Off topic! :hijacked:
Printable View
Off topic! :hijacked:
My bad.
Nah, my bad. ~:doh:
It's true that if the French populace had the right to bear arms then it would be much more reasonable for them to keep resisting but being unarmed makes them akin to peasants, so I agree that the French weren't nec. extraodinarily cowardly but somewhat practical. Although my point was that the French proved themselves capable of not giving up so easily regardless- being a coward is still being a coward- being American has nothing to do with it. Similarly, America was quite cowardly to join both wars only at the end and try to claim credit by swooping in at the last minute while sacrificing nothing in comparison to others. By your own argument, unless you partook in a modern war on YOUR soil then you are just as unknowlegeable as I toward the subject.
One can argue that warfare is wrong, but it cannot be argued that one can surrender and then have the right to anything except honorable suicide or slavery. Surrendering after bearing arms and engaging an enemy is like a brawl where one of the combatants decides they don't want to get hurt anymore and they'll just stop- it's rather ridiculous. One is better off fighting to the death or being a complete tool- so the cultural misconception that other civilizations won't follow through with killing/enslaving their people (and neighbors who look similar but aren't considered their people) especially after a fight is naive and most likely one of the primary causes of conquest of Celtic Gaul and most of Europe. The Celts of Gaul and Iberia put up a better fight than most as well. I personally firmly believe that danger can happen to myself anywhere at any time and do not have the ridiculous notion that I am being "protected", so when random people kill students or smash into businessmen sitting in their cozy trade-tower, I am not surprised- it's too bad, but it's very naive of them. Guns and bombs have nothing to do with anything either, it just takes a random pissed off person to stab you. Therefore, even in this high tech. business and infrastructure-minded society, the people are pathetically weak and one has to have the ability to defend themselves because others won't do it for them... That was the weakness of Post-Roman Celtic Britain, the Roman Empire, and possibly Celtic Gaul, as has been mentioned, when the small elite is exhausted the majority has to pick up the slack and the culture which has the freedom to do that will succeed.
Well I didn't, but the generation just prior to mine did (1974). We had our Vietnam, except it was on our soil.
And I was referring to the usual jokes of "What are French good for? Surrendering." It's part of American pop culture, to the point where you can actually sense it through your television shows overseas.
And I'll just have to disagree with you on the fighting part.
Last post on this btw. Promise.
Thanks for the info Blitz. One of the reasons I like the Sweboz is for the tribal aspect of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
Most excellent, I hope he is willing to give author and book names.Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
When I say the Germans should be stronger I'm referring to the units. One reason they may have taken along time to make major inroads is because they havent migrated there yet. You also have to remember that the Belgae ended up in Gaul and the TCA (Teutons,Cimbri,Ambrones) stomped around in Gaul for awhile. As far as the Celtic warrior one on one against a Roman I would put my money on the Celt almost every time for two reasons. First is the Celt trained for individual combat where the Roman trained in units. Secondly the Celt in general is a larger and stronger man which is a big asset in melee combat. The Celt vs the German I would put my money on the German for the simple reason that the German tended to be a larger man and would have the same individual fighting style as the Celt. I'm not selling the Celt warrior short, I think in EB he is overpowered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Goldsworthy “Caesar”-"Throughout the Gallic campaigns German warriors consistently defeated their Gallic counterparts, each success adding to their fierce reputation". Pg.274
I don't have any quotes to support this, but think about it who fought for Caesar? The Germans did and of course he(Caesar) praised their prowess in battle perhaps exagerating a bit (not a lot).Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Regarding EB perhaps the Ridoharjoz could be tweaked but this subject has already been thoroughly discussed throughout the topic.
sorry to go way off topic, last for me on that too- I Promise! :ahh:
I think I neglected to respond to the idea, but the Batavian guard/ cavalry is a very late unit and too much of Roman influence to be justified for EB. The Batavi were considered off-shoots from the Chatti I believe and much later than the early tribal configuration that's trying to be represented- I would argue that Chauci, Cherusci, and Chatti are even late tribes rather than having a solid identity at the start of EB, which would mean they should also not be included, but because they are among some of the earliest mentioned after the Hermunduri and Suebi, I think it is good to keep them for flavor. Therefore, the Batavi tribe was interesting and unique, but not very important long-term besides being late, although much more important than other tribes who flat-out disappeared like the Cherusci. The Ubi and many others fall into the same category, very interesting, but just not widespread and early enough to justify a unit.
The only reason I am proposing a heavy cavalry is because the idea of the heavy cavalry will be based on Germanic origin, the use of retainers who are armed and armored, but on horseback. There should be very little Roman influence other than helmet technology, ect. because that sort of cultural exchange did not happen until just before the end of EB. The Celts might have influenced the Germanics partly through technology- the byrnie mail-coat and high quality double-edged iron swords, but the concept of horsemen and retainers is truly Germanic and not borrowed whatsoever. The lack of contemporary primary sources stating so is not evidence to the contrary whatsoever, especially in light of the ulterior motivation for such writers to portray the Germanics as different and backward. It is common sense that a warrior aristocracy was a predominant feature of Germanic culture- Bronze Age cultures were signifcantly composed of such and it is highly unlikely that any culture would revert backwards from such an evolved social state, even if politically semi-autonomous and dispersed. The use of horses among Indo Europeans and their travel from their homeland where pastoralism most likely originated is a great example of how a heavy cavalry (earlier- chariots! [btw, did everyone know that one of Thor's names was "Driver" like driving a wagon/chariot? and that he had a magical goat pull his special chariot?) in the sense of companion cavalry would not be unknown to any related culture. The primary factor being the amount of wealth necessary to field armor and horsemen and the subsequent development of strategic use of them on the battlefield. The Germanics and Celts used their horsemen similarly so any justification for a Celtic heavy cavalry can be used for the Germanics- they dismounted a large part of the time... No warrior stayed atop a horse for long without stirrups, except for bow/skirimishing. It's a simple fact that nothing can keep a rider atop a horse without stirrups when under significant force in an opposite direction. The cataphracts and knights of the medieval era are a direct result of stirrups and horse technology, so any heavy cavalry that is not steppe based should be a representation of horsemen who fight light while on horseback or dismount with heavy weaponry.
My point being that the idea of this Horse-thane unit is not a fantasy "what-if" early knight (even though a "knight"-OE cniht is really just a retainer in training) but a common feature of Indo-European warrior aristocracy based upon wealth/strategy. The idea is that these units existed even if they were undocumented because of their rarity. The Goths fielded such units in response to contact with steppe culture, but the response was the increased need to have horsemen to counter horsemen rather than getting a new idea, nonetheless the superior access to high quality horses and horse-using people (Indo-Iranian/Proto-Turks) integrated into their tribal structure. If it was a new idea then they simply would not have been as effective as they were. The Goths rather quickly conquered and spanned across the Carpathian/Ukrainian/Black Sea steppe considering the prowess of the Sarmation/Scythian/Alans of the time that they would have contended with.
PS- I am going to try and get the Ridaharjoz upgraded instead of any new cavalry, because a new unit is going to be much harder to find space for (because the model needs to be Germanic), besides the fact that I am convinced by the evidence given (good job, people!) that the Ridoharjoz is an equal to the Leuce Epos. I still think the Celts were fielding quality troops less effectively by the time they got swamped but cannot put forth any proof worth mentioning.
PPS- I just want to mention that I am changing the name of the sword-thane unit because there is no evidence of that word construction unlike horse-thane (AngloSaxon Chronicle I believe), and I plan to change it back to similar to the original configuration because I figured out why sahs-"notoz" didn't make sense- it wasn't Proto-Germanic, a mix of Old High German and Old Saxon from Seaxneat, a god name for the mythological ancestor of the Saxons, also a name for Tiw, which explains why someone picked that for the name of that Swordsman unit... The word form 'not' isn't the right word and what threw me off- it should be 'nauta' like the new Hearth-companion word I'm going to use (since they weren't an actual "hearth"), so it was sword-companion... although some sources say 'not' IS accurate but then means "Sword-ox/bull" which is what I originally translated and thought "huh?" which is so specific and not of Proto or Common Germanic that I deem it inappropriate, or as appropriate as "Sword-Wulf" or "Sword-Elf" which I actually like but think is a little too much. After careful comparison I have judged that the best swordsman term is actually based similar to the original term but slighly different. In Old Norse hjör-njótr is a kenning for warrior meaning "sword possessor" constructed similar to Saxnot, although most people error and attribute "enjoyer/possessor" the same as "comrade" and they are much the same but the ge-/ga- prefix found in PGmc herthaganauta and OE gesitha, ect. implies a relationship of past tense sometimes (seen easily in modern German past participle) or "as a result" in the same sense, also a sense of "with" comparable to L "con" and more importantly- "to come together/togetherness", thus ga-nauta is "enjoy together" = "comrade", rather than "enjoyer" which we have sure evidence for (rather than speculation in Saxnot) and thus what I am picking for the sword-warrior. Also after comparing sword terms, even though Sahs comes from a very common Indo European root for "saw," it does not have as many cognates (Gothic) as PGmc heru which actually is more popular with compound names and kennings as well. So we have an exact compound-word cognate and common basis, so herunauta is good for me. We also do not have to change the unit because the title implies their luck and quality in having a sword, but does not denote any special status otherwise, so a group of poor bullies could be so just because they found or earned them, rather than having to be prestigious warriors like retainers and hearth-troop. Sorry if this seems inappropriate and unrelated, but I wanted to explain because I was embarassed about Sahsthegnoz which was artificial in comparison.
The Gauls also fought for and against Caesar. He praised the Belgae for their toughness, his elite 10th legion, Germans both for and against him. He praised those who fought with valor whether friend or foe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redmeth
I agreed with your post up until here. Take into consideration not only the quotes I provided but also since the 4th century there has been infighting amongst the Celts as well as the Germans. Why all of a sudden would it be so drastic here and not in the po valley and other places where such documentation shows? The archaeological evidence speaks against this. Hopefully Anthony will provide us with some information, preferably with sources.:beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
As far as your pps, very interesting stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redmeth
This is what I get for posting while my eyes are half shut. Redmeth its not Caesar who is saying this quote, its the author Goldsworthy in his book "Caesar"Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
You know, I kinda took a look at the EDU and I'll have to say all this talk about the Sweboz being "too weak" compared to the Celts (or conversely the Celts being "too strong") is almost entirely Simply Not True. The damn Swainoz, wet-behind-the-ears pups that they are, are pretty much the equals of the Belgae Batacorii, and the various tribe-specific spear guys and the Frameharjoz are at least the equals if not betters of the Gaeroas and Gaelaiche. The Sahsnotoz have the edge on the Botroas and are the lessers of the Bataroas and Milnaht solely on basis of lack of armour. Heck, the Frankamannoz (the "levy" unit of the Sweboz) can go head on with the lighter representatives of the Celtic warrior class and not do half badly, although I wouldn't expect them to win. Didn't bother comparing the elites, but they ought to be more or less matched as well.
The Celts do have way better access to armour (at least after the reforms start kicking in) though, but then again isn't that what the Sweboz have their clubmen and Wodanawulfaz and Merjoz and whatnots for ?
I'll have to agree that the Ridonharjoz are really statted a bit on the low side IMHO, although that's my opinion on the overhand spear cavalry units in general. No wonder they don't do too spectacularly against the Epos.
Done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
I'm not too sure, I definitely think there should be a few more Germanic units, and the arguments for a heavier German cavalry seem quite convincing, I mean it would essentialy only require these Germans to basically fight in the normal Germanic cavalry tradition but with heavy armor and a sword for close combat, but when it comes to the subject of the toughness of the Germans, I've had full stacked battles against the Germans full stacked armies, and actually, though inflicitng major casualities on both sides, had to retreat back to my settlement because the numbers were deteriorating too much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
I was very surprised that I couldn't have just out done the Germans with my Belgic spearmen and geasate, but well, they ended up losing the battle, though we inflicted heavy losses upon the enemy.
In general, the Germans are easily my favorite enemies, they are also apparently the toughest with perhaps the Romans riveling them closely.(I've always forgotten to actually impliment the script for the game... so I've never fought Rome at her full strength).
The Germans do seem a bit tougher as a general rule, and their cavalry and infantry seem to be a bit more expensive also when you hire them as mercinaries, infact, I typically consider the Germans to be my first choice when it comes to mercinaries, and that their Celtic equivilents, though good, are not as good as the Germans.
That's just my personal preference though. It also seemed to be Caesars personal preference also, that said he did also have mercinaries from all over, including Celtic ones.
Like I said, I can't say that I've observed this very much, the Germans do seem to be considerably tougher, not technologically superior though they seem to make good use of what little they have and fight boldly against the Celts, infact I often have had to reform my tactics when it comes to fighting the Germans because they often will push back just as hard as I push them, and unlike a lot of the southern peoples, they don't seem to bottle out very quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
I'm not sure is that's very historically accurate, I guess it would depend on the level of training of the fighters involved, a professional will have been conditioned to not have a psychological barrier when it comes to fighting and will not flee as quickly as someone who has just grown up being your average urbanite.
Another interesting issue would be the level of toughness of the average Celt over the average southern urbanite. Urban enviroments can toughen people up, but then again a more rural lifestyle can also make you very hardy and self relient, especially in a culture that most logically would have had a heavy focus on martial training. Perhaps this is going off a bit.
In short, it seems like the Germanic people all seemed to rally to the call of battle, that fighting was a very importent factor top down in German culture as opposed to Celtic societies where you had a distinct and well equipped warrior class, so it might make sense that you have very adept Celtic warriors with very good equipment perhaps having an edge over lots of Germans, but as a general rule have the Germans as tougher than the Celts.
If I've said anything incorrect then fair enough, learning is totally beneficial and all jokes asside, this modification does have a very large capacity to be used as an educational tool.
Arghh these names are killing me!:dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Starting with the German Swainoz skirmishers are superior to the Balroae skirmishers except defense is the same. The German Bugimannoz archers are inferior to the Sotaroas archers except bow attack is the same and the Laosatae is superior except for sling and morale which is the same.Frankamannoz the German levy units are superior to the Lugoae Celtic levy units. Here I run into problems on who to compare units to which units. Laecha Celtic light infantry are superior to Franamannoz levy but on par with the swaiut units. For the German swaiut units(they are roughly the same except for Bastarnoz and they only have 80 men),Frameharjoz and Aljaz-Gae are about the same and compared with the Celtic units they tend to be about the same (cemmeinarn,Batacorii,Daernaghta,Bagaudas,Gaelaiche,Gaeroas etc.). then you have merjoz axe is inferior to ordmahornaghta only in moral. Wodanawulfoz is inferior to pictone neitos except moral is the same. The German Sahsnotoz you have discussed but they are also inferior to moral and also inferior to the Cwmyr. Now you have the next level of units which the Germans have only the Gaizarjoz which could be compared with the Mori Gaesum. The Celts also have the Neitos,kluddargos,calawre, and Deaisbard. For the top elite the German Gastiz and Hundaskapiz are totally outclassed by the Arjos, Carnute Cingetos, Gaesatae, Rycalawre,Solduros and Uachtarac DuboGaiscaocha.
No errors to speak of, you seem very knowledgeable to me (especially concerning Indo-Europeans) Handsome Viking, as almost everybody commenting here seems well-read. Great job to all of you who actually quote and cite, while I am relatively lazy in that respect atm (I don't happen to own Caesar's Gallic Wars either- which reminds me to find a good translation because I haven't learned Latin yet ~:doh:).
I haven't looked at the EDU specifically but the Factions should be well balanced by now so I'm glad to hear that they are by Watchman's account and your own, Handsome Viking<--funny name, btw- reminds me of a great line and scene of the Jomsvikings(see my quote of Sigurd in my sig. he has one of his executioner's hold his hair to keep it fair while he's being beheaded then pulls and get's the guys hands chopped off! it's so hilarious... then the leader comes over and asks him his name and offers him quarter because he has luck!).
[edit] sorry, didn't see your recent post Frostwulf... how are they inferior/superior? are you speaking of results from testing? Those are good things to mention/look at, so thank you for taking the time to write it.
So it's well agreed upon that the Ridaharjoz needs a boost, but what specifically might help the unit while keeping it balanced?
I so very much want to add an Eastern Germanic tribal unit but unfortunately there's so little information on them during EB's timeline except assumptions made concerning the Przeworsk culture and Vandals.... Does anybody happen to have any ideas or knowledge on this?
For whats it worth, I find the Sweboz to be eminently playable as is. It has been some months since my last Sweboz campaign but, as I recall, I faced little in the way of insurmountable obstacles where battles were concerned. Naturally the later developments in Roman military reform made things difficult. But then again things were supposed to be difficult against the Roman military juggernaut. Against the Celts I feared only the Gesatae and later warrior elites such as the Solduros and Carnutes Cingetos (sp?)...also quite a plausible state of affairs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Other than the historical accuracy or viability of unit depictions and the small issue of the Ridoharjoz (of whom, even with present stats, I make good use) I think the current balance between the Celts and Germans is well done.
I think the problem lies in the alternative history nature of EB. The represented factions simply do not act in a historically accurate manner...at least it's quite rare when they do. As Watchman stated earlier, many of the inroads made by the Germans were at a much later date that the start of EB and a result of complicated circumstances. It's the circumstances that the AI fails to replicate.
Although it may seem like an odd idea of sorts but I'd actually be in favor of denying the Sweboz early elite troops other than the Herthoz, keep the hundaskapiz as an early inferior shock infantry similar in use to the Merjoz but otherwise limit the Sweboz to light cavalry, tribal militias, and tribal warbands? Force the Germans to take a more defensive position along the rhine while focusing more on economic development and expansion into the east. The first goal for the Germans, from a gameplay perspective, might be the consolidation of the various Gau and control over the Baltic and it's amber trade?
Even if Gallic aggression forces the German faction east this would be ok as long as the baltic region offers enough economic gains for growth. While I still believe the Ridoharjoz shouldn't be inferior to the lightest Gallic cavalry (on which point a partial concensus seems to have been reached) I am against an attempt to make the German faction the equals of Gaul prior to any evidence we have attesting to that. Keep the early Germans fairly simple.
Save the upgrades, nobles, and proper elite troops for the 140'ish b.c.e. reform date before giving the Sweboz a viable means of facing Gaul and Rome head to head?
What do you think?
ps.
Blitzkrieg80,
A fascinating read regarding the Herunauta, i'm sadly not yet in possession of a proper book on the subject but am in great anticipation of its arrival soon. Also I'm in agreement regarding the Batavians...mostly. I agree that their mentioning in the classical sources dates too late for EB. I'd hoped that there's be information about the cavalry tradition of the Batavians going back far enought to be of use. There is a particular mask
Well when a game is called "Total War" and is primarily concerned with armies stronger units equals stronger faction. To be honest I've never seen the Sweboz struggle in any of my campaigns -- and they are being led by the AI!Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
I wonder what was preventing their migration there? Resistance maybe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Did not they have celts in their number? And didn't their leaders speak celtic, bear celtic names and use celtic weaponry?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Yes you are correct about the differring fighting styles but that didn't count for everything. There were instances where Romans fought one-on-one duels with celtic champions and won (though participation in these was eventually outlawed by the Republic)Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Also your use of "Celt", "German" and "Roman" seems to be ethnic. Celtic is not an ethnic term by any means. The lands that housed celtic speakers had many different ethnicities that used celtic language and customs. So how can one speak of Celts being shorter than Germans or taller than Romans? There were big men in their ranks sure, but what culture doesn't have their brutes?
It is no surprise that anyone can steamroll after winning a victory. This is common throughout history (and also in RTW). The winners have won loot and land/food-- and the experience of winning. On the flipside the losers not only have to deal with the problem of less warriors on which to depend but also the same internal problems that added to their disunity and defeat in the first place (which probably got a whole lot worse after the defeat). It doesn't come down to the fact that they faced bigger men with bigger swords and could no longer win-- this is oversimplified madness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
At the end of the day the game has to be balanced. It is to my judgement. Why change it?
Yes you are correct about the differring fighting styles but that didn't count for everything. There were instances where Romans fought one-on-one duels with celtic champions and won (though participation in these was eventually outlawed by the Republic)
Also your use of "Celt", "German" and "Roman" seems to be ethnic. Celtic is not an ethnic term by any means. The lands that housed celtic speakers had many different ethnicities that used celtic language and customs. So how can one speak of Celts being shorter than Germans or taller than Romans? There were big men in their ranks sure, but what culture doesn't have their brutes?
Do tell about this . That tells people had huge cajones back then if they left the comforts of line combat to go one on one with a brute.
Not really. Size and brawn by themselves aren't really worth a thing in battle, not compared to skill, training, specialized physical conditioning, psychological factors and war gear. Renaissance masters-at-arms scorned "oxen" who fought with mere strenght and aggression.
It's not what you have, but knowing how to use what you have as it were. The greater the degree of skill involved the less differences in size and such matter.
Nah, the Ordmhornaghta have a slight advantage in both armour and defense skill. But then they cost almost double, and their availability is very limited too...Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Inferior ? How exactly ? The Wulfaz have a slightly higher total defense score, and while their axes lose out to the Neitos' swords in lethality (0.165 to 0.225) they've almost the same attack (10 to 11) - but get AP.Quote:
Wodanawulfoz is inferior to pictone neitos except moral is the same.
The Cwmyr are one of the funky Briton "hero" units, and have nothing directly comparable in most factions' rosters (the Aedui Carnutes represent the same principle in a much more elite version).Quote:
The German Sahsnotoz you have discussed but they are also inferior to moral and also inferior to the Cwmyr.
Not really - the Mori have phalanx and armour, while the Gaisaz are really just high-end AP spearmen.Quote:
Now you have the next level of units which the Germans have only the Gaizarjoz which could be compared with the Mori Gaesum.
Save for the 2 HP and the frighten_foot thing the Gastiz shuld actually be about equally matched on the Gaesatae. They're nearly even with Solduri and Rycalawre too, and should be able to give the Arjos and Carnutes a close run thing. The Uachtarac, meh. Extremely limited availability and hardly ever going to be a common feature in Briton armies.Quote:
The Celts also have the Neitos,kluddargos,calawre, and Deaisbard. For the top elite the German Gastiz and Hundaskapiz are totally outclassed by the Arjos, Carnute Cingetos, Gaesatae, Rycalawre,Solduros and Uachtarac DuboGaiscaocha.
You're forgetting something here now. The later high-end Celtic units are good (but also quite expensive) because of their excellent war gear, which is the reason the comparatively lightly armed Gastiz become outmatched. This is one of those "suck it down like a man" issues, as it's a flat historical fact the Celts were richer and better equipped on the average and moreover had a proper warrior class which could invest in such gear. The Gastiz more or less represent the comparable segment of Germanic society in its entirety. On the other hand they're available far sooner and the German roster doesn't have any particular shortage of AP-armed units to swamp the heavier (and not very numerous - 30 is their standard base size) Celtic units with...
Use them tactics. Isn't that what clever people used to even disparities in equipement and such ? I've read some Germans or Belgae or whatnot for example sought to fight the Romans on marshy ground, where the heavily-armed legionaries had constant problems with their footing but the lightly equipped barbarians used to the conditions had little trouble. (The Romans apparently eventually sent in similarly acclimated local auxiliaries to deal with the matter, but that's beside the point.)
Uhh you seem to have an extra Frostwulf quote at the bottom of that post, Watchman :wink2:
Well it would be the generals or officers that'd take part in these duels not rank and file spearmen (the "line combat" guys). No doubt anyone willing to take on another in a battle to the death has got something... cojones or otherwise. But it wouldn't be too different from the one-on-one training that these Roman officers would have experienced for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by russia
But yes, brute force is best only if you can hit your opponent... anyone remember that duel in 13th Warrior? " New shield!"
Oh, right. I copy-pasted it into the field for reference and forgot to delete it in the end. Thanks for pointing out.
In the martial-arts dojo thingy my brother goes to, "Chuck Norris Barroom Haymaker" is a running joke.
No problems at all. The inferior and superior for me was based on the cards by Arkatreides. I was using the attack, defense and moral based on the cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
I hope I'm not misunderstanding you here, but to me historical accuracy is what I'm more interested in. Balance is nice but I would rather have historical accuracy on the units and make up balance elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowenklee
I would still like to know why it would be the light Gallic cavalry and not the heavier cavalry. The quotes I posted show no reason to assume these were "weaker" Celts then before. The arms and armor of the Celtic cavalry of Caesar's time show them to be a heavier cavalry. Did I miss some information that dispute the two quotes I posted?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowenklee
I was just comparing the units based on the cards and I didnt think they were historically accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caratacos
Absolutely! Its quite possible the Celts,Scythians or other peoples were keeping them back. There are a multitude of probable reasons, we dont know for sure which one or combination thereof it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caratacos
Yep, there were Celts among their number. Yep I would think that they used Celtic weaponry. Most authors tend to believe the TCA to be German and the majority of the wanderers were the TCA. There is no doubt to me that the Celtic weaponry helped the TCA in their combat. I also believe the TCA were Germanic as well. During the TCA's wanderings I believe most of the combat was done by them. But it is worth mentioning that the Tigurines (Celts) defeated a Roman army at this time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caratacos
My statement about the duel was in general situations.On another thread I discussed Marcus Claudius Marcellus vs. Viridomarus showing the smaller Roman defeating the larger Celt.I disagree with you about ethnicities, by the time Celts became Celts they would have had a different gene pool then other peoples. Just like all groups you have varying genes but they still have much in common. The British Celts would start to vary from their mainland brethren because of different intermingling. For the height thing Ill refer to Safe in the Gaesatae way too overpowered thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caratacos
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
To me what it comes down to is the martial ability of the units. The Germans began as mercenaries and ended subjugating the Gauls in that area. Its not always a steamroller effect in history. In this particular case the reason is the martial ability of the Germans which not only does Caesar comment on but the Gauls themselves were saying so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caratacos
As far as the end of the day, I want to play a historically accurate game. I want as realistic units as possible and figure another way to balance the game, otherwise we might as well play vanilla RTW.
I agree with you. I think of the scene in "Troy" where Pitt comes out to face that huge guy and stabs him in the neck.Quote:
Originally Posted by russia almighty
For the most part I agree with you, but again all things being in general the size and brawn will help you get through that armor and could stun you as well. I know this is different then boxing but there is that saying, "A punchers chance".Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
You're forgetting something here now. The later high-end Celtic units are good (but also quite expensive) because of their excellent war gear, which is the reason the comparatively lightly armed Gastiz become outmatched. This is one of those "suck it down like a man" issues, as it's a flat historical fact the Celts were richer and better equipped on the average and moreover had a proper warrior class which could invest in such gearInferior ? How exactly ? The Wulfaz have a slightly higher total defense score, and while their axes lose out to the Neitos' swords in lethality (0.165 to 0.225) they've almost the same attack (10 to 11) - but get AP.[/quote]
:oops: You are correct. I must be blind or looking at the wrong unit.
As far as the other comparisons I believe you, I just went by the cards not knowing the other things like phalanx, spear and etc. I did do a one on one battle with the Gaesatae, both playing and playing against. The Gaesatae win every time.
I completely agree that the Celts had better arms and armor. The Celtic cavalry had better arms and armor then the Germans during Caesar's time. The German cavalry consistently beat up on them even though outnumbered. I believe the same to be true of the foot soldier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Heavy armoured cavalry has always been prohibitively expensive to raise and maintain, even among peoples who had no shortage of horses (ie. steppe nomads). It duly stands to reason that even if the overall "weight" of Celtic cavalry had increased by Caesar's time for various reasons, the easy majority would still have been of the lighter Epos type for the simple fact it was way easier for a warrior to afford a horse and that level of war gear, than both Brihentin-level gear and a horse capable of carrying it without problems.
Size doesn't have that much to do with it. The degree of physical conditioning, ie. how much explosive power you can coax out of your physique to put behind the strike, does.Quote:
For the most part I agree with you, but again all things being in general the size and brawn will help you get through that armor and could stun you as well. I know this is different then boxing but there is that saying, "A punchers chance".
Put this way, Bruce Lee will hit way harder than a weightlifter a head taller.
It's not like being large wasn't conditionally quite useful (better reach for example, potentially more "horsepower" when suitably conditioned, potentially quite intimidating); but it's only that if you know how to actually use it for effect, and the other guy doesn't know how to deal with it - and well-trained warriors do.
Or it could just be the Germans had figured out better tactics... or, as has been argued, the Celts were sufficiently short on real warriors that the average level of fighting ability very much favoured the Germans.Quote:
To me what it comes down to is the martial ability of the units. The Germans began as mercenaries and ended subjugating the Gauls in that area. Its not always a steamroller effect in history. In this particular case the reason is the martial ability of the Germans which not only does Caesar comment on but the Gauls themselves were saying so.
Speaking of the height issue, wasn't the (nominal) entry requirement for the Legions 170+ cm ? And those were citizens...
I could be wrong but I would think most of the Gallic horses are the same. I'm fairly sure the larger warhorse came several hundreds of years later. As far as the arms and armour and what Caesar says it fits what heavy cavalry would have. I'm sure it would have been expensive but allot of the cavalry was made up of chieftains and their retinues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I agree with you. What I'm trying to convey is that in general the large man will have more muscle and mass therefore more kinetic energy. So if you have two people with the same ability's the larger one in general will be able to put out more energy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Again I agree with you. I would say that a weightlifter properly trained would be able to hit harder then Lee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Yes either of these are viable, though I tend to disagree with the Celtic warriors being weaker because of the information I read. I'm going to try to do more research on this subject soon. Summers for me are very busy but I will try to find time for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I know Ive seen something like this before. I cant recall if it was for a special or elite legion or if it had something to do with Celtic/Germanic recruits of later times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I'm not sure how much you trust Osprey but from what I've read in "Roman Legionary 58BC-AD69" it would seem that the height preference and criteria changed, quite understandably, depending on the region, for example, in Northern Europe the height requirments and definitions of too short would change, whereas in other regions where men were a bit smaller, the height requirement would lower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Generally speaking, all martial arts conversations asside and hypothetical super blows and what not, a bigger man typically is more intimidating and will win in a scrap, a smaller man can win if he is well trained and armed, a big man is a good target for missle weapons.
I guess when it comes to Roman warfare you should be big enough, strong enough fit enough and couragous enough to be able to hold a line and stab and slash efficiently.
As far as the information given in Osprey I never had any qualms with them. I have read 4 and thought they were good but real basic. And for the rest of your statements viking I agree with you.
To attempt to resserect this thread.
From De Bello Gallico.
Perhaps the Germans do deserve something of a status boost. The question for me though is what would the standard equipment of Ariovistus's army have been?Quote:
To this Ariovistus replied, that "the right of war was, that they who had conquered should govern those whom they had conquered, in what manner they pleased; that in that way the Roman people were wont to govern the nations which they had conquered, not according to the dictation of any other, but according to their own discretion. If he for his part did not dictate to the Roman people as to the manner in which they were to exercise their right, he ought not to be obstructed by the Roman people in his right; that the Aedui, inasmuch as they had tried the fortune of war and had engaged in arms and been conquered, had become tributaries to him; that Caesar was doing a great injustice, in that by his arrival he was making his revenues less valuable to him; that he should not restore their hostages to the Aedui, but should not make war wrongfully either upon them or their allies, if they abided by that which had been agreed on, and paid their tribute annually: if they did not continue to do that, the Roman people's name of 'brothers' would avail them naught. As to Caesar's threatening him, that he would not overlook the wrongs of the Aedui, [he said] that no one had ever entered into a contest with him [Ariovistus] without utter ruin to himself. That Caesar might enter the lists when he chose; he would feel what the invincible Germans, well-trained [as they were] beyond all others to arms, who for fourteen years had not been beneath a roof, could achieve by their valor."
In 14 years of campaign in rich Gaul? I'd say very well equipped.
They definitely wouldn't have fought in the what I'd describe as the bare minium kit of a Germanic warrior, that being a shield, possibly with a shield boss and a few frame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarcasm
I'd imagine lots of superior Celtic equipment being used. Longswords, Longer shields, various types of helmets and undoubtably a few with chainmail.
A lot of the higher chieftains would undoubtedly have Celtic equipment, by importing, stealing or having been gifted it by their employers. We know the Germans already copied things like spearheads and shields, so I figured they'd be armed just like a well equipped Celtic army.
Oh, and let's not forget the horsies.
Did you deliberatly call them horsies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarcasm
I figured if we have a whole thread devoted to you taking a picture of a cute bunny, I'd get away with saying "horsies".
:clown:
On a bit different topic, you know how the current Hundaskaspiz are a placeholder ? I've just been thinking if there were not a better placeholder solution possible, to represent them being the pick of the common warriors of the tribe rather than the nobility and their role as "point man" shock troops. Would it seem like a feasible idea to make them use some suitable "commoner" skin/model (say, Frameharjoz, as those are basically the standard "universal troopers" of the Sweboz), amp the stats, lower the base size to something like 30, muck around with the prices, and slap the "command" trait on the unit - essentially making them a Germanic version of the Casse "hero" units, what now far more humbly armed ?
Just a thought.
u guys........ need to get out some moreQuote:
Originally Posted by Sarcasm
What thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarcasm
CAN WE NOT QUOTE EMPTY SPACE? It is quite annoying to need to scroll down for no good reason, especially for OT nonsense... Just don't quote a huge block of nothing. Seriously, don't do it.
Model space/skin usage determines much of how the future units will look, but as it turns out i have decided on the Hundafulkan using the same model as the Baldrōz ("Bold ones" or "Heroes"). Lightly armored, spear being their primary weapon... although i'm not quite sure if i want to use an axe or sword for secondary, both being problematic for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarcasm
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking
According to John Warry "Warfare in the Classical World" on pg.161 he list's number of soldiers as:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarcasm
Caesar: 21000 Legionaries plus Gallic horse (4000) and other auxiliaries
Ariovistus: Germans tribal levy en masse (from community of 120,000); includes 6000 horse-men with 6000 footmen and 16000 light infantry.
He doesn't go into detail of the troop make up other then making the distinction of light infantry. It seems of the 22000 troops, 6000 of them had decent armor. That of course is pure speculation on my part. But it is also worth noting of the arms and armor of the TCA, roughly 50 years earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I think both of you guys have good idea's on this. There are things I would still like to see for the Germans though.Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
Cavalry:I would like to see a heavy cavalry unit, not well armored but high attack and a high skilled defense. Perhaps a noble cavalry along the same lines as the heavy cavalry with better armor.
Infantry: An increase to morale to most of the units. Perhaps an increase in attack and defense to some of the units?
I did a few tests with some units and some things that surprised me. The Heruskoz lost to the Batacorii every time. According to the stats on the cards this shouldn't have happened. The Laecha (Gaul) were also prone to losing against Frameharjoz. Is there another way to gauge a units stats other then doing tests unit vs unit or the cards? The cards are not portraying the stats as I would expect them to. I also don't have enough time to test unit vs unit.
I also tests on Cohors Imperatoria vs Solduros and both were of equal soldiers, not units (300men each). The Solduros won. If I went unit on unit the Cohors won.
I don't agree with the idea that its ok to have Celt elite units stronger then their Roman counter parts. The excuse that they have fewer in number, have less soldiers,cost more and are rare still doesn't matter. I still believe the Soduros,Rycalwre and etc. should have slight reductions and bring them at best on par with the Cohors Reformata. Reduce the Cost of these Celt elite units and make them more available.
One other idea, increase the morale for the Batacorii. The Belgae where known for their bravery and according to the cards they are average Celt morale. Also increase the morale of the veteran Cohors Evocata should be increased.
Again Im going by the cards on morale so I very well could be wrong on how this works.
Personally, I prefer looking up the stats in export_descr_units.txt. Pretty much the only thing you don't see there is the units' movement speeds (which are governed by what skeletons they've been defined to use in descr_model_battle.txt).
rather than messing with stats that already seem to work, I think it would be cool to have more regionals, such as a Cimbri, or Rugi variants... The Wōdanezharīz is a Harii regional now of the Lugii, so no worries for anyone missing the berserkr-like guy, but he's been reconceptualized as a cultist of Wodan, no wolf about him, just good ole ecstatic "inspiration" of the god of change (wind/travel) himself.
Thanks for the info. Watchman.
The only reason I would like to see the stat changes is that I think they are off historically. I really like the idea of regionals, there are many things that can be done with that. Also is there still better cavalry in the works?Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
Off and off. I would think that stats that have the Germanic tribal levies the virtual equals of the Celtic warrior class (bar the effects of armour later) were downright generous.
The Germans should be superior to them. From the post Viking put down, De Bello Gallico. say's that the Germans defeated their nobility(elites),cavalry etc. not to mention this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Throughout the Gallic campaigns German warriors consistently defeated their Gallic counterparts, each success adding to their fierce reputation. Pg.274
I don't mean to be rude but that's like the 100th time you quoted that line, we got the picture, don't you also have more sources?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
And also, Caesar's campaigns are just a moment in time when perhaps the Celts were in decline and the German warriors that rode with Caesar were veterans of elite status and probably very well equipped from all the raiding, can you generalize this to every single German tribesman that picked up a weapon?
Well if we increased the morale/training of German units it would have to be higher end units, since it's ridiculous for any levy/low class to be very good against professional warriors, and the cost would increase tremendously, because that's how the system works... so i don't think that's a solution.... on the other hand, if we pick some units to make more elite since the Harii unit has been taken away as a region-wide elite unit, that might be much more do-able and realistic...
yes, a Brihentin reskin is something I plan on having implemented as a post-reform expensive companion cavalry. At the moment there is no way to get another cavalry unless we can figure out another faction's model we can reskin. Anybody know of any other factions who have Germanic-looking at all cavalry?
Unless I misunderstood Watchman he is saying that the German tribal units being on par with the Celtic warrior class is generous seems to say that he thinks the Celts should be stronger. I put this quote down for a reminder of what others had said. As far as sources for the subject of 71BC-50BC I'm using James,Warry,Speidel,Goldsworthy,Sidnell for the most part but also some from Todd and one quote from Wolfram. Sorry if this isn't enough sources, I actually have been looking for others that go in depth on this area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redmeth
From what I gather from the above authors the Celt's were not on a decline until the coming of the Germans and Romans. The German cavalry from varying tribes were just tough, even before they rode with Caesar. I don't generalize saying the Germans were well equipped. The Germans in general were not very well equipped and neither were the ones that routed Caesars cavalry or the ones that destroyed the Menapii. Even though the Germans were not well equipped for the most part they managed to defeat the Celts consistently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redmeth
All I'm saying is that most of the Swaiut have an 11 morale and it should be a little more then their Celt counter parts who also have an 11 morale. I am by no means saying the German Swaiut units should be able to take on elites on equal terms and win. I am saying that the German mid line units should be able to beat the Celt mid line units consistently.Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
Glad to hear that.:beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
Frosty, I think you're forgetting that there is IRL far more to winning wars and battles than the calibre of soldiery - as indeed many an EB player knows as well, especially if they like playing factions near the Grey Death... :beam:
Frankly, it is quite likely that all other things being equal a random member of the Celtic warrior class was a better fighter than the equally random German tribesman. This is suggested already by the simple difference in the time both could dedicate to combat training (given that both got engaged in small-scale raids on a regular basis) - the difference between a specialist and a part-timer.
My bet is that where the Germans were superior (eventually anyway) was tactics, "what the weak use to overcome the strong" as it's also been described. The shieldwall, which they appear to have been very fond of but which was apparently rather rare among the Celts, is basically the formation for multiplying the fighting power of not-so-well-armed or -trained troops; part-time militias fighting in such fashion regularly proved themselves the match of even quite high-calibre troops, assuming enough confidence and a passable degree of arms and skill. The individual tribal warrior may well have been outmatched by his better-trained Celtic opponent, but there was a lot of the tribesmen - certainly a deeper pool than of the Celtic specialists - and mutual support and cohesion, the raison d'êtres of the shieldwall, very much make a battlefield formation unit more than the sum of its parts.
It is also entirely possible that they lucked out in terms of leaders. A sufficiently capable commander could regularly win battles that lesser leaders would almost certainly have lost, and in the right circumstances tear an empire apart. Given the issues the Celts had with their fighting manpower pool I doubt if it would have taken too many bloody routs in the hands of a capable German war chief or few to leave them so weak that even if the original "great leaders" died off the balance of power would have been irrecovably skewed in favour of the encroaching Germans.
Wow, I like that train of thought concerning tactics, Watchman, because ususally people argue how stupid barbarians were in comparison to Romans/Greeks, and although the shieldwall (described as phalanx by Caesar) was used, nobody really points out how effective and brilliant it was until medieval times when in fact it is along the lines of the best you can get, the legion and phalanx being the ultimate derivatives of a shieldwall... it's funny that in the Civil War even people still stood in lines- brilliant! :applause:
*How's this idea guys... what if there were some better accessible +command or +morale traits for German family members, which would make their performance not a SURE thing, but dependable on the general and situation?
Thanks Watchman, you said what I have been trying to say this whole time... but was unable to in such a succint and well articulated way. I completely agree with you here :2thumbsup:.
I must add that any argument that the Celts were better warriors because they had more time to devote to training doesn't exactly have support, because both had a warrior aristocracy... So neither (of them) had an advantage in quality or training, just real world factors like arms/armor. One might argue that Tacitus said so and so, but that is hardly proof... Tacitus may be the only source concerning the time, but he calls them "Germans" for Christ's sake, something that is a fact that they never called themselves unless it was to explain their identity to their retarded neighbors- that's evidence enough to say he's full of it... Distinct grave sites found with greater riches does not prove anything either, other than those noblemen had more wealth... it's just a simple fact that the lower classes do farming and grunt-work, and it's really doubtful that the upper classes would participate for personal fun. Cultures who have drastic changes in their infrastructure as proposed by an egalitarian-to-aristocracy switch would then have traces of that change and difference in their oral culture... there is no evidence of that concerning Germanic culture, in fact, the culture shows itself to be very solid and steady... the few linguistic changes which happen are in terms of kingship because of their unique curbing of that power, but otherwise... loan-words for trade from Romans, so we know they didn't have a money-market system... what else? they borrow the word for a byrnie mailcoat...
I agree with this statement, barring wars and things being abnormal. The elite Celts and Germans would be better for the reasons you gave. The difference for the average German tribesman is from what I understand is he trained but he may not have had the practical experience of training in groups nor real experience in raids.Things of course change when it comes to wars or major raids.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
These are as usual, logical statements. Here is something to back up your hunch. I have to paraphrase Caesar here but when he was addressing his troops he talked about how sneaky the Germans were and thats why they beat the Celts. Also Caesar did call Ariovistus a good leader and from what I read he was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Now here are the reasons why I don't think it was just tactics or good leadership. The Celts were very well versed in battle field formations as represented at Telemon, Alesia and others. Caesar talks of pinning Celt shields together with pilum just before they clash with the Romans. So they did have close formation tactics.
The Battle of Magetobriga in which the Aedui were to come to an end was a pitched battle. It was the 15000 German merceniaries that won the battle. From here the Germans go on to subjugate the Sequani.
When Caesar talks of the Germans being sneaky its because of the morale of Caesars troops. Allot of Caesars junior officers were getting worried at the tales the Celts were saying of the Germans. Caesar had to down play the Germans as well as up lift his own men for morale's sake. At the Battle of Magetobriga Ariovistus was in charge of his own men but to my knowledge not the leader of the battle.
The Celts told tales of these well trained savage men who were superior to all (that is before Caesar came though) in arms. The Celts and the Romans feared the Germans as it is mentioned many times. You also have to take into consideration Caesars comments like what he said of the German cavalry and also his 3000 German foot soldiers used against Pompey. Caesar talks of the valor and ferocity of the German troops.
Take a look at some of the battles between the Germans and the Celts. The Germans destroyed the Menapii, The 800 cavalry already talked about routing the 5000 Roman/Celtic cavalry.
I think your selling yourself short. I for one understood what you were saying and for the most part agreed with you. I just think the soldiers do make more of a difference then you give them credit for. I really think Caesar would have failed if he didnt have the quality of troops he had with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caratacos
I agree with you here except for the quality of the warriors. I believe the German warrior to be superior. Why do I believe this, because allot of the ancient authors and people who lived and saw these things said so, including the Celts themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
I wouldn't dismiss any of the ancient authors out of hand for misunderstandings they had. You are correct though that the only time the Germans of this period referred to themselves as Germans instead of their tribal names was for the understanding of the Romans and others.Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
Why is it that allot of you on these forums think that the Celts should be as powerful as they are in respect to units? Why is it ok to have Celt elite units higher then there German counter parts not to mention the Romans!
The differences between the Celt and Sweboz elites stem primarily from the level of equipement carried, which obviously is purely a factor of resources and as such has nothing to do with the warriors themselves. Complaining about that is roughly akin to complaining about the Roman heavy infantry being better armoured than most "barbarian" equivalents.
Didn't we already go this over once, anyway ?
As for the Romans, please keep in mind the differences in the whole underlying military philosophy. The whole point of the Celtic system was the creation of mighty warrior-heroes; anyone who reached the elite status was quaranteed to be one hard case indeed. The Romans, conversely, were soldiers in the modern sense; their whole way of war was based on iron discipline, seamless teamwork and well-practised drill. The actual skill of the individual soldier was somewhat secondary to his "moral fibre", ability to carry out orders posthaste and operate as part of his unit. A veteran or elite soldier produced by such system is not so much a better warrior as that much better a cog in the war machine - better able to carry out his orders and hold his nerve in the face of often quite extreme adversity.
Moreover, looking at the stats I don't really see where the Roman high-end infantry - Antesigniani, Evocatae, Praetorians (who incidentally are AFAIK statted a bit wrong, and should have a bit more armour) - are supposed to be meaningfully inferior to their Celtic peers. Anything but. They're more or less matched in stats actually, and both the Evocatae and Praetorians come in meaningfully larger units (base size 50) than the high-end Celtic units while the Antesigniani (who are not actually line troops anyway) have equal numbers. And man for man the Romans are cheaper. Oh, the 0.225 lethality of the Celtic longswords certainly beats the 0.13 of the gladius, but I'd imagine the nasty AP pila more than compensated.
This all makes complete sense. The Gallic armies were no stranger to battlefield tactics or manuovers-- which at no point does Watchman deny. Also it does not contradict Watchman's argument-- that the Germans used superiour tactics (possibly even an innovation made and used by Ariovistus himself--? my idea) and that it was this fact that contributed considerably to their victories. Among other things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Well if the attribute of "sneakiness" can be used for propagandic purposes could not the attribute of "martial prowess" be used in the same way? To explain defeats such as that in A.D 9...? As did those Gauls who were defeated by Ariovistus and co. You have selected the meanings that best suit your argument here... which is still valid, but noted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Clearly the Germans were capable warriors but in no ancient source have I specifically read that "German warriors are superior to Celtic warriors". And even then I'd seriously question their reasoning.
But this argument does seem to be going around in circles... perhaps we should agree to disagree?
Either way I think that the stats will stay the same unless by some finding of new evidence... which is... unlikely.
Also I'd just like to add that it has been a very informative and enjoyable discussion :yes:
Heck, the German tactical formations weren't even necessarily inherently superior to the Celtic ones. Put this way, the Germanic tribal-levy spearmen may well have fought in shieldwalls because they had to in order to compensate for their relatively poor equipement and training, particularly against well-equipped and -trained opponents like the Romans and the Celtic warrior class, whereas the better-trained and more confident Celtic longswordmen could afford - and for that matter probably needed - to fight in more open order. Of course the Celts had their share of spearmen better suited for close-packed ranks and the Germans their mobile loose-order shock infantry as well...
Their warlords may just have eventually worked out the best ways to get the most out of the troops at their disposal, to which the at that point rather frazzled Celts were not able to respond in time.
What becomes quite clear about the Roman accounts of the Germans is that though they often lacked the resources to produce the equipment that their enemies could afford, they made up for in inginuity and tactics, and that a dence shield wall and phalanx, as well as somewhat bold and unconventional anti cavalry measures, night raids and long speared cavalry charges were definitely things these people were use to implimenting in battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
Just one quick question though, why dont gastiz and what not have helmets?
Maybe they think it unmanly to wear one ?
I can see the arguments for them wanting to show their lovely hair, but they don't really have long hair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Why go to all the effort of having that lush equipment and not at least wear a basic helmet?
Why do the Gaesatae go nekkid ? Maybe they want to show their disdain of the enemy's weapons or something. I've read Persian warrior nobles did that at one point too.
Because a flapping penis flying towards you attached to a muscle man with a sword and shield is a bit more intimidating than some guy whos armed to the teeth with good chain mail and a sturdy sheild, overarmed fighting spear and well made sword whos wearing trousers boots and a cape, yet with no helmet to protect his head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Also the Gastiz seem to be equipped better because they have managed to get gear from their conquests. I don't see why a logical professional fighting man wouldnt sooner or later realize that the head is quite importent if they want to survive.
From what I have read though in general, it seems that the average German was a bit tougher and probably much more used to fighting in dence formation than the lower end Celtic warrior.
I think where the Celts however outdid the Germans was in their arms and armor and they were probably wealthier in general, and though wealth doesn't obviously produce good results, it can be helpful for encouraging men to train on a regular basis.
Hey, don't ask me to understand the often somewhat crackpot thinking of ancient warrior elites. They more often than not had a seriously strange brew of odd magical and symbolic stuff going, not rarely with pure machismo thrown in. The results could be some rather counterintuitive practices.
I'm just offering guesses as to possible explanations. Didn't the Dacians also often fight bareheaded to demonstrate their bravery and scorn of death to the gods ?
Well I think in the case of the Germanic unit im talking about it would be more a question of why the model designer chose not to give them helmets. They are one of my favorite units by the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
A lack of armor can be for mobility it can also say that you're not afraid, it can also obviously have religious significance, it can also be to simply make your fellow soldiers recognize you on the battlefield, sort off like medieval heraldry. Many german helmets had openings in them to allow their hair to hang through.
I just think the more professional and experienced a warrior becomes, the more economic they become and practical they become, There are Celtic units such as the solduri that exhibbit this, better armor, less likely to run headlong into a fight, they don't have much to prove, they are already super elites.
helms are almost useless and much more valuable because of their rarity compared to a mailshirt because of their relatively useless aspect... think about it, if you get hit in the head with a sword, you're dead with a helm or not... THUS if any Germanic warrior had resources it was spent on body protection which is a much larger target and has a greater chance of survival from a blow. by this logic they did not need, want, or use helms, which makes more sense than any mass-production of a dumb helmet which gets in your way and does nothing, it was a total waste of metal... those who DID have nice metal helms among the Germanics were truly important men, this is the origin of the Germanic crown.
the only reason other cultures use helms is their excess of wealth, not because they work... even today the only reason helmets work is because of the invention of shrapnel-like warfare... a classic example is Star Wars, where the storm troopers run around in full armor but still die by the simplest pistol shot, so what is the point in wearing armor? there isn't any.... mailshirts can block arrows easily though, so they can be quite valuable in that respect, but an arrow can still go into your eye with a helm.
now, the Reformed Hearth-troop should have helms because they have greater access to resources, but otherwise only leaders would have them and highly important ones at that.
words such as Old English cynehelm, Old High German chuninchelm "crown" give us insight into this, as well as Tacitus' account "a few have a breastplate, one or two at most a metal helmet," as well as the persisence of this tradition for quite some time, as seen in illustrations of the Utrecht Psalter, where groups of warriors are without helm and leaders are generally with helm.
Uh - helmets were usually the first pieces of defensive gear warriors made a point of aquiring after a shield you know. They cost pennies compared to body armour. People were generally aware of the importance of the old brainbox, and the skull only goes so far for protecting the squishy innards. A decent helmet was quite often literally the difference between life and death, as it deflected or slowed down stuff that would otherwise have ventilated your cranium, all the more so as due to considerations of visibility the degree to which you could defend the noggin with a shield was somewhat restricted.
uh, only by weak warriors... i don't see how you can defend the ability of a helm to block any decently perfomed blow... like plenty of policemen will tell you they'd rather have a helmet than a kevlar vest? brainbox aside, mathmatical probability was known through common sense
A rounded, smooth, padded metal shell stops and deflects a whole lot thank you very much. And way more than your poor skull by its lonesome certainly. Not the really hardcore stuff - direct hits from heavy axes and maces for example - of course, but keeps your noggin intact against lighter weapons, glancing hits, arrows etc. by far better than nothing.
And that's just simple light "skull caps". Once the armourers get creative you find stuff like the later-end Roman helmets, Medieval "great bascinets" (a larger helm worn over a smaller one), visored helmets with optional extra armour plates and cleverly articulated "folding" face defenses... and that just in the European context.
Modern military gear has no bearing on the issue. Just as a little reminder tempered steel armour was still a valid defense against rifles in 1870.
modern military gear as i describe has nothing to do with it, its the idea of common sense... the reason policemen use vests is the larger area/target, it's mathmatics, probability, common sense... it's true that helmets are cheaper, but body armor would still be preferred by any warrior... another factor is the fact that mailshirts can be reused if damaged, so they can be taken off of the battlefield, where early helmets weren't exactly "patch"-able... i am no metalsmith, but it would have to be reworked right, especially more so than rings on mail?
heres some evidence for you:
"hæfd him on earme eorla þrītig hildegeatwa, þā hē tō holme stāg" (Beowulf 2361-2362, Mitchell & Robinson 1998),
which I translate "had with him in arm the battlegear of thirty noblemen, when he went into the sea" which is in reference to a failed sea-raid on Friesland (Netherlands) where Beowulf's king Hygelāc is killed in battle and he retreats with booty in hand... the term "battlegear" in this context (as well as in ON gerð, OHG garawida) is meant to imply a mailshirt, a rather large/thick stack ~;p there is no mention of helms, because even a warrior who can carry 30 mailshirts can't possibly swim with helmets that don't compact/ fold together ~;) but more importantly, the tradition was that the mailshirt was more important and more easily plunderable
another thing is that a true warrior would rather have a sword than a helmet for the amount of resources involved... the helmet was in wide use among cultures who had extra resources or had such crappy body armor that it was considered of comparable value
That is certainly not an universal preference. I've got plenty of examples of people going deliberately for helmets instead of metal armour, though you are right in the sidearm. Most do prefer a sword instead of a helmet, though you can still find some examples that are an exception to that general rule.
I don't agree. Some weapons would be better suited for this objective than others, but I think it's safe to say that if helmets didn't protect peoples heads at least to a fairly high extent, nobody would bother wearing them. Now axes I can understand, the falx I can understand but general sword blows? no, most likely any decently made helmet will protect your head from the glance or strike of a sword blow, Besides, we know for a fact that some Germans wore them and they most definitely started wearing them more and more as soon as they got access to more resources.Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
Absolutely, as it said in the Germanic warrior, but it also says that it could withstand glances from swords. But lets face it, sooner or later one will realize that a helmet is vital because the human skull just isn't that sturdy on its own. Tacitus points out that they wore both leather caps and helmets when they had the chance, the prominent Germanic warriors undoubtably wore helmets, probably more for a symbolic factor than a defencive factor but when it comes to a heavily armed and equipped Germanic unit, why not wear helmets? they had the money and resources to have them and we know that during the Migration Period the Germans did get access to more materials and undoubtably did start producing more and more in terms of arms and armor, including helmets.Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
I can understand the importence of identity on the battlefield and how men being men obviously enjoy having their lovely long hair seen to all but really, helmets are good and any seasoned warrior Germanic or not would sooner or later realize the value of the helmet.
Yeah but you can still get hit in the neck wearing mailshirts, so why wear mailshirts? obviously theres always room for danger in most mass produced armor and this really didn't ever stop being a problem until full plate armored soldiers started to show up where really the only major defence against them was the gun, the warhammer, the club and the crossbow to some extent, obviously a helmet being a helmet will add yet another layer of protection to your skull. Theres enough re enactment guys out there that have had swords glance off their helmets to know that the helmet obviously works.Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
I totally understand the correlation between lack of helmets of the Germans and lack of resources, but in the case of the Gastiz, they have resources, why not wear a helmet?Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
Yes, and the reasons for this are a combination of factors such as warrior status and resources within the Germanic territories, what I've always admired about the Germanic people was that they made do with really what they had and still gave the premiere civilizations a run for their money, heck they eventually beat them, but I really don't agree that a helmet is essentially a useless piece of equipment and really don't see why Gastiz being soldiers for hire by trade who have had access to good equipment, wouldn't just end up wearing a helmet.Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
WHAT?! Come on, of course men who can lift 30 mailshirts and carry them, swimming from the Netherlands to Sweden is a universal... can't everyone do that? ~;)
Watchman, i appreciate your detailed elaboration of the advantages of a helm.... even if i don't agree with their actual effectiveness against a large degree of force
well of course i agree that helms were used by Germanic warriors, because there is no reason NOT to take advantage of something, but it wasn't a high priority compared to swords and mailshirts... my extreme opinion is to reinforce that it's not as useful as you guys keep trying to say they are... i'm sorry it's simply wrong to say that any helm of 270BC can save someone's life from a good sword to the head... where is the logic in that? come on... that's just silly... are we speaking of lame-ass swords or what? a good sword is a good sword and it's whole purpose is that it can go through mail even, nonetheless a dinky 270BC helm.... yes glancing blows would be deflected and a helm is better than nothing, of course, but helmets are as useful as bracers and leg armor, which is NOT very useful...
Handsome, your point was that "if they didn't protect, then nobody would wear them" and that is RIGHT... just because "civilized" men wore helmets that doesn't justify their use... and just because "barbarians" didn't wear them that doesn't mean they aren't effective, but if we use common sense and think about how much force is in a sword blow and the fact that the sword is sharp, i think it's safe to say that the helm might as well not be there... why would anybody use swords unless they worked? glancing blows don't even necessarily kill unarmored men- that's the definition of the term... by increasing the probability of survival through extra pieces of armor, a warrior does his job which is kill more by not dying and living to kill more, but that doesn't change the grim reality of certain death if you're head gets hit by a decent weapon (as in not a crappy arrow which 'glances'). Like in modern times, the helmet is almost ONLY useful at protection from missles...
the leather skullcap found on the Tollund Man, as Sarcasm loves to point out, and i love to hear mentioned, is a good example of how helms were used by Germanic tribes, but they certainly weren't considered important... it would be an extra... any Celtic helm in earlier times, and Roman helms in later times would have been used if found or acquired intact... so ACTUALLY that is a good argument for why mailshirts were actually developed and made locally by Germanics even if borrowed technology because otherwise there should be more helms and there isn't...
of course there are always exceptions to the rule, but that's why helms are portrayed the way they are with the Germanics..... Sarcasm and I agree actually that there should be more leather skullcaps, but i REALLY don't want to see another weird red cap... that makes me want to kill myself it's so ridiculous and the sad thing is that nobody wants it in the game and yet it's been in the build for over a year or more without anybody taking it out :wall: so i would prefer NOTHING as opposed to Attack of the Shriners
The Celts wore helmets. And while they were certainly more 'civilized' than contemporary Germans, they're normally ranked as "barbarians" by the same observers.
Anyway, swords are kinda sucky at cutting through metal. Mail stops most blades pretty much cold, although heavy blows may still impart enough blunt trauma to make that a cold comfort (the heavy Medieval "mail-killer" war swords worked on this principle AFAIK; probably falchions too). The pointy stuff, and "mass" weapons like axes and maces, does way better. Solid angled metal surfaces are worse - plate armour, remember ? A good helmet is essentially plate spot protection for the head, and will tend to bounce most hits - and the solid ones will still lose about all their energy cutting and deforming the metal, probably never reaching the head itself in the first place nevermind now through the ubiquitous padding (layered textile and such being also pretty good a stopping blades, and kinetic energy too).
Heavy blows from heavy weapons to the head are so dangerous not so much because they were actually necessarily all that better at actually getting through the helmet, but because their sheer kinetic energy can cause concussions right through it and because the spine isn't all that strong at the neck. Dying of a broken neck despite the helmet having by and large stopped the blow sort of sucks.
Also, your assessement of the supposed uselessness of helmets against about anything but missiles is most definitely not supported by either the archeological or written record, nor practical experiments made on the subject.
And as mentioned, helmets are ultimately very cheap compared to metal body armour. Just about any decently equipped warrior could in most times afford one, but things like long swords and body armour are an entirely different story. The bit about Beowulf clearly misses this. Mail took a very long time to make and was thus very expensive; ergo, it was also very valuable, "the battlegear of noblemen", and being also very useful would obviously be prioritized quite highly for looting. Heck, victorious armies normally made a point of diligently stripping dead foes of their armour and recycling the stuff is possible - often the only way many warriors could get their hands of decent armour anyway. The Bayeux Tapestry casually presents few such scenes. And the only reason the grave-pits of Visby yielded such useful amounts of period armour is the fact the victors left the field in pursuit in the immediate aftermath of the battle, and when they returned few days later the bodies were no more in a lootable condition due to the summer heat...
Don't you think there was something somewhat homo erotic about beowulf eventually beating up basically a big snake by giving it a death cuddle?Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
I would sort of assume that the whole purpose of the sword initially was just to hack people to bits and that anti sword armors developed much later. It's safe to imagine the possibility of the sword basically being an evolution of the more ancient axe which became superior to the axe due to the hacking efficiency, in short an axe runs the risk of getting stuck in a face or chest, a sword is more designed to tear right through the person with a longer connection reach than the sharp part of an axe.Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
From what I've read the evolution of the more narrow tipped longsword was a Frankish innovation and was a measure used to deal with chainmail, in short a fine tip can pick through the rings better and can therefore allow more damage to be done with a good thrust. I don't think the best way to deal with chain armor really has ever been to slice at it.
Now perhaps with enough velocity behind the strike a Celtic longsword will do a lot of damage to a helmet and mail shirt and shield, but in general strikes I think that the longsword wouldn't really do much other than give you a nasty bruise if it connects.
Though it's not the right thread to post it in, I've always been somewhat suspcious about the underpowered Celtic charge and the removal of that old jump up and swing down charge attack.
If someone runs up with a sword and swings hard enough they could split the helmet or crush the helmet that is indeed possible, but shield to shield combat with you both trying to basically scrape away at each other, I can see the mail shirt and the helmet coming in very handy.Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
I can see there being a natural inclination for more experienced warriors to realize that a lot of their defence and safety measures don't really need to be there once they have fought enough to be comfortable in combat, perhaps even leaving the head unprotected would be a good way to lure your enemy into striking a particular area and basically taking them down as they make an opening.Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
But this is just guessing here, but obviously the more confident people get with fighting the more refined and at a glance, risky their strategies become. For example the Germanic strategy of basically appearing like a weak and easy target for cavalry and then waiting for the horses to get close enough before sliding under the horse and stabbing it in the gut then dispatching the rider. That was quite cunning. I'd also really love to see a unit like that in the game if its possible, that would be absolutly beautiful to see.
But yeah back to my point, the nature of a helmet will protect your head, it is just basically a slightly more elevated outer layer to protect the skull, typically designed in a way that it can deflect a blow and this reduce and disperce the velocity of the blow and avoid concentration of impact. In short a rounded pointy helmet will probably glance off a blow better than well, a helmet shaped like a bucket, unless its a very very well reinforced bucket which was likely the case of the famous sugarloaf helm, but even then that was often pointed at the top too.
Interestingly enough the reason why television were originally designed with a rounded screen, I KID YOU NOT, at least in the United Kingdom, was because the makers of televisions realized that people had a tendancy to throw things at their television, so by making the screen rounder it obviously would withstand a blow a lot more, infact believe it or not an older rounded screen tv will actually absorb a multitude of high impacts before eventually imploding. Interesting stuff.
But the same principle applies here, it's a combination of a hardened material, this being metal and a typically curved helmet shape in general that will make your head just a bit less of an easy target for an enemy weapon.
It is entirely possible to propose that the Germanic tribes were actually very organized when it came to warfare and their economic situation aka their lack of resources resulted in the development of a style of warfare that essentially made the most out of light equipment, for example the club, rather than seeming like a cheap desperation weapon, was simply a cost effective anti armor weapon that, as history has proven, could be used to take down cataphracts.
Perhaps Germans realized that clearer vision and superior mobility due to lighter equipment gave them an advantage over heavier armored foes that they couldn't really compete on equal terms with anyway in terms of heavy equipment, and therefore had a tendancy not to use helmets but in general, the helmet is a good piece of equipment and the Germanic people undoubtably started to make more and more helmets during the Migration Period.
It is I suppose slightly possible that at this time the Germans were undergoing maybe a process of becoming a little bit softer and maybe became more defencive in terms of their fighting philosophies, I mean, sliding under a horse and stabbing it at the last moment is pretty darned risky and is 100% ballsy. But I personally feel that their martial traditions would have been in tact and that all that had really changed was these people were opening up better trade routes and aquiring territories that gave them access to resources they had been needing all along and that is the reason why Germanic armor boomed later on.
Well hypothetically a good stone, well aimed with enough velocity could take down a cataphract, but what is probable and what is possible are two different things. The higher the skill level the more they can squeeze out of a resource, that is true, but in general your average joe Isn't usually a super and really would probably be much more comfortable with a good spear or a war hammer or a crossbow and maybe some decent armor than basically just some cotton trousers, a cloak and a sling.Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
If you were an expert at dodging, of course armor will lose its importence but most people aren't experts and really the more layers of security you wrap around a man the higher the chances will be that he will be secure in battle and be confident enough to fight to his fullest capacity.
I still want to see wolf hoods...Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
On the Tollund man, the guy's a lowly man, with probably not much in the way of wealth so I figure that is a civilian hat, not a helmet. However it does prove a point that they did make stuff out of rigid stitched leather, and it can be a good alternative to say, going bareheaded if we want variety.
Now, on the helmets. A few ancient examples:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polynaeus, Ch 8
And there's plenty more. I just figured it was easier to to steal from Zak :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Plutarch's Life of Camillus
You even have cases of pikemen in the 17th century, ditching a padded jacket or even a half-plate cuirass with tassels, because of the heat, and keeping their morrions.
oh yeah, like what? or does everything in the world get to fall into the category of your side of the argument because that's convenient? please DO cite those scientific studies or practical experiments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Theres a huge difference in helment technology between 270BC and 1600AD... I'm not saying medieval helmets are as useless, but you better believe that they aren't the same as anicent helmets, or were they just making crappy armor inbetween for fun?
Of course the Romans praise themselves for being defensive, that's nothing new, which includes attributing everything to their equipment. Now, I'd like to see a Celtic quote praising helmets in the same manner set during the EB era (not some late Irish account)... that would be much more convincing, since their ideology was based on heroic warfare and not equipment, so if they talked about it, it would actually mean something... otherwise, it's like using a information from a drunk about some type of alcohol, "Schnapps is the best" and then saying "aha! see he likes it"
Also, of course everybody uses things to their advantage, but that doesn't change what a thing is or how it's viewed by those people... Bows were not respected by the warrior class of the Germanics, besides being ineffective against armor, it was considered an unskilled weapon (a tool for practical use, rather than tool for war) like an axe and thus only the lowest classes used them, but that doesn't mean they weren't used... but to say that Germanics used bow and arrow, so thus they liked to use them, and that's completely wrong... it's just a matter of not being stupid enough to let the enemy have an easy advantage.
Sarcasm, you're right that Tollund man doesn't portray any kind of high quality leather helm, but as you said it proves they were used... very much unfortunately imo, in natual circumstances leather just doesn't remain to be found for modern archaeologists.
This is ridiculous to keep arguing further over... the question of WHY the Germanics didn't have helms in that period has been answered, but since I know some of you have to have the last word, go for it. I suppose we can find another topic to just endlessly argue over in circular logic, never giving ground, as the tradition seems to go...
I'd think it said a whole lot the Romans copied Celtic helmet designs you know. Clearly, the latter didn't exactly scorn the things. Indeed if one were to make a guess from the more extravagantly decorated designs, and the detail the otherwise butt naked Gaesatae apparently kept their helmets on if they possessed one, they attributed a fair bit of importance to the metal pots.
One-piece high-quality bronze helmets go back to at least the Assyrians, and the Mediterranean didn't lack behind too much. The Romans were copying quality one-piece iron types from the Celts already before the shift to Common Era. The economic problems of the Late Antiquity led to the adoption of the cheaper built-up "spangenhelm" type from the East, which remained the European norm until around the 1200s AD or so after which metallurgy was again up to the challenge of monolith helmets. They may have started using them a bit earlier somewhere East though.
The sheer popularity of some kind of head defense, if nothing more than thickly rolled cloth wrapped around the head or a simple leather cap, would seem to me to quite overwhelmingly suggest the warriors of old in general valued their noggins pretty highly, and as armour design and use is a rather Darwinian field for obvious reasons I'd think it were not exactly far-fetched to assume they had good reasons to insist on some head covering.
As for empiric evidence, I don't think there's exactly a shortage of head defenses with varying degrees of battle damage from archeological finds, from which a fair lot can be deduced. Neither is there any great shortage of references to the defensive qualities of helmets in diverse surviving writings AFAIK. And people have crafted as-faithful-to-original-as-now-possible replicas of different helmet designs, and destruction-tested them with similarly faithful replicas of period weapons (the usual, not surprising, finding being that the things are a pain and a half to get through even in far more optimum conditions than an actual battle allows). There was for example this one time this one master of a weird Japanese swordsmanship technique that basically consists of cutting objects tried to cut through an accurate replica of a Medieval Japanese kabuto helm (the things are of "spangenhelm" construction in Western terms). Well, he did actually manage to inflict a real breach on the thing, but had the helmet been on someone's head the blade would never have gotten even close to his skull before it ran out of momentum...
It was actually a common Medieval European trend from something like the late 1200s or so onwards to start making swords with increasingly acute points. The reason was quite simply that mail was getting increasingly common, and trying to cut it with a sword mostly just damages the edge. Heavy blows with heavy blades being a bit different story, which is why there developed the "sword of war", a rather large and heavy version of the straight cutting sword. For example I've seen references to a surviving fragment of a Hospitaller training manual that recommends using the edge to hurt and distract the opponent, so you can finish him off with a thrust.Quote:
Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking
The actual mechanic is that the tip slips into an individual ring and then tries to burst it from the inside; and as the only further rings that need to be broken or displaced for the weapon to sink deep, the narrower the blade the less resistance it encounters. Similar if slightly different considerations apply to penetrating any armour - the old "force focused on small area" thing. The ultimate battlefield expression of this principle, as swords go, were probably the estocs (known under a very bewildering array of names in different languages), which were basically long, narrow, stiff iron bars tapering to a point. Most had no edge at all. Being rather specialised (the German and Swedish names for this type of sword translate roughly as "armour sticker"), they were normally employed as special-purpose sidearms and not primary weapons.
Conversely the problem with a sword cut against armour is just its wide impact area (the same which makes it useful against flesh); the force of the blow is spread and diffused widely and thus forcing a breach at any one point is difficult, and even if it is managed a lot of energy is spent on breaking the armour progressively further away from where the initial penetration was achieved to allow the blade to progress deeper. Axes largely avoid this problem due to having a rather smaller edge area, and due to their deliberately tip-heavy design generally have rather more force behind it.
That's basically what I said, though the Idea was around well before the 1200's and is undoubtably a reaction to the rise in the apperence of mail on the battlefield.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Also the nature of chainmail being somewhat flexible and mobile in nature makes cutting it actually surprisingly difficult with just one or two hacks. It's much more logical to try and exploit the mechanics of chainmail by a good fine tipped thrust from a sword or spear that trying to hack it open.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Are not the elites of both Sweboz and Celt using the same equipment? Would they not have the mail coats,shields helmets and etc? Was it not mentioned of the TSA that they did indeed have such equipment? Wouldn't Ariovistus and his retainer's have the same equipment? If they have the same equipment why are the Celtic units better? Why are the Arjos (Arverni Guard) better and cheaper then the Gastiz and Hundaskapiz. For that matter why is the Hundaskapiz more expensive then the Gasitiz? (yes Im going by the cards again :wall: ) They guy who did the cards did a good job it's just hard to know the other things about the units that will make a difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Considering most of the battles in which the Celts and Roman took place were not based on individuals battling but groups of people battling shouldn't the ones who train as a unit and not an individual be better? You can see this in today's sports of teams of players who have lesser individual ability defeating those teams with greater individual skill because the first team plays as a team, while the second team does not(US "Dream Team" being defeated by a college team). The second team usually has its glory hounds and therefore the individual comes first the team is secondary. The Romans usually beat their opponents through discipline and tactics. You saying that a veteran or elite soldier produced by such system is not so much a better warrior as that much better a cog in the war machine - better able to carry out his orders and hold his nerve in the face of often quite extreme adversity, this is not all though.The experienced Roman soldier would be better at dispatching his enemies and would have learned to defend better, just as a veteran Celt or German would have.The Romans had their turn in rotation fighting on the front lines. Look at the exploits of the Legio X, these are the guys that were trying to tear the shields away from the Germans of Ariovistus, also the steadfast "brick wall" against others. The tenth was always the legion that pressed the battle through experience of working together and skill at arms. When the Sugambri attacked the Romans it was the veterans who banded together and fought their way through to safety, only to see 3 of their lesser experienced cohorts get annihilated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
The stats to me that are irrelevant in this is the cost and the number of soldiers in the unit. These should not be used as an excuse to make a unit more or less powerful in other areas. Cost should be used to balance things out. The attack, defense and morale(number of troops as well, but not to be used for balancing) on the other hand should be as historically accurate as possible. As far as the stats (again according to the cards) the Romans still end up on the lesser side, slightly less armor here, less morale there, less attack etc. Yes the stats are slight, but shouldn't they be in the Romans favor? If I'm wrong on the stats because of what I'm using please correct me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Strabo says that the Germans are like the Celts in almost every way except more ferocious. While this is not an author the Gauls of the time did say " the Germans were a race of huge stature, incredible courage and skill with weapons".Quote:
Originally Posted by Caratacos
These were the only ones of this era that I'm aware of though I do believe Caesar made some comparison of this sort.
Also there is this:
Goldsworthy “Caesar”-Throughout the Gallic campaigns German warriors consistently defeated their Gallic counterparts, each success adding to their fierce reputation. Pg.274 (sorry Redmeth, I know this is the 101st time)
Goldsworthy “Caesar” -“The tactics and the quality of the Germanic warriors usually gave them the edge over the Gaulish cavalry”. Pg 229
I agreeQuote:
Originally Posted by Caratacos
Stabo's Germans were largely Celtic, as we've discussed with the Belgians, ect. The Greeks and Romans did not clearly have any idea of the peoples of the Germanic language... I'm more concerned with adding style and art to the Germanics, which has been largely ignored/forsaken because there is hardly any evidence during the EB time period (they simply were not simple), but the Germans should get some AP boost on their clubs which might actually be a large deciding factor for German warrior vs armored Celts and Romans... some basic leather armor for the "Proven" Spearmen (Dugunthiz/Framaharjoz) is being discussed as well, since surely they would have protected (and we have evidence of hardened leather use) their standard and most numerous unit, the "hoplite" of Germanic warfare... the "Hundred" I am considering getting rid of completely, because it was mentioned solely by Tacitus and later mentioned only because of Tacitus' work, and AFAIK (since there it is not perserved in any tradition) it was just a levy system, not an actual troop type, for instance, why has that not survived into Dark Ages/Germanic medieval accounts if it was so important? There should be some trace but there isn't, other than the tax system in England which points again to a levy/tax numbering/accounting system, as well as simply liking the number "hundred." Also, what would be different from the "Hundred" unit? They would be Spearmen and not much different from Dugunthiz... that whole concept is better represented in other units, which would to an advantage make more room for something else... it doesn't even have it's own skin yet... my point being no worries on their cost if they are gone ~:) Although I will keep in mind that anything similar to the Hundred/Gastiz should be cheap in comparison of the Celtic ranks, but many of the factors are part of a system, such as trained units cost more, just like different weapons always have the same stats regardless of skill level.
Very nice discussion. I think that Celts are very well done. They need only more types of "normal" infantry like the Kludacori (I believe they were in Easter preview). Adding more "supersoldiers" like Cordinau Orca (may preview) is only trying of patience of Sweboz fans. :beam:
On the other hand Sweboz need some champions: some good cavalry and heavier units. It would be good to make a reform for them because celtic strong units are available very late (in my Aedui campain I am close to victory and can only dream about Time of soldiers and sweboz units are a bit stronger than my pre-soldiers age warriors).
And perhaps Germans could have wolf-hooded berserkers before the reform as a counterpart to gaesatae. :beam:
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Well I recently invented a "shape-strong" trait which will exist where the Family Member "thinks" they're a shapeshifter as a berserkr or wulf-skin ~:) but that's the closest we'll get to cult warriors (other than the regional Harii) because the idea that they'd be available commonly or in large groups was more of a Norse tradition, although they certainly existed cross-Indo-Europe in smaller less known circumstances. Think in terms of local bands of men or gangs, where it's kind of a small elite club of badass insane warriors rather than a fieldable troop selection used on a whole army-scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
Why not make them mercinaries or a unit that can only be recruited in certain areas or under certain religious conditions?
There may still be criticisms of the book but really, Speidel's Ancient Germanic Warriors still does give a fairly idiot proof list of potential units to be put into the the mod and could very well be used to solve the problem of Sweboz "underpowered" status.
Throughout this discussion one thing has become especially clear, the Germans were often very organized, very hardy, and it wasn't uncommon to see them fighting in a very disciplined way for example when Julius Caesar eventually expelled the Germanic ex-allied army though the Germans were the first to attack the fight was long lived and the second phase of the fight basically was up against an army adopting a more defencive strategy that once again, was a long fight that the Germans almost won, and even when the Romans won the fight the leader, Ariovistus had a small escape boat already set up to help him well....bugger off really, and though seemingly cowardly, does show a high degree of organization and planning.
Caesar himself did afterall point out that these men were highly disciplined.
My take on the situation, though I've probably said it before, is this, the Germans were highly tactical when it came to fighting, any notions of them being insane barbarians really have no grounding in fact, and in many ways one of the primary motivations of the Germans for becoming so tactical would have most likely been their lack of resources.
I propose that the creation of any new units for the Germanic factions should
not just be newly skinned units with alternate stats but actually set up and designed specifically to viewed as a tactical unit with a specific purpose in mind, as for implimenting these effectivly? thats a question of trial and error.
I've noticed that shield walls are possible with certain units that really didn't seem to be possible before so obviously you can edit the spacing of units, you can also make new animations for more complex fighting techniques and allowed these fighting techniques to be seen in all their glory.
One thing I would definitely like to see is Germanic horse stabber units with the required animations implimented (skidding to the ground and stabbing upwards) with the capacity to take down a horse if done correctly but also with a very high risk factor and lots of room forever, so that essentially what you have is, if high statused enough, you have something of a jack in the box unit that appears to be a lightly armed infantry type, the favorite targets of cavalry, that get lured into attacking them only to then have their horses gutted under them.
I'm not arguing that you guys can change the very nature of the game, but a few status tricks and a new group of animations could make this possible and look quite good, just a suggestion really.