Celtic overpowered!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

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

---

Notice I said serious combatants. The tribal levies that formed the bulk of Vercingetorix's forces weren't that by a long shot, doubly so compared to the professional post-Marian legionaries. I'm pretty sure the pre-Marian reservist armies insisted on reasonably equal numbers of "effectives", although the fact the Roman soldiery were on the average better armoured ought to have made up for some disparity in numbers (though everyone always liked to have an edge in numbers if possible, natch).

If by "5/29/07" you mean this post (and if not, please be more specific and better yet link), no, it does not really answer much anything about the marked sluggishness in Roman advance into Gaul. Sure, they subdued the Cisalpine Gauls relatively early on (not all that surprising given that by the end of the Punic Wars they could draw on the resources of entire Italy and beyond against pretty much just the Po river valley - it would be rather strange indeed if the more realistic among the Gauls there had not seen the writing on the wall and bowed before the inevitable) and more or less took over the Mediterranean coastal regions, but AFAIK Caesar was the first to succesfully (or even at all) invade the interior beyond that - and that involved making use of treaties, alliances etc. the Romans had made with local Gallic potentates.

In other words, the Romans only invaded when they judged the time was ripe and there was a real opportunity of success, not earlier (that Caesar's operation may well have snowballed far past its original goals is irrelevant here). The same was undoubtly the case with the Germans beyond the northern borders of Celtic territory; given the amount of raiding and mercenary work they did, they would certainly have been able to tell if and when the strenght of the Gauls was ebbing and they could start mounting more ambitious raids (accelerating the collapse and enlarging the powerbase of the warlords in charge), culminating with a full-scale invasion to seize the richer lands. And conversely the increase of wealth of the border tribes and confederations near the Celtic borderland would naturally begin attracting unwelcome attention from the tribes further away... I'm willing to bet the pattern was virtually the same as would continue all the way until the Migrations and the collapse of the Roman frontier.

Quote:

---

Yes the Celtic warrior class like the German elites did the raiding,training and participated in warfare.

---

The difference, though, is that the by far wealthier Celtic society could afford a by far larger class of specialized warriors...

Quote:

---

Yes the Celts did have formidable fighters, the problem is they lost the majority of the time.

---

What ? Since when - Caesar perhaps ?

Quote:

---

The Romans fought as a unit, not as a bunch of individuals.

---

Right, big news. So did the Celts by what I hear, although their tradition was a wee bit different from the rather hoplite-style one the Romans adhered to. Pursuit of personal martial glory and formation combat aren't exactly inherently incompatible after all.

Quote:

---

The Celts like the Germans usually did a fast charge and if the Romans didn't buckle they would start to sustain heavy damage.

---

Uh... that wouldn't happen to have anything to do with the little detail that Roman infantry doctrine was, since the adoption of the triplex acies, specifically designed to win the battle through attrition ? What with the system of rotating fresh reserves to the frontline and all that ? Neither the Celts nor the Germans were the tunnel-visioned tactical idiots popular commonplace thinks, but neither did they have any real counter for that clever trick unless they were able to demolish the front lines fast enough (which happened too, far as I know; the Romans were anything but invincible after all, many of their wars being won through sheer bloody-minded stubbornness and willingess to keep throwing armies into the grinder longer than the other party could sustain).

Nice quote, I love Herwig Wolfram :grin:

Yeah, I think I misread/overreacted concerning the "tall" and "blonde"- it was only description... I just am sensitive to stereotypes of Germans being the only tall and blonde IndoEuropeans so I tend to want to tell everybody how it is... Like Aryan = Iran, so neoNazis are quite ignorant in their purism- I love the universalism of IndoEuropean... The universalism of Semitic languages and others are quite interesting as well, especially when Arabs hate Jews and it's called Antisemitism :wall: self-hate is a funny thing.

I'm pretty sure the Arabs don't themselves use the term "anti-Semitism" much just because of that. Iranians may be a bit different issue since they don't like Arabs all that much by what I know of it, but AFAIK they too usually speak of "Zionists". It's the "Zionist Crusader State" of Israel they loathe, not Jews in general after all.

To keep on the "tall and blonde" tangent a bit, I find it sort of amusing how artists tend to diligently portray us Finns as blonde and blue-eyed - which most of us actually aren't. We tend more towards the "various shades of brown" in both on the average; the stereotypical "Nordic" look turns up most often in the context of Swedish ancestry, not that according to diligent and scientifically accurate survey carried out with Eyeball Mk I in the Scandinavian countries it was actually terribly common there either. Just more common than in most of the world - the pigmentation in question being something of a slowly disappearing recessive trait after all.

Which is also why I take the references to "blonde" and "red-haired" Celts, Germans and whoever with more than a pinch of salt. I very strongly suspect observers used to the dark hair and eyes normal around the Med just dreadfully over-emphasized the extent of the phenomenom due to its exoticism and association with "weird northern barbarians"...

That's some interesting cultural perspective, Watchman, thanks for sharing that. IMO, Finland has some of the most interesting diversity of different language cultures, but here in the US we don't get much time devoted to learning about that or much of anything before 1776 and beyond the Atlantic ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

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

---

To get into the nitty gritty of it they are all just Indo Europeans anyway who became distinct through isolation for a bit, the culture lines would have blurred, but I still think that the Germans most likely became quite distinct in their Scandinavian homeland before invading south.

Another interesting thing to keep in mind is that the Caledonians were considered to be of Germanic descent due to their reddish hair, which the romans for whatever reason associated with the Germans, which sort of clashes with the view of them being very blonde in general.

Within relation to Genetics theres actually a fairly high possibility that red hair evolved in isolation in the British isles because its quite a distinct trait here genetically speaking so as to what was going on in ancient times in terms of populatiom movements, who knows.

I assume that the Germans came from territories that from prehistoric times had a high percentage of blondes because of sexual selection, but that not all of these men would have been blonde, and quite possibly just light brown like many other European peoples, and that a distinct blondness found among the Belgae could indeed indicate some Germanic descent, but I doubt all of them would have been Blonde, and culturally speaking they were just Celts still.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

That website btw mentions that one of the few pieces of evidence for Germanic ancestry among Belgae is a description of being "tall" and "blonde"- who does that describe? All Indo-Europeans (especially Celts too). Slavs, Celts, and Germans are all especially mentioned early as "tall" and "ruddy" besides rampant "blonde" and "Red" hair references- like China describing the Yueh-Chi.

---

There were also brunettes in the tarim basin and brunettes depicted alongside redheads and blondes, whatever the Indo Europeans originally looked like who knows, they probably would have been a mixed bag (in terms of hair and eye color) like many other peoples of Europe. Blondism undoubtably a much earlier evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

Also, the main argument is analysis of skull types which doesn't prove anything. There were native peoples throughout Europe before the Indo-European invasion, probably quite a few. I have read some of those kind of early archaeology books which fall into "race-theory" a little too much and I really doubt any legitimate scientist pursues that kind of theory anymore, I would hope not.

---

It's not so much a silly theory, well, depending on what these anthropologists define as a race, but in general the Idea that the Aryans were an extremely distinct race is most likely or perhaps totally incorrect, they would have just been White Caucasians like the rest of the peoples of Europe who were also of Cro-Magnon descent. As for the hair and eye color, like I said, this was really already determined by evolution in prehistoric times, well before the Proto-Indo-Europeans showed up, and is most likely a result of the iceage, population bottlenecks and founder effects, not to mention sexual selection and a healthy bit of isolation, but this is essentially why distinct characteristics come into being in the first place.

The idea however in older times that one of the possible reasons for a lot of upper class folk in ancient times being blonde being relative to the aesthetics of the Indo-Europeans isn't however such a silly idea though, it's just an idea that is sort of being more explained by evolutionary developments that occured well before them.

As for skull shape, outside of more broad racial categories, I don't really put much faith in the effectiveness of say, Alpinoid, Brunn or Nordic, because of the high degrees of mixing that have occurd amongst European folk. The Proto Indo Europeans most likely had a certain cranial style, back for the same way people have them today, but this would have been more distinct than Blonde hair, and really, by the time the Celts, Germans and Romans were on the scene, whatever these guys originally looked like was pretty much lost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

It is true that certain linguistic family/cultures have similar morphology like Siberian/steppe people being short and African people being tall (but not always) similar to skin tone and Vitamin D both being adaptation to weather and sun, but that is hardly proven and mostly opinion and common sense (people still don't believe in evolution!), so skulls of people who are assuredly mixed prove nothing. It can't even be proven that the Battle-Axe culture or the Przeworsk culture are any specific race/language family and we know quite a bit about them.

---

Oh race undoubtably exists, it just doesn't fit neatly into the worlds linguistic maps, Pre Indo Europeans and Indo Europeans were both the same race and came from the same Cro-Magnon root, despite having different languages, but it really comes down to the definition of race, but it's typically only worthwhile when you look at it in terms of distinction, there wouldn't for example be much practical purpose in calling a family of three generations a race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

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

---

Essentially it's because of the domestication of the horse that it could allow bands of young men and probably women to basically move around more effectivly than any other groups in known history, so the expansion of these people was most likely in all directions, though undoubtably some movements were peaceful, others undoubtably were aggressive, mounted combat and chariot warfare changed the world.

I suppose the situation with the Belgae was just that they resembled German people to an exten and that Germans like lots of people back in those times of much less mobile populations, had quite distinct features. I suppose you could compare it to Modern Iranians where you have many that look like people typically found in Saudi Arabia yet some that look like they could be from Poland or France.

In ancient times when you have a typically brunette people living in one area and then close to the Rhine, near the lands of the lighter haired people, when you see a group of mixed folk with lighter hair you can sort of just assume that at some point mixing had occurred.

I think EB has depicted both the Germans and Celts quite well in terms of phenotype.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

I'm pretty sure the Arabs don't themselves use the term "anti-Semitism" much just because of that. Iranians may be a bit different issue since they don't like Arabs all that much by what I know of it, but AFAIK they too usually speak of "Zionists". It's the "Zionist Crusader State" of Israel they loathe, not Jews in general after all.

To keep on the "tall and blonde" tangent a bit, I find it sort of amusing how artists tend to diligently portray us Finns as blonde and blue-eyed - which most of us actually aren't. We tend more towards the "various shades of brown" in both on the average; the stereotypical "Nordic" look turns up most often in the context of Swedish ancestry, not that according to diligent and scientifically accurate survey carried out with Eyeball Mk I in the Scandinavian countries it was actually terribly common there either. Just more common than in most of the world - the pigmentation in question being something of a slowly disappearing recessive trait after all.

Which is also why I take the references to "blonde" and "red-haired" Celts, Germans and whoever with more than a pinch of salt. I very strongly suspect observers used to the dark hair and eyes normal around the Med just dreadfully over-emphasized the extent of the phenomenom due to its exoticism and association with "weird northern barbarians"...

---

I actually agree with that, despite many of the Med people being of Brunette and Blonde hair colors, but often when they describe the lighter haired "races" of the north, it doesn't necissarily mean blonde. It could just mean light brown.

I for example have a light brown hair color, typically lighter than most browns in the country which would seem quite light if I was to walk around a country with a high population of Black haired people or very dark haired people.

The hair conversation aside though.


I'll ask the question. How much can we trust Roman accounts? at least when it comes to battles?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Right, big news. So did the Celts by what I hear, although their tradition was a wee bit different from the rather hoplite-style one the Romans adhered to. Pursuit of personal martial glory and formation combat aren't exactly inherently incompatible after all.

---

Interestingly enough there were examples in De Bello Gallico where Roman soldiers would actually attack the front lines of the Celts as basically a show of manhood and induce something of highly competitive actions in terms of bravado in other men, The famous example being when those two crack soldiers decided to attack the army of Gauls who were seiging the settlement they were hiding in and competitively fought to kill as many as possible to come over as the bravest soldier in the eyes of their peers, only to then end up saving each other and making it back to safety much to the undoubtable high reception from their fellow soldiers.

I guess what I'm saying is, the stereotypes of barbarian northerners and disciplined southerners are fairly incorrect both ways, the northerners weren't uncoordinated savages, they never had been, and the the southerners weren't cold nerved mechanically disciplined soldiers, There was undoubtably organization amongst the likes of the Germans, example they often fought in dence phalanx formation, and there was also a sort of lionhearted courage and risk taking within the ranks of the Romans.

Exmaple, the Romans once overcame a German phalanx by leaping upon the shields of the Germans and stabbing down at them, that takes guts and is undoubtably a risky move, infact it's so risky that you'd typically think that it's something the more stereotypical warrior societies would have attempted, but no, this was the Romans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Uh... that wouldn't happen to have anything to do with the little detail that Roman infantry doctrine was, since the adoption of the triplex acies, specifically designed to win the battle through attrition ? What with the system of rotating fresh reserves to the frontline and all that ? Neither the Celts nor the Germans were the tunnel-visioned tactical idiots popular commonplace thinks, but neither did they have any real counter for that clever trick unless they were able to demolish the front lines fast enough (which happened too, far as I know; the Romans were anything but invincible after all, many of their wars being won through sheer bloody-minded stubbornness and willingess to keep throwing armies into the grinder longer than the other party could sustain).

---

I hate to quote the movie Rocky Balboa (though I did really like it) but he said something along the lines of "it's not about how hard you can hit, it's about how hard you can be hit and keep going" that, in my opinion is exactly what the Romans had figured out, like many seasoned and objective fighting people, if you can tire out your enemy and take the best they can throw at you, then you have a sure chance of eventually beating them.

The tightly packed formations, the shield designs, the short stabbing swords, the front line revolutions, the indurence training of the Romans all seem to undoubtably point towards their realization that in war, stamina is extremely importent, and staying power can win a battle, train your men to take everything the enemy can throw at them and keep going and when their enemies are tired, take them down quickly, ruthlessly and efficiently, and when all else fails, brass balls it, leap onto their shields and stab them in the face.

There have been some good and informative posts in here... Watchman and The Handsome Viking living up to their reputations I see.

I haven't read the whole thread but can see that some think "stronger" or "better" soldiers are the determiner of victory in battles (and thus the fortunes of Empires/States etc.)... this must come from playing computer games too much where your warriors don't have other things to worry about. Travelling far from home (mental fatigue), eating, supply lines, terrain, morale (of the whole army) and so forth. Numbers don't count for much either (though obviously they do help). It's no use outnumbering an army 3:1 if you can't outflank them and the higher numbers are made up of raw recruits anyway...
Battles were the easy part... it is the planning that goes into them that usually determines the victory (and is therefore the hard part)...
So I don't see what individual unit stats have to do with the fact that battles were lost by those armies in history (especially when it was these other factors that contributed to the defeats in the first place).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caratacos

There have been some good and informative posts in here... Watchman and The Handsome Viking living up to their reputations I see.

I haven't read the whole thread but can see that some think "stronger" or "better" soldiers are the determiner of victory in battles (and thus the fortunes of Empires/States etc.)... this must come from playing computer games too much where your warriors don't have other things to worry about. Travelling far from home (mental fatigue), eating, supply lines, terrain, morale (of the whole army) and so forth. Numbers don't count for much either (though obviously they do help). It's no use outnumbering an army 3:1 if you can't outflank them and the higher numbers are made up of raw recruits anyway...
Battles were the easy part... it is the planning that goes into them that usually determines the victory (and is therefore the hard part)...
So I don't see what individual unit stats have to do with the fact that battles were lost by those armies in history (especially when it was these other factors that contributed to the defeats in the first place).

---

WOW... I have a reputation now?

I would have always assumed I was known as "the guy who made that bunny thread".

Thankyou.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Notice I said serious combatants. The tribal levies that formed the bulk of Vercingetorix's forces weren't that by a long shot, doubly so compared to the professional post-Marian legionaries. I'm pretty sure the pre-Marian reservist armies insisted on reasonably equal numbers of "effectives", although the fact the Roman soldiery were on the average better armoured ought to have made up for some disparity in numbers (though everyone always liked to have an edge in numbers if possible, natch).

---

How do you know? If these guys were constantly fighting as is suggested they would be veterans. Im not saying they would all be veterans but they would still have their warriors, as I have stated what Simon James has said. I agree with you on the Romans being better armored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

If by "5/29/07" you mean this post (and if not, please be more specific and better yet link), no, it does not really answer much anything about the marked sluggishness in Roman advance into Gaul. Sure, they subdued the Cisalpine Gauls relatively early on (not all that surprising given that by the end of the Punic Wars they could draw on the resources of entire Italy and beyond against pretty much just the Po river valley - it would be rather strange indeed if the more realistic among the Gauls there had not seen the writing on the wall and bowed before the inevitable) and more or less took over the Mediterranean coastal regions, but AFAIK Caesar was the first to succesfully (or even at all) invade the interior beyond that - and that involved making use of treaties, alliances etc. the Romans had made with local Gallic potentates.

In other words, the Romans only invaded when they judged the time was ripe and there was a real opportunity of success, not earlier (that Caesar's operation may well have snowballed far past its original goals is irrelevant here). The same was undoubtly the case with the Germans beyond the northern borders of Celtic territory; given the amount of raiding and mercenary work they did, they would certainly have been able to tell if and when the strenght of the Gauls was ebbing and they could start mounting more ambitious raids (accelerating the collapse and enlarging the powerbase of the warlords in charge), culminating with a full-scale invasion to seize the richer lands. And conversely the increase of wealth of the border tribes and confederations near the Celtic borderland would naturally begin attracting unwelcome attention from the tribes further away... I'm willing to bet the pattern was virtually the same as would continue all the way until the Migrations and the collapse of the Roman frontier.

---

Yes that is the correct link. The reason it doesnt talk about the sluggishness of the Roman advance into Gaul is because it was discussing about the northern Italy situation. I didnt realize you were referring to only Gaul. That being said there are certain quotes which are relevant on that response I made. The Gauls were being defeated when they raided into central Italy. Again these are the "tougher" Celts who must have been warriors as I dont see tradesmen and farmers coming over to raid. Most of these battles the Romans were outnumbered and most of these battles were won by the Romans. The conquest of northern Italy was one of pitched battles not of attrition.
When you say that the Romans only invaded because the time was ripe I dont buy at all. This is the same type of argument that Psyco tried to make with northern Italy. But as for the invasion of Gaul: Macedon,Seleucids,Achaean League,Carthage(third punic war),Numidia,TCA, etc. etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

The difference, though, is that the by far wealthier Celtic society could afford a by far larger class of specialized warriors...

---

At the beginning I agree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Quote:
Yes the Celts did have formidable fighters, the problem is they lost the majority of the time.
What ? Since when - Caesar perhaps ?

---

Since the 4th century and ever since. If you would read my post you will see the list of battles, the quotes and the citations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Right, big news. So did the Celts by what I hear, although their tradition was a wee bit different from the rather hoplite-style one the Romans adhered to. Pursuit of personal martial glory and formation combat aren't exactly inherently incompatible after all.

---

The authors I sited that discussed the difference's in style of combat said basically the Romans fought as a unit where the Celts fought as a bunch of individuals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Uh... that wouldn't happen to have anything to do with the little detail that Roman infantry doctrine was, since the adoption of the triplex acies, specifically designed to win the battle through attrition ? What with the system of rotating fresh reserves to the frontline and all that ? Neither the Celts nor the Germans were the tunnel-visioned tactical idiots popular commonplace thinks, but neither did they have any real counter for that clever trick unless they were able to demolish the front lines fast enough (which happened too, far as I know; the Romans were anything but invincible after all, many of their wars being won through sheer bloody-minded stubbornness and willingess to keep throwing armies into the grinder longer than the other party could sustain).

---

For the most part I agree. Here are some interesting quotes:

Simon James "The World of the Celts"- " to each horseman were attached two servants, who were themselves skilled riders and, like their masters, had a horse. When the Galatian horsemen were engaged, the servants remained behind the ranks and proved useful in the following way. Should a horseman or his horse fall, the slave brought him a horse to mount; if the rider was killed the slave mounted the horse in his master's place; if both rider and horse were killed, there was a mounted man ready. When a rider was wounded, one slave brought back to camp the wounded man, while the other took his vacant place in the ranks... This organization is called in their native speech trimarcisia, for I would have you know that marca is the Celtic name for a horse." Pausanias 10,19,5 on the Galatae who attacked Greece. pg. 78

I have read about this from a couple of the other authors as well. I dont think it pertains only to the Galatians. Any way for the most part the Celts and Germans didnt have reserves from what I read, they committed most everyone.

Simon James "The World of the Celts"-"Gallic infantry at least sometimes fought in close masses according to Caesar, who describes their overlapping shields pinned together by Roman javelins. However, their big thrusting spears and long slashing swords required a lot of room to swing, which suggests a fairly open order, suited to their individualistic fighting style and national temperament." pg.81

Simon James "The World of the Celts"Celtic armies were fragile, virtually clouds of individuals almost as much in competition with each other for glory as in conflict with the foe. They consequently lacked cohesion: if part of the line wavered, panic could spread with great speed. In contrast, Roman legionaries were trained to fight as teams, to trust each other and remain steady under pressure. This difference gave the legions a decisive tactical advantage, while the Celtic lack of discipline and tenacity gave Rome a clear strategic edge. Celtic armies were bad at supplying themselves: Caesar dealt with one large Gallic army by the simple expedient of waiting for it to get hungry and go home. In weapons, and in courage, individual Gauls were equal to the Romans, and against Caesar they frequently had great numerical advantage. Yet this was more than offset by the Romans' quantitative advantage in arms: by the second century BC, legionaries were all mail-clad, helmeted and armed with swords. Only the Celtic chieftains were consistently equipped as well as this; their armies mostly remained of unarmored spearmen.

the_handsome_viking I agree with you on just about everything, phenotype, gene pools(you didnt exactly mention it but I think thats what your getting at) and etc. The skulls I would disagree with you on just for the gene pool situation. This would change along with everything else as people intermixed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

I'll ask the question. How much can we trust Roman accounts? at least when it comes to battles?

---

I think for the most part we can. You have to figure the Romans inflated their numbers but in some accounts their is two sides writing about whats happened. I would guess it would depend on which battle and how much can be backed up by other things(other writings,archeology, past comparisons, etc.).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caratacos

I haven't read the whole thread but can see that some think "stronger" or "better" soldiers are the determiner of victory in battles (and thus the fortunes of Empires/States etc.)... this must come from playing computer games too much where your warriors don't have other things to worry about. Travelling far from home (mental fatigue), eating, supply lines, terrain, morale (of the whole army) and so forth. Numbers don't count for much either (though obviously they do help). It's no use outnumbering an army 3:1 if you can't outflank them and the higher numbers are made up of raw recruits anyway...
Battles were the easy part... it is the planning that goes into them that usually determines the victory (and is therefore the hard part)...
So I don't see what individual unit stats have to do with the fact that battles were lost by those armies in history (especially when it was these other factors that contributed to the defeats in the first place).

---

So stronger units don't determine battles? Yes supply lines, terrain, are important but If you don't have good troops it doesn't matter if you hold the high ground munching on wheaties. There are battles that have taken place where the victor was badly outnumbered,taken by surprise in unfavorable terrain and still came out on top. Battles being the easy part would be quickly disagreed with you by most soldiers. Logistics are important but its the actual battle itself that makes the difference, and these are usually based on the commander,the troops (morale is part of the troop)and the tactics and formations used. When do you advance, when do you send in reserves, when do you send in the cavalry charge, do you feign retreat? when do you spring your ambush or hidden troops? Its your troops that hold the line, or start to push the enemy back, If your talking of an overall war, individual battles make up that war. Yes logistics will get you there, but its the troops and leadership that will win it.At the Battle of Watling Street do you really think if the Romans had been had been Germans they would have won that battle? What about when Caesar met Pompei, it was Caesar's experienced troops that carried the day. Yes things like bad leadership can lose you a battle but reliable good troops can bail out a bad commander just as well.
As far as EB is concerned unit stats are a must, how else are you going to do it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

So stronger units don't determine battles?

---

Not always. My point is when it comes to grand things like the crumbling of Empires or whatnot there are greater things at play than how good the victors soldiers are. But what makes a unit strong? Training is good but if the army is overly fatigued, worried about the home situation, mutinous-- does not have confidence in their leaders the training won't be put to best use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Yes supply lines, terrain, are important but If you don't have good troops it doesn't matter if you hold the high ground munching on wheaties. There are battles that have taken place where the victor was badly outnumbered,taken by surprise in unfavorable terrain and still came out on top. Battles being the easy part would be quickly disagreed with you by most soldiers. Logistics are important but its the actual battle itself that makes the difference, and these are usually based on the commander,the troops (morale is part of the troop)and the tactics and formations used. When do you advance, when do you send in reserves, when do you send in the cavalry charge, do you feign retreat? when do you spring your ambush or hidden troops? Its your troops that hold the line, or start to push the enemy back, If your talking of an overall war, individual battles make up that war. Yes logistics will get you there, but its the troops and leadership that will win it.

---

You prove my point. There are bigger things at play than an army's training or experience (which I do think is important and say so in my post). Of course a soildier will say it isn't the easy part because of perspective-- and by easy I meant comparitably. At the end of the day if the General makes all sorts of tactical screw ups prior to the battle the soldiers no matter how good they are will be destroyed. So therefore the strategy and forethought by the general and his officers does determine battles moreso than experienced soldiers. It is also no coincidence that experienced soldiers are lead by capable men. If their soldiers die they don't exactly live to become "experienced" now do they? But I fear this is not the what I was trying to discuss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

As far as EB is concerned unit stats are a must, how else are you going to do it?

---

I'm not 100% sure on what you mean here but here goes...

Obviously there are limits to what you can have in game. EB does a good job through traits for things like logistics, forced marching and morale etc. But can never hope to match the complexities of the real thing. Besides this doesn't seem to be what you are interested in. Stats, namely those of the celtic factions vs the Sweboz.
Through comparisons made by Watchman and yourself it appears to me that they are quite even when you face similar units against each other... but this doesn't seem to be enough for you... what would you have? Slightly beefed up Germans so that their skills overcome their lesser quality armour and weapons? Downplay the Celtic units so that they are skilless but with nice shiny armour and swords?
It seems to me like you want it so that in every campaign the inevitable conclusion of the Germans "stomping all over Gaul". Two problems. 1) It would take away the fun/balance away from the game-- which at the end of the day it is. And 2) The point of playing is to change history-- not to repeat it. And if playing as either the Averni or Aedui one can unify Gaul under a strong leadership and defend well against the Romans or Sweboz I don't see a problem in the plausibility (historically) of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

the_handsome_viking I agree with you on just about everything, phenotype, gene pools(you didnt exactly mention it but I think thats what your getting at) and etc. The skulls I would disagree with you on just for the gene pool situation. This would change along with everything else as people intermixed.

---

The skulls would undoubtably change as peoples mixed, which is why I basically said that whatever the proto Indo European skull type was like, we won't really know now because they mixed so much.

Undoubtably originally there would have most likely been key features which is just a product of genetic isolation, they definitely wouldn't be distinct enough to be an entirely seperate race.

I think we agree on this one, maybe there was a bit of confusion though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

I think for the most part we can. You have to figure the Romans inflated their numbers but in some accounts their is two sides writing about whats happened. I would guess it would depend on which battle and how much can be backed up by other things(other writings,archeology, past comparisons, etc.).

---

It's a tough cookie when it comes to the Romans, especially Pre Christian Romans (believe it or not, post Christian Romans actually wrote a number of works saying that the Barbarian successes over the Romans was justified historically because of the wickedness of Romans in the past towards other peoples) because on the one hand you have them saying somewhat condescending things about the Celts and at other times complimenting them greatly, I think I remember mentioning that Julius Caesar claimed that the Celts were the most innovative people in the world.

I guess we really need to compare surviving oral tradition with historical texts and archeological data to really understand what truly was going on back in these times.

I personally think that the Romans won becuase Julius Caesar was nothing short of a super genius who knew exactly how to form temporary alliencies to get what he wanted, and knew exactly how to take down a liberalistic warrior culture made up of free states and naturally riddled with petty rivalries. Not to mention the fact that I suppose the location of the Romans in central Italy basically made them subject to attacks from everyone and naturally hardened them up into a brutally practical people who eventually realized that one of the major keys to success on the battlefield wasn't the weaponry and how well you could use your weapons but in many ways down to how hard you could be hit and keep going and absorb the attacks of your enemies.

De Bello Gallico did have examples of Celts temporarily routing the Romans only to then reform and hold them off once again and eventually win because of this, and believe it or not, I've actually had to good fortune to have played a few battles in Europa Barbarorum where I have(in loose formation) charge into a numerically superior Roman force, wiped out a lot of units and routed them very quickly, only to have them reform and withstand the attack and after a long time of fighting in a forest eventually have them attain the upper hand (as the Roman reinforcement army arrived) and rout my army.

Though it was a loss it was quite a glorious loss, and suprisingly historically accurate.

I recall making arguments in a thread a while ago about the possibilities of boosting the Celtic swordsmans attack points in loose formation because the nature of the long sword basically implies that in mass, you would have to have loose formation in order to effectivly use the weapon, there is really no point in a long sword in close formation unless you punch with the crossguard, which really didn't exist at the time.

It's not so much a style of ill disciplin, hypothetically it's an extremely versitile and flexible warrior style and it appears to have been something that was used all over the Celtic world from Gaul to Britain and I can only assume to great effect at one point, until the Romans figured out the trick, dence formations, defence first attack later, forcing this Celtic swordsman elite to cluster, and obstruct each others sword blows.

Spearmen undoubtably would have sooner or later started to have fought in some sort of dence phalanx formation because lets face it, the Celts had seen it used by the Romans, the Greeks and the Germans by this point, so it's not like this method of spear combat wouldn't have been adopted if not independantly developed, but as for close formation sword fighting? I suppose I would have to study more of the methods the Iberians used with their short swords and the falcata to see if they fought in dence formation or not, but in general the Celtic method of sword fighting seems to be an elite group trained to fight flexibly with an all out charge, brutal sweeping sword swings with the hopes of inducing an all out rout.

It sort of makes sense in a way because the battles in De Bello Gallico usually do follow a pattern of intial Celtic advantage, then a clever trick pulled by Julius Caesar resulting in an all out rout of the Celtic forces.

I guess now we really have to think about the Celtic advantage they had at one point that allowed them to be the masters of most of Europe. If they were useless fighters, there would be some different culture in place of them, it's that simple. They had dominion over the territory for quite some time, and though we seem to agree that the Germans were very hardy folk and undoubtably adept warriors, if the Celts were such major pushovers it's safe to say that the Germans would have overun them very quickly. The fact that it was the Romans(with Celtic and Germanic aid) who took down the mainland European Celts goes to show you that it did take a while to eventually get them and outclass their fighting methods.

I am making a lot of assumptions just now though, and I'll happily admit it, it's just one of the subjects that really makes me wonder. Perhaps it was a combination of all the above mentioned factors that made the Celts lose dominion over Europe. Perhaps the bulk of them became too civilized, we all know they were quite liberalistic people so that old habbit of becoming too comfortable and sappy could have sapped their fighting prowess, perhaps the political climate of the time made it every difficult to mount a proper offence to the Romans(send an army out to fight them, have your settlement attacked by a rival Celtic tribe, so stay put and wait to get sieged by the Romans, undoubtably with the help of other Celts, which isn't that unrealistic a concept, during the Mongol invasions of Poland and Hungary, Polish and Hungarian nobles were still highly concerned with fighting other Polish and Hungarian nobles, despite the fact that there was a major outsider threat in the area).

Undoubtably the Roman military training and philosophy gave them a major advantage, and undoubtably Julius Caesar was a man of exceptional intelligence, regimented equipment, another key factor, superior logistics, another key factor.

I do agree though that the Celtic cavalry should be a bit more powerful, or at least a bit more accessable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caratacos

Not always. My point is when it comes to grand things like the crumbling of Empires or whatnot there are greater things at play than how good the victors soldiers are. But what makes a unit strong? Training is good but if the army is overly fatigued, worried about the home situation, mutinous-- does not have confidence in their leaders the training won't be put to best use.

---

So what point is this for EB? If you want to get into this for the historical perspective ok, but how this has a role in EB I dont know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caratacos

Through comparisons made by Watchman and yourself it appears to me that they are quite even when you face similar units against each other... but this doesn't seem to be enough for you... what would you have? Slightly beefed up Germans so that their skills overcome their lesser quality armour and weapons? Downplay the Celtic units so that they are skilless but with nice shiny armour and swords?
It seems to me like you want it so that in every campaign the inevitable conclusion of the Germans "stomping all over Gaul". Two problems. 1) It would take away the fun/balance away from the game-- which at the end of the day it is. And 2) The point of playing is to change history-- not to repeat it. And if playing as either the Averni or Aedui one can unify Gaul under a strong leadership and defend well against the Romans or Sweboz I don't see a problem in the plausibility (historically) of that.

---

You misunderstand me then. EB was created to be a more historically accurate game. So if the Germans historically beat up on the Celts why would it be ok to have the Celts be stronger units? I would beef up the Germans a little bit but I would most definitely reduce the Celtic elite units so they dont outstrip the Romans, just as you said. There are other ways of making EB competitive like economics. How is it balanced to make the Celtic units more powerful, let alone what of historical accuracy? The point is to change history, but EB is also about historical accuracy. Make the Celtic units cheaper but not as powerful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

So what point is this for EB? If you want to get into this for the historical perspective ok, but how this has a role in EB I dont know.

---

My point is (and forgive me if I have misread your argument) that just because a culture or state or Empire fell in history it is not necessarily a reflection if the skills of the armies it fielded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

You misunderstand me then. EB was created to be a more historically accurate game. So if the Germans historically beat up on the Celts why would it be ok to have the Celts be stronger units? I would beef up the Germans a little bit but I would most definitely reduce the Celtic elite units so they dont outstrip the Romans, just as you said. There are other ways of making EB competitive like economics. How is it balanced to make the Celtic units more powerful, let alone what of historical accuracy? The point is to change history, but EB is also about historical accuracy. Make the Celtic units cheaper but not as powerful.

---

EB starts in 272BC long before Caesar or Ariovistus-- and long before some of these elite units are even available in game (having to go through reforms and such). So if in a campaign they become available the player is probably in a strong enough position that justifies fielding these elites.

I'm not sure that the Celtic elites are stronger than the Roman or German elites in the game. If I can quote Watchman
Save for the 2 HP and the frighten_foot thing the Gastiz shuld actually be about equally matched on the Gaesatae. They're nearly even with Solduri and Rycalawre too, and should be able to give the Arjos and Carnutes a close run thing. The Uachtarac, meh. Extremely limited availability and hardly ever going to be a common feature in Briton armies.
And I can't imagine that the Celtic elites outstrip the later (post Marian) Roman legionnaires either (Say, the Evocata or something-- though I don't know the stats off the top of my head-- so don't kill me if i'm wrong).

Its also worth considering that the celtic elite units are rare, take long reforms to get, and have very small numbers of men in their units. In terms of rank-and-file (the basic warrior class for the celts, Gaeroas, Gaelaiche, Bataroas, and Botroas) are pretty generally outclassed by their germanic counterparts. I think you're seeing a lot of things that aren't actually there, and ignoring a lot of things that are in terms of stats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

The skulls would undoubtably change as peoples mixed, which is why I basically said that whatever the proto Indo European skull type was like, we won't really know now because they mixed so much.

Undoubtably originally there would have most likely been key features which is just a product of genetic isolation, they definitely wouldn't be distinct enough to be an entirely seperate race.

I think we agree on this one, maybe there was a bit of confusion though.

---

I believe we are along the same lines on this, but I will try to get a hold of J.A. MacCulloch's book, "The Religion of the Ancient Celts" . I'm curious how he based his findings, hopefully this will be explained.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

I personally think that the Romans won becuase Julius Caesar was nothing short of a super genius who knew exactly how to form temporary alliencies to get what he wanted, and knew exactly how to take down a liberalistic warrior culture made up of free states and naturally riddled with petty rivalries. Not to mention the fact that I suppose the location of the Romans in central Italy basically made them subject to attacks from everyone and naturally hardened them up into a brutally practical people who eventually realized that one of the major keys to success on the battlefield wasn't the weaponry and how well you could use your weapons but in many ways down to how hard you could be hit and keep going and absorb the attacks of your enemies.

---

I agree that very few men could have done what Caesar did. Where I may deviate from you is that I don't believe Caesar would have succeeded with lesser troops. If he didn't have units like the tenth legion he could have and in my opinion would have failed. The tenth and some of his other units held firm while others wavered. In a few battles this would have become a rout and would have been devastating for Caesar.

I was agreeing with you up until this point:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

I guess now we really have to think about the Celtic advantage they had at one point that allowed them to be the masters of most of Europe. If they were useless fighters, there would be some different culture in place of them, it's that simple. They had dominion over the territory for quite some time, and though we seem to agree that the Germans were very hardy folk and undoubtably adept warriors, if the Celts were such major pushovers it's safe to say that the Germans would have overun them very quickly. The fact that it was the Romans(with Celtic and Germanic aid) who took down the mainland European Celts goes to show you that it did take a while to eventually get them and outclass their fighting methods.

---

Something to take into consideration, who in Europe did they fight. I personally think the Celts were very tough, they did take out most of the indigenous peoples in Europe. But to call them masters of Europe would be having to ignore Italy and Greece. To my knowledge the Celts had one major incursion into Greece, but quickly afterward they were chased out. Greece at this time was weekend, but they still were able to push out the Celts. As far as Italy is concerned I talked about it already in this thread. I feel like I showed that the Celts were outclassed by the Romans. In the 4th Century after the Celts sacked Rome then what? The Romans consistently defeated them all the while embroiled in other disputes and wars. The Celts most certainly a tough people did win against the Romans, but it was the Romans who won most of the time.
When it comes to the Germans, where were they most of the time? Historically we don't really hear about them till around 200 BC. Before 200 BC did they meet up with the Celts and if they did what happened? The only thing that I'm aware of was when the TCA started southward and look at the results. Before the TCA, how did the Belgae get to where they were(I consider them German when they first arrived)? When the Suebi arrived we have written records of those actions, and what were the results. The Celts were not wimps by any imagination, there martial ability shows in the records of their enemies and of the foes the conquered. I just think the Romans and the Germans were tougher.
I agree with your paragraph after this one, there were many factors that hurt the Celts. I believe the lack of unity and infighting is a big contributing factor for them losing to Caesar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caratacos

My point is (and forgive me if I have misread your argument) that just because a culture or state or Empire fell in history it is not necessarily a reflection if the skills of the armies it fielded.

---

I don't disagree with you on this. I will say that would the Huns,Mongels or Romans have done as well as they did without the quality of their troops? I'll also say that of the Celts, If it wasn't for their martial skill would they have been able to spread over Europe like they did? I'm thinking we also are roughly of the same thought on this subject, that there are many factors involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caratacos

EB starts in 272BC long before Caesar or Ariovistus-- and long before some of these elite units are even available in game (having to go through reforms and such). So if in a campaign they become available the player is probably in a strong enough position that justifies fielding these elites.

I'm not sure that the Celtic elites are stronger than the Roman or German elites in the game. If I can quote Watchman
Save for the 2 HP and the frighten_foot thing the Gastiz shuld actually be about equally matched on the Gaesatae. They're nearly even with Solduri and Rycalawre too, and should be able to give the Arjos and Carnutes a close run thing. The Uachtarac, meh. Extremely limited availability and hardly ever going to be a common feature in Briton armies.
And I can't imagine that the Celtic elites outstrip the later (post Marian) Roman legionnaires either (Say, the Evocata or something-- though I don't know the stats off the top of my head-- so don't kill me if i'm wrong).

---

Watchman and QwertyMIDX know these things much more than I. Just by going with the stats the Celts do have stronger units then post Marian. If you go to this link you can compare them. But also the cards dont have all the information so my analysis may be incorrect. This is the link I was talking about.https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=80557

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

Its also worth considering that the celtic elite units are rare, take long reforms to get, and have very small numbers of men in their units. In terms of rank-and-file (the basic warrior class for the celts, Gaeroas, Gaelaiche, Bataroas, and Botroas) are pretty generally outclassed by their germanic counterparts. I think you're seeing a lot of things that aren't actually there, and ignoring a lot of things that are in terms of stats.

---

I have no doubt on your knowledge in this area, but I will do a few tests. I will take one unit vs. one unit and play both sides twice and let the computer run them both and see what happens. I already did this with the Gaesatae, and they won every time. I still think their are moral disparities amongst the Romans, Germans and Celts.

One last point I would like to make. I appreciate the time the guys have put into making this mod. I may not agree with them on a few items but they have done a great job. I just hope the people who work on this mod. dont think I'm attacking them in anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

I agree that very few men could have done what Caesar did. Where I may deviate from you is that I don't believe Caesar would have succeeded with lesser troops. If he didn't have units like the tenth legion he could have and in my opinion would have failed. The tenth and some of his other units held firm while others wavered. In a few battles this would have become a rout and would have been devastating for Caesar.

---

There's actually no disagreement here, I specifically said that the political climate of the Italian peninsula carved the population into brutally effective warriors, the Legions were undoubtably excellent fighters and arguably the most effective fighting force on earth. However, I do believe that Julius Caesar's genius played a crucial part in the downfall of Celtic civilization on mainland Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

I was agreeing with you up until this point:

Something to take into consideration, who in Europe did they fight. I personally think the Celts were very tough, they did take out most of the indigenous peoples in Europe. But to call them masters of Europe would be having to ignore Italy and Greece.

---

By 400bc there really was no other culture in Europe that had as much territory as the Celts, this is what I am referring to when I call them the masters of Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

To my knowledge the Celts had one major incursion into Greece, but quickly afterward they were chased out. Greece at this time was weekend, but they still were able to push out the Celts.

---

Still a branch of this Celtic wave stayed in their territories and really only ended up getting conquered by the Romans later on, so they were good enough to invade and settle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

As far as Italy is concerned I talked about it already in this thread. I feel like I showed that the Celts were outclassed by the Romans. In the 4th Century after the Celts sacked Rome then what? The Romans consistently defeated them all the while embroiled in other disputes and wars.

---

The Celts seemingly were outclassed much later on after the sack of Rome, but the issue really comes down to how much we can really trust Roman sources. I think I've said that a number of times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

The Celts most certainly a tough people did win against the Romans, but it was the Romans who won most of the time.
When it comes to the Germans, where were they most of the time? Historically we don't really hear about them till around 200 BC.

---

In Germania and undoubtably trying to push into Celtic territories, that remained Celtic, which implies that the Celts seemed to be capable enough of fight off the Germans. The issues surrounding the Belgae asside in terms of their ethnic makeup, they were basically Celts and they were fighting against the Germans on a regular basis, and their existance does pretty much imply that the Celts were not getting beaten left right and center by the Germans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Before 200 BC did they meet up with the Celts and if they did what happened? The only thing that I'm aware of was when the TCA started southward and look at the results. Before the TCA, how did the Belgae get to where they were(I consider them German when they first arrived)? When the Suebi arrived we have written records of those actions, and what were the results. The Celts were not wimps by any imagination, there martial ability shows in the records of their enemies and of the foes the conquered. I just think the Romans and the Germans were tougher.
I agree with your paragraph after this one, there were many factors that hurt the Celts. I believe the lack of unity and infighting is a big contributing factor for them losing to Caesar.

---

I'm personally leaning towards the opinions that the Celts on the Iberian peninsula, particularly the mountain areas, and coastal areas, the Britons, and Caledonians and the Celts on the Northern and Eastern parimiter as well as the Alpine Celts, were probably the most vicious and because they were actually on the fringe of other cultures and therefore more likely to have experienced total war rather than tribal and ritualistic war which probably occured on a low intensity throughout the bulk of Celtic territory.

I also think that the average Celt probably, like what Julius Caesar was saying, were basically getting too soft, surrounded by Celtic folk, with quite a multitude of gold mines in their territories and probably quite a lot of successful trade and business ventures going on which would have understandably obstructed the typical process of ritual warfare. the Parimiter Celts on the other hand had to be vicious and vigerous in order to survive.

Now if we were to look at toughness as seperate from technological advantage, then I think that it is highly likely that the enviroment the Germans lived in made the average German much tougher than the Average Celt, and that Celtic warrior classes were Indeed tough having been raised to be warriors and undoubtably bred from the finest fighting stock, the Celts afterall, like many other ancient peoples were very big on proto-eugenics.

For example the Celtic religion held the belief that a child didn't have a soul until after several days (I think 9) during this period the child would be examined for deformities or disabilites, and if the child was found to be disadvantaged in any way, it would be killed and the killing would not religiously offend the Celtic parents and the Celtic society they belonged to.

If we can assume that the typical wargear of the average Celtic soldier would be a shield and a spear, then the typical German armed with the same would probably outclass the average Celt, minus the ones that lived in the territories I mentioned above where more traditionalistic intense warfare occured and culture war skirmishes occured.

In terms of technological edge though, the Celts do seem to have had more access to Iron and were extremely good Iron workers and are thought to be the inventors of chainmail, the longsword, they were the same people that produced the helmet types the Romans ended up using, and the Iberian Celts produced the sword that the famous Roman legionary used.

So, the Celts would have had a very distinct advantage technologically over the Germans, and we can assume that the warrior elite would be much more likely to be not only tougher fighters than average, but also better armored and equipped, but obviously a minority.

I think that because of this Celtic elites should be a bit tougher than most Germans, and at least as tough as most of the very tough Germans, but their main advantage should come in terms of their technological superiority in terms of arms and armor.

As for the Romans, refrom Romans were equipped universally with gear that Celtic nobles typically had, and were trained to basically exploit the flaws in Celtic tactics from noble infantry and regular infantry, so undoubtably should be better and tougher with toughness and moral superior only second to the most extreme berserker types found within both Celtic and German society.

In terms of EB though, I think that this sort of setup is already in place, the Germans do always seem to be tougher than my average units and really only my elites and more extreme Belgae troops are capable of really fighting back the Germans.

I, as an anthropologist, can certify that nearly every comment about skull types, would-be races and other pseudo-scientific comment about ino-european expansion is absolute RUBISH.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenrhyl

I, as an anthropologist, can certify that nearly every comment about skull types, would-be races and other pseudo-scientific comment about ino-european expansion is absolute RUBISH.

---

What is pseudo-scientific about the fact that different genetic clusters often produce people of a distinct phenotype that makes it possible to distinguish one group from another group based on skull type?

Also what is pseudo scientific about the Indo-European expansion? the kurgan hypothesis is pretty much accepted by everyone and is backed up by archeology and population genetics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

The hair conversation aside though.


I'll ask the question. How much can we trust Roman accounts? at least when it comes to battles?

---

How can we believe in any history?, Governments were liars then, just as they are now.
Any written history is the "perception of the writer".
Just because its written in a book does not make it fact, you all spend a lot of time arguing about this or that, and the truth is you are probably all wrong.
Sorry if that annoys some people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zonks32

How can we believe in any history?, Governments were liars then, just as they are now.
Any written history is the "perception of the writer".
Just because its written in a book does not make it fact, you all spend a lot of time arguing about this or that, and the truth is you are probably all wrong.
Sorry if that annoys some people.

---

Have you ever studied history. There are ways to limit how the bias of the writer interferes with the facts of the story. There is no doubt that there are some truths hidden in every lie, it wouldn't be a good lie if there wasn't, and it is up to the good historian to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zonks32

How can we believe in any history?, Governments were liars then, just as they are now.
Any written history is the "perception of the writer".
Just because its written in a book does not make it fact, you all spend a lot of time arguing about this or that, and the truth is you are probably all wrong.
Sorry if that annoys some people.

---

D'oh. If history were just a matter of paraphrasing older writings and taking things at face value there wouldn't be a point in having historians who, you know, research things now would there?

Finding out the exact truth is in almost all cases is a dream confined to the nineteenth century and Rankean historians, and your statement is one that has seen a far more extensive analysis in the twentieth century. I suggest that if you wish to form an opinion relevant to the study of history in the present, that you do some research into the influence of Postmodernism on history. The opinion you convey is your post is outdated and the debate has moved far beyond it, so if you're really interested in the implications of your view you'll be sure to find a fascinating debate.

Remember, for starters, that much information about the past is recovered from implicit rather than explicit sources and does not rely on the author's intentions, which indeed is always biased in some regard (either on purpose of subconsciously). Historians, decent ones at least, do not really solely on the explicit statements of a source but take into account other evidence, the conscious bias of the author, the nature of the source, even what the survival of the source says about the priorities of those who preserved it... the list could be endless and allows for much information to be acquired from even the seemingly most useless source. No, absolute facts are largely impossible and many interpretations are likely, but isn't that the case even in modern day media?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenrhyl

I, as an anthropologist, can certify that nearly every comment about skull types, would-be races and other pseudo-scientific comment about ino-european expansion is absolute RUBISH.

---

I, as a linguist/philologist, can certify that skulls DO exists (i have one), and denial of clear evidence of Indo-European material culture/language spread is absolute pseudo-science and RUBISHish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zonks32

How can we believe in any history?, Governments were liars then, just as they are now.
Any written history is the "perception of the writer".
Just because its written in a book does not make it fact, you all spend a lot of time arguing about this or that, and the truth is you are probably all wrong.
Sorry if that annoys some people.

---

A wise person realizes that all of reality is a matter of perception (SEE Plato's Allegory of the Cave) and therefore does not let any outside sources sway him/her to believe something based on face value and rather judges it in comparison to all of the things he/she knows and verifies it through experimentation and thus can believe it true to the extent that it holds up to the conditions pressed upon it... Only sheep believe what is told/read as if it were fact...
http://re3.mm-a4.yimg.com/image/3016665464 "Big man, pig man, ha ha charade you are" http://re3.mm-a4.yimg.com/image/3016665464 oh I love the Classics.
Yet the dogs and pigs are no better... so we all must ask ourselves, which are we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zonks32

How can we believe in any history?, Governments were liars then, just as they are now.
Any written history is the "perception of the writer".
Just because its written in a book does not make it fact, you all spend a lot of time arguing about this or that, and the truth is you are probably all wrong.
Sorry if that annoys some people.

---

Actually I've said several times now we can't truly trust any written source, hence the reason you have comparitive and cross referencing and study, for example, does a written record stand up to archeological fact? does a population movement and conquest stand up to population genetic trends?

Lots of governments contain people that are liars but really to say that government full stop by default is full of liars really is a bit of a groundless absolute.

I've noticed theres lots of cliche sayings around nowdays like "power corrupts", my usual response is, "the people that say that often never have any power at all and therefore couldn't possibly understand the effects of power".

I think too much power given to the wrong people, those being often less intelligent and consequently more short sighted people will become easily corrupted by large amounts of power, but does power corrupt as a whole? no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

By 400bc there really was no other culture in Europe that had as much territory as the Celts, this is what I am referring to when I call them the masters of Europe.

---

True and in this I would agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

Still a branch of this Celtic wave stayed in their territories and really only ended up getting conquered by the Romans later on, so they were good enough to invade and settle.

---

I was kind of thinking they were under the rule of one of the Greek/Macedonian kings. I thought they were using them as troops and/or mercenaries, I could be confusing them with something else though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

The Celts seemingly were outclassed much later on after the sack of Rome, but the issue really comes down to how much we can really trust Roman sources. I think I've said that a number of times.

---

Between 390 and 367 there appears to be no conflict between the Celts and Rome. Starting around 367 the Romans defeat the Celts the majority of the time. This is the link to my argument on the subject,courtesy of Watchman. .https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=144

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

In Germania and undoubtably trying to push into Celtic territories, that remained Celtic, which implies that the Celts seemed to be capable enough of fight off the Germans. The issues surrounding the Belgae asside in terms of their ethnic makeup, they were basically Celts and they were fighting against the Germans on a regular basis, and their existance does pretty much imply that the Celts were not getting beaten left right and center by the Germans.

---

Maybe there was a misunderstanding here or I'm not sure what your getting at. If the Belgae were German, which I believe they were, they would have had to defeat some Celts to arrive at the Northern coast. I do believe they became Celticised through culture and admixture of the two people's. Other then the Belgae I haven't heard of any Germans making inroads until the TCA. I have no doubt that there was raiding on both ends, Celts raiding Germans and vice versa. Why there were no other incursions I don't know why. It could have been the German migrations hadn't reached this area yet, the Germans couldn't overcome the Celtic oppida(I read that somewhere, cant recall where though) or simply as you put it, they couldn't overcome the Celts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

I'm personally leaning towards the opinions that the Celts on the Iberian peninsula, particularly the mountain areas, and coastal areas, the Britons, and Caledonians and the Celts on the Northern and Eastern parimiter as well as the Alpine Celts, were probably the most vicious and because they were actually on the fringe of other cultures and therefore more likely to have experienced total war rather than tribal and ritualistic war which probably occured on a low intensity throughout the bulk of Celtic territory.

---

An interesting opinion, and it does make since to me. I believe according to Caesar it was the Belgae who were the fiercest of all the Celts with the Nervii being the fiercest of all the Belgae. The Iberian Celts were ones to give Rome a very hard time. It was also the Iberian Celts who after a few years repulsed the TCA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

I also think that the average Celt probably, like what Julius Caesar was saying, were basically getting too soft, surrounded by Celtic folk, with quite a multitude of gold mines in their territories and probably quite a lot of successful trade and business ventures going on which would have understandably obstructed the typical process of ritual warfare. the Parimiter Celts on the other hand had to be vicious and vigerous in order to survive.

---

I would agree with you on the southern Celts getting soft. But as far as the Sequani, Arverni, Aedui and others in this area I would disagree. They would still be battle hardened from fighting each other and the Germans. What you said with the perimeter Celts I would agree with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

Now if we were to look at toughness as seperate from technological advantage, then I think that it is highly likely that the enviroment the Germans lived in made the average German much tougher than the Average Celt, and that Celtic warrior classes were Indeed tough having been raised to be warriors and undoubtably bred from the finest fighting stock, the Celts afterall, like many other ancient peoples were very big on proto-eugenics.

For example the Celtic religion held the belief that a child didn't have a soul until after several days (I think 9) during this period the child would be examined for deformities or disabilites, and if the child was found to be disadvantaged in any way, it would be killed and the killing would not religiously offend the Celtic parents and the Celtic society they belonged to.

---

I agree with you. Kind of funny but never really thought of proto-eugenics before, though the Spartans did practice this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

If we can assume that the typical wargear of the average Celtic soldier would be a shield and a spear, then the typical German armed with the same would probably outclass the average Celt, minus the ones that lived in the territories I mentioned above where more traditionalistic intense warfare occured and culture war skirmishes occured.

---

I would say that the Germans outclassed the Celts in general, regardless of the territory. The written records that I know of which is basically from Caesar and Tacitus bares this out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

I think that because of this Celtic elites should be a bit tougher than most Germans, and at least as tough as most of the very tough Germans, but their main advantage should come in terms of their technological superiority in terms of arms and armor.

---

I agree here and with the one you posted below.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenrhyl

I, as an anthropologist, can certify that nearly every comment about skull types, would-be races and other pseudo-scientific comment about ino-european expansion is absolute RUBISH.

---

I wouldnt mind seeing you expand on this on another thread. I completely disagree with you as of now but would like to see why you have this theory.

There is a distinction between Celtiberians and Iberian Celts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

True and in this I would agree.

---

I was kind of thinking they were under the rule of one of the Greek/Macedonian kings. I thought they were using them as troops and/or mercenaries, I could be confusing them with something else though.[/QUOTE]

Nah, Galatia was fairly successful, these Celts could and did live surrounded by mostly hellenic people and thrive and they did often engage in border skirmishes and did also attempt land grabs, that were often unsuccessful granted, but the reverse also wasn't that successful either. So in short the Celtic invasion into the territory did leave its mark and the Celts did have a surprisingly decent amount of staying power.

The Romans however ended up essentially conquering the Galatians by simply incorporating the territory into the Empire, but a lot of this was through diplomacy and administrative reforms rather than the more dynamic conquests of Gaul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Maybe there was a misunderstanding here or I'm not sure what your getting at. If the Belgae were German, which I believe they were, they would have had to defeat some Celts to arrive at the Northern coast. I do believe they became Celticised through culture and admixture of the two people's. Other then the Belgae I haven't heard of any Germans making inroads until the TCA. I have no doubt that there was raiding on both ends, Celts raiding Germans and vice versa. Why there were no other incursions I don't know why. It could have been the German migrations hadn't reached this area yet, the Germans couldn't overcome the Celtic oppida(I read that somewhere, cant recall where though) or simply as you put it, they couldn't overcome the Celts.

---

I would consider the Belgae to be a mixture persoanlly but more Celtic leaning than German due to the fact that Julius Caesar says they were getting into regular scraps with other Germans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

I would agree with you on the southern Celts getting soft. But as far as the Sequani, Arverni, Aedui and others in this area I would disagree. They would still be battle hardened from fighting each other and the Germans. What you said with the perimeter Celts I would agree with.

---

Perhaps the Idea that the Celtic powers had been weakened overall through civil war is more exclusive to the Arverni and Aedui rather than all Celts in general.

Overall it seems that we are agreeing on most things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

There is a distinction between Celtiberians and Iberian Celts.

---

Celtiberians being a mixture of the Celts and Iberians and Iberian Celts being Celts who lived in that area? If thats what your referring to, good point. To my knowledge it was the Celtiberians who were giving Rome a hard time, not the Iberian Celts as I said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

Nah, Galatia was fairly successful, these Celts could and did live surrounded by mostly hellenic people and thrive and they did often engage in border skirmishes and did also attempt land grabs, that were often unsuccessful granted, but the reverse also wasn't that successful either. So in short the Celtic invasion into the territory did leave its mark and the Celts did have a surprisingly decent amount of staying power.

The Romans however ended up essentially conquering the Galatians by simply incorporating the territory into the Empire, but a lot of this was through diplomacy and administrative reforms rather than the more dynamic conquests of Gaul.

---

I was thinking that in northern Greece there were a couple of tribes of Celts who ended up staying and were used by the Greeks. I might indeed be getting them up with the ones who became Galatians. The rest of what you say I would agree with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

I would consider the Belgae to be a mixture persoanlly but more Celtic leaning than German due to the fact that Julius Caesar says they were getting into regular scraps with other Germans.

---

I would agree with you during Caesar's time and even before that they would be a mixture. What I'm getting at is there had to be a base German group to arrive in that area to get to the mixture of the two. The Germans also fought one another just as the Celts fought each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

Perhaps the Idea that the Celtic powers had been weakened overall through civil war is more exclusive to the Arverni and Aedui rather than all Celts in general.

Overall it seems that we are agreeing on most things.

---

I'm still not convinced that the Arverni,Aedui,Sequani and etc. that is was any thing excessive. I just haven't read anything to the contrary of Simon James or A. Goldsworthy. But yes very little disagreement between us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Celtiberians being a mixture of the Celts and Iberians and Iberian Celts being Celts who lived in that area? If thats what your referring to, good point. To my knowledge it was the Celtiberians who were giving Rome a hard time, not the Iberian Celts as I said.

---

I figured you were talking about the more catastrophic defeats the Romans had in that time, relating to Celts. So yes, that's what I meant.

The Celtiberians were Iberians who had mingled somewhat with Celts and had a substantial Celtic influence. Romans and Carthies liked that they were disciplined as the Iberians and fierce and warlike as the Celts.

The Iberian Celts were mostly in the northernmost part of the peninsula, particularly the Northwest, which had (even during different times) close ties with Britain and Ireland. To be fair they did give the Romans trouble...massive deportations, mass murders, entire cities were burnt to the ground in order to defeat them. Some resisted well into the time of Augustus.