The hundakapiz will use 2 handed celtic long shword.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dago
Printable View
The hundakapiz will use 2 handed celtic long shword.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dago
Ridoharjoz rode small germanic horses - the feet of the warriors often reached the ground.
Athalingoz had access to better horses. Also romans often equipped them with good horses as the germanics were highly praised mercenaries, who usually came on top gallic cavalry in battles.
Vercingetorix learned a bitter lesson this way.
I guest that was the last question for now, thanks a lot SaFe.
It really isn't very easy to find proper information about germanics in 3th century
Bc.
Will they be something like the celtic champions?Quote:
Originally Posted by alin
similar but not the same. They were used for special tactical purposes too, but yes they were usual the best hundred warriors of a Gawjam(district)
just post the damn screenie!!!
~;)
Do you have ever seen Aymar's whip?
If you would have seen it you would not ask me to post the screens ~;)
Perhaps if you ask real nice, Aymar is willing to show you the Gaizaharjoz before the open beta...
i can already guess his respons, and is the beta ThAt close?
I was wondering how the distinction between Germans and Celts will be expressed in the mod. Are they different cultures? Can they recruit each other's units?Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
I don't know very much about this part of history, but I understand it hard to distinguish between the two groups, so I was wondering what EB's take on this is.
It seems the threat of the whip only causes excitment in this one. He is probably an SM fan. I'll have to sharpen my falcata instead. :devil:Quote:
Originally Posted by jerby
No. They were different cultures although technological wise Celts did influenced Germanic tribes a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
Well, Ranika, Psycho and SaFe can explain better but they were easy to distiguish not only by their religion, languages or looks but by their own social life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
i recall vaguely (a long time since i read it) Caesar launching his german horses on the gauls after their cavalry tried to ambush the legions in march order, the gauls had been repulsed and were desorganized when the germans stroke...Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
And at Alesia when they were busy assaulting the fortifications (and probably disorganised too, maybe dismounted considering the situation). That speak a lot about Caesar's tactical sense and units control, not that much about intrinsic superiority of the germanic horsemen. By the way he used them only because his gallic allies betrayed him and he was left without enough cavalry support.
I don't doubt they were good troops, if Caesar praised them there must have been a reason, but i doubt they were necessarily superior to gallic cavalry.
They were superior. Gallic cavalry were unreliable in comparison to germanic one.
Ariovist conquered the lands of the aedui thanks to his cavalry tactics too.
Not to say gallic cavalry was worse, but normally germanic cavalry came on top.
Later - in the wars of Caesar Germanicus against the germanic tribes under Arminius his soldiers were short of revolt, because their superiors wanted to sent the batavian auxiliary horsemen away (fear of treason).
Also there is a interesting part of the Tencterii and their rooting of Caesar's gallic cavalry.
yeah, whips suck, and falacat's rule!Quote:
Originally Posted by Aymar de Bois Mauri
but seriously, i'm just curious
Ok here you go:Quote:
Originally Posted by jerby
https://img114.imageshack.us/img114/3512/79oh.jpg
THAT was evil Alin ~;)
argh...thats mean...and it doesnt even have a weapon..
ah don't worry, you'll see it soon...trust me ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by jerby
What is that unit you have posted? I`ve zoomed it to the max, can`t see much but this is better than nothing. ~:)
Finally someone who doesn't coplain~:), it the gaizaz harjoz that Safe was talking about and wich it's he's favourite german unit but not also mine. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dago
My memory fail me (or i never memorized it lol), i can't remember, could you please give some details ? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
Caesar's de bello gallico.
He said:
"Meantime I sent orders to the officers who had gone on in front with all the cavalry telling them not to attack the enemy, and if attacked themselves, to hold out until I approached with the main body of the army. Our cavalry force was 5,000 strong, whereas the enemy's numbered no more than 800 because those who had crossed the Meuse in search of provisions had not yet returned.
However, the Germans charged our force as soon as it came into view.[9] Our men, who were not expecting trouble from the enemy, because their envoys had only just left me and had asked for a truce for that day, were quickly thrown into confusion. But when they fought back once more, the enemy, following their usual practice, jumped down and unseated a number of our men by stabbing their horses in the belly. The rest they put to flight, driving them on in such panic, that they did not stop until they came into sight of our marching column."
The cavalry of J.C. were mainly gallic auxiliaries.
There are much better descriptions of this cavalry clash, but this is the one that naturally comes to my mind.
As always the numbers 800 vs. 5000 are too high:-)
But Caesar is known for slightly changing numbers...
How in the world are we supposed to pronounce those crazy proto-Germanic names?!? Can this mod at least include a simplified name for us simple people who aren't linguistics experts (like me)? ~;)
Why do you need to pronounce it? Are you going to be talking to your computer, ordering the Ridon Harjaz into battle?
Don't worry, we will have pronunciation guides.
Don't pretend you wouldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
oh yeah..i scream, shout, curse..the whole nine yards..i order it to do stuff..and when it doesnt..i repeat the screaming shouting and cursing...
that's why i'm not gonna play 'barbarians'. hastati, princepes, triarii. are beter pronounceable than ANY sweboz unit..
btw, i know CA even nerved pronouncing triariai..but i had a few latin classes ~;) at least more lessons latin than ancients gallic.
Ah they you don't deserve to show you the screenie you requested and we wanted to do this at the end of th day but now you blow that chance away. ~;)
Celts and Germans were extremely culturally distinct; Germans adopted a lot of Celtic pieces of equipment, but you would readily be able to tell a Germanic force from a Celtic one, in terms of many things; standard bearers, chariots, heavy cavalry, etc. Chariots particularly stand out, but they also fought differently, and used many different weapons; Gallic Celts in this period did not use axes, for example, and the Germans didn't use chariots. Heavy infantry would look different; size and organization would be different. Further, you have traditions that would come from their religions. Celts collected heads for religious reasons; despite misconception, they weren't trophies (or weren't JUST trophies). Their important aspect is that they were a religious relic, and Celts took it very seriously. They would collect heads from the dead and dying during lulls in battle. The reverence given to the head was very strong; even in post-Christian Ireland and early Alba, where Gallic and British Celtic culture was actually a minority influence compared to Galaecian-Iberian culture, their still existed an outgrowth of the cult of the human head; the Irish and early Scots still collected heads of their enemies, and explained it was because the soul of man resided in the head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
Technologically, Celts were superior; produced large amounts of chain, long iron swords, performed complicated surgeries, and had an understanding of chemical processes. They were religiously rather advanced compared to many cultures; when others were still worshipping idols, Celts determined that physical objects and things could not be gods, except for the possible incarnation of a god. It is misconcieved by many that Celts worshipped trees; Celts believed certain trees and other things were sacred, and venerated and protected them, but they didn't worship them. Similar practices occur in all religions; just determining something is sacred does not mean one worships it. Celtic temples are generally rather 'no frills'; from what can be determined, they generally had a votive pool or ritual bath, metallic plates depicting common practices, and an altar; there were probably other things, of course, but that seems to the bulwark of what a Celtic temple consisted of.
In social life, Celts were a comparatively welcoming people. Despite a very brutal, even sometimes xenophobic approach to war, many Celts were actually fairly warm toward outsiders during peace. They liked to trade, discuss politics, philosophy, music, sports. They were very 'normal' people day to day, and one modern people can, in many respects, relate to; but that can be said of a lot of ancient people. People seem to assume many ancient cultures were dirt-farming inbred idiots, but they were pretty much like we are now, but less technologically advanced (in some respects; we've lost quite a bit we still haven't got back; in respect to Celts, we've lost the ability to make certain things, such as cultivate a type of grain from Celtic Britain which is substantially healthier than grain we produce now) and with different social concerns due to religion and general philosophy of the day. Celts were a very clean people; filth was unacceptable. A notable point of that is, when Brennos sacked Rome, he accepted a ransom and left because the stench of the city nauseated him and disgusted his men. Celts developed a number of types of soap from lye, as well as compounds to remove body hair, and other methods of keeping their bodies clean. Despite being a very real warrior-hero culture, they led fairly peaceful private lives. The common entertainment for most was sporting events; Celts enjoyed many sports, and were very competetive.
The Celts organized by way of sub-kings under a high king, or by magistrates in the case of the Aedui. Law was absolute, and these officials had little power over the law (or any power at all in many Celtic societies). Elected judges had power over the law, but they answered to the tribes that elected them; their main purpose was to act as a judge in legal disputes, and as a representative of their tribe if a law was to be changed. No one was above the law because everyone answered to some one else; the higher one's station in society, the more harshly they'd be punished by the law. Warriors, aristocrats, judges, etc.; they were meant to exemplify the law, which was divine, and by not doing so, they were setting a bad example for lower stations in society. Kings and such were elected, and, so, they could also be removed. They were a temporal official, and had to meet numerous requirements. They had to be able to lead their host in combat (that is, they had to be physically able to fight properly), they had to control a large amount of money (showing business acumen, as the kings were responsible for much economically, and being a successful businessman made one likely to be able to run a kingdom in such a manner; additionally, they needed to be able to pay fines and such, and reward those deserving of reward), and they had to have reasonable proof of their loyalties to their people. If, at any time, any of those things are compromised, they were removed from power, and a new king was selected.
That's really short and vague on Celtic society, mind you; it is most definitely different than a Germanic society, however.
Whoops.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika