Sweboz (Germans) slightly underpowered

I agree with you, but delusion and superstition isn't necessarily reality, it can be argued that Caligula made his horse Consul as a tactful insult and statement of superiority. The Hamarammaz trait doesn't make a judgement, it just says he believes he's a shapeshifter, and explains that while troops have increased morale, he has less commmand and management because of his deranged state.
I like the idea of new units and conceptually/tactic-specific unique and interesting units, maybe you could elaborate further (such as Spiedel's list of units? i don't have the book or have read it) on the thread or by PM? Also certain formation density techniques and new animations sound very interesting, but I of course do not know what you're refering to specifically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

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 going to have to disagree with this statement.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...trabo/7A*.html
Were they 100 percent in the division of Lugii,Germani or Gaul, very doubtful. As far as Strabo read the names he puts down as German and those are the ones we call today German. On a side note I'm withdrawing the Germans being more ferocious then the Celts until I can find out who did say that, I don't believe it was Strabo. As for the rest of your statements Blitz they are interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diadoch

Adding more "supersoldiers" like Cordinau Orca (may preview) is only trying of patience of Sweboz fans

---

I wouldn't say its just a Sweboz issue, for me its a matter of realism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diadoch

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

---

I like it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diadoch

And perhaps Germans could have wolf-hooded berserkers before the reform as a counterpart to gaesatae

---

I don't believe there would have been enough "berserker" type people around to make such a unit, at least in the Viking model.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

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

---

Hmm like what I wrote above but better detail, I agree with you :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

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.

---

Personally I liked the book and thought it well written. My only problem was that I would have liked to have read where there were battles involving such units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

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 mercinary 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.

---

I agree with this. Caesar and the elite tenth were pushing back the Suebi, but the Germans were pushing back the Romans on the other side.

Blitz why is the Celtic elite stronger then the German ones? Why is the morale of the Germans about the same when historically it should be higher? The Germans consistently defeated the Celts so why is there this disparity? I wont get into the Romans on this thread as they belong to the Celts overpowered thread.

There is a stat system that applies no matter what... certain factions get certain things because of their situations, such as the Germans get free armor bonuses on non-armored units because of their general lack of armor and resources in order to balance them better, but otherwise everything is exactly the same for all spearmen, or all armored warriors, ect... I'm not saying it's a historical situation because the system is a system, if we wanted to be historical there would have to be specific bonuses and balances between every faction with every other faction and it's almost impossible to justify a certain culture is "stronger" or "more effective", so it's not really as great of a way of doing things as a straight uniform system... I can argue for an increase in the training/morale, ect but the cost goes up as well... the weapons and armor can be fiddled with a little bit, but mostly they're still restriced by historical resources... maybe I can argue for an increase in the formation densities and defensive skill as the best way to go, as many of you have mentioned, but many people will just argue they are strong enough, so it might be better to revamp the heavy units and make new ones and see if they fill the role of combating whatever heavy units the Celtics can field? I haven't had the chance to test the units myself, so i believe you guys when you say they're near equal or not as effective. I don't want the Germanics to seem inaccurately weak or backward/simple, but I don't want to reform a very solid and well designed system, nonetheless have the sway to do so if I wanted to... I can influence future changes and I can argue for logical exceptions for the faction such as some slight boosts, and maybe actually get it if i am very very lucky. So keep in mind that I am very aware of your suggestions and agree with them, but cannot make such changes overnight. Some units, such as the levies, should not be superior, they're emergency cheap resources plain and simple... not weaker, but not better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

I'm going to have to disagree with this statement.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...trabo/7A*.html
Were they 100 percent in the division of Lugii,Germani or Gaul, very doubtful. As far as Strabo read the names he puts down as German and those are the ones we call today German. On a side note I'm withdrawing the Germans being more ferocious then the Celts until I can find out who did say that, I don't believe it was Strabo. As for the rest of your statements Blitz they are interesting.

---

Well, Caesar said the Belgae and the Helvettii were more fierce/brave because they were closer (place) to the germans (de bello Gallico, the very first sentences). So you could say that it means indirectly that the germans would be more fierce than the average celt. However that's not a real waterproof statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caesar

Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur. Hi omnes lingua, institutis, legibus inter se differunt. Gallos ab Aquitanis Garumna flumen, a Belgis Matrona et Sequana dividit. Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae, propterea quod a cultu atque humanitate provinciae longissime absunt, minimeque ad eos mercatores saepe commeant atque ea quae ad effeminandos animos pertinent important, proximique sunt Germanis, qui trans Rhenum incolunt, quibuscum continenter bellum gerunt. Qua de causa Helvetii quoque reliquos Gallos virtute praecedunt, quod fere cotidianis proeliis cum Germanis contendunt, cum aut suis finibus eos prohibent aut ipsi in eorum finibus bellum gerunt. Eorum una, pars, quam Gallos obtinere dictum est, initium capit a flumine Rhodano, continetur Garumna flumine, Oceano, finibus Belgarum, attingit etiam ab Sequanis et Helvetiis flumen Rhenum, vergit ad septentriones. Belgae ab extremis Galliae finibus oriuntur, pertinent ad inferiorem partem fluminis Rheni, spectant in septentrionem et orientem solem. Aquitania a Garumna flumine ad Pyrenaeos montes et eam partem Oceani quae est ad Hispaniam pertinet; spectat inter occasum solis et septentriones.

---

Bolded text says something like this (translated freely and very fast):
Of all these the Belgae are the bravest, because the are the farthest from the cultivated and human (read: roman) provinces, and not the least because salesmen barely visit them which doesn't weaken (literally: wominizes) their spirits/minds and most important because they are the closest to the Germans.

The Helvetii are braver than the other (except for the Belgae) gauls because they battle 'daily' with the Germans, to defend their borders or even to fare (Is that the correct word in Enlgish) war in their (=Germans) territory.

EDIT: This may not be a perfect translation but you got the idea. (Note I have to translate to dutch first and then to English, so that leaves room for errors)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

I agree with you, but delusion and superstition isn't necessarily reality, it can be argued that Caligula made his horse Consul as a tactful insult and statement of superiority. The Hamarammaz trait doesn't make a judgement, it just says he believes he's a shapeshifter, and explains that while troops have increased morale, he has less commmand and management because of his deranged state.
I like the idea of new units and conceptually/tactic-specific unique and interesting units, maybe you could elaborate further (such as Spiedel's list of units? i don't have the book or have read it) on the thread or by PM? Also certain formation density techniques and new animations sound very interesting, but I of course do not know what you're refering to specifically.

---

I'd be more than happy to write down the units for you.

Would you like it to be in here? or in PM?

Well those guys dont seem to be underpowered :laugh4:
http://stevequayle.com/Giants/Artist..._battle.lg.jpg

damn! i'm gonna put that on my desktop- thanks ~:) you know, I knew EB was missing something... now the Germanic peoples will finally get some true historical representation- supersized :7wizard: i wonder if a mini-mod could be made to do that?? something like the big-head cheats used to be..... the very very sad thing is that website that hosts the beautiful artwork ACTUALLY believes in 36 feet tall giants whose remains were supposedly found... that's almost as bad as the Germanic tribes website that says the word Teutons comes from Tiw :no:

Moros, your translation is fine, pretty good if you ask me- i usually prefer true to meaning translations rather than artificial modern English anyways, but it was almost perfect for modern English regardless.

First off Blitz, I would like to thank you for the time you take to respond to these threads and to all of the EB team that does spend much of their own time for the benefit of others by making this mod.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

I can argue for an increase in the training/morale, ect but the cost goes up as well... the weapons and armor can be fiddled with a little bit, but mostly they're still restriced by historical resources... maybe I can argue for an increase in the formation densities and defensive skill as the best way to go, as many of you have mentioned, but many people will just argue they are strong enough

---

I personally don't mind if the cost goes up, I'm liking the idea of having the most historical units as possible. If the units cost more to balance out the game that is ok with me, perhaps others would disagree. I like your ideas here as that is what I believe to be historically accurate. What I am curious about is what the others could bring to counter this other than supposition. Is there any historical documentation or modern authors to counter the idea the Germans were defeating the Celts consistently or having a higher morale?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

so it might be better to revamp the heavy units and make new ones and see if they fill the role of combating whatever heavy units the Celtics can field

---

The one thing that bothers me on this is that they might start to out strip the Romans which should not happen. As with the Celts, the Romans beat the Germans the majority of the time. That is why I didn't have a problem with the stats of the Gastiz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

However that's not a real waterproof statement.

---

I agree with you on this, there would have to be more. The reason I do believe that the Germans are more fierce is from the battles, the people of the time and their sayings as well as modern authors analysis of the situations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

EDIT: This may not be a perfect translation but you got the idea. (Note I have to translate to dutch first and then to English, so that leaves room for errors)

---

From the way I remember the translation that is pretty much on target as to what Caesar had written.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wicked

Well those guys dont seem to be underpowered

---

LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wicked

Well those guys dont seem to be underpowered :laugh4:
...

---

That is truly the most hilarious picture I have seen in quite some time! But whats implied is hardly funny. I've abstained from continuing to post much in this thread because, in the absence of specific confirmation of a Sweboz reform, i'm not entirely sure what productiveness can be derived from doing so, but also because I often (perhaps wrongly so) suspect an emotional attachment by some to a highly romantic portrayal of Germandom...especially the notion that the Germans possessed a uniquely vigorous ferocity that afforded them a margin of military superiority. Unit elan is believable and documented but to categorically characterize the menfolk of a whole people as superiorly "fierce" strikes me as bit sentimental.

I'll give a modern comparison which perhaps reveals my own bias...

Where I am originally (southern Germany) from certain slavs have a similar reputation (specifically the men) ill tempered, fight loving, and hardy people. The people (typically older) who propagate this belief would claim that it's basis is first hand observation (this from people who largely have little personal experience with our slavic fellow europeans outside of wartime rememberences)...and perhaps it is a genuine cultural phenomenon...although I suspect it's the typical paranoia of an established and affluent people towards poorer "unruly" neighbors or a vestige of wartime hyper-rhetoric.
Anyway since the collapse of the Soviet Union many slavs have come to the region, many from poor underprivileged backgrounds, and many seem to behave in a way that (if taken with a preexistent bias) seems in support of this stereotype. But none of this, however accurate or inaccurate, changes the historic facts of my countries military involvement in eastern europe...an involvment best described as unequal in our favor.

Similarly many of us here are aware that the Romans possessed a certain fixation concerning northern europeans. The Romans were both compelled by the stature and fairness of complexion and horrified of the perceived incivility of these people. It almost seems to be a source of salacious amusement for the Romans to categorize the various "races" of barbarians by such stimulating traits as there nobleness and pride or equally excitingly their ferocity appetite for battle.

I think we must be very cautious in what motivations we allow our opinions to be informed by and proceed with an eye for realism rather than romanticism:beam:

Now keep posting those informative quotes and educate this poor slobs! :whip:


*edit*

picture attachment removed!

I should add, for the sake of honest disclosure, that I am in fact German...from the Schwabian alps to be exact. So my interest in seeing the Sweboz accurately represented is motivated by personal matters as well. Perhaps this is why i'm a little shy in proposing too much without a structure within which to work...I see enough in the local heimatsmuseum that defies objectivity regarding the local history to wish that upon this great mod. And yes, slavs are very interesting and diverse cultural group. Their increased presence has added much needed color and energy to the local area.

I don't mean to be rude, but can we PLEASE- NOT quote huge images (or blank space), or otherwise every reply/quote post will have those images and it will fill up all the space instead of text... thank you

good post Lowenklee, I agree with those statements, Slavic peoples are very interesting also, especially how some seem to think they spontaneously generated because their identity is covered by other peoples whom they fought with or coexisted beside for so much of the Ancient era until the Dark Ages.
I would love to confirm the creation of a Sweboz reform, but unfortunately i have received no response on that, hopefully when other things are finished that will definitely be given the time and effort needed for implementation in the next public build.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowenklee

That is truly the most hilarious picture I have seen in quite some time! But whats implied is hardly funny. I've abstained from continuing to post much in this thread because, in the absence of specific confirmation of a Sweboz reform, i'm not entirely sure what productiveness can be derived from doing so, but also because I often (perhaps wrongly so) suspect an emotional attachment by some to a highly romantic portrayal of Germandom...especially the notion that the Germans possessed a uniquely vigorous ferocity that afforded them a margin of military superiority. Unit elan is believable and documented but to categorically characterize the menfolk of a whole people as superiorly "fierce" strikes me as bit sentimental.

---

I often joke with friends that one of the major ironies of history is really that Scandinavians basically produced some of the most vicious and effective warriors in history, but modern Scandinavians are observably extremely peaceful and friendly, they seem quite a jolly and happy people in general, to the point that it makes me feel very different in comparison, infact I've often called them elf people.

I'm not meaning to insult them when I say this, I have nothing but the upmost respect for the Scandinavians which I feel they deserve. They have extremely developed countries typically, and pretty much world leaders as far as technology is concerned.

Black metal is quite nice too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowenklee

I'll give a modern comparison which perhaps reveals my own bias...

Where I am originally (southern Germany) from certain slavs have a similar reputation (specifically the men) ill tempered, fight loving, and hardy people. The people (typically older) who propagate this belief would claim that it's basis is first hand observation (this from people who largely have little personal experience with our slavic fellow europeans outside of wartime rememberences)...and perhaps it is a genuine cultural phenomenon...although I suspect it's the typical paranoia of an established and affluent people towards poorer "unruly" neighbors or a vestige of wartime hyper-rhetoric.
Anyway since the collapse of the Soviet Union many slavs have come to the region, many from poor underprivileged backgrounds, and many seem to behave in a way that (if taken with a preexistent bias) seems in support of this stereotype. But none of this, however accurate or inaccurate, changes the historic facts of my countries military involvement in eastern europe...an involvment best described as unequal in our favor.

---

Here in the UK the stereotype of Slavic people seems to be that they are hardy people who are typically quite quiet and polite but will fight viciously if provoked, this is especially true of the men. The women are generally considered to be pretty and I suppose their is a stereotype that they are also slutty.

I've observed all of these factors other than the slutty one, but then again I think that British women typically are complete whores in general from what I've observed having lived my entire life in Britain and descended from British stock, so perhaps Slavic womens sexual behaviour maybe stands out a bit more in countries with women that don't have a tendancy to drink as much as men and what not.

Generally speaking though, I think that the Slavs are some of the hardiest folk on earth and I have a great deal of respect for the Russians and Poles in particular, I sort of feel like the vicious warfare of the Eastern regions has produced a people that had little or no choice but to become extremely hard and cunning and that is why Slavic people to this day are still typically reputed to be tough and cunning.

The German stereotype I've observed is usually that they are extremely intelligent, efficient, but a little bit cold and sometimes don't catch onto the humor of things very easily, there is also a stereotype of German males being somewhat flamboyantly dressed or having a tendancy to wear fairly expensive designer clothes.

All Kraftwerk jokes aside, I've observed a German tendancy for them to wear extremely expensive designer clothes that makes them stand out amongst a British population, especially in Scotland where people, especially chavs, are content to wear flurescent shell suits and burburry caps(depressing I know).

I guess what I'm saying is that the stereotype of German viciousness and perhaps a superiority in terms of being vicious could be founded upon a basic observable truth, they did afterall essentially win in the end. Or it could simply be that these people retained their more brutally practical Indo-European traditions the longest and therefore didn't fall into decandence like the Celts and Romans seemed to do towards the end.

It is a very interesting factor that Julius Caesar mentioned that many Celts had become soft because they had become too civilized, and in terms of political Geography, that isn't such a silly concept. The more centralized Celtic powers basically lived in a territory that their culture had ruled for ages, they were as I have said before, the major power in Europe at one point, and the political nature of the Celtic territories seemed to be one of a more low intensity ritualistic warfare, rather than total war. They also seemed to be generally good at diplomacy(for example the Helvetti managed to get through the territories of the Sequani with little difficulty) and they also seemed to be extensive traders, so the chances of them just becoming lavish businessmen and merchents and therefore less adept in terms of military ferocity, isn't so far fetched.

Perhaps the German people were fiercer in general.

There is a stereotype that Scottish people are extremely ferocious and violent and that they drink a lot, theres also a stereotype that they are generally quite witty, excentic and prone to overdrinking.

I can honestly say that all of those stereotypes are very much true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowenklee

Similarly many of us here are aware that the Romans possessed a certain fixation concerning northern europeans. The Romans were both compelled by the stature and fairness of complexion and horrified of the perceived incivility of these people. It almost seems to be a source of salacious amusement for the Romans to categorize the various "races" of barbarians by such stimulating traits as there nobleness and pride or equally excitingly their ferocity appetite for battle.

I think we must be very cautious in what motivations we allow our opinions to be informed by and proceed with an eye for realism rather than romanticism:beam:

Now keep posting those informative quotes and educate this poor slobs! :whip:


*edit*

picture attachment removed!

I should add, for the sake of honest disclosure, that I am in fact German...from the Schwabian alps to be exact. So my interest in seeing the Sweboz accurately represented is motivated by personal matters as well. Perhaps this is why i'm a little shy in proposing too much without a structure within which to work...I see enough in the local heimatsmuseum that defies objectivity regarding the local history to wish that upon this great mod. And yes, slavs are very interesting and diverse cultural group. Their increased presence has added much needed color and energy to the local area.

---

I have limited Germanic ancestry, but I'm interested in collective European cultures in general and want to see them portrayed accuratly. I think that popular view and historical stereotype don't always correlate to each other.

For example, there is a popular view that the Romans put down anything that wasn't Roman, and despite the fact that this obviously was the case at times, it was not always like this and the Romans, even the extremely adept ones like Julius Caesar, didn't hold back from complimenting their enemies at times. Interestingly enough a lot of the backing we have for the arguments that the Germans were typically well disciplined comes mostly from Roman sources, thats pretty interesting.

I think that the Romans too have suffered from modern stereotyping, they are typically seen as the polar opposite of barbarian passion and savagry, a cold, mindless, soldier robot, hiding in his dence formation and stealing victories from the individualistic barbarian. This stereotype just isn't the case, the Roman soldiers were very much as passionate and prone to commiting individual acts of glory as much as the barbarian peoples, they realized that formation, tactics and indurence training were the difference between victory and defeat obviously, but this didn't kill off their natural and healthy capacity to feel compelled to charge an enemy line and dispatch a few men. The Titus Pulo and Lucius Veranus examples are especially true in this case.

I'd imagine the stereotype of the Romans eventually was that they were greedy and war mad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

It is a very interesting factor that Julius Caesar mentioned that many Celts had become soft because they had become too civilized, and in terms of political Geography, that isn't such a silly concept. The more centralized Celtic powers basically lived in a territory that their culture had ruled for ages, they were as I have said before, the major power in Europe at one point, and the political nature of the Celtic territories seemed to be one of a more low intensity ritualistic warfare, rather than total war. They also seemed to be generally good at diplomacy(for example the Helvetti managed to get through the territories of the Sequani with little difficulty) and they also seemed to be extensive traders, so the chances of them just becoming lavish businessmen and merchents and therefore less adept in terms of military ferocity, isn't so far fetched.

Perhaps the German people were fiercer in general.

---

That would be possible. Ofcourse something like fiercness can't really be measured. But I think that in the eyes of caesar them Germans seemed more fierce.

Now about that "effeminandos animos" caused by the few Mercatori. Well I don't think it really has to do with these. I think that we agree that for example the Belgae (Nervii in particiular) are said to be fierce combattants, if not the fiercest of all Gauls. Well, if I recall correctly the Belgae were also master traders, which isn't that much known. Caesar apparantly didn't. So I don't think this logic of luxury produces weak men, is true or at least always true. If it's one thing the Romans envied the Gauls about it probably is their richeness. I mean the average Celt had more decorated cloths and stuff than the average roman of that era. I think it's just Caesar and other being somewhat influenced with some Stoïc ideas. However what is true is that we all know that the germans indeed must be hardy folks. (Most guys from that time were compared to us.) But Germans on average must be hardy, that doesn't mean that they would be fierce combatants, however the descriptions of germans fighting does give the impression they were. And Ibelieve they were. But then again I think most celts also were quite fierce.

Quote:

---

For example, there is a popular view that the Romans put down anything that wasn't Roman, and despite the fact that this obviously was the case at times, it was not always like this and the Romans, even the extremely adept ones like Julius Caesar, didn't hold back from complimenting their enemies at times. Interestingly enough a lot of the backing we have for the arguments that the Germans were typically well disciplined comes mostly from Roman sources, thats pretty interesting.

---

That's true. I believe to remember that Caesar did complement Vercingetorix a few times. And I truely belive that C. did respect V. quite a bit. Tough we musn't forget that the Romans had other motifs to compliment their foes. If they got defeated, then the least you could do is state how big and strong you advissary was. It's less embarassing to lose a fight from a giant than to lose a fight from a midget. But then again it's also more glorious to win from a giant than from a midget. After battle it's always benefitial to claim that your advissary was strong. How many times did the romans say they beaten an amry of unbelievable size (litteraly unbelievable) with almost incredible (litteraly incredible) low casualties on their side? Many times, almost every time perhaps.
However I do believe Germans were disciplined and could form formations and everything. If you can learn animals how to walk in formation... Reallly even the dumbest of men can do that, and even the dumbest of man can realize that it's beneficial to do it. And the dumbest can certainly also copy those he encounters. The Germans weren't dumbest of men, they would be as smart as the averag Roman I guess, so they most certainly were able to this. And thus probably did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

However I do believe Germans were disciplined and could form formations and everything. If you can learn animals how to walk in formation... Reallly even the dumbest of men can do that, and even the dumbest of man can realize that it's beneficial to do it. And the dumbest can certainly also copy those he encounters. The Germans weren't dumbest of men, they would be as smart as the averag Roman I guess, so they most certainly were able to this. And thus probably did.

---

I agree, a similar example is the Iberian peninsula tribes (barring some under Carthaginian influence, obviously): they were considered largely unorganized and unable to unite, yet they were a huge pain in the ass for any invader due to their ''unconventional'' tactics, which to me seem quite similar to those of the Germanics. Namely, the attitude of ''do whatever you need as long as you win'', but also the ambushing and fluid movement of their units, which seemed haphazard to their adversaries, but was, in fact, very coordinated.

IMO the general hardiness of the Germans could be compared to those of the earlier Spartans, in that defeat wasn't an option (barring the fact that Spartans were rather stuck in their archaic formations and etiquette, unlike the Germans).

About the (north)eastern people, there does seem to be a general attitude of ''sticking it to the man'', a good example is of course the Finns, who are rather fanatic about their independence at times. About the Balts, we're more similar to the western democracies than to the Slavs these days, but we're still quite adamant about our independence, you could even say ''nationalistic'' sometimes (mostly were certain foreign powers are concerned *cough*Russia*cough*), my guess is because of the waves of occupants and invaders we've had (Teutons, Swedes, Danes, more Germans, Russians, Germans again, and then some more Russians).

About the part of our women being good-looking, i can vouch for that :2thumbsup:

We're just the best mix of genetic heritages this side of Earth.

*Mus is a Finn*

Nice discussion, too bad is too big to make me read everything...

Quote:

---

And perhaps Germans could have wolf-hooded berserkers before the reform as a counterpart to gaesatae

---

Thats an thing I would love to see here. I didnt played the sweboz in my early EB times just because there werent berzerkers. I'm playing now and loving, but I sttill feel the lack of them.

Quote:

---

I don't believe there would have been enough "berserker" type people around to make such a unit, at least in the Viking model.

---

Why dont make very small units (like 30 or less in huge size) but with scare enemy troops, inspire allies, 2 or 3 hitpoints good stats and armour piercing? They should be more an psicological weapon than somethong else, I think.

Or at least do some kind of wolf hooded ambusher unit. Or put an warwolf units, like vannilla wardogs :clown: but I want to see any wolf thing on sweboz

Quote:

---

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.

---

Wow, that should be very cool, can anyone do that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

That would be possible. Ofcourse something like fiercness can't really be measured. But I think that in the eyes of caesar them Germans seemed more fierce.

---

Hypothetically it could be, it just has to be completely thoroughly defined and then have its root causes identified, then comparitive studies conducted.

As for the fierceness of the ancient Germans, we might not know that any time soon. I get the feeling that border warriors typically are fierce because they have to fight on a regular basis against invading cultures, so an overall Germanic fierceness might not be so common, but definitely the border Germans should be super feirce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

Now about that "effeminandos animos" caused by the few Mercatori. Well I don't think it really has to do with these. I think that we agree that for example the Belgae (Nervii in particiular) are said to be fierce combattants, if not the fiercest of all Gauls. Well, if I recall correctly the Belgae were also master traders, which isn't that much known. Caesar apparantly didn't. So I don't think this logic of luxury produces weak men, is true or at least always true.

---

Hypothetically, one could live in a state of absolute luxury, but if mentally disciplined enough, could keep themselves super combat ready, but more often than not the easier life gets the less hardy people become, like the skills of the hunder pretty much went into decline as soon as the farmer came along and eventually hunting was more of a sport than a needed method of survival.

Perhaps the Belgae were just one of these societies that had both luxury, wealth and extremely well thoughtout martial traditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

If it's one thing the Romans envied the Gauls about it probably is their richeness. I mean the average Celt had more decorated cloths and stuff than the average roman of that era. I think it's just Caesar and other being somewhat influenced with some Stoïc ideas. However what is true is that we all know that the germans indeed must be hardy folks. (Most guys from that time were compared to us.) But Germans on average must be hardy, that doesn't mean that they would be fierce combatants, however the descriptions of germans fighting does give the impression they were. And Ibelieve they were. But then again I think most celts also were quite fierce.

---

I still think that parimiter Celts, islander Celts and Celtic elites should still be especially fierce and the warrior elites well equipped. I also think that what the Celts lack in general ferocity they should make up for in technological edge over the Germans. The Celts made quite significant contributions to ancient military equipment and this should not be overlooked.

I'm very tempted to suggest that perhaps more armoed or lightly armored units should be avaliable earlier on for the Aedui and the Arverni. Perhaps early dismounted nobles, or early dismounted warriors, because we know that at the starting period of the EB timeline that fully armored and helmeted, well equipped Celtic nobles did exist.

Perhaps their cavalry should also be boosted a little bit more, they were apparently quite effective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

That's true. I believe to remember that Caesar did complement Vercingetorix a few times. And I truely belive that C. did respect V. quite a bit. Tough we musn't forget that the Romans had other motifs to compliment their foes. If they got defeated, then the least you could do is state how big and strong you advissary was. It's less embarassing to lose a fight from a giant than to lose a fight from a midget. But then again it's also more glorious to win from a giant than from a midget. After battle it's always benefitial to claim that your advissary was strong. How many times did the romans say they beaten an amry of unbelievable size (litteraly unbelievable) with almost incredible (litteraly incredible) low casualties on their side? Many times, almost every time perhaps.
However I do believe Germans were disciplined and could form formations and everything. If you can learn animals how to walk in formation... Reallly even the dumbest of men can do that, and even the dumbest of man can realize that it's beneficial to do it. And the dumbest can certainly also copy those he encounters. The Germans weren't dumbest of men, they would be as smart as the averag Roman I guess, so they most certainly were able to this. And thus probably did.

---

Generally speaking it is always wise to not completely put down your enemy especially if they can beat you, but I think that the Celts and the Germans, for the Romans at least, were fairly tough foes, the latter eventually defeating them and inheriting the civilization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

Generally speaking it is always wise to not completely put down your enemy especially if they can beat you, but I think that the Celts and the Germans, for the Romans at least, were fairly tough foes, the latter eventually defeating them and inheriting the civilization.

---

Indeed but the Romans did almost always, if not always. And not a little bit either.

Also I agree with you that the Celts should get some more lighter infantry. I mean we all know there were a lot of heavy troops but we all know they were smaller in numbers. However reducing this by making all armoured troops avaible at the end of the game, isn't that great at all.

Also Hypothetically it is possible to...means it is isn't possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

Also Hypothetically it is possible to...means it is isn't possible.

---

Theres not much evidence to suggest that it's impossible to measure it, infact the more people understand about geneitcs the brain and human behaviour in general, the more we understand about people and the easier it becomes to quantifiy and measure various traits in humans.

Like I said it would just need a hard line definition of ferocity, then various tests conducted to see what parts of the brain or what genes typically produce ferocity, then its a question of the measurement of frequencies of these traits within a population to see what the measure of ferocity is. If its more cultural leaning its a question of seeing what cultural or enviromental stimulants induces the most ferocious reactions from people in general and then a similar data gathering process would be implimented and comparitive studies conducted to produce a list of ferocity rankings. Or method that includes both factors.

Generally speaking the nature of cause and effect and the basic fact that the human personality is essentially just a very complex survivalistic mechanism makes it entirely possible that we could basically measure every aspect of a person.

Science and psychology aren't quite there yet, but they are definitely making advances and that doesn't seem to be showing any signs of slowing down.

On the subject of the Celts however, I think heavier infantry should be avaliable earlier, though in smaller amounts, or perhaps only recruitable in certain regions because really, we know they existed and the peoples that adopted chainmail and what not must have seen it up close and personal enough in a high enough quantity for them to fee it was worth emulating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

I think that the Romans too have suffered from modern stereotyping, they are typically seen as the polar opposite of barbarian passion and savagry, a cold, mindless, soldier robot, hiding in his dence formation and stealing victories from the individualistic barbarian. This stereotype just isn't the case, the Roman soldiers were very much as passionate and prone to commiting individual acts of glory as much as the barbarian peoples, they realized that formation, tactics and indurence training were the difference between victory and defeat obviously, but this didn't kill off their natural and healthy capacity to feel compelled to charge an enemy line and dispatch a few men. The Titus Pulo and Lucius Veranus examples are especially true in this case.

I'd imagine the stereotype of the Romans eventually was that they were greedy and war mad.

---

vs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caesar, De Bello Gallico 1, 52:

Caesar singulis legionibus singulos legatos et quaestorem praefecit, uti eos testes suae quisque virtutis haberet; ipse a dextro cornu, quod eam partem minime firmam hostium esse animadverterat, proelium commisit. Ita nostri acriter in hostes signo dato impetum fecerunt itaque hostes repente celeriterque procurrerunt, ut spatium pila in hostes coiciendi non daretur. Relictis pilis comminus gladiis pugnatum est. At Germani celeriter ex consuetudine sua phalange facta impetus gladiorum exceperunt. Reperti sunt complures nostri qui in phalanga insilirent et scuta manibus revellerent et desuper vulnerarent. Cum hostium acies a sinistro cornu pulsa atque in fugam coniecta esset, a dextro cornu vehementer multitudine suorum nostram aciem premebant. Id cum animadvertisset P. Crassus adulescens, qui equitatui praeerat, quod expeditior erat quam ii qui inter aciem versabantur, tertiam aciem laborantibus nostris subsidio misit.

---

The ex consuetudine especially is interesting. That means it that the first thing they would do would be to form a "phalanx" not to charge. Which indicates that the "phalanx" not was something they did a few time, or occasionally, not even often, but rather as a rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

On the subject of the Celts however, I think heavier infantry should be avaliable earlier, though in smaller amounts, or perhaps only recruitable in certain regions because really, we know they existed and the peoples that adopted chainmail and what not must have seen it up close and personal enough in a high enough quantity for them to fee it was worth emulating.

---

I agree completely.

Tough I still think you underrate the complexity of mother nature. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

vs.



The ex consuetudine especially is interesting. That means it that the first thing they would do would be to form a "phalanx" not to charge. Which indicates that the "phalanx" not was something they did a few time, or occasionally, not even often, but rather as a rule.

---

I'm not quite sure what the second paragraph said, nor what the "vs" meant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

I agree completely.

Tough I still think you underrate the complexity of mother nature. ~:)

---

Not at all, I am afterall a product of the complexity of mother nature, with senses that allow me to navigate the chaos and seek to make sense of it.

I personally am quite optimistic about the intellectual powers of humans and believe that if humans can identify something in their universe, that chances are they can map it, measure it, quantify it and then exploit it to boost their own chances of long term survival.

Heart transplants, infrared, ultra violet tanning beds, the combunstion engine, wind power, the many uses of fire, various tools made from various metals, humans have a knack for innovating and exploiting their enviroment.

For example, the stone age solutreens of France, once they figured out the nature of certain rock types, would produce extremely sharp and effective flints through a flaking process realizing that applying pressure to the side of a stone at a key angle would cause it to fracture in flakes, and thererfore if you did that all over one edge methodically you would get a very sharp edge, and if you did this all round, you would produce an extremely sharp and dangerous flint.

I believe one day we will fully understand the personality and fully be able to measure it.

But thats a little off topic, but I suppose the whole EB thing is just an attempt to understand the nature of civilization anyway and really it says a lot about a species who find a great deal of fun to be had in playing games that revolve around economy building, army building and territory conquering, and fighting in general.

Perhaps those Solduri Celts should become avaliable sooner, also I'd imagine the Carnutes should also be more avaliable sooner seeing as they are essentially equipped like cavalry that we know existed 300bc and simply wear a specialized helmet type.

And dismounted nobles and people of the warrior class would have undoubtably worn body armor to some extent, nobles understandably would be more heavily armed but perhaps this is something that we should discuss in the Celtic thread.

De Bello Gallico.

This may also validate some theories or reinforce some arguments that the Celts had fallen into decadance slightly or that the Germans were tougher fighters in general.

Quote:

---

"caes.gal.6.24": [6.24] And there was formerly a time when the Gauls excelled the Germans in prowess, and waged war on them offensively, and, on
account of the great number of their people and the insufficiency of their land, sent colonies over the Rhine. Accordingly, the Volcae Tectosages, seized on
those parts of Germany which are the most fruitful [and lie] around the Hercynian forest, (which, I perceive, was known by report to Eratosthenes and
some other Greeks, and which they call Orcynia), and settled there. Which nation to this time retains its position in those settlements, and has a very high
character for justice and military merit; now also they continue in the same scarcity, indigence, hardihood, as the Germans, and use the same food and
dress; but their proximity to the Province and knowledge of commodities from countries beyond the sea supplies to the Gauls many things tending to
luxury as well as civilization. Accustomed by degrees to be overmatched and worsted in many engagements, they do not even compare themselves to the
Germans in prowess.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

I'm not quite sure what the second paragraph said, nor what the "vs" meant.

---

The sentence in bold translated quickly and freely in English:

But the Germans quickly formed a phalanx out of habit/ like they always do (I can't find the right english expression) and holded the charge of the swords (= the romans swords).

That in contradiction to the idea/image of what a lot of people have about the germans being hordes of cavemen charging without thinking,...
+

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moros

The ex consuetudine especially is interesting. That means it that the first thing they would do would be to form a "phalanx" not to charge. Which indicates that the "phalanx" not was something they did a few time, or occasionally, not even often, but rather as a rule.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

De Bello Gallico.

This may also validate some theories or reinforce some arguments that the Celts had fallen into decadance slightly or that the Germans were tougher fighters in general.

---

I'm going to look that up in latin cause this might be a first, but I think I'm going to understand the latin better than the english version. :skull:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

I'm going to look that up in latin cause this might be a first, but I think I'm going to understand the latin better than the english version. :skull:

---

How did the translation go?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

How did the translation go?

---

Your english is fairly good. There were a few minor mistakes ('excelled' -> 'exceeded', 'seized on' -> 'seized', 'worsted' -> 'bested'; 'I perceive' sounds strange and is redundant, though it probably sounds better in latin - in english, it should be 'I have heard/am told/have read', or not be there at all). Not knowing latin, I can't comment on the accuracy of the translation. It should be more understandable with better formatting (I believe that's the word?):

Quote:

---

"caes.gal.6.24": [6.24] And there was formerly a time when the Gauls excelled the Germans in prowess, and waged war on them offensively, and, on account of the great number of their people and the insufficiency of their land, sent colonies over the Rhine. Accordingly, the Volcae Tectosages, seized on those parts of Germany which are the most fruitful [and lie] around the Hercynian forest, (which, I perceive, was known by report to Eratosthenes and some other Greeks, and which they call Orcynia), and settled there. Which nation to this time retains its position in those settlements, and has a very high character for justice and military merit; now also they continue in the same scarcity, indigence, hardihood, as the Germans, and use the same food and dress; but their proximity to the Province and knowledge of commodities from countries beyond the sea supplies to the Gauls many things tending to luxury as well as civilization. Accustomed by degrees to be overmatched and worsted in many engagements, they do not even compare themselves to the Germans in prowess.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

How did the translation go?

---

Still needs to be done. Perhaps if I get in the mood I'll see if I can translate it this evening. lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

Still needs to be done. Perhaps if I get in the mood I'll see if I can translate it this evening. lol.

---

Lovely.

Looks like I misunderstood. Sorry :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElectricEel

Looks like I misunderstood. Sorry :clown:

---

No problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

As for the fierceness of the ancient Germans, we might not know that any time soon. I get the feeling that border warriors typically are fierce because they have to fight on a regular basis against invading cultures, so an overall Germanic fierceness might not be so common, but definitely the border Germans should be super feirce.

---

It seems to me that the fierce label was applied to most Germans, even the ones that came later during the wanderings. This could of course be stereotyping by the Romans and others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

I still think that parimiter Celts, islander Celts and Celtic elites should still be especially fierce and the warrior elites well equipped. I also think that what the Celts lack in general ferocity they should make up for in technological edge over the Germans. The Celts made quite significant contributions to ancient military equipment and this should not be overlooked.

---

I personally don't have a problem with the Celts having a technological edge over the Germans, but the problem lies with the Germans being able to beat the Celts on a reasonably consistent bases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

I'm very tempted to suggest that perhaps more armoed or lightly armored units should be avaliable earlier on for the Aedui and the Arverni. Perhaps early dismounted nobles, or early dismounted warriors, because we know that at the starting period of the EB timeline that fully armored and helmeted, well equipped Celtic nobles did exist.

Perhaps their cavalry should also be boosted a little bit more, they were apparently quite effective.

---

I think this is a good idea. Give them better equipped units earlier and stronger cavalry to me would be fair. I do believe that the Celts started making Chain shirts as early as 300 BC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

De Bello Gallico.

This may also validate some theories or reinforce some arguments that the Celts had fallen into decadance slightly or that the Germans were tougher fighters in general.

Quote:
"caes.gal.6.24": [6.24] And there was formerly a time when the Gauls excelled the Germans in prowess, and waged war on them offensively, and, on
account of the great number of their people and the insufficiency of their land, sent colonies over the Rhine. Accordingly, the Volcae Tectosages, seized on
those parts of Germany which are the most fruitful [and lie] around the Hercynian forest, (which, I perceive, was known by report to Eratosthenes and
some other Greeks, and which they call Orcynia), and settled there. Which nation to this time retains its position in those settlements, and has a very high
character for justice and military merit; now also they continue in the same scarcity, indigence, hardihood, as the Germans, and use the same food and
dress; but their proximity to the Province and knowledge of commodities from countries beyond the sea supplies to the Gauls many things tending to
luxury as well as civilization. Accustomed by degrees to be overmatched and worsted in many engagements, they do not even compare themselves to the
Germans in prowess.

---

I'm going to do some supposition here and really don't have much to back this up with. I don't have a problem believing the Celts could have more prowess and valor over the Germans. The problem would be when and which Germans. I do not believe JC was talking of recent years when he made this statement. The reason I believe it to be long ago is from the things that happened in the history of this area. If you start with the TCA(around 120BC), for the most part the Gauls couldn't stop them (Boii repelled them and the Celt-Iberians after a few years repelled them). Therefore I don't believe the statement of the Celts prowess being greater would apply here. So could this statement apply to the time between 100BC and 71 BC? I'm thinking not because you still have the migrations of the Batavi,Chatti,Sugambri, and other Germanic tribes entering into the area of the Rhine. I would think that if this was the time JC was talking about then the colonies didn't even last a generation. I'm also sure that the Germans by 100BC had already entered into the Rhine area, and if so they pushed any Celts there out or absorbed them.
You could consider this statement to be pre 120 BC, but then you would have to deal with the Belgae. I believe the Belgae arrived in northern Gaul around 200-250 BC and therefore forcing their way into northern Gaul and eventually being "Celticized". So it is my assumption that the Celts that JC was referring to were before 250 BC and they were attacking the Germans that would have lived in the Rhine area at that time. On top of everything where was Caesar getting this information from. Most of the things that were happening in front of him he could write on with authority (perhaps biased) as he was there. But as far as the Celtic prowess over the Germans I'm thinking this had to be well before his time. We certainly know that the Germans of this time were superior in valor and prowess. Again I'll state at the moment I don't really have anything to back this up with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

It seems to me that the fierce label was applied to most Germans, even the ones that came later during the wanderings. This could of course be stereotyping by the Romans and others.

I personally don't have a problem with the Celts having a technological edge over the Germans, but the problem lies with the Germans being able to beat the Celts on a reasonably consistent bases.

I think this is a good idea. Give them better equipped units earlier and stronger cavalry to me would be fair. I do believe that the Celts started making Chain shirts as early as 300 BC.

I'm going to do some supposition here and really don't have much to back this up with. I don't have a problem believing the Celts could have more prowess and valor over the Germans. The problem would be when and which Germans. I do not believe JC was talking of recent years when he made this statement. The reason I believe it to be long ago is from the things that happened in the history of this area. If you start with the TCA(around 120BC), for the most part the Gauls couldn't stop them (Boii repelled them and the Celt-Iberians after a few years repelled them). Therefore I don't believe the statement of the Celts prowess being greater would apply here. So could this statement apply to the time between 100BC and 71 BC? I'm thinking not because you still have the migrations of the Batavi,Chatti,Sugambri, and other Germanic tribes entering into the area of the Rhine. I would think that if this was the time JC was talking about then the colonies didn't even last a generation. I'm also sure that the Germans by 100BC had already entered into the Rhine area, and if so they pushed any Celts there out or absorbed them.
You could consider this statement to be pre 120 BC, but then you would have to deal with the Belgae. I believe the Belgae arrived in northern Gaul around 200-250 BC and therefore forcing their way into northern Gaul and eventually being "Celticized". So it is my assumption that the Celts that JC was referring to were before 250 BC and they were attacking the Germans that would have lived in the Rhine area at that time. On top of everything where was Caesar getting this information from. Most of the things that were happening in front of him he could write on with authority (perhaps biased) as he was there. But as far as the Celtic prowess over the Germans I'm thinking this had to be well before his time. We certainly know that the Germans of this time were superior in valor and prowess. Again I'll state at the moment I don't really have anything to back this up with.

---

I'm not sure if theres any confusion or anything like that but the reason I posted that quote was because bascially Julius Caesar was saying that there was at one point a time when the Celts were tougher than the Germans, however that in his time, the Germans had been long tougher than the Celts, and in many ways adding validity to the arguments on this thread that the Germans were generally tougher than the Celts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

I'm not sure if theres any confusion or anything like that but the reason I posted that quote was because bascially Julius Caesar was saying that there was at one point a time when the Celts were tougher than the Germans, however that in his time, the Germans had been long tougher than the Celts, and in many ways adding validity to the arguments on this thread that the Germans were generally tougher than the Celts.

---

Thats the way I took your posting to be. I was just trying to surmise the statement of when the Celts would have (if at all) would have been tougher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Thats the way I took your posting to be. I was just trying to surmise the statement of when the Celts would have (if at all) would have been tougher.

---

They must have been fairly tough to have conquered the territory they did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

They must have been fairly tough to have conquered the territory they did

---

I completely agree. It wasn't that they were just tough martially as attested by the land conquered but also the writings and the fear they generated in their enemies. The Celts were also as already mentioned were an ingenious people as shown by the arms,armor and artistic items produced. There are many things to admire in the Celts, in which the Romans for one copied from them. While I think the Celts out stripped the Germans in arms and armor, the superior prowess and valor I believe belong to the Germans.
In general I believe things to be like this:
Infantry: Romans>Germans>Celts
Cavalry: Germans>Celts>Romans
Siege: Romans>Celts>-

Hi, I've been lurking at this discussion for quite some time and I have read it with great intrest. There is just one question I have and that is why there wouldn't be enough "Berserkers" available to field a unit sizeable enought to be represented in the game while the Gauls seem to have no trouble finding Naked Fanatics?

Just something I was thinking about and since you guys seem to know history way better then me I thought this would be the right place to ask :P

Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dezzerx

Hi, I've been lurking at this discussion for quite some time and I have read it with great intrest. There is just one question I have and that is why there wouldn't be enough "Berserkers" available to field a unit sizeable enought to be represented in the game while the Gauls seem to have no trouble finding Naked Fanatics?

Just something I was thinking about and since you guys seem to know history way better then me I thought this would be the right place to ask :P

Thanks

---

I would love to have some type of berserker unit. The problem is that according to what I have read you find very few berserker's mentioned together in any of the old writings like the prose edda. I found a few references to body guards being made up of berserker's but this was rare to my knowledge. As far as the Naked Fanatics(Gaesatae) there are writings up groups of up to 30,000 of them fielded in armies. Telemon is a battle in which there were 15,000 Gaesatae, they became pin cushions by the Romans. From what I read on the Gaesatae, which basically entails the battle of Telemon I'm not very impressed with them. I know there is a tale of a Gaesatae pulling a pilum out of himself and continuing on to fight, though I can't recall where I read this. There are other stories like this among other tribes such as the Germans performing the fountain of Tyr.

Ah! Thanks learned something new yet again, thanks mate ;)

Btw, the fountain of Tyr is pretty hard stuff :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

I completely agree. It wasn't that they were just tough martially as attested by the land conquered but also the writings and the fear they generated in their enemies. The Celts were also as already mentioned were an ingenious people as shown by the arms,armor and artistic items produced. There are many things to admire in the Celts, in which the Romans for one copied from them. While I think the Celts out stripped the Germans in arms and armor, the superior prowess and valor I believe belong to the Germans.
In general I believe things to be like this:
Infantry: Romans>Germans>Celts
Cavalry: Germans>Celts>Romans
Siege: Romans>Celts>-

---

I pretty much agree with all of that but I still think Celtic warrior caste members of both infantry and cavalry would have been pretty darned dangerous in general, especially if they belonged to a more resourcful tribe.

I've been looking a lot recently at Celtic helmet types across the Celtic territories and I can honestly say that I'm convinced that the manufacture of a standard issue-ish helmet must have occured, and that the personalization of things like armor was much less common than things like sword hilts.

One thing most artists will tell you is that when you are asked to make a helmet or asked to draw someone or sculpt something in general, or if you simply want to do these things yourself, you often don't follow a very careful replication process, you often just let your imagination run wild, a great many Celtic helmet types across the board all show distinct manufactural traits, there is cleary a tried and tested type of helmet that smiths knew how to make for a very long time that they knew would work and I have reason to believe that because of this Helmets were probably a lot more common, I'd assume the same is with body armor though I am still researchingf at at the moment.

I pretty much just want to see if I can find any evidence to make or break the better armored Celtic warrior caste argument. I'm personally leaning more towards them being typically better equipped than they currently are represented.

Maybe I'm just worrying about nothing though, EB2 will allow you to equip your awrriors better anyway.

Just one question, I would say in general hardiness the Germans were tougher, we both agree on this, but do you think that the well equipped Celtic cavalry elites would have been typically weaker than the Germanic equivilent? or do you think that the General Celtic cavalryman with perhaps just a helmet, and more a desire to be fast rather than heavily armored, would have been weaker than the general Germanic cavalryman?

To be honest this thread makes me happy.
I wished i had those support the days i worked as faction coordinator for the Sweboz:sweatdrop:

A few thoughts about the last 5 pages of interesting discussion:

Firstly the mentioned reform was planned as a "triggering event" the moment the Sweboz began to capture gallic territory.(Capture and not just raid)
Then the access for their warriors to better armor and weapons should be secured. The recruitment of Gastiz and other "late" units should then be possible.
It was thought of a way if...and...then... command line:
If Sweboz captures (Arverni/Aedui) province X and it is already BC100 then unitz (Gastiz for example) is recruitable.

As i'm no longer involved in the working i'm not sure what has happened in this part of the work.

Second the cavalry:
I was nearly stoned to death while mentioning medium germanic cavalry once:-)
Even the Cimbri made use of them that early, although the unit should be small and very, very expensive.
Sadly the best way to show germanic kind of cavalry warfare is not possible.
The famous combination of light cavalry (Ridoharjoz) and fast and very agile unarmoured men armed with long knives or short stabbing spears.
This combination was so succesfull vs. better armoured gallic cavalry that the romans were very eager to get their hands on germanic mercenary cavalry.
My hopes to implement this were sadly not fullfilled, but perhaps in EB2 there is a little hope to display this important unit of "doublefighters".

Third Gastiz and Hundaskapiz:
The current appearance is work in progress as far as i know, they are both to well equipped and should be changed.

The same for the Wodanawulfoz. This unit should be renamed, reworked and most of all reskinned afap. The current display as regional Haari is unhistorical.
It happened more than once that germanic warriors blackened their bodies and attacked at night (Germanicus' wars for example) The best idea would be to give some germanic units the "ability button" to blacken their skin during night attacks, but i don't think this is possible as a ability)
The current unit just looks curious and fits not in the historical approach on the nations and tribes EB tries to accomplish.
The original idea behind the Wodanawulfoz was some kind of wolf-warriors - who were, for example eagerly employed as mercenaries in later times (as shown on Trajan's column b.t.w.) and also during Caesar's campaign against Pompeius.

Bear-warriors were also not unheard of, to be honest the vanilla berserkers (appearance) were not that far from the truth.

Germanic warriors (as native indians b.t.w.) had a very close association to "totem" animals.
Bear and wolf-skins were very common as kind of "uniform" for bands of warriors (Kriegerbünde). Those bands of warriors were - in game terms - small units, often very dedicated to a god and not only a single tribe.


The whole discussion about stats and costs of units.
I looked at the unit cards and reworked them for myself. Cheaper costs for units recruitment, more expensive to maintain and some units need a morale boost.
The list is ca. 70% finished and i hope somebody of the germanic crew will look over it, but they showed no interest yet.

I'm really interested in the way the team will display the Herthoz (the elite bodyguard) as they should be absolute elite shock unit with very high morale.

Blitzkrieg, b.t.w. i would not give them helmets, it would be better to give them some kind of fantastic haircut like the original Gaizaharjoz.
Personal haircuts were very important for germanic nobles or succesful veterans (soap and a comb were typically placed in a small pouch at the warrior's waist)

The colour red for clothing should also be available only for the Kuniganz, the Harjanaz (General and captains in game-terms) and the Herthoz.

The red cloaks for the Gaizaharjoz is therefore wrong.

About the discusion of the combat abilities for a gallic elite warrior and a germanic elite warrior.
Well, i think nobody knows for sure, but as a whole "group" for EB the germanics seemed fiercer and more warlike and although they had worser equipment (the troopers, not the warrior elite) even after raids and conquest the've won the upper hand vs. their traditional enemies.

The aspect of civil war and decline i would not count in, because if we assume such a thing the germanic tribes were constantly in a kind of "civil war".


Hopefully this discussion will live on...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

To be honest this thread makes me happy.
I wished i had those support the days i worked as faction coordinator for the Sweboz:sweatdrop:

A few thoughts about the last 5 pages of interesting discussion:

Firstly the mentioned reform was planned as a "triggering event" the moment the Sweboz began to capture gallic territory.(Capture and not just raid)
Then the access for their warriors to better armor and weapons should be secured. The recruitment of Gastiz and other "late" units should then be possible.
It was thought of a way if...and...then... command line:
If Sweboz captures (Arverni/Aedui) province X and it is already BC100 then unitz (Gastiz for example) is recruitable.


As i'm no longer involved in the working i'm not sure what has happened in this part of the work.

---

Will you still continue to help out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

Second the cavalry:
I was nearly stoned to death while mentioning medium germanic cavalry once:-)
Even the Cimbri made use of them that early, although the unit should be small and very, very expensive.
Sadly the best way to show germanic kind of cavalry warfare is not possible.
The famous combination of light cavalry (Ridoharjoz) and fast and very agile unarmoured men armed with long knives or short stabbing spears.
This combination was so succesfull vs. better armoured gallic cavalry that the romans were very eager to get their hands on germanic mercenary cavalry.
My hopes to implement this were sadly not fullfilled, but perhaps in EB2 there is a little hope to display this important unit of "doublefighters".

---

Ironically theres enough evidence to argue for a stone throwing Germanic unit.

You could just have two seperate units and advise the player to couple them together to obtain maximum effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

Third Gastiz and Hundaskapiz:
The current appearance is work in progress as far as i know, they are both to well equipped and should be changed.

The same for the Wodanawulfoz. This unit should be renamed, reworked and most of all reskinned afap. The current display as regional Haari is unhistorical.
It happened more than once that germanic warriors blackened their bodies and attacked at night (Germanicus' wars for example) The best idea would be to give some germanic units the "ability button" to blacken their skin during night attacks, but i don't think this is possible as a ability)
The current unit just looks curious and fits not in the historical approach on the nations and tribes EB tries to accomplish.
The original idea behind the Wodanawulfoz was some kind of wolf-warriors - who were, for example eagerly employed as mercenaries in later times (as shown on Trajan's column b.t.w.) and also during Caesar's campaign against Pompeius.

---

I personally find that the scare tactics argument is quite convincing and literally thought that this unit was created within references to Tacitus's Germania.

Quote:

---

Now the Aryans, besides their forces, in which they surpass the several nations just recounted, are in their persons stern and truculent; and even humour and improve their natural grimness and ferocity by art and time. They wear black shields, their bodies are painted black, they choose dark nights for engaging in battle; and by the very awe and ghastly hue of their army, strike the enemy with dread, as none can bear this their aspect so surprising and as it were quite infernal. For, in all battles the eyes are vanquished first.

---

I definitely think a reskin is in order though, they sort of look like a MANOWAR cover at the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

Bear-warriors were also not unheard of, to be honest the vanilla berserkers (appearance) were not that far from the truth.

---

I still don't see why wolf hood and bear hood warriors aren't in EB already, I guess it's just a question of compliling irrefutable evidence of the existance of these fighting men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

Germanic warriors (as native indians b.t.w.) had a very close association to "totem" animals.
Bear and wolf-skins were very common as kind of "uniform" for bands of warriors (Kriegerbünde). Those bands of warriors were - in game terms - small units, often very dedicated to a god and not only a single tribe.

---

It's an overtly and ancient Indo-European tradition to basically try and both psychologically empower yourself with the use of aesthetics and to scare the pants off the enemy via the same methodology, there were undoubtably bands of Germanic warriors that fought like wolf packs.

If you have any pictures or supporting evidence of them I'd be happy to see it, at the moment I just have a few references, and a few pictures from the Trajans column to prove their existance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

Blitzkrieg, b.t.w. i would not give them helmets, it would be better to give them some kind of fantastic haircut like the original Gaizaharjoz.
Personal haircuts were very important for germanic nobles or succesful veterans (soap and a comb were typically placed in a small pouch at the warrior's waist)

---

What about the General, or Faction leader wearing a Germanic cross band crown? or a unit of fairly well armored and Helmeted warriors who inspire other warriors? like the ones seen in pictures on trajan's column?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

About the discusion of the combat abilities for a gallic elite warrior and a germanic elite warrior.
Well, i think nobody knows for sure, but as a whole "group" for EB the germanics seemed fiercer and more warlike and although they had worser equipment (the troopers, not the warrior elite) even after raids and conquest the've won the upper hand vs. their traditional enemies.

---

This debate is getting quite interesting to the point that it may even be a good idea to create a new thread called Celts vs Germans. Obviously not with the objective of trying to put down both sides, but to basically just compile lots of inforamation in a semi-competitive enviroment so that we can shed importent amounts of light on both the Celts and Germans.

Interestingly enough I think that the Celts main advantage was in many was their superior craftsmenship and technological advantage over most of their foes initially. I was at the Museum yesterday basically looking at the differences in quality between Celtic arms and Roman arms and I can honestly say that the Celts surpassed the Romans in terms of mass manufacturing high quality weapons, easily. This is actually a testament to the Romans for defeating their Celtic foes eventually because really, had the Celts actually go their act together and stopped their elite classes from basically engaging in this ego stroking single combat, one man, vs everyone warfare philosophy, they may just very well have conquered the world.

I think one thing that seems to be overwhelmingly clear about the Celtic warrior elite was a focus on individualism, self sufficiency, and heroic swordsmanship, and I'd say that the Celtic sword infantry charge should be boosted significantly, that armor shoudl be a little more common, helmets definitely much more common, and that the sword animations should be altered to be a bit more flamboyant, that was all very characteristic of Celtic swordsmanship.

What the Germans lacked in weapons technology and resources they obviously made up for in tactics and hardiness, the same could be said for the Romans, especially in the creation of their "tire the enemy out "tactic. Their revolutions in formation were not actually unique completely to the Romans, the Celts also did things like this as the Romans said, and left gaps open to allow injured or tired soldiers to fall back and fresh ones to pour in, but it was easily the Romans that mastered this and really figured out that the best way to win a fight was to be able to take verything the enemy can throw at you and then attack them once they are off balance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

The aspect of civil war and decline i would not count in, because if we assume such a thing the germanic tribes were constantly in a kind of "civil war".


Hopefully this discussion will live on...

---

Civil war to a certain degree or endemic warfare naturally occurs between lose confederations and landmasses of tribal societies, obviously, but there was actually an extremely intense conflict raging between the Aedui, and Arverni, etc that had brought in an entirely new Germanic power, and the Aedui had become extremely damaged during the conflict, the political nature of the conflict also was very twisted also, so it is possible to make a case for the argument that the overall Celtic fighting capacity had been weakened slightly because of a much more intense level of warfare raging on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

I pretty much agree with all of that but I still think Celtic warrior caste members of both infantry and cavalry would have been pretty darned dangerous in general, especially if they belonged to a more resourcful tribe.

---

Then we agree :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

I pretty much just want to see if I can find any evidence to make or break the better armored Celtic warrior caste argument. I'm personally leaning more towards them being typically better equipped than they currently are represented.

---

Which argument are you referring to? Are you referring to the Celts being better armoured then the Romans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

Just one question, I would say in general hardiness the Germans were tougher, we both agree on this, but do you think that the well equipped Celtic cavalry elites would have been typically weaker than the Germanic equivilent? or do you think that the General Celtic cavalryman with perhaps just a helmet, and more a desire to be fast rather than heavily armored, would have been weaker than the general Germanic cavalryman?

---

My belief from what I read is that the Germanic cavalry were superior to the well equipped elite Celtic cavalry and any lesser cavalry of the Celts. It was Caesar's cavalry which were scattered by the 800 and by his description his cavalry had mail,swords and spears.

It's seems like its been a long time since you posted SaFe, welcome back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

If Sweboz captures (Arverni/Aedui) province X and it is already BC100 then unitz (Gastiz for example) is recruitable.

---

This could be cool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

Even the Cimbri made use of them that early, although the unit should be small and very, very expensive.

---

I'm not so sure I would agree this about them being a small unit. While they couldn't match the numbers of the Celts, in some instances they came close. The Suevi under Ariovistus had 6,000 cavalry, the Sugambri went raiding with 2,000 cavalry and the 800 that attacked Caesar's cavalry were the ones that were guarding the camp, the rest had gone raiding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

Third Gastiz and Hundaskapiz:
The current appearance is work in progress as far as i know, they are both to well equipped and should be changed.

---

How would you suggest going about making German elites?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

It happened more than once that germanic warriors blackened their bodies and attacked at night (Germanicus' wars for example) The best idea would be to give some germanic units the "ability button" to blacken their skin during night attacks, but i don't think this is possible as a ability)

---

This would be very nice if it were possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

The whole discussion about stats and costs of units.
I looked at the unit cards and reworked them for myself. Cheaper costs for units recruitment, more expensive to maintain and some units need a morale boost.
The list is ca. 70% finished and i hope somebody of the germanic crew will look over it, but they showed no interest yet.

---

I would like to see these if your able to put them on here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

About the discusion of the combat abilities for a gallic elite warrior and a germanic elite warrior.
Well, i think nobody knows for sure, but as a whole "group" for EB the germanics seemed fiercer and more warlike and although they had worser equipment (the troopers, not the warrior elite) even after raids and conquest the've won the upper hand vs. their traditional enemies.

The aspect of civil war and decline i would not count in, because if we assume such a thing the germanic tribes were constantly in a kind of "civil war".

---

I completely agree with what your saying here. For the last sentence you have the example of the Romans being invited to watch 2 German tribes fight in which (possibly) 60,000 Germans died.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

I think one thing that seems to be overwhelmingly clear about the Celtic warrior elite was a focus on individualism, self sufficiency, and heroic swordsmanship, and I'd say that the Celtic sword infantry charge should be boosted significantly, that armor shoudl be a little more common, helmets definitely much more common, and that the sword animations should be altered to be a bit more flamboyant, that was all very characteristic of Celtic swordsmanship.

---

From what I have read this is correct. The Celts while having formations still tended to fight as individuals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

Civil war to a certain degree or endemic warfare naturally occurs between lose confederations and landmasses of tribal societies, obviously, but there was actually an extremely intense conflict raging between the Aedui, and Arverni, etc that had brought in an entirely new Germanic power, and the Aedui had become extremely damaged during the conflict, the political nature of the conflict also was very twisted also, so it is possible to make a case for the argument that the overall Celtic fighting capacity had been weakened slightly because of a much more intense level of warfare raging on.

---

I don't believe this conflict to be any more severe then any of the others that have happened in years past. The Arverni became weakened by their encounter with Rome in 123BC but they still had powerful allies in the Sequani. The Celts would still have the cultural inhibitors that would have prevented the devastation some say happened.I believe that it was an external force that caused the destruction of the Aedui, the Germans. It was the Germans that brought low the Aedui and the Sequani in the Battle of Magetobriga. You also have to take into account Simon James and Adrien Goldsworthy as well. What I would like to know is where there is any information of the Celts becoming weaker because of this internal conflict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Then we agree :yes:

---

Awsome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Which argument are you referring to? Are you referring to the Celts being better armoured then the Romans?

---

Not better armored than the Roman legionaries full stop, some undoubtably would have been better armored, across the board? no, but I think that the Celts had nothing stopping them from producing armor in high enough quantities for me to make the argument that they should have more armored units earlier on. I was simply trying to "make" or "break" the argument by logically and objectivly questioning my own, and others ideas and views on the Celts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

My belief from what I read is that the Germanic cavalry were superior to the well equipped elite Celtic cavalry and any lesser cavalry of the Celts. It was Caesar's cavalry which were scattered by the 800 and by his description his cavalry had mail,swords and spears.

---

But you agree that Celtic elite cavalry should be much tougher in the game? and also more accessable earlier on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

From what I have read this is correct. The Celts while having formations still tended to fight as individuals.

---

It wasn't so much also a form or barbarity and lack of military and cultural sophistication, this is paramount to understanding the Celts, in more technologically and in my opinion much more advanced and civilized times, in the 14th cenutry onwards, knights often fought under strict codes of conduct which strayed very much from the brutal practicality seen in total war orientated battles and conflicts of old.

There is something almost instinctual in certain people to want a very clean and cerimonial fight, it would seem that the very culturally rich and technologically adept Celts were literally obsessed with heroic deeds on the battlefield and epic single combat.

In the end of the day though, war isnt a game, fighting isnt for fun, and anyone that thinks it is is in for a big surprise, the nature of war and survivalism is utterly brutal and you must be relentless, wicked and vicious in order to win, if you aren't going to be this way then theres no point in fighting in the first place.

I can respect the Celts very civilized philosophy on warfare but really it's not the way I would fight my enemies, the way I see it is any enemy that deserves respect and a fair fight shouldn't be your enemy in the first place.

Sorry to deter from the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

I don't believe this conflict to be any more severe then any of the others that have happened in years past. The Arverni became weakened by their encounter with Rome in 123BC but they still had powerful allies in the Sequani. The Celts would still have the cultural inhibitors that would have prevented the devastation some say happened.I believe that it was an external force that caused the destruction of the Aedui, the Germans. It was the Germans that brought low the Aedui and the Sequani in the Battle of Magetobriga. You also have to take into account Simon James and Adrien Goldsworthy as well. What I would like to know is where there is any information of the Celts becoming weaker because of this internal conflict.

---

Quote:

---

After these had been violently struggling with one another for the superiority for many years, it came to pass that the Germans were called in for hire by the Arverni and the Sequani. That about 15,000 of them [i.e. of the Germans] had at first crossed the Rhine: but after that these wild and savage men had become enamored of the lands and the refinement and the abundance of the Gauls, more were brought over, that there were now as many as 120,000 of them in Gaul: that with these the Aedui and their dependents had repeatedly struggled in arms - that they had been routed, and had sustained a great calamity - had lost all their nobility, all their senate, all their cavalry. And that broken by such engagements and calamities, although they had formerly been very powerful in Gaul, both from their own valor and from the Roman people's hospitality and friendship, they were now compelled to give the chief nobles of their state, as hostages to the Sequani, and to bind their state by an oath, that they would neither demand hostages in return, nor supplicate aid from the Roman people, nor refuse to be forever under their sway and empire.

---

I think that the Celts weren't necissarily all suffering terribly, I've sort of outlined my argument about the visciousness of parimiter Celts before, as in islander Iberian, Belgic etc Celtic folk were quite adept and viscious when it came to fighting, but I do think that there is a lot to be taken into consideration when it comes to the fact that the Aedui and Arverni were knocking lumps out of each other and calling in backup from all angles.

Just throwing in my two cents again.

I think that the Gaulish civil war was definitely a determining factor in the decline of the Celts and their later 'inferior' soldiery, for all extensive purposes the Gauls were killing off each other's professional soldiery and noble classes for centuries and by the time the Romans came upon them they were levying citizenry enmasse to fight due to a stunning lack of professional soldiery.

I also think the Gauls should have access to heavily armored infantry far earlier, as others have said they had access to advanced metallurgy during the time period and there is no reason why they shouldn't.

As far as the Germans, I think a good balance which also echoes historical accuracy would be to give them superior light/medium infantry it makes sense to me from reading accounts and from a personal contemplative standpoint that due to their environment they would be more accustomed to fighting and fighting exceptionally well with lighter arms then their Celtic neighbors. The Celts for their part should have access to a wider variety of armored/heavy troops at a cheaper cost as well as have much earlier access to them, as far as Germanic heavy soldiery I feel they should be limited to two noble units, one mounted, one infantry, be very VEEEERY expensive, available only mid-way into the game but be EXTREMELY good at what they do I.E. function as Shock Troops with virtually no equals in the region.

I feel this would not only serve as historically accurate but also balance out the region very well by sticking a very light/medium infantry reliant faction right in the middle of Europe in the way of various expanding powers.

As far as cavalry goes, I find it improbable that the Germanic cavalry was indeed far superior to the Celtic cavalry due to the inferior horses that and as far as is known the Germanic people did not as of yet have as much of an equestrian culture as the Celts, my personal view on the matter is that the Germanic cavalry managed to defeat their Celtic counterparts through usage of mixed-unit tactics which are difficult to emulate via the RTW engine I.E. more then one rider on a single horse and whatnot.

I don't claim to be an expert on this but I daresay I'm knowledgeable enough to form an educated position on the matter, but if I'm factually mistaken on any point please feel free to correct me.

Thanks for your time :bow:

Quote:

---

The red cloaks for the Gaizaharjoz is therefore wrong.

---

Hello Safe,
The Gaizaharjoz doesn't have red cloaks..
Below how I intended the Gaizaharjoz unit.

Sweboz
https://usera.imagecave.com/TheTank/sw1jh2.jpg

Rebel
https://usera.imagecave.com/TheTank/sw2se9.jpg

Currently the Gaizaharjoz unit is bugged in the latest release of EB.
Stefan25 has fixed the issue but the results will be seen in the next release of EB.

I would suggest to give the Gaizaharjoz - though they're some kind of veteran "overlong" lances wielding warriors - a rather normal haircut - suebian knot or normal knot and spare this haircut for the Herthoz or Gastiz as the more fantastic the haircut the richer and more noble a germanic warrior would have been seen by his compatriots. As we know germanics took much pride in their hair cuts and often dyed their hair too for important reasons.
The current haircut of the Gastiz is rather "normal" and especially the Herthoz should look like something special - fantastic haircut, variants of the typical suebian knot and rich colours for their clothes.
The red colour of the tunic should be spared for Herthoz or Gastiz perhaps.
Red for clothes was the colour of the noble and richest men of the tribe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

I would suggest to give the Gaizaharjoz - though they're some kind of veteran "overlong" lances wielding warriors - a rather normal haircut - suebian knot or normal knot and spare this haircut for the Herthoz or Gastiz as the more fantastic the haircut the richer and more noble a germanic warrior would have been seen by his compatriots.
The current haircut of the Gastiz is rather "normal" and especially the Herthoz should look like something special - fantastic haircut, variants of the typical suebian knot and rich colours for their clothes.
The red colour of the tunic should be spared for Herthoz or Gastiz perhaps.
Red for clothes was the colour of the noble and richest men of the tribe.

---

Safe,

I didn't changed much regarding the haircut/beard of the gaizaharjoz unit and because of this I find your comment regarding the hair of this unit a bit strange.
The only think that is changed regarding the hair/beard is they have less detail.
This is change was done because we needed to bring down the poly count for this unit..

Well for the red tunic of the Sweboz gaizaharjoz.
We can always move the Sweboz skin to the merc slot so it will represent a wealthy merc unit.
The downside is that we have to make a new skin for the Sweboz version of the gaizaharjoz unit.

The Tank,

well, these are just suggestions.
The Gaizaharjoz was always wip during the time i was fc.
I think the perfect and wonderul hairstyle should belong to a more "fitting" elite unit(Herthoz or Gastiz, i prefer Herthoz), but perhaps thats just me.
The Gastiz look rather boring (their hairstyle i mean) and the equipment has to change also, so perhaps their hairstyle could be changed too.
About the gaizahrjoz - i would not make them available as mercs.

B.t.w. europeans could have watched ARTE tonight. A very interesting documention about germanic style of life, religion, burials, combat styles, etc...
Very interesting and again many archaeologist agreed that germanics had not so few iron weapons many of us believed (or better were told again and again with a rather disturbing small-mindedness) till now, though the archaeologist agreed that swords were of poorer quality than roman or celtic weapons.

Every warrior was buried with his weapons, but almost every time burned with them before his ash was buried ina urn. Weapons were even destroyed to fit into the urn along with the ash.
The fear of "wiedergänger" - the living dead was vey common among germanic beliefs, and so the body had to be burned along with his weapons.

Also the battle between Ariovist and Caesar was mentioned and the typical germanic wedge formations shown, which really should be implemented.

About the daily life and the worship of gods were also very informative arguments and aspects even i heard never much from.

A real, real interesting broadcast from a french/german/danish tv-team, though to make it more interesting it made use of "narrators" -Storytellers that explained scenes that were filemed with actors. A wise woman from the Suebians under Ariovist and later a soldier-mate from Arminius,

B.t.w. The "animal-warriors" were also mentioned again.
I totally agree with the people who want to implement wolf- and bear-warriors.
The original Wodanawulfoz skin(for those who can remember) without the historical wrong black mullets would make the perfect Wolf-warrior. Add a good wolf-cloak and we will have a historical accurate and very interesting unit.
The skin uses the Sahsnotoz unit slot with a other texture, so hopefully there is a chance for this unit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

B.t.w. europeans could have watched ARTE tonight. A very interesting documention about germanic style of life, religion, burials, combat styles, etc...
Very interesting and again many archaeologist agree that germanics had not so few iron weapons many of us believed (or better were told again and again with a rather disturbing small-mindedness) till now, thougn the archaeologist agreed that sword were of poorer quality than roman or celtic weapons.

---

Oh damn, would have loved watching that. Is it online somewhere perhaps?

Wedge formation is impossible for infantty even if we wish it were so. :cry: the Jugunthiz / Dugunthiz, Youth/Proven spearmen structure of the wedge formation WILL be represented though ~:)

There will be no work on the Gaizaharjoz' hair because there is more important work to be done, such as with the crazy non-hair of the Hearth-troop, who btw need to be completely redone, it is high on my priority list. the Gaizaharjoz is possibly the best looking and most accurate Germanic noble warrior in the game (great job, Tank!), so I really don't understand why MORE work needs to be done for that one... the Framaharjoz needs to be redone for sure

The problem with the "Wolves of Wodan" all along has been the association between Harii, Wolves, and Wodan- ?!? that is the strangest thing I can think of... they are COMPLETELY separate... It is SUCH a fact that Wodan (Odin) was not worshipped as we know him in Norse culture, until VERY late... which means the primary war-god is Tyr, much evidenced... with fertility gods like Frea and Thor also more important... Wodan is like "Mercury/Hermes" for a reason though, god of change "wind/travel/inspiration" and thus god of shamanic ecstasy (later runes)... Harii by themselves work fine working from Tacitus' account primarily but it's not unbelievable... I have yet to actually read documentation of other similar black painted warriors and tactics... it is very true though, that the living dead were very much predominant in Germanic mythology... like draugar! Grettir's fight with Glam... awesome! (he rides a house!) one of the coolest motifs, used in Lord of the Rings even, is fighting the undead spirit who guards his treasure horde... c'mon- you know you love it ~;)

one of the reasons for the look of the Harii regional "Hosts of Wodan" unit is it is using a skin of a Celtic model... if we wanted to change him, NO UNIT... there is no extra space... the Cherusci swordsman uses the extra sword-space, replacing that horrible red shriner hat unit. keep that in mind.

i totally admit that mullets are unacceptable for any individual, fictionalized or living... where's it at?! BURN HIM

and speaking of wulf-skins, i have figured out a way to get both bear and wolf-skin warriors into the game (not because people ask, although I realize people want it- because I too have thought it missing) but- how? using the Merjoz slot (since this warrior is completely baseless) and take away the one element people have to argue about concerning history- the drugged-fanatic/berserk-like nature... so instead, we will have them fight as great warriors, but no ecstatic trance or frenzy. this is in the works as the number 1 priority now, since the Germanic General aka đruxtīnaz (incredibly beautiful btw) is done, thanks to the mighty Blank. Don't worry about losing the Merjoz-like unit though, because a two-handed spiked (ample evidence has been found for some wicked/nasty pieces) clubman has been promised who doesn't use a Germanic model slot.

interesting bit of info about the TV program, SaFe... i wish i lived in europe ~:doh:

I completely agree that the repeated reference to Germania being iron-poor by Romans is complete propoganda and much used as a technique to make the Germans (such as with Tacitus) seem like noble savages... they might have been poor compared to others, but that is no qualification in itself.

PS- I forgot to mention for all who do not know... the idea of FAST infantry to accompany Horsemen has been tried and it doesn't work, similar to the wedge formation for infantry... it isn't missing from the game because we don't like the idea- RTW hardcode sucks, pretty simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

The Tank,


Every warrior was buried with his weapons, but almost every time burned with them before his ash was buried ina urn. Weapons were even destroyed to fit into the urn along with the ash.
The fear of "wiedergänger" - the living dead was vey common among germanic beliefs, and so the body had to be burned along with his weapons.

---

Is this also the probable origin of some warriors descision to dress up as the undead to scare the crap out of their enemies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

Wedge formation is impossible for infantty even if we wish it were so. :cry: the Jugunthiz / Dugunthiz, Youth/Proven spearmen structure of the wedge formation WILL be represented though ~:)

There will be no work on the Gaizaharjoz' hair because there is more important work to be done, such as with the crazy non-hair of the Hearth-troop, who btw need to be completely redone, it is high on my priority list. the Gaizaharjoz is possibly the best looking and most accurate Germanic noble warrior in the game (great job, Tank!), so I really don't understand why MORE work needs to be done for that one... the Framaharjoz needs to be redone for sure

The problem with the "Wolves of Wodan" all along has been the association between Harii, Wolves, and Wodan- ?!? that is the strangest thing I can think of... they are COMPLETELY separate... It is SUCH a fact that Wodan (Odin) was not worshipped as we know him in Norse culture, until VERY late... which means the primary war-god is Tyr, much evidenced... with fertility gods like Frea and Thor also more important... Wodan is like "Mercury/Hermes" for a reason though, god of change "wind/travel/inspiration" and thus god of shamanic ecstasy (later runes)... Harii by themselves work fine working from Tacitus' account primarily but it's not unbelievable... I have yet to actually read documentation of other similar black painted warriors and tactics... it is very true though, that the living dead were very much predominant in Germanic mythology... like draugar! Grettir's fight with Glam... awesome! (he rides a house!) one of the coolest motifs, used in Lord of the Rings even, is fighting the undead spirit who guards his treasure horde... c'mon- you know you love it ~;)

one of the reasons for the look of the Harii regional "Hosts of Wodan" unit is it is using a skin of a Celtic model... if we wanted to change him, NO UNIT... there is no extra space... the Cherusci swordsman uses the extra sword-space, replacing that horrible red shriner hat unit. keep that in mind.

i totally admit that mullets are unacceptable for any individual, fictionalized or living... where's it at?! BURN HIM

and speaking of wulf-skins, i have figured out a way to get both bear and wolf-skin warriors into the game (not because people ask, although I realize people want it- because I too have thought it missing) but- how? using the Merjoz slot (since this warrior is completely baseless) and take away the one element people have to argue about concerning history- the drugged-fanatic/berserk-like nature... so instead, we will have them fight as great warriors, but no ecstatic trance or frenzy. this is in the works as the number 1 priority now, since the Germanic General aka đruxtīnaz (incredibly beautiful btw) is done, thanks to the mighty Blank. Don't worry about losing the Merjoz-like unit though, because a two-handed spiked (ample evidence has been found for some wicked/nasty pieces) clubman has been promised who doesn't use a Germanic model slot.

interesting bit of info about the TV program, SaFe... i wish i lived in europe ~:doh:

I completely agree that the repeated reference to Germania being iron-poor by Romans is complete propoganda and much used as a technique to make the Germans (such as with Tacitus) seem like noble savages... they might have been poor compared to others, but that is no qualification in itself.

PS- I forgot to mention for all who do not know... the idea of FAST infantry to accompany Horsemen has been tried and it doesn't work, similar to the wedge formation for infantry... it isn't missing from the game because we don't like the idea- RTW hardcode sucks, pretty simple.

---

Though I do personally feel quite sympathetic towards the Idea that Iron and various other resources weren't as easilly accessable for the Germanic people I have read of examples of very large smithys that could be used for manufacturing surplus arms of high quality, so I definitely don't think that they were as overwhelmingly ill equipped as many would believe, but I generally think that their heavy emphasis on spear and shield formation fighting was motivated more by resources than a simple interest in dence formation.

The psychological impact restrictions actually have on people I personally think is really fascinating in that it can drive people to creating new technologies and techniques because their creative power is sort of forced out of them, I think that the ancient Germanic people were a lot more innovative than many give them credit for.

I once again say this as someone of minimal Germanic ancestry, (I'm a low lander Scot and I have distinct and traceable Anglo-Saxon ancestry like many or most lowlander Scots)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

Not better armored than the Roman legionaries full stop, some undoubtably would have been better armored, across the board? no, but I think that the Celts had nothing stopping them from producing armor in high enough quantities for me to make the argument that they should have more armored units earlier on. I was simply trying to "make" or "break" the argument by logically and objectivly questioning my own, and others ideas and views on the Celts.

---

Considering the game starts in 270 something BC and the Celts started making chain around 300 BC there is no reason not to have Celtic armored units earlier. Connolly's book "Greece and Rome at War" does a good job at describing the arms and armor of the Romans and Celts during these periods, might be worth while to look at. I wonder if its possible to make a limit on the amount of armored units in the beginning of the game to reflect the scarcity at that time?maybe some kind of limit coding(before 250 BC Aedui can only have 4 solduros or something along those lines)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

But you agree that Celtic elite cavalry should be much tougher in the game? and also more accessable earlier on?

---

I said they should be tougher in another thread but that was before I saw the Remi Mairepos and the Brihentin, they could be bumped a little but also would be acceptable the way they are. As far as being available earlier I would think they could, especially if they can do the limit coding as I mentioned earlier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

It wasn't so much also a form or barbarity and lack of military and cultural sophistication, this is paramount to understanding the Celts, in more technologically and in my opinion much more advanced and civilized times, in the 14th cenutry onwards, knights often fought under strict codes of conduct which strayed very much from the brutal practicality seen in total war orientated battles and conflicts of old.

There is something almost instinctual in certain people to want a very clean and cerimonial fight, it would seem that the very culturally rich and technologically adept Celts were literally obsessed with heroic deeds on the battlefield and epic single combat.

In the end of the day though, war isnt a game, fighting isnt for fun, and anyone that thinks it is is in for a big surprise, the nature of war and survivalism is utterly brutal and you must be relentless, wicked and vicious in order to win, if you aren't going to be this way then theres no point in fighting in the first place.

I can respect the Celts very civilized philosophy on warfare but really it's not the way I would fight my enemies, the way I see it is any enemy that deserves respect and a fair fight shouldn't be your enemy in the first place.

---

I agree with this statement, thats the way that I understand it as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

I think that the Celts weren't necissarily all suffering terribly, I've sort of outlined my argument about the visciousness of parimiter Celts before, as in islander Iberian, Belgic etc Celtic folk were quite adept and viscious when it came to fighting, but I do think that there is a lot to be taken into consideration when it comes to the fact that the Aedui and Arverni were knocking lumps out of each other and calling in backup from all angles.

---

I agree with your idea, but I would have to throw in the Arverni,Aedui and Sequani(and their clients) as well. They would surely have some good veterans in their midst from the fighting they did. The Celts as the Germans had infighting and I believe the Celts had their inhibitors to prevent serious damage as mentioned by Goldsworthy and James. What you have in bold is what I have been saying, its when the Germans come in and kill off the Aedui Nobility,Senate and etc. It wasn't from the infighting but with the coming of the German mercenaries that this happened. The Aedui and the Sequani/Arverni had been fighting back and forth then the Sequani invited the Germans in around 71BC. It was at this time that the Aedui were getting slammed and then they gave hostages to the Sequani(sued for peace). The Germans began to take the land of the Sequani and so the Gauls(Aedui,Sequani,Arverni and clients) joined in the battle of Magetobriga.

Quote:

---

Magetobriga



Related Biographies:
Ariovistus

Related Subjects:
Suebi



Unknown site of a military engagement fought in 61 BCE between the Gallic tribes of the Aedui, Averni and Sequani on one side and the Germanic Suebi, under their King Ariovistus. The Suebi had moved into the region of Gaul comprising modern Alsace and had emerged as a powerful rival to the Gauls on the Rhine. Hoping to evict the unwelcome Germans, the local peoples, headed by the Aedui, confronted Ariovistus in the field. The resulting battle was a display of the martial superiority of the Suebi, for the tribes were crushed. Ariovistus established his rule over much of eastern Gaul. By 58 BCE, Rome was willing to listen to the pleas of the Gallic chieftains, and war erupted once again.
Citation Information:
Text Citation: Bunson, Matthew. "Magetobriga." Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 1994. Facts On File, Inc. Ancient History & Culture.

---

I hope I wasn't misunderstanding what you were getting at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zero1

I think that the Gaulish civil war was definitely a determining factor in the decline of the Celts and their later 'inferior' soldiery, for all extensive purposes the Gauls were killing off each other's professional soldiery and noble classes for centuries and by the time the Romans came upon them they were levying citizenry enmasse to fight due to a stunning lack of professional soldiery.

---

Zero where did you get this information from. Everything I have read which even talks about the subject is contradictory to this. I have been asking this question but no one seems to have an answer to it, if you do please state the source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zero1

I also think the Gauls should have access to heavily armored infantry far earlier, as others have said they had access to advanced metallurgy during the time period and there is no reason why they shouldn't.

---

I completely agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zero1

As far as the Germans, I think a good balance which also echoes historical accuracy would be to give them superior light/medium infantry it makes sense to me from reading accounts and from a personal contemplative standpoint that due to their environment they would be more accustomed to fighting and fighting exceptionally well with lighter arms then their Celtic neighbors. The Celts for their part should have access to a wider variety of armored/heavy troops at a cheaper cost as well as have much earlier access to them

---

I agree with this except I'm not so sure about the cheaper cost, I don't know if that would balance out the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zero1

as far as Germanic heavy soldiery I feel they should be limited to two noble units, one mounted, one infantry, be very VEEEERY expensive, available only mid-way into the game but be EXTREMELY good at what they do I.E. function as Shock Troops with virtually no equals in the region.

---

Interesting but why two noble units only? Also when you say virtually no equals in the region I'm fine with as long as your not counting the Romans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zero1

As far as cavalry goes, I find it improbable that the Germanic cavalry was indeed far superior to the Celtic cavalry due to the inferior horses that and as far as is known the Germanic people did not as of yet have as much of an equestrian culture as the Celts, my personal view on the matter is that the Germanic cavalry managed to defeat their Celtic counterparts through usage of mixed-unit tactics which are difficult to emulate via the RTW engine I.E. more then one rider on a single horse and whatnot.

---

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...0&postcount=26
This link is just some of the incidents of the Germanic cavalry, there were many others as well. Goldsworth says "Even so, the Gallic auxiliaries probably had a significant numerical advantage, and were mounted on larger horses than their opponents, which makes it all the more notable that the Germans quickly gained an advantage." The Germans didn't always use the runner with them as shown in Alesia and some of the other battles. The methods used by the Germans don't necessarily have to be shown as long as the numbers reflect their ability to defeat their opponent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

Very interesting and again many archaeologist agreed that germanics had not so few iron weapons many of us believed (or better were told again and again with a rather disturbing small-mindedness) till now, though the archaeologist agreed that swords were of poorer quality than roman or celtic weapons.

---

I believe Malcolm Todd mentioned this in his book "Early Germans"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Considering the game starts in 270 something BC and the Celts started making chain around 300 BC there is no reason not to have Celtic armored units earlier. Connolly's book "Greece and Rome at War" does a good job at describing the arms and armor of the Romans and Celts during these periods, might be worth while to look at. I wonder if its possible to make a limit on the amount of armored units in the beginning of the game to reflect the scarcity at that time?maybe some kind of limit coding(before 250 BC Aedui can only have 4 solduros or something along those lines)?

---

I will look out for this book at some point in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

I said they should be tougher in another thread but that was before I saw the Remi Mairepos and the Brihentin, they could be bumped a little but also would be acceptable the way they are. As far as being available earlier I would think they could, especially if they can do the limit coding as I mentioned earlier.

---

A limitation on the amount of forces you can produce would be a massive advantage in terms of historical accuracy, especially if the amount of units you could produce would reflect your peoples resources, that would add a whole new and more realistic dynamic on the games geopolitics, for example invading a region for its surplus of metal so you can bolster your heavily armored units, that would be amazingly fun, sending spies around to study the resources of neighboring territories.

I agree with this statement, thats the way that I understand it as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

I agree with your idea, but I would have to throw in the Arverni,Aedui and Sequani(and their clients) as well. They would surely have some good veterans in their midst from the fighting they did. The Celts as the Germans had infighting and I believe the Celts had their inhibitors to prevent serious damage as mentioned by Goldsworthy and James. What you have in bold is what I have been saying, its when the Germans come in and kill off the Aedui Nobility,Senate and etc. It wasn't from the infighting but with the coming of the German mercenaries that this happened. The Aedui and the Sequani/Arverni had been fighting back and forth then the Sequani invited the Germans in around 71BC. It was at this time that the Aedui were getting slammed and then they gave hostages to the Sequani(sued for peace). The Germans began to take the land of the Sequani and so the Gauls(Aedui,Sequani,Arverni and clients) joined in the battle of Magetobriga.

---

I think we are in agreement then, for the record the infight I was referring to would include the situation that unfolded with the German mercinaries just deciding to take over, I consider that to be an extention of the infighting because really they were only there because the Sequani invited them over, much to their later shame.

well, 50BC is a very different time than 270BC, just like 270AD is much different than 50AD... so while the debate on "strength" and represenation can continue concerning the Late Period Project, the rest of EB hardly has enough evidence for any change.

Game limitations are very much a real issue and there's no way to limit the number of x troop... that is precisely why the reforms make such a nicely armored unit possible only later... besides the fact that you WANT the reforms for that... if you already had the unit, why would anyone bother?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

I think we are in agreement then, for the record the infight I was referring to would include the situation that unfolded with the German mercinaries just deciding to take over, I consider that to be an extention of the infighting because really they were only there because the Sequani invited them over, much to their later shame.

---

Then yes we would be in agreement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

Game limitations are very much a real issue and there's no way to limit the number of x troop...

---

That could have been good if it were possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

besides the fact that you WANT the reforms for that... if you already had the unit, why would anyone bother?

---

You would be able to have more units later on and potential better units as well.

Ill post a question for you on Celts overpowered Blitz because I'm trying to keep this to German related topics. I hope your able to answer it.

Thomas S. Burns-"Rome and the Barbarians 100B.C.-A.D. 400"

Quote:

---

The theory that has been advanced in this chapter as the most likely is that the material influence of Jastorf slowly expanded into an area in which oppida were already in a state of heightened turmoil from unknown but sui generis causes. In their efforts to restore order and to achieve a new local hegemony, the leaders of some or all oppida in southern Germany turned to mercenary recruitment in an effort to upset the balance of power that was perpetuating endemic warfare. By necessity they turned outside the oppida zone itself because the men within it were already committed to one side or another. This combative climate attracted the attention of young men seeking profit through arms. Rather than one or two large groups of people migrating many hundred kilometers over exceedingly rugged terrain-and that is precisely the view given in the ancient sources-it seems much more likely that the Romans first confronted numerous groups calling themselves or being identified first by the Celts and then later by the Romans with the same two or three names, which are themselves Celtic or derivative of Celtic terms. These various groups consolidated briefly when Roman legions approached. Chronologically their appearance in the in the historical records seems to coincide with an early, but not the first, stage of the diruption of oppida settlements east of the Rhine. This seems to have occurred at least two generations before their general collapse. pg.85

---

Burns is putting forth the theory that the TCA were called in as mercenaries in the oppidas of Southern Germany and that ended up disrupting the Celtic oppida settlements.
Some of his reasoning for this theory is that the oppida did not seem to be destroyed by a cataclysm(battle or natural) and they didn't collapse at the same time. Burns figures that if the TCA numbered 300,000 they could have overwhelmed any of the oppida. Also "The gradual denouement of oppida in the area of southern Germany does not correlate with the type of invasions attested to in the literature for the Cimbri and Teutones. Moreover, the archaeological data assembled from the areas most likely to have produced "invaders: strongly suggest that anybody coming from those areas would have been very hard-pressed to besiege oppida."

Thomas S. Burns-"Rome and the Barbarians 100B.C.-A.D. 400"

Quote:

---

An attractive theory is that the oppida destroyed one another in a series of hegemonic struggles such as we see half century or so later in Gaul in the opening book of Caesar's narrative. Just as the origins of the great wall may lie in the needs of new elites that came to power during civil wars, so too their abandonment may have so shaken the authority of the leading families and their religious and ideological underpinnings that in this one area oppida civilization, in effect, imploded. Elsewhere Caesar cut this scenario, always possible given the highly competitive nature of Celtic elite families, short. The Cimbri and Teutones may fit obliquely into this scenario, perhaps as recruits drawn into Celtic civil wars. They may also have profited as recruiters themselves from the societal self-questioning that these wars may have produced. pg.78

---

Before the " devastating Celtic civil" war theorists start saying "see see, proof", here is what he says in the very next paragraph.

Thomas S. Burns-"Rome and the Barbarians 100B.C.-A.D. 400"

Quote:

---

Several facts are worth recalling in this context. There was no such thing as a unified Celtic civilization. When it came to political and military power, whatever was going on in Bavaria need not have had any parallel in Gaul. Although Caesar's account opens with some of the oppida in Gaul at war over regional hegemony, there is no hint that Gallic oppida were on the edge of a general disillusion. Nor is there any indication whatsoever that the basic ethos of living in these large manufacturing and marketing centers was questioned in Gaul. Instead, in Gaul there was a heated realignment of allies and aristocratic families. This process had reached a level of regional warfare, in which a few principal oppida were struggling for interregional supremacy. Onto this stage strode Caesar, who quickly became the major player pg.78-79

---

Another thing of interest:

Thomas S. Burns-"Rome and the Barbarians 100B.C.-A.D. 400"

Quote:

---

If this scenario approaches historical reality, then if foreshadows the circumstances surrounding Roman involvement in Gaul under Julius Caesar by half a century. The oppida in souther Germany were more likely to have first turned to "Germanic" sources of recruits simply because of proximity and necessity. pg.86

---

I thought this theory was of interest because it relates to my thoughts on Ariovistus and the Suebi and how they gained control of parts of central Gaul. I was wondering what others thought of this theory of Burns, I personally don't buy into it.

Stephen Allen-"Lords of Battle, the World of the Celtic Warrior"-"The change in emphasis from skirmishing with javelins to shock tactics using a spear and long sword can be detected in Caesar's description of the cavalry engagements during his campaigns in Gaul. By this period, the elite Gallic warriors who provided the urban aristocracies with their armed retainers were almost entirely cavalry, armed with spear and long slashing sword, protected by an iron helmet and mailshirt, and mounted on a larger horse capable of bearing the weight of the rider and his equipment. To the Romans, they were the equivalent of their own 'knightly' class, the equites." pg.132

Stephen Allen-"Lords of Battle, the World of the Celtic Warrior"-"The nature of Celtic warfare changed from small-scale feuding between family groups and neighboring communities to large conflicts between tribal confederations and the life and death struggle against Roman domination. The Celtic urban centers were ruled by the most powerful clans, which constantly sought to increase their power and territory. A major consequence was the increasing importance of cavalry as the preferred tactical arm of the Celtic noble elite, who were now comparable to the equites, the 'knighly' class of the Roman Republic." pg.83

Venceslas Kruta-"The Celts"-"The prestige of the Celtic heroic ideal was probably undimmed by the settlement of the armed groups that criss-crossed Europe in the 3rd century BCE in search of battles and adventure. Similarly, by establishing a warrior aristocracy, especially the cavalry, in the oppida, the old principles were maintained." pg.204

Venceslas Kruta-"The Celts"-"Recruited from the ranks of the warrior nobility, from about 250BCE onwards the cavalry totally replace the war-chariots that had previously constituted the war-chariots that had previously constituted the shock troops of Celtic armies. They became the elite permanent corps of the city-states, formes and maintained by the aristocrats who governed them. The cavalry's essential role in battle is especially well illustrated in Julius Caesar's Gallic wars." pg.110

Venceslas Kruta-"The Celts"-"Celtic cavalry by the beginning of the 1st century BCE, as shown on a panel of the Gundestrup Cauldron and several other illustrations, had saddled horses with full harness, ridden by cavalrymen wearing spurs. The frequency with which these spurs are found when excavating oppida may reflect a proportionate concentration of cavalry troops. Their equipment consisted of the long sword, but also a spear, helmet and shield, sometimes also a coat of mail or light breastplate.
Trained in formation manoeuvres, the cavalry became the Celtic armies strike force; the effectiveness of its charge could determine the outcome of a battle." pg.110

Venceslas Kruta-"The Celts"-"These elite troops were well trained and drilled, but, engaged as they were in all the battles of a Celtic world on the defensive, their numbers eventually dwindled. As they did so, they lost their effectiveness. Caesar makes it clear that the enfeeblement of these elite units was the key to the defeat of the Gaulish cities." pg.110

Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"Most of the tribes raised horses for riding, which were of a smaller size than most modern mounts bu of good quality. Gallic cavalry were famous, and the mounted arm of the professional Roman army would subsequently copy many aspect of equipment, training and terminology from them. However, while very effective in a charge, the cavalry of the tribes, which inevitably consisted of the wealthier warriors, often showed little enthusiasm or aptitude for such important roles as patrolling." pg.204

Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"Both sides sent forward their cavalry, and the allied horsemen gained a slight advantage over the Belgian horse before Caesar withdrew them. Realising that a full-scale battle was not going to develop, the legions were ordered back to camp to rest. Reaching the same conclusion, the Begic commanders sent a part of the army fo ford the River Aisne and either threaten the Roman supply line by capturing the fort protecting the bridge, or draw Caesar off by ravaging the lands of his new found allies, the Remi." pg.241

Later in 51 B.C.

Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-" There were frequent skirmishes-both sides were using German troops, for Commius had managed to persuade 500 of these to join the Bellovaci-and on one occasion the Gauls ambushed and cut up a foraging party of the Remi who were fighting as Roman allies." pg.352

I believe the Remi were outnumbered and caught off guard when this happened, I put this quote in to show that Caesar had been using Remi cavalry.
These were to show that the cavalry were indeed the elite shock troops of Gaul. These were not just Leuce Epos but Brihentin and Remi Mairepos.

I have some more quotes on the German cavalry coming up next, the purpose is to show the clear superiority of the German cavalry over the Gallic cavalry.

eh, great selection of quotes, but this is the Sweboz thread ~;)

I don't suppose we can focus on the Cimbri, so we might have that unit... we need details, like what armor, since a "breastplate" might not seem realistic, recruiting them in Jutland.

I found some other possible models for the basis of the Cimbri regional skin:
1.(hellenistic_cavalry_prodromoi) ! armored and non-skirmisher! GERMANIC skin FREE
2.(belgae_cavalry_taramonnos_myrcharn) skirmisher and ! large skeleton! GERMANIC skin FREE
3..(dacian_cavalry_tarabostes) ! armored and non-skirmisher medium cavalry! GERMANIC and MERC skin FREE

How about this: German reforms. I'm no expert, so I can't say when they happen (do they have the general gallic reform?) but at first the Sweboz only get the "angry savage" barbarian infantry- great shock units with high attack but little or no armor and fragile morale, but then, say when the Romans reach the Marian age or the Sweboz win enough battles against them, they train more professional, but still true barbarian; heavy cavalry, infantry, missile and light artillery (if not too unhistorical) also, were did the Suebi King who fought Caesar get such good horsemen when the germans don't get cavalry the game?

thanks for the comment.

well, 1 added HVY cavalry already in the game, and after this upcoming work, 1 added MED cavalry, which = 3 cav and that should represent those cool guys Caesar admired on the other side of the Rhine...

Sweboz Reforms already planned... the tentative plan is: no recruitable Bodyguard before the Reform and no Heavy cavalry either, but afterwards those units are available to reflect increased access to iron and metallurgical centers/ weapon market...

otherwise, there are some happy stat changes coming which involve Clubmen not being fodder and hopefully a more expensive and more effective light cavalry... the Chatii spearman will be a nice high quality regional of the "Proven" Spearman. the Chatti clubman will indeed be a shock troop but with less defense because of zeal... a wolf-skin shock troop who lives on the fringe of society's borders deep in the forest, so only recruitable as a MERC similar to the Gastiz. The black skinned Harii regional will be changed to a night-raider who merely references the practice used in Lugi territory. leather helms all around on appropriate units... denser formations for appropriate units, to represent the shield-wall in the absence of phalanx ability, such as for the pike unit, whose name is going to be AWESOME (it's a suprise)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

eh, great selection of quotes, but this is the Sweboz thread

---

The reason for the quotes is to back up some of my claims, I ran short of time and was not able to continue my quotes. The quotes I posted of the Celtic cavalry do have a relevance which I will put down at the end of the quotes on this post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sirfiggin

were did the Suebi King who fought Caesar get such good horsemen when the germans don't get cavalry the game?

---

There is German cavalry currently in the game, but they are not of the quality of the ones of Ariovistus nor of the Germanic mercenary cavalry Caesar had.

Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"A cavalry combat took place in the fields outside the town, and the Romans eventually won this when Caesar threw in his band of 400 Germans."pg.323
This took place at the town of Noviodunum.


Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"On the following day the Gaulish cavalry attacked in three groups-one striking the heead of the column and th eothers threatening the flanks. Caesar's cavalry were heavily outnumbered but he likewise divided them into three groups and moved up the infantry as close support whenever they were hard pressed. The legionaries could not catch the enemy horsemen, but they provided a solid block for their own horsemen to rally behind and re-form. In the end the Germans won the combat on the right, routing the warriors facing them and causing the rest to withdraw. pg.335

Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"The Romans began to work on a monumental set of siegeworks, with a rampart stretching for 11 miles and including twenty-three fortlets as well as larger camps in which the soldiers would rest. The Gauls did not let this go unmolested and sent their cavalry down to attack. They were met by the auxiliary and allied cavalry, but it was not unitl Caesar committed his reserve of German horsemen and formed up some of the legionaries in support that the Gauls were driven back."pg.336-337
At Alesia.


Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"As a gesture of confidence, Caesar sent his cavalry out from the lines to engage the horsemen of the relief force. A whirling fight developed and lasted throughout the afternoon, and seemed for a long time to have been going the Gauls' way,when once again Caesar's German cavalry charged and won the day for the Romans." pg.339-340
When Gallic relief forces showed up at Alesia.

There is an obvious theme here. The outnumbered Roman(Gallic allies) cavalry is having problems with the Gallic("rebel") cavalry and income the outnumbered German cavalry to save the day.

As to how the Germanic cavalry worked:

Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"Ariovistus' horsemen worked closely with picked light infantry-who in later centuries were known to the Germans as the 'hundred'(centeni)-capable over short distances of keeping pace with the horses by grabbing onto their manes. The warriors on foot acted as a solid support, behind which the cavalry could retreat if worsted, and rest and re-form before advancing again. The tactics and quality of the Germanic warriors usually gave them the edge over Gaulish cavalry." pg.229

The German cavalry as explained above didnt have the light infantry intermingled with them when they engaged their enemies. I'm sure they did fight with them at times but in general they were simply support.

So your asking why did I revist this subject! The reason is Blitz did something I didnt think anyone would be able to accomplish, he got heavy cavalry for the Sweboz!WOOT! I think it's a very good thing. The problem I have with this is as follows:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

Why do you use the Remi Mairepos as your base? They weren't fighting them in any of the examples you mentioned.

---

The Remi were not mentioned in my earlier quotes but Caesar did have them in his Cavalry, so yes the German cavalry did fight the Remi. 800 German cavalry charged and defeated 5,000 of Caesar's cavalry which would have included Remi Mairepos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

In fact in most of the examples we're not even talking about heavy cavalry, but about light cavalry like the Luce Epos (that unit is actually sort of a conglomeration of the light and medium cavalry of gaul, but its the closest we can get).

---

Not only did I show that most of the units Caesar fought against were NOT Luce Epos in this https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...3&postcount=37 I added even more from more authors a couple of posts ago.https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=219 These quotes saying "elite","shock" etc. not to mention the arms and armorment of the cavalry that Caesar used and that was used against him show without a doubt that these units are brihentin and Remi Mairepos.

I also added more 2 more authors and their quotes and books which dispells the devastating "Gallic Civil War" theory.

What I'm getting at is that the stats that are to be awarded to the German heavy cavalry will be woefully inadequate from a historical perspective. The German cavalry consistantly defeated a numerically superior Gallic cavalry. The stats that the German cavalry have will be at best marginally better, certainly not even close to doing what they did historically.

Blitz like I said before you did something I didn't think would happen and I glad for that. I will try to get more TCA information to you, but most likely it will be or their movements and vague remarks on their martial prowess. What you got from Plutarch is the most descriptive I have come across but I will continue to look.

Hm, to me, Sweboz was one of the most difficult factions to fight against, as Romani (second only to horse archer factions)... Gameplay-wise they don't seem too underpowered to me... Any tips on how to beat them with Camillan units and bad economy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Hm, to me, Sweboz was one of the most difficult factions to fight against, as Romani (second only to horse archer factions)... Gameplay-wise they don't seem too underpowered to me... Any tips on how to beat them with Camillan units and bad economy?

---

Break them at your walls, and then counter-attack directly at their cities. If you don't want them after that, then just give them to a buffer faction or allow it to rebel, taking down all the buildings inside.

Thanks, that's what I should do! ~:) Additionally, I should probably create a better spy network in order not to be surprised by their reinforcements when counter-attacking their cities. One problem though, is Germanic family members: starting out with nothing or very few units, outside the city I besiege, they hire mercs from 2 zones, and suddenly come at me with a full stack of ridoharjoz and gastiz, and as if it wasn't enough, the enemy general already had 8 command stars :skull: I've had that at least twice :shrug: But with good spy network and slower advance + siege defense/sally, I should be fine, I hope ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

The reason for the quotes is to back up some of my claims, I ran short of time and was not able to continue my quotes. The quotes I posted of the Celtic cavalry do have a relevance which I will put down at the end of the quotes on this post..

---

I’ve said this elsewhere, but quoting the same select examples over and over again does not a compelling argument make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

800 German cavalry charged and defeated 5,000 of Caesar's cavalry.

---

Oh brother, here we go again. The mighty 800! ..evidence of the Master Race!
So these 800 defeated 5000 enemy cavalry. What about the 400 Gauls who defeated 4,000, or the 4,000 Romans and Gauls who defeated 6,000 German cavalry!? Do you see anyone else grabbing a few incidents in isolation, devoid of context and making grandiose claims?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

I will continue to look.

---

Please do

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

What I'm getting at is that the stats that are to be awarded to the German heavy cavalry will be woefully inadequate from a historical perspective..

---

According to you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

The German cavalry consistantly defeated a numerically superior Gallic cavalry..

---

According to you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

The stats that the German cavalry have will be at best marginally better, certainly not even close to doing what they did historically..

---

According to you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

There is German cavalry currently in the game, but they are not of the quality of the ones of Ariovistus nor of the Germanic mercenary cavalry Caesar had..

---

According to you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

There is an obvious theme here..

---

Ain’t that the truth!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

I’ve said this elsewhere, but quoting the same select examples over and over again does not a compelling argument make.

---

From this time period there are not very many examples which are as detailed as Caesar's. For the time frame of EB you have the TCA and a very few others. I am using multiple authors with their own analysis on the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

Oh brother, here we go again. The mighty 800! ..evidence of the Master Race!
So these 800 defeated 5000 enemy cavalry. What about the 400 Gauls who defeated 4,000, or the 4,000 Romans and Gauls who defeated 6,000 German cavalry!? Do you see anyone else grabbing a few incidents in isolation, devoid of context and making grandiose claims?

---

Please expand on this, what battles are you referring to? The last one of the 6,000 Germans seems to be the battle with Ariovistus, please give more information on this, I would like to see what you have on it.If it is on the battle with Ariovistus there was skirmishing going on but not much information after that. For them being the master race, hardly. The Germans were defeated regularly by the Romans, as were the Gauls. The grandoise claims? Goldsworthy, Sidnell,Speidel, etc. etc. pretty much say it was impressive. Perhaps I'm missing your meaning, but if you mean isolated incidents such as Caesar's campaign, then yea I guess I would be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
The German cavalry consistantly defeated a numerically superior Gallic cavalry..

According to you

---

And Sidnell,Goldsworthy and Speidel

As for the rest of the things you put down the "According to you" yea when it comes to the EB thing it is the way I believe. As far as the Germans being superior to the Gauls, that's not just me, thats also from the authors I had quotes from.

I could have needed a heavier cavalry unit in my Sweboz campaigns, but as a student of history I have to agree with Psycho that you cannot project evidence from Caesar's time to the whole EB timeframe. Even if there was evidence about such a powerful cavalry around the time of Caesar's wars in Gaul, and if such a unit would be included in the game, it should not be available before somewhere between 70 - 50 BC.
In terms of gameplay I think that this whole discussion if celtic or germanic cavalry is better is rather pointless. The Sweboz have a huge advantage over the Gauls because they are surrounded by Eleutheroi provinces. I have played several campaigns where I gave all reforms to the Celts from the beginning and although they recruited Brihentin and all the other post-reform units they were absolutely no match for the Sweboz and the Romans.

While Psycho has a point in his proofed knowledge of the celtic tribes he simply ignore some authors he doesn't like as Frostwulf shows.

Also Psycho should know, that the numbers Caesar mentioned are laughable.
I admire his knowledge about celts, but it is rather disturbing that he mentions numbers of whom he know are wrong.

Every historian could take this numbers and show with simple archaelogical findings that the climate and agriculture in germanic territory could not feed such numbers of healthy male adults who could fight as warriors. There is simply no chance that Ariovist and his Suebians could have an army of so many thousands of warriors.
It is rather so that the Suebians and their allied tribesmen were numerally in the minority at the battle vs. Caesar and his legions.

By now we should all know about roman acquaintance with numbers.
They are simply wrong as well as i don't believe in 800 germanic horsemen vs. thousands of gallic horsemen.

It would show much more fairness, if we just don't pick the writers we like and ignore the others.

I'm no expert in that field of study, so I have no idea if there are any writers ignored or not. I'm just pretty sure that the germanics of 50 BC were different from the germanics of 270 BC. As long as this is reflected in some kind of reform, I have no problem with heavier units.
I'd like to see a medium and a heavy cavalry unit as Blitzkrieg proposed - but I don't care that much wether they are better than Brihentin or not. Somehow I even think it's realistic in the game when you can beat a strong enemy because of better tactics and/or better economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

From this time period there are not very many examples which are as detailed as Caesar's.

---

Detail should in no way imply better accuracy compared to other authors; it just means there are more things to check carefully.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by burn_again

I could have needed a heavier cavalry unit in my Sweboz campaigns, but as a student of history I have to agree with Psycho that you cannot project evidence from Caesar's time to the whole EB timeframe. Even if there was evidence about such a powerful cavalry around the time of Caesar's wars in Gaul, and if such a unit would be included in the game, it should not be available before somewhere between 70 - 50 BC.

---

As far as the time frame is concerned the Germans really don't appear till the Bastarnae around 200BC, then the TCA around 113BC and finally with Ariovistus in 71BC, these of course of written sources. If your going to include Sweboz there is no reason not to include these cavalry units. The cavalry that Caesar encounters (with a few exclusions like Ariovistus) were not well armored yet were able to rout numerically superior Gallic troops. There is no reason to assume these cavalry units would not have been around. If you do consider the armored cavalry units you have to look to the TCA which is thought to have left around 120 BC, they did have armored cavalry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by burn_again

In terms of gameplay I think that this whole discussion if celtic or germanic cavalry is better is rather pointless. The Sweboz have a huge advantage over the Gauls because they are surrounded by Eleutheroi provinces. I have played several campaigns where I gave all reforms to the Celts from the beginning and although they recruited Brihentin and all the other post-reform units they were absolutely no match for the Sweboz and the Romans.

---

So would you rather have realistic units or should some game play issues be changed? I personally would rather have the realistic units. Tone down the Eleuthori around the Gallic areas if thats whats needed. One of the threads that was started before was complaining of the Celts being to powerful.

Also Psycho should know, that the numbers Caesar mentioned are laughable.
I admire his knowledge about celts, but it is rather disturbing that he mentions numbers of whom he know are wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

Every historian could take this numbers and show with simple archaelogical findings that the climate and agriculture in germanic territory could not feed such numbers of healthy male adults who could fight as warriors. There is simply no chance that Ariovist and his Suebians could have an army of so many thousands of warriors.
It is rather so that the Suebians and their allied tribesmen were numerally in the minority at the battle vs. Caesar and his legions.

---

Taking into the account of Caesar and his battle with Ariovistus John Warry puts the numbers as:
Caesar:21,000 legionairs plus 4,000 Gallic horse and other auxillaries
Ariovistus: (from a community of 120,000) 6,000 horsemen, 6,000 footmen, 16,000 light infantry.
I don't have a problem with these numbers. In general it is thought Caesar exaggerated his enemies numbers but by how much is uncertain. I also would be careful with what archeology can provide as it can often be misread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

By now we should all know about roman acquaintance with numbers.
They are simply wrong as well as i don't believe in 800 germanic horsemen vs. thousands of gallic horsemen.

---

I do believe this. It was after all Caesar's troops that were defeated and it is a rare thing to put your own numbers higher. After reading from the different authors, I think the numbers are realistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by burn_again

I'm no expert in that field of study, so I have no idea if there are any writers ignored or not. I'm just pretty sure that the germanics of 50 BC were different from the germanics of 270 BC. As long as this is reflected in some kind of reform, I have no problem with heavier units.

---

I think there is a reformed planned around 150 BC which would make sense as the TCA were to begin their trek around 30yrs later. As far as them being much different from 270 till 50BC only for the armored units, which would still leave a heavy cavalry such as most of those that Caesar came across, not heavily armored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by burn_again

I'd like to see a medium and a heavy cavalry unit as Blitzkrieg proposed - but I don't care that much wether they are better than Brihentin or not. Somehow I even think it's realistic in the game when you can beat a strong enemy because of better tactics and/or better economy.

---

This would get down to the realistic units again. You can curb unit output by other ways like cost. You can still have it realistic with better tactics and economy but I think the units realism is more important. If the units aren't important why have this mod? The reason for this mod to begin with is because the EB guys felt that vanilla RTW didn't have realistic units.The goal is realism and you can lock down economy and realistic units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Detail should in no way imply better accuracy compared to other authors; it just means there are more things to check carefully.

---

I completely agree with you. I have to go with more modern authors because I don't have the time nor the expertise to compile the information they have. I use multiple authors trying to get a consensus on historical happenings to see if most agree, and to date on this time period and situations they do.The authors I use such as Goldsworthy, Warry and etc. don't just use Caesar, but Tacitus and others.

Since I'm not sure which battles Psyco V was talking about I'll make a guess about the 4,000 Gallic cavalry vs 6,000 cavalry as being that as Ariovistus. If thats the case then you could be right, but very doubtful you are. Caesar never elaborates about the cavalry in the battle. He mentions several skirmishes they had prior but says nothing one way or the other. Sidnell seems to think that because of the terrain they were in the cavalry fought on foot.
As far as the 400 defeating the 4,000 that sounds like the Helvetii defeating Caesar's 4,000 cavalry. Caesar's cavalry ended up getting spread out and the 400 Helvetii charged them and chased them off. There were no Germans involved here.

Wait... how do we know about the ACTUAL productivity in agriculture concerning a people during a time period we don't even have references to until almost 200 years later?! That seems absurd to me. Even if we knew FOR SURE what technology they were limited to (which we don't- we have theories based on evidence of a select few, as is the case for all ancient Germanic evidence- we do NOT have a comprehensive sample of the entire population of the area) there are still other methods to feed and support a population which include but are not limited to fishing, hunting, pastoralism and gathering practices that can supplement and add to any baseline "theory" historians have about how much population an area can support. It can't even be claimed that a single iota of information is FOR SURE even from the strongest cases available in archaeological and linguistic evidence, since literary evidence is completely lacking.

Pastoralists can be said to be of such low populations because it is science fact that their methods of food acquisition are based on their animals' needs and an environment based on quantifiable factors. The Huns in similar propogandic tendencies (as said of the Germans) are called HORDES even though pastoralist populations are limited by their lifeways and huge areas of steppe can still only support so many. Of course saying "that small group over there kicked mine with less than half our number" isn't going to come across naturally for any proud people.

Now if that is the same reasoning to claim that Germans could not possibly field an army of 4,000, it is not wrong to use similar logic concerning enivromental facts and lifeways, but where is this evidence? I find it very hard to believe that agriculturalists (whose purpose is to support larger populations than nomads and pastoralists) can't even support a very small number of warriors like 4,000 in all of Germania, especially considering a diet consisting of readily available fish on the coastline or game in vast forestland. Surely their agricultural practices were limited by the cold climate of the North and the lack of a heavy iron tool technology, but if that was the case, how did the Germans EVER field an army to cause the "Migration Age" without a population to migrate? We know that not all Germanic warriors were considered professional and were part-time, so it really can't be said that they were lacking in manpower.


Good point, Frostwulf, we don't even know a single thing for sure before the Bastarnae who we know almost nothing, and much is also NOT known about the Teutons, Cimbri, and Ambrones, so Caesar is are earliest (although certainly biased) authority. Tacitus isn't even very good but quite valuable in comparison to nothing. Jordanes is similarly useful but limited.

There is absolutely no reason that a unit should unbalanced for any reason. There is no winner or loser in an open-ended computer game and it is up to different players playing different teams to use their differently balanced game pieces to achieve victory. I find it odd that our new Germanic heavy cavalry unit needs to be further pumped up in stats which is among the best if not THE BEST unit available for its region. Why have a battle at all if you want to decide its result?


Psycho, it seems ridiculous to me to claim that someone needs to lay out every possible context behind a citation when the whole point of doing the citation is so someone can check it and make up their mind for themselves (although you're right it is not an effective way to do an argument). It seems to me there is no validity to your criticism if you want someone to go beyond using EVIDENCE, which is all that is available... ok, Classical writers tend to exagerate and history is not truth but perspective, but what CAN we know then? NOTHING. By your own logic, you'd say that nothing can be said about any archaeological finds because we have to know the context first, even though that is where context comes from (chicken before the egg)... who defines when someone has achieved the appropriate context? Argument is all well and fine and the whole purpose of citation is to have arguments about data and reference, but to claim that someone needs more than that like rhetoric seems less much like you want to find truth (since you're speaking openly WITHOUT citation) and more like you want to create an effect, persuading people, rather than informing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Also Psycho should know, that the numbers Caesar mentioned are laughable.
I admire his knowledge about celts, but it is rather disturbing that he mentions numbers of whom he know are wrong. .

---

~:) Then why are you so hung up on citing the example of 800 German cavalry?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Taking into the account of Caesar and his battle with Ariovistus John Warry puts the numbers as:
Caesar:21,000 legionairs plus 4,000 Gallic horse and other auxillaries
Ariovistus: (from a community of 120,000) 6,000 horsemen, 6,000 footmen, 16,000 light infantry.
I don't have a problem with these numbers. .

---

I believe Caesar had 6 legions, so he may have had a little more than 21k, we don’t know for sure as several legions were under strength.

But this begs the question.... :helloo:

By your rationale Frosty, if 6 Legions defeated 120,000 Germans but 11 Legions were defeated by 80,000 Gauls..shouldn’t we all be jumping up and down claiming that the ‘Gauls were better than the Germans most of the time’! :charge:


~:flirt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

I use multiple authors trying to get a consensus on historical happenings to see if most agree, and to date on this time period and situations they do.

---

I’m afraid that is just your interpretation. You take quotes like Goldsworthy on how during the Gallic campaign the German horse appeared superior and want to extrapolate that (devoid of context) to several hundred years prior. See my post in the "Celts are overpowered" thread for more detailed cross analysis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Since I'm not sure which battles Psyco V was talking about I'll make a guess about the 4,000 Gallic cavalry vs 6,000 cavalry as being that as Ariovistus. If thats the case then you could be right. Caesar never elaborates about the cavalry in the battle. He mentions several skirmishes they had prior but says nothing one way or the other.

---

Yup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

As far as the 400 defeating the 4,000 that sounds like the Helvetii defeating Caesar's 4,000 cavalry. Caesar's cavalry ended up getting spread out and the 400 Helvetii charged them and chased them off. There were no Germans involved here.

---

No Germans..so?

The point is anyone can grab an isolated incident out of any semblance of context and start making grandiose claims. What about the alleged force of 430,000 Germans who threw down their arms and fled in panic at the sight of 8 Legions in open country ...when 330,000 Gauls attacked 11 well entrenched Legions? Should we assume all Germans were cowards and the Gauls brave and ferocious warriors? :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

This would get down to the realistic units again. The goal is realism …and realistic units.

---

Yup, which is what EB have. They don’t take Imperial Legions and use them as a bench-mark for all Romans throughout several hundred years of history prior… nor do they take Germanic feat of arms in the mid 1st BC – 1st C Ad and do the same.


my2bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

Psycho, it seems ridiculous to be to claim that someone needs to lay out every possible context behind a citation.

---

I didn't ask him to “lay out” any context. I merely encouraged him to consider context before grabbing a few select pieces of data and jumping to conclusions. See my analogy of the 5 blind men and elephant in the “Celts are overpowered thread”.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

you're right it is not an effective way to do an argument.

---

It just turns into ‘noise’

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

It seems to me there is no validity to your criticism if you want someone to go beyond using EVIDENCE, which is all that is available... ok, Classical writers tend to exagerate and history is not truth but perspective, but what CAN we know then? NOTHING. By your own logic, you'd say that nothing can be said about any archaeological finds because we have to know the context first…etc etc.

---

Ridiculous... of course we can know something, but we are still learning. Hence when we come across data, we need to cross-reference it with everything else we know about the subject. This is not only true for history / archaeology but for every scientific discipline.

Been to the doctors lately? If you turn up complaining of a number of ailments, one of which is numbness in the legs, your doctor won’t jump up and go “right… early stages of gangrene, we’re going to have to cut that leg off I’m afraid!” He look at the big picture and your ailments in context to all available data.


my2bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

While Psycho has a point in his proofed knowledge of the celtic tribes he simply ignore some authors he doesn't like as Frostwulf shows..

---

:2thumbsup: What prey tell have I ignored?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

Also Psycho should know, that the numbers Caesar mentioned are laughable.
I admire his knowledge about celts, but it is rather disturbing that he mentions numbers of whom he know are wrong. .

---

The numbers are inconsequential… you’ve missed the wood through the trees here my friend.
The whole point here is demonstrating how flawed the idea is that you can take select data, devoid of context, and draw conclusions from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

By now we should all know about roman acquaintance with numbers. They are simply wrong as well as i don't believe in 800 germanic horsemen vs. thousands of gallic horsemen. .

---

I rest my case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

It would show much more fairness, if we just don't pick the writers we like and ignore the others.

---

Ain’t that the truth!

Hello, again deciding to add my two cents.

Now while I admit that my knowledge of the Celts and Germans of the classical erra, which my community college professors and friends/family find impressive, is meager in comparison to many here...that said, after reading this over it seems to me that Frostwulf is using single incidents to support some sort of agenda...specifically that the Germanic peoples were superior to the Celts and the Romans superior to everyone...if that's the case then isn't this exactly the kind of over simplification that EB seeks to avoid?, Isn't this the same kind of ethnocentric nationalistic nosense that spurred on the legendary and sometimes ridiculous Greek language arguments?

If I'm wrong, which I hope I am, please correct me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Also Psycho should know, that the numbers Caesar mentioned are laughable.
I admire his knowledge about celts, but it is rather disturbing that he mentions numbers of whom he know are wrong. .

Then why are you so hung up on citing the example of 800 German cavalry?

---

:oops: Sorry this wasn't my quote, it was safe's. I accidentally added it to my post.:embarassed: I'm not hung up on the 800, thats just one of the examples I used along with the Sugambri and the German mercenaries of Caesar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

I believe Caesar had 6 legions, so he may have had a little more than 21k, we don’t know for sure as several legions were under strength.

But this begs the question....

By your rationale Frosty, if 6 Legions defeated 120,000 Germans but 11 Legions were defeated by 80,000 Gauls..shouldn’t we all be jumping up and down claiming that the ‘Gauls were better than the Germans most of the time’!

---

It wasn't 120,000 combatants, the total number of people (woman,children,warriors etc.) is 120,000. For combatants you have 6,000 horsemen, 6,000 footmen, 16,000 light infantry. As far as the 80,000 Gauls I dont know of which battle you are referring to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

I’m afraid that is just your interpretation. You take quotes like Goldsworthy on how during the Gallic campaign the German horse appeared superior and want to extrapolate that (devoid of context) to several hundred years prior. See my post in the "Celts are overpowered" thread for more detailed cross analysis.

---

I did and put a reply that basically says that this is the only written information of battles other then the TCA. With the TCA the battles are not well documented while with Caesar they are. All we know is that the TCA (granted they had Celts among them) defeated some Roman armies. These are the same type armies who defeated the Gauls in 120's BC. We don't know what the situation was when the TCA was rebuffed by the Boii and the Scordisci nor do we know what the situation when the TCA was in Spain for a few years. We do know fairly well how the TCA was deployed and some of the tactics they used against the Romans, both before and after Marius. We also know how the southern Gauls(Arverni,Allobreges etc.) were dealt with by the Romans. There is some that can be done by proxy here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

No Germans..so?

The point is anyone can grab an isolated incident out of any semblance of context and start making grandiose claims. What about the alleged force of 430,000 Germans who threw down their arms and fled in panic at the sight of 8 Legions in open country ...when 330,000 Gauls attacked 11 well entrenched Legions? Should we assume all Germans were cowards and the Gauls brave and ferocious warriors?

---

No Germans=thought we were only talking to them, didnt know what you were getting at till now.
430,000 tribesmen most were not warriors.
Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"The legions marched out in three columns, which could readily be converted into the battle line of the triplex acies, and advanced the 8 miles to the German camp.The Usipetes and Tencteri were surprise and leaderless, so that what followed was more of a massacre than a battle." pg.275
I have a hard time believing that this was open country and yet being able to be taken by surprise.
For the most part when I talk of battle sequences I do put down factors that are relevant, I don't just throw out numbers.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...0&postcount=26

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

(although you're right it is not an effective way to do an argument)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

It just turns into ‘noise’

---

Ill have to disagree with you guys on this. Putting quotes gives validity to an argument. I'm sorry but just because you say something is so doesn't mean I will believe you. If you get a quote from a noted scholar then it holds more weight. The quotes I put down are perfectly legitimate and in context, I even went so far as to type out an entire Simon James page to prove it wasn't out of context, yet there will be some that just don't want to believe it and want me to type out the whole book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zero1

Hello, again deciding to add my two cents.

Now while I admit that my knowledge of the Celts and Germans of the classical erra, which my community college professors and friends/family find impressive, is meager in comparison to many here...that said, after reading this over it seems to me that Frostwulf is using single incidents to support some sort of agenda...specifically that the Germanic peoples were superior to the Celts and the Romans superior to everyone...if that's the case then isn't this exactly the kind of over simplification that EB seeks to avoid?, Isn't this the same kind of ethnocentric nationalistic nosense that spurred on the legendary and sometimes ridiculous Greek language arguments?

If I'm wrong, which I hope I am, please correct me

---

What are you considering single incidents? If you are referring to the Germans in the Gallic war, then yes. If your saying a single battle then you are incorrect. The reason for most of this thread was to push for a heavy German cavalry and to increase the strength and moral of some of their units, to flesh them out by using scholars of history and archeology. True most of the data comes from the Gallic war, but do you know of a better source? Outside the TCA and Gallic war time frames, where can we get some information? When I said that the Romans >Germans>Gauls it's based on the battles that were fought and the circumstances behind them, yes this part was simplistic and a generalization. I showed how the German cavalry was superior to the Gallic cavalry and that there was a need for an improvement from the only German cavalry now in the game.How is this "ethnocentric nationalistic nonsense"?

Frostwulf, when I say that using quotes exclusively is not an effective way of argumention, it doesn't mean you at all, but is rather meant as factual... if you re-read what i posted, you'll see i support your use of citation and quotes because that's the only thing that can be claimed at all where otherwise there is only ignorance and a void of information. Using facts is where it's at and quoting is doing that, which I applaud you for, something I do not always do because i do not have time to dig out books and my university access these days is limited.

You don't need to repeat yourself, although I understand you're only trying to defend your argument. You've done that.

You mentioned something of tactics concerning the Cimbri, Teutons, ect... it would be awesome if we could recreate a historical battle with that knoweldge. Currently I am wondering if the word "breastplate" mentioned in reference to the Cimbri might not actually be mail since the word for mail originates in "breast" and such can be easily mistranslated. I am also wondering what evidence we could use besides the Hjortspring deposit (which supports mail) to support a more diversified armor assortment and actually portray some kind of Gallic breastplate or whatever was used.