Oh my God! Does everyone here use the same avatar?!? This is madness!!! No wonder I stay away from this thread.
Printable View
Oh my God! Does everyone here use the same avatar?!? This is madness!!! No wonder I stay away from this thread.
Eh, I haven't changed my avatar from the default for... ever, actually.
Now that you mention it though, wonder if there were interesting ones in the pool ?
When Caesar mentions the Helvetii successfully defending their lands against the Germans and even defeating them in their own (German) lands, he is doing so when giving his troops a pep talk, (see my post above). Frostwulf has replied that he takes what Caesar said as basically a motivational speech - just some "lies" made up to keep the Roman troops from worrying about facing the Germans.
Basically Helvetii beat Germans, Romans beat Helvetii, ergo Romans will beat Germans.
I find it odd that anyone would use lies to motivate and boost morale, but it isn't out of the question so Frostwulf can interpret the passage as he may.
As a Celtophile I am going to be a bit biased even though I try not to be, but I'll take Caesar's pep talk for fact. Which leads me to agree with Watchman that the Helvetii left their lands not because they were forced by the Germans, but because there were better lands to be had and the "unsuccessful" German raids were becoming too annoying to bother with anymore. It's not like the Helvetii could cross the Rhine and defeat all the Germanic tribes - maybe one or two or possibly 10 but more would eventually take their place. There are many times playing as the Aedui that I flirt with the idea of abandoning Mediolanum to postpone the inevitable war with Rome, who, no matter how many times I defeat them in battle, just will not stop attacking...
That aside, here is an interesting question I pose to everyone...
We all know the Helvetii burnt their homes and everything they couldn't take with them before leaving their land (for whatever reason), and that they were defeated in battle by Caesar and forced to return home...
How long until proof of Germanic artifacts, (tools, weaponry, pottery, vessels, etc) appear in the homelands of the Helvetii?
Best answers would be based on archaeological data, but if anyone can give any clues maybe based in ancient literary sources, I'd like to hear...
Because if true artifacts were found in say... 30 BCE then it would seem that almost immediately the Germans took over the surviving Helvetii... If not till much later, 100+ years or so, then it would seem that the Helvetii were capable of defending themselves from Germanic incursion even after losing many, many fighting men from the battle with Caesar...
Now that you mention it, I've wondered about that bit as well. What did happen to the Helveti after Caesar beat them up and sent them packing ? Wiki, for what it's worth, says they were given foederati status and eventually more or less assimilated into the Empire, what now with a major uprising in 68/9 AD.
That certainly would sound like they were still strong enough to hold off the Germans even after the casualties suffered against the Romans.
Glewas, the only error in that logic is to expect that scientists have been interested enough to find those archaeological samples so one could come to such a conclusion, when in fact there are entire gaps in time and findings simply because of disinterest, besides overpopulation and other factors, so one would be hard-pressed to prove such... but I think it would be cool if that was achievable... it could be that I do not have access to the 'latest findings' yet unpublished, but for the most part we are lucky to have scraps at the table, which is usually before (la tene and period closely following) and after (migration age)
Simon James-"The World of the Celts"-"Slavery existed, although on a smaller scale than in the Classical world; slaves may have been most important as export commodities." pg. 53Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I believe most slaves were acquired while raiding and the battles, but it doesn't seem to be in large numbers.
Erebus answers your question of the Gaul proper situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erebus26
What you guys are saying makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glewas
Caesar-"The Gallic War"-" in such circumstances their range of movement was less extensive, and their chance of waging war on their neighbors were less easy; and on this account they were greatly distressed, for they were men that longed for war."
If they left their homeland for lack of raiding what about what he says about going into the German lands and subduing them there? The Germans would have had cattle and other items that were "raid worthy". I'm sure it wouldn't have been up to the level of loot that Gaul could produce.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
I have also wondered this. I don't know what the reason these authors have said they were pressured to leave their home by the Germans. I should be receiving a new book soon that may cover the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glewas
I have seen his book but have not read it of as yet. I hope to get to it before the years end. Thanks for the information.:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Erebus26
Glewas I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I don't think Caesar was lying at all, but I do think he was omitting things. I even put down that I didn't think Caesar knew that the Germans pressured the Helvetii. You have to take into account he did omit the defeats of the Romans and for good reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glewas
For the Aedui weakling thing Rome didn't exactly have fond references to the Gauls, thinking them fickle and other such things. But we do know that the "weaklings" would have involved the elite of the Gauls at the time.
Glewas what part of my analysis did you disagree with and why?
Given the first paragraph and the fact the Mediterranean region could always use more slaves, I'd actually be rather curious to hear where you drew that last conclusion from. Especially given the Celts' fondness of almost institutionalized raiding and fighting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
One thing I've been wondering about is the fact the Helveti ended up ravaging Aedui territory, and the latter asked the Romans to do something about the buggers. Now unless I've entirely misunderstood something the Aedui weren't exactly the smallest tribe around, so why is it one gets the impression they didn't do anything about their unwanted guests themselves ?
What I can't understand is why they(the Helveti) would they burn their oppida and other settlements. Was this a normal thing for Gallic tribes to do in times of war or migration? Or was it simply because they were afraid of invading tribes from the north taking over their settlements? Anybody have any theories?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Frostwulf - I found that wiki article you quoted about abandoned Helvetic lands north of the rhine very interesting. Especially the quotes from Tacitus and Claudius Ptolemaios. In fact Claudius seems to be writing about a recent event, or maybe I'm merely taking the quote out of context. There was a tribe called the Vindelici who were very powerful on the German side of the Rhine during the last centuries BC, but were finally subjugated by Tiberius in 15BC. I think they are also mentioned briefly by Caesar but I'm afraid I can't get a quote at this time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erebus26
I think it had something to do with not giving the impression they were running away or retreating.
The reason is because it was still a relatively peaceful area. The raids consisted of small groups of men, and the battles would have been few. With the raids and few battles there would not have been many slaves taken, but enough for trade to happen, I believe from what James was saying it was on a smaller scale.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
The Sequani didn't stop the Helvetii because they were on good terms with them. The Germans had wiped out most of the nobles and cavalry of the Aedui but still later they were able to bring 10,000 men to aid Caesar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I believe Caesar said they burned down their oppida so they wouldn't be tempted to return.Quote:
Originally Posted by Erebus26
It has piqued my curiosity as well, I hope to have a chance to check into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Erebus26
I have diverted the Gaesatae back to this thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
At Telemon the Gaesatae that did reach the Romans were dispatched quite easily, which is to be expected considering the situation. If you consider how they did at Clastidium and Mediolanum it was fairly poor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarcasm
I didn't see this in Plutarch,Polybius,nor Livy. If it were the elite of the Gaesatae why were they not differentiated by name. Irregardless of this, were did they stand out in any of the battles? Where is any evidence what so ever that shows the Gaesatae being anything but average at best?What it comes down to is the Gaesatae statistics are ridiculous based upon their performance of the battles they were in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarcasm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Maybe not lie, but you do admit that he omits certain things, stretches the truth, etc.
My problem with your analysis/argument for this whole thread is that you rely a lot on the words of Caesar. Correct me if I am wrong but De Bello Gallico is not an unbiased work, recording the culture and times of the Romans, Celts, and Germans from ca. 60 BCE. on...
Now I may be generalizing, but did not Caesar recorded the events to publish in Rome so that everyone could read/hear how great a man he was, that, not only was he a great politician, and a great man from a respected and wealthy family, but also an accomplished general in battle? Hell, the whole Gallic war was just to refill his coffers after spending so much of his family's wealth as he climbed the political ladder and give him loyal veteran troops to allow him to compete with Pompey.
With all that taken into account why should anyone consider what Caesar said as 100% fact? He paints the Gauls in one stroke as crude backward savages, another as noble warrior barbarians, and another as weak saps (Aedui). The first shows Romans that his slaughter of the Gauls is justified as they are uncivilized and a threat to the Roman way, the second to show that the slaughter is not easy - that every battle is a "heroic victory," and the third to convince the anti-Caesars in Rome that this "war" was to protect Rome's allies against the hostile tribes of Gaul.
There is no real reason why Caesar had to report any truths when he could stretch them to fit his agenda... This doesn't mean that everything is fictionalized, but one should be a bit skeptical, but that is just my observation.
Now you do cite James and Goldsworthy as other sources, but I would be surprised if they didn't use Caesar as a source. Considering Goldsworthy's book is called "Caesar: Life as a Colossus" I would really be surprised if that was the case... but I doubt it. (No I haven't read Goldsworthy, but I am aware that the two authors probably have hundreds of sources for their books - that doesn't mean that every source is used equally or to the same amount).
Two more quick points:
If I remember correctly, you mentioned that, as you are “proving” that the Germans are superior to Gauls/Celts during Caesar's time, that 200 years prior (back to EB’s start time) they should still be superior.
You have made decent arguments backed up with sources (suspect they may or may not be) throughout most of this tread, and if you have rescinded this comment then please ignore the fact that I find said comment to be absurd. In EB’s time period the Romans alone have three different reforms, Celts two, and even the Sweboz will hopefully get one. Are you really trying to tell me that the Germanic armies were static for over 200 years? They didn’t grow in power or even lessen? If what you think is true then you really need to give a damn good reason why they didn’t invade Gaul en masse anytime during EB’s time period.
Of course if am not remembering correctly, and you didn’t make such a statement then I apologize.
Finally... as much energy as you have put into this threat and the thread for the Sweboz, for which I am impressed and commend you... I don’t really see many picking up your side of the argument. There are probably good reasons for this, mainly people not posting their own ideas. But come on... 11, going on 12 pages of pretty much the same thing, although a damn good read for those who care.
You and Psycho, (to give the Celts a single head of their own - not trying to dismiss the other posters), have made your points and neither seem to be willing to budge. I understand the lack of “sources” that the Celtic side has for their argument can be frustrating, but as mentioned above, just because you have them (or not), doesn’t mean you are right (or wrong). Do remember Psycho was the Faction coordinator for the Gauls at one time so I do hope he knows what he is talking about, sources or no.
But then again... you might be totally correct in your arguments and the EB members don’t want to admit a-historicity of the Gallic faction and are conspiring against you.... but they wouldn’t do that would they? ~;)
Yeah, and their defeating Milan only proves it more!
(I couldn't resist!)
However, this could definitley be handeled in EB2 much more appropriately, as the Celtic factions could just have very low loyalty and the kings could have very low authority.
Glewas I agree with what you said in your post up until what I have for the quotes I will address below. Most authors if not all use Caesar as there would be a large gap in knowledge without his writings. As with most writers of Caesars time and before(after) they are subject to cultural prejudices and ignorance of certain things. Archeology alone will not illuminate history, the ancient writer helps to fill in allot of the gaps.
As far as the Germans being superior to the Celts prior to the TCA the only thing that could be said is that the Germans reversed the Celtic expansion. As for the TCA the Germans could be said to be superior based on the defeats of the type of Roman armies they defeated, who had previously defeated Celtic armies which outnumbered the Romans. Then of course we have Caesars time frame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glewas
What do you consider static combat? The arms and armour of the Germans didn't change much during these times. The tactics used? The shield wall was used from before Caesars time for at least a 1,000 years later where the Anglo-Saxon's fought the Normans at the Battle of Hastings. Perhaps your referring to battle formations? If you look at the way the troops of Ariovistus were lined up, they are very similar to those used by the Franks,Lombards and etc. several hundred years later.
As far as why they didn't invade Gaul, they did:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=243
Also there is what Drinkwater says in this post:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=273
I appreciate you saying that Glewas. But as far as not many picking up my side of the argument I find interesting. So far the other side of the argument has no evidence to back up its claims. My view is backed up with evidence and yet I'm a Roman apologist and "severely biased in favour of the Germans".Quote:
Originally Posted by Glewas
Uhh... Frosty, not to be rude but thus far your 'evidence' has consisted of some rather selective and tendentious interpretation of what (rather little) is actually known; such as the mistake of assuming strategic success necessitated superior troop calibre...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Totally agree with you frosty, although I'm still inclined to say that the TCA had a mixture of both 'Germanic' and 'Celtic' within their ranks.
As for the ethnicity - how can you define 'Celtic' and Germanic' as these were general names given to the occupants of Gaul and Germania by Roman and Greek historians and writers. The peoples belonging to Gaul and Germania at that time would have thought themselves as belonging to a tribe, and probably didn't have a kind of national identity. The Aedui and Sequani would have been most likely scared of invading Suebi rather than invading Germans. I would be interested to hear your views on this frosty.
I don't there was much difference in tactics either between 'Celts' and 'Germans'. After all the Helveti also used 'shield wall' tactics when fighting Caesar's legions. I think one major difference between the Suebi and their allies and the rest was the fact that they used a combination of cavalry and light infantry in battle. Caesar was obviously suitably impressed to include them in his own ranks at the time of Vercingtorix's revolt.
I don't take it as rude. As for being selective I would have to disagree with you as I have tried to find differing views from the authors I have read. Allot of the authors I quote from came from Pyscho V. Tendentious would apply to all here, not just I. As far as: "such as the mistake of assuming strategic success necessitated superior troop calibre..."Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=312Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
I agree with you on this, though at the beginning I think the majority would have been Germanic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Erebus26
I believe this is born out in the ancient writers. The Germani from what I read always said they were Suebi,Chatti,Batavi or whatever. The only exception to this is when they were in Roman service where they may refer to themselves as Germani. As far as the Celts are concerned I'm not sure. They did use the term Germani when describing the Suebi(according to Caesar) so they may have linked those who spoke German to all be Germani.Quote:
Originally Posted by Erebus26
There may have been minor variances but for the most part I agree with you that they would have been very similar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Erebus26
Im soo gonna embrass my self:sweatdrop:
In terms of strategy I read somewhere that Germans used more of an guerilla tactic. Like raids and ambush. Where Gauls fought field battles like the Romans.
I think Caesar mentioned that Celts were superior to Germans until they started making cities and farm and stuff. They became more rich which made them more weak. While Germans rarely stayed in one place because they preffred hunting and raiding.
Sorry if this has been said before. I didnt have time to read the entire thread.
Who does?Quote:
Sorry if this has been said before. I didnt have time to read the entire thread.
:tired:
I did!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Methuselah
Over a period of mothts that is :shame:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erebus26
I agree. Regarding battle tactics of boths races here, I can think of a couple differences in battle protocol. Granted, I have not read as much as other historians on this board, so anyone feel free to post where I might be wrong :-)
Celts used "music" to a great effect. I have not heard how the carnyx sounded, but its rather scary if you imagine a Celtic army sounding on them as they begin a battle! I have not read much of the Germans battling with horns blaring, creating the dreadful din (not that they did not, however, I've just not read about evidence of them using horns to the extent of the Celtic armies.)
Germanic tactics, I would assume, relied more on the powerful charge. As we all know, one popular tactic was charging in wedge formation, crashing into their enemies front lines, attempting to break them quickly (like most "barbarian tribes). Its ashame the the wedge cannot be adapted to Germans in game.
Chariot ambushes, with riders throwing spears was mentioned being used heavily by the Briton Celts, the Germans most successful use of ambush in Teutoberg Wald, and the Gaulish use of skirmish and hit and run tactics provides for plenty to keep a "civilized" commander on his toes.
I read somewhere that Celtic oppida were designed in a way that slingers/archers could have an optimal line of fire. Anyone know how accurate this is?
Too bad none of them learned to adopt a more thorough battle plan on the whole. I often ask myself why didn't the barbarians over hundred's of years learn a more complex form of battle. Maybe the standard "charge and hope they break" worked just enough to keep in forefront in their minds
the wedge formation CAN be adapted to RTW: in fact it doesn't make sense for a single unit to do a wedge formation, because it should be more tactical in manner, similar to legions:
Saxo Grammaticus describes the svínfylkir "wedge formation" in his History of the Danes, which shows a good map of where Dugunthiz stood on the social/ battlefield importance scale... these scans are from the English Warrior by Pollington and Saxo Grammaticus by David & Fisher: WARNING MASSIVE FILE... some nice text on the right too
https://img458.imageshack.us/img458/...edgexr8.th.jpg
The Germany Army composition should consist of 2 main lines (even in ambush) with the Youth (skirmishers) along the front and the Veteran spearmen behind them, flanked with Support and/or Levy troops. The King/General is directly in the middle of the battle line as a 3rd grouping unto themselves, flanked by personal followers/bodyguard, in front of them is a special elite/vanguard 2nd and 1st line middle force who are even with the rest in ambush but will eventually form the point of a wedge formation.
(facing upwards toward the enemy)
1st line:
.........................Club Infantry | Skirmishers| Skirmishers | Chatti Club Infantry | Skirmishers | Skirmishers | Club Infantry
2nd line:
Levy Spear | Levy Spear | Spearmen | Spearmen | Chatti Spearmen | Chatti Spearmen | Spearmen | Spearmen | Levy Spear | Levy Spear
3rd line:
...........................................................Heavy Infantry | (Bodyguard) | Heavy Infantry
KEY:
Germanic Skirmishers: Jugunthiz
Chatti Club Infantry: Jugunthiz Hattisku
Germanic Club Infantry: Slaganz
Germanic Spearmen: Dugunthiz
Chatti Spearmen: Dugunthiz Hattisku
Germanic Levy Spearmen: Gaizōz Aljē
Germanic Heavy Infantry: Thegnōz Drugulē
Germanic Bodyguard Infantry: Herthaganautōz
*Some of this has been copy and pasted from other commentary by me, so when I mention the Dugunthiz it might seem weird and this composition isn't a FOR SURE ALWAYS kind of thing, it's an example, so you can substitute similar units easily: in fact, the scan graphic has the real sketch/reference information we have on such, so you can determine your own wedge formation ~:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
Are you saying that the wedge formation can be made as a formation in game? I was thinking it could not for infantry, but only for cavalry units. Not sure though. I know that units can position themselves and arrange themselves into wedge formation if thats what you were refering to :-)
Speaking of which, in the wedge diagram you posted above, do you know where (if any) Germanic skirmisher or heavy cavalry units be positioned? Were they on the far left/right flanks, or were they used as strictly skirmishers that would engage only at the beginning of battle to soften them up, and then again when the enemy was routing by riding the enemy down with their swift light horses?
the "Youth" who made up the front line would usually be considered skirmishers, which they are in EB, as well as on the colored configuration I show.
Cavalry is a very good question because there isn't much info on that, but I would believe they'd be kept as reserves, similar to how Caesar used them, but depending on the role, since the Ridoharjoz might be considered skirmishers and screen at the front. Also I doubt they'd be positioned on wings as Romans, I'm thinking you got the idea with softening up at the beginning then in reserve.
Yes, i meant using an overall army formation and not a unit ability.
(*sigh*) …Frosty Frosty
? ~:) They’re your comments!Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
General-fantasies. You can’t seriously expect others to take you seriously when you grab select data, ignore chronology and regional variation and extrapolate it where and when you see fit to fit a personal belief / thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Quote:
The greatest difficulties concern chronology and regional variation. To imply that any generalized description has universal application is evident nonsense (The Ancient Celts, Warfare and Society, p92, Barry Cunliffe).
Quote:
“It is not surprising that they (Gauls) are still being reinvented at this time because, in our sad and sorry contemporary world, people still want a quick fix because people, in the quest for truth and meaning in life, which seems the perennial human drive, prefer simple answers. It is easier to accept the cosy pictures than ponder the uncomfortable realities…” - (Dr Peter Berresford Ellis).
Again in principle..Quote:
This is very much the same way in which Europeans considered the whole of America to be inhabited by “Indians”. In locating the Celts we should ignore such generic usages: Celts, Germans…and perhaps others which no longer exist. (The Celts; Origins, Myths and Inventions, Locating the Celts, p105, John Collins).
Quote:
(We run the)… risk of turning an abstract set of material markers, which we have ourselves selected, into a historically real group of humans to which we then attribute a collective identity or ascribe collective value. (Rome’s Gothic Wars, Archaeology, Identity and Ethnicity, p62, Michael Kulikowski)
:wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
? To date you have only given indication that you have read or part-read two books that specialise on the Celts. Could be good to look at a few quotes from the legends in the field? Few better than Powell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Quote:
“Caesar also learnt that the Belgae, in earlier times, had themselves come from beyond the Rhine. Modern archaeological research supports the tradition as to the Rhenine, or trans-Rhenine, origins of these peoples. (The Celts, The Celtic Survival, 190 T.G.E Powell)
Quote:
It is along the Rhine that the use of the name Germani is really important, and the archaeological evidence for Celtic settlement east of the river, together with the Celtic topographical names that survive as far east as the Weser, and even the lower Elbe, combine with the observed characteristics of the Belgae, the Treveri, amongst others, to suggest that Germani was originally a Celtic tribe name which perhaps, in former days, had achieved a suzerain position. From the 2nd C BC, it is clear that the name began being used indiscriminantely for any intruders coming into Gaul from across the Rhine. (The Celts, The Celtic Survival, 191 T.G.E Powell)
And!?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
And!? .... horses and water ..and all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
By all means “just think” away, but it’s not exactly a convincing argumentQuote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Quote:
The methodological problem is of long standing. In the early years of archaeology’s development as a scientific discipline, it was normal to understand cultural changes as the result of one tribe or people (Germani) conquering or displacing another (Celtoi) and replacing the previous material culture with a new one of their own. This interpretative paradigm goes back to the nationalist scholarship of the Volk (Rome’s Gothic Wars, p64-65, Michael Kulikowski)
Quote:
In the later half of the eighteenth century, Romanticism became the reigning intellectual paradigm for German-speaking thinkers and artists. Romantic ideals about the intrinsic qualities of individuals and whole peoples helped to articulate a sense of belonging and identity in German-speaking lands. For that reason, Romantic ideology was an inextricable part of German nationalism throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. (Rome’s Gothic Wars, Romanticism and the Rise of Modern Scholarship, p45 Michael Kulikowski)
Quote:
The Romantic ideal of the German volk helped provide a conceptual framework for the political unification of German-speaking lands that was brought about by Otto von Bismark in 1871. With the creation of a united Germany, the study of a German national past became even more important.
Nazi foreign policy made much of the purity of the German race rooted in the very remote past. The wide distribution of Germans across the European continent could justify the conquest of modern Germany’s neighbours as a ‘reconquest’ of the former lands of the German volk. (Rome’s Gothic Wars, The Volk and Philology, p47, Michael Kulikowski)
Ah yes, the superior Germanic master race and their innate martial superiority. All we need now is some credible supportive evidence for this romantic ideal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Three battles in fact. Catugnatos and his Allobroges defeated a Roman army led by Manlius Lentius at the Battle of Valence and then again at the Battle of the Isere, in which “His (Lentius’) army would have been wiped out but for a sudden storm which arose and hindred the attack”. Lentius fled and was able to apparently re-equipped his army with astonishing speed, drawing from the considerable reserves used to garrison various departments. The Allobroges were finally crushed between Lentius’ army and another huge force commanded by the Governor of Gallia Narbonesis, Gaius pomptinus. The Gauls / Allobroges, not able to make good the loss of their warrior elite surrendered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
“reasonable effort” eh? ..thank god for expediency. My friend, if you truly believe me to be a lier, you could contact Leicester University.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
So you say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Ok, how would you interpret “The Germans were not superior, then or more recently”?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
So much for defending this “excellent information by a well known and highly thought of Archaeologist”.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
And how's that working for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Apparently only when it suitsQuote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
I do?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
At a loss ….positional expediency?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
~:) At least I'm not aloneQuote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Goldsworthy’s specialty is Rome, not the Celts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
The truth of the matter is you’ll go with anything that can be applied to support your hypothesis of an innately superior Germanic master race.
All that from:Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
I’m sorry, but this hypothesis is just wishful “thinking”Quote:
“Throughout the Gallic campaigns German warriors consistently defeated their Gallic counterparts, each success adding to their fierce reputation”. Goldsworthy “Caesar” -Pg.274
Unless you count the writings of the German nationalists and Romanticists, I’m afraid it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
I know I should be surprised …Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Yes during Caesar’s time, how many times do we need to go over this!? Again strength is relative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Hallelujah! Yes, the perceived strength was a recent relativity!?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Exactly! So if you are going to quote an author, please do so in the context they intended. Don’t go taking random data, extrapolating that to any given anachronistic period in order to serve a preconceived agenda.. and expect us to see the “logic” in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
IronicQuote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Positionally schizophrenic? You have already acknowledge that the Gauls didn’t wage total war, that they had “limiting factors”. Why are you now suggesting the opposite? ..that they did wage total war and therefore all aspects of society would be so affected?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
I’m confused. Are you arguing with me now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Quote:
It can be seen, as viewed by the Gauls, a geographical connotation would have been established so that, by the first century BC, any people coming west across the Rhine, whether Celts, or predatory strangers of still more remote origins (Germans), would naturally be dubbed “Germans” (The Celts, The Celtic Survival, 191 T.G.E Powell)
Which some claim was Celtic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
By the time Tacitus was writing, the time of the Celts was all but over and the Germans were the new barbarians ‘at the gates’. His works the Agricola and Germania were intended to both praise his relation Agricola and rale against the corruption / decadence within Rome, so much was made of the noble savage / German.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Further, it is not unusual that peoples, in retrospect, would claim decent from a supposed heroic / mythical past to add to their prestige. Egyptian Pharaohs, Babylonian kings, etc etc came from the gods, as did the Romans (Mars) claiming decent through the Trojans, the Arverni (‘Dis Pater’) also through the Trojans, etc. Little wonder to find the defeated, subjugated and down trodden Gauls of the late 1st BC and first centuries Ad claiming German ancestry.
Sorry to burst your bubble…Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Ok, again I state, you can’t lump everything together just because it fits better with your beliefs. There is no such thing as the “Timeless Celt”. One would have to be incredibly naïve to think otherwise.
Quote:
Using nineteenth century concepts, ..these ideas were developed by Gustav Kossinna and adopted by the Nazi party as a foundation of the concept of a German master race. Races were thought to have characteristic features such as religion, social structure, language, etc. this leads to racial stereo-typing and the idea that different sources from different places and different times can be collated to define the concept of the “timeless Celt”, an idea that still pervades most general books on the Celts. (The Celts; Origins, Myths and Inventions, Locating the Celts, p224, John Collins)
Firstly, Geo-political demographics and culture varied greatly over time and space. Each area, people, tribe, etc would have geographically specific distinctions. Even the categorical nomenclature has been adapted to demonstrated the variations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Thus, in the third century you have the area of Southern Gaul – “La Tene C”, Northern France – “Middle La Tene II & III”, Hunsrück-Eifel (Reinecke) – “La Tene A & B”, Switzerland – La Tene “Ic & Iia”, Baden Württemberg (Zürn) Halstatt D3 / La Tene A, Northern Plain – “Late Iron Age / Halstatt A & B”, Briton – “Early & Mid Iron Age”.
Secondly, notwithstanding the previous paragraph, I repeat, you’re NOT talking about the same peoples. You may as well start making claims about the Germans vs the forces of the United States of America.
Those peoples in northern Europe, whom the so-called Germani dealt with in the 3rd and early 2nd C BC had almost nothing in common with the La Tene D Gauls of France nor the La Tene B & C Gauls of southern Germany. In fact, La Tene culture never extended beyond the 51st parallel.
There was no Celtic wall that the Germans suddenly smashed through due to their innate superiority. In fact, by the time the ‘Germani’ began putting pressure on Celtic lands across the Rhine and in southern Germany, most of the Celtic colonies had already / previously disappeared, their states collapsed. To this day we don’t know why. We know that significant contingents of Volcae (Osi, Cotini, etc) migrated east to join their kin throughout eastern Europe .. even as far as the black sea. Some scholars claim regional disasters, some disease, some internal warfare fought over the increasing scale of trade with the south. All we know for sure is that dozens of major fortified sites and significant areas of population were suddenly abandoned. To date, only deposits of La Tene weaponry have been found dating to the period.Quote:
(For all accounts), .. in terms of material culture, socio-economic structure, and language the inhabitants of the Northern European Plain differed from the Celtic communities further south, there was a wide zone between where one graded into the other.(The Ancient Celts, p237 Barry Cunliffe)
The Germani, didn’t begin making an incursion into this area until the mid to late 2nd C BC.Quote:
The martial and cultural ascendancy of the Celts throughout the fifth to the second centuries BC, manifested archeologically in the La Tene culture, exerted a great influence on the remoter barbarians (Germani), lying to the north and east. (The Celts, The Celtic Survival, 192 T.G.E Powell)
Quote:
The trans-Rhenine aggressors of the first centuries BC and AD represent but an early phase in a movement that involved an ever-increasing element of Tuetonic-speaking peoples as they pressed forward from their earlier homelands that had previous lain north-eastwards of the Elbe.(The Celts, The Celtic Survival, 192 T.G.E Powell)
Quote:
During the second and first centuries BC, the Darcians and (later) certain of the so-called Germanic peoples began making territorial inroads on Celtic lands (The Ancient Celts, The Developed Celtic World, p221, Barry Cunliffe)
Apparently in the material yet to be studied. ~:flirt:Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
No offence to your beliefs but I’m afraid Watchman is correct.
Whilst previously, slavery had only played a minor role within Gallic society, there was a huge increase in the slave trade (export south) at the end of the 2nd and begging of the 1st century BC. This just happens to coincide with the out-break of a major conflict between northern and southern tribes over the lucrative trade routs. The war you deny.
Quote:
By the beginning of the first century BC the reliance of the Roman economy on slave labour was considerable. One estimate is that in the early first century BC there were 300,000 Gallic slaves in Italy alone, a total which required to be topped up at a rate of 15,000 a year. (The Ancient Celts, The Developed Celtic World, p215, Barry Cunliffe)
Not the “small groups of men” taken in “raids” that you claim but rather implies a much more significant developement. The war you deny.
Quote:
After the defeat of Luernio’s son Bituitos by the Romans on the River Isere in 123 BC where he had been opposing the invasion of the Province, the Arverni lost their leading role (in Gaul). As Caesar says that by his time the control of Gaul was being contested by the Aedui and Sequani.(The Celts; Origins, Myths and Inventions, Archaeology of the Celts, p171, John Collins)
Further, the material record bears this out. The huge increase in the trade of slaves happens to coincide with the huge increase in the trade of wine.Quote:
The “unsual situation” of the first century BC ..suggests that it was likely due to the instability of the Celtic states brought into sharp focus by the sudden interest of the Roman world (Reduction of Arverni) in the affairs of its northern periphery (The Ancient Celts, Warfare and Society, p223, Barry Cunliffe)
Little wonder the Romans / merchants (and James) regarded Gaul as prosperous.Quote:
They (Gauls) are extremely partial to wine and glut themselves with the unmixed wine brought in by merchants. Their desire makes them guzzle it and when they get drunk, they either fall into a stupor or become manic. For this reason many Italian merchants, with their usual love for money, regard the Celtic passion for wine as a source of treasure. They transport the wine by boat on the navigable rivers and by cart … and get an incredibly good price for it; for one amphora of wine they get a slave. (Hist 5.26 Diodorus Siculus)
We have deposits of tens of thousands of distinctive Amphora of Dressel Type 1A & 1B dating to this period. Huge dumps like that found in Saone, Cabillonum (Chalon) testify to the significant increase in importation. Thus even in a war that would almost annihilate the warrior class, the precious wine was prized.
Caesar was to make his personal fortune from the slaves taken in his campaign.Quote:
Another factor (for Caesar’s conquest of Gaul), was surely economic. Gaul, as we have seen, provided Rome with an immensely valuable market (of) slaves. (The Ancient Celts, The Celts in Retreat, p239, Barry Cunliffe)
The material record demonstrates other significant changes that took place in the period.
Another indicator of major conflict, change and attempt to protect the valuable trade in commodities. There is plenty of other evidence, but hey, why let facts get in the way of a good master race story.Quote:
In the late La Tene D1, around 120-100 BC most of the sites in the Grande Limagne (Auvergne) were abandoned, and three successive oppida were established (Corent, Gondole and Gergovie) (The Celts; Origins, Myths and Inventions, Archaeology of the Celts, p172, John Collins)
Yes, in Jame’s paragragh “The Shape of Society, The make-up of Celtic societies”, he again provides a general overview of Celtic society throughout history. More specifically in regards to slavery, he is talking about the use of slavery within Celtic society, suggesting that slavery’s real (most important) value lay in “export” / outside Celtic society / tuath. He is not making a statement about the scale of the slavery trade, but rather the retention / use of slaves within Celtic society. The slave trade of the 1st C BC was something different and new altogether for the Gauls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Cavalry = Peace? Those Huns, Alans, Bulgars, Mongols, etc etc were obviously the most peaceful persons on the planet! :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
The only ones properly trained were the warrior elite, who were increasingly mounted from the second C BC on. Again, your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Is this “just” your thinking at play again or do you have something to back that up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
? My friend, if you are happy to dismiss quotes I provide even when references are provided, what should I make of these sort of comments?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
“I never made..” ..? Ok Bill, time for a reality check. You made a claim that you had to retract because it was “unfair” and “out of context”, but that wasn’t an error? :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
You forgot the sky being blue and the earth round. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Again, you’ve missed the point entirely!Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Gergovia, although it was apparently against 6 rather than 10 legions due to postings elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Again missed the point!Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
And there you go …citing context now it’s suddenly relevant. Why hasn’t this worried you before… when it came to the Romans / Germans defeating the Gauls “most of the time”.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Quote:
Gallic armies successfully …(defeated Roman armies), but this was only possible when the Gauls had had enough time to muster their whole army along the likely route of Roman advance. Mustering a Gallic army and then deploying it for battle was a slow procedure, and it is notable that very often the (Gauls) were unable to form an army until the Romans had (already) attacked their territory …. (Roman Warfare, World Conquest, p96 Adrian Goldsworthy)
You do realise that whether the Romans were outnumbered is a mute point when considering the relevance to my comment!? Or are you still claiming that Ariovistus fought Caesar with only 15,000 men?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
I can only assume that in the absence of argument, you hope to distract and confuse with huge amounts of irrelevant quotes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
For starters, Caesar’s cavalry were also betrayed, by Ariovistus and his overtures of peace. Secondly, the mighty ‘800’ (even if Caesar is to believe on the numbers) ambushed the Gauls, experienced or not. Ceasar’s veteran legions ran at Gergovia, should we start claiming that Vercingetrix’s Gauls were all innately superior?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Further the Gauls were initially routed by this un-expected attack, not with the subsequent melee that followed. Ignoring the realities of warfare and the state at which the Gallic morale must have been at the time, it is amazing they returned to the fight at all. We have no account of any Germanic force of the period rallying once routed, so again.. should we confer on the Gauls an innate superiority.
It’s also worth mentioning that the Helvetii charged a force ten times their size (400/4000) whilst the Germans only three times their size (1,600/5000)… so again, are the Gauls innately superior? …of course not!
Speculative hearsay. Your fishing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
You’ve merged the sentences to infer direct connection. You have to consider context my friend.Quote:
Caesar-"The Gallic War"… the Gauls had been tired out by the long duration of the war, Ariovistus, after he…"
Here, I’ll hold your hand and walk you through it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Caesar mentions the Gallic war in two sections:
1)Quote:
“The Gauls (plural), …were divided into two parties. One dominated by the Aedui, the other by the Arverni. After a fierce struggle for supremacy, lasting many years, the Arverni and Sequani hired some German mercenaries to help them… and there are at present about a 120,000 of them were in the country (Gaul)…The Aedui and their satellite tribes had fought the Germans more than once, and had suffered disastrous defeats… These calamities had broken the supremacy which they formerly maintained in Gaul. (Germans seizing Aedui land) and in a few years time the whole population of Gaul would be expatriated…
….After a single victory over the united Gallic forces at Admagetobriga (61 BC), Arivistus has shown himself an arrogant and cruel tyrant…. Unless Caesar.. would help them, the Gauls (plural) must ..leave their homes, seek other dwelling places … (De Bello Gallico I.XXXI.X)
The points to note here is the fierce Gallic struggle for supremacy lasting many years, the Aedui fighting the German mercenaries more than once and a single victory over a united Gallic force at Admagetobriga
2)The defeat of the Gauls at Admagetobriga was against a united Gallic force, it is not taking about the Aedui fighting the “Germans more than once”. It is a united pan-Gallic force involved in one major battle. These Gauls (plural ie not just the previously mentioned Aedui) had been exhausted by a “long war” / “fierce struggle for supremacy, lasting many years”.Quote:
“Observing this state of affairs (fear of the Germans), Caesar summoned the centurions of every grade to a council, and began to severely reprimand them.
- Our countrymen faced this enemy in our father’s time (Cimbri / Teutones) …
- They faced them again more recently in Italy (Spartacus / “rebellious slaves”)
- Moreover these Germans are the same men whom the Helvetii often met in battle … and have generally beaten .. yet were not a match for our army
- If anyone is alarmed by the fact that the Germans have defeated the Gauls (plural) and put them to flight (Admagetobriga), he should inquire into the circumstances of that defeat. He will find that it happened at a time when the Gauls (plural) were exhausted by a long war
(De Bello Gallico I.XXXX.XIII)
Caesar then goes on and further stresses the point that even in this battle against exhausted Gauls, Ariovistus had to ambush this united Gallic force after they “broke up into scattered groups” His victory being due to “cunning strategy rather than the bravery (superiority) of his troops.”
If one studies the work in context and refrains from grabing select pieces, joining sentences, etc, one will have a better appreciation of the author’s intended meaning rather than that of the reader.
He said no such thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Seriously, think about it :smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Another flight of fancy I’m afraid. If you are referring to Admagetobriga, the battle was fought by a united Gallic force. There is no mention of the Aedui leading, in fact we are told that the Aedui had lost their leading position amongst the Gauls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Your comment about the so-called display of “martial superiority” flies in the face of what Caesar states and I can only assume one’s imagination has got the better of them yet again.
? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Something like that :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Shame you weren't there to help himQuote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Yes, but this wasn’t the main reason for doing so. It was more a case of overstating (and in some cases fabricating) the German threat to Gaul and Rome so as to provide a casus belli for his Gallic campaign. Ensuring his tenure and support at home.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Quote:
“In the fourth book of his commentaries Caesar begins with a sketch of the “warlike” Germans, reminding his readers of the instability of the region…providing sufficient justification for his concern on behalf of the stability of Rome.” (The Ancient Celts, p242 Barry Cunliffe)
So what exactly is your position? The Gauls didn’t fight ? There was no major struggle between the Arverni and Aedui?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Quote:
Individually the Romans were better equipped and armoured than the majority of Celtic warriors, but there is little indication (from earlier periods) of the great superiority which Caesar’s troops in the first C BC would display against Gallic opponents. (Roman Warfare, World Conquest, p96 Adrian Goldsworthy)
Was that intentional? No he says that they were rarer before ie more common later in the period due to the changing nature of Gallic society and the increasing power / political hegemony that the various power bloke enjoyed (eg Arverni, Aedui, etc)Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
James is again providing a general overview that encompasses several hundred years of history. The point here is that he doesn’t state anything that supports your position that this significant Gallic war never occurred.
Goldsworthy makes exactly the same comment about Celtic society in the 3rd c BC as a prefix to his commentary on the first Punic war.
It’s worth noting that James also mentions that “conflicts ranged from great wars..to mere brigandage..etc”.Quote:
(Celtic) Raiding and small scale warfare were endemic; battle less common but by no means unknown.(The Punic Wars, Opposing Sides, p25 Adrian Goldsworthy).
Yes, for the excess warrior elite. In fact the Gallic warrior elite served as mercenaries throughout the ancient world, suddenly disappearing from the world stage at a time that happen to coincide with major internal turmoil in Transalpine Gaul, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
How do you think the forces of early feudal Japan would fair without Samurai?Quote:
As in other Indo-European societies, the Celts produced a warrior class or caste with their own rituals; they were professionals who sold their expertise to whoever would hire their services. Their role might be more quickly understood by comparing them with the Samurai - (The Druids, p28 Peter Berresford Ellis)
And your point? Either the Celts wage limited warfare (ie predominantly through the warrior class / elites) or they didn't. You can't have it both ways my friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Well, you were willing to ignore the commentary of world experts and instead adopt Livy’s bolox verbatim / as truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
I have a list of references posted around here somewhere. I’ve been fortunate enough to triple my library since thenQuote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraekae
Ah, back to the original subject matter of the thread. Completely agree. :2thumbsup:
...geez how long is this? ..way too much time better spent elsewhere me thinks..
my2bob
oh no Psycho V... all was not a waste of time...Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Do you realize how many people (including me) now know what happened to the Gauls???
Me, at least. Between that and some other stuff someone else posted I figure I now have a pretty decent idea of how the whole shebang went.
Psycho - I would like you to give me some of your main sources, as I would like to get hold of the books in question.
I am not good at the whole quote thing. My opinions are in bold
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking
And there was formerly a time when the Gauls excelled the Germans in prowess, and waged war on them offensively..( De Bello Gallico 6.24)
I might can see that that could have happened. I am sure it was the other way around too. I doubt the Germanic tribes took it sitting down.
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by Frostwulf
1)…Romans>Germans>Celts <~~~
2)…The Germans outclassed the Celts..regardless of the territory.
3)…The Celts were not as good as the Romans nor the Germans.
4)…I believe the German warrior to be superior.
5)…The Germans should be superior to them (Gauls).
6)… If there was any weakening to the Celts during Caesar's time it was because of the Germans
The 1), 2), etc... that you see above are my inserts btw.
1) Depends on time period. Up until the Celtic Civil war, I would put the Celts on par with the Romans. They both defeated and won battle against each other. I should make a tally sheet do see what the ratio was..
2) I doubt that. Again, depends on time frame we are talking about.
3) See #2
4) & 5) I respect your opinion
6) Thats not what I have gleaned in my various readings. This Civil war was between two side of the Celts and their allies adn mercenaries. The Germans were a hired "side show," though they turned out to be decisive I am sure in some battles, they could not have been the only factor. If that was so, and the Gauls were such easy pickings, why didn't we have a Germanic invasion (Like we found with the Anglo-Saxons heading to Britain in the 5-6 centuries A.D. after the Romans left) finding itself doing the same in Gaul?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Erroneous would be claiming that Caesar's quote …was about a supposed "Devastating Celtic War" as opposed to what it really was, a 10 year war with the Germans. What about the duel with Virdomarus? How about the Celts defeating the Germans for centuries? These are erroneous statements.
This is impossible. If the Celts were constantly fighting Germans, there'd be massive loss of life on both sides. The Germans were hardy, no doubt, but their native lands could not hold the population that Gaul could. So take warrior after warrior, kill them in battles, and its should be obvious that a fertile rolling flatlands of Gaul, full of Celtic farmsteads and crops, could hold and sustain more warriors and people that dark, swampy, shady forest population centers that were prevalent (though perhaps not dominant) in Germany.
That being said, its way more likely that the Civil War would have cost the Celts on both sides (Aedui and Arverni) all their manpower, while one side would have to get a relatively ample supply of warriors from a land that had warriors and lands that were not ravaged and depleted by war (the Germans).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
As I have said ad naseum, there were several factors that lead to the Gallic demise not one issue only. You have to look at the big picture, remember my analogy of the White Elephant? Internal martial and political weakness, fiscal prosperity, centralisation of governance, external military and socio-economic pressure, both internal and external population pressures, etc etc all contributed.
Like the fall of most states / empires, one would be naïve to just to consider the most obvious. Did the western Roman empire fall because they could not stop the Germanic Master Race in 410 AD, no. Just like the Gauls, there were years of decline / political instability, civil war, etc etc that contributed.
I agree.
You are claiming the Gallic warriors were weak (not experienced etc.) because they were devastated from a "Civil War" and are therefore not of the same caliber of the Celts of the 3rd century BC and before.
Quote:
“Throughout the Gallic campaigns German warriors consistently defeated their Gallic counterparts, each success adding to their fierce reputation”. Goldsworthy “Caesar” -Pg.274
I would claim the same thing too when you look at the situation. Yes, experienced bands of German Warriors, that had no Civil War ravaging their homelands for decades, would defeat unexperienced, war weary men whose civilization was being torn apart by two opposing side as well as being invaded by the mighty Romans.
You must admit, the Celts fought to the bitter end bravely. They took on Caesars Veteran Legions (routing them at times), the Germans (who were ready, fresh troops from a non civil war affected society), themselves, *and still* managed to offer determined resistance to the Roman Legions and German troops for 7 years (58-51 B.C.E.) in addition to the Civil War which depleted their war machine for decades.
Though I might get flamed hard, and I might veer off in highly debatable issues here, but when I think about it, it seems throughout ancient history when the Germans came on the scene, they never really faced whole, powerful, equal empires that could field warriors on an even platform. I feel they are vastly overrated. They went against and warred versus land and peoples that were long past their prime. Western Rome was declining fast, in fighting, political turmoil, the lack of a strong emperor central figure, etc...had taken its toll for generations, and when the Germans came knocking, their was not a substantial military response tho their advance. In Britain, the Romano-British had all their Legions whisked away, left to fend for themselves versus warrior hordes descending from Scotland (Picts), Ireland, and German Saxons and Angles.
Germans never had to face such odds until WW2
what about WWI and the countless wars that came before it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Power2the1
Power2the1, "non-civil war affected society"?? HELLO- almost all tribes (especially in Europe) participate in ritual warfare, continuous raiding and feuding which is actually a whole lot like civil war... there just isn't a continuous ideological dedication to war with neighbors... go to the ghetto and poor slums of any civilization on earth and see how much peace and lack of violence exists.
btw, the Germans were there the WHOLE time. that's why they're around in EB... you mention the missing emperor figure and Roman military- why? because the Germans were better soldiers and civilization had gotten very used to using them instead of making their own. that is why German soldiers were placing their own emperor on the throne, not because they secretly came in and Romans mysteriously disappeared, but because there was no way to stop that which was accepted by choice.
if you study the early history of Prussia (not the real Prussians who were cool ass pagan Balto-Slavs) but the state with its capital eventually at Brandenburg, you'll notice that a very tiny country faced huge threats continuously over time... seriously, now. there is a reason that Prussian military tradition became the "Roman" variant of its time... the Teutonic Knights suck though, so don't think I mean them even if they started the area, because their un-Christ-like genocide made in his name is as much BS as the one below this paragraph.
the Thirty Years War was a conflict ( I know there is more to it, but I will speak of Germans ) of small and relatively disunited German states who actually put up more of a fight than other similar states, against many nations. Talk about genocide: ignored because it was Catholics peforming it in an effort to control thought, this is vastly ignored due to the "who cares about killing Germans" sentiment of Europe... at least Europeans discovered how good the potato is ~:) seriously, crops were burned and they learned how great its nutrition is even though it was "lowly"
if you ask me, one of the primary reasons for the late formation of a unified German state only in the nineteenth century (besides their love of decentralized government) is because the people of the German states were continuously at war (not by choice) especially seen in the Thirty Years War... it is a fact that one of the reasons for WW1 is because Great Britain couldn't handle the idea of competition, Germany had become a GNP powerhouse. there was no "right" or "wrong" in that war, just the idea of "balance of power" which Britain loves to use when it limits other Europeans, but if you look at their military history, they are in more wars than ANYBODY and it's for their own interest and power.
BTW, the reason the Germans were held back so long in antiquity was the fact that the Romans continuously killed them and "defended themselves." so to say that they waited until the time was right is laughable. they struggled for their whole existence as most Eurasian peoples not living off the wealth of others. Not that they wouldn't have if they could (live off the wealth of others). I'm not saying they would be "uber" anything, the Germanic peoples were tribal- and they borrowed technology as much as anybody, why invent an alphabet on your own if you can just borrow it, but it is a fact that Romans "liked" to have reasons to raid Germany and receive triumphs over peoples (not just Germans).
I think you're a good lad Blitzkreig, and I respect your comments, but haven't you heard of the Schlieffen Plan? Germany had, apart from Russia, the biggest army in Europe at that time and it was undoubtedly the most efficient and well trained. Plus Prussia was involved in two wars in the 19th century - against Austria in 1866 and France 1870 - in order to prove it's military superiority and to weaken it's neighbours. Britain was also involved in a lot of wars during the 19th century but all, apart from the Crimea, were in our colonies, although they were to preserve our power and prestige! :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
well if you know your neighbors are going to declare war, amassing an army and planning other manuevers is hardly offensive... Napoleon had the same problem... of course Britain's reasoning was against that scary "revolution" thing and dethroning of the monarchy ~;) but also maintaining the "balance of power". if Germany was so power-hungry then the Franco-Prussian war wouldn't have ended so nicely... in fact, reclaiming parts of Charlemagne's empire is hardly anything, so France should be ashamed of making such as fuss to cause WW1 :grin:
I'm sorry guys, I should have clarified. What I meant by "The Germans did not have to face such odd until WW2" is like this:
You have the Germans (i.e. Arverni will be used to keep it simple), steadily being attacked and also attacking, years of very hard war, townships being razed and destroyed, trade, food, and supplies affected, civilians under all the wartime stress, standard of living has went down, etc...and during all this, you have mighty America (i.e. Rome) coming at you full steam. They are not alone, they've brought their British and Canadian allies (i.e. Rome's various Germanic allies). At the same time, you have to contend with keeping intact your own allied countries like Italy, Romania, Bulgaria and aid them (i.e. smaller subjugated Gallic tribes allied with the Arverni). On top of that Russia (i.e. Aedui) is still coming on strong, and you are trying to win on all fronts. Your allies are dropping off and some are joining/surrendering the enemy (i.e. Gallic tribes defecting/joining/surrendering to Caesar)
Basically, like I mentioned earlier, I do believe the Germans are vastly overrated in their Ancient/Dark Age conquests when you consider who they had to face on the whole (frail and failing empires and abandoned demoralized armies at the fringes of the empire). To claim thats a remarkable tactical masterstroke based on "superior" racial constitution just because they were German, is unbalanced.
I hope I illustrated this well enough. Perhaps it falls on its face, I don't know. I makes sense to me, so I hope its conveyed well.
Wait... you're claiming that Ariovistus was allied with Caesar?
I don't think industrialized nations can really be compared to ancient tribes... what are the self-propelled artillery- Bartix olyphonts?
how are the Germans vastly overrated when everyone diminishes what actually happened and ignore the huge cultural influence of Celts and Germans, calling it "Dark" simply because Roman bureaucracy/civilization was changed? Franks and Anglo-Saxons proudly claim Roman-heritage these days (and have been for quite a while), forgetting any tie to a Germanic past, so I don't really see where anyone is claiming what you say. WW1 and WW2 wouldn't have even happened if the French and British felt any affinity to Germanic "brothers."
BTW, by your own standards then, who HAS lived up to your expectations... did the Celts of La Tene have vast empires as enemies whom they conquered with ease? Did the Romans have to fight Alexander and his empire? Methinks the Roman land-grab and easy adoption of fragmented and destabilized Hellenistic culture and administration in the East is much more pathetic in triumph while we're using comparison.
hey... wtf are u guys talking about??? Why are u all looking and arguing about Germany in 19th, and 20th Century????
:focus:
EB Celts, Germans and Romans.
What sort of content are you after? Technical / archeaological material or historical / overview sort of material?Quote:
Originally Posted by Erebus26
my2bob
Haha ~:) Nicely said... sorry for the hijack ~:doh:Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSpartan
"looking?"
damn, i didn't know I looked 19th century, I feel so old ~:( but at least Erebus called me 'lad'!
~:) .. comforting to know. ThanksQuote:
Originally Posted by NeoSpartan
my2bob
Historical overview would be nice, but I don't mind a few choice archaeological while you're at it! :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Books read specifically on Celts:Stephen Allen-"Lords of Battle, the World of the Celtic Warrior",Venceslas Kruta-"The Celts",Simon James "The world of the Celts", Barry Cunliffe-"The Ancient Celts,H.D. Rankin “Celts and the Classical World”Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Why would I read a book that was written in 1958? Yes it was republished in 1980 but the material is still the same only the format is different. You complained about me citing a book from the mid 60's and here you are citing older material. You also have to remember this is the same guy who said:
This statement of his is obviously wrong. As shown by historical records the Romans were defeating them while embattled with others.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
H.D. Rankin “Celts and the Classical World”-“The First Punic War had prevented the Romans from dealing finally with the Celtic menace. It was after this war that the Celts made their concerted attack of 225BC: it may have been intended as a pre-emptive attack by the Celts but it was much too late for this purpose. Then came Hannibal’s invasion of Italy, which prevented the Romans from bringing the Celtic question to a conclusion for a number of years.” pg113
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=143
Relatively simple. The Germans came over and became Celtized, just as they later had become Romanized in different areas. Again your using outdated material. For more recent material we have:Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
"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.
Barry Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"-"But apart from recourse to chronologically ill-focused maps of Celtic and Germanic place names, there is no sure way of distinguishing which tribes were German speaking.All we can do is to accept the ethnic identifications made by the Roman commentators". pg.238
J.E.Drinkwater-"Roman Gaul"-"Nevertheless, it now seems that we can talk, if only with much qualification, of early 'German' peoples in northern Europe from around the middle of the fifth century BC. Expansion, leading to contact with the Mediterranean world, took place from the third century BC, including, of course, the movement of the Cimbri into Gaul at the end of the following century. It is likely that full German settlement across the lower Rhine (involving Caesar's Eburones, Condrusi, Caerosi, and so on) and a fusion of Germanic and Celtic peoples around the Eifel (to form, above all, the future civitas of the Celtic-speaking Treveri) also belong to this period. There is no doubt that the Gallic nations were seriously disturbed by this activity, particularly the Cimbric invasions, but they seem to have learned to live with the new circumstances. However, towards the middle of the first century BC there was renewed and increased pressure in Gaul as a result of the arrival of Germanic latecomers, who plunged Gallia Comata into further unrest. The stress manifested itself in two distinct bu related forms, both potentially dangerous to Roman interests. In the first place German penetration into the upper Rhineland threatened to displace the nation of the Helvetii. A Celtic people who had originally lived beyond the Rhine, they had been increasingly forced into the area of modern Switzerland from about the third century BC onwards. They lost their last foothold across the river probably around 100BC, and from about the late 70s BC began to feel embattled in their new habitat. They started to plan a retreat through central Gaul, which would have disrupted the peoples already settled there, including their neighbors, the Allobroges, who were the direct responsibility of Rome, and the Aedui, who could claim a 'special relationship' with the City." pg.12-14
It wasn't random data and it is logical to assume that the Germans fought roughly in the same way as they had before. I already laid this out.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=333
Ah yes the refuge of the losing argument- "you must be a Nazi"Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Goldsworthy isn't credible? He unequivocally states they were superior during Caesars time, also Sidnell,Speidell,etc. Prior to that we have the TCA(granted they had some Celts with them).
Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"The Aduatici were descended from the Cimbri and the Teutoni who, when they invaded our province and Italy [45 years before], left such baggage as they could not drive or carry on this side of the Rhine with 6,000 of their men to guard it. When their main body was destroyed this band was for many years harassed by war with their neighbors, defensive and offensive. Finally peace was made, by general agreement, and they chose this district to live in. Book2,29
Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"If, in keeping with the compassion and kindness of which they had heard from others, Caesar would resolve to spare the Aduatici, they prayed that he would not deprive them of their arms. Their neighbors were almost all hostile and envious of their prowess; if they surrendered their arms they would be defenseless against them, and in that case would prefer to suffer any fate at the hands of the Roman people than be tortured and killed by men among whom they were used to be masters." Book 2,31
Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"It arose from the remarks of Gauls and trader who declared that the Germans were huge men and unbelievably brave and skillful fighters;"Book 1,39
J.E.Drinkwater-"Roman Gaul"-"In the course of the long-running rivalry between the Arverni and the Aedui, the Sequani, allies of the former, were tempted to invite in a German princeling and his followers, Ariovistus and the Suebi, as mercenary troops, to be paid in land. Militarily, this policy proved a great success; the 'friends' of the Roman People were severely mauled, which must have reflected very poorly on the credibility of Roman power and influence." pg.12-14
Of the TCA:
Barry Cunliffe-"Greeks,Romans & Barbarians"-"After defeating a Roman army on the Danube in 113BC they crossed the Rhine in 109, and for a decade terrorized Gaul." pg.57
We also have the numerous defeats on the same type of Roman armies that had been defeating the Gauls.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=243
Where is your proof disproving this?
So we go from:Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
to:Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Atlas of the Celts-"During the La Tene A phase, this new culture spread rapidly across central Europe, forming a cultural continuum from northern France to Austria." pg.45Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Of course La Tene A-D are different because of the area and time, but the situation stays the same when you claim the Celts had been defeating the Germans for centuries.During Caesars time the central Celts(Arverni,Aedui,etc.) were different from the Belgae who in turn were different from the British Celts. Was not the La Tene culture considered militaristic, so there were differences but all A-D still had this characteristic. It was during the La Tene B/C that the Celts expansion was reversed around 300BC.
J.E.Drinkwater-"Roman Gaul"-"Europe from around the middle of the fifth century BC. Expansion, leading to contact with the Mediterranean world, took place from the third century BC, including, of course, the movement of the Cimbri into Gaul at the end of the following century. It is likely that full German settlement across the lower Rhine (involving Caesar's Eburones, Condrusi, Caerosi, and so on) and a fusion of Germanic and Celtic peoples around the Eifel (to form, above all, the future civitas of the Celtic-speaking Treveri) also belong to this period. "pg.12
The Germans still pushed back the La Tene B Celts of NE Gaul.
Barry Cunliffe-"Greeks,Romans & Barbarians"-"After the middle of the third centuries BC the Gauls came under increasing pressure, in the south from the Romans, in the east from the Hellenistic kingdoms and in the north from the Dacians and the Germans." pg.37Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Meaning you have no proof as it has "yet to be studied".Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
I have asked you before for the date of publishing,authors, and the full title and you have yet to provide it. Again I went through the publishing list of the Univerzita Karlova v Praze and couldn't find it.I went through GS, WCAT and I had the ILL team look for this and none of us could find it. The only thing I found that remotely had anything to do with the subject was the Czech being of Celt and Slavic descent, which isn't surprising considering this is a scientific research university that seems to deal mostly with medical research.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
As with most things you seem to have problems understanding what was written. They had conflicts but not the huge devastating war that you claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
The information I had was true, but it was out of context, therefore it was not erroneous.At least I'm willing to correct my mistake, you are not. Did you not make these claims and are they not in error?Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
A very valid post. I agree with this completely. Of course you do realize that prior to 200BC it was mostly the Celts roaming around Italy that were defeated, they had already mustered and were spoiling for a fight. During Caesars campaign there are plenty of examples where the Gauls were ready to fight: the Helvetii,Sambre,Axona, the battles with Vercingetorix, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Goldsworthy-"The Roman Army at War 100BC-AD200"-"A war between one of these tribes and Rome was likely to be decisive, either through a massed battle between the respective armies, or when the Romans employed their skill at siegecraft to take the enemy oppida. Although the Romans were more likely to win such a conflict, we should not forget that there was still a chance of defeat, and that such a defeat would be on a large scale." pg.60
Again you didn't read or remember properly. I said that Ariovistus had 6,000 horse, 6,000 footmen and 16,000 light troops. I have said that multiple times.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
You should read and try to understand what Caesar has written. Fist off the "800" had nothing to do with Ariovistus, they were from the Usipetes and Tencteri. The Usipetes and Tencteri did not ambush the Gauls.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Goldsworthy “Caesar”-Caesar made one modest concession, saying that he would advance 4 miles during the day, moving to a position where his camp would have a convenient water supply. In the meantime fighting had already broken out between the cavalry of the two sides.The Germans had some 800 horsemen still guarding their encampment. Caesar had 5,000 cavalry, although if these were performing their duties as a patrolling and screening force properly, then they would not all have been concentrated in one place. Even so, the Gallic auxiliaries probably had a significant numerical advantage, and were mounted on larger horses than their opponents, which makes it all the more notable that the Germans quickly gained an advantage. In Caesar's account the Germans charged first, chasing away part of the Gallic cavalry, but were in turn met by their supports. Many of the Germans then dismounted to fight on foot-perhaps with the support of the picked infantrymen who regularly supported the horsemen of some Germanic tribes. The Gauls were routed and fled, spreading panic amongst a large part of the auxiliary and allied cavalry who galloped in terror back to the main force, which was probably several miles away.” pg.274Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
This was hardly a full rout. The only time I recall the Gauls rallying was when reinforcements showed up(Helvetii and this example), that never happened in any of the instances with the Germans.
The Gallic moral must have been high as they had been with Caesar for multiple years and have not lost yet.
This is addressed below.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
1600 is an assumption as there is nothing really said except that there was 800 cavlary. As far as the 400/4000:Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-" The convoys of the Helvetii moved onwards, and Caesar followed them, sending his 4,000 cavalry out in advance. Amongst them was a sizeable force of Aedui led by Dumnorix, the same chieftain who had allied with Orgetorix and then aided the Helvetii. Advancing too carelessly, the allied cavalry were ambushed and beaten by a force of Helvetion cavalry a fraction of their size." pg.215
Caesar "The Gallic War"-" Caesar discovered the unsuccessful cavalry engagement of a few days before, that Dumnorix and his horsemen (he was commander of the body of horse sent by the Aedui to the aid of Caesar) had started the retreat, and that by their retreat the remainder of the horse had been stricken with panic. All this Caesar learnt, and to confirm these suspicions he had indisputable facts. Dumnorix had brought the Helvetii through the borders of the Sequani; he had caused hostages to be given between them; he had done all this not only without orders from his state or from Caesar, but even without the knowledge of either; he was now accused by the magistrate of the Aedui. Caesar deemed all this to be cause enough for him either to punish Dumnorix himself, or to command the state so to do." Book 1, 19
Caesars cavalry were duped by Dumnorix and surprised, thats why they retreated.
Yes it was a united front of Gauls, I never said anything to the contrary. In fact I had said there was a united Gallic force multiple times. They were exhausted by the campaign with Ariovistus and dispersed because they were tired of waiting for him. Your really stretching it here.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"If there be any who are concerned at the defeat and flight of the Gauls, they can discover for the asking that when the Gauls were worn out by the length of the campaign Ariovistus, who had kept himself for many months within his camp in the marshes, without giving a chance of encounter, attacked them suddenly when they had at last dispersed in despair of a battle, and conquered them rather by skill and stratagem than by courage."book 1,40 Translated by H.J. Edwards
Here is yet another translation that might help you.
Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"What then of the defeat and rout of the Gauls? If that case were examined it would be found that the Gauls were tired out by the long campaign, because Ariovistus hid in his camp in the marshes and offered no chance for an engagement, and then when the Gauls had given up hope of a battle, and were dispersing Ariovistus attacked and won by stratagem rather than courage. Against naive natives there was room for a stratagem, but not even Ariovistus could expect that our army would be taken in by it." Book 1,40 Translated by H.E.L. Mellersh/published by Random House Inc./distributed by Heron books.
Again your simply adding in your biased ideas instead of seeing what is really said here. You keep trying to string things together that don't belong together.
Again this is not evidence, if I were to contact Dr.James and he said that nothing of the sort happened, what does that prove? You will still claim it did happen and my claim would be that it didn't. Books, web sites etc. can be examined by all.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
He does have excellent information and is highly regarded. If what you say he said is true about the Germans I would disagree with him on that and refer to Sidnell,Goldsworthy,Warry and others. What I don't understand is why you would ask him this question as opposed to one he specializes in. Why wouldn't you have asked him about the supposed "Devastating Gallic Civil War"?Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
So what if it is, if you read just books about the Celts you will lose allot of the picture. Goldsworthy obviously knows quite a bit about Caesars time.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Perhaps you need to get into the habit of putting down the whole quote!Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Barry Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"“In the fourth book of his commentaries Caesar begins with a sketch of the “warlike” Germans, reminding his readers of the instability of the region. His description of the expansive power of the Suebi, driving other tribes like the Usipetes and the Tenceteri from their lands to seek a new home south of the Rhine, is probably an accurate account of the volatile situation and provides sufficient justification for his concern on behalf of the stability of Rome." pg.242
So you say Caesar is overstating/fabricating then post a quote and completely leave out the part that says its probably an accurate account!
No offense taken whatsoever, this is a good and legitimate question.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Barry Cunliffe-"Greeks,Romans & Barbarians"-"To arrive at any idea of the volume of the trans-frontier slave trade is extremely difficult, but for Gaul, in the first century BC, Tchernia has offered an estimate. Basing his calculations on figures given for the ethnic composition and numbers of slaves taking part in a slave rebellion led by Spartacus in 74-1BC, he arrives at 300,000 as the total number of the Gallic slaves in Italy. Assuming a replacement rate of 7 percent, and also that the proportion of slaves was maintained, then the annual export of slaves by trade in a non-war year must have been about 15,000. Sufficient will have been said of the calculations to show that the figure can be regarded only as a best guess, rather than an estimate, but nevertheless it offers an order of magnitude." pg. 78
Barry Cunliffe-"Greeks,Romans & Barbarians"-"A replacement rate of 7 per cent per annum is by no means unlikely. Thus, simply to maintain the Italian labour force in the late first century BC would have required the generation of 140,000 slaves a year. Replacement by breading would certainly have contributed, but, as an industry, it had not yet got underway on a large scale. At a rough estimate, therefore, well in excess of 100,000 new slaves had to be acquired every year, assuming a situation of non-growth in the rural estates.
Slaves came from three different sources: by capture during war time; through piracy; and by means of regular trade with territories beyond the frontiers." pg. 77
Even though Tchernia says 15,000 is from non-war gatherings you still have to take into consideration the multiple battles leading up to 74-71BC:200-190,154,125-121,107-2,90,83,77-2. Most of these battles must have contributed to the 300,000 Celts.
Even though the Ligurian pirates were suppressed in 181 BC, you still have to look at how many slaves were being imported by pirates/brigands, Strabo says that in 166BC on the Island of Delos "10,000" slaves were being sold per day. Also this wouldn't all be from Gaul proper but also from Spain and Briton
.
"Trade in the Ancient Economy"-"By contrast Andrea Tchernia discusses the overall penetration of Gaul by wine and amphorae during the last 2 centuries BC; he convincingly links the early Italian commercial success to the trade of Gallic slaves then shows how the decline of the slave trade was accompanied by the rise of local wine production."
Wine seems to be used as prestige and slaves could be used to trade for other items, so if slaves were from the supposed "Devastating Civil War" why would the slave trade go down?
Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"As for the common folk, they are treated almost as slaves, venturing naught of themselves,never taken into counsel. The more part of them, oppressed as they are either by debt, or by the heavy weight of tribute, or by the wrongdoing of the more powerful men, commit themselves in slavery to the nobles, who have, in fact, the same rights over them as masters over slaves." Book 6,13
Barry Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"-"Whilst it is always necessary to treat texts of this kind with caution, archaeological evidence amply bears out the huge volume of Roman wine which was transported to Gaul in distinctive amphorae of Dressel 1 type. Two trading ports have been identified, one near Toulouse in the Garonne Valley, the other on the Saone at Cabillonum(Chalon)."pg.218-219Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Well what do you know,Whilst it is always necessary to treat texts of this kind with caution doesn't help your argument, good thing you didn't put it in!
Or what it really was:Urbanization.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Barry Cunliffe-"Greeks,Romans & Barbarians"-"The documentary, numismatic,and archaeological evidence, taken together, shows that the tribes of central Gaul underwent a profound change in the period 120-60BC, during which time the old order-the classical Celtic system-was replaced with a new centralized system of government, involving changes in the minting of coins and the development of oppida. To a large extent these changes can be ascribed directly to the proximity of the rapidly developing Roman province of Transalpina. The tribes of central Gaul were now becoming a contact zone with the Roman world. Through them much of the trade was articulated, and those tribes who, like the Aedui, were prepared to accept the situation, grew rich. Stability and centralization, institutionalized in a new system of government, enabled the benefits of the proximity of Rome to accrue." pg.97
The oppida before and after Caesar's time have been occupied later to be abandoned then reoccupied later.
Barry Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"-"Excavation has shown that occupation began in the second century BC and continued until about 20BC, by which time the focus of activity had moved to the newly founded Roman town of Augustodunum(Autun) 20 kilometers away." pg.224 (this is about Bibacte)
So guess the supposed "Devastating Gallic Civil War" lasted into 20BC by your logic.
Could it be perhaps because the Senones were almost completely annihilated by the Romans? That the Romans conquered northern Italy.Or perhaps that the Romans were putting in pressure from the south, the Dacians began to push from the east and the Germans from the north. In Anatolia were there not "Gallic" mercenaries still being used. Who was Rome using for their cavalry mercenaries?Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Yes they fought each other, but hardly on the level you claim. It's like what James,Goldsworthy,Raftery,McIntosh and Twist are saying. They had some fighting and raiding going on but not the devastation your thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
So when James says "Certainly, the Gaul described and conquered by Caesar showed no signs of exhaustion by internal wars" was general?No exhaustion by internal wars doesn't support my view? When Goldsworthy says that "the aim was the reduction of the enemy to a subject tribe through a moral defeat rather then his destruction." That doesn't support my view? When I say that is was a minor conflict and you say it was a "Devastating Civil War", and you still say these don't support my view? As I have said before your misinterpreting James or just not understanding him. More on this later.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Were not the Allobroges part of the Arverni/Sequani alliance? If so then how is it they were able to resist the Romans at all if the supposed "Devastating Civil War" happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Hmm I mention what Dr.James says and you go from: "We also know commercial production of many goods and trade all but ceased and large portions of the population starved or suffered from malnutrition."Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
to this:"Yes!!.. Gaul was extremely prosperous (both fiscally and population wise), this is one of the main reasons why Caesar was so keen to pillage / conquer it! He did after all have huge personal debts".
Then this:"This is born out in the material record with significant deposits of fragmentary war material, remains and most significantly thick ash levels around major sites dating to the period…"
To this:"Archaeology only shows a burning / pillaging of minor settlements of no major value."
From this:The devastation of this war cannot be understated. It was unprecedented / appears more extensive and vicious that any internal Celtic conflict prior.
To this: Gaul was extremely prosperous because the Gauls did NOT engage in total war."
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...7&postcount=39
I'm not trying to insult you or belittle you but this is the kind of problems when you have amateur's trying to do the work of professionals. You keep trying to fit your idea of this supposed "Devastating Civil War" into historical context. The problem is the "Devastating Civil War" never happened, you have two rivals with a dispute over trade routes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Who is rationalizing? Who is grabbing select pieces and leaving information out!Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
You complain that I don't take your word for it, as I have explained before that I don't know you or read anything by you that would lead me to believe your an expert on the subject. You have a problem understanding Caesar as shown by your responses to Caesar boosting the moral of his troops as well as the situation with the 400 Helvetii chasing off the 4,000 Gallic mercenaries of Caesar. As I have shown Goldsworthy knew what he was talking about and you did not. You get Ariovistus confused with other German tribes and basically you don't understand what Caesar was talking about.
Then you try to rationalize the Celt situation when you say "the Gauls had been defeating the Germans for centuries prior the beginning of the 1st C BC" then you have to come up with "I repeat, you’re NOT talking about the same peoples". You misunderstand data such as that of the Aedui oppida changing and James and multiple others, and also leaving out key parts to quotes you put down. You string my quotes together trying to make it sound like something else(cavalry=peace) and other such things, so no I don't take your word for it.
As for your authorities you have chosen some good ones-Goldsworthy and Cunliffe. The majority of your quotes that you have from this post is from an old outdated book half a century old, Powell. You use Michael Kulikowski's quotes which really has no bearing on the situation except that you might be trying to discredit some of the authors like M. Todd. Todd gets into the same subject as Kulikowski's showing a history of why the subject of the early Germans wasn't much talked about. It's quite obvious that much of that stuff is still around from the nonsense you have been spewing i.e. master race etc.
One last thing on the supposed "Devastating Civil War". As I have said multiple times I will say again, the Arverni and Aedui did fight each other, but nothing even being close to what your saying. If you would examine what the historians and archaeologists are saying you would understand this.
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.pg.56
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
Dr. Barry Raftery; Dr.Jane McIntosh, Clint Twist
*Atlas of the Celts-"During the first half of the 1st century BC, the rest of Gaul attained an uneasy accommodation with the Roman occupation of the south. Celtic Gaul was generally a prosperous and peaceful region where farms flourished and oppida (towns), stimulated by Roman trade grew ever larger. In central Gaul, societies became sufficiently complex and well organized to be on the brink of independent statehood, and left to their own devices they might well have achieved this within a generation or two. pg.82Dr. Barry Raftery; Dr.Jane McIntosh, Clint Twist
You notice how the Goldsworthy and James are similar in their beliefs? Dr.Goldsworthy says that the aim was to reduce the enemy not devastate them, and James says the internal warfare was small scale but "may" have led to an increase. Raftery,Mcintosh and Twist say it was generally peaceful and prosperous. Both Goldsworthy and Raftery/McIntosh/Twist tie into what Dr.James was saying.
If you look what other authors say:
Colin Jones-"France(Cambridge Illustrated History)"-"This was combined with the treat of destabilization further north, where the Germanic chieftain Ariovistus had joined in a squabble involving the Arverni, the Sequni and Rome's long standing allies, the Aeduans. To combat this politico-military threat Rome sent Julius Caesar. pg.30
Goldsworthy calls it struggle as does Cunliffe, Drinkwater says long running rivalry. None have I found that say anything that amounts to a supposed "Devastating Squabble" errr I mean "Devastating Civil War" It was simply small battles to erode the others moral to draw clients to ones side, hence generally peaceful.
:dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spendios
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spendios
Come on guys, quoting the same picture over and over is so annoying... ~:pissed: now find some quotes from Caesar instead, like good Romans- better yet, some pictures of Loricata Segmentata (probably too many t's there, but it's a silly language anyways ~;)) :grin: otherwise, we will get more "why u R0mun hat3rs?" comments
:tredmil: As they say “a man convinced against their will is of the same opinion still”
Frosty, your flogging a dead horse my friend. Using the same quotes over and over again, ignoring evidence and your own errors and in some cases responding to my comments with text that is completely irrelevant.
I don’t have the time to give this the response it deserves. So in short:
:shrug: Did you miss the relevant quotes I provided or are you deliberately ignoring them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Still trying to wriggle out of that one huh? I note the convenient switch from discussing your claim / position to that of the information. The validity of information was never part of the discussion. You made a claim that was wrong, for some reason you just can’t acknowledge it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
~:rolleyes: So you’re ignoring the several quotes I’ve posted on the origins of your 'innately superior German' theory. Frosty, you can’t blame me for the fact that you’re espousing the same rationale / hypothesis as the Romanticists, German Nationalists and yes, the Nazis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
:clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
So you’re basically saying that you believe the Germanics were so stupid, that they were unable to effect one change within their socio-cultural communities over several hundred years?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
You probably should start up a new thread if you want to write fiction about “Invincible Germanic Neanderthals” as this isn't really relevant to the topic here, "Celtic overpowered".
And the error repeated ..."mulitple times". The problem is that you’re claiming that the Romans had a significant numerical advantage, which is boloxQuote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
800 cavalry, 1600 troops… or does this need to be spelt out as well? :shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
..(*sigh*)Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
And if you did and he repeated his comment you’d still dismiss it as indicated several times now. Truth is, you’ve been posting James’ comments all over the community in support of your hypothesis, citing his credentials and as soon someone else comes along with another quote that explicitly denies your hypothesis, you suddenly dismiss him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Of course! ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
What exactly don't you understand here? You’ve confused yourself again by trying to view everything through the narrow minded paradigm of the “Timeless Celt”. I’ll say it again, you can’t ignore chronology and regional variation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
(*sigh*) :stupido2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
I'm afraid in desperation you have again shot yourself in the foot. Giving further public evidence that you appear to lack a basic understanding of the period of history under discussion.
No! The Allobroges hadn’t been part of the alliance since the battle of Vindalium (121 BC), the battle that facilitated the onset of the war in question.
Nice try…context my friend. Yes, the later is regarding your quotes “during Caesar’s time”, the ones previous, to the conflicts prior. You do understand that the Arverni and Aedui fought prior to the period of Caesar’s campaign do you not? ..and you do understand that the aforementioned fought two major wars?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
:shrug: …and your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
:laugh4: … well what do you know .. more desperation! ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Neither helps nor hinders my friend. Frosty, unlike others about the place, I’ve got better things to do than type up text that is irrelevant to the point being discussed. Whether the Romans got 1 slave, 2 or 10 for each amphora is a mute point. The point was that the market was significant enough to warrant special mention. Are you going to dismiss the tangible evidence as well?
Please revisit the text and note how the Usipetes and Tencteri were seeking peace when they unexpectedly attacked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
You’re right however about Ariovistus, ~:) he wasn’t involved, my error …irrelevant point conceded.
Frosty, please re-read over some of my previous comments. Not only is your hypothesis of a innately superior Germanic volk critically flawed, but the very means / analytical method employed to support such a ridiculous notion is as well.
:titanic:
If you wish to persist in this thinking / the belief in the existence of an innately superior Germanic volk, all I can do is encourage you to continue your study and hope you'll have a change of mind.
I no longer have the time to due justice to this dicsussion and therefore will not be able to continue. I thank you for your input and time, apologise for any offence I may caused, my frustration, etc (it's all banter) and wish you well in the future.
Regards
I have noticed that Celts are very unbalanced in my EB 1, maybe that is because other unit types are (horsmen?).
For example, Celtics spearman are almost imposible to kill if you dont have 3 Hellenes units or the Silver shields..and they beat silver shields 1 on 1. Also they shortsword are way owerpowerd. I understand that some studies that are base for EB can not be denied, but it is a matter of source and perspective. I understand that 'half' of Europe are Celt. But that cant stand in front your rational tough.
For example, my history profesor that lectures all around Europe, once said to me that if one should count armies and strengts -- he should count MEDICALY!
I was like w..what? And he said
:'Yes, the more you have to offer your army as a cure to their wounds - they are more effective'.. and he added :'80% of all deaths after battles of ancient times (especialy Roman era) was due to their wounds and infections'.. And if somebody writes now that Barbarians had their Druids and Hellenes their academies and doctors wich makes them the same - I will hang myself...(and this is just an example, not to say knowledges of how to eat and live in civilised world)
The point is... you must tweak unit strengts as a 'whole' and if you can not (and it is well known that you can not!!!) incorporate all side effects in EB to make it more real -- you should tweak hitpoints at the least ! This just does not work well .. Civilised armies should be at least 20% stronger in commbat :yes:
thank you!
You said the magic word! I suggest you take cover... :skull:Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksimus
Gah, I say.
Maksimus: I agree with that part about "Civilised armies should be at least 20% stronger in commbat". I suggest we nerf the Romans and Greeks to portray that.
Oooouuuh... vicious.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Vicious Monkey
:daisy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksimus
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksimus
ouch.... ur lucky this is a VERY friendly forum :whip:
Ohh, I suggest you start a campain with the Arverni or Aedui.... you might learn something :book:
here is a hint of the knowledge to come:
"Celts invented soap, and all the while neither the Greek or Romans had anything close to that." :yes:
does this thread actually provide any good? it seems like a repository of hate :wall:
"why r EB hat3rs of barbie-nZ?" (hint: not Klaus Barbie- sorry Psycho)
Dude this thread is Fing awesome.... appart from the lenght of it, there is a LOT of info here regarding the history of the Gauls, especially how they came about falling.Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
Hell... I would even vote to have it stickied.
I think Blitz made that statement as a remark regarding the 20% stronger civs... :sweatdrop:
Godwins lawQuote:
Originally Posted by NeoSpartan
( "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." )
:clown:
im sorry i had to do that..
You are very unpolite and I just can not belive that you are EB member, you are a shame for this forum. There are some very nice people that create EB - you sure are not one oh them.. not a sence of creativity from youQuote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
If not, then sorry. And I must say that you are not educated well or you are in some 'left' or no high education what so ever!
Oh, trust me Zak is a member all right, and one of the more polite and civilized ones too, prozided he is in polite cizilized company, so how about you just take his advice? maybe you'll get more pleasure out of it than from your ignorant, imature whining. You, sir are disgrace to these forums and humanity as whole.
Recently I have being wondering why the EB tem are overacting so much in a lot of other threads, that to me, seemed over the line but not waranting the EB teams replies, but then I saw that this thread had been dredged up again, and I thought, "Oh god, now what are they whining about?". And then I read the last page. And then I understood just why the EB team has been so anoyed these last few days, due to imature, pompous, dogmatic little brats like yourself. Please, remove yourself before I get myself banned from these forums by responding to you in the manner that you deserve.
Edit: and yes I am an EB Fanboi, and proud of it:2thumbsup:
I continue the discusion about physicians. You cannot compare druids to helenic/roman physicians as siberian shamans to best oxford/cambridge doctor. In EB timeframe both of them could use only natural products, mostly herbs, as there was no chemistry and no artificial drugs. Druids were very skilled, they learned how to use herbs, which of them are poisonous, which heal wounds and so on. We do not know many about them and their methotds because they did not write books like their civilisated counterparts did. That can be an advantage for civilised doctors - you can have more info when you have books than when you have to remember it. And hygiene and healthy lifestyle - greeks and romans did not know so much about it. It was Galen who started to build sunny hospitals, perform operations in separated rooms and put knives into fire before using them. And he lived long after EB timeframe ends. Yes, there were some very good doctors before Galen and roman physicians had to be skilled - when you wage so many wars, there are so many wounds you have to heal.
To conclude - both celts and romans/helenes had good doctors, perhaps the civilised ones were slightly better.
To sound a little aggressive myself, answering thousands of stupid questions, and refusing demands that are logical only in the head of the person who makes them, does take it's toll on any person. You must be pretty educated yourself to judge someone's creativity and education by a single post. Not knowing anything about Celts, well... I don't if education is to blame, or just simple mindness. Just to let you know that Zaknafien is pretty much responsible for your precious EB Romans, so you might want to keep that in mind the next time you play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksimus
But I will try to answer your initial questions to the best of my abilities.
I have no idea what you're trying to say. Other unit types are horsemen..?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksimus
Do you mean Gaesatae, or actual spearmen? If you mean spearmen, then I'm quite sure you're BSing. If you mean Gaesatae, that's how it's supposed to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksimus
How are the shortswords overpowered? Did you test this somehow? Do you know anything about shortswords? Are you talking about the Galatians? Do you know anything about the Galatians? I imagine Roman shortswords are waaayyy underpowered, am I right? And I don't think the spread of Celtic population has anything to do with shortsword effectiveness...Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksimus
Nice generalization. Simple as math.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksimus
Soap is pretty good in preventing infections. Just please don't hang yourself, it ain't worth dying for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksimus
Celts weren't actually starving, so I can't see how food has anything to do with it. Of course, there was no such thing as a fat Roman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksimus
I hope that's not meant as an insult, but it can be read as such.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksimus
Funny how you seem to be about the only person who thinks EB battles don't work well... Maybe we should take your word on it. You seem to be an expert.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksimus
You seem to be an expert...Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksimus
I hope this helps. If not, I'm sorry I couldn't be more sarcastic.
Pharnakes, you typoed 'whining'. Shame on you.
Opps, "winning" lol, I hope he isn't doing that at least.
Zak is very polite and well educated, and as mentioned, a good deal responsible for some truly great stuff with the Roman faction... now, if you don't think so, that shows how far into the deep end you've become. So what if he is rude, after you've been blatantly disrespectful and arrogant, what does that say about YOU, when you started that way, there was no transition from good behavior to bad?... talk about shame on the forum :wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksimus
heh, i just was looking for a chance to post that movie :)lol
It seems that even Maksimus has been put on this planet for a purpose, then...
My post had no intention to be rude or insulting, or to downsize, devaluates or judge someone's creativity and education by a single post, especially not an EB member. But, because of such a nice comment to someone like me that can not comment and 'quote' and write about references because English is not his native - then fine, I am not blatantly disrespectful and arrogant, that impression could come only if you support Zaknafien's movie posts. . . and that was his response to my observation of my current campaign -- and I am no Roman fan (do they are very nice realy) but I am EB fan still -- and no 'bad' posts that attack me will change that.
I will just shortly address some comments of: Thaatu, fanboi Pharnakes, and blitzkrieg80 -- and Zak -- you post that movie to some bad people with bad intentions around here - or in some forums that need that.
Generalization and simple math was not my intention, its just that I dont have time and will to argue and post for hours here-- and my English is not so god - so it is somewhat hard for me to type what I mean in a way that it wouldn't touch anyones feelings and believes
Behind my comment that it is well known that you (EB team) can not shape RTW as you wish is a simple fact due to RTW engine limits. Right? I read that several times here - and that was posted by other EB members - so, that is no insult and sorry if it looked like one. And just to add that my point here was due to some posts that explained how Romans were not 'stonger' but were better in their battle tactics -- and how can you implement that in RTW EB (I understand the exp._descr_units, but battle formations?) - all factions have the same formation options - or if one can say that there was (and I can refer that there were) a greater chance of a Roman soldier to get healed after battle -- how can that be implemented -- there are just thousands of possible 'tweaks' that could sease these arguments if only they 'could' be in RTW - but they cant because of RTW engine limits..right?
I wont argue about the Soap, its a fact (only for Europe - not Far East) , but If someone is trying to say that Romans had no 'other' 'cleaning' tools - is mistaken - they have (and some very rich people still use) used olive oil and herbs that is very effective - and no soap can put your body parts back onto you - but it can be done by a Roman medic..
Know, I must adress 'overpowered shortswords' -
Yes I have tested it in my battles and I very well know who are Galatians - It is just a fact that they are very hard to kill (and they have higher defence than various greek units) -- and I am no Roman fanboy -- I really use tactics to win and I havent even played with Romans in EB.
And the spread of Celtic population has a thing or two to do with shortsword effectiveness actually...
Like, what would we say If some group of Italian historians came in charge of EB units tweaks? I am not sure they would follow all EB patterns - here we come to the point of source! All my sources are not Anglo-Germanic origins - mine are better, new and neutral.
EB battles work well... but the horsmen are underpowerd against shortswords even if they have a full charge - few of my generals (upgraded and high level)
just can not kill one Galatian shortswords unit...sorry for my opinion it is still just my stand here.
And if its hard to see how food has anything to do with an army, his people and state and the way it is used and prepared - then I have no comment - exept - try to run for 20 minutes and practise for a while (that is why new sources are important) And remmember what happent to Romans when they started to use lead?
note: disgrace to these forums and humanity as whole can be a tittle of one Nazi - and very sarcastic people (whom I hope) dont live in a sarcastic way - that is bad for your society and your friends
And this is all from me, I'll add to all, sorry for and if there were any hardfeelings - that was not an intention, thank you for your time to post here because for me (do it was not pleasant at all:no: )..but, here we are, hope no harm was done - there were no ideas to hurt someones ego or personallity
thank you for your time EBs, be well:yes:
dude, dont worry about it. I was just posting a funny movie. No hard feelings :)
No, no hard feelings at all. I was just stresed that there is a :daisy: modding the game here- at least I hope it is not you.. Anyway... i posted for some other members:furious3: ..Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
They realy like someone to stand on form the firts step -- I dont blame them - I would do worst to myself realy:whip:
be well ;)
I would also like to offer my apologies, it seems that I misunderstood what you were saying, and this thread has alway attracted the less thoughtful element of this comunity. My sincere apologies for this unfortunate misunderstanding. Have a ballon:balloon2: and sign a peace treaty.
:gah:can't find the right smillie, well have a white flag instead.:surrender2:
Nah... ~:pimp: I just hope you find my post after some EB 1 patches an help me with your comments for my EB mod (do that will be on TWC) ..Quote:
Originally Posted by Pharnakes
see you around :yes:
Maskimus that was an excellent post (content and grammar/style flows well)! I apologize for any attitude, we DO welcome your opinion and comments, especially such as those
Maksimus, I can't offer you a balloon or anything, because that's someone else's line, but I apologise for my aggressiveness. I just get a little cooked up whenever someone attacks an EB member. They suffer too much abuse already. Just to let you know, to my knowledge, there are no nazis in the team, and the "STFU Donny" thing is absolutely hilarious if you've seen the movie. I say it sometimes to my brother, but Zak, you shouldn't say it to a stranger. Shame on you. Anyway Maksimus, get your hands on "The Big Lebowski". Most video rentals should have it. It's guaranteed to make you burst. After you've seen it, you'll know it wasn't a personal attack, just something to lighten up the mood. :2thumbsup:
Anyways...
I'm glad. I wasn't sure at all... :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksimus
It's somewhat possible, and I think it has been implemented. Roman FM's get doctors and those kinds of ancillaries that increase the casualty survival rate. I'm not sure if they get them more frequently than others though..Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksimus
Even Roman medicine can't put dismembered bodyparts back together, although those herbs and olive oil would make them delicious. The Celts, on the other hand, can use soap to clean them up and make a trophy, so it's a 50/50 situation. Looks vs. taste. It's a matter of opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksimus
Sorry, I had to do it. What I was going to say is that I don't know how effective herbs and olive oil are at killing bacteria, and that I think they were mostly used for the scent and keeping skin moist. You know, cosmetics, not actual disease preventers.
My bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksimus
Which faction do you play with? Seleucid, Macedonian and Ptolemaic hetairoi bodyguards hack through them like butter, but I reckon something like Pontic bodyguards are a different story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksimus
Well, to defend myself, you weren't actually referring to the relationship of food and military. I was just saying that Celts didn't go to McDonald's, so they ate pretty normal food. I doubt the diet of a "midclass" Roman was that much different from a "midclass" Celt's. Except for the booze.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksimus
Never say that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksimus
I try not to be sarcastic all of the time, but disgrace is my second name. :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksimus
Damn straight. Caeser's invasion was really just the last chapter for the continental Celts. Before that Celtic tribes conquered much of Europe, from Iberia all the way to Anatolia, they sacked Rome, and according to new evidence they may have sacked Delphi too. (The Greeks claim they stopped the barbarians in the nick of time, but just recently rich Greek objects like those that would have been deposited at Delphi have turned up in French rivers and lakes.) As for the Germans, they were blocked from expanding south for centuries by Celtic tribes such as the Volcae.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSpartan
Im guessing the perception of Germans wiping the floor with Celts comes from the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain, which happened much later (and was by no means a walk over for the Saxons - read the Mabinogion).
also, apparently you've not noticed that medics and 'soldiers healing' are already in the game through ancilliaries that increase soldiers healed after a battle.
I think EBs Celtic depiction is justified. From archaeology we know the Celts were an expansive and technologicaly advanced group of peoples, and they remained so until a far more organised and concerted foe, Rome, overcame them. The Germans on the other hand did not have much impact on Europe until later in history, when Rome was in decline.Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
People are VERY touchy about this, and I think its for the wrong reasons (ie not a passion for historical accuracy, but patriotic bias). Noone is claiming Celts were innately more valiant or more intelligent, any generalisation on that scale is stupid.
If anything EB speaks very highly of the Germans, I remember for example in one place it states Celts were more likely to rout, while Germans would use the retreat creatively to launch a new attack.
And the little differences in stats should not be such a big deal to people.
Its like New Zealand loosing the rugby world cup. Man for man they are easily the best team, but on the day they were outplayed by France. Likewise on a battlefield tactics are far more important than the fighting attributes of the men deployed. Hannibal repeatedly hammered the Romans despite have an inferior infantry line. Anyway Im rambling now, but you see where Im going with this. As the saying goes "An army of sheep led by a lion would beat an army of lions led by a sheep".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny5
I agree. I mentioned in an earlier post the Germans, on the whole, had to fight against failing, soon to fall empires and lands (Western Romans Empire & Gaul) and invaded lands that were robbed of their defenses and Legions on the edges of Empires (Britannia).
What accounts for the absence of Gauls elite warriors?
I think the Celtic Civil War had robbed Gaul of its best troops in the war between the two main tribes, Aedui and Arverni. I feel theres no way Caesar would have been able to take down Gaul otherwise.
Each tribe had its elite, well trained warrior classes. If Gaul was united behind resisting Caesar, where were these elite warriors? I do not believe Caesar fought against a professional Celtic force, even once, in Gaul. The only logical reason I can imagine is that Gaul's professional armies, and their most experienced troops were already gone and dead through Civil War.
Imagine the siege of Alesia with the relief army composing of professional, seasoned warriors from Gaul from each tribe? Caesar would have been hard pressed to hold out against them.
No doubt this will be taken as downplaying Germanic wonder conquests. It would be admirable if they fought against vigorous, powerful empires in their prime, but that never really happened...\
Feel free to disagree though. Just my 2 cents... :yes:
Just accidentally checked this. Galatian Shortswordsmen have total defence of 14 (armour 1, shield 2, skill 11) while Hoplitai Haploi have defence 15 (armour 5, shield 4, skill 7). Are you absolutely sure their defence is too strong? I can't find a single Hellenistic unit with lower defence than that, apart from Akontistai, Toxotai and Sphendonetai. You should read the description of the unit and you'll find a completely new perspective on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksimus
I'm kind of wondering if the elementary but surprisingly often made mistake of not switching to the cavalry's secondary weapons in melee wasn't involved...
I've had this Gallic Civil War discussion before. It seems clear that here the Swabians were simply acting out the role the Franks would later play. That is fighting for the caracas of a big dead cow. Except in their case there was a bigger more bader wolf on site? Caesar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Power2the1
Aye.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman