Quote:
Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking
1)It wasn't really a civil war as it was a war between seperate polticial entities, only on the cultural and possibly semi-Ethnic level was it a civil war, and even then possibly not.
I agree with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking
2)There was indeed a power struggle for a sort of centralization attempt in Gaul at the time, this had exhausted forces on both sides of the war, which is why they ultimatly started to bring in foriegners which was for them a major mistake and an all too common one in the history of Civilization.
To this I will put what Simon James said(yes I know I have put this quote down multiple times).
Quote:
Simon James "The World of the Celts"-" The complex web of clientage and alliance which Caesar reveals in Gaul was largely based on the outcome of frequent wars. The theater of combat was where many personal and tribal relations were tested, broken and forged. We may suppose conflicts ranged from great wars associated with migrations of whole peoples to mere brigandage, inter-family feuds, and cattle raids by individual warriors seeking quick wealth and prestige. Probably most Celtic warfare was on a small scale, involving no more then a few score men on each side. The population was growing and states were developing in late Iron age Gaul, and this may have led to an increase in the scale of warfare. But it is clear that the vast armies commanded by Vercingetorix and others were assemble only as a response to the great threat from Rome (p.127). In fact, Rome changed the very rules of Celtic warfare, bringing large armies into an area where, internally at least, they may have been much rarer before. Certainly, the Gaul described and conquered by Caesar showed no signs of exhaustion by internal wars-it was a rich and prosperous land-so means were evidently found for limiting the damage war could cause. Caesar says that the Druids were involved in disputes and in the decision to wage war, providing some evidence for the existence of limiting social mechanisms. War did not threaten the fabric of society as a whole, even if the fortunes of the individual clans and tribes did wax and wane. It would be probably also be wrong to think that love of war was confined to the nobility, at the expense of the suffering of a pacifist peasantry: admiration for the warrior ethic appears to have been general, and was not restricted to men either (see box). Violence was endemic, but sufficiently intermittent for most people to get on with their lives successfully most of the time: warlike display was at least as important as actual fighting." pg. 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking
3)Julius Caesar was as skilled a general as he was a politician, the Romans were experts at dipolamacy, alliances making and alliance breaking, this contriubted to the conquest of Gaul.
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking
4)Though it is most likely that at one point some Germanic peoples had been under the administrative control of a Celtic elite, which isn't that far fetched as Celtic culture, especially in terms of weapons technology was extremely successful and far ranging,
This is certainly a possibility though I know of no historians who have said something of this nature. Most talk of trade, loan words and etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking
as for whether or not Ariovistus, if he had not conflicted with Caesar would have dominated Gaul?
There was 2 authors I read that said that it was a possibility, I can't recall who they were though. I can try to find out and put down their quotes. I do think your reasoning is fair, and the authors really didn't (to my recollection) say as to how or why Ariovistus would have conquered Gaul(most of?).
Quote:
Caesar-"The Gallic War"-" Nor did he suppose that the barbarians so fierce would stop short after seizing the whole of Gaul; but rather, like the Cimbri and Teutoni before them, they would break forth into the Province, and push on thence into Italy, especially as thre wa but the Rhone to separate the Sequani from the Roman Province. Book 1, 33
Whether he truly believed Ariovistus could conquer Gaul is unknown, he may have been using this for an excuse(most likely) to attack the Germans. For Ariovistus to conquer all of Gaul he would have needed more numbers which he may have had access to, especially if he continued to be successful in battle.
The Celtic response to the Cimbri(whether they were Celtic or German, though they were possibly a mixture of both be it ethnic, linguistic or cultural) is what sort of motivates my opinion here as many Celtic tribes seemed to be totally capable of repelling the Cimbri from their lands, the nature of the old Celtic way of life probably was a bit more self sufficient and geard for warfare than the later.[/quote]My guess is that the Cimbri were a Germanic tribe but had large amounts of 'Celts' with them. As far as the Gauls being able to repel the Cimbri:
Quote:
Caesar-"The Gallic War"-" The Belgae, they said, were the only nation who, when all Gaul was harassed in the last generation, had prevented the Teutoni and Cimbri from entering within their borders; and for this cause they relied on the remembrance of those events to assume great authority and great airs in military matters". Book 2, 4
Caesar talking about Ariovistus.
Quote:
Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"What, then, is my counsel? To do what our forefather did in the war, in no wise equal to this, with the Cimbri and Teutones. They shut themselves into the towns, and under stress of a like scarcity sustained life on the bodies of those whose age showed them useless for war, and delivered not themselves to the enemy." Book 7, 77
At the council of war in the land of the Aedui, from the speech of Critognatus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking
5)The decline in use of hill forts, and a less aggressive view of foriegners probably made their decline more likely, Caesar himself says that the Gauls had become quite soft whereas groups like the Belgae who were not unfamiliar with regular warfare, were much more up for a fight, the resserection of Celtic aggressive attitudes for the Gauls seems to have come too little too late.
The neighbors were still aggressive as alliances continually shifted; the hillforts came in disuse because of urbanization. The interpretation of soft(to my recollection) is more akin to civilized then it is in martial ability. The Gauls still continued their raiding traditions and small battles as shown in Cicero's writings and the battles(skirmishes) over the trade rights of the Saone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking
6)The fact that the Cimbri really, for a lack of better words, gave the Romans some very firm defeats forced the Romans, or perhaps we should say, Marius, to revise and reform the Roman military, this reformation was successful, and turned the Romans into arguable the premiere fighting people of earth at least in terms of military consistency, which contributed to their successes in Gaul and against the Germans(though the Armies of Ariovistus were arguably a total match for the Romans, being technically professional, organized in Germanic fashion, well equipped from their conquest and successes and well experienced, perhaps this being one of the most vital factors).
I agree with this, but you have to remember the semi-conscript armies of the Romans were still defeating the Celtic armies prior to Marius, and they were the majority of the times outnumbered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking
7)Roman society, possibly as a result of georgraphical location had been almost in a constant state of warfare, they had suffered horrendous defeats and they had attain extremely amazing victories, their very survival depended on their capacity to fight viciously, ruthlessly and efficiently, and by the time of the Gallic wars, they were definitely seasoned experts in war economy, organization, they had land, men and resources to draw from, so really, they were a major force to be reckoned with.
I agree with this, and yet when this situation is applied to Gaul, the whole or majority of their warriors are claimed to be wiped out, hence the reason they lost to the Romans or Germans. The wars that happened in Italy were for the most part large scale battles, not the skirmishes and smaller battles that took place in Gaul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Power2the1
The overall idea iirc is that the constant infighting in Gaul coupled with this "civil war" type atmosphere between the Aedui and allies vs. the Arverni/Sequani and allies helped contributed to the Arverni/Sequani looking to the Germans and their warriros for help. One of the main argument is that Germanic help would not have been needed at all were the Gallic military alive and well.
Again as pointed out by James,Goldsworthy,Kahn etc. the "wars" here were meant more as a means of demoralizing the enemy, not the slaughter of them. By this they could incorporate them into their system of clientage and become more powerful. The Germans as Kahn had said were to bolster the weaker Sequani, but things change as Ariovistus had more intentions then being a mercenary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Power2the1
Heres an interesting tidbit from the book The Celts (A History) by Daithi O'Hogain p. 138-139:
Just so you know I do appreciate you coming up with these quotes, whether I agree or disagree its nice to see something other then just supposition.
I was going to read O'Hogain until I read his credentials(Not necessary a bad thing, he is an Associate Professor of Irish Folklore at University College Dublin) and peer reviews( mostly from Nicholas Thorpe).
Quote:
There was, of course, little the Celts in Cisalpine Gaul could do, and Transalpine Gaul was at the same time being seized with a panic of insecurity. This derived largely from the Roman threat, which was giving rise to civil wars between the inhabitants of that region. The Aedui had begun to challenge the weakened Arverni and their allies, the Sequani, and around 71 B.C. these two tribes brought in some Germanic mercenaries to assist them. The result was that the king of the Germanic Seubi, Ariovistus, got a foothold among the Sequani, who came more and more under his control. He occupied all their towns, and began to settle large numbers of Germans in their territory.
The Arverni and their clientage were weakened because of the massive loss to the Romans. When the Aedui start challenging the Arverni, it was business as usual as James,Goldworthy, Khan and etc. describe. He uses the term civil wars which is about as much sense as saying the Greek civil wars between Athens, Sparta, etc. during the 4-5th century.
Other then the term civil war I have no problem with what he says.
Quote:
The Aedui mustered as many of their neighbors as they could, and spearheaded resistance against Ariovistus. In 61 B.C., however, Arivistus scored a massive victory over a united force of several Celtic tribes at Admagetobriga (In Alcase), after which he began to penetrate further into Celtic territories in Switzerland and eastern France. He now demanded as hostages the children of the Gaulish leaders, and began to issue commands to thee leaders at will. Refusal to obey these commands resulted in torture or death. The Aedui, who he saw as the major stumbling block to his ambitions, had lost many of their best warriors and virtually the whole of their national council. In their hour of desperation, one of the leaders of the Aedui, Divicaicus, went to Rome requesting aid against the Germans, reminding them of the alliance contracted between them two generations before and promising that his tribe would be loyal to the Roman interest. The wolf was at the door, and Celtic Gaul was beginning to doubt its own resources for survival.
Yes Caesar mentions that Diviciacus spoke of losing "all of our nobility, our senate, and our knights.
Quote:
Caesar-"The Gallic War"-" With them the Aedui and their dependents have repeatedly fought in battle: defeat has brought great disaster, the loss of all our nobility, our senate, and our knights. It is these battles and disasters that have broken the men who by their own valour, and by the courtesy and friendship of Rome, were formerly paramount in Gaul,....Book 1, 31
This defeat and loss was due to the Germans. I believe it was this external influence which caused such a loss as it didn't follow the standard inner tribal Celtic way of battle. It would be the same as with the Romans a few years later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenrhyl
As far as civil war between gauls goes, recent archeological findings point towards constant fights in ancient gaul. This, and the writings of caesar, tend to prove that global fighting was the rule in Gaul from the 2nd century BC to the roman conquest.
I don't think anyone doubts the constant fighting between the different factions. What is in doubt is to the level of these fights. Every author to date which I have read says they were small scale, therefore it goes against the idea that the warrior class was wiped out. Caesar writes of plenty of warriors in his book.
Quote:
Adrian Goldsworthy-“The Roman Army at War 100BC-AD200"- Despite the formal institutions of government, the influence of individual nobles tended to dominate the politics of the tribe. These might posses personally both cattle and, most of all, land. As among the Germans, prestige was measured in the size of retinues (BG6.15). Again recruitment seems to have included men from outside the tribe. Caesar frequently refers to wandering warriors seeking employment, who may not in Gallic society have been seen as the robbers and vagabonds that he described (e.g. BG 7.4, 8.30). At least in some instances the followers may have been bound to the noble by an oath of loyalty which demanded that they should not outlive him, as with king Adiatuanus of the Aquitani and his 600 soldurii. Little is known of the nature of this relationship, for instance whether it was common throughout Gaul or merely a local phenomenon.” pg.54
