Celtic elite units

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Two things about this.
1. The Gaesatae are outnumbered and have 60 while the Elite Thracian have 80.
2. Every time you are the Thracians the Gaesatae always try to run away to throw their javelins, where upon they take casualties. Try playing as the Gaesatae against the Thracian elites, you will win every time.

---

Yep I just tried and Gaesatae won but they took heavy punishment, but I think the Rhomphaiaorii look better value all round, anyway thats not the topic

Also, O/T but when "frighten enemy troops" is listed in description, do all frightening units have the same fear factor or are Gaesatae more morale-dropping than say cheapo Naked Spearmen?
They both have the same "frighten enemy infantry" description.

It's a fixed-effect unit trait, kind of the opposite of the "command" trait those Briton champion units have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runes

all the time people spend complaining could easily be spent changing one or two stats.

---

Yes that would be easy, and it would be easy just to let things go without responding. Figuring that I'm lazy because I don't go in and change stats wouldn't exactly be fair. If you look at the posts I make, most of them are backed up by academics, and that requires time and effort to do. Perhaps I made a mistake in figuring people on this forum were interested in this game being as historically accurate as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raphia

Frostwulf
Lighten up on the EB staff, they try very hard on this mod, this mod has taken many hours of the own free tiem to do. Lets all respect that

---

My hope would be that this wouldn't be taken personally by any of the EB staff as I have said that they have done an excellent job. When I respond to others I try not to be offensive, though I have failed at times. My posts are not intended to be attacks(though a few can be called that) but mostly to prove/disprove things. I noticed most the people tend to get angry with me, not for my demeanor but for the information I submit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runes

all the time people spend complaining could easily be spent changing one or two stats.

---

Fair enough, though I did figure that the purpose of most forums including this one was for the exchange of ideas.The idea of this mod. was to make this game more historical compared to the original game. Seeing as how my interest was on the historical aspect of this game I engaged in such an exchange of ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thaatu

The account that wikipedia gives describes Gaesatae as very different from the EB Gaesatae, especially the part about the small shields. They remind me more about Uirodusios. I wonder about other references to Gaesatae.

---

Ill explain this a little further in the post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spendios

It's very interesting to see that you are asking me to bring something constructive. And what about you ? I've browsed through all your posts and the EB minimod section but unfortunately I haven't found your corrected EDU with your corrected stats for celtic units.

Do you plan to do one so we can check how it works in game ?
I mean if the EB celtic stats are so calamitous (and that's globally what 100% of your posts are telling) you are free to propose other ones.

---

Nope I don't plan on posting one.The items I brought to the table is historical information and some suggestions on some units as well as a unit to be added.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spendios

It seems that you are happy to post quotes of authors but never translate them in RTW stats. Can you give me the reason ? If you were so concerned about the stats you would surely change them right ? Or maybe you just want to complain, criticize but don't do any work ?

---

Not many would be interested in my view on what the stats would be, as shown by most of the responses I get. I have already explained above my reasons for posting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spendios

Please prove me that I'm wrong and post your code of celtic units stats and not the account of Telamon battle for the 15th time.

---

If you think I'm wrong, then show me how. You seem to think that research is not a problem and I'm being lazy because I didn't edit the Edu. So Ill throw it back in your corner, do some research and prove me wrong. Contrary to what you would like to believe there are those who do appreciate the effort I put into the historical aspect of the game. If you don't like what I write try to disprove it or ignore it, there is no reason to be rude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paullus

The situation at Telamon and at Mount __ may be quite similar. Given that, we would be mistaken to attribute to the Gaesatae poor combat ability: rather, we would understand them as a more formidable close combat opponent than most of the other armies that the Romans faced.

---

This is an interesting situation, thank you for mentioning it. As far as the Gaesatae if we went strictly with Telamon we wouldn't know how good/poor they would be. Something else to take into consideration:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polybius

the Celts in the rear ranks indeed were well protected by their trousers and cloaks, 2 but it fell out far otherwise than they had expected with the naked men in front

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paullus

another common feature to the three examples is a defensive enemy occupying an uphill sloped position. I'm not sure if there are comparable examples of that particular feature in which the Romans opted for hand-to-hand combat. Anyone else know?

---

At Telamon there was a hill that was contested, the Romans ended up taking it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

Frostwulf,

please carefully read Watchman's last post.

In EB I always shred the Gaesatae with missile troops, skirmishers, and other light infantry. You must stay flexible, take care not to become decisively engaged with them, and give them a clear direction to route. I've never really had a problem with handling them in the open. You may try adjusting your battle tactics?

---

My discussion was more of the historical abilities of the Gaesatae then the game version, but I thank you for your advice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Retreat ? The heck you're talking about ? At Telamon the Celts were trapped between two Roman armies; they weren't going to retreat anywhere.

---

I should have explained it better:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polybius

4 At length, unable to drive off the javelineers owing to the distance and the hail of javelins, and reduced to the utmost distress and perplexity, some of them, in their impotent rage, rushed wildly on the enemy and sacrificed their lives, while others, retreating step by step on the ranks of their comrades, threw them into disorder by their display of faint-heartedness.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

That seeing as how they were done in by skirmishers already before there was any infantry fighting Telamon makes for some damned poor clues as to their effectiveness in their actual job, ie. close combat.

Sort of like if you were deeming the Republican legions to be crap based on the singular example of Cannae. See the problem inherent in the assessement.

---

I agree with you on this. My point being that if you only with Telamon how could you justify the stats of the Gaesatae? But as you have already said you can't, which I agree with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

..so they're both using it as a catchall term for Transalpine mercenaries, and in the case of Clastidum Plutarch for some reason seems to talk about them as if they were an actual kingdom/tribe ("king of the Gaesatae"; one would logically presume that to be a particularly high-ranking and influental member of the mercenary army who had been made its de facto commander).

---

Some of the ancient authors were not sure if they were a tribe or mercenaries. But as far as a king, it would be their leader. So your presumption would be correct in my understanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Again, I direct your attention to the little detail neither author says one word of any naked warriors - and given the impression that fighting tradition seems to have generally made on the Romans it is hard to believe they and their sources would just have passed over the matter had such been present.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polybius

7 The Insubres and Boii wore their trousers and light cloaks, 8 but the Gaesatae had discarded these garments owing to their proud confidence in themselves, and stood naked, with nothing but their arms, in front of the whole army, thinking that thus they would be more efficient, as some of the ground was overgrown with bramblesa which would catch in their clothes and impede the use of their weapons

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polybius

7 Very terrifying too were the appearance and the gestures of the naked warriors in front, 8 all in the prime of life, and finely built men, and all in the leading companies richly adorned with gold torques and armlets. 9 The sight of them indeed dismayed the Romans, but at the same time the prospect of winning such spoils made them twice as keen for the fight. 30 But when the javelineers advanced, as is their usage, from the ranks of the Roman legions and began to hurl their javelins in well-aimed volleys, the Celts in the rear ranks indeed were well protected by their trousers and cloaks, 2 but it fell out far otherwise than they had expected with the naked men in front, and they found themselves in a very difficult and helpless predicament. 3 For the Gaulish shield does not cover the whole body; so that their nakedness was a disadvantage, and the bigger they were5 the better chance had the missiles of going home.

---

Book 2 29(7-9)-30(1-3)
There is this foot-note:

5 so that their nakedness was a disadvantage, and the bigger they were. . .: Literally "so that the more naked and the bigger they were. . ."

As far as the shield, it doesn't cover the whole body.
Polybius goes on to describe what happened at Clastidium and Mediolanum in which the above mentioned Gaesatae played a part.

This link leads to Polybius:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...ius/2*.html#21

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paullus

A note on reading sources:

I'll just point out one thing about Telamon and a similar Roman-Galatian battle at Mount (is it called Olympus in Livy?) under Titus Manlius. In both cases large contingents of nude Galatian warriors faced a Roman army, which contrary to its traditional culture of warfare decided to engage in a prolonged missile exchange. There are very few other examples of a Roman army sitting back and letting missile troops do so much of the hard work against another "hand-to-hand" opponent (the Seleukid phalanx at Magnesia is the only example coming to mind at the moment). This implies that there was something particular about the troops opposed to the Romans at those engagements. In the case of Magnesia, as our non-nude-Celtic-warrior example, concern about facing a cohesive and dangerous enemy led Romans to consider discretion the better part of valor. The situation at Telamon and at Mount __ may be quite similar. Given that, we would be mistaken to attribute to the Gaesatae poor combat ability: rather, we would understand them as a more formidable close combat opponent than most of the other armies that the Romans faced.

edit: another common feature to the three examples is a defensive enemy occupying an uphill sloped position. I'm not sure if there are comparable examples of that particular feature in which the Romans opted for hand-to-hand combat. Anyone else know?

---

First, I have to honestly congratulate you on being an actual member of the EB team that comes forth with a source or battle and some information on why something is the way it is. Thats uncommon from what I've seen despite the fans repeatedly asking for information and sources and things like that.

You make a good point. The naked warriors that were fought in Galatia do not remind me of Gaesatae though. It mentioned the slings, javelins, rocks, etc...taking terrible toll on them. If they were drugged, the account should have mentioned those missiles doing very little in terms of damage to some of them IMHO.

Something kinda funny about that section of Livy is how the Romans viewed their defeat of Antiochus as something wonderful, but the Asians viewed their defeat of the Galatians as even better. An excerpt:

...During this winter Cn. Manlius, who was passing the season in Asia first as consul and then as proconsul, was visited by deputations from all the cities and nationalities west of the Taurus. Whilst the Romans regarded their victory over Antiochus as a more notable one than their subsequent victory over the Gauls, their Asiatic allies rejoiced more over the latter than the former. Subjection to the king was a much easier thing to bear than the ferocity of the ruthless barbarians and the terror which haunted them from one day to another, for they never knew in what direction that ferocity might sweep them like a storm upon plundering and devastating raids. They had regained their liberty through the repulse of Antiochus and their peace through the subjugation of the Gauls, and now they brought to the consul not only their congratulations and thanks but also golden crowns, each according to their ability...


If anyone wants to read about this account, let me open the door of perceived elitist academic knowledge and provide a useful link for the fans that want something substantial to chew on:

This link leads to Livy
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Livy/Livy38.html

Livy's account of the Galatians and the Romans, plus some other goodies.

Draw your own conclusions...

Frostwulf


Looks like Paton's translation of Polybius’ Histories, chapter 29, book 2, line 7-9.

ᾇεκπλὑκτικὑ δ᾿ ὑν και τὀν γυμνὀν προεστὀτὀν ανδρὀν ηὑ τ᾿ επιπηανεια και κινὑσισ· ηὀσ αν διαπηεροντὀν ταισ ακμαισ και τοισ ειδεσι, παντεσ δ᾿ ηοι τασ πρὀτασ κατεψηοντεσ σπειρασ ψηρυσοισ μανιακαισ και περιψηειροισ ὑσαν κατακεκοσμὑμενοι, προσ ηα βλεποντεσ ηοι Ρηὀμαιοι τα μεν εχεπλὑττοντο· τα δ᾿ ηυπο τὑσ του λυσιτελουσ ελπιδοσ αγομενοι διπλασιὀσ παρὀχυνοντο προσ τον


my rendering

Shocking were the gestures and gyrations of unclad warriors in the front ranks, upon which were expressed chiseled-forms, and foremost amongst these men were sowed those wearing only gold torcs and armlets. The Romans whom witnessed this were unnerved by the commotion, yet spurred on to action by redoubled expectations of the plunder due.

The Paton Translation

Very terrifying too were the appearance and the gestures of the naked warriors in front, all in the prime of life, and finely built men, and all in the leading companies richly adorned with gold torques and armlets. 9 The sight of them indeed dismayed the Romans, but at the same time the prospect of winning such spoils made them twice as keen for the fight.

The E. S. Shuckburgh Translation

Not less terrifying was the appearance and rapid movement of the naked warriors in the van, which indicated men in the prime of their strength and beauty: while all the warriors in the front ranks were richly adorned with gold necklaces and bracelets. These sights certainly dismayed the Romans; still the hope they gave of a profitable victory redoubled their eagerness for the battle.

There are some problems with the Paton translation (too many words unrelated to the text). It may prove little help to cite Polybius if the translation is not that good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

At Telamon there was a hill that was contested, the Romans ended up taking it.

---

...which was a cavalry action, what now the Celts also mixed in some light infantry for support. A not unusual practice those days, but in any case all that tells us is what the cavalry of the Romans and their allies could do on a good day.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polybius

7 The Insubres and Boii wore their trousers and light cloaks, 8 but the Gaesatae had discarded these garments owing to their proud confidence in themselves, and stood naked, with nothing but their arms, in front of the whole army, thinking that thus they would be more efficient, as some of the ground was overgrown with bramblesa which would catch in their clothes and impede the use of their weapons
---
7 Very terrifying too were the appearance and the gestures of the naked warriors in front, 8 all in the prime of life, and finely built men, and all in the leading companies richly adorned with gold torques and armlets. 9 The sight of them indeed dismayed the Romans, but at the same time the prospect of winning such spoils made them twice as keen for the fight. 30 But when the javelineers advanced, as is their usage, from the ranks of the Roman legions and began to hurl their javelins in well-aimed volleys, the Celts in the rear ranks indeed were well protected by their trousers and cloaks, 2 but it fell out far otherwise than they had expected with the naked men in front, and they found themselves in a very difficult and helpless predicament. 3 For the Gaulish shield does not cover the whole body; so that their nakedness was a disadvantage, and the bigger they were5 the better chance had the missiles of going home.

---

Book 2 29(7-9)-30(1-3)
There is this foot-note:

5 so that their nakedness was a disadvantage, and the bigger they were. . .: Literally "so that the more naked and the bigger they were. . ."

As far as the shield, it doesn't cover the whole body.
Polybius goes on to describe what happened at Clastidium and Mediolanum in which the above mentioned Gaesatae played a part.

This link leads to Polybius:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...ius/2*.html#21

---

...and unless I'm completely mistaken all that is talking about Telamon, whereas I was referring to Clastidum and Medionalum where the term "Gaesatae" is used but no naked warriors are described...

Was the term Gaesatae literally used in Roman writings? If so I'd have thought that's some indication of the impact they made.

AFAIK Gaesatae was also a named used for a whole tribe, now some of the warriors in this tribe fought naked and then a small part of the naked ones are the Gaesatae of EB.

So the accounts can get confusing when comparing it to EB directly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

..and unless I'm completely mistaken all that is talking about Telamon, whereas I was referring to Clastidum and Medionalum where the term "Gaesatae" is used but no naked warriors are described...

---

You are not mistaken. My point being that Polybius was familiar with who the Gaesatae were. He mentions them at Telamon and again at Clastidum and Medionalum, they are the same type of mercenaries. Cowan,Montagu, and others state something to that effect. Connoly puts it something like this "Gaesatae the naked guys" when referring to Clastidum and Medionalum after talking about them at Telamon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redmeth

AFAIK Gaesatae was also a named used for a whole tribe, now some of the warriors in this tribe fought naked and then a small part of the naked ones are the Gaesatae of EB.

---

V.Kruta had mentioned something to that effect with the Gaesatae may have been confused with the Allobroges, is that the same thing your talking about?

No, I don't think he does.

The Gaesatae, from what I've been explained, were as much as a religious order as a tribe. Let me try and find a somewhat analogous situation...

Ah, the Teutonic Order, for example. They were a religious order as much as kingdom disguised as the former. It depended on a larger "Empire" for which they could fight, not to mention they could side with similar thinking forces (in this case other Christians; a broad kind sense of common identity). They had their knights (the Gaesatae would have their elite naked front-rankers) as well as an assortment of allied and dependent contingents (the remainder of the "Gaesatae" force).

It's also worthy of note that the Teutonics were something that terrified children at night, in Lithuania and they still got beat. Numerous times. On catastrophic proportions. Did that make them any less formidable?

Good points on tribal/army compostion.

Still, the lack of evidence either way, victory or defeat is lacking in reference amount and content, nothing from which we might gain any true perspective on who they might have been.

I, for the record, love the unit because it is berserkr :grin: similarly as i love all hardcore heroism, manliness at its finest. I just cannot seem to find any information that would lead to conclusive evidence saying this or that, but many have some great points! Please enlighten us, if anyone has evidence unmentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

No, I don't think he does.

The Gaesatae, from what I've been explained, were as much as a religious order as a tribe. Let me try and find a somewhat analogous situation...

---

I like the analogy but I don't think it applies here. From the multiple authors I have read they say pretty much the same thing, the ones from Telamon are the same type from Clastidum and Medionalum. None including Polybius or Plutarch say anything about what your describing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

It's also worthy of note that the Teutonics were something that terrified children at night, in Lithuania and they still got beat. Numerous times. On catastrophic proportions. Did that make them any less formidable?

---

Another good point. The difference I believe is that the Teutonic Knights had many victories while the Gaesatae may(they were there but don't know if they participated) have had one victory(which they outnumbered the Romans) with 3 defeats. If you look at the situations the Gaesatae performed poorly where the Teutonic Knights varied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

If you wouldn't mind could you put down where you received your information, I would like to find as much as I can about this.
I, for the record, love the unit because it is berserkr similarly as i love all hardcore heroism, manliness at its finest. I just cannot seem to find any information that would lead to conclusive evidence saying this or that, but many have some great points! Please enlighten us, if anyone has evidence unmentioned.

---

It would be nice if a 12 man unit would be useful, then you could have "real" berserker's. Wonder if your trait that you gave some of the Sweboz leaders could come with the 12 berserker bodyguard.:beam:
I second what you say, any information benefits all.

Often, the important thing is not, knowing where to look, rather its, what to look for. I had to actually dig these books up out of my extensive library, then I relocated some of them here.

For a brief overview of the subject under discussion please see below.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Note: the link is below.

Title: The Celts

Please find the TOC and read the following from the, The First Historical Expansion Fourth Century B.C. section for a well-rounded overview of the available background material. This includes a brief overview of the Celt domination of northern Italy and the Roman conquest.

Kruta, Venceslas
The First Celt Expansion: Prehistory to History.

Pauli, Ludwig
The Alps at the Time of the First Celtic Migrations.

Vitali, Daniele
The Celts in Italy

Charpty, Jean-Jacques
The Champagne Region under Celtic Rule during the Fourth and Third Centuries BC.

Joachim, Hans-Eckart
The Rhineland.

Uenze, Hans-Peter
Bavaria.

Sankot, Pavel
Bohemia.

Next, read all of the The Age of the Warriors, Third Century B.C. section.

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=62941063

Note: the link is below.

Title: Celts and the Classical World

Read all.

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103475919

Note: no link.

Title: Gallia Narbonensis: Southern Gaul in Roman Times

Read all.

I've several others, but they're written in either German, French, or Italian.