Has anyone here read Michael P. Speidel's Ancient Germanic Warriors?

Hi, I recently have been reading this book and found it fairly interesting, I won't really go into details just yet because its the initial post, but I was simply wondering if anyone on the forum or in the EB team has read the book and especially for the EB team if it has had any influence on the unit creation of especially Germanic units? (I know that may be a redundant question but the book covers consistent Indo European fighting styles almost as extensively as the example culture of the Germanic people).

I noticed that there were club warriors for example in the most recent versions of EB and right from the start large spear wielders.

Alternativly I would also be interested in any of the arguments people have against the claims and ideas of the book for example in some places it sort of asserts that the Italic and Hellanic people to some extent developed a significantly different fighting philosophy to that of the likes of the Dacians, Germans or Gauls etc who stuck to various IE warrior styles for a bit longer, whereas I feel myself that a lot of fighting, though obviously influenced by such things is also heavily effected by economics and materials, for example the lack of iron mentioned by Tacitus in the Germanic lands could account more for the lower tech equipment of the Germanic people especially in terms of metalwork.

So rather than a lack of armor based more on a deeply routed love of berserk and honorable combat that often it would simply be the case that mass producing high quality metal armor would have been out of the question for cetain cultures without the material resources for it often resulting in them having to compensate etc.

I'm starting to rant a little but in general, has anyone read this book?

P.S. I do actually think its quite good though I personally don't agree with everything in it.

I don't think the Gauls for example had any particular shortage of raw metals, yet their body armour was in practice restricted to the elite as well.

I'd say it's a question of sheer manufacturing capacity and organization mainly. The likes of Romans and such were "further along" in those fields and could thus produce decent armour in quantities that kept the price low enough their line warriors could also afford it - already by Late Republic the common Roman infantryman had war gear comparable to a Gallic nobleman, basically. That's obviously rather useful in a heavy-infantry slugging match.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

I don't think the Gauls for example had any particular shortage of raw metals, yet their body armour was in practice restricted to the elite as well.

I'd say it's a question of sheer manufacturing capacity and organization mainly. The likes of Romans and such were "further along" in those fields and could thus produce decent armour in quantities that kept the price low enough their line warriors could also afford it - already by Late Republic the common Roman infantryman had war gear comparable to a Gallic nobleman, basically. That's obviously rather useful in a heavy-infantry slugging match.

---

For the record I was referring to the Germanic tribes use rather than necissarily preference of light equipment (basically a shield and several spears, that could be used for throwing and stabbing) when I was talking about the lack of resources.

The Gauls to my knowledge didn't have any problems in terms of materials which is why their material culture is so rich in general. I don't really want the conversation to drift into the subject of the Gauls capacity to organize heavily equipped professional armies but I do think that armor was a bit more common amongst the Gauls than simply being limited to noblemen, though the Romans undoubtably were very red hot at mass production, drilling and training professional soldiers. Perhaps this was the result of a slightly more unified Italian peninsula mentality, I'm not entirely sure.

Minus the resource-base difference I'd imagine the roughly same considerations applied to both the Celts and the Germans.

As for the Romans and such, I wouldn't be surprised if the simple fact of Mediterranean ecology was a major part of the difference. The Med is in many ways very different from Europe north of the mountain ranges ringing it, and that's bound to have shown in the cultures that developed there.

'Course, the Latins were on the East Med ancient high-culture orbit through the Greek colonies and similar transplants, traders and whatnot, so of course they also adopted a lot of ideas and influences from there.

As for spears, well, those are cheap, cheerful, effective, and in forested regions in particular every household has a few if only for hunting and squabbling with the neighbours. Quite well suited for materially somewhat impoverished but pugnacious tribal warriors, in other words. Much later the Vikings were so fond of spears and axes for the exact same reasons - pretty much everyone had them already for utility purposes and knew how to use them, so pressing them into war service was a perfectly natural follow-up. Which of course detracted nothing of the prestige of the very expensive swords.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Minus the resource-base difference I'd imagine the roughly same considerations applied to both the Celts and the Germans.

As for the Romans and such, I wouldn't be surprised if the simple fact of Mediterranean ecology was a major part of the difference. The Med is in many ways very different from Europe north of the mountain ranges ringing it, and that's bound to have shown in the cultures that developed there.

'Course, the Latins were on the East Med ancient high-culture orbit through the Greek colonies and similar transplants, traders and whatnot, so of course they also adopted a lot of ideas and influences from there.

As for spears, well, those are cheap, cheerful, effective, and in forested regions in particular every household has a few if only for hunting and squabbling with the neighbours. Quite well suited for materially somewhat impoverished but pugnacious tribal warriors, in other words. Much later the Vikings were so fond of spears and axes for the exact same reasons - pretty much everyone had them already for utility purposes and knew how to use them, so pressing them into war service was a perfectly natural follow-up. Which of course detracted nothing of the prestige of the very expensive swords.

---

I guess it would require a more exstensive study of the resources to hand at the time of Tacitus and prior to that, based on the archeological finds of the ancient Germans and the accounts of them it seems safe to assume that their reasons for more simplistic equipment wasn't necissarily preference but basic resource shortages and trying to make do with what was to hand and what worked, Don't get me wrong however, the frame fraema or framm whatever you want to call it, was most likely a very good weapon but clearly more the result of a lack of resources if anything.

The value of more elaborate weapons such as swords would I suppose add another layer of validity to the idea that resources were poorer too and it's not exactly like they didn't see swords on an at least semi regular basis especially on the borders between Germania and Gaul, the Gauls undoubtably had lots of swords and the materials required to produce them.

I think overall the Latins benefited from a state of extreme warfare and invaders from all angles.

By the way did you refer to those spears as cheerful?

Obviously. See how they smile ? :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Obviously. See how they smile ? :clown:

---

====================================< =) >

Like that?

That's certainly a good start. Hard to beat those ancient Chinese bronze execution axes cast with openwork smiley-faces in the blade, though. :sweatdrop:

Im glade you posted this book, Ill look for it. Ive read tacitus (Agricola&Germania), Caesar (on Gaul) and a few other books that got me interested in western "barbarian" cultures.Im curious about a few things and Im hoping that Ill get some information here.
From the readings Ive gone over it seems to me the Teutonic peoples seemed to beat up on the Celts.The Teutons,Cimbri and Ambrones who stomped around Gaul and didnt seem to lose until the 3rd attack by the romans. Aristovus and the suevi came over and took portions of Gaul until defeated by the Romans under Caesar. Then there is the migration period in the 400's when the Celts were being invaded by the Franks, Anglo-Saxons,Goths and etc. When reading Caesar he wrote of the German cavalry running off the Gallic cavalry even though the Germans were outnumbered. The Celts according to Caesar seemed to fear the Germans and they said the toughest of the Celts were the Belgae. Of the Belgae the toughest of them was the Nervii. And the Nervii claimed to be decendents of the Cimbri who had crossed the Rhine 100 or so years earlier.

What my question is to all this it that the realistic mods tend to make the Celtic troops stronger then the Germanic ones, why? Both EB and RTR tend to have Celtic troops overall stronger then their German counter parts. I could be misunderstanding the information from these books. Maybe the German tribes outnumbered the Celts or some other reason, but thats what Im looking for. Why did it seem the German tribes thump on the Celts? I understand why the Roman troops are superior, they beat up both Celts and Germans.

As far as EB is concerned I was wondering why there isnt any German heavy cavalry. There is the cavalry that Caesar mentioned, the Gothic cavalry that rode down the huns at chalons and other such accounts.
Another question is on the Celtic naked fanatics (gestarne or something like that), why are they as tough as they are. I find it hard to believe they would be tougher then the spartans who spent there entire lives as soldiers.

All that being said, EB has done a wonderfull job. The amount of historical research, the skins the battles and on and on. Im very much impressed and very appreciative of all the incredible amount of work that went into this mod. Thanks guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Im glade you posted this book, Ill look for it. Ive read tacitus (Agricola&Germania), Caesar (on Gaul) and a few other books that got me interested in western "barbarian" cultures.Im curious about a few things and Im hoping that Ill get some information here.
From the readings Ive gone over it seems to me the Teutonic peoples seemed to beat up on the Celts.The Teutons,Cimbri and Ambrones who stomped around Gaul and didnt seem to lose until the 3rd attack by the romans. Aristovus and the suevi came over and took portions of Gaul until defeated by the Romans under Caesar. Then there is the migration period in the 400's when the Celts were being invaded by the Franks, Anglo-Saxons,Goths and etc. When reading Caesar he wrote of the German cavalry running off the Gallic cavalry even though the Germans were outnumbered. The Celts according to Caesar seemed to fear the Germans and they said the toughest of the Celts were the Belgae. Of the Belgae the toughest of them was the Nervii. And the Nervii claimed to be decendents of the Cimbri who had crossed the Rhine 100 or so years earlier.

What my question is to all this it that the realistic mods tend to make the Celtic troops stronger then the Germanic ones, why? Both EB and RTR tend to have Celtic troops overall stronger then their German counter parts. I could be misunderstanding the information from these books. Maybe the German tribes outnumbered the Celts or some other reason, but thats what Im looking for. Why did it seem the German tribes thump on the Celts? I understand why the Roman troops are superior, they beat up both Celts and Germans.

As far as EB is concerned I was wondering why there isnt any German heavy cavalry. There is the cavalry that Caesar mentioned, the Gothic cavalry that rode down the huns at chalons and other such accounts.
Another question is on the Celtic naked fanatics (gestarne or something like that), why are they as tough as they are. I find it hard to believe they would be tougher then the spartans who spent there entire lives as soldiers.

All that being said, EB has done a wonderfull job. The amount of historical research, the skins the battles and on and on. Im very much impressed and very appreciative of all the incredible amount of work that went into this mod. Thanks guys.

---

Well I can answer some of that. By the time everyone and their grandma were stomping on the gauls, their civil wars had destorys basicly all of their good, professional troops. So when Ceasar and the Germans came around, most of their armies would be made up of Lugoae, Gaelaiche, and the like, with a few dashes of Solduros and such around. Decent troops as they go, but no match for roman legions or germanic warriors.

IIRC the team said they were working on a heavy german cavalry unit. But Gothic Cavalry at Chalons would be a lot different then germanic cavlary at 272 bc.

And as for Gaesatae being so dam tough, that is what happens when you give a bunch of religious fanatics swords and shield, and get them high off their rockers on what was basicly PCP.

It shouldn't be forgotten that the germanic tribes raided succesful many years before the inner-gallic wars and defeated the gauls - as example under Ariovist...
Also we should not make the fault and believe in that great numbers of enemy warrios the romans mentioned while fighting the germanics.
Archaelogists could prove that the germanic homeland during he time we talk about was simply not furtile enough to give food to so many humans.
The theory about the germanic tribes outnumbering the settled gauls or romans is just wrong - at least in the border provinces.
It is a different thing with migration tribes as the Ambrones and the Cimbri and Teutoni, but even here you must subtract the numbers of childs, old men and women...

Also the germanic cavlary should be better than their gallic counterparts, but that is hard to implement as the germanic cavalry fought alongside fast moving infantrymen. Normally a fast running young warrior hold fast to the mane of the horse while charging the enemy cavalry andf while the horsemen fought against each other the men on foot were capable of killing their enemies horses.
A special tactic by the tribes -at least by the Suebians (Sweboz), that is sadly not in the game (model-wise not possible)

Interesting to note b.t.w. that the romans were very eager to enlist germanic cavlary after their war against King ariovist and his Suebians to fight for them against Vercingetorix and his gallic rebellion. I think one reason was that gallic cavalry feared the germanics and was usually (not ever) defeated.
The only thing i could imagine is giving the germanic light cavalry the fear ability to give them an advantage vs. their gallic counterparts.
The gothic horsemen is much to late for the EB mod.

Also while i agree with the lack of resources the germanic tribes had with iron, the plundered and raided in great numbers from the gauls. While it was sometimes heard of to sacrifice the whole equipment to the gods as the Cimbri did after defeating the romans it was more common to take the swords and use them in the oncoming fights.
In my opinion this is also a reason why there are so few swords found in germanic graves - those weapons were so highly demanded that they were given to their young warriors again and were not given to the dead as funeral items.

As ever - excuse my poor english:idea2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

It shouldn't be forgotten that the germanic tribes raided succesful many years before the inner-gaulisg wars and defeated the gauls - as example under Ariovist...

---

Raiding mostly requires a suitable bad attitude, enough mobility and a target easy enough to reach that you can hit it and get away with the swag before reinforcements turn up. It doesn't really have too much to do with ability in a straight-up mass fight.
Anyway, one gets the impression this kind of thing was figuratively speaking an everyday occurrence among the Germans, while the Gauls at least tended to more restrict it to certain seasons and mostly involved just their specialized warrior class in it ('cept as victims, of course).

Quote:

---

Also we should not make the fault and believe in that great numbers the romans mentioned while fighting the germanics.
Archaelogists could prove that the germanic homeland during he time we talk about was simply not furtile enough to give food to so many humans.

---

But wasn't their military tradition fully "tribal", as in every able-bodied freeman being able if not outright eager to fight, whereas conversely for example the Celts primarily left the fighting to a distinct warrior class ? Such peasant-warrior armies, especially ones with as few equipement-related entry requirements as the Germans had for practical reasons already, could AFAIK mobilize very large parts of the available (male) population - although with the obvious limitation that actual full-time professionals were few and far between.

'Course, one gets the impression the Germans did so much small-scale inter-tribal raiding and squabbling their farmer-soldiers were pretty tough cookies by sheer practical experience alone. The single-mindedly bloodthirsty related cultural traits they seem to have entertained wouldn't exactly have hurt either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

But wasn't their military tradition fully "tribal", as in every able-bodied freeman being able if not outright eager to fight, whereas conversely for example the Celts primarily left the fighting to a distinct warrior class ? Such peasant-warrior armies, especially ones with as few equipement-related entry requirements as the Germans had for practical reasons already, could AFAIK mobilize very large parts of the available (male) population - although with the obvious limitation that actual full-time professionals were few and far between.

---

Possibly, but even then the practical limitations forced upon them by the need for people in the agriculture and the logistics problems caused by a large concentration of men would limit the amount of men available for a campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

It shouldn't be forgotten that the germanic tribes raided succesful many years before the inner-gallic wars and defeated the gauls - as example under Ariovist...
Also we should not make the fault and believe in that great numbers of enemy warrios the romans mentioned while fighting the germanics.
Archaelogists could prove that the germanic homeland during he time we talk about was simply not furtile enough to give food to so many humans.
The theory about the germanic tribes outnumbering the settled gauls or romans is just wrong - at least in the border provinces.
It is a different thing with migration tribes as the Ambrones and the Cimbri and Teutoni, but even here you must subtract the numbers of childs, old men and women...

Also the germanic cavlary should be better than their gallic counterparts, but that is hard to implement as the germanic cavalry fought alongside fast moving infantrymen. Normally a fast running young warrior hold fast to the mane of the horse while charging the enemy cavalry andf while the horsemen fought against each other the men on foot were capable of killing their enemies horses.
A special tactic by the tribes -at least by the Suebians (Sweboz), that is sadly not in the game (model-wise not possible)

Interesting to note b.t.w. that the romans were very eager to enlist germanic cavlary after their war against King ariovist and his Suebians to fight for them against Vercingetorix and his gallic rebellion. I think one reason was that gallic cavalry feared the germanics and was usually (not ever) defeated.
The only thing i could imagine is giving the germanic light cavalry the fear ability to give them an advantage vs. their gallic counterparts.
The gothic horsemen is much to late for the EB mod.

Also while i agree with the lack of resources the germanic tribes had with iron, the plundered and raided in great numbers from the gauls. While it was sometimes heard of to sacrifice the whole equipment to the gods as the Cimbri did after defeating the romans it was more common to take the swords and use them in the oncoming fights.
In my opinion this is also a reason why there are so few swords found in germanic graves - those weapons were so highly demanded that they were given to their young warriors again and were not given to the dead as funeral items.

As ever - excuse my poor english:idea2:

---

Wow that's a long time. Hwover good to see it. We should think about your proposel to give the germanic cavalry unit, the scares enemy cavalry attribute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Raiding mostly requires a suitable bad attitude, enough mobility and a target easy enough to reach that you can hit it and get away with the swag before reinforcements turn up. It doesn't really have too much to do with ability in a straight-up mass fight.
Anyway, one gets the impression this kind of thing was figuratively speaking an everyday occurrence among the Germans, while the Gauls at least tended to more restrict it to certain seasons and mostly involved just their specialized warrior class in it ('cept as victims, of course).

But wasn't their military tradition fully "tribal", as in every able-bodied freeman being able if not outright eager to fight, whereas conversely for example the Celts primarily left the fighting to a distinct warrior class ? Such peasant-warrior armies, especially ones with as few equipement-related entry requirements as the Germans had for practical reasons already, could AFAIK mobilize very large parts of the available (male) population - although with the obvious limitation that actual full-time professionals were few and far between.

'Course, one gets the impression the Germans did so much small-scale inter-tribal raiding and squabbling their farmer-soldiers were pretty tough cookies by sheer practical experience alone. The single-mindedly bloodthirsty related cultural traits they seem to have entertained wouldn't exactly have hurt either.

---

Where to start?
Now, let's look at the facts - the celtic tribes including the Belgaeand Helvetii were driven from their lands (we have evidence of many celtic oppida's in germanic territory) in a frequent way to the west bank of the rhine - they were pushed westwards not by raiding but by contineous wars with germanic tribes.
This happened not only in the last decades before 1 AD but also long before. It was not some kind of "blitzkrieg" but many wars over decades.

If the average celtic warrior (not farmer) was so much better in warfare, the question is how the germanic tribes could push them this far west and southwards?
Peasant warrior armies would have not be able to defeat a warrior elite in a war - perhaps in a few battles but not in a long time war.
This is a question i raise just for EB stats system not for history sake.

The germanic warrior society was not purely tribal b.t.w. It was very common for young men to offer their fighting abilities to other tribes during peacetimes and so we could argue here we have a typical soldier/mercenary mentality. The Gastiz unit is a perfect example for this way of living.

Sure - germanic peasants could be called on for war really easily as the were not pure farmers. Those were unruly times and almost every farmer was also a warrior, but you could not call those warriors in a short time together, as germanic tradition was not to live in crowded areas. Also a reason why they almost were never captured en masse by their enemies - except during migrations, because they had no cities - so those places were not "man-traps"

Now - next point - those germanic tribes conquered gallic territory.
Why shouldn't they used this captured equipment too?
I stated already my view why there are such few sword found in germanic graves ( those graves are dated way after EB timeframe b.t.w.) and the "graves" of the moor-corpses don't count as they were mostly criminals. Who would give a criminal a sword on his last walk?
We have just Tacitus who says those germanic almost never used swords. The same Tacitus who describes a few rtribes as half men - half beast... and wrote his account almost by asking roman legionaires from the front who were very eager to describe their enemies in a not so kind and rather savage fashion.

I agree when we say that celtic warriors used much many more iron weapons and armour but it was definately not uncomon for germanic warriors to equip themselves with captured armour and weapons while the majority would have fought with their famed spears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Possibly, but even then the practical limitations forced upon them by the need for people in the agriculture and the logistics problems caused by a large concentration of men would limit the amount of men available for a campaign.

---

You have to know that it was common in germanic society to leave the work on the field for their women and slaves.
Naturally during harvest time the men helped but the typical role of a freemen(Frankamannoz) was a warrior-role.

Good to see you around more Sascha! :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

Also the germanic cavlary should be better than their gallic counterparts, but that is hard to implement as the germanic cavalry fought alongside fast moving infantrymen. Normally a fast running young warrior hold fast to the mane of the horse while charging the enemy cavalry andf while the horsemen fought against each other the men on foot were capable of killing their enemies horses.
A special tactic by the tribes -at least by the Suebians (Sweboz), that is sadly not in the game (model-wise not possible)

---

It has to be noted that all Diadochoi used this method too. Mainly Makedonians had one special corpse, called Hamippoi that did exactly the same thing. Hamippoi=amid the horses or under the horses

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

Good to see you around more Sascha! :2thumbsup:

---

Thanks Dave:beam:but i think you know the reason why i left.

Sad thing is there are many of the "old-timers" not around anymore:-(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keravnos

It has to be noted that all Diadochoi used this method too. Mainly Makedonians had one special corpse, called Hamippoi that did exactly the same thing. Hamippoi=amid the horses or under the horses

---

So, were these people dismounting from the horses (which could be carrying two) and then fighting, like later dragoons? Or were the horses going slower and being used more like raised fighting platforms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maeran

So, were these people dismounting from the horses (which could be carrying two) and then fighting, like later dragoons? Or were the horses going slower and being used more like raised fighting platforms?

---

Do you ask about germanic style of fighting or makedonian?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

Do you ask about germanic style of fighting or makedonian?

---

Either, but I figured there would be more literary evidence of Diadochi tactics.

Well, "typical" germanic cavalry warfare during the mentioned timeframe looked like a horsemen with one or two framea (a spear capable of throwing and melee) was accompanied by a young and agile man armed with mostly a long dagger or a frame too. While moving towards the enemy the rider throws one frame at the enemy line while the mount put up speed.
His companion all the while retained his grip on the mane of the horse and runs alongside the rider.
In the moment before the clash the charging germanic horsemen nearly dodged ( no stirrups ) his opponent and thrust his frame at the enemy horsemen while the young running warrior stabs the enemies horse through the belly.
Very effective and succesful tactic b.t.w.

The same tactic could be used vs. enemiy infantry, because the running warrior could so put up great speed for a charge while using his frame in this kind of clash.

B.t.w. germanic warriors loathed their gallic counterparts because of the stirrups they used. It was seen as unmanly for a warrior.

In the known battles between gallic and germanic cavalry those warriors almost ever came up on top and were highly desired as mercenaries by the romans.


One totally different point though:
Another reason why germanic troops often defeated celtic armies is because of discipline.
Sounds curious from a roman or greek view but it is known that while for celtic warriors war was a kind of show of personal bravery and honour germanic armies fought for plunder survival and personal wealth.

So, while celtic armies often became disorganized after the first clash and everyone fought for himself, germanic troops were trained to fight alongside their brothers, fathers and uncles in a typical tribesmen attitude.
Think of the typical shieldwall the vikings or saxon used much later for example.

Another note about germanic honour though:
It was not seen as shame or discgrace to leave the battlefield in a organized way to fight another day, but the shame to come home with your chieftain fallen on the battlefield or come home without the own shield (anyone think of Spartans here ?) was such a disgrace, it was often heard of commiting suicide by hanging from a tree ( one of Wodanaz' holy symbols ).

Another resemblance to the spartans akin the shield-thing was the acception or abadonemnd of a men's childs and the upbringing of the male childs.
Caesar quoted King Ariovist of the Suebians (Sweboz) about the young suebians who had not lived under a roof for many years and were only trained for war.
Although this point about the young tribesmen could not evidenced i think it is interesting and perhaps something new for some of EB's fans.

Quote:

---

B.t.w. germanic warriors loathed their gallic counterparts because of the stirrups they used. It was seen as unmanly for a warrior.

---

Um, you mean saddles?

And on discipline, have you read Lendon's book, Soldiers and Ghosts? He outlines how the Greeks, even when fighting in the phalanx, could still possess a "dueling," individual performance-based mentality. I think you're too quick to say the Gauls cared about individual honor and their battle lines broke apart, while the Germans stayed in their shield walls with their chieftain. I'm tempted to say you're relatively accurate with the Germans, but off base with the Gauls.

Let's also not forget that we don't know that the German's won their westward expansion through primarily pitched battle. In fact, I rather doubt that. Raids on farmlands and villages would fit more with their modus operandi, and over time would force the Gauls westward, as lands were burned and people slain. Sure, pitched battles and sieges would take place, ruined oppida reveal as much, but I doubt they would accurately characterize the majority of the fighting.

Sorry Viking, I didnt mean to change the subject of this thread. I just figured it was close to the subject of the book and asked the questions. I hope you dont mind me continuing on this course, if so just say so and we can start a new thread.

Safe, I have to agree with you on most of what you said. Your comments fit my recollection of what I have read. My ignorance mostly is about Celtic warfare prior to 100bc with the arrival of the Teutons,Cimbri and Ambrones. From the limited reading I have done, the Celts before 100 bc still had a hard time with the romans. And if Im not mistaking this is prior to the marius legion reforms. I know the Celts under Brennus did some major damage to the Romans but then again they would have a back and forth struggle. Ill restate that this is from my limited knowledge of the Celts prior to 100bc.
The German cavalry that chased the Celts in Caesars book didnt have the runners with them, at least I dont recollect them being there. I know later on there were numerous times when that did happen.

I do have some questions though.
1. Is it possible to make the runner cavalry in EB?
2.Historically there was the teutonicus furor or something like that. Im sure the Celtic and other "barbarian" tribes would have something simular. In EB is there anything like the battle cry?
3.I still have a problem with the Gaesatae being that tough. According to the stats they are better then the spartans. I have a hard time believing that. If it was based on unit formation such as the legion, I could understand that. But from what I read thats not the case. I just dont see how (drugged, fanatical) or whatever non-armored unit is going to face a unit of people who spend most of there lives learning to fight and come out on top. What are your thoughts on this?

The more I play this mod the more I like it. I think these guys did a great job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

1. Is it possible to make the runner cavalry in EB?

---

I don't think so, but would be really pleased to see that, anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

2.Historically there was the teutonicus furor or something like that. Im sure the Celtic and other "barbarian" tribes would have something simular. In EB is there anything like the battle cry?

---

Furor teutonicus is not a warcry, it just means "teutonic anger". Romans described them so because they were really frightened of theese tough warriors.

But I wonder why there is almost no warcry anymore in the game. Wasn't the warcry quite common for barbarian warriors? I've read in a book that the Ambrones cried the name of their tribe in the battle of Aquae Sextiae (it didn't help them that day, btw), and their opponents were always frightened of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paullus

Um, you mean saddles?

---

Naturally correct - my bad english - Sorry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Safe, I have to agree with you on most of what you said. Your comments fit my recollection of what I have read. My ignorance mostly is about Celtic warfare prior to 100bc with the arrival of the Teutons,Cimbri and Ambrones.
The German cavalry that chased the Celts in Caesars book didnt have the runners with them, at least I dont recollect them being there. I know later on there were numerous times when that did happen.

1. Is it possible to make the runner cavalry in EB?
2.Historically there was the teutonicus furor or something like that. Im sure the Celtic and other "barbarian" tribes would have something simular. In EB is there anything like the battle cry?

---

I think we can assume that the Teutonii or Teutones were really at least half celtic and not a pure germanic tribe buth mixed together with theri germanic "partners" on the migration.
While the Cimbrii and Ambrones are definately germanic.

The Baritus (germanic warcry) was rather different from normal warcries.
It started when the warriors were ready with a dull and slow kind of moaned chanting of the own tribe's name - from that point on getting louder and louder - enhanced by the fact that every warrior hold his own shield directly before his mouth which made the Baritus more resonant.
It must have been a very, very frightening sound as it was no typical screech or just plainless insults of the enemy.
BUT - germanic armies were known to be very superstitious.
If, by some matter the Baritus was broken or sounds oddly in their own ears it could be devasting for their own morale.
As i worked as germanic faction coordinator a few months ago i was try to implement the Baritus very eagerly and Jasper (The Tank) told me - now that he is in charge - he is still trying to give the germanic units this ability.

B.t.w. at this time we already had a beautiful sound recording of the Baritus.

As to your other question:
The runner cavalry is modelwise not possible. At least that was told me different times as i tried to implement this important unit to get rid of the typical defeats germanic cavalries suffer in the game by their gallic counterparts. Perhaps the frighten enemy talent helps here. Don't know for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

3.I still have a problem with the Gaesatae being that tough. According to the stats they are better then the spartans. I have a hard time believing that. If it was based on unit formation such as the legion, I could understand that. But from what I read thats not the case. I just dont see how (drugged, fanatical) or whatever non-armored unit is going to face a unit of people who spend most of there lives learning to fight and come out on top. What are your thoughts on this?

---

Two things. First, the Spartans weren't the elite in 272 that they were earlier. Second, the Gaesatae were not inexperienced lunatics: they were highly experienced fighters who took drugs to shrug off pain. They didn't simply throw themselves at a line in some disorderly fashion but were also expert swordsmen. The need for armour isn't necessary in such a case and may even hamper maneuverability enough to prevent full use of the blade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

Well, "typical" germanic cavalry warfare during the mentioned timeframe looked like a horsemen with one or two framea (a spear capable of throwing and melee) was accompanied by a young and agile man armed with mostly a long dagger or a frame too. While moving towards the enemy the rider throws one frame at the enemy line while the mount put up speed.
His companion all the while retained his grip on the mane of the horse and runs alongside the rider.
...In the moment before the clash the charging germanic horsemen nearly dodged ( no stirrups ) his opponent and thrust his frame at the enemy horsemen while the young running warrior stabs the enemies horse through the belly.
Very effective and succesful tactic b.t.w...
In the known battles between gallic and germanic cavalry those warriors almost ever came up on top and were highly desired as mercenaries by the romans...

---

There is no real Germanic cavalry, they are actually only better trained warriors on horseback who would also dismount and fight on foot...
a Germanic specialty was to cut the attacking horses knee tendons - maybe that was their success against the Gaul cavalry ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teutobod II

There is no real Germanic cavalry, they are actually only better trained warriors on horseback who would also dismount and fight on foot...
a Germanic specialty was to cut the attacking horses knee tendons - maybe that was their success against the Gaul cavalry ?

---

Here i disagree with you - a example is the description of the battle between Ariovist and Caesar. And in this battle it is definately clear that the germanics had a cavalry clash with the romans and did not dismount before.
Also a battle between the Aedui and the Suebians is mentioned in this way.

Alone for the previously described tactic the germanic had to train those fast runners along with horsemen over a long time.

But i agree with you when you mean they had no typical cavalry that was only trained for cavalry warfare, because germanic horsemen were very versatile and could dismount if necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

Here i disagree with you - a example is the description of the battle between Ariovist and Caesar. And in this battle it is definately clear that the germanics had a cavalry clash with the romans and did not dismount before.
Also a battle between the Aedui and the Suebians is mentioned in this way.

Alone for the previously described tactic the germanic had to train those fast runners along with horsemen over a long time.

---

yes, read that too...

[/QUOTE]But i agree with you when you mean they had no typical cavalry that was only trained for cavalry warfare, because germanic horsemen were very versatile and could dismount if necessary.[/QUOTE]
:yes: yes, thats about what I tried to say

Don't want to state the obvious but the only way to simulate this fast moving infantry with cavalry tactic in the RTW engine is 2 seperate units. A cavalry unit and an infantry (skirmisher?) unit that is deployed infront/behind it and engages the enemy at about the same time.

As a player you can do this. If the infantry hit first then they soak up the enemy charge, making your own cavalry's charge more effective. If your cavalry hit first then the infantry 'infiltrate' the melee, adding extra attacks etc.

Now, getting the AI to simulate this is another thing.....

Cheers,

Quilts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quilts

Don't want to state the obvious but the only way to simulate this fast moving infantry with cavalry tactic in the RTW engine is 2 seperate units. A cavalry unit and an infantry (skirmisher?) unit that is deployed infront/behind it and engages the enemy at about the same time.

As a player you can do this. If the infantry hit first then they soak up the enemy charge, making your own cavalry's charge more effective. If your cavalry hit first then the infantry 'infiltrate' the melee, adding extra attacks etc.

Now, getting the AI to simulate this is another thing.....

Cheers,

Quilts

---

Your're correct here, but the AI would never field up such kind of troops in this way.
Sadly:-(

So I take it nobody has read the book?

I guess I'm wanting to encourage the reading of the book because a lot of the warrior styles discussed in the book could be used to develope new and interesting units for the Sweboz or perhaps a future Germanic faction when the mod is exported to Medieval 2.

Who is the current Germanic expert guy? I'd be happy to quote the book and discuss the subject further with him/her(I assume its a him)

Viking Im glad you mentioned the book, Ill be looking for it. Im not familiar with the author but hopefully it was well researched.
Safe the only thing I disagree with you on your last posts is about the Teutons. I believe it was the Ambrones who were considered to be part Celtic. I believe the Teutons and Cimbri were Germanic. The cavalry discussion Im in agreement with you. I am also in agreement with you on the baritus. I think that would be great if that could be implemented.
Geoffrey s I have to agree with you on the time frame. In 273 the spartan war machine was weak compared to its former abilities. I still have a hard time with the Gaesatae being ranked so tough. It mostly comes from the lack of armor. One on one armor may not be so important, but in unit combat its very important. I have read what I could on the Gaesatae but I havent come across much information on their exploits. Ive checked wikipedia and a few other places but found little information on their martial prowess. Wikipedia did say that they had an edge on other Celtic armies, but in the battles I read about it didnt say much about them being a major part. Im hoping that you or someone else can tell me where to look up information on the Gaesatae. I appreciate all of you guys responding and the information you have been providing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Viking Im glad you mentioned the book, Ill be looking for it. Im not familiar with the author but hopefully it was well researched.
Safe the only thing I disagree with you on your last posts is about the Teutons. I believe it was the Ambrones who were considered to be part Celtic. I believe the Teutons and Cimbri were Germanic. The cavalry discussion Im in agreement with you. I am also in agreement with you on the baritus. I think that would be great if that could be implemented.
Geoffrey s I have to agree with you on the time frame. In 273 the spartan war machine was weak compared to its former abilities. I still have a hard time with the Gaesatae being ranked so tough. It mostly comes from the lack of armor. One on one armor may not be so important, but in unit combat its very important. I have read what I could on the Gaesatae but I havent come across much information on their exploits. Ive checked wikipedia and a few other places but found little information on their martial prowess. Wikipedia did say that they had an edge on other Celtic armies, but in the battles I read about it didnt say much about them being a major part. Im hoping that you or someone else can tell me where to look up information on the Gaesatae. I appreciate all of you guys responding and the information you have been providing.

---

http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-German...6439639&sr=1-3

Thats the book if youre interested, and about half of the book seems to be footnotes and references.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

The runner cavalry is modelwise not possible. At least that was told me different times as i tried to implement this important unit to get rid of the typical defeats germanic cavalries suffer in the game by their gallic counterparts.

---

We actually had this unit included in v.74, but the problem was you couldn't get it to run as fast as a horseman, and you definitely couldn't get indivdual foot units to pair up with a cavalryman. Although.....(heads off to "New Concepts" forum with a completely insane idea) :viking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kull

We actually had this unit included in v.74, but the problem was you couldn't get it to run as fast as a horseman, and you definitely couldn't get indivdual foot units to pair up with a cavalryman. Although.....(heads off to "New Concepts" forum with a completely insane idea) :viking:

---

I'm really awaiting those insane ideas of your EB-structured mind.

Could that be done in MTW2 though? If you can have differently equipped soldiers in the same unit then could you mix mounted and foot soldiers in the same unit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conqueror

Could that be done in MTW2 though? If you can have differently equipped soldiers in the same unit then could you mix mounted and foot soldiers in the same unit?

---

No. M2:TW makes use of a modular skin (i.e. something like 4 head variations, 4 torso variations, 4 shield variations), but all soldiers still use the same model.

Thanks for the link viking, Ill look into it. :book: