Celtic overpowered!

There is definitely some planned if not already implemented regional unit recruitment overlap between British Celts and Iberian Celts that represents that they had common ancestors/culture, seen in the movements of the Megalith cultures... sorry, but I don't remember if it was Spanish troops who could build their own in Britain or the British who could build their own in Iberia, but the logic is that idea that ancient travelers from Spain made up at least a small fragment of British culture.... I have read that is where the supposed "black Irish" come from and why the Picts are such a mixed and non-specific ethnicity, among other reasons of course, concerning the Picts.

Excellent discussion for a while there. Going to have to crack open some new books in my spare time :).

As to the OP stating that the Celts are overpowered...I'm not seeing it. I'm a veteran RTW and mods player playing on h/h and while the fights are tough - they are still beatable. By 220BC I had all of Italy, France, Spain, North Africa almost to Egypt and parts of Germany destroying their respective native factions. Marching or shipping full stacks into the areas that needed pacification:whip: accepting losses where needed and beating the natives down works wonders. Rome's units may not be the absolute best but they just keep coming.:smash:

Tactics on the battle map as others have alluded is the key. As Rome - you simply can't run over everyone like you can in some other mods. It's unfortunate that there is a 20 unit cap per side on the battle map (unless you like the AI commanding allies :thumbsdown: ) which results in you not being able to take advantage of the greater manpower of Rome as you could in RL. Not much to do about this save multiple attrition attacks.

Excellent mod. Definitely glad I found this site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starforge

It's unfortunate that there is a 20 unit cap per side on the battle map (unless you like the AI commanding allies :thumbsdown: ) which results in you not being able to take advantage of the greater manpower of Rome as you could in RL.

---

From my armchair, I had thought the Romans were typically outnumbered when fighting the Celts? The siege (or rather attempted relief of) Alesia springing to mind. The numerical disadvantage reported in some of the fights against the Britons (e.g. the defeat of Boudicca) was also extreme.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

From my armchair, I had thought the Romans were typically outnumbered when fighting the Celts? The siege (or rather attempted relief of) Alesia springing to mind. The numerical disadvantage reported in some of the fights against the Britons (e.g. the defeat of Boudicca) was also extreme.

---

Much like Herodotus, Caesar was a little too eager to make the numbers of his enemies a little greater than they should.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

Think of Massilia as the interface between the Mediterranean world and the continental (as in Gallic) world. There's massive amounts of trade going through it, and in order to reach the rest of gaul the trade route must cross Arverni lands. Taxing and downright raiding is an awesome way to get wealth in order to fight your wars.

---

Cunliffe's Greeks, Romans and Barbarians has a lot on this topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

From my armchair, I had thought the Romans were typically outnumbered when fighting the Celts? The siege (or rather attempted relief of) Alesia springing to mind. The numerical disadvantage reported in some of the fights against the Britons (e.g. the defeat of Boudicca) was also extreme.

---

Those were also popular uprisings IIRC, with the due result that a lot of the numbers were pretty much the Celtic equivalent of angry peasants with pitchforks - largely useless chaff in a real battle against proper troops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

From my armchair, I had thought the Romans were typically outnumbered when fighting the Celts? The siege (or rather attempted relief of) Alesia springing to mind. The numerical disadvantage reported in some of the fights against the Britons (e.g. the defeat of Boudicca) was also extreme.

---

Somewhat true....but that was much later after the reforms. I'm still using some original (experienced - worth keeping) and Polybius units. I can still win even when outnumbered sometimes (though it's tougher on hard). Alot depends upon what type and mix of units they've fielded. I actually have more trouble with the better or elite hoplite units than I do against the Celtic tribes.

For all what the Romans were have supposed to have done they did like to over egg it. This is why Britain BC is really fascinating for me and I'm just getting into it. There was a programme made on one of the history channels called 'Britain BC' (researched by Francis Pryor) and it is a real eye opener, it was for me at least. For too long in the UK Britains history has been started from when the Romans invaded but as has been proved the Romans nearly wiped out a History thousands of years older than their own.

Britain for example had, laws, civilisation, Roads plus other things the Romans were given credit for. There is a myth that farming was brought to England from the Middle East, this has been discounted as well. There is a copper mine in North Wales that was thought to be Roman but on further digging it is now proved to be 3,500 years old at least and proves that Britain was trading with mainland Europe as the copper lumps and the tin from Cornwall were taken to Europe and made into swords/jewellery and other stuff. Because Britains at that time were using Celtic swords jewellery does not make them Celtic it means they were trading.

One of the most fascinating piece of research is through the DNA and it sold me to the cause, lol. The DNA they used was the Female DNA that exists in all of us and it provides an unbroken chain and is more reliable and Oxford University carried out the research. They research the 9,000 year old skeleton at cheddar gorge. The DNA collected was compared to the local village and was found to still exist near exactly in local people today. What does this prove? It proves that ancient Britons were not wiped out as was thought before. There a few books on it as I said before. I'm no expert but this is fascinating. As for the first Britons there is a definite link with Spain, or rather the Catalan region this would also explain why the languages were similar between Britain and mainland Europe. The term 'Celt' or 'Celtic' was first seen in 4oo BC and then not until the 17th century if I understood that part right. I'm not the expert that should be explaining this but if you interested Download the programme from Digital Distractions and see it for yourself.

Not only Gaels from Gaelicia went to Ireland but also the Belgae. They even founded the greatest port of ancient Ireland back then, Menapia IIRC.

If you search a bit about Ireland with the search option in top menu, you'll find many interesting old topics in which Ranika writes almost complete books about stuff like this. You'll also find great posts written by Anthony. Both are experts on the history of Ireland, Celts, etc,... To bad you can't read all the interesting posts of the EBHQ. Cause thier posts are much more interesting then most books or tv programmes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

To bad you can't read all the interesting posts of the EBHQ. Cause thier posts are much more interesting then most books or tv programmes.

---

How is that news?:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

......To bad you can't read all the interesting posts of the EBHQ. Cause thier posts are much more interesting then most books or tv programmes.

---

Is there any way.... you guys can publish those old forums so we can read them.... u know, it would be really nice :shame:

Betcha you could make a pretty good "Short Introduction To Ancient Celts" type book out of it with some editing. :balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boudicea

Hi, I'm just downloading your mod just to give it a go. i'm also heartened by the fact that you realism and wanted to add to your debate for the Celts.

Celtic history is being rewritten as far as Britain is concerned with the 'Celtic History' in Britain being mostly a fantasy the proposed slaying of Celts by the Saxons being one of the myths plus others. A few books are released on the subject and of which i am studying one. Francis Pryor also has done some extensive research on this.

Basically it is now thought that before Britain became an Island 9,000 - 10,000 years BC Celts from Northern Spain came to Britain. Then as Britain became an Island these Spanish Celts were the Ancient Britons and although traded with European Celts and shared a similiar language were quite seperate.

I wondered in the future would your mod reflect this?

---

Genetics supports this theory also, as well as texts like the much later Jordanes who pointed out that the Silures were a people most definitely from the Iberian Peninsula. That said I also believe that the red hair of the Caledonians was probably something that evolved in isolation either on the isles themselves or what would later become the isles, or was something that was prominent amongst a root population that acted as the founder population of what would become the Caledonian population. The spread of R1b and its predominence in the British isles is something of an indication of a strong genetic connection to the Iberian Peninsula, but its also a very Western European thing in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

From my armchair, I had thought the Romans were typically outnumbered when fighting the Celts? The siege (or rather attempted relief of) Alesia springing to mind. The numerical disadvantage reported in some of the fights against the Britons (e.g. the defeat of Boudicca) was also extreme.

---

In fairness to the Celts, Vercingetorix retreated to the Alesia after basically losing a fight to Julius Caesar, and the second army that came up was hard to coordinate because of this while they were under siege. Numerical superiority especially in the form of two armies isn't always something that is going to give you a victory in the end of the day, because really if the enemy don't know their arse from their elbow, coordination becomes very difficult.

I shouldn't compare computer game victories to actual historical victories but to put it his way I once bascially had three opposing armies pinned down and getting ruined by me due to the simple fact that I had basically gone a nomadic steppe faction broken down into three basic sections, two cavalry archer groups and one heavy cavalry attack group that would force the enemy to always face them while the other two flanked and harassed.

Despite their numerical superiority and superior fighting capacity when it got into close combat the simple mobility and coordination of my army made it pretty much impossible for them to get to grips with me and actually beat me, so in short two of the armies just decided to go hiding in forests while the other waited around for me and just got shot at.

Though it wasn't mobility that the Romans had on their side, they did have extensive defencive works around Alesia, understandably Julius Caesar wasn't going to give Vercingetorix even a sporting chance at defending himself, seeing as he had been successful in defeating the Romans before duing sieges. So an all out attack and invasion would have been problematic for the Celts, and the relief army would have very well understood the delecate times that they were in and would not have just opted for an all out gusto charge at the Romans, it had to be a coordinated effort and that coordiantion just wasn't there, and when time becomes a factor on the battlefield so does logistics, and the Romans logistical advantage was undoubtably, and the Celts knew this, hence Vercingetorix's scorched earth policy, he essentially attempted to sever the veins of the Roman army, and almost bloodywell achieved it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

Not only Gaels from Gaelicia went to Ireland but also the Belgae. They even founded the greatest port of ancient Ireland back then, Menapia IIRC.

If you search a bit about Ireland with the search option in top menu, you'll find many interesting old topics in which Ranika writes almost complete books about stuff like this. You'll also find great posts written by Anthony. Both are experts on the history of Ireland, Celts, etc,... To bad you can't read all the interesting posts of the EBHQ. Cause thier posts are much more interesting then most books or tv programmes.

---

What ever happened to old Ranika? does he no longer mingle with the plebs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

What ever happened to old Ranika? does he no longer mingle with the plebs?

---

RL got to hectic for him so he had to let his cousin Anthony take over.(I actually prefer Anny over Ranika. He's got a much better sense of humor.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celt

RL got to hectic for him so he had to let his cousin Anthony take over.(I actually prefer Anny over Ranika. He's got a much better sense of humor.)

---

Yeah, all due respect aside there were a few times I made jokes or sarcastic comments around Ranika and he seemed to take quite serious offense to them to the point that I had to explain I was just joking.

if we assume that Antoine is not an avatar of Ran ~;) he does use the same name on MSN... maybe we are all avatars :7fortuneteller:

So are Celtic cavalry getting a stats boost?

@blitzkrieg80:I think Anthony said Ranika lended him his PC and MSN address as he said he wasn't going to use them anymore. I believe him, since their personalities are too different to be the same person.(But then again, I've been known to have double-accounts hehehehe...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

So are Celtic cavalry getting a stats boost?

---

Or perhaps different models? Besides the Leuce Epos and Taramonos, the Brihentin, Remi, and Galatian Latuvakoi(sp?), all have the same model! Atleast give one of them barded horses.(*hin*Kataphractoi-Keltikoi*hint*)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celt

@blitzkrieg80:I think Anthony said Ranika lended him his PC and MSN address as he said he wasn't going to use them anymore. I believe him, since their personalities are too different to be the same person.(But then again, I've been known to have double-accounts hehehehe...)


Or perhaps different models? Besides the Leuce Epos and Taramonos, the Brihentin, Remi, and Galatian Latuvakoi(sp?), all have the same model! Atleast give one of them barded horses.(*hin*Kataphractoi-Keltikoi*hint*)

---

Or both?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

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

---

According to written records the Celts lost the majority of the time to the semi-militia/conscript Romans prior to Marius. If there was any weakening to the Celts during Caesar's time it was because of the Germans which Caesar himself alludes to. Even Ignoring the Aedui,Sequani/Arverni and their clients it still doesn't settle that the Belgae and some of the other tribes were not touched by the "civil war",these other Celts wouldn't have been weakened.Of the authors I have read only two say something of this conflict. It seems of no consequence to them. The two that do say something is James and Goldsworthy which as you know contradicts the belief of the weakened Celt theory.
So my question Blitz is what evidence does the rest of EB have to contradict this?

Nothing to contradict... 100BC is still not 270BC... do we have any evidence of Germans/Celts at 270BC? No... the description of Gallic or Germanic peoples at a time much earlier than recorded simply cannot be attributed or associated with the particular circumstances of a later time, especially when we have no evidence.

As mentioned, for the Late Period Project, if any Celtic faction people want to argue for them being weak in general, or strong, but much more strong than Germanics, I'll point them to these threads where you have ample evidence that the internal politics were hardly the single reason they succumbed to Germanic aggression.

Thanks for the info Blitz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

Suffice to say, if you took the time to actually read all the material / consider all the data and see the bigger picture, you wouldn't keep making all these ridiculous statements.

---

To disagree and say so is one thing, but making judgements that you have no authority on is inappropriate.

---

Authority?

Admittedly the tone may have been a little curt (apologies Frosty) but the content is far from “inappropriate”.
If an individual came to you and started remonstrating about how the sky was red, it’d be entirely appropriate to encourage such an individual to consider the full body of scientific evidence / data before committing to such conclusions… even at the risk of appearing conceited or lacking in some ethereal sense of “authority”. ~;) :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

Frosty.. I commend you on your labours but I'm sorry mate, this and much of the other material you cite in defence of your argument is just so contextually wrong. Trying to take select points out of any semblance of context and extrapolate that to support some hypothesis is just bolox!

---

I have to admit Im a bit disappointed at your response to this. In the past … there hasn’t been any real disparaging remarks. You.. have been very logical in posting but we just disagree.

---

Disappointed? .. I’m sorry if you have taken that personally, that wasn’t my intent. I’ve intended to address your position, not your person. I have no personal beef with you .. quite the contrary.
I’m also sorry that I haven’t had the time (or desire) to return and make amends / respond.
Having to deal with recent death and mayhem in RL, hasn’t left me the time or patience to deal with this in a manner I would have preferred…again sorry.

Re: Response. Without more ado…

Frosty, whilst no one would argue that both the Germans and Romans enjoyed a noticeable advantage over the Gauls of the 1st C BC, we do differ when one tries to claim that that aforementioned difference is an innate superiority in isolation of any regard for geo-political changes and circumstances that occurred over several centuries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

You said I should read up on these subjects and I have. I even read some of the others you quoted from. I even quit quoting from Newark because you didn't find him credible, and also from Ellis with the exception Marcus Claudius Marcellus vs. Viridomarus duel, and this was just to show that he wasn't quoting from livy.

---

And I highly commend you for your endeavours thus far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

The only reason I'm posting is to get a historical perspective and enjoy a game thats supposed to be as historical as possible.

---

Again, I commend you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

I put down authors,books and page numbers so I wouldn't be accused of using quotes out of context. These are books anyone can get.

---

I believe you’re confusing citation / source with context. Citing author, title and page number doesn’t prevent one from still taking things out of context, misinterpreting or misunderstanding the content if one suffers from a preconceived perceptual paradigm, which may or may not be the case here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Others can read these books and they can decide who is right, that's the main reason I have the author, book and page numbers..

---

Just for the record, it’s not a matter of “who”, but what is right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

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

---

Of course. The situation reminds me of an interesting story about 5 blind men and a White Elephant. Each was led to a different part of the beast (ears, tail, trunk, legs, belly) and asked to explain what an Elephant was. Excited by the challenge they were all quick to return their findings. Not surprisingly, each came to a different conclusion and the endeavour ended in a farce with inflamed tempers and some nearly coming to blows. The problem was of course that all of them, whilst sincere and correct in their analysis, were all incorrect in their conclusions. Whilst all per convinced of their own beliefs and passionately defended these beliefs, none had actually taken the time to gain an understanding of the full picture.

History, particularly ancient history, is our white elephant and we the blind men trying to find out what the hell it is all about. We need to take the time, have the patience and keep an open mind to ascertain as much of the beast as we can / all available data before jumping to the most “obvious” / simple conclusions. We need to address the study of history in a holistic manner.

Neither you nor I have the full picture. Gaining an understanding of ancient history, esp pertaining the so-called barbarians, is like trying to put together a huge jigsaw. Having studied this culture / geographically specific socio-political period / people for some 8+ years, I’ve discovered one can’t take a few chosen quotes from the likes of Jame’s ‘Exploring the World of the Celts’ in isolation and try and deduce some sort of comprehension from it. Especially when the aforementioned is a rather simple albeit informative picture book / historical candy.
It’s worth noting that to date there is no definitive work on the Celts. To get a good understanding one must not only read all the available public works but the published papers, research, archaeological findings and analysis of the material culture, etc from literally dozens upon dozens of scholars from several universities throughout Germany, France, Ireland and the UK.. to stand any chance of making sense of the different pieces of the puzzle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

I believe things to be like this:
Infantry: Romans>Germans>Celts
Cavalry: Germans>Celts>Romans
Siege: Romans>Celts>Germans.

---

Here-in lies the problem. This is extremely simplistic and ignores significant variations, changes and situational circumstances over almost Six Hundred Years of history, what Psychiatrists call the perceptual shortcut. One can’t take a few select pieces of data in isolation and draw an informed conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

I would say that the Germans outclassed the Celts..regardless of the territory.

The Celts were not as good as the Romans nor the Germans.

I believe the German warrior to be superior.

The Germans should be superior to them (Gauls).

---

I do hope this is due to the aforementioned unconscious condition and not a conscious out flow of some ethno-cultural pride issue?
Throughout this debate you have endeavoured to increase your knowledge but appear to have only used data that supports your hypothesis. Data either carefully selected or taken out of context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Goldsworthy “Caesar”-"Throughout the Gallic campaigns German warriors consistently defeated their Gallic counterparts, each success adding to their fierce reputation". Pg.274.

---

This has apparently become your mantra, having posted it several times in several threads. True, we would all be inclined to agree with Adrian on this account. But should we ignore several hundred years of events / changes and extrapolate events in the mid 1st C BC to those in the early 3rd C BC? Note that Adrian states “Throughout the Gallic campaigns”. It appears you have little problem with this, (nor using Tacitus’ accounts 150 years post Gallic subjugation). Are you seriously happy to assume Gallic / Celtic society was stagnant / unchanging over several hundred years of history?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Caesars cavalry while in Gaul were attacked by 800 German cavalry. The 800 Germans charged the 2000-3500 Roman (Gallic) cavalry, routed them and chased them all the way back to Caesars base camp 2 miles away. The German cavalry was better then the Gallic cavalry.

---

You have continually cited (ad naseum) this example from Caesar’s De Bello Gallico as evidence of the German’s superiority. It’s interesting to note that you have failed to take account of a similar / more impressive event of 400 hundred Gallic cavalry routing a larger contingent (4,000) of the same Roman (Gallic) cavalry (De Bello Gallico; I.XVI.VI). This Gallic cavalry being better than the other Gallic cavalry, why? …funnily enough the victorious 400 Gauls came from a nation that managed to avoid involvement in the great Gallic civil war.

The point here is not some innate genetic supremacy of a Germanic master race but rather the disparity in quality of a seasoned, veteran force of warrior elite to what amounts to the mobilised noblesse oblige and conscripts of a citizen militia. The later having recently survived the most devastating civil war in Celtic History. A war you apparently choose to deny / ignore / play down.

As far as citing Michael P. Speidel – “Riding for Caesar”, pg.12 and his account of “huge, unbelievably bold and expert fighters ..astonishing men making such a huge difference, etc”, I’m afraid he’s getting a little carried away in his dramatisation, an overt attempt to lay a foundation for his whole subsequent work / subject matter, ie Elite Germans in Roman employ. Drama sells.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

15,000 German warriors(Suebi) were dominating several Gallic factions and thats why they called for Caesar. The Germans were outnumbered and still managed to win. There should have been at least that many elites from the Gauls.

---

A rather gross misrepresentation I’m afraid.
Ariovistus did not “dominate several Gallic factions” with just 15,000 men. The 15k were the first contingent to cross the Rhine and provide support to the Sequani. Ariovistus had not acquired hegemony over these central Gallic factions until he was reinforced by some 105,000 Seubi, Marcommanni, Vangiones, Triboci, Eudusii, Nemetes and 24,000 Harudes and then defeated what must have then been a pitiful force of Gauls at the Battle of Magetobriga. This purported 120,000 - 144,000 army of Ariovistus would have vastly outnumbered anything the Aedui confederacy could have fielded at the time, little loan what the beleaguered Sequani were capable of.

What you also failed to note is that this force of 120,000 - 144,000 veteran Germans were defeated by 6 Roman Legions whilst 80,000 Gallic levys ("beggars and outcasts" - Caesar) defeated 10 Roman Legions. Do you see anyone making ridiculous claims about the superiority of Gallic arms, no!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Caesar talks of the valor and ferocity of the German troops. The Battle of Magetobriga in which the Aedui were to come to an end was a pitched battle. It was the 15000 German merceniaries that won the battle. From here the Germans go on to subjugate the Sequani.

---

Nope ..sorry

Again, if you are so happy citing Caesar, why ignore his statement regarding the aforementioned battle. “If anyone is alarmed by the fact that the Germans have defeated the Gauls (Battle of Magetobriga) and put them to flight, he should inquire into the circumstance of that defeat. He will find that it happened at a time when the Gauls were exhausted by a long war” (De Bello Gallico; I.XL.XIII). The Civil War you deny / dismiss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Simon James "The World of the Celts"-" 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.

---

Another favourite. This again is a case where it’s important to have a holistic understanding of the history in question.

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.

Gaul was extremely prosperous because the Gauls did NOT engage in total war. The very work you are so eager to cite (ie James …as does every other scholar) states this and I’m surprised you appear to ignore this significant fact and appear to prefer to project a 21st C Ad paradigm when rationalising data. The major trade centres remained untouched. The very war was over this wealth / trade / money / power. Archaeology only shows a burning / pillaging of minor settlements of no major value.

The devastation spoken of was to the Gallic armies, the warrior elite, the professional soldiery. This is what Caesar was referring to (De Bello Gallico; I.XL.XIII) when he stated that the Gauls were “exhausted by a long war”. He (Caesar) also mentions several times throughout his commentary how the Gauls were forced to mobilised their militia (farmers, craftsman, etc) and train them to fight. Why was this necessary in a warrior culture? … because the majority of the warrior elite were dead. The Great War spoken of by James (amongst others) had temporarily drained the coffers and the Gauls of trained fighters BUT all the major infrastructure remained intact. Caesar was an opportunist taking advantage of a wealthy but weaken proto-state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Take a look at some of the battles between the Germans and the Celts. The Germans destroyed the Menapii, The 800 cavalry already talked about routing the 5000 Roman/Celtic cavalry.

---

Please. For the record, the Menapii were not “destroyed” and the account proves nothing. Firstly, it is little surprise that any given group taken by surprise and unable to muster a force in defence would likely be slaughtered. Secondly, most of the tribe had already fled the continent years prior (57-56 BC) due to Caesar. Interestingly enough, they could only muster / mobilise 9,000 troops against Caesar and when they were at full strength. Even if they could have mustered against the Germans, they would have been at a significant numerical disadvantage. Thirdly, if the previous wasn’t enough, the Menapii were a maritime tribe with little martial heritage to this point. I cite your own quote;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"In 55 BC …they (Germans) scored an early success when their cavalry demonstrated the great stamina of their shaggy little mounts by making what would normally have been a three-day march in one night. The Gallic Menapii were taken by surprise and slaughtered."pg.230

---

Far from some demonstration of supreme martial prowess, the only thing worthy of note here is the “stamina of their shaggy little mounts” and the German’s eye for opportunity.

I’m surprised you have cited this obscure reference in defence of your hypothesis that all Germans were superior to all Gauls regardless of period or location. If one didn’t know better, one could be inclined to believe that such a move was born more out of desperation to substantiate a pre-conceived idea rather than a seeking a conclusion from objective analysis.

…already addressed your example of 800 cavalry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

If you have something that conflicts with what Simon James.. says I would love to read about it. I just believe the conflict is being exaggerated.

---

You can start by reading the rest of what James says…then diversify your reading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Of the authors I have read only two say something of this conflict. The two that do say something is James and Goldsworthy which as you know contradicts the belief of the weakened Celt theory.… I just haven't read anything to the contrary of Simon James or A. Goldsworthy…. James and Goldsworthy are the only one's who mention things of this subject

---

Not even close I’m afraid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Irregardless it wouldn't be all of Gaul was subjected to this as some have stated. The Germans when they came in would still be fighting the "stronger" Celts, not to mention tribes like the menapii who were not part of the "Civil War". Even Ignoring the Aedui,Sequani/Arverni and their clients it still doesn't settle that the Belgae and some of the other tribes were not touched by the "civil war", these other Celts wouldn't have been weakened.

---

Ok, for starters… I’m sorry but you’re wrong about the Belgae. Most of the Belgae were drawn into the Civil War. They just didn’t suffer nearly as much as their southern cousins.

I have to say I’m surprised by this claim. You wouldn’t have made it if you had done a little checking … I believe even James acknowledges this!
Secondly, the Germans did fight “stronger” Celts, those that had defeated them for several centuries prior the 1st C BC / Great Civil War and even during the 1st C BC (eg Nervii, etc).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

I believe if anything that Ariovistus may have superseded the Celtic limiters and therefore bringing both the Aedui and Arverni (and supporters) down. I don't think it was the infighting but the external force that may have brought them low…. If there was any weakening to the Celts during Caesar's time it was because of the Germans which Caesar himself alludes to..

---

Caesar does nothing of the sort! Quite the contrary in fact (see my previous quote). And regarding this hypothesis that the Germans “brought them (Gauls) low” / brought “both the Aedui and Arverni (and supporters) down”, out of curiosity, how do explain away all the evidence to the contrary? Explain the events, contemporary accounts, material data and the works of notable experts in the field. Do you seriously believe that belying the Germanic failure to make any advance against Celtic Gaul until the mid 1st BC that the Germans must have suddenly spontaneously appeared out of nowhere or was it that they just didn’t eat their spinach prior the mid 1st C BC? :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

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? 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 prior the 2nd C BC were generally beholden to the Celts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

De Bello Gallico.

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

Quote:
"caes.gal.6.24": [6.24] And there was formerly a time when the Gauls excelled the Germans in prowess, and waged war on them offensively, and, on account of the great number of their people and the insufficiency of their land, sent colonies over the Rhine. Accordingly, the Volcae Tectosages, seized on those parts of Germany which are the most fruitful [and lie] around the Hercynian forest, (which, I perceive, was known by report to Eratosthenes and some other Greeks, and which they call Orcynia), and settled there.

---

I'm going to do some supposition here and really don't have much to back this up with.. I just think the Romans and the Germans were tougher.

---

Here-in lies a problem. It appears one is far too ready to make suppositions on what one thinks / wishes to be true, rather than what actually is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

I don't have a problem believing the Celts could have more prowess and valor over the Germans.

---

I don’t understand…then what is the problem? You state this then deny it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

The problem would be when and which Germans. I do not believe JC was talking of recent years when he made this statement. The reason I believe it to be long ago is from the things that happened in the history of this area. If you start with the TCA(around 120BC), for the most part the Gauls couldn't stop them (Boii repelled them and the Celt-Iberians after a few years repelled them). Therefore I don't believe the statement of the Celts prowess being greater would apply here.

---

Again you are ignoring key points here. Firstly, the Germans (TCA) didn’t enter Gaul in 120 BC, it was some years later. Secondly, the Germans had with them significant contingents of Gauls with them, so again it proves nothing. Thirdly, the Gauls did actually manage to repel the aforementioned. Finally and most significantly, you’ve ignored the fact that the very Civil war in question began in 121 BC after the Arverni hegemony over Gaul was critically weakened by the defeat of King Bituitis and his Arverni alliance at the Battle of Vindalium by the Consular armies of Cnaeus Domitius and Quintus Fabius Maximus. It was this blow that struck the death knell to Gallic liberty. From the ensuing civil war, the Germans and Romans pounced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

You could consider this statement to be pre 120 BC, but then you would have to deal with the Belgae. I believe the Belgae arrived in northern Gaul around 200-250 BC and therefore forcing their way into northern Gaul and eventually being "Celticized". So it is my assumption that the Celts that JC was referring to were before 250 BC and they were attacking the Germans that would have lived in the Rhine area at that time.

---

The very notion that the Belgae (‘furious ones’) were Germanic so that their feats can be explained away / so they can fit into a preconceived paradigm… is ridiculous. They were not “Celticized”, they were Celtic.. long before their move west. The evidence for this is compelling and I haven’t the time to detail it all here. Suffice to say, if the Belgae were “Celticized” on their arrival as you suggest, then their resulting culture would have been a reflection of those they usurped. This was just not the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Again I'll state at the moment I don't really have anything to back this up with.

---

At least we can agree on something

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

.. But as far as the Celtic prowess over the Germans I'm thinking this had to be well before his time. We certainly know that the Germans of this time were superior in valor and prowess.

---

What time are you talking about? 1st C BC, after a bloody civil war that even Caesar acknowledges, then yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by Sarcasm

And (After these had been violently struggling with one another for the superiority for many years) the Arverni had to bring in germans to fight for them. Which can speak for the damage they suffered from the Aedui.

---

I'm not sure I would agree with this. It sounds to me like the Germans were brought over to break a stalemate.

---

Yes! ..and understanding the way Celtic power / clientage worked you would understand that being forced to seek help outside one’s ‘tuath’ was a huge blow to one’s prestige. Things must have be dire indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Some are saying that the "Civil War" with the Sequani, Arverni vs. the Aedui (there were others involved) in 70-60 BC was devastating and nearly brought all these tribes to ruin. I am disagreeing with this on the basis of the findings of Simon James ... My point about the in-fighting in the earlier years is that they didn't have the same kind of claims as being catastrophic as the one in the 70-60BC.
Have not the Celtic peoples been raiding, in-fighting and fighting since the 4th century BC? Yet there is no cry of "these are weaker Celts" or "spent" Celts. What makes this "civil war" time period different what so ever from any in previous era's?

---

Again, you are ignoring that fact that Gallic society was dynamic rather than static. Huge socio-political changes occurred in the several centuries we are discussing here. You wouldn’t judge 2nd C BC Imperial Rome by the standards of the 4th C BC Roman Republic, so why do it for the Gauls.
The reason for the severity of the last great civil war was due to the evolution of Gallic society. The population was booming and there were no more frontiers that could be easily exploited. Power was becoming more centralised, clientages more extensive. Wealth / largess, rather than martial feats in raiding had become the main source of social prestige and advancement in Gallic society since the major campaigns / migrations of the 5th to 3rd C BC (eg. The account of Lovernios “The Fox”). Production and trade was so lucrative that raiding well-prepared neighbours was of limited value. One’s prestige, power (retainers) depended more on what you could pay rather than what you could provide through petty thievery. So when you suddenly have huge political instability, large numbers of restless youth, constrained avenues for advancement and huge sums of money involved, the scene was set for the tragedy that unfolded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Even though the Germans were not well equipped for the most part they managed to defeat the Celts consistently.
The Germans consistently beat the Gauls during this period, but the Celtic units are much more powerful then the Germanic units because of this exaggeration that the Germans were fighting "weaker" Celts. I'll restate that the Germans are being diminished because of this exaggeration..

---

Seriously, what have you based this on? Again, the Gauls had been defeating the Germans for centuries prior the beginning of the 1st C BC. Is was only relatively late in the period where the balance of power had shifted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

I would base the German cavalry similar to the Remi Mairepos but I would give them a stronger charge and attack factor as well as higher morale… I would give their defense at least on par with the Remi Mairepos if not higher. Caesar says his Gallic cavalry were as good as the Belgae.

Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"Learning that the combined Belgic army was approaching the River Sambre, he crossed and fortified a strong position on the far bank to await their attack. Greatly outnumbered by enemies (Belgae) with a 'great reputation for bravery', Caesar began tentatively by sending out the cavalry to test them and 'soon found that his troops were as good as theirs'" pg.221

---

Again you have missed the wood through the trees. The very reason why Caesar found that “his troops” / Gallic cavalry was “as good as theirs (Belgae)” is because Caesar happen to have at this juncture significant contingents of Remi in his employ.. the finest Celtic (Belgae) cavalry to ever have existed.

As far as your complaints that the Celts are too powerful, I suggest you revisit the stats. Both the German & Roman units generally have better stats than the Celts. The weakest Sweboz skirmisher (intended to be an inexperienced youth) does very well against what was supposed to be the experienced Celtic warrior class (eg Botroas / Bataroas, etc). When you add the additional advantage of missile stats, etc I fail to see how you can still have a problem?

Admittedly I believe the German Cavalry to be a little weak in melee (I’ve seen one unit of German skirmishers destroy 4 units of surrounding Cav) but the same can be said for all the Celtic Cav as well. EB’s Gallic cavalry are completely useless except for chasing down routers. Greeco-Roman skirmishers not only chew them up in melee but they can often beat Regular Celtic infantry. Read the reports of those who have actually played the game and they will tell you that the game is almost too easy when playing the Greeco-Romans against the Celts. The only unit that will really offer a challenge is the Gaesatae.

Frosty, I have to say that you have a tendency to grab one event and post several quotes of the same event devoid of any context. Like our discussion on the Romans, you may well believe the Roman story of Romulus and Remus, Livy’s claim that a raven pecked out the eye of a Gallic chieftan during battle, that over half a million Gauls and Samnites were defeated in a few hours by only four Roman legions, or Plutarch’s claim that Roman legions jogged half a mile in mid summer and fought for a day against the Cimbri but “were so tough that not a single Roman was seen short of breath or had a bead of sweat” … but a little objectivity will better serve you in distinguishing fact from fiction. It doesn't matter how many times you post it, fiction will remain fiction.


my2bob

Hum, I dont see the reason for this topic... I'm Playing actualy in vh/h with Sweboz and SPQR and mostly general view cam... With sweboz I'm fighting both celts and raiding italy at same time.... And its not that much hard since celtic wars made them pretty weak...
With Romani I want to go historical and only invade them after ending with Quartadashin (almost done) and have some control in mediterranium zone...

I agree, the celtic factions are by no means overpowered - in terms of gameplay that is. I've played many campaigns and I have to say that the gaulic factions are usually destroyed before their second reform in 120 BC. Even when I gave them all reforms from the beginning, so that they had all the better units, it didn't help them at all. They're beaten up by each other, the Romans, the Sweboz and sometimes even the Carthagians or Lusotanni. In the game the Sweboz and the Romani have a much better economy and expand a lot, while I have rarely seen a gaulic faction own much more than northern / middle Gaul.
No matter how good their units are - it's economy that counts for the AI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Betcha you could make a pretty good "Short Introduction To Ancient Celts" type book out of it with some editing. :balloon2:

---

I would buy that book :2thumbsup:

I wonder if have so many units at 240 (on huge) is the reason for the bad economies. This is a big drain on the tax base for the cities...

It has nothing to do with unit size, I usually play large, but have also played on normal, it's not that much difference.
The Sweboz have the advantage of being surrounded by rebel provinces and can expand in all directions without much resistance, the Romans have a lot of money because they have rich provinces in Italy and expand around the mediterranean which means a lot of money through sea trade. The gauls are busy fighting each other plus the Romans and the Sweboz and do expand rather slowly. So they can't make that much money.