"- "The Second Punic War completely altered the balance of power in the mediterranean. Rome moved into an expansive mode. From the end of the war in 202bc until the capitulation of Numantia in 133 the Celtiberians and Lusitani were gradually brought under control. The first two decades of the second century saw the Roman armies win a series of major campaigns north of the Apenines paving the way for romanization, largely completed within a century".pg.235: "The migrations were largely at an end by 200bc. This was the moment which Rome, freed from the threat of Carthage by her hard-won victories during the Second Punic War, entered into a more expansive mode". pg273
If you take a look at these quotes you will see what I said earlier. "freed from", "free to resume", "free of any other commitment" etc etc. This shows that the Romans were pre-occupied with other wars and therefore couldnt muster the means to conquer northern Italy.
The Romans could conquer the Gallic people, They just went after the southern and middle parts first. Once Rome had completed the conquest of middle and southern Italy they moved north. Also I put in the Senone situation so you could see that they still defeated the Gauls. I have no doubt that if the Romans after 300bc wanted to conquer northern Italy it would have happened. Why do I say this, because of the majority of battles show that Romans are superior in arms to the Celts.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical World"-"The next year they tried once more, and shortage of manpower compelled them to arm young adolescents. (This may be a Greek rationalisation: traditionally, the warriors of the Celts were often remarkably young.)"pg.111Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
What defeats are you referring to? Which archaeologist? Where in Cisalpine Gaul?Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Its getting really late and Ill have to continue later, I really want to get into attrition.
Others have said other such things, but this is what Im trying to get at.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSpartan
Simon James "The World of The Celts"- Hannibal's final defeat at Zama in 202bc however left the battle-hardened Romans free to resume the conquest of the north, and the Boii and the ...."pg.122
Peter B. Ellis "The Celtic Empire"-"The Belgae confederation had come into being to fight the encroachments of the Germans and had been hardened by years of border conflict. pg.133
H.D.Rankin "Celts and the Classical World"-"Polybius also makes the point that as a result of the experience of war that they gained in fighting the Celts, the Romans wre the better able to face the challenge of the war with Pyrrhus(280bc), and also to make war successfully against the Carthaginians."pg.110
For Rome the 2nd punic wars took a heavy toll on the Romans, yet we have "battle-hardened" soldiers.Ill also talk about the Gallic civil war further below. Now in the case of the Celts Ill begin to show the superiority of the Romans in skill at arms and how attrition takes its place.
In your first paragraph what defeats not recorded or lost are you talking about? What sources are you using?Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCO V
The second paragraph about attrition as I stated above will be addressed below.
4th century B.C.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCO V
390- Allia: Gauls defeat Romans and Sack Rome
367- Velitrae: Romans route or defeat Gauls.
360- Near Rome:Romans defeat Gauls and Latins
360- Near Tibur:Romans defeat Gauls and Latins
357-351 No mention of Gauls, Syracuse may have used them as mercenaries.
348- Pomptine area: Romans defeat Gauls or Gauls retreated.
338- Praeneste: Romans defeat Gauls.
334- Treaty with Celts supposed to last 30yrs.
From 334-299 there have been no Gallic involvement of note with the Romans. The Romans continue towards conquest of Central and southern Italy during this time.This is the time of the 4th century "stronger" Celts? Im not trying by any means to say the Celts are weak, Im just pointing out that they lost most of the battles during this time. So again we have the "stronger" Celts losing most of the time to the "weaker" Semi-Militia style Romans. Ill state once again the Celt units are to strong in EB compared to their Roman and German counterparts.
Now lets take a look at attrition during this period, to our knowledge their is none. There doesnt seem to be any tribal clashes nor any prolonged warfare, there were some raids and a few pitched battles in which the "stronger" Celts were chased off or defeated. Here is what some of the authors said about this period of time.
Mackay "Ancient Rome"-"The Gauls returned and despite tepid assistance from the Latins the Romans defeated them with little difficulty"pg.46
Connoly "Greece And Rome At War"-"During the 4th century the Gauls mounted a succession of plundering raids in central Italy. Usually they were deflected by the stronger groups-the Etruscans, Latins and Samnites-and were channelled into Apulia, where it is possible that the founded permanent communities".pg.113
After listing the 3rd century battles Ill discuss raids and more about attrition.
3rd Century
299* see notes below
297- Camerinum: Gauls and Samnites defeat Romans
295- Sentinum: Romans defeat Gauls and Samnites
284- Arretium: Gauls(Senones) defeat Romans
284-?: Romans send a punitive expedition and rout the Gauls(Senones) and chased them out of Italy
283-Vadimon: Romans defeat Gauls(Boii) and Etruscans
283- ? Romans defeat Gauls(Boii) once again.
283* see notes below
238* see notes below
225-Faesulae: Gauls(Boii,Insubres,Taurisci and Gaesatae) defeat Romans
225-Telemon: Romans defeat Gauls(Boii,Insubres,Taurisci and Gaesatae)
224- Boii Land: Romans ravage the Boii territory
223- Bergamo: Romans defeat Gauls(Insubres)
222- Clastidim: Romans defeat Gauls(Insubres)
218- Boii Land: Gauls(Boii) stop Roman advance.
216- Mutina: Gauls defeat Romans
205-Ligurian coast: Romans defeat Carthage with a massive durbar of Gauls and Ligurians
201-?: Gauls defeat Romans
200-Near Ariminum: Romans defeat Gauls
199- Placentia: Gauls(Insubres) defeat Romans
197-?: Romans defeat Gauls and Hamilcar(Hannibal's brother)
196-?: Romans defeat Gauls
195-?: Romans defeat Gauls or is indecisive.
194-?: Indecisive battle
193- Mutina Romans defeat Gauls
191- ?: Romans defeat Gauls
This List was compiled with the main sources of Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier" pgs.11-38/ H.D.Rankin "Celts and the Classical World" pgs. 107-116/ David Matz "An Ancient Rome Chronology 264-27 B.C." pgs.75-80. The minor sources used are-Connolly "Greece and Rome at War"/ Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"/ Simon James "The World of The Celts".
*This denotes inter-tribal warfare.
So the opportunistic Romans decided to go through enemy Etruscan lands to get at the Celts because they knew they were weakened? Were they also going to totally ignore the Umbrians and the Samnites?Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCO V
H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical World"-"They made their way through Etruria where they were joined by a number of the inhabitants who were anxious to do the Romans some harm. Although these expeditionaries obtained considerable plunder which they managed to take home,they were weakened by internecine quarrels of the kind, Polybius says (2.19), which arise from excessive eating and drinking. In 297 BC the Celts and the Samnites joined together against Rome and defeated a Roman army at Camertium. But the Celts were chased out of the territory of Sentinum by Roman consular armies. Samnites and Celts suffered substantial losses.".pg.110
Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier"-"The year 299 B.C. saw a new attack on Etruria by the Gauls. The Etruscans bought them off and even attempted to turn them against Rome. The Gauls were only willing to follow that risky course if the Etruscans promised them land on which to settle. Fearing such barbarian neighbors, the Etruscans paid off the Gauls and sent them home. Livy mentions the false rumor of a Gallic tumultus at Rome in 299 B.C., while Polybius describes a full-fledged Gallic raid, sparked by the arrival of new tribesmen from over the Alps. The stereotypical accounts of Gallic drinking and internecine strife suggest that the details of Polybius' account should be viewed with caution. The fears of the Romans were real, however, and they reacted vigorously. Ties with Picenum were strengthened. At Narnia, some seventy kilometers up the Tiber valley a settlement was founded to guard the Apennine approaches to Rome. Unrest continued in both Etruria and in the Samnium. Finally, in 296 B.C. Etruscans and Samnites coalesce into a threat to Rome. The uprising ended only with the great Roman victory and Sentinum in 295 B.C."pg.23
283BC*
H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical World"- "Five years had still to pass before the Celts who invaded Greece were defeated at Delphi. Throughout this period, Polybius comments, war raged like a plague amongst the Celtic peoples (2.20)." pg.110
This event took place after the defeats and destruction of the Senones and after the two battles with the Boii.
238BC*
H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical World"-"Some of the Boii made plans to thwart the warlike intentions of their leader. They killed their own two kings, Atis and Galatus.Then the strangers and the Boii liquidated their mutual suspicions by a pitched battle in which both sides suffered severely. The Roman pre-emptive force was able to return home without fighting." pg.112
Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier"-"They demanded the land of Ariminum and the removal of the Romans from the thirty-year-old colony. Attacks were apparently made on Ariminum itself, and the Boii called in fellow tribesmen from across the Alps. The arrival of these newcomers, however, soon caused internal friction between ethnically related but now culturally different groups. Fighting broke out, and the weakened Boii were forced to sue for peace." pg.28
The inner tribal warfare didnt have much effect on these battles. 299bc is the only one that could argue to have any effect on battles and even then there is a lot of questions. In 283bc the inner tribal warfare happened after the battles in 283. In 238bc its of non-consequence as there were many other Gauls involved in the invasions after 238bc. The Celts also had many more tribes added to them and that includes adding more warriors, not to mention the large amounts of Gaesatae.
H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical World"-"Polybius' theory of successive waves of tribes pressing on each other was substantially correct."pg.111/ "In the Celts, Rome had a formidable enemy with resources of population that must have seemed interminable."pg.118
Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"-"The migrations were largely at an end by 200 BC."
Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier"-"The wars against the Samnites ground on. In Etruria internal strife increased. The population in the Celtic homeland was again growing." pg.24
Again we have the "weaker" Romans defeating the "stronger" 3rd century Celts the majority of the time. As far as the attrition theory I think the above statement meets that question. These Celts were raiders, not family units, therefore its safe to assume these were all warriors not farmers or craftsmen.Also lets not forget that the Celts were not the only enemies and wars going on. There is the Punic wars,Samnites,Greeks,Etruscans,Umbrians,Illyrians,Macedonians,etc. etc. Also I didnt include numbers or circumstances(terrain,suprise(Romans need better scouts)). In reference for the Roman army of the time:
Adrian Goldsworthy"In the Name of Rome"-"Most scholars play down the significance of the Marian reform in the transition from a militia to a professional army, preferring to see this as a much more gradual process."pg.122 / "Roman soldiers were not professionals, but men who served in the army as a duty to the Republic. The army is often referred to as a militia force, but it is probably better to think of it as a conscript army, for men would often spend several years consecutively with the legions although no one was supposed to be called upon to serve for more then 16 years.pg.26
Of the Celts:
Adrian Goldsworthy"In the Name of Rome"-"Such restrictions should not lead us to the conclusion that all Roman campaigns agains tribal opponents were 'cheap' victories. A few were, but the majority were difficult operations against an enemy who was brave, often numerous, and well used to exploiting the natural strength of there homeland."pg.98
Im not going to go on about the Celts who went to Greece and other places. Ill not bother with the time between Caesar and 191BC as these are not the "stronger" Celts. I will however deal with the Arverni-Aedui war.
Adrian Goldsworthy"The Roman Army at War 100bc-ad200"-"Before Caesar's arrival in the country, the Gallic states used to fight offensive or defensive wars almost every year (BG6.15). The scale of these conflicts is hard to judge, but it is probable that the aim was the reduction of the enemy to a subject tribe through a moral defeat rather then his destruction. For the nobles, warfare offered the opportunity of wealth, prestige, and reputation to further political aspirations at home.As in Germany, a retinue could only be maintained by actual fighting. The reason given for the migration of the Helvetii, that the geography of their homeland did not allow them full scope for raiding(BG1.1),and the subsequent raids on Rome's allies (BG1.2) reinforces the importance of warfare in Gallic society. Again, both factors are similar to those discussed as encouraging endemic warfare in Germanic culture. This is the customary method of opening hostilities in Gaul. A law common to all the tribe alike requires all adult males to arm and attend the muster, and the last to arrive is cruelly tortured and put to death in the presence of the assembled host." pg56
Goldsworthy"In the Name of Rome"-At times a tribe grew in power, often under the rule of a charismatic war-leader and sometimes bringing neighbouring peoples under control". pg243
Simon James "The World of the Celts"-"Probably most Celtic warfare was on a small scale, involving no more then a few score men on each side. The population was growing and states were developing in late Iron age Gaul, and this may have led to an increase in the scale of warfare. But it is clear that the vast armies commanded by Vercingetorix and others were assemble only as a response to the great threat from Rome (p.127). In fact, Rome changed the very rules of Celtic warfare, bringing large armies into an area where, internally at least, they may have been much rarer before. Certainly, the Gaul described and conqured by Caesar showed no signs of exhaustion by internal wars-it was a rich and prosperous land-so means were evidently found for limiting the damage war could cause." pg. 74
Unfortunately Ive run out of time again. There are other quotes that are similar but will have to get to at a later time. This last quote surely differs then those on this forum. This shows that the Arverni-Aedui war wasnt nearly as drastic as claimed. The elites would still have existed and would have been on comparison to the "stronger" 4th-3rd century Celts.
One other thing I would like to add, while I think the Celts are overpowered, there is one I think they are underpowered. I think the Celtic Cavalry should be much stronger then it is. The Celt cavalry consistently defeated the Roman Cavalry up to Caesar's time.
I have to admit Im a bit disappointed at your response to this. In the past though, Watchman, others and you have disagreed with me but there hasnt been any real disparaging remarks. You and others, especially Watchman have been very logical in posting but we just disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
The only reason I'm posting is to get a historical perspective and enjoy a game thats supposed to be as historical as possible. After looking at these unit stats things didn't seem right, so I started to respond to these threads. My main interest is combat and how the units are addressed in this. We ended up going to other subjects and so I responded by reading up on these subjects.
I put down authors,books and page numbers so I wouldn't be accused of using quotes out of context. These are books anyone can get. You said I should read up on these subjects and I have. I even read some of the others you quoted from. I even quit quoting from Newark because you didn't find him credible, and also from Ellis with the exception Marcus Claudius Marcellus vs. Viridomarus duel, and this was just to show that he wasn't quoting from livy.
Are you still going to try to say that I'm still misunderstanding the Marcus Claudius Marcellus vs. Viridomarus duel? Do you still contend that this is just a "tale","a dramatised account",“works of propaganda”? What about the above authors, are they wrong or is it I just somehow misunderstood what they said? Others can read these books and they can decide who is right, that's the main reason I have the author, book and page numbers.
You have made this claim that I have used these quotes out of context and extrapolate that to support some hypothesis. I completely disagree with you.
Blitz the reason I would like to put this here is because it goes to the topic of this thread more then it would the German one. This game is about being as historically accurate as possible, and I believe that is should be. I also am interested in history and would like to come to the truth as much as possible. Here is my problem, your saying in essence these are "weaker" Celts then in centuries past. I have read multiple books and only two have alluded to or talked about this subject directly. Here are the quotes from the two books concerning this subject:Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
Adrian Goldsworthy"The Roman Army at War 100bc-ad200"-"Before Caesar's arrival in the country, the Gallic states used to fight offensive or defensive wars almost every year (BG6.15). The scale of these conflicts is hard to judge, but it is probable that the aim was the reduction of the enemy to a subject tribe through a moral defeat rather then his destruction. For the nobles, warfare offered the opportunity of wealth, prestige, and reputation to further political aspirations at home.As in Germany, a retinue could only be maintained by actual fighting. The reason given for the migration of the Helvetii, that the geography of their homeland did not allow them full scope for raiding(BG1.1),and the subsequent raids on Rome's allies (BG1.2) reinforces the importance of warfare in Gallic society. Again, both factors are similar to those discussed as encouraging endemic warfare in Germanic culture. This is the customary method of opening hostilities in Gaul. A law common to all the tribe alike requires all adult males to arm and attend the muster, and the last to arrive is cruelly tortured and put to death in the presence of the assembled host." pg56
Simon James "The World of the Celts"-"Probably most Celtic warfare was on a small scale, involving no more then a few score men on each side. The population was growing and states were developing in late Iron age Gaul, and this may have led to an increase in the scale of warfare. But it is clear that the vast armies commanded by Vercingetorix and others were assemble only as a response to the great threat from Rome (p.127). In fact, Rome changed the very rules of Celtic warfare, bringing large armies into an area where, internally at least, they may have been much rarer before. Certainly, the Gaul described and conquered by Caesar showed no signs of exhaustion by internal wars-it was a rich and prosperous land-so means were evidently found for limiting the damage war could cause." pg. 74
So I'm going to echo Grey_Fox:
I for my part have given the information by author,book, page number that support my claim. What I would like to see is the same in return for those that say the Celts were weaker during Caesar's time. I just interested in getting my history straight. So Watchman,Neospartan, Psyco V, Blitz or anyone who can tell me which author and book to read I would really appreciate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey_Fox
I also want to make clear that Im not trying to be obnoxious or prove a point, I just want information.
I agree that the Celts were a tough people, I have never had a problem with that. Caesar was almost always outnumbered and he lost one battle with the Celts. As far as the Belgae:Quote:
Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking
Ill make the claim that the Belgae were indeed making this statement that they were descended from the Germans and were a mix of Celt-Germanic peoples. "Certain tribes of Gaul, such as the Aedui, boasted of Germanic descent. The Belgae also were a mixture of German and Celt." Pg.19. "After their defeat, the Belgae, a group of mixed Celtic and German origins, were treated with comparative moderation." pg.128. H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical world".
/ "Caesar considered all the Belgae were Gauls, but also claims that many of them were descended from German settlers. As we have already seen, the distinction between Gaul and German was not always as clear as our ancient source suggest but there may well have been some truth in this.At the end of the first century AD Tacitus also believed that the Nervii and the Treveri were both Germanic." pg.238 Adrian Goldsworthy "Caesar"/
http://www.duerinck.com/tribes1.html While I havent read all the resources listed on this site, I have read a bit by Herbert Schutz and he acknowledges Caesars claim of the Belgae being of German ancestry. Look what is posted under the Belgae on this site and check it out.
One last one to look at is Barry Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"-"All we can do is to accept the ethnic identifications made by the Roman commentators". pg.238. I would suggest reading from pg.237-238 to get a good idea at what he is getting at. Arghhh I shouldnt have put this here, oh well more on the Germans on new thread.
I would say that if the Celtic people banded together they would have beaten Caesar because of shear numbers, not from martial prowess. The Celts were formidable but they were not as good as the Romans nor the Germans. I dont believe the Celtic units are very accurate, they are to powerful when compared to the Romans and Germans. Look at my posts dated 5/26/07 and 5/29/07. I go through these questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking
Don't mean to be rude, but of course Celtic tribes proudly mentioned they were of "German" descent- it's just another Celtic tribe, admittingly mixed with Germanics though... Caesar invented what we think of as "Germans" for propoganda purposes to justify his "peace-keeping" and future Roman interests/defense. "German" really only means "Celts on the other side of the Rhine." One of the reasons Germany is a BS country-name is the fact that no German calls themselves that, they call themselves "Deutsch, ja?" The Oxford English Dictionary even states that the Germani are of Celtic origin. The Teutons are widely believed to be of Celtic origin as well, despite modern connotations of Deutsch-ness. My point being that they weren't refering to being Deutsch, but bad-ass Rhine Celts versus less bad-ass Gaul hinterland Celts, like the Belgae, another Celtic tribe, with mixed elements maybe, but certainly not dominated by the Deutsch. The small clan/tribe structure was as aware as they got concerning language/race, so "Germani" can certainly be treated as geographical and contextual.
That website btw mentions that one of the few pieces of evidence for Germanic ancestry among Belgae is a description of being "tall" and "blonde"- who does that describe? All Indo-Europeans (especially Celts too). Slavs, Celts, and Germans are all especially mentioned early as "tall" and "ruddy" besides rampant "blonde" and "Red" hair references- like China describing the Yueh-Chi. Also, the main argument is analysis of skull types which doesn't prove anything. There were native peoples throughout Europe before the Indo-European invasion, probably quite a few. I have read some of those kind of early archaeology books which fall into "race-theory" a little too much and I really doubt any legitimate scientist pursues that kind of theory anymore, I would hope not. It is true that certain linguistic family/cultures have similar morphology like Siberian/steppe people being short and African people being tall (but not always) similar to skin tone and Vitamin D both being adaptation to weather and sun, but that is hardly proven and mostly opinion and common sense (people still don't believe in evolution!), so skulls of people who are assuredly mixed prove nothing. It can't even be proven that the Battle-Axe culture or the Przeworsk culture are any specific race/language family and we know quite a bit about them.
Although it may sound like I'm being argumentative for fun (well it is fun- probably because I'm not writing a bunch of citations ~:)) but I want to mention that I truly believe that the Germanic tribes were mixing early on along the Rhineland, but they didn't identify themselves separate from those Celtic tribes which took credit for the people. It is the same case with the Slavs who certainly weren't spontaneously generated... in fact, I doubt any Indo-Europeans traveled over the steppe (yes I believe they came from the steppe- for the same reason, if they came from Turkey why did they leave and come back? that's dumb) and went through nicer southern land then went north away from good land far into hostile/cold wasteland then decided to go back to the nice land... don't think so... somehow I think they spread out slowly, slowly forming, slowly migrating... so I'm sure Balts and Thracians, some West Slavs too might be mixed among the Belgae. A melting pot that later uses certain languages that we call them by but certainly were not 100% anything.
Nonsense. The Romans always made a point of having at least roughly equal numbers of serious combatants to fight the Celts, and in spite of the fact virtually every free man among the Germans was a reasonably well trained and experienced (if not equipped) warrior (which was not the case in the Celtic society, as their warring was primarily up to the warrior class) it took them centuries to start seriously encroaching on Celtic territory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Hardly a testament to some full-spectrum "weakness" on the part of the Celts, that.
The Celtic warrior class weren't part-time tribal farmer-soldiers like the rank-and-file Germans or reservists like the early Roman soldiery. They were a specialist social segment that spent the better part of its time preparing for and engaging in more-or-less organized warfare as their primary occupation; leaving aside the potential long-term problems of that sort of setup, it has a tendency to produce quite formidable fighters.
I didnt take any of this as being rude, merely a discussion. We may disagree on things but no condescending attitude, rude remarks or character attacks have been made so no problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
Herwig Wolfram "The Roman Empire and its Germanic Peoples"-"Tacitus closes the second chapter with the interesting comment that the Germanic name was a relatively recent additional name that had developed from the specific name for a single tribe. He relates that the Tungri were the first to cross the Rhine on their push westward and were subsequently called Germani by the Gauls. The victories of the Tungri imparted such prestige to this name that it was also adopted by other tribes as a generic name.
Debates concerning the Germanic identity of the Germanic tribes who lived east of the Rhine fill entire libraries, and a good deal of nonscholarly interests have kept the controversy alive. In actual fact, however, the few sentences in Tacitus offer a quite credible and convincing account of what happened. Successful conquerors, whether they already spoke Germanic or not, crossed the Rhine and were called Germani by the Gauls. The name was used first by outsiders, and it remained so even after the Romans had taken it over from the Gauls. However, and here I correct Tacitus, it did not establish itself as the name of all Germanic tribes, just as French Allemands did not become the self-chosen name of the Germans." pg.4
I think the Tall and blond thing is just a general description of the Belgae, not any kind of evidence. As far as the skulls are concerned I do believe this may be making a comeback. They use it in forensics allot to identify what a person would have looked like. They can tell the race of people by the bone structure just as they did the Kennewick Man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_ManQuote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
I don't know if there is much difference in the cephalic index between Celts and Germans, or even if they are going by the index.
The mixing part I agree with (my knowledge is very little on this subject), but with a different language and customs that may be where the "Germani" came from.Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
Roughly equal numbers is simply not true, the Romans may have exaggerated and inflated enemy numbers but it depended on the battle. There were times when the Romans out numbered the Celts but in general the Celts outnumbered the Romans, especially during Caesars campaign. If your talking about Romans encroaching I have explained this in the 5/29/07 thread. As far as the Germans, wouldn't it be a slow migration period of building up a populace?Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Yes the Celtic warrior class like the German elites did the raiding,training and participated in warfare. Yes the Celts did have formidable fighters, the problem is they lost the majority of the time. The Romans fought as a unit, not as a bunch of individuals. The Celts like the Germans usually did a fast charge and if the Romans didn't buckle they would start to sustain heavy damage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Notice I said serious combatants. The tribal levies that formed the bulk of Vercingetorix's forces weren't that by a long shot, doubly so compared to the professional post-Marian legionaries. I'm pretty sure the pre-Marian reservist armies insisted on reasonably equal numbers of "effectives", although the fact the Roman soldiery were on the average better armoured ought to have made up for some disparity in numbers (though everyone always liked to have an edge in numbers if possible, natch).Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
If by "5/29/07" you mean this post (and if not, please be more specific and better yet link), no, it does not really answer much anything about the marked sluggishness in Roman advance into Gaul. Sure, they subdued the Cisalpine Gauls relatively early on (not all that surprising given that by the end of the Punic Wars they could draw on the resources of entire Italy and beyond against pretty much just the Po river valley - it would be rather strange indeed if the more realistic among the Gauls there had not seen the writing on the wall and bowed before the inevitable) and more or less took over the Mediterranean coastal regions, but AFAIK Caesar was the first to succesfully (or even at all) invade the interior beyond that - and that involved making use of treaties, alliances etc. the Romans had made with local Gallic potentates.
In other words, the Romans only invaded when they judged the time was ripe and there was a real opportunity of success, not earlier (that Caesar's operation may well have snowballed far past its original goals is irrelevant here). The same was undoubtly the case with the Germans beyond the northern borders of Celtic territory; given the amount of raiding and mercenary work they did, they would certainly have been able to tell if and when the strenght of the Gauls was ebbing and they could start mounting more ambitious raids (accelerating the collapse and enlarging the powerbase of the warlords in charge), culminating with a full-scale invasion to seize the richer lands. And conversely the increase of wealth of the border tribes and confederations near the Celtic borderland would naturally begin attracting unwelcome attention from the tribes further away... I'm willing to bet the pattern was virtually the same as would continue all the way until the Migrations and the collapse of the Roman frontier.
The difference, though, is that the by far wealthier Celtic society could afford a by far larger class of specialized warriors...Quote:
Yes the Celtic warrior class like the German elites did the raiding,training and participated in warfare.
What ? Since when - Caesar perhaps ?Quote:
Yes the Celts did have formidable fighters, the problem is they lost the majority of the time.
Right, big news. So did the Celts by what I hear, although their tradition was a wee bit different from the rather hoplite-style one the Romans adhered to. Pursuit of personal martial glory and formation combat aren't exactly inherently incompatible after all.Quote:
The Romans fought as a unit, not as a bunch of individuals.
Uh... that wouldn't happen to have anything to do with the little detail that Roman infantry doctrine was, since the adoption of the triplex acies, specifically designed to win the battle through attrition ? What with the system of rotating fresh reserves to the frontline and all that ? Neither the Celts nor the Germans were the tunnel-visioned tactical idiots popular commonplace thinks, but neither did they have any real counter for that clever trick unless they were able to demolish the front lines fast enough (which happened too, far as I know; the Romans were anything but invincible after all, many of their wars being won through sheer bloody-minded stubbornness and willingess to keep throwing armies into the grinder longer than the other party could sustain).Quote:
The Celts like the Germans usually did a fast charge and if the Romans didn't buckle they would start to sustain heavy damage.
Nice quote, I love Herwig Wolfram :grin:
Yeah, I think I misread/overreacted concerning the "tall" and "blonde"- it was only description... I just am sensitive to stereotypes of Germans being the only tall and blonde IndoEuropeans so I tend to want to tell everybody how it is... Like Aryan = Iran, so neoNazis are quite ignorant in their purism- I love the universalism of IndoEuropean... The universalism of Semitic languages and others are quite interesting as well, especially when Arabs hate Jews and it's called Antisemitism :wall: self-hate is a funny thing.
I'm pretty sure the Arabs don't themselves use the term "anti-Semitism" much just because of that. Iranians may be a bit different issue since they don't like Arabs all that much by what I know of it, but AFAIK they too usually speak of "Zionists". It's the "Zionist Crusader State" of Israel they loathe, not Jews in general after all.
To keep on the "tall and blonde" tangent a bit, I find it sort of amusing how artists tend to diligently portray us Finns as blonde and blue-eyed - which most of us actually aren't. We tend more towards the "various shades of brown" in both on the average; the stereotypical "Nordic" look turns up most often in the context of Swedish ancestry, not that according to diligent and scientifically accurate survey carried out with Eyeball Mk I in the Scandinavian countries it was actually terribly common there either. Just more common than in most of the world - the pigmentation in question being something of a slowly disappearing recessive trait after all.
Which is also why I take the references to "blonde" and "red-haired" Celts, Germans and whoever with more than a pinch of salt. I very strongly suspect observers used to the dark hair and eyes normal around the Med just dreadfully over-emphasized the extent of the phenomenom due to its exoticism and association with "weird northern barbarians"...
That's some interesting cultural perspective, Watchman, thanks for sharing that. IMO, Finland has some of the most interesting diversity of different language cultures, but here in the US we don't get much time devoted to learning about that or much of anything before 1776 and beyond the Atlantic ~:)
To get into the nitty gritty of it they are all just Indo Europeans anyway who became distinct through isolation for a bit, the culture lines would have blurred, but I still think that the Germans most likely became quite distinct in their Scandinavian homeland before invading south.Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
Another interesting thing to keep in mind is that the Caledonians were considered to be of Germanic descent due to their reddish hair, which the romans for whatever reason associated with the Germans, which sort of clashes with the view of them being very blonde in general.
Within relation to Genetics theres actually a fairly high possibility that red hair evolved in isolation in the British isles because its quite a distinct trait here genetically speaking so as to what was going on in ancient times in terms of populatiom movements, who knows.
I assume that the Germans came from territories that from prehistoric times had a high percentage of blondes because of sexual selection, but that not all of these men would have been blonde, and quite possibly just light brown like many other European peoples, and that a distinct blondness found among the Belgae could indeed indicate some Germanic descent, but I doubt all of them would have been Blonde, and culturally speaking they were just Celts still.
There were also brunettes in the tarim basin and brunettes depicted alongside redheads and blondes, whatever the Indo Europeans originally looked like who knows, they probably would have been a mixed bag (in terms of hair and eye color) like many other peoples of Europe. Blondism undoubtably a much earlier evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
It's not so much a silly theory, well, depending on what these anthropologists define as a race, but in general the Idea that the Aryans were an extremely distinct race is most likely or perhaps totally incorrect, they would have just been White Caucasians like the rest of the peoples of Europe who were also of Cro-Magnon descent. As for the hair and eye color, like I said, this was really already determined by evolution in prehistoric times, well before the Proto-Indo-Europeans showed up, and is most likely a result of the iceage, population bottlenecks and founder effects, not to mention sexual selection and a healthy bit of isolation, but this is essentially why distinct characteristics come into being in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
The idea however in older times that one of the possible reasons for a lot of upper class folk in ancient times being blonde being relative to the aesthetics of the Indo-Europeans isn't however such a silly idea though, it's just an idea that is sort of being more explained by evolutionary developments that occured well before them.
As for skull shape, outside of more broad racial categories, I don't really put much faith in the effectiveness of say, Alpinoid, Brunn or Nordic, because of the high degrees of mixing that have occurd amongst European folk. The Proto Indo Europeans most likely had a certain cranial style, back for the same way people have them today, but this would have been more distinct than Blonde hair, and really, by the time the Celts, Germans and Romans were on the scene, whatever these guys originally looked like was pretty much lost.
Oh race undoubtably exists, it just doesn't fit neatly into the worlds linguistic maps, Pre Indo Europeans and Indo Europeans were both the same race and came from the same Cro-Magnon root, despite having different languages, but it really comes down to the definition of race, but it's typically only worthwhile when you look at it in terms of distinction, there wouldn't for example be much practical purpose in calling a family of three generations a race.Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
Essentially it's because of the domestication of the horse that it could allow bands of young men and probably women to basically move around more effectivly than any other groups in known history, so the expansion of these people was most likely in all directions, though undoubtably some movements were peaceful, others undoubtably were aggressive, mounted combat and chariot warfare changed the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
I suppose the situation with the Belgae was just that they resembled German people to an exten and that Germans like lots of people back in those times of much less mobile populations, had quite distinct features. I suppose you could compare it to Modern Iranians where you have many that look like people typically found in Saudi Arabia yet some that look like they could be from Poland or France.
In ancient times when you have a typically brunette people living in one area and then close to the Rhine, near the lands of the lighter haired people, when you see a group of mixed folk with lighter hair you can sort of just assume that at some point mixing had occurred.
I think EB has depicted both the Germans and Celts quite well in terms of phenotype.
I actually agree with that, despite many of the Med people being of Brunette and Blonde hair colors, but often when they describe the lighter haired "races" of the north, it doesn't necissarily mean blonde. It could just mean light brown.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I for example have a light brown hair color, typically lighter than most browns in the country which would seem quite light if I was to walk around a country with a high population of Black haired people or very dark haired people.
The hair conversation aside though.
I'll ask the question. How much can we trust Roman accounts? at least when it comes to battles?
Interestingly enough there were examples in De Bello Gallico where Roman soldiers would actually attack the front lines of the Celts as basically a show of manhood and induce something of highly competitive actions in terms of bravado in other men, The famous example being when those two crack soldiers decided to attack the army of Gauls who were seiging the settlement they were hiding in and competitively fought to kill as many as possible to come over as the bravest soldier in the eyes of their peers, only to then end up saving each other and making it back to safety much to the undoubtable high reception from their fellow soldiers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I guess what I'm saying is, the stereotypes of barbarian northerners and disciplined southerners are fairly incorrect both ways, the northerners weren't uncoordinated savages, they never had been, and the the southerners weren't cold nerved mechanically disciplined soldiers, There was undoubtably organization amongst the likes of the Germans, example they often fought in dence phalanx formation, and there was also a sort of lionhearted courage and risk taking within the ranks of the Romans.
Exmaple, the Romans once overcame a German phalanx by leaping upon the shields of the Germans and stabbing down at them, that takes guts and is undoubtably a risky move, infact it's so risky that you'd typically think that it's something the more stereotypical warrior societies would have attempted, but no, this was the Romans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I hate to quote the movie Rocky Balboa (though I did really like it) but he said something along the lines of "it's not about how hard you can hit, it's about how hard you can be hit and keep going" that, in my opinion is exactly what the Romans had figured out, like many seasoned and objective fighting people, if you can tire out your enemy and take the best they can throw at you, then you have a sure chance of eventually beating them.
The tightly packed formations, the shield designs, the short stabbing swords, the front line revolutions, the indurence training of the Romans all seem to undoubtably point towards their realization that in war, stamina is extremely importent, and staying power can win a battle, train your men to take everything the enemy can throw at them and keep going and when their enemies are tired, take them down quickly, ruthlessly and efficiently, and when all else fails, brass balls it, leap onto their shields and stab them in the face.
There have been some good and informative posts in here... Watchman and The Handsome Viking living up to their reputations I see.
I haven't read the whole thread but can see that some think "stronger" or "better" soldiers are the determiner of victory in battles (and thus the fortunes of Empires/States etc.)... this must come from playing computer games too much where your warriors don't have other things to worry about. Travelling far from home (mental fatigue), eating, supply lines, terrain, morale (of the whole army) and so forth. Numbers don't count for much either (though obviously they do help). It's no use outnumbering an army 3:1 if you can't outflank them and the higher numbers are made up of raw recruits anyway...
Battles were the easy part... it is the planning that goes into them that usually determines the victory (and is therefore the hard part)...
So I don't see what individual unit stats have to do with the fact that battles were lost by those armies in history (especially when it was these other factors that contributed to the defeats in the first place).
WOW... I have a reputation now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caratacos
I would have always assumed I was known as "the guy who made that bunny thread".
Thankyou.