Celtic overpowered!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

....

I must be missing something. Im saying that Rome was caught up with many enemies and they would have had the same hard time as the Celts. Just because the Celts gave way doesnt mean the Romans didnt have the same problems. The Romans were successfully attacking the Celts,Illyrians,Greeks and etc. why would it only befall the Celts that they lose to attrition? I must be missing something. Sorry Psyco your just going to have to break out the crayons for me.
Alot of these last ones were rushed as Im pressed for time, sorry about that. Psyco if you wouldnt mind putting down the first names of the authors you mentioned, Id like to find more out about them.

---

why would it only befall the Celts that they lose to attrition?

Its been like the 5th time it has been said. The Romans, Celts and Germans had different ways of producing and training armies.
--The Romans would call up men from its territories and allies. Train them, and drill them to fight as a unit and throw them into battle. IF that army failled (as in the case against Hannibal), the Romans simply called up more men.
--Each German tribe had most of its men be able to double as Soldiers and Farmers/Craftmen/etc.
--Celts, had a warrior class that did the fighting, the farmers/craftmen/etc did not fight UNLESS in times of dire need. AND unlike the Romans these "Levies" were not trainned and drilled to fight as a unit.
----Also, Celtic warrior class was NOT trained from training camps or anything like that.

Another point I would like to make. The Romans were able to crunch out men like a paper mill to go against Pyross (sp), Hannibal, etc. because Rome exerted direct political, economic and administrative control from all its territories. Where at a flick of a finger during Republican eras the Senate could reduce land requirments and raise extra legions. And during Imperial times there was no shortege of men willing to join the well fed Legions.

The Celts were not an ORGANIZED NATION. There were different tribes who formed and broke alliances depending on what tribe was stronger and RARELY EVER came together as a Single Gallic Nation.

Not only is it hard to crunch out new fighting men by it self. But the tribes RARELY EVER decided to all produce new Warriors at the same time, and all spend the amount of resources nessesary to do so.

Gday Frostwulf ...I'll have to get back to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

@Psycho:
Concerning the Belgae and here especially the Nervii:
In the future it would be better if you quote my complete sentences, i never disputet that the Nervii were celtic. I just said that they themselves seemed to be proud of germanic heritage - which is wrong.

---

And this is exactly what I was responding to. They were taking pride in their achievements having come from what was later called the land of the Germani. ie “we chose to migrate and by feats of valour fought our way here and seized all this land above the Seine.” They were NOT making / inferring some imagined statement about how great they were by trying to associate themselves with the Germanics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

I would also suggest if you would take a look at your own sentences. You say germanics use clubs on a large scale, but here also we have no other source as Tacitus (and one picture on a roman column) whom you seem to believe only if it fits you.

---

Well several depictions actually… but yes, as you acknowledge often, our information is sparse so we can only look at the available data and make an educated assessment to the best of our abilities / go with the “most likely scenario”. Literary sources and archaeological records (eg aforementioned Roman features) tell us that the club featured predominantly ..along with the framae, in Germanic forces of the period. That doesn’t mean all / the majority used them, but they were used on a scale worthy of note.
This is what I have always argued.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

Final note from me concerning clubs:
I said never that clubs were not used. I only said that by all we know about germanic sense of honour concerning weapons and style of warfare before AD the club was not the most loved weapon.

---

Have I misunderstood you here ? .. because to my recollection, you have consistently fought against any depiction of Germanics wielding clubs. Further, to ignore the data we have and instead rely exclusively on what one personally supposes considering an envisioned “sense of honour concerning weapons”..is not objective science, historical inquiry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

Naturally you will also not find archaeological proofs of your point here, because of the germanic tradition of burning of their dead.

---

And as I have state previously, you can’t cite Germanic funerary rites as an excuse. The Belgae also engaged in the antiquated practice yet their culture offers us some of the richest archaeology finds to date.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

For the typical germanic style of warfare in open field battles the wooden club wouldn't fit. A self-made wooden club was a poor weapon for germanic battle tactics except ambushes …

---

How do you figure that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

Concerning the wooden club:Also it was in germanic society a sign of wealth to have good quality weapons ( the spear as standard weapon for every warrior doesn't count here ). A self-made wooden club was a weapon without showing the wielders wealth.

---

I have to say I’m rather shocked here SaFe. You seem to be ignoring some key features of Germanic culture..at least in our period. We are not talking about Celts here with their highly stratified society, and social mobility..we are talking about Germanics who in this period and for many centuries later prided themselves on their egalitarian social structures. The recognition of the ‘volk’ and the democratic principles that underlie much of our modern Western civilisation.

The Germanics didn’t start adopting Celtic cultural features until the end of the period we are discussing and then into the first several centuries AD, culminating in the great Germanic migrations of the 4th and 5th C AD. I’m sure their would have been some consideration given one’s arms, when they were not provided by the ‘volk’ as they apparently were in some case..and I’m sure Germanic warlords were well equipped and their sub-leaders increasingly so by the turn of the millennium / year ‘0’, but one can’t project an anachronistic, dare I say Celticised opinion of a people in an attempt to rationalise a condition not supported by any other means / data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

So we can assume that it was definately not the most loved weapon of free men or even nobles.

---

Probably true, for we know that the Germanics were always eager to get their hands on Gallic and Roman swords. But mere preference is very different to what you are suggesting here. I’m sure Roman legionaries would have all preferred the beautiful mounts, equipment and conditions enjoyed by their commanders..but far from being ‘primitive’ their kit often proved adequate / better suited to deal with the challenges they faced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

Again Tacitus. If Tacitus is your source here than i hope you don't forget to mention the beastmen of the northeastern tribes.

---

As both of us have already acknowledged several times, one needs to take accounts with a grain of salt … but not throw the whole thing out just because we don’t like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

You should read something about the iron finds in germanic lands and also i'm sure we both don't know at what time those sword-rituals started. Interesting that the Cheruscii ( a tribe that existed well before the time you mentioned ) named themselves Sword-People in their own language without any access to swords or the knowledge to fabricate them as you seem to imply.

---

Whats the deal with the swords, I thought we were talking about clubs? What’s your point here? How many Celtic tribes do you think named themselves after gods!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

Concerning the Cimbrii and Boii: Cheap shot from you and not your usual style - i never said that the Cimbri or Ambronii were better combatants than their Boii counterparts.

---

Then why assume the Boii avoided pitched battle? We just don’t know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

But …no major battle between those tribes are mentioned, so we can assume that the wandering germanic tribes gave up and marched on for easier targets.

---

We can’t assume anything of the sort. All we know is that the Cimbri were repulsed. To try an embellish an event because it fits with a pre-conceived idea is not an admirable undertaking imho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

But it seems logical, …the Boii would have been very dumb to fulfill the germanics their wishes..

---

“Logical”?.. Speculative at best. If I may - point out the inherent problem here. Romans, Greeks, Carthaginains, etc all had extremely strong fortifications but they didn’t always cower behind their walls. They would prefer to march out, often regardless of numbers, and meet their enemy in battle than suffer the privations of a siege and the ravaging of their territory. The Boii (who you acknowledge were a regional power at the time) would have likely done the same, but we will never know for sure unless we actually discover a battle site and remove all doubt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

Concerning Ariovist and his conquest of the Aedui:
Gallic propaganda tour 73BC :dizzy2: ..
Hopefully we could agree at least at some points here.

---

Well we both seem to agree that it’s highly improbable that the Cimbri were reduce to being clients of the Boii… and the Aedui no doubt did play up the suffering under the Seubi.. but I wouldn’t label / dismiss the later as outright propaganda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

Wish you well

---

Same mate. Contrary to what you may or may not believe, I don't hate you.. or the Germans. Quite the contrary in fact. :yes: ~:)


my2bob

Great discussion, please get going, i`m actually saving the pages in my PC to read it later on!!! I haven`t got a bvetter place to learn about Celtic or Germanic ancient way of battle than here!!! This discussion has a hugh fan here!!!

Only two precistions:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

Look the point is very simple. Consider WWII for a moment. One can’t take Hitler’s ‘Home Guard’ circa 1944 complete with units of ‘Hitler Youth’ and assume a correct qualitative evaluation on the standard of German armed forces throughout the conflict. We all know that Germany had very well trained / experienced troops at the outset of the war but as a result of defeat / casualties they could not sustain, their forces had progressively suffered in quality the closer the end came.

---

That thing about the evolution of the quality of german troops troughout the WWII, isn`t precisely right, and your reasoning there is appallingly simplistic given that particular conflict. But it was just an example, not big deal. However, I would happily discuss that thing with you, but I don`t wanna poison this pristine topic with XX century events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

Contrary to what you may or may not believe, I don't hate you.. or the Germans. Quite the contrary in fact.

---

:uhoh2:

That sounded kinda queer :biker:

:grin: :grin: :grin:

Cheers, keep on rolling!!!!

Reading that Camillian campaigns were ficticius enlightend me. Really I was always confused by reading how the Romans so decisivelly beat the celts and still were unable to prevent the looting of their northern most provincies. Also, If they had defeated them like that, why so frightened in telamon?
It kinda makes sence.
Regarding the club; in open battle it's a handy weapon as it doesn't really matter where you hit it will always hurt. Even if you hit a shield, the blunt force imposed could still break your arm if you're not carefull.


Cheers...

Cheers...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Im sure I dont understand the mechanics of the game so I hope you dont mind answering my questions. Do the Celtic units degrade to reflect there loss in power? Are the 4th and 5th century Celtic units better then the 3rd century Celts who's armor began to improve then (according to Ellis)? If I was to take a 4th or 5th century Celtic unit against a 2nd century Celt unit of the same level(elite vs elite) would the 4th-5th be stronger, if so why? Again this is going strictly by the stats of the overall unit, not whats going on around him. In other words would an Arverni Guard unit be beaten by an elite 4th-5th century elite unit, and if so why(both game and historically, only referring to the units ability).

---

This has nothing to do with the relatively open-ended "history anew" idea of the game. And in the game the erosion of the Celtic military system would come from an increased inability to train and maintain the types of units that represent the actual warrior class, through simple collapse of the taxpaying population base through repeated violent conquest of settlements (think "enslave" and "exterminate") and the devastation of the economical and military infrastructure (ie. dismantling of buildings for cash, probably simply to deny their use to your foe in a settlement you don't even intend to keep).

In EB terms the Gallic situation at the eve of the main invasions by the Romans and Germans would quite simply be represented by the armies being made up chiefly of Lugoae and those shortsword guys (the militia-type troops) plus the various ranged troops, with a sprinkling of few but probably quite formidable representatives of the warrior class - by that point more likely than not including very high-end units like Brihentin, Solduri and the various faction-specific elite. These obviously also pretty much slaughter the Celtic militias in straight fights, which rather well illustrates why exactly the levies did not tend to aquire much experience.

The major problem would be that the facilities to train such high-end troops would only be present in a very few important settlements that had had a priority on being defended and thus escaped the worst of the damage. Against this would then be thrown the ability of the Sweboz and post-Marian Romani factions to spam capable soldiery from damn near every settlement, and mercs and local auxiliaries on top of that...

There was never a collapse in the quality of the Celtic warrior class involved in the equation (beyond neophyte replacements of course not being nearly as tough as fully learned grizzled warriors), but quite simply an inability to raise and maintain them in sufficient numbers.

I know that this Germanic discussion is off-topic in here but I need to interfere.

towards Psycho V and SaFe

on the Nervi, who said in front of the Romans to be of Germanic origin in order to be more honored, which is a fact of at least a later period! I quote Tacitus, the only source about it afaik: "TREVERI ET NERVI CIRCA AFFECTATIONEM GERMANICAE ORIGINIS ULTRO AMBITIOSI SUNT, TAMQUAM PER HANC GLORIAM SANGUINIS A SIMILTUDINE ET INERTIA GALLORUM SEPERANTUR."

translated in English quite freely: The Treverians and Nervians praise themselves too much for their claim on Germanic origin, in order to prevent from being mixed up with gallic inertness by such noble blood.

Is is a fact that those tribes were Celtic, while the Treverians were germanised in much later times, the Nervians mixed up with the poor rest of the defeated Cimbri and Teutons, which finally settled in the lands of the Belgae and therefore the Nervians are right to claim a bit of Germanic origin in Roman times..

on the clubs:
I agree with SaFe that clubs were most likely not the prefered weapon of the free or rich tribesmen. it must have been the weapon of the very poor tribesmen which weren't able to afford even a spear, which was the absolute main weapon of free Germanics, while the rich ones used swords. I agree that some used clubs but surely not the majority. But why the trouble? We have a Germanic club unit in EB, but we have even more Germanic units which are equipped with spears or swords, which is correct from my point of view...

Those'd have to be very poor people indeed, as AFAIK in comparatively low-tech and sylvan cultures like the Germans the "universal weapon" was the spear already due to its role as a hunting tool. You try to club a deer or any other skittish herbivore with fast legs... Tossing something pointy at it worked rather better overall.

Stone maces are know from late Stone Age Scandinavia. They appear primarily in the context of coastal seal-hunting settlements, and it is thought they were used to kill seals caught on ice without damaging the valuable pelts. Although as there was doubtless friction over hunting territory between rival groups, given the considerable value of sealskin as a trade item, it is theorized they may as well or even instead been used to settle such disputed the old-fashioned way... The latter would probably make them the first weapons purpose-made for killing other humans.

Anyway, I suspect the Germans chiefly employed clubs as "cheap and cheerful" backup weapons among the poorer tribesmen, with the due developement that some took a liking to the more "up close and personal" fighting style involved and started using them as primary weapons instead of spears. But I'd be very surprised if such "primary weapon" clubs had not shortly began sporting all kinds of appliqué spikes, studs, and other details common to blunt-instrument weaponry. Long wooden clubs with rows of bronze studs as the contact point are known to have been occasionally used by Medieval warriors after all, and as such small reinforcement bits could easily enough be crafted of all kinds of scrap metal hey would hardly have been a very expensive addition to a humble but aggressive tribesman's club.

Plus they look way cooler than a plain wooden stick. That alone would probably have been reason enough for many to apply such extra pieces...

Well unfortunately I wont be posting much for the next few weeks as work and other things have priority. I do appreciate the discourse we have had though we may not agree with one another. I do have a couple of statements and questions.
1. I understand that your saying the Celts had mostly a trained Warrior class. That being so how were they trained?
2. Who can you recommend reading that discusses about this situation of training? Also who do you suggest for finding more information about the infighting in Gaul? If I didnt misunderstand you was there infighting in Celtiberia and britain as well?

The questions I raised above are what are causing me the most problems, thats why I want to find out more.I try to read both sides because I believe most authors are biased toward whom they are writing about. The bias varies in degrees but never the less it there. Ill be trying to find a book about the romans of this period as well as the Celts. Im hoping that some one can get me the information prior to Sunday if possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varg1204

on the Nervi, who said in front of the Romans to be of Germanic origin in order to be more honored, which is a fact of at least a later period! I quote Tacitus, the only source about it afaik: "TREVERI ET NERVI CIRCA AFFECTATIONEM GERMANICAE ORIGINIS ULTRO AMBITIOSI SUNT, TAMQUAM PER HANC GLORIAM SANGUINIS A SIMILTUDINE ET INERTIA GALLORUM SEPERANTUR."

translated in English quite freely: The Treverians and Nervians praise themselves too much for their claim on Germanic origin, in order to prevent from being mixed up with gallic inertness by such noble blood.

Is is a fact that those tribes were Celtic, while the Treverians were germanised in much later times, the Nervians mixed up with the poor rest of the defeated Cimbri and Teutons, which finally settled in the lands of the Belgae and therefore the Nervians are right to claim a bit of Germanic origin in Roman times..

---

This is the way I understood it to be as well. Ill also throw in that the TCA(Teutons,Cimbri,Ambrones) had some Celtic admixture as they lived in close approximation to the Celts.
Im wanting to start a new thread on the Germans but first have to read up more on the Celts and also have to find the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Im sure I dont understand the mechanics of the game so I hope you dont mind answering my questions. Do the Celtic units degrade to reflect there loss in power?

---

Ok….. no, the game mechanics do not allow EB to do so and your missing the point here. EB is not seeking to replicate the course of history / guarantee the Celts are defeated and the Romans victorious. Otherwise everything would be strictly scripted and the player afforded little / no choice. In fact if one wishes to have history represented accurately, you’d be watching a documentary…not gaming at all.

Now you claim the Celts are over powered in EB but do so whilst projecting a simplified / generic view of Roman superiority devoid of any consideration of time, circumstance, etc. EB is a game that provides the player with a historically accurate paradigm to explore the ancient world of ‘what if’. Hence the Celts in EB are not depicted in a weakened state no more than the Romans (any other faction) are depicted when they happened to be starving, emaciated, flighty / green, tactically rebellious, etc etc. EB have (after a great deal of research and debate) taken what a standard / reasonably generic unit was like and reflected that in game. Using what one may call intrinsic value devoid of other 'short term' / circumstantial / ‘environmental’ factors that deviated them from their 'norm'.

The EB world, whilst limited by historical constraints, provides a mechanism to greatly diverge from ‘history’ as we know it. Thus, one may find EB’s Celtic factions in a stronger position in game (ie wealth / heavy units, etc) that what they were in real life depending on gameplay / AI player choices. To force any faction, whether it be Celtic, Roman, Greek, Iberian, Germanic etc etc into a pre-conceived box devoid of any historical imperative is a grave injustice to those peoples, history and contrary to the principles and directives of EB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Are the 4th and 5th century Celtic units better then the 3rd century Celts who's armor began to improve then (according to Ellis)? If I was to take a 4th or 5th century Celtic unit against a 2nd century Celt unit of the same level(elite vs elite) would the 4th-5th be stronger, if so why? ….

---

If I personally had a choice between taking an actual 4th / 5th C BC Gaul or a 1st C BC Gaul for a body guard, I’d be taking the 4th / 5th C BC Gaul. Not because on any difference in intrinsic value but because by the 1st C BC, the Gallic states weren’t in a position to properly supply, equip and train their warrior elites to the same proficiency.

As I answered you before…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Are you saying the average fighting Celt in Caesars time is not as tough as those in years past?

---

Basically yes. Due to the civil war killing almost all of the experienced / trained troops.

---

I don’t know how else I can spell this out. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

This is what Im wondering if EB is doing about using stats from one era to another. Do you believe that 5th and 4th century Celts transported by time or whatever could defeat like Celts in the 2nd century, historically speaking and game speaking? Are you saying that the 5th and 4th cent. Celts are more powerful to their enemies as compared to the Celts of the 2nd cent. vs their enemies?.

---

Yes …because by the 2nd C BC the Celts were on the decline. Their neighbours had gotten stronger so there was more incentive to kill the guy next door and make off quick with your spoils rather than track hundreds / thousands of miles into uncertainty and try and lug the stuff home through unfamiliar, inhospitable terrain. This internal blood letting with the growing power of their neighbours completely tipped the balance of power. Few peoples / states in history have manage to successfully fend off several strong powers whilst engaging in a bloody civil war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Re: Celtic Mercenaries;
I was thinking of them as a group and forgetting about them as mercenaries. Yes they were known for their cavalry.

---

Not just the cavalry my friend. Celtic Gauls (As oppose to Romanised Gauls) were being use for elite body guards well into the 1st C AD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

So are you saying Camillus was not a real person or his feats were exaggerated? If you say exaggerated I would agree with you up to a point.

---

What part of ‘fiction’ do you not understand?. This ‘Arthurian’ Camillus character may well have existed (with or without a magical sword) / we will never know for sure.. but his feats / campaign are the work of a creative mind according to the world’s top scholars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Your sources, yes the modern ones are just as bias! More on this below.

---

Well? You got my attention. I was looking forward to the said critique of our “modern sources” ~:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

None of the authors I mentioned seem to have a problem with the duels.

---

Newark and Ellis you mean…ignoring (I might add) my comments on both. Newark isn’t what one would call a Celtic expert and takes things on face / Roman value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

"but the Romans had even beaten the Celts at their own game. Challenged to single combat by the chieftan of the Insurbres, M.Claudius Marcellus accepted" -Newark. He goes on to tell of how Marcellus won."The surprise is that the consul Claudius Marcellu accepted the challenge in spit of the law forbidding single combat by Roman officers.

---

Do you know why there was “surprise”? Read Goldsworthy on the strict Roman law pertaining to leaving one’s station to seek single combat. It’s a dramatic fabrication by Livy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

He succeded in slaying Viridomarus and the Celtic army crumble before a renewed Roman attack"-Ellis.

---

Ellis is recounting the tale exactly as Livy had written it. He is not claiming it as unequivocal fact.
Again, as previously stated, I love Ellis but he’s prone to over stating. I could write a whole thesis on all of the aforementioned Scholars but I just don’t have the time and you’ll either have to take me at my word or do your own reading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

These quotes sound like they believe it to me. ….. What facts are there to disprove these duels? Is it impossible for a Roman to beat a Celt in a duel? I think that its interesting that your quoted authors seem to think that it is.

---

So you’re willing to dismiss the opinions of some of the worlds leading scholars because….?

I don’t know what else to say?

I have tried to coin the debate in simple terms.
Now this will no doubt sound condescending but that is not my intention. If you are serious about debating this issue, may I suggest the following readings;

For the fictious campaign of Camillus; Livy (5.49), Plutarch, Camillos (29), Dionysius of Halicarnassus (13.6; 14.9), Appian’s ‘Celtica’ (1.1, 4-9 ..well the fragment we have), Frontinus’ ‘Strategematon’ (2.6.1;3.13.1) .. and then read ‘Camillus: Indo European Religion as Roman History’, Georges Dumezil.

For other early fictious Roman wars / victories against the Celts – Florus (1.7 (1.13)), Livy (6.42; 7.1-15, 22-26), Dionysius of Halicarnassus (13.6; 14.8-10;15.1), Dio Cassius (7.24), Diodorus (14.5-7), Appian’s ‘Celtica’ (1.1-2 ..again from the fragments we have), Frontinus’ ‘Strategematon’ (2.4.5) ..and then ‘Sur l’Historie des Celtes’, Arbois de Jubainville …if you can manage to get a copy ..let alone in English.

Once read, then come back and explain / debate with me about how great / superior the Romans were in the 5th, 4th and early 3rd C BC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Im not a Roman appologist, I see their failings. Of course the falling tree's is just plain dumb.

---

~:) Good to hear

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Re: WWII; Excellent analogy….Ill have to read more on the Gallic infighting.

---

I had assumed you already had. What I’d like to know however, is how one comes to the conclusion that “The Celts were not devastated in Gaul until the Germanic invasions of the 400's”?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

The numbers do count against the devastation claim of the civil war as it shows that there were plenty of people around and were not completely ground down due to civil war.

---

Yes plenty of people, as there were in Nazi Germany, circa 1945. Numbers prove nothing. Large numbers of trained well equipped forces count for everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

Why you say? ..Well you stated that Rome couldn’t conquer the Gauls because they were distracted fighting Carthage. The point I made was that during the same period (ie when the Romans were supposedly busy fighting Carthage), they managed to conquer other (non Gallic) peoples, thus the hypothesis “does not stand up critical analysis”.

---

I must be missing something. Im saying that Rome was caught up with many enemies and they would have had the same hard time as the Celts. Just because the Celts gave way doesnt mean the Romans didnt have the same problems…The Romans were successfully attacking the Celts,Illyrians,Greeks and etc. why would it only befall the Celts that they lose to attrition? …Sorry Psyco your just going to have to break out the crayons for me.

---

:laugh4: :smash: :2thumbsup: Ok… where’s those crayons!

Ok for starters, you clearly stated that you believed the Romans couldn’t / most likely didn't conquer the Gauls because they were distracted fighting Carthage. “There was a reason why the Romans had not succeeded in conquering Transalpine Gaul in the previous 300 years of conflict…because of the other wars going on like with carthage..”

Now, when this statement was critically examined / debunked it appears you wished to ignore the former debate and present a new line of inquiry… “attrition”..shifting focus. That’s fine but you probably should concede the former point if you believe it no longer tenable / you no longer wish to defend it…else I’ll just keep rabbiting on about it. ~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

The Romans were successfully attacking the Celts,Illyrians,Greeks and etc. why would it only befall the Celts that they lose to attrition? I must be missing something.

---

I believe what you’ve missed here is context. You claim that the Romans suffered attrition too / fought other ‘factions’. This therefore (according to your implied rationale) excludes the likelihood of such circumstances / suppositions as an inherent Celtic weakness being due to conditions. I believe the rationale is inherently flawed / wrong because it ignores context.

Context! Again if I may use the WWII analogy. How many millions of men did the Soviets loose on their push to Berlin? Did it strategically cripple or weaken them, no! They had the momentum, supplies, resources, etc to absorb the losses. By 1944 the Germans didn’t, their state was exhausted. The situation though markedly different in many regards reflects the situation between the Romans and the Celts.. The Roman juggernaut lumbered on regardless of cost. Any historian will tell you that few / if any state could sustain the casualties Rome could and still push on. Even the great Hannibal was forced to acknowledge this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

I considered Transalpine Gaul as southern Gaul. I only meant that the Romans had entered into and annexed Transalpine Gaul, just the southern part of Gaul not its entirety.

---

Ok, sorry. So what was your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

We both agree that the romans exaggerate, but you are doing exactly the same thing you accuse me of doing! You take what you want to read from the Romans (battle losses, cruelty,or Celtic stories of heroism, etc), but you wont take the opposite view(Celtic losses, cruelty, stories of Roman heroism etc)…

---

What exactly are you talking about here?


my2bob

ok i deffinitly agree there over powered i had 2 units of Spartan hoplites against a unit of Galatian soldiers from the Ptolmaioi all units had 9 chevrons gold weapons/armor i had the charge bonus and in the charge enemy lost about 15 units i lost about 20 sodiers then in the battle i killed about another 70 and lost my whole army of spatans (one was a general) and yes it was a custom battle about 6 made it off the field alive

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pockettank

ok i deffinitly agree there over powered i had 2 units of Spartan hoplites against a unit of Galatian soldiers from the Ptolmaioi all units had 9 chevrons gold weapons/armor i had the charge bonus and in the charge enemy lost about 15 units i lost about 20 sodiers then in the battle i killed about another 70 and lost my whole army of spatans (one was a general) and yes it was a custom battle about 6 made it off the field alive

---

If you've given units extra / "gold chevrons", then you have distorted units beyond what EB ever intended. EB has balanced the game very carefully at the generic level. It's highly unlikely you'll ever field elite units with everything (chevrons, armour, etc) maxed out in game / in EB.

Again I urge all to play through a campaign and not just look at a few units, UI cards or the occasional custom battles

my2bob

And please, use full stops!

Actually that might fit the game even better:p remember when the Celtic invasions occured, the Celts sacked Delphi, Rome and got as far as Gallatia proving the phalanx was no match for their elites.
I think the games quite accurate after all we've seen/debated here. Even if Psycho is proved wrong by future research (hey for all we know, romans and Celts and Sueboz could all be making fun of us when they wrote their accounts and forged evidences to make it appear there was battle only in truth, they were all drinking buddies), by his (and a lot of scholars) interpretation of events, EB tends to be quite correct.


Cheers...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mAIOR

remember when the Celtic invasions occured, the Celts sacked Delphi, Rome and got as far as Gallatia proving the phalanx was no match for their elites.

---

In all fairness, I understand they enjoyed enough numerical superiority to simply envelop the phalanxes and roll them up from the flanks. The Macs weren't exactly in the best of shape around the time AFAIK, the Seleucids busy elsewhere (judging by the way it took them a few years to haul in a proper army to deal with the rampaging Galatians), and the peninsular poleis... well, they were never too good at cooperating until absolutely necessary.

idk the best iv got was a general he came with 7 chevrons and silver weapons/bronze armor through bribing an enemy he was 10 command/influence and 9 management... cost a hell of a lot tho lmao oh and i eventually got him 10 managment and 9 chevrons PLUS all the morale boost stuff then died to a horde of sweboz coming down on small greece :( (btw i was as KH about to take over the north of it)

Since it was already brought up here, do you think the Celts were really able to sack Delphi? The "gods raining fire" and defeating them sounds kinda iffy to me, and I've read about how a large gold/artifact find had a lot of stuff probably from Delphi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fondor_Yards

Since it was already brought up here, do you think the Celts were really able to sack Delphi? The "gods raining fire" and defeating them sounds kinda iffy to me, and I've read about how a large gold/artifact find had a lot of stuff probably from Delphi.

---

Yes, tales of the Gauls being defeated by Greeks gods and the ghosts of warriors past is obvious bolox …as unlikely as the accounts of them ripping babies from mothers stomachs to drink the infants blood.

Again, many if not most scholars (admittedly I have primarily studied Celtic ones) believe that the Gauls did indeed sack Delphi and sought to withdraw with the loot. Then once burdened / so encumbered, Greek forces engaged in a guerrilla campaign of ambush / hit and run on the now disorganised Gauls, inflicting significant casualties.

The Greeks like the Romans, often fail to acknowledge that Gauls were not always seeking permanent conquest but rather, more often than not, loot, plunder and glory. Thus when a large Gallic raiding party withdrew, both Greeks and Romans were tempted to cite fiction / fanciful interpretations of the reason for their doing so. Imaginary victories / campaigns, acts of gods, etc etc. As already mentioned, the Romans even named a road after a supposed Gallic rout that never happened.


my2bob

Sorry to dig this one up but can I ask what the sources are that you are drawing this stuff from because it's fairly interesting and I;ve gotten involved in a discussion at the .c0mmie over some of this stuff (yes, there are intelligent discussion there, try not to faint).

Just to add a stone to Psycho V building :

Every single french translation of Livy works about Cammilius and the gauls' sacking of Rome clearly states that it is PURE FANTASY and indeed the whole stuff is incoherent.

Furthermore, as a swordsman (beginner) i second Psycho V about the club. If it is heavy enough and balanced in a proper way it can bring down anything. A club does not say you are backwards, it says you are poor.

The difference tends to be rather moot on a large scale though.

That's usually what rich people say. Most of the time to convince themselves of their superiority over poor people.

I think it is rubbish.

Given that wealth, on a societal level, tends to be linked to methods of production, organization etc...

Although I'll give you the Germans had a fair bit of handicap in mainly possessing a bunch of woods not terribly well suited for farming.

Well finally I can respond once again. I even had time to read some more. Im going to start off stating again that the Celts were a tough lot, Connolly states that under a good general the Celts make excellent soldiers. Dyson states that the subjugation of the Gauls involded some of the most brutal fighting and serious losses in Roman military history. The Spartans and some others were impressed with the mercenary cavalry of the Celts. This all being said, the Romans were still better at skill of arms. I still believe that the Celts are overpowered both compared to the Romans and the Germans. I will not contend with the Germans at this time, Ill eventually start a new thread on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
@Psycho:
Concerning the Belgae and here especially the Nervii:
In the future it would be better if you quote my complete sentences, i never disputet that the Nervii were celtic. I just said that they themselves seemed to be proud of germanic heritage - which is wrong.

And this is exactly what I was responding to. They were taking pride in their achievements having come from what was later called the land of the Germani. ie “we chose to migrate and by feats of valour fought our way here and seized all this land above the Seine.” They were NOT making / inferring some imagined statement about how great they were by trying to associate themselves with the Germanics.

---

Ill make the claim that the Belgae were indeed making this statement that they were descended from the Germans and were a mix of Celt-Germanic peoples. "Certain tribes of Gaul, such as the Aedui, boasted of Germanic descent. The Belgae also were a mixture of German and Celt." Pg.19. "After their defeat, the Belgae, a group of mixed Celtic and German origins, were treated with comparative moderation." pg.128. H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical world".

/ "Caesar considered all the Belgae were Gauls, but also claims that many of them were descended from German settlers. As we have already seen, the distinction between Gaul and German was not always as clear as our ancient source suggest but there may well have been some truth in this.At the end of the first century AD Tacitus also believed that the Nervii and the Treveri were both Germanic." pg.238 Adrian Goldsworthy "Caesar"/
http://www.duerinck.com/tribes1.html While I havent read all the resources listed on this site, I have read a bit by Herbert Schutz and he acknowledges Caesars claim of the Belgae being of German ancestry. Look what is posted under the Belgae on this site and check it out.

One last one to look at is Barry Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"-"All we can do is to accept the ethnic identifications made by the Roman commentators". pg.238. I would suggest reading from pg.237-238 to get a good idea at what he is getting at. Arghhh I shouldnt have put this here, oh well more on the Germans on new thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
You even have leader vs. leader in that M. Claudius Marcellus defeating Virdomarus in a duel.

I’m sorry to be a kill joy, but the account of M. Claudius Marcellus defeating Virdomarus is pure fiction. Again, this is not my opinion but rather that of the world’s leading scholars on this subject.
Tim Newark-editor of Military Illustrated/Peter Connolly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Connolly /Peter Berresford Ellis(considered the foremost authority on the Celts). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Berresford_Ellis .These authors say it happened, why would it be hard to believe? Ellis in his book Celt and Roman mentions several others like this that happened. What could there be against this? Also there is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viridomarus This post doesnt really have anything to do with accessing statistics to units.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
None of the authors I mentioned seem to have a problem with the duels.

Newark and Ellis you mean…ignoring (I might add) my comments on both. Newark isn’t what one would call a Celtic expert and takes things on face / Roman value.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
"but the Romans had even beaten the Celts at their own game. Challenged to single combat by the chieftan of the Insurbres, M.Claudius Marcellus accepted" -Newark. He goes on to tell of how Marcellus won."The surprise is that the consul Claudius Marcellu accepted the challenge in spit of the law forbidding single combat by Roman officers.


Do you know why there was “surprise”? Read Goldsworthy on the strict Roman law pertaining to leaving one’s station to seek single combat. It’s a dramatic fabrication by Livy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
He succeded in slaying Viridomarus and the Celtic army crumble before a renewed Roman attack"-Ellis.

Ellis is recounting the tale exactly as Livy had written it. He is not claiming it as unequivocal fact.
Again, as previously stated, I love Ellis but he’s prone to over stating. I could write a whole thesis on all of the aforementioned Scholars but I just don’t have the time and you’ll either have to take me at my word or do your own reading.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
These quotes sound like they believe it to me. ….. What facts are there to disprove these duels? Is it impossible for a Roman to beat a Celt in a duel? I think that its interesting that your quoted authors seem to think that it is.

So you’re willing to dismiss the opinions of some of the worlds leading scholars because….?

I don’t know what else to say?

---

Authors who put this in matter of fact statements: Connolly "Greece and Rome at War"-"The most noteworthy of these heroes was Marcus Claudius Marcellus, who killed the Gallic chieftain Viridomarus in single combat in 222bc. He went on to become Rome's most successful general against Hannibal during his campaigns in Italy". pg.114. "During the conflict the Gallic chieftain Viridomarus challenged him to single combat and although Marcellus was nearing 50 he accepted the challenge and killed Viridomarus". pg. 146

/ H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical world"- "One of these, at Clastidium in 223BC, was notable for another example of single combat. The consul M. Claudius Marcellus killed the Insubrian leader, Virduromarus". pg.114

/ Adrian Goldsworthy "In The Name Of Rome"-"Then, deciding that Britomarus himself wore the finest equipment, The Roman consul spurred ahead of his men to reach the king. The two leaders met between the rival lines. Marcellus drove his spear into the Gaul's body, knocking him from his horse, and then finished him off with a second and a third blow, before dismounting to strip the corpse." Pg.42

/ Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier"-"The battles saw heroic actions on both sides. The Roman commander Marcellus, won the spolia opima for slaying the Gallic chieftain Virdumarus at Clastidium, for which the Roman poet Naevius wrote a play celebrating the events." pg.32

/David Matz "An Ancient Rome Chronology, 264-27 B.C." -"The outcome was decided when the Roman commander Marcus Claudius Marcellus, overcame the chieftan of the Insubres, a certain Viridomarus in single combat" pg.77

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

Ellis is recounting the tale exactly as Livy had written it. He is not claiming it as unequivocal fact.

---

/Peter B. Ellis "The Celtic Empire"-"Here we find a surprising development. It appears that Viridomar offered a challenge, in the traditional Celtic fashion, to the Roman General, Marcus Claudius Marcellus, to settle the issue by combat to the death. Surprisingly, the Roman General accepted. He succeeded in slaying Viridomar and the Celtic army crumbled before a renewed Roman charge." pg.41 this isnt the way livy wrote it, he is interpreting the story himself.
The only thing I could find remotely contrary to this is in Cunliffe's "The Ancient Celts"- in referring to the parallelism between the two stories of Valerius and Manlius: "The parallelism between the two stories may suggest the repetition of a single incident or even a fictitious embroidery, but the fact that Livy had access to the tradition suggests that single combat was a feature of Celtic behavior in Italy." pg.102 Even this says it MAY be fictitious, not that it is fictitious.Not one author I have read denies or seems to doubt what happened with Marcellus. Even though Manlius is a different story this is where the only dissension I could find, and thats with Cunliffe. And even in this statement he is not sure. As far as Manlius it seems some authors are suspect of the story, but this is not true of Marcellus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

Yes plenty of people, as there were in Nazi Germany, circa 1945. Numbers prove nothing. Large numbers of trained well equipped forces count for everything.

---

I dont agree with you on the Nazi Germany thing but I do agree with trained and equipped forces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

Why you say? ..Well you stated that Rome couldn’t conquer the Gauls because they were distracted fighting Carthage. The point I made was that during the same period (ie when the Romans were supposedly busy fighting Carthage), they managed to conquer other (non Gallic) peoples, thus the hypothesis “does not stand up critical analysis”.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

Ok for starters, you clearly stated that you believed the Romans couldn’t / most likely didn't conquer the Gauls because they were distracted fighting Carthage. “There was a reason why the Romans had not succeeded in conquering Transalpine Gaul in the previous 300 years of conflict…because of the other wars going on like with carthage..”

Now, when this statement was critically examined / debunked it appears you wished to ignore the former debate and present a new line of inquiry… “attrition”..shifting focus. That’s fine but you probably should concede the former point if you believe it no longer tenable / you no longer wish to defend it…else I’ll just keep rabbiting on about it.

---

Hardly debunked or ignored and the attrition situation will be discussed later. A brief history is in order here.
390 bc. Rome sacked and loses dominant position in Latin League. War with Tarquinii in 388 and 386. Rome/Latin League continue conquest of Italy against the Etruscans and Volsci.In 367bc. Celts show up again and are routed.Rome continues once again concentrating on Italy against the Latins and others. In 360/361bc Gauls attack again and are defeated first near Rome then near Tibur. Ill make out a chronology later but it keeps going on and on about wars with Samnites,Etruscans,Greeks,Illyrians etc. etc.
Rome was first and foremost interested in conquering southern Italy then moving up to the north. Most of their resources were spent conquering everything south of Cisalpine Gaul.

Connolly "Greece and Rome at War": after losing 13,000 men to the Gauls in 284-"In an act of massive retaliation the Romans crossed the mountain into the Senonic homeland and drove the entire tribe out of Italy."pg.90-"The Boii, who had captured Bologna from the Etruscans and had settled in the area, now also crossed the Apenines but were defeated in central Etruria. The following year they crossed the mountains again and were once more defeated. They sued for peace. The Romans, preoccupied with the situation in central Italy, agreed to the treaty which lasted for 50 years. With the fall of Samnium, Rome controlled almost the whole of peninsular Italy. Only the Greek cities of the south remained outside the Roman alliance. In order to consolidate her position Rome began to put pressure on these Greek states to try to force them into alliance." Pg. 90: This is the beginning of the Pyrric wars.

/Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier"-Rome continued to strengthen its hold in central Italy. The wars against the Samnites ground on. In Etruria internal strife increased. The population in the Celtic homeland was again growing. In 284bc Gauls invaded the territory of Arretium and started a sequence of events that ended with the near extermination of the Senones.

/Ellis "The Celtic Empire"- referring to the defeats of Celts and Etruscans in 283:"For the first time, Rome was confident of her northern boundaries. She now turned her greedy eyes towards the Greek city states of southern Italy-Magna Graeca." pg.33

/Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"-"By the 330's Rome had recovered sufficiently to begin a new expansionist drive, and, to secure its northern frontier, a peace treaty was negotiated with the Senones in 334".pg.77:"After the First Punic War(264-41bc) Rome's attention turned once more to the north, and in 232 the territory of the Senones was confiscated and made over to Italian settlement. pg77

Connolly "Greece and Rome at War"- "In 225 the Celts crossed the Apennines with an army of 70,000 men. It was bad timing for the Celts as the Romans, free of any other commitment, were able to devote their entire resources to the war." pg.146-"The threat of yet another invasion was over. The Romans vowed it would be the last. The legions now invaded the Po valley itself." pg. 146

/Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier"-"By 225bc the Romans felt that war with the Gauls was imminent. Rumors about the recruitment of the transalpine Gauls by the Celts in Italy had certainly reached them. They stepped up their own precautions, making peace with Hasdrubal in Spain in order to free themselves from concerns over that area, and recruiting strong armies and gathering stores." pg.29

/Simon James "The World of The Celts"-"An uneasy peace followed due to Rome's distraction by war with Carthage; this lasted for a generation, until 232bc, when Rome seized the land of the Senones and parcelled it out to her own colonists." pg.35: "Hannibal's final defeat at Zama in 202bc, however, left the battle-hardened Romans free to resume the conquest of the north, and the Boii and the Insubres were eventually subdued in the 190's".

/Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"- "The Second Punic War completely altered the balance of power in the mediterranean. Rome moved into an expansive mode. From the end of the war in 202bc until the capitulation of Numantia in 133 the Celtiberians and Lusitani were gradually brought under control. The first two decades of the second century saw the Roman armies win a series of major campaigns north of the Apenines paving the way for romanization, largely completed within a century".pg.235: "The migrations were largely at an end by 200bc. This was the moment which Rome, freed from the threat of Carthage by her hard-won victories during the Second Punic War, entered into a more expansive mode". pg273

If you take a look at these quotes you will see what I said earlier. "freed from", "free to resume", "free of any other commitment" etc etc. This shows that the Romans were pre-occupied with other wars and therefore couldnt muster the means to conquer northern Italy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

they managed to conquer other (non Gallic) peoples, thus the hypothesis “does not stand up critical analysis”.

---

The Romans could conquer the Gallic people, They just went after the southern and middle parts first. Once Rome had completed the conquest of middle and southern Italy they moved north. Also I put in the Senone situation so you could see that they still defeated the Gauls. I have no doubt that if the Romans after 300bc wanted to conquer northern Italy it would have happened. Why do I say this, because of the majority of battles show that Romans are superior in arms to the Celts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

This is not only born out in the material record (eg. Thigh bones of Gallic youth, etc) but by other examples. Eg the fact Vercingetrix mounted all his most experienced / well equipped troops and when they were in turn defeated, the whole army (some of whom were apparently young boys) naturally lost heart.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

It is true that by the battle of Georgovia and Alesia, over a decade had passed and many young Gallic youths had appeared as novice warriors. This is born out in the archaeology record as previously mentioned.

---

H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical World"-"The next year they tried once more, and shortage of manpower compelled them to arm young adolescents. (This may be a Greek rationalisation: traditionally, the warriors of the Celts were often remarkably young.)"pg.111

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

Which proves little. For example, where are all the records of the several Roman defeats at the hands of the Cisalpine Gauls that archaeology has since discovered?

---

What defeats are you referring to? Which archaeologist? Where in Cisalpine Gaul?
Its getting really late and Ill have to continue later, I really want to get into attrition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoSpartan

-Says who? Depending on the intensity of a conflict a nation will either drain its expireinced forces and adult males, or it will end up with a good number of expirienced soldiers. Also, not only do entire Armies are destroyed but entire towns and populations are exterminated too. Again it all depends on the intensity of the conflict, and what the winning side decides to do when they conquer enemy towns. In the case of the Gallic Civil war killing for killing's sake was common practice. To illustrate this point, think of General Sherman marching throught the South in the American Civil War.

---

Others have said other such things, but this is what Im trying to get at.

Simon James "The World of The Celts"- Hannibal's final defeat at Zama in 202bc however left the battle-hardened Romans free to resume the conquest of the north, and the Boii and the ...."pg.122

Peter B. Ellis "The Celtic Empire"-"The Belgae confederation had come into being to fight the encroachments of the Germans and had been hardened by years of border conflict. pg.133

H.D.Rankin "Celts and the Classical World"-"Polybius also makes the point that as a result of the experience of war that they gained in fighting the Celts, the Romans wre the better able to face the challenge of the war with Pyrrhus(280bc), and also to make war successfully against the Carthaginians."pg.110

For Rome the 2nd punic wars took a heavy toll on the Romans, yet we have "battle-hardened" soldiers.Ill also talk about the Gallic civil war further below. Now in the case of the Celts Ill begin to show the superiority of the Romans in skill at arms and how attrition takes its place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCO V

For the record, “most historians” do not claim that the Romans were victors “most of the time”, what they do state is that according to Roman records, we are told that was the case. As I’ve previously stated, there has been many Roman battles / defeats not recorded / lost (giving the benefit of the doubt) to us.

Further the battles you refer to involve Cisalpine Gauls, who by the mid 3rd C BC (250 BC) were already on the back foot. The Romans had waged a brutal war of attrition for over 150 years prior. The Cisalpine Gauls could not sustain their looses as the Romans could and once they reached a critical point the Cisalpine Gauls collapsed. Much celebrated Roman victories like the Battle of Minicio (196 BC), Battle of Bonnonia (191 BC), etc bear this out as they were no more a battle than the massacres of plains Indians at the likes of the ‘Battle of Wounded Knee’. The Romans in a genocidal blood lust, wiped out whole towns, tribes and nations.

---

In your first paragraph what defeats not recorded or lost are you talking about? What sources are you using?
The second paragraph about attrition as I stated above will be addressed below.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCO V

Strength is relative. The Celts were relatively stronger in the 5th, 4th and very beginning of the 3rd C BC.. as previously stated.

---

4th century B.C.
390- Allia: Gauls defeat Romans and Sack Rome
367- Velitrae: Romans route or defeat Gauls.
360- Near Rome:Romans defeat Gauls and Latins
360- Near Tibur:Romans defeat Gauls and Latins
357-351 No mention of Gauls, Syracuse may have used them as mercenaries.
348- Pomptine area: Romans defeat Gauls or Gauls retreated.
338- Praeneste: Romans defeat Gauls.
334- Treaty with Celts supposed to last 30yrs.
From 334-299 there have been no Gallic involvement of note with the Romans. The Romans continue towards conquest of Central and southern Italy during this time.This is the time of the 4th century "stronger" Celts? Im not trying by any means to say the Celts are weak, Im just pointing out that they lost most of the battles during this time. So again we have the "stronger" Celts losing most of the time to the "weaker" Semi-Militia style Romans. Ill state once again the Celt units are to strong in EB compared to their Roman and German counterparts.
Now lets take a look at attrition during this period, to our knowledge their is none. There doesnt seem to be any tribal clashes nor any prolonged warfare, there were some raids and a few pitched battles in which the "stronger" Celts were chased off or defeated. Here is what some of the authors said about this period of time.

Mackay "Ancient Rome"-"The Gauls returned and despite tepid assistance from the Latins the Romans defeated them with little difficulty"pg.46

Connoly "Greece And Rome At War"-"During the 4th century the Gauls mounted a succession of plundering raids in central Italy. Usually they were deflected by the stronger groups-the Etruscans, Latins and Samnites-and were channelled into Apulia, where it is possible that the founded permanent communities".pg.113

After listing the 3rd century battles Ill discuss raids and more about attrition.
3rd Century
299* see notes below
297- Camerinum: Gauls and Samnites defeat Romans
295- Sentinum: Romans defeat Gauls and Samnites
284- Arretium: Gauls(Senones) defeat Romans
284-?: Romans send a punitive expedition and rout the Gauls(Senones) and chased them out of Italy
283-Vadimon: Romans defeat Gauls(Boii) and Etruscans
283- ? Romans defeat Gauls(Boii) once again.
283* see notes below
238* see notes below
225-Faesulae: Gauls(Boii,Insubres,Taurisci and Gaesatae) defeat Romans
225-Telemon: Romans defeat Gauls(Boii,Insubres,Taurisci and Gaesatae)
224- Boii Land: Romans ravage the Boii territory
223- Bergamo: Romans defeat Gauls(Insubres)
222- Clastidim: Romans defeat Gauls(Insubres)
218- Boii Land: Gauls(Boii) stop Roman advance.
216- Mutina: Gauls defeat Romans
205-Ligurian coast: Romans defeat Carthage with a massive durbar of Gauls and Ligurians
201-?: Gauls defeat Romans
200-Near Ariminum: Romans defeat Gauls
199- Placentia: Gauls(Insubres) defeat Romans
197-?: Romans defeat Gauls and Hamilcar(Hannibal's brother)
196-?: Romans defeat Gauls
195-?: Romans defeat Gauls or is indecisive.
194-?: Indecisive battle
193- Mutina Romans defeat Gauls
191- ?: Romans defeat Gauls
This List was compiled with the main sources of Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier" pgs.11-38/ H.D.Rankin "Celts and the Classical World" pgs. 107-116/ David Matz "An Ancient Rome Chronology 264-27 B.C." pgs.75-80. The minor sources used are-Connolly "Greece and Rome at War"/ Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"/ Simon James "The World of The Celts".
*This denotes inter-tribal warfare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCO V

The Roman weakness is further born out by the Roman relief when Transalpine Gauls crossed the Alps wanting a piece of the action. Initially a disaster for the Romans, in the end the Transalpine Gauls (Arverni, Allobroges, Cadurci, etc) fell out with the Cisalpine Gauls (Insubres, Senones, etc)… feelings that were part of broader Gallic politics in Transalpine proper. The conflict came to a head in 299 BC when the combined group had returned from a raid deep into Roman territory. When “burdened with a great quantity of booty”, they quarrelled over the division and in the end ended up destroying most of the spoils “as well as the best part of their own forces”. Following this slaughter, the opportunistic Romans noted the weakness of the Cisalpine Gauls and decided to finally push north. Thus in 296 BC, the Gauls (still reeling from the slaughter with their brethren) sought an alliance with their former enemies, the Etruscans, Samnites and Umbrians.

---

So the opportunistic Romans decided to go through enemy Etruscan lands to get at the Celts because they knew they were weakened? Were they also going to totally ignore the Umbrians and the Samnites?

H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical World"-"They made their way through Etruria where they were joined by a number of the inhabitants who were anxious to do the Romans some harm. Although these expeditionaries obtained considerable plunder which they managed to take home,they were weakened by internecine quarrels of the kind, Polybius says (2.19), which arise from excessive eating and drinking. In 297 BC the Celts and the Samnites joined together against Rome and defeated a Roman army at Camertium. But the Celts were chased out of the territory of Sentinum by Roman consular armies. Samnites and Celts suffered substantial losses.".pg.110

Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier"-"The year 299 B.C. saw a new attack on Etruria by the Gauls. The Etruscans bought them off and even attempted to turn them against Rome. The Gauls were only willing to follow that risky course if the Etruscans promised them land on which to settle. Fearing such barbarian neighbors, the Etruscans paid off the Gauls and sent them home. Livy mentions the false rumor of a Gallic tumultus at Rome in 299 B.C., while Polybius describes a full-fledged Gallic raid, sparked by the arrival of new tribesmen from over the Alps. The stereotypical accounts of Gallic drinking and internecine strife suggest that the details of Polybius' account should be viewed with caution. The fears of the Romans were real, however, and they reacted vigorously. Ties with Picenum were strengthened. At Narnia, some seventy kilometers up the Tiber valley a settlement was founded to guard the Apennine approaches to Rome. Unrest continued in both Etruria and in the Samnium. Finally, in 296 B.C. Etruscans and Samnites coalesce into a threat to Rome. The uprising ended only with the great Roman victory and Sentinum in 295 B.C."pg.23

283BC*
H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical World"- "Five years had still to pass before the Celts who invaded Greece were defeated at Delphi. Throughout this period, Polybius comments, war raged like a plague amongst the Celtic peoples (2.20)." pg.110

This event took place after the defeats and destruction of the Senones and after the two battles with the Boii.

238BC*
H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical World"-"Some of the Boii made plans to thwart the warlike intentions of their leader. They killed their own two kings, Atis and Galatus.Then the strangers and the Boii liquidated their mutual suspicions by a pitched battle in which both sides suffered severely. The Roman pre-emptive force was able to return home without fighting." pg.112

Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier"-"They demanded the land of Ariminum and the removal of the Romans from the thirty-year-old colony. Attacks were apparently made on Ariminum itself, and the Boii called in fellow tribesmen from across the Alps. The arrival of these newcomers, however, soon caused internal friction between ethnically related but now culturally different groups. Fighting broke out, and the weakened Boii were forced to sue for peace." pg.28

The inner tribal warfare didnt have much effect on these battles. 299bc is the only one that could argue to have any effect on battles and even then there is a lot of questions. In 283bc the inner tribal warfare happened after the battles in 283. In 238bc its of non-consequence as there were many other Gauls involved in the invasions after 238bc. The Celts also had many more tribes added to them and that includes adding more warriors, not to mention the large amounts of Gaesatae.

H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical World"-"Polybius' theory of successive waves of tribes pressing on each other was substantially correct."pg.111/ "In the Celts, Rome had a formidable enemy with resources of population that must have seemed interminable."pg.118

Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"-"The migrations were largely at an end by 200 BC."

Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier"-"The wars against the Samnites ground on. In Etruria internal strife increased. The population in the Celtic homeland was again growing." pg.24

Again we have the "weaker" Romans defeating the "stronger" 3rd century Celts the majority of the time. As far as the attrition theory I think the above statement meets that question. These Celts were raiders, not family units, therefore its safe to assume these were all warriors not farmers or craftsmen.Also lets not forget that the Celts were not the only enemies and wars going on. There is the Punic wars,Samnites,Greeks,Etruscans,Umbrians,Illyrians,Macedonians,etc. etc. Also I didnt include numbers or circumstances(terrain,suprise(Romans need better scouts)). In reference for the Roman army of the time:

Adrian Goldsworthy"In the Name of Rome"-"Most scholars play down the significance of the Marian reform in the transition from a militia to a professional army, preferring to see this as a much more gradual process."pg.122 / "Roman soldiers were not professionals, but men who served in the army as a duty to the Republic. The army is often referred to as a militia force, but it is probably better to think of it as a conscript army, for men would often spend several years consecutively with the legions although no one was supposed to be called upon to serve for more then 16 years.pg.26

Of the Celts:

Adrian Goldsworthy"In the Name of Rome"-"Such restrictions should not lead us to the conclusion that all Roman campaigns agains tribal opponents were 'cheap' victories. A few were, but the majority were difficult operations against an enemy who was brave, often numerous, and well used to exploiting the natural strength of there homeland."pg.98

Im not going to go on about the Celts who went to Greece and other places. Ill not bother with the time between Caesar and 191BC as these are not the "stronger" Celts. I will however deal with the Arverni-Aedui war.

Adrian Goldsworthy"The Roman Army at War 100bc-ad200"-"Before Caesar's arrival in the country, the Gallic states used to fight offensive or defensive wars almost every year (BG6.15). The scale of these conflicts is hard to judge, but it is probable that the aim was the reduction of the enemy to a subject tribe through a moral defeat rather then his destruction. For the nobles, warfare offered the opportunity of wealth, prestige, and reputation to further political aspirations at home.As in Germany, a retinue could only be maintained by actual fighting. The reason given for the migration of the Helvetii, that the geography of their homeland did not allow them full scope for raiding(BG1.1),and the subsequent raids on Rome's allies (BG1.2) reinforces the importance of warfare in Gallic society. Again, both factors are similar to those discussed as encouraging endemic warfare in Germanic culture. This is the customary method of opening hostilities in Gaul. A law common to all the tribe alike requires all adult males to arm and attend the muster, and the last to arrive is cruelly tortured and put to death in the presence of the assembled host." pg56

Goldsworthy"In the Name of Rome"-At times a tribe grew in power, often under the rule of a charismatic war-leader and sometimes bringing neighbouring peoples under control". pg243

Simon James "The World of the Celts"-"Probably most Celtic warfare was on a small scale, involving no more then a few score men on each side. The population was growing and states were developing in late Iron age Gaul, and this may have led to an increase in the scale of warfare. But it is clear that the vast armies commanded by Vercingetorix and others were assemble only as a response to the great threat from Rome (p.127). In fact, Rome changed the very rules of Celtic warfare, bringing large armies into an area where, internally at least, they may have been much rarer before. Certainly, the Gaul described and conqured by Caesar showed no signs of exhaustion by internal wars-it was a rich and prosperous land-so means were evidently found for limiting the damage war could cause." pg. 74

Unfortunately Ive run out of time again. There are other quotes that are similar but will have to get to at a later time. This last quote surely differs then those on this forum. This shows that the Arverni-Aedui war wasnt nearly as drastic as claimed. The elites would still have existed and would have been on comparison to the "stronger" 4th-3rd century Celts.

One other thing I would like to add, while I think the Celts are overpowered, there is one I think they are underpowered. I think the Celtic Cavalry should be much stronger then it is. The Celt cavalry consistently defeated the Roman Cavalry up to Caesar's time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

LOL ... Frosty still propagating the same line huh!? I commend you on your labours but I'm sorry mate, this and much of the other material you cite in defence of your argument is just so contextually wrong. Suffice to say, if you took the time to actually read all the material / consider all the data and see the bigger picture, you wouldn't keep making all these ridiculous statements. Trying to take select points out of any semblance of context and extrapolate that to support some hypothesis is just bolox!

---

I have to admit Im a bit disappointed at your response to this. In the past though, Watchman, others and you have disagreed with me but there hasnt been any real disparaging remarks. You and others, especially Watchman have been very logical in posting but we just disagree.
The only reason I'm posting is to get a historical perspective and enjoy a game thats supposed to be as historical as possible. After looking at these unit stats things didn't seem right, so I started to respond to these threads. My main interest is combat and how the units are addressed in this. We ended up going to other subjects and so I responded by reading up on these subjects.

I put down authors,books and page numbers so I wouldn't be accused of using quotes out of context. These are books anyone can get. You said I should read up on these subjects and I have. I even read some of the others you quoted from. I even quit quoting from Newark because you didn't find him credible, and also from Ellis with the exception Marcus Claudius Marcellus vs. Viridomarus duel, and this was just to show that he wasn't quoting from livy.

Are you still going to try to say that I'm still misunderstanding the Marcus Claudius Marcellus vs. Viridomarus duel? Do you still contend that this is just a "tale","a dramatised account",“works of propaganda”? What about the above authors, are they wrong or is it I just somehow misunderstood what they said? Others can read these books and they can decide who is right, that's the main reason I have the author, book and page numbers.

You have made this claim that I have used these quotes out of context and extrapolate that to support some hypothesis. I completely disagree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

my current idea on the addition of a new MED-ish cavalry is an alternate skin for some horseman model (we have no space for new units) which will be a "proven" or "champion" rider or early "horse retainer" unit. This horse unit will represent the superiority of the higher class Germanic horsemen over the standard issue Leuce Epos and yet still be very similar to the Ridoharjoz. The regular Ridoharjoz should not be automatically superior, because the examples of Celtic defeat against German cavalry was not a representation of the Celts during their heyday and the Germans at that time suredly had experienced units on that front rather than conscripts more accurately portrayed by the normal Ridoharjoz.

---

Blitz the reason I would like to put this here is because it goes to the topic of this thread more then it would the German one. This game is about being as historically accurate as possible, and I believe that is should be. I also am interested in history and would like to come to the truth as much as possible. Here is my problem, your saying in essence these are "weaker" Celts then in centuries past. I have read multiple books and only two have alluded to or talked about this subject directly. Here are the quotes from the two books concerning this subject:

Adrian Goldsworthy"The Roman Army at War 100bc-ad200"-"Before Caesar's arrival in the country, the Gallic states used to fight offensive or defensive wars almost every year (BG6.15). The scale of these conflicts is hard to judge, but it is probable that the aim was the reduction of the enemy to a subject tribe through a moral defeat rather then his destruction. For the nobles, warfare offered the opportunity of wealth, prestige, and reputation to further political aspirations at home.As in Germany, a retinue could only be maintained by actual fighting. The reason given for the migration of the Helvetii, that the geography of their homeland did not allow them full scope for raiding(BG1.1),and the subsequent raids on Rome's allies (BG1.2) reinforces the importance of warfare in Gallic society. Again, both factors are similar to those discussed as encouraging endemic warfare in Germanic culture. This is the customary method of opening hostilities in Gaul. A law common to all the tribe alike requires all adult males to arm and attend the muster, and the last to arrive is cruelly tortured and put to death in the presence of the assembled host." pg56

Simon James "The World of the Celts"-"Probably most Celtic warfare was on a small scale, involving no more then a few score men on each side. The population was growing and states were developing in late Iron age Gaul, and this may have led to an increase in the scale of warfare. But it is clear that the vast armies commanded by Vercingetorix and others were assemble only as a response to the great threat from Rome (p.127). In fact, Rome changed the very rules of Celtic warfare, bringing large armies into an area where, internally at least, they may have been much rarer before. Certainly, the Gaul described and conquered by Caesar showed no signs of exhaustion by internal wars-it was a rich and prosperous land-so means were evidently found for limiting the damage war could cause." pg. 74

So I'm going to echo Grey_Fox:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grey_Fox

Sorry to dig this one up but can I ask what the sources are that you are drawing this stuff from because it's fairly interesting and I;ve gotten involved in a discussion at the .c0mmie over some of this stuff (yes, there are intelligent discussion there, try not to faint).

---

I for my part have given the information by author,book, page number that support my claim. What I would like to see is the same in return for those that say the Celts were weaker during Caesar's time. I just interested in getting my history straight. So Watchman,Neospartan, Psyco V, Blitz or anyone who can tell me which author and book to read I would really appreciate it.
I also want to make clear that Im not trying to be obnoxious or prove a point, I just want information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

De Bello Gallico is I suppose a good source of information, though I'm not really all that sure if I can trust it, the battles always seem to follow a similar patterm, bascially the Romans encounter a group of Celts, the Celts charge and theres this big fight, and it looks like the Romans are in trouble, then suddenly Julius Caesar does something clever and the Celts rout.

Perhaps thats an oversimplification but I recall a lot of battles in the book that went along those lines, that said, perhaps that is the way it unfolded anyway, Caesar complimented the Celts, I recall the best one being somethin along the lines of "the most innovative people in the world", so obviously there was something he liked about them, and I don't see why a propagandist would want to paint all too nice a picture of his enemies, though perhaps he was setting down the foundations for the idea that these people could become good Romans also, who knows, either way what he does mention is that the most vicious Celtic people were the Belgae, because they were the closest to the Germanic people and fought the Germans on a regular basis and probably came from Germanic stock originally.

---

I agree that the Celts were a tough people, I have never had a problem with that. Caesar was almost always outnumbered and he lost one battle with the Celts. As far as the Belgae:
Ill make the claim that the Belgae were indeed making this statement that they were descended from the Germans and were a mix of Celt-Germanic peoples. "Certain tribes of Gaul, such as the Aedui, boasted of Germanic descent. The Belgae also were a mixture of German and Celt." Pg.19. "After their defeat, the Belgae, a group of mixed Celtic and German origins, were treated with comparative moderation." pg.128. H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical world".

/ "Caesar considered all the Belgae were Gauls, but also claims that many of them were descended from German settlers. As we have already seen, the distinction between Gaul and German was not always as clear as our ancient source suggest but there may well have been some truth in this.At the end of the first century AD Tacitus also believed that the Nervii and the Treveri were both Germanic." pg.238 Adrian Goldsworthy "Caesar"/
http://www.duerinck.com/tribes1.html While I havent read all the resources listed on this site, I have read a bit by Herbert Schutz and he acknowledges Caesars claim of the Belgae being of German ancestry. Look what is posted under the Belgae on this site and check it out.

One last one to look at is Barry Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"-"All we can do is to accept the ethnic identifications made by the Roman commentators". pg.238. I would suggest reading from pg.237-238 to get a good idea at what he is getting at. Arghhh I shouldnt have put this here, oh well more on the Germans on new thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

The Celts were undoubtably the masters of their territory and the replication by others of Celtic weapons does present them as at least a technologically adpet people when it comes to warfare, but as to how good they actually were at fighting? who knows, what we do know is their culture covered a very large amount of territory and really, if you were to view the Celts as a single unit were probably the dominent force in Europe prior to being conquered, so in short, there must have at least at one point been a highly formidible warrior culture in place to have allowed them to hold so much territory and keep it for as long as they did, and the fact that they were still raiding the Italian Peninsula goes to show that there must have been a very expansionist cultural element there.

---

I would say that if the Celtic people banded together they would have beaten Caesar because of shear numbers, not from martial prowess. The Celts were formidable but they were not as good as the Romans nor the Germans. I dont believe the Celtic units are very accurate, they are to powerful when compared to the Romans and Germans. Look at my posts dated 5/26/07 and 5/29/07. I go through these questions.

Don't mean to be rude, but of course Celtic tribes proudly mentioned they were of "German" descent- it's just another Celtic tribe, admittingly mixed with Germanics though... Caesar invented what we think of as "Germans" for propoganda purposes to justify his "peace-keeping" and future Roman interests/defense. "German" really only means "Celts on the other side of the Rhine." One of the reasons Germany is a BS country-name is the fact that no German calls themselves that, they call themselves "Deutsch, ja?" The Oxford English Dictionary even states that the Germani are of Celtic origin. The Teutons are widely believed to be of Celtic origin as well, despite modern connotations of Deutsch-ness. My point being that they weren't refering to being Deutsch, but bad-ass Rhine Celts versus less bad-ass Gaul hinterland Celts, like the Belgae, another Celtic tribe, with mixed elements maybe, but certainly not dominated by the Deutsch. The small clan/tribe structure was as aware as they got concerning language/race, so "Germani" can certainly be treated as geographical and contextual.

That website btw mentions that one of the few pieces of evidence for Germanic ancestry among Belgae is a description of being "tall" and "blonde"- who does that describe? All Indo-Europeans (especially Celts too). Slavs, Celts, and Germans are all especially mentioned early as "tall" and "ruddy" besides rampant "blonde" and "Red" hair references- like China describing the Yueh-Chi. Also, the main argument is analysis of skull types which doesn't prove anything. There were native peoples throughout Europe before the Indo-European invasion, probably quite a few. I have read some of those kind of early archaeology books which fall into "race-theory" a little too much and I really doubt any legitimate scientist pursues that kind of theory anymore, I would hope not. It is true that certain linguistic family/cultures have similar morphology like Siberian/steppe people being short and African people being tall (but not always) similar to skin tone and Vitamin D both being adaptation to weather and sun, but that is hardly proven and mostly opinion and common sense (people still don't believe in evolution!), so skulls of people who are assuredly mixed prove nothing. It can't even be proven that the Battle-Axe culture or the Przeworsk culture are any specific race/language family and we know quite a bit about them.

Although it may sound like I'm being argumentative for fun (well it is fun- probably because I'm not writing a bunch of citations ~:)) but I want to mention that I truly believe that the Germanic tribes were mixing early on along the Rhineland, but they didn't identify themselves separate from those Celtic tribes which took credit for the people. It is the same case with the Slavs who certainly weren't spontaneously generated... in fact, I doubt any Indo-Europeans traveled over the steppe (yes I believe they came from the steppe- for the same reason, if they came from Turkey why did they leave and come back? that's dumb) and went through nicer southern land then went north away from good land far into hostile/cold wasteland then decided to go back to the nice land... don't think so... somehow I think they spread out slowly, slowly forming, slowly migrating... so I'm sure Balts and Thracians, some West Slavs too might be mixed among the Belgae. A melting pot that later uses certain languages that we call them by but certainly were not 100% anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

I would say that if the Celtic people banded together they would have beaten Caesar because of shear numbers, not from martial prowess. The Celts were formidable but they were not as good as the Romans nor the Germans. I dont believe the Celtic units are very accurate, they are to powerful when compared to the Romans and Germans. Look at my posts dated 5/26/07 and 5/29/07. I go through these questions.

---

Nonsense. The Romans always made a point of having at least roughly equal numbers of serious combatants to fight the Celts, and in spite of the fact virtually every free man among the Germans was a reasonably well trained and experienced (if not equipped) warrior (which was not the case in the Celtic society, as their warring was primarily up to the warrior class) it took them centuries to start seriously encroaching on Celtic territory.

Hardly a testament to some full-spectrum "weakness" on the part of the Celts, that.

The Celtic warrior class weren't part-time tribal farmer-soldiers like the rank-and-file Germans or reservists like the early Roman soldiery. They were a specialist social segment that spent the better part of its time preparing for and engaging in more-or-less organized warfare as their primary occupation; leaving aside the potential long-term problems of that sort of setup, it has a tendency to produce quite formidable fighters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

Don't mean to be rude, but of course Celtic tribes proudly mentioned they were of "German" descent- it's just another Celtic tribe, admittingly mixed with Germanics though... Caesar invented what we think of as "Germans" for propoganda purposes to justify his "peace-keeping" and future Roman interests/defense. "German" really only means "Celts on the other side of the Rhine." One of the reasons Germany is a BS country-name is the fact that no German calls themselves that, they call themselves "Deutsch, ja?" The Oxford English Dictionary even states that the Germani are of Celtic origin. The Teutons are widely believed to be of Celtic origin as well, despite modern connotations of Deutsch-ness. My point being that they weren't refering to being Deutsch, but bad-ass Rhine Celts versus less bad-ass Gaul hinterland Celts, like the Belgae, another Celtic tribe, with mixed elements maybe, but certainly not dominated by the Deutsch. The small clan/tribe structure was as aware as they got concerning language/race, so "Germani" can certainly be treated as geographical and contextual.

---

I didnt take any of this as being rude, merely a discussion. We may disagree on things but no condescending attitude, rude remarks or character attacks have been made so no problems.

Herwig Wolfram "The Roman Empire and its Germanic Peoples"-"Tacitus closes the second chapter with the interesting comment that the Germanic name was a relatively recent additional name that had developed from the specific name for a single tribe. He relates that the Tungri were the first to cross the Rhine on their push westward and were subsequently called Germani by the Gauls. The victories of the Tungri imparted such prestige to this name that it was also adopted by other tribes as a generic name.
Debates concerning the Germanic identity of the Germanic tribes who lived east of the Rhine fill entire libraries, and a good deal of nonscholarly interests have kept the controversy alive. In actual fact, however, the few sentences in Tacitus offer a quite credible and convincing account of what happened. Successful conquerors, whether they already spoke Germanic or not, crossed the Rhine and were called Germani by the Gauls. The name was used first by outsiders, and it remained so even after the Romans had taken it over from the Gauls. However, and here I correct Tacitus, it did not establish itself as the name of all Germanic tribes, just as French Allemands did not become the self-chosen name of the Germans." pg.4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

That website btw mentions that one of the few pieces of evidence for Germanic ancestry among Belgae is a description of being "tall" and "blonde"- who does that describe? All Indo-Europeans (especially Celts too). Slavs, Celts, and Germans are all especially mentioned early as "tall" and "ruddy" besides rampant "blonde" and "Red" hair references- like China describing the Yueh-Chi. Also, the main argument is analysis of skull types which doesn't prove anything. There were native peoples throughout Europe before the Indo-European invasion, probably quite a few. I have read some of those kind of early archaeology books which fall into "race-theory" a little too much and I really doubt any legitimate scientist pursues that kind of theory anymore, I would hope not. It is true that certain linguistic family/cultures have similar morphology like Siberian/steppe people being short and African people being tall (but not always) similar to skin tone and Vitamin D both being adaptation to weather and sun, but that is hardly proven and mostly opinion and common sense (people still don't believe in evolution!), so skulls of people who are assuredly mixed prove nothing. It can't even be proven that the Battle-Axe culture or the Przeworsk culture are any specific race/language family and we know quite a bit about them.

---

I think the Tall and blond thing is just a general description of the Belgae, not any kind of evidence. As far as the skulls are concerned I do believe this may be making a comeback. They use it in forensics allot to identify what a person would have looked like. They can tell the race of people by the bone structure just as they did the Kennewick Man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man
I don't know if there is much difference in the cephalic index between Celts and Germans, or even if they are going by the index.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

Although it may sound like I'm being argumentative for fun (well it is fun- probably because I'm not writing a bunch of citations ) but I want to mention that I truly believe that the Germanic tribes were mixing early on along the Rhineland, but they didn't identify themselves separate from those Celtic tribes which took credit for the people. It is the same case with the Slavs who certainly weren't spontaneously generated... in fact, I doubt any Indo-Europeans traveled over the steppe (yes I believe they came from the steppe- for the same reason, if they came from Turkey why did they leave and come back? that's dumb) and went through nicer southern land then went north away from good land far into hostile/cold wasteland then decided to go back to the nice land... don't think so... somehow I think they spread out slowly, slowly forming, slowly migrating... so I'm sure Balts and Thracians, some West Slavs too might be mixed among the Belgae. A melting pot that later uses certain languages that we call them by but certainly were not 100% anything.

---

The mixing part I agree with (my knowledge is very little on this subject), but with a different language and customs that may be where the "Germani" came from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Nonsense. The Romans always made a point of having at least roughly equal numbers of serious combatants to fight the Celts, and in spite of the fact virtually every free man among the Germans was a reasonably well trained and experienced (if not equipped) warrior (which was not the case in the Celtic society, as their warring was primarily up to the warrior class) it took them centuries to start seriously encroaching on Celtic territory.

---

Roughly equal numbers is simply not true, the Romans may have exaggerated and inflated enemy numbers but it depended on the battle. There were times when the Romans out numbered the Celts but in general the Celts outnumbered the Romans, especially during Caesars campaign. If your talking about Romans encroaching I have explained this in the 5/29/07 thread. As far as the Germans, wouldn't it be a slow migration period of building up a populace?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

The Celtic warrior class weren't part-time tribal farmer-soldiers like the rank-and-file Germans or reservists like the early Roman soldiery. They were a specialist social segment that spent the better part of its time preparing for and engaging in more-or-less organized warfare as their primary occupation; leaving aside the potential long-term problems of that sort of setup, it has a tendency to produce quite formidable fighters.

---

Yes the Celtic warrior class like the German elites did the raiding,training and participated in warfare. Yes the Celts did have formidable fighters, the problem is they lost the majority of the time. The Romans fought as a unit, not as a bunch of individuals. The Celts like the Germans usually did a fast charge and if the Romans didn't buckle they would start to sustain heavy damage.