Celtic overpowered!

hello i was playing in my lusotana campaign, conquering the celtic cities and well i had this thought for a long time and now i want to let it all out, celtic slingers and the celtic heavy infantry(the cisalpine heavy infantry and the naked guys)are waaaaaaaaaaaaay overpowered in one of the final engagements in a big battle i had against the aedui, they had only 19 iosotae and one unit of naked guys and one unit of the cisalpine infantry i think is geroas i dont remember the name they almost killed by themselves 3 units of vasci shock infantry with one bronze chevron and two units of the loricati caetratii the guys with the golden shields and scale armor it was just ridicuolous i know that the naked guys are strong but the vasci shock armor has better stats than them anyways it was just frustrating to see my heavy infantry just being slaughtered by a few celts, a lot of people complained about the naked guys i do understand that the europabarbarorum team really cares about reallism and they have to do something in order to portrait this guys accurately but this is just too much in my opinion both the loricati caetratii and the vasci shock infantry make excellent heavy infantry anyways is there something that can be done to make the naked guys look less exagerated??also the computer abuses the effective against armour adjective, only 19 celtic slingers where killing all of my infantry they did cause a LOT of casualties just to be 19 guys, sometimes i feel the celtic units are unrealistic, i dont mean to critizice your mod, is the best mod out there and its the only reason i play rtw, and it made me stopped playing mtw2 i just wish something can be done in order for this units to be more balanced!thanks guys!!!!

Wow, I've never seen the AI spam missile units that badly.

Personally I reduced the Celtic slingers' range to 180, making them identical to the Greek ones (except for melee capability, in wich the Celts are still considerably better)

The nudists are super tough but have one considerable achiles heel, their lousy armour rating. I rarely had trouble dealing with them, but then again I usually have the advantage in the missile department against the AI :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwebozGaztiz

.....i do understand that the europabarbarorum team really cares about reallism ....

---

that should do it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

Wow, I've never seen the AI spam missile units that badly.

---

I think the OP means that there were only 19 men in one unit of Iosatae (not 19 units of iosatae, which is what I read initially too).

To damage the Gaesatae, use units with javelins, or any ranged units, and charge them with cavalry. Dont let anything get stuck in melee with them unlesss its really unavoidable. Run them around a bit too to tire them out.

Weird I'm playing Lusotannan too and I'm fighting the Aedui without much trouble only seen like 1-2 slingers in a stack at most and the Gaesatae are no problems, I fought a battle recently with like 6 Gaesatae units and they were no problem. (m battle difficulty)

Also, if you have your Lusotannan heavier troops, you can trash Naked dudes no problem... that is, if you're playing in Medium otherwise, you'll get hammered.


Cheers...

You're playing on Medium battle/VH campaign right?

i usually play in my campaigns h/h i really like the challenge but sometimes the ai abuses the bonuses it receives from the difficulty level, well im using the best unit the lusotanan can offer the vasci shock infantry and they where wasted by the gaesetae also the loricati caetrati which are heavy troops too and they do have a very good armor and attack rating too, anyways i feel the celtic units are overpowered, also in one battle a unit of lugoae the levy spearmen, caused a lot of casualties to a full unit of loricati scutari with the armor and attack upgrade and one chevron of experience, hahahaha anyways thanks for the mod guys i really enjoy it!im really waiting for the mod for mtw2 !greetings from mexico!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwebozGaztiz

i usually play in my campaigns h/h i really like the challenge but sometimes the ai abuses the bonuses it receives from the difficulty level, well im using the best unit the lusotanan can offer the vasci shock infantry and they where wasted by the gaesetae also the loricati caetrati which are heavy troops too and they do have a very good armor and attack rating too, anyways i feel the celtic units are overpowered, also in one battle a unit of lugoae the levy spearmen, caused a lot of casualties to a full unit of loricati scutari with the armor and attack upgrade and one chevron of experience, hahahaha anyways thanks for the mod guys i really enjoy it!im really waiting for the mod for mtw2 !greetings from mexico!

---

The stats for EB are not designed for any difficulty level other than medium for battle. The reason that the celtic units appear overpowered to you is because of those bonuses. If you don't play on medium battle difficulty, we can't really help with any complaints.

Foot

It seems to me that the units are overpowered as well. I did a cursory check of the units from Celtic type peoples (Aedui, Galations, etc.) and for the infantry units anyway they seem to be more powerful then even the Romans. It seems to me that the the Celts infantry units from the light,med,hvy and special units are in general more powerful then units of other factions.
I have a problem with this because the Romans and Germans consistently beat up on the Celts. It seems strange that some of the Celt units are even stronger then the elite Roman Praetorian guard. I readily admit Im not a historical scholar but as an amature historian of several readings on this period these stats dont fit.
As far as the Gaesatae are concerned I still have a problem with their stats. I know people keep saying these guy were hopped up on drugs etc. There was a study done in 2004 on drug induced volunteer and how effective they were with melee weapons. These volunteers where trained to use these weapons and when they used the drugs there effectiveness severely decreased. Granted this study used different drugs then the Gaesatae used, but if your body is numb to that much to pain I doubt the effectiveness of your abilities to use weapons. It might be a different situation if ignoring pain was due to adrenaline.

I do think the EB team did an exceptional job on this mod, I just happen to disagree with the Celt stats. If anyone has any information I could find on the Gaesatae and Celtic fighting in general, I would greatly appreciate the information.

As I recall, most decent Celtic units are more expensive than the Roman counterparts, which accounts for a bit of that; there aren't enough of the good soldiers to fight their equivalents, due to their cost. Mind Romans did have trouble with actual soldiers in Celtic territories, as opposed to levies-augmented-by-soldiers that Julius Caesar had to fight (as the Gallic armies were so worn down by fighting between the Sequani {who's royal house taken control of the kingdom the Arverni had built} and the Aedui Confederacy). Most Gallic soldiers in those days would've probably been spearmen, incapable of raising 'regulars', who the Neitos represent. Mail-equipped companies of Gauls were trouble for the Romans, but most were spent retarding the Germanic expansion or fighting eachother; had they been spent against the Romans, it may have been at least a bit different, at least slowing the conquest of Gaul.

Funny how people say the Romans and Germans constantly beat up on the Celts by ONLY looking at the period of Ceasar's Gaellic Wars.
:thumbsdown:

Punctuation... :dizzy2:

I don't think Celtic units are overpowered at all. In my Aedui campaign I had hard times fighting against Romans on one side and Garthage on the other. Despite having Celtic slingers. Try to use em against Roman Triarii and you will be running around the battle map a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoSpartan

Funny how people say the Romans and Germans constantly beat up on the Celts by ONLY looking at the period of Ceasar's Gaellic Wars.
:thumbsdown:

---

Thats definately too simple but it is also much too simple to say that the gauls just lost vs. the germanic tribes because of inner-tribal struggles.
They were pushed west- and southwards from the germanic tribes a few decades before Ariovist beat the Aedui or Ceasar conquered Gaul.

The Celts did sack Rome once, and they also inflicted heavy damage on the Greeks (slightly before the time frame, IIRC). Also, as the Lusotannan, on medium, I've had my proverbial ass sort-of-handed to me by rebels (I lost 4-5 average units for just two units caetrati) because of situational bonus terrain gives. Just throwing units in isn't guaranteed to work in overwhelming particular units, particularly units going down hill seem to nail everything.

By what I've read of it thus far here, I've gotten the impression the developements along the Celtic/German border in fact rather closely paralleled the later Roman/Germanic border overall... Internal troubles on one side allowed ample opportunities for the other to grow stronger at their expense, and eventually begin graduating from raiding and pillaging to outright invasion and conquest once the defenders have become ragged enough. That success an profit from raiding the richer Gallic areas and/or being paid for mercenary service there only improved the prestige, resources and power of the Germanic border chiefs and attracted even more enterprising groups and individuals from further away to try to get a slice of the cake cannot have helped.

That really doesn't belong here, but the ideal display of the germanics in EB should be as a emerging faction ca. 130 BC- 110 BC.

But i also say it is much too easy to give the germanic tribes only credit for their successes because of inner-celtic struggles.
They fought hard on the Belgae border, drove th Helvetii from their homelands and took many oppidas from their gallic enemies before the war between the Averni and the Aedui as the two major celtic powers.

The Arverni and Aedui were already fighting as major powers by the start of the EB period, well before the driving off of Helvetii, which was also combined with pressure from the Boii (mind wars like the Cimbrians war with Rome were under Boii kings; the Cimbrians and Teutones were probably vassals of the Boii at the time of the Cimbrian war). Mind not to lump Gauls with the central European kingdoms and tribes of Celts. The Aedui and Arverni both should be able to put up substantial resistance. The fighting is a major factor, but they had little concern for central European Celts. The only ones there of substantial power were the Boii, who were likely more powerful than either of our Gallic powers, and held off the Germans successfully into the ADs, when the Germans overwhelmed combined with steppe invasions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anthony

The Arverni and Aedui were already fighting as major powers by the start of the EB period, well before the driving off of Helvetii, which was also combined with pressure from the Boii (mind wars like the Cimbrians war with Rome were under Boii kings; the Cimbrians and Teutones were probably vassals of the Boii at the time of the Cimbrian war). Mind not to lump Gauls with the central European kingdoms and tribes of Celts. The Aedui and Arverni both should be able to put up substantial resistance. The fighting is a major factor, but they had little concern for central European Celts. The only ones there of substantial power were the Boii, who were likely more powerful than either of our Gallic powers, and held off the Germans successfully into the ADs, when the Germans overwhelmed combined with steppe invasions.

---

I agree with many things you say Anthony ( the Helvetii for example ) but i totally disagree that the Cimbri, Ambrones and Teutones were vassals of the Boii.
That is a bold and very disputable point you bring up here.
I'd really like to see some proof here, if you believe in this argument.
I hope the point is not that the mentioned chieftain and war-king of the Cimbri was named Boiorix. It is logical that after many years of wandering through europe other chieftains and smaller tribes were integrated and it is in my opinion also logical that some Boii chieftains saw this as a great oppotunity and took part with their men in the migration.

Also the Boii could hold out longer vs the suebian tribes ( the Marcomannii should be mentioned here ), because the germanics took their effort further west- and southwards and not east into Boii territory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoSpartan

Funny how people say the Romans and Germans constantly beat up on the Celts by ONLY looking at the period of Ceasar's Gaellic Wars.
:thumbsdown:

---

I hate to be pedantic or demeaning but, "Gaelic" refers to people in Ireland (& Scotland) of a little later period, and "Gallic" refers to the Celts who were in what is modern France. Probably just a typo...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus

I hate to be pedantic or demening but, "Gaelic" refers to people in Ireland (& Scotland) of a little later period, and "Gallic" refers to the Celts who were in what is modern France. Probably just a typo...

---

Haha. I just remembered this "rule" I heard about a while back stating that any time you post in a thread to correct somebody's spelling or a grammar mistake, you always make one of your own.

I wonder what kind of mistake I'll have made in this post...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

Haha. I just remembered this "rule" I heard about a while back stating that any time you post in a thread to correct somebody's spelling or a grammar mistake, you always make one of your own.

I wonder what kind of mistake I'll have made in this post...

---

Though, I'll have to consult my copy of "A Thousand and One Tempuses" to be certain on this one.

Hmm, "I will have" does sound a bit off.

Regarding the thread topic, playing Celtic factions I've always found them to be a bit weaker than the others, at least until the reforms (which, for the Celts, take a long time. 20 years longer wait than the Romans to get weaker troops than they do, then another 100 years to get troops about as good as Marian troops, that can't be recruited in nearly as many places).

Those Celtic swordsmen (Batoras, or something similiar?) are ok, but don't seem to hold up well to Roman or German heavy infantry. The Gaesatae are great, but extremely expensive and vulnerable to missile fire.

I do remember the Lusotannan shock infantry being a bit on the weak side, though... Lusotannan spearmen, on the other hand, are much better than the celtic spearmen. Post 1st reform Celtic spearmen have a lower attack, and something like 5+ lower defense than the Lusotannan "light" spearmen. The Lusotannan also get those crazy looking guys with the chainmail veils, and a cataphract type unit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

Haha. I just remembered this "rule" I heard about a while back stating that any time you post in a thread to correct somebody's spelling or a grammar mistake, you always make one of your own.

I wonder what kind of mistake I'll have made in this post...

---

That is really funny. I actually grabbed a dictionary and looked that word up to spell it. I found it, looked at the spelling, read the definition, then didn't change it. Not I feel really stupid and I wasted time.

If I may comment..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

Thats definately too simple but it is also much too simple to say that the gauls just lost vs. the germanic tribes because of inner-tribal struggles.

---

Well, of course there is an element of luck and skill in battle but ‘weakness’ is regarded the underlying issue by most scholars I’ve read. The Germanics, like the Celts before them and their own Germanic descendants after, took advantage of circumstances and situations. I’m currently reading a work by Dr Michael Kulikowski on the Goths, and he bears this out quite clearly. The eb and flow of large demographics / peoples / tribes / nations is a dance of power, influence and commerce. The Germanics were drawn south initially due to the weakness and wealth of the surviving Halstatt chiefdoms in central Europe, then into the more prosperous Gallic, Rhaetian, etc lands …and finally the Greek and Roman lands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

They (Gauls) were pushed west- and southwards from the germanic tribes a few decades before Ariovist beat the Aedui or Ceasar conquered Gaul.

---

I’m sorry but that is just so completely wrong. This ignores almost everything we know about the Celts, Halstatt and La Tene culture, the material record, etc etc. The Gauls migrated long before the Germanics were even a blip on the historical radar.

The Gauls (Halstatt Celts) began arriving in ‘Gaul’ / France during the 8th and 7th C BC, over running the weaker indigenous Urnfield peoples, Ligurians, etc. They did so due to the lure of rich trade routs already established with the mediterrainian, better soil and climate, etc etc. In this group came the likes of the Arverni (‘superior ones’), Cavari (‘giants’), Cubi (‘Victors’ – later known as Bituriges ‘World Kings’), Parisii (effective ones’), Vicontii (‘twenty septs’), Salluvii (‘Those settled by the sea’), etc etc.

Thence came the La Tene Celts in the 5th and 6th C BC also seeking wealth and exploiting the weakness of their predecessors. These newcomers included likes of the Ligones (‘energetic ones / leapers’), Aedui (‘followers of the fiery one’ – Aedos the sun god), Boii (‘Attackers’), Volcae (‘wolves’), Redones (‘Chariot drivers’), etc etc. This wave of La Tene Celts pushed even more (then Halstatt / proto-La Tene tribes) west / south-west..like the Senones (‘Old inhabitants’), Cenomani (‘Far removed ones’), Sagii (‘Seekers’), Allobroges (‘foreigners’), Aulerci (‘exiles’), Sequani (named after the river in their new home ‘Sequana’) and their relatives the Helvetii (‘much land possessors’), Pictones (‘Belligerent ones’), Santones (‘Journeyers’), etc etc.

The Cubi, with their capital at Avaricum (modern Bourges) managed to absorb the influx of these new arrivals and adopt La Tene culture. Then under their renown king Ambicatus (‘He who turns battles’), they managed to unite through diplomacy and force of arms, all of greater Gaul by mid 5th C BC. This caused further migration to places like Britain.. as some subjected nations / tribes sought to flee the power of the Cubi, eg the Eburovices (‘yew conquerors’) becoming the Brigantes (‘High ones’), Cenomani becoming the Iceni, the Parisii becoming the Coritani and Parisi, etc etc ..all before these tribes had fully converted to La Tene culture.
...Itlay, Hiberia, etc etc.

The final ‘Gallic’ /Celtic wave was that of the Belgae (‘Furious ones’) in the 4th and 3rd C BC. The Belgae people and their various nations / tribes retained many peculiarities of the old Halstatt culture but meshed them with a proto-La Tene / La Tene ‘A’ flavour. Again they invaded and sought to exploit the weakness and ultimate collapse of the Cubi / Biturige empire, first invading and then over running the Aulerci who had been critically weakened in their struggle against the Cubi. The Belgae continued to advance all down the western coast to Armorica, before being checked by a resurgence of Aedui power through their sub-tribe the Carnutes (‘People of the Horned One’). So successful was the Aedui confederacy that the Belgae were completely pushed back over the Seine and groups like the Viromandui who bcame known as the Trinovantes, Casse / Catuellauni / Cauvellauni (‘Battle superiors’) either migrated to Briton, or in the cases of some of the Casse dispersed into smaller groups (eg Veliocasse, Baiocasse, Viducasse, Tricasse, Vadicasse, etc) and sought the protection other more power nations / tribes like the Remi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

But i also say it is much too easy to give the germanic tribes only credit for their successes because of inner-celtic struggles. They ..drove th Helvetii from their homelands and took many oppidas from their gallic enemies before the war between the Averni and the Aedui as the two major celtic powers.

---

Again I’m afraid this is wrong. The Arverni and Aedui had been fighting for centuries before the Germans arrived or the Helvetii migrated. The later doing so in an attempt to seize power for themselves in a war ravished land. Remember the Aedui had none of their council left alive and the Sequani, so bereft of fighting men had been forced to mobilise old men, young boys and seek the help of thousands of German mercenaries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

I agree with many things you say Anthony .. but i totally disagree that the Cimbri, Ambrones and Teutones were vassals of the Boii. That is a bold and very disputable point you bring up here.

I'd really like to see some proof here, if you believe in this argument..

---

I agree. There is no evidence that I’m aware of that suggests that they were clients of the Boii. What is worth noting at this juncture is that the Cimbri (and Tuetones by this point) were defeated in battle by the Boii and force to go around their lands.

As far as the name goes, most scholars state that Boiorix was probably the name given him by his Gallic allies / followers, they being the ones who acted on his behalf in diplomacy and recounted the detail for Roman records. But we will never know for sure. I don't believe one can jump to conclusions about clientage just from this one name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

Also the Boii could hold out longer vs the suebian tribes ( the Marcomannii should be mentioned here ), because the germanics took their effort further west- and southwards and not east into Boii territory.

---

I’m sorry but by the time the Marcomannii turn up to ravage the ‘lands of the Boii’, the Boii had almost a century earlier ceased to exist in any form of significant power.

The Dacian king Boerebistas had managed to unite the Getae and Boeri into one Darcian kingdom and unleashed his reputed forces of 200,000 on the hapless Celts / Gauls. First to feel the sting were the Scordisci who had only some decades before suffered a genocide at the hands of the Romans. Then Dacian attention was turned on the Boii and Taurisci (Volcae). At the Battle of Tisza (60 BC) in modern day Hungary, Critasiros king of the Boii suffered a crushing defeat. His people were subsequently massacred, the survivors fleeing west and their land becoming hence forth known as “The desert of the Boii”. The Germans had played a part in weakening the Boii but they merely moved into Boii lands once the Dacians had done their work and left.

my2bob

That's a very interesting read.
:book:

I agree. Especially the translations of the celtic tribe names.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

If I may comment..


I’m sorry but that is just so completely wrong. This ignores almost everything we know about the Celts, Halstatt and La Tene culture, the material record, etc etc. The Gauls migrated long before the Germanics were even a blip on the historical radar.


my2bob

---

Have you ever heard about Jastorf or Hapstedt culture. It seems you just mention the celtic cultures but totally ignore other ones.
There is proof about those cultures around ca. 500 BC.
I find it a little curious as you are implying the germanics were a blip on the historical radar as those mentioned cultures are closely connceted with later germanic culture.

I agree with you about Halstatt culture, but during the La Tene culture there is proof about extensive trading contact between celtic and germanic tribes. Especially fine celtic art and jewellry.

The regions where the most trading occured where today's Bohemia and Mähren (sorry - don't know the english word for those region) B.t.w. It is logical that this trading included fine celtic weapons too.

Last week i had a really interesting discussion with a member of the Römisch-Germanisches Museum in Cologne about those points.
It seems often, that some people just took some of Tacitus remarks in his Germania, but ignore others totally. Germanics had no swords ( this i hear over and over from some members - just because Tacitus said so and there are no proofs of germanic grave-belongings / look above) But Tacitus also wrote about half-men half-beast in the nort-eastern part of Germania... Tacitus said so, so it must be correct:-)

One last remark about the lack of germanic ( or better translated traded or raided ) celtic sword in graves during the time B.C.
This is a point where i'm really dissapointed, because of the lack of knowledge of many members here.
It is a fact that germanics burned their dead in those times. It was just not possible to give the dead some things for their last journey, as they had no graves!
Those behaviour only changed in the first century AD, where it became more and more uncommon to burn the dead. So, it is logical that we could not have much archaelogical findings of the time B.C.
B.t.w. there is proof about germanic iron working around the time 300 BC - 100 BC.
Those items that looked a lot like celtic work are from a material that is known as "Raseneisen" and which only was found in those now germanic-settled regions.
Those iron was inferior to other iron, found elsewhere, but it was used!

It is a myth, that germanics used no swords.
Even after the Varus battle, where the germanics gained more than enough roman arms ( swords!) ,there were almost no grave offerings. Why?
Logical: The dead had to suffice with shields and spears as swords were too important.





As ever - please excuse my poor english

Psycho wrote:
If I may comment..

Again I’m afraid this is wrong. The Arverni and Aedui had been fighting for centuries before the Germans arrived or the Helvetii migrated. The later doing so in an attempt to seize power for themselves in a war ravished land. Remember the Aedui had none of their council left alive and the Sequani, so bereft of fighting men had been forced to mobilise old men, young boys and seek the help of thousands of German mercenaries.


And this is what i have to say here:
This is correct, but again you seem to forget that celtic oppidas were not given up without a fight. Perhaps it is my rather poor english, but you seem to argue with the point that celtic tribes just left their homelands without pressure from the germanic tribes. This is simply not true.
There are clearly signs of battles on these locations.
Concerning the migration of the Helvetii.
I really hope you at least agree with the fact that the were under great pressure from the germanics and did not leave their homelands just to seize power in other lands.
About those mercenaries( who turned out to be rather clever, as the just stayed in those new lands aftr defeating the gauls). At this time they were already just over the river border - becaue of conquering celtic lands for many decades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

This is correct, but again you seem to forget that celtic oppidas were not given up without a fight. Perhaps it is my rather poor english, but you seem to argue with the point that celtic tribes just left their homelands without pressure from the germanic tribes. This is simply not true.
There are clearly signs of battles on these locations.

---

I don't think anything of the sort was claimed. Rather the argument is that by the time the German tribes started seriously encroaching on Gallic and Celtic central regions they had a relatively smooth sailing for the exact same reason as the Romans - their opponents were weakened by centuries of internecine strife (above and beyond the tolerable attrition level imposed by the tradition of minor inter-tribal raiding and fighting inherent in the Celtic "hero culture") whereas the invaders had only grown stronger, in the case of the Germans quite literally at the expense of the Celts.

The border regions moreover would have long been subjected to slowly escalating German raids which would have taken their toll on the power of the locals (and the spoils and tribute only further strenghtened the raiders), until they had become sufficiently weakened genuine invasions and seizing the fortified places became a viable outgrowth. Medieval warfare in fact followed a very similar "wearing out" model, as did the more permanent Viking encroachement - you usually couldn't capture the forts, so instead you hit the other guy's economic base and thus wore down his ability to offer resistance in the future.

Quote:

---

About those mercenaries( who turned out to be rather clever, as the just stayed in those new lands aftr defeating the gauls). At this time they were already just over the river border - becaue of conquering celtic lands for many decades.

---

This would be a rather normal developement; the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain more or less got started the exact same way, and both the Romans in Gaul and Moors in Iberia originally came in to stick their noses in local power struggles. In this specific case not only had the Germans grown strong literally at Celtic expense - as succesful mercenaries were able to get that much better war gear and even spread it around thereby aquiring minor personal warbands with the obvious potential for massive "snowballing" - but also gotten the figurative foot in the door in the course of their mercenary activity, as well as doubtless having gotten a good long look at just how much richer lands their Celtic paymasters occupied with the obvious implications...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Rather the argument is that by the time the German tribes started seriously encroaching on Gallic and Celtic central regions they had a relatively smooth sailing for the exact same reason as the Romans - their opponents were weakened by centuries of internecine strife (above and beyond the tolerable attrition level imposed by the tradition of minor inter-tribal raiding and fighting inherent in the Celtic "hero culture") whereas the invaders had only grown stronger, in the case of the Germans quite literally at the expense of the Celts.

---

Surely the celts were weakened but it seems you forget one thing. They were no united germanic tribes - they too fought endlessly against each other and so we could also argue that they had been weakened.
Just look as example at the decade-long war the Hermundurii and the Chatti fought. Granted, that was well after the conquering of celtic lands, but even at the time we talk about the germanic tribes were not united and Semnones fought against Harudes for example, though they both were members of the suebian federation. Now let's think for a moment about germanic tribes who didn't belong to those rather loose federation...
It seems we talk ever about the weakened gauls, but forget that they didn't fought against overhelming numbers of a united foe. This is simply not the case.
There was no "Germans" as it is often said - just tribes who struggled against each other AND gallic tribes too.


BUT as i don't want to "going away further" from the original topic of this thread, i contacted The Tank (Jasper) already and try to discuss with him some minor and major points in the display of the Sweboz.
Most are still part of the Sweboz faction - (introduction, names, wonders and the basic ideas of most units) from the time i was faction coordinator and the changes he made after taking over the job.

This thread though was once just about the Celts in game statswise and so it should remain on this focus.

Pity. I was rather enjoying a civil (for once!) discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

Pity. I was rather enjoying a civil (for once!) discussion.

---

I try to be civil and friendly all the time.
If sometimes my comments sounding rude, it's just my poor english:oops:

Quote:

---

I try to be civil and friendly all the time.

---

You are. No one thinks you're rude. It's just that many other discussions around here lately have got rather heated, so Sarcasm said he enjoyed your discussion.

It seems to me that it comes down to several points.
1. Even before the Arverni-Aedui wars there were conflicts with the Romans. Most of these battles were won by the Romans. Therefore Romans>Celts most of the time. Yes yes, Brennis and such. Romans still won most of the battles prior to Marius and especially after Marius.

2. I dont buy into the idea that the Celtic tribes were weakened. If you look at the battles and numbers during Caesars expansion into Gaul, the numbers do not bare this out. In the battle of Alesia there were over 300,000 Gauls, not to mention 5,000 of them were the elite Arverni Gaurd. I know there was a conglomeration of tribes, but it has almost always been that way. Soldiers die, new ones are born and trained, this never stopped happening in Gaul. The Gauls were a tough and warlike people(I know they were also other things).

3. The Teutons,Cimbri and Ambrones (TCA)were certainly not vassals of the Boii. Yes they were repulsed by the Boii in hungry. I do have questions about this particular situation. Every thing I read on this (which isnt much) leads me to believe that is wasnt so much a victory as it was not worth the effort on the Germans part. I keep reading repulsed as opposed to defeat in the books I have read but none tend to go into details on the situation. I know the Boii were a very tough tribe so I dont have a problem believing they out fought the Germans. But the way its been presented in these books (again not much detail of the battle(s) ) it lead me to believe the Boii were in a strong defensive position. It couldnt have been much of a battle as the (TCA) kept on moving without much interference. If anyone can give me any information (books, websites) on this, I would like to see it.

4. The TCA entered Gaul and began rampaging through there which caught the attention of the Romans who's allies the TCA were attacking. The Romans came up and got hammered by the TCA and the TCA kept on pillaging. The TCA split up and some went into spain and pillaged there until they were repulsed by the Celt/Iberians. Again the TCA must have come out without much losses because they started again through Gaul and besting the very tough Belgae.

5. What Im trying to get at is that the Stats in the game for the Celts are rated to high for their units. The Celts were most certainly a tough group of people but they were bested by the Romans and the Germans Most of the time. And I still dont buy into the "they were weakened" argument, the numbers just dont bare it out. The Gauls still had lots of well trained cavalry and elite units, even in Caesars time.

'1. Even before the Arverni-Aedui wars there were conflicts with the Romans. Most of these battles were won by the Romans. Therefore Romans>Celts most of the time. Yes yes, Brennis and such. Romans still won most of the battles prior to Marius and especially after Marius.'

Which battles in particular? I'm not being sarcastic here, just curious. I haven't read much about the period/it's not the one talked about much. Telamon is the only real example I've heard of.

'over 300,000 Gauls' - really? This seems implausible. 300,000 including (large numbers of) non-combatants, possibly. 300,000 soldiers, I doubt.

I didnt take your question as being sarcastic. I think its a very legitimate question and I should actually put down more information and sources then I do. The only information I have at the moment is from what I remember. This means the best I can do is give you the name of the battle from memory and use wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alesia . This was a large conglomeration of different tribes of Gauls. To me this shows the leadership skills and charisma of Vercingetorix . Other battles you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rs_and_battles
These are a few as there were many other battles and skirmishes. Im sorry that this is the best I can do, my books are still packed away and probably will be for awhile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

I try to be civil and friendly all the time.
If sometimes my comments sounding rude, it's just my poor english:oops:

---

No offence taken mate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

As ever - please excuse my poor english

---

Your English is perfectly fine, but it probably has contributed to mis-interpreting some of my past positions / intentions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

Have you ever heard about Jastorf or Hapstedt culture. It seems you just mention the celtic cultures but totally ignore other ones. There is proof about those cultures around ca. 500 BC.

---

Yes, much of the theory has been founded on the like of Jordane’s ‘Gettica’, the works of Germanic Romanticists Gottfried Herder and dare I say, Ludwig Schmidt (eg Geschichte der deutschen Stämme – “History of the German Tribes”). Whilst I personally am not outright denying the existence of the aforementioned cultures, there is a significant degree / enough scholarly doubt to warrant careful consideration. It’s hardly conclusive fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

I find it a little curious as you are implying the germanics were a blip on the historical radar as those mentioned cultures are closely connceted with later germanic culture.

---

I’m not trying to offend the Germanic sense of national pride here. This is not a generic qualititative statement about the value / impact of the Germanic peoples throughout time. This was merely a response to your statement that the Celts “were pushed west- and southwards from the germanic tribes”. That is just not true. At the time of the Celtic / Gallic migrations, the Germans were only a “blip on the historical radar”. The point was that I believe you had the cart before the horse / mistaken the consequence for the catalytical action.
Sure, by the end of the period the Germans did force some Celts to move, but only after they had been critically weakened, as I’ve previous mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

I agree with you about Halstatt culture, but during the La Tene culture there is proof about extensive trading contact between celtic and germanic tribes. Especially fine celtic art and jewellry….It is logical that this trading included fine celtic weapons too. Last week i had a really interesting discussion ….One last remark about the lack of germanic ( or better translated traded or raided ) celtic sword in graves during the time B.C….This is a point where i'm really dissapointed, because of the lack of knowledge of many members here.

---

And your point? This only further supports the hypothesis that the Germans coveted Celtic / Gallic wealth / wares and when an opportunity came to seize those by force of arms / when the aforementioned were in a weakened state, they pounced. The same situation was repeated with the Romans… and has been repeated throughout history. It was evident in the first recorded annals of human history, when Nubian / Libyan raiders attacked Ancient Egypt and has been evident throughout history ever since.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

..there is proof about germanic iron working around the time 300 BC - 100 BC.… It is a myth, that germanics used no swords…Even after the Varus battle, where the germanics gained more than enough roman arms ( swords!) ,there were almost no grave offerings. Why?

---

So first century AD Germanics used these prised pieces of equipment (captured Roman swords) until they rusted away. Again, your point? You stated that you did not agree with the commonly held position of Celtic weakness facilitating their downfall and ultimate defeat / in some cases annihilation of Celtic peoples…again, what has this got to do with the issue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

It is a fact that germanics burned their dead in those times. It was just not possible to give the dead some things for their last journey, as they had no graves! Those behaviour only changed in the first century AD, where it became more and more uncommon to burn the dead. So, it is logical that we could not have much archaelogical findings of the time B.C.

---

I’m sorry but one can claim for example, a priori in stating Joseph Smith (founder of the Mormons) did indeed discover ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs in the US and then interpret them with magical glasses presented by the angel Gabriel, only to claim later that all evidence had since been lost, but critical scientific analysis requires more substantiation. It requires a posteriori

Sure the Germans maintained, by then antiquated practices, regarding their dead (Cremation / Urn burial), but so did the Celtic Belgae. Yet we have significantly more evidence of the advanced development and use of iron working within their realms of influence. If the Germans were as advanced as you seem to be implying, the material record does not bear this out.
Further, it is little wonder that the closer / more involved they came with the La Tene Gauls, the more they adopted aspects of their culture eg. Inhumation tumuli, etc etc. The Gauls had exactly the same sort of effect on the Germanics as did the Romans after them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

This is correct, but again you seem to forget that celtic oppidas were not given up without a fight….you seem to argue with the point that celtic tribes just left their homelands without pressure from the germanic tribes. This is simply not true.

---

True there is evidence of conflict / battle around several oppida sites in central / northern Europe, but they are all dated to a period when any semblance of Celtic power in those regions had long ceased to exist. In many cases the locals whilst retaining some antiquated Halstatt traditions, re-asserted themselves. The major powers / majority of Gauls moved out of central Europe looking for new opportunities / a better place to live long before. They were NOT fleeing some supposed force of Germanics. When the Celts / Gauls migrated to France / Gaul the Germans were not to present any kind of threat for another 800 – 300 years. They (Germanics) were barely a blip on the historical radar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

Surely the celts were weakened but it seems you forget one thing. They were no united germanic tribes - they too fought endlessly against each other and so we could also argue that they had been weakened…

---

Exactly, "no united Germanic tribes". In this period, did the Germans ever achieve the degree of political unity required to wage such a widespread civil war on anywhere near the same scale? ..no. This war affected the whole of Gaul and all those individuals there-in. For the Germans, any damage tended to be localised.

Further, it also appears you may have forgotten a significant point yourself. What was the nature of these groups..or any other at the time? Where the Gallic Cemonani, Insubres, Boii and Senones politically united when they invaded and sacked Etruscan / Latin and Roman towns? No, they merely colluded on occasion because they sought to take collective advantage of the weakness of targets rich in spoils. At the same time that the Etruscans were focusing on internal strife and their struggle / defeats at the hand of Rome to their south, the Gauls struck in the north. This is exactly what the Germanics themselves did…and continued to do so with Rome until they over ran the Roman State critically weakened by Civil war, etc etc.

Did the Germanics fight each other, of course, but when they did it was localised and in the end usually turned out to be far more profitable for them to expend their considerable energies attacking their richer / weaker neighbours when opportunity came knocking.

It’s worth noting that historically, there is clear evidence that Germanics had problems making any headway against Gallic / Celtic groups that had retained some semblance of power on their arrival eg. The Boii defeated / repulsed the same Cimbri that would go one to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Romans … as did the relatively primitive Belgae who continued to repulse strong Germanic groups until they were themselves were devided / overrun by Caesar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

It seems we talk ever about the weakened gauls, but forget that they didn't fought against overhelming numbers of a united foe. This is simply not the case.

---

Well, no one said the Germanics were united. They merely colluded on occasion either by design or co-incidence, to take advantage of what they must have regarded a crippled animal (Gauls) ... as the Gauls themselves had done previously to the etruscans, Ligurians, etc
What would you attribute Germanic success to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

It seems to me that it comes down to several points.
Even before the Arverni-Aedui wars there were conflicts with the Romans. Most of these battles were won by the Romans. Therefore Romans>Celts most of the time. Yes yes, Brennis and such. Romans still won most of the battles prior to Marius and especially after Marius.

---

Whilst I fulling acknowledge Roman superiority of arms, one does need to remember that history is written by the victors / Rome is known for excusing, downplaying or out-right ignoring / denying their defeats. Here’s a few which we do know about but most are not aware of;

Prior Marius...

Battle of Arrentium (286 BC) – Praetor Lucius and 24,000 Romans attempt to relieve the aforementioned town (garrison 5,000) from a siege by 33,000 Insubres and Senones. The Romans are defeated, the town taken and Lucius beheaded.

Battle of Faesulae (225 BC) – 45,000 Insubres, Boii and Gaesatae defeat a Roman army of 45,000

Battle of Mutina (218 BC) – 15,000 Insubres and Boii defeat 4,500 Romans

Battle of Litana (216 BC) – 35,000 Boii defeat and slaughter everyone of the 25,000 Romans under Postumius Albinus. Albinus was beheaded and his skull gilded as a drinking vessel

Battle of Mutilum (200 BC) – 16,000 Boii defeated Gaius Ampius and 13,000 Romans

Battle of the Boii (196 BC) – 15,000 Boii defeated Consul Claudius Marcellous and 12,000 Romans

etc etc..

Many of the ‘great victories’ that were most celebrated by Rome were not quite as stunning as first glance would suggest eg Telamon where the Romans outnumbered the Gauls by almost 2 to 1 (30,000 men) and had them surrounded from the outset.

It is also worth noting that Rome (like the Germans) had significant problems with any strong Celtic / Gallic group. The Romans in such cases, inevitable won victory by a war of attrition. Despite Gallic victories, Rome had substantial resources of men and materials at their disposal that enabled them to make good their losses (as the likes of Hannibal was to discover). Their enemy, the Celtic nations / tribes, didn’t share such a luxury and quickly ran out of both.

This lead to many situations were the Romans ended up celebrating hollow victories. eg. Battle of Minicio (196 BC) when 24,000 Romans under Consul Gaius Cornelius refused peace terms and slaughtered 12,000 old men, boys and women of the Insubres as they made a last ditch attempt at defending themselves. Similarly the Boii suffered the same fate.

"When appeals of peace where ignored and Roman greed again drove them on, it so happened that a nobleman of the Boii went with his sons to the camp of the Consul Lucius Quinctius Flaminius, imploring the protection of the Roman people. The Consul was partying with a boy prostitute, and he enquired of the boy if he would like to see a man being killed. The boy nodded, and straight away Flaminius drew his sword and slew the unfortunate nobleman and then proceeded to rape the nobleman's son over his father's carcass" - (The Celts, Defeat of Cisalpine Gaul; D'O Hogain)

Publius Scipio then (191 BC) marched with his 38,000 veterans to attack 35,000 Boii men, women and children. Despite great pomp and ceremony, the battle was no more than a slaughter of desperate Gauls, predominantly non-combatants forced to defend themselves with cooking utensils and farming tools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

I dont buy into the idea that the Celtic tribes were weakened. If you look at the battles and numbers during Caesars expansion into Gaul, the numbers do not bare this out. In the battle of Alesia there were over 300,000 Gauls, … I still dont buy into the "they were weakened" argument, the numbers just dont bare it out..

---

Firstly, whilst the Gauls did significantly outnumber Caesar’s forces, the 300,000 + that Caesar claims is most likely an exaggeration. Caesar’s commentaries are a dramafication of events, not a factual objective account.

Secondly, numbers themselves count for nothing. You can have a public riot of millions of civilians disperse by a handful of trained and well equipped troops. The inherent weakness wasn’t in potential man power, it was in trained and equipped / experienced troops.
The Gauls didn’t have the advanced training techniques the Romans did. It took significantly longer / many many years and great (usually personal) expense to train as a Gallic warrior. It was these that they were bereft of. They had squandered these troops in bitter civil war so much to the point that not one of the Aedui council remained alive. The devastation of this war cannot be understated. It was unprecedented / appears more extensive and vicious that any internal Celtic conflict prior.

This is born out in the material record with significant deposits of fragmentary war material, remains and most significantly thick ash levels around major sites dating to the period… prior to Germanic and Roman intervention. We also know commercial production of many goods and trade all but ceased and large portions of the population starved or suffered from malnutrition.

The Romans were well aware of this having deliberately contributed to the instability. They were aware of the long standing animosity between the southerners and northerners and true to Roman policy of ‘keeping the barbarians at each other’..acted. In 121 BC the Romans using other events (Saluvii) as a pretext to war, sought to reduce the power of the then undisputed power in Gaul, the Arverni Alliance / empire. After defeating them in the Battle of Vindalium with two consular armies and several elephants, the Romans made a nominal alliance with their sworn enemy, the Aedui, thus formenting the last final and most bitter chapter in this protracted conflict.


my2bob

:book: .....:2thumbsup:

This is just great this sort if educated debates are a great reason of my passion for history, EB and my admiration for this community.

As ever, Psycho and me could not agree on the topics about germanics. What dissapoints me here is, that he only admits the books and writings where his points are valued and question every other.

I never said that germanics were as advanced as celts during the centuries b.c. ,( in fact germanics were very eager to gain celtic weapons and trading tools because they were better!) but it seems many on this boards still imply that they were just a bunch of half-naked wooden-club swinging savages who had the luck to find some places the celts left...because hundreds of mile westward two of their leading federations ( Averni and Aedui ) fought a endless war...
Very logical indeed.

Interesting sidenote:
If the germanics were so backwards and not able to stand against a stong celtic enemy, why should even the Nervii - a tribe belonging to the Belgae spoke of their germanic origins? (which is totally wrong to be honest)
Was it a sign of strenght and honour to belong to those backward forest dwellers?

But:
As i said, if we want to continue this discussion, we should start a other tread.
This one here was about stats for celtic units...

Thanks to all who contributed here though:2thumbsup:

Psyco I see you are well read and Im glad of that. With that being said I still disagree with you.
1. As far as the Germans in general being poorly equipped Ill agree with you for some of the stages of invasion. When the TCA came into Gaul, they were well equiped. Most of the equipment was probably made by the Celtic tribe but they were well equipped. I still think that the TCA were not really defeated by the Boii but were repulsed. The TCA still left Bohemia in good order and were still able to defeat other Gallic tribes Including the Belgae. And from the readings I believe even the Celts themselves said that the Belgae were the toughest among them, with the Nervii being the toughest of the Belgae. The only tribes the TCA had problems with is the Boii and the Celt/Iberians and those were one battle each. If Iam wrong on this please correct me and let me know where I can find information contrary to this.

2. Your arguments can be used against you. Who took note of the wars between the Romans and Celts? Were they not all Roman scholars? Just as in this country today we have writers that hate their own for what ever reason, could not have the Romans? What Im getting at is the numbers may be skewed in favor of the Romans and Germanics for the most part but that still does not change the situation. The Romans and Germanics still won most of their battles against the Celts. You listed multiple battles in favor of the Celts, if I had my resources with me I could come up with twice as many in favor of the Romans with similar situations. You did say that you dont disagree that the Romans are superior in arms, Ill Im saying is that if the Romans are superior in arms as we agree it should be reflected in the game and I dont believe it is.

3. I dont see how you can say that Rome didnt have the same problems as the Celts in man power. Rome had wars within Italy, Greece, North Africa etc. Romans also had civil wars (Caesar/Pompey and others).The Celts had plenty of people and with their type of culture, training of warriors as with the Germans began at a young age.

4. The number of Gauls available in all times has been numerous as shown by the battles taken place through out the wars with Rome and the Germanics. I still believe that the Celts had very well trained warrior like the 5,000 Averni Guard at Alesia. The Celts had numerous and well trained cavalry prior to and during battles with Caesar. The warlike culture of the Celts would keep trained warriors coming through the ages until they were devastated in certain areas like the Dacians did to the Boii. The Celts were not devastated in Gaul until the Germanic invasions of the 400's. You can disagree with the Roman writers but they and the Greeks are our only source only source of the matter.The Romans still wrote about the battles they lost, so yea there could be numbers that are skewed but I dont believe greatly so.

5. The Celts are a tough people without doubt. I agree with you that the Romans and Germanics did have problems with the tougher Celtic tribes. But the whole point is that most of the battles that the Romans and Germanics fought against the Celts were won by the Romans and Germanics. In skills of arms the Romans and Germanics bested the Celts on almost all terms. The Romans had better skills at arms then the Germanics and the Germanics had better skills at arms then the Celts. So within the scope of EB I just dont agree with the Celts having most of its troops being superior of arms to the Germanics and especially the Romans REGARDLESS of the time frame.

6.I do enjoy the information that you guys are all providing. I may not agree with the analysis of the information but your arguments do make sense. I also appreciate the way these debates are handled, no name calling or basic infantile behavior. These have been respectful and very informative.

Quote:

---

3. I dont see how you can say that Rome didnt have the same problems as the Celts in man power. Rome had wars within Italy, Greece, North Africa etc. Romans also had civil wars (Caesar/Pompey and others).The Celts had plenty of people and with their type of culture, training of warriors as with the Germans began at a young age.

---

Quite incorrect AFAIK. Among the Celts warfare was the virtual monopoly of a distinct warrior class, with the common farmers and craftsmen and such normally only becoming involved in emergencies as rather low-quality tribal levies. I understand this warrior class was all things considered fairly large - a testament to the material wealth of the Celts and the agricultural productivity of their lands, as it takes a major surplus to support such a class in large numbers - and very influental in the society, in essence forming the ruling elite (or in any case providing most of the members of the ruling elite).

As Psycho already explained the making of a Caltic warrior was a very do-it-yourself business and took a long time to bear good fruit (presumably due to fierce competitiveness, ie. relatively little instruction from your peers, and in the absence of true standardized training institutions), although the final product could be quite formidable indeed and Roman sources readily ascribe to them an ability to work passably as large units.

In essence, the Celtic warrior system was a mechanism for creating heroes, elite warriors.

The Romans and Germans had quite different approaches, namely full militia service. Republican Roman citizen-soldier system should not need to be further examined here, save for reminding it gave the state a near-unlimited pool of decently equipped militia soldiers who, once they got used to operating as cohesive units after being mustered, could be a quite formidable and above all a very stubborn opponent on the battlefield. One notes from Psycho's short list of pre-Marian Celtic victories over Romans that most seem to involve at least some numerical superiority on the part of the Celts for example.

The post-Marian professionals were just scary in comparision, being as full-time soldiers much more readily "knit" to cohesive and effective combat formations from the start - and even more inexhaustible if not nearly as cheap as the earlier self-equipped reservists, as the urban and rural poor, all kinds of adventurers and drifters, subjects wanting to better their lot by earning citizenship under arms etc. provided a very ready supply of manpower that could be tapped by anyone with enough funds. Recall the way the Romans could keep on conjuring fully armed legions from Italy alone during the Spartacus mess.

By what I understand of it the Germanic version quite simply called for every freeman to also be a warrior, and indeed to be downright eager to be; one gets the impression they could actually surpass the Celtic warrior class in sheer bloody-mindedness. This would have been out of sheer necessity; being by far poorer than their Celtic neighbours there was no way the German peoples could have afforded a similar large class of dedicated warriors, so it duly fell to the great mass of common tribesmen (backed up by the better-equipped and trained nobles and their personal retainers, the rather less numerous analogy of the Celtic warrior aristocracy) to do the fighting and raiding.

In other words, while they were in top form the Celtic warrior class could take on either of the other two with at least a fair chance of success, all other things being equal. The Romans might be better equipped and organized, but on the other hand the Celtic warriors by and large held the edge in skill and gusto and seem to usually have enjoyed at least a marginal local superiority in numbers even if the Roman manpower base was actually rather larger. The Germans conversely were rather worse equipped and unlikely to be quite as good as the Celtic warriors in a major stand-up fight (given that their practical experience was more in small-scale raiding), with the obvious exception of the elites but then the Celts outnumbered those, but numerous and persistent.

The trouble came when the Celts started running out of dedicated warriors. A major flaw in their approach was the long incubation period of fresh replacements for fallen heroes, and the fact their backup levy was pretty poor. In Gaul as already mentioned the warrior class was decimated in the long internecine strife, in the eastern parts apparently by constant squabbling with assorted increasingly formidable barbarian neighbours (Illyrians, Dacians, the increasingly better armed and organized Germans) and Roman probes nevermind now incessant small raids from the German side of the border. And this on top of what "natural attrition" the compulsive pugnaciousness of the Celtic warrior class, the very mechanism through which it trained its better warriors, inflicted. Over time the Celts simply couldn't make good for their casualties fast enough, all the more so as their neighbours were only ever growing stronger in many cases directly on spoils looted from Celtic lands. The fact the Romans began co-opting Celtic tribes near their borders into their own political orbit and siphoned off parts of the warrior class into their own armies by the simple virtue of being able to offer good pay and looting prospects would not have helped one bit.

So when the other shoe dropped what the Celts could send against the formidable Legions and screaming hordes of ferocious German tribal warriors was all too few real warriors and far too many lousy militias, who simply weren't up to snuff. Moreover increasing numbers of the remaining warrior class could doubtless read the writing on the wall and unabashedly jumped ship to side with the winners; Caesar had no shortage of allied Gallic troops and I'd be very surprised if by that time enterprising Celtic border chieftains had not long ago aligned themselves with the more formidable among the Germanic confederations and kings to pull their butts out of the fire.

Also, unless I'm entirely mistaken during the early spread of Celtic culture the proto-Germanic peoples had been driven to the northern areas of heavy clay soil, which could not be fully claimed for agriculture until the invention of the heavy iron swing-plough in the Late Middle Ages. Poor, second- and third-rate farming regions in other words as far as the people of Antiquity were concerned, with lots of sheer uncultivable wilderness.

That'd certainly be a good reason for both the Celts and the Romans to not bother contesting those cold forests with their fierce spear-toting inhabitants; the return-of-interest calculation of an invasion would at best have been in the red. In a way this would have been an advantage to the Germans - they were in fact pretty much safe from actual invasions by their neighbours, and thus had a more or less quaranteed refuge from which to always return for another raid no matter what damage a punitive Roman chevauchee might do to the border tribes; if those were meaningfully weakened their place would juts be usurped by a stronger group from further away.

And the Germans stood everything to gain from at first raiding and eventually invading their more prosperous neighbours; the eternal paradox of poor tribes eking out a living in desolate lands near rich and powerful areas, where that very destitution becomes a kind of strenght and source of safety.

I loved the way you explained the fall of Celtic power.
Remember, if you die in war you can't make babies and babies, are the long term answer for a successful attrition war :D

That sounds like Napoleon in one of his less diplomatic moods. Anyway, the question here is not so much of sheer demographics as the expense and "training time" involved in producing a full-fledged warrior through the Celtic system - the demand just plain outstripped the supply.

That's one area where the post-Marian Roman system for example was rather superior. It was based on getting the soldiers work effectively as drilled collectives rather than on hard-won individual skill at arms, and could thus turn jetsam and flotsam press-ganged from the slums into decent military resources in a startlingly short time - and these could then pick up the finer points of weapon skill through further training and practical experience.

This will have to be brief as I dont have to much time.
1. As far as I can remember elites were the best fighters taken out of regular units. The Praetorian Guard, the Persian Immortals and etc. It seems to me that the Generals,Chiefs or whoever would chose from the basic units people who stood out and then put them into the elite unit. There may have been extra training for these elite units, I dont know but this is the way Ive always thought of how elite units were formed. Is the Celtic system different? Did they choose a child and say "you will be trained as a hero or elite"? Most tribes did the standard way including the Germans, they chose the best and made them into body guards and other "shock" type troops. The Germans began training there people for war at a young age as did most tribes. There wasnt much training in unit formation until later in age, just the basic blocks,thrusts and etc. A lot of tribes had a warrior class.
arghh just dont have the time to write replies. If you dont mind answer these questions for me, it might help me understand your point of view better.
1. How is a Celtic warrior made that he is different then other warriors who ar trained?
2.According to my resources the Celts from 3rd century B.C. to 300AD had many warriors (armor,weapons etc.) including elite units such as the Arverni Guard in the battle of Alesia. Are you saying the elite in the later years are not as tough as in the centuries before? Are you saying the average fighting Celt in Caesars time is not as tough as those in years past?
Sorry watchman Ill give a better explanation of my thoughts on the Celts loss of power next time.:shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

1. How is a Celtic warrior made that he is different then other warriors who ar trained?

---

The difference in system is that the Celts delegated warfare to a large, dedicated warrior class in some ways not unlike post-Marian Romans with their standing professional army (although in practice the Celtic warriors weren't solely warriors but also engaged in agriculture - or at least owned land - and trade). You'll have to ask the EB Celt experts about how exactly entry into that class happened, but I'd be very surprised if it wasn't at least partially hereditary.

Among the Germans every free man was a warrior beside his civilian occupation, period, plus then small cadres of full-time warriors in assorted nobles' and chieftains' personal retinues.

The difference is that the Celts had a decent-sized pool of good warriors and then lots of poor-quality tribal levies raised from the commoners, while the germans had a lot of average-quality farmer-warriors plus some high-end specialists.

Mutatis mutandis the pre-Marian Roman reservist system is roughly comparable to the Germanic model, in that every man who fulfilled certain criteria was obliged to serve as a soldier if called to and be at least passably skilled at it.

Quote:

---

2.According to my resources the Celts from 3rd century B.C. to 300AD had many warriors (armor,weapons etc.) including elite units such as the Arverni Guard in the battle of Alesia. Are you saying the elite in the later years are not as tough as in the centuries before? Are you saying the average fighting Celt in Caesars time is not as tough as those in years past?

---

*sigh* Look, if anything by Caesar's time the Celtic warrior class was better quality-wise than it was in for example the 300s BC, due to sheer accumulation of war gear over time and organizational and other innovations and developements to meet new challenges (like the Romans). The point is that there simply weren't sufficient numbers of them due to the sheer attrition of the Aedui-Arverni conflict in Gaul, increasingly damaging German raids on the borders, increasing pressure from Dacians and Romans and who knows who else elsewhere, the siphoning off of qualified warriors as mercenaries and allies to for example Roman banners, and so on as already discussed. What full-blown warriors there were were still very formidable; but due to the sheer time it took to "graduate" a raw beginner to that level and the expenses involved they simply couldn't replace casualties and other haemorrhaging fast enough to keep the numbers up to the levels that would have been required to fend off the fearsomely effective Legions or the increasingly more organized, equipped, dangerous and confident Germans.

The tribal emergency levies tried, but as they weren't really match for even the German tribal warriors it's hardly surprising they broke like so many waves on rocks against the iron wall of the cohorts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

As ever, Psycho and me could not agree on the topics about germanics. What dissapoints me here is, that he only admits the books and writings where his points are valued and question every other. ..

---

Well I think you’ll find we disagree more often than not due to you pre-supposing an alleged position / bias I’m supposed to have against the Germans. In spite or continually inferences and accusations, I have no such bias, nor do I seek to romanticise / over state the position of the Celts / Gauls. I merely wish to present what I regard as the other side of the coin / the data that I am aware of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

I never said that germanics were as advanced as celts during the centuries b.c. ,( in fact germanics were very eager to gain celtic weapons and trading tools because they were better!) but it seems many on this boards still imply that they were just a bunch of half-naked wooden-club swinging savages who had the luck to find some places the celts left...because hundreds of mile westward two of their leading federations ( Averni and Aedui ) fought a endless war... Very logical indeed. ..

---

I never claimed you did … nor have I implied or inferred that all the Germanics were animalistic Neanderthals only recently emerged from the primordial bog. Just because I have argued (in the past) against equipping several Germanic units with fine armour, swords and 1st-3rd C AD shields and helmets, does not then mean I have a thing against the Germans. I merely seek a balanced / “most likely scenario” for the faction. Hence EB / Tank / I have for example, sought to add the odd unit of club troops to demonstrate this diversity. We did / EB are doing the same for the Celts, with more primitive units eg Caturige. We have also sought to tone down many of the bright clean colours, as I also did with the Celtic units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

Interesting sidenote:
If the germanics were so backwards and not able to stand against a stong celtic enemy, why should even the Nervii - a tribe belonging to the Belgae spoke of their germanic origins? (which is totally wrong to be honest).Was it a sign of strenght and honour to belong to those backward forest dwellers? ..

---

Well for starters, I believe you have made a common mistake here, assigning meaning that was never intended. The Belgae weren’t inferring Germanic superiority by claiming decent from a heroic past / peoples as the Romans did Mars / Trojans, etc, they were merely stating from whence they had come. Kuta, Collis, O’ Hogain, Ellis, etc all agree on this.

Secondly, I have never argued against the martial traditions / status of the Romans and Germans. Yes the Germans were great fighters but the underlying reason fro the Gallic collapse wasn’t German interference. The Germanics played a small part very late in the period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

As i said, if we want to continue this discussion, we should start a other tread. This one here was about stats for celtic units...

---

And it’s all related. The argument was that the Celtic units were over powered. The whole debate about the reasons for the fall of the Gaul is significant and related due to what EB has tried to depict, historical reality.

For starters, it’s important to note that those claiming that the Gauls are overpowered are generally doing so when they have only progressed some 50 odd years into the game / period. They are trying to achieve in the first several turns what it took Rome, etc 300 years / the whole period to achieve…and then complaining it’s all too hard.

It’s worth noting that the Gauls had complete military supremacy over the Romans throughout the 4th and very early 3rd C BC. The balance of power then began to shift as the Roman state adapted to dealing with these peoples. Thus in EB, at the beginning of the game, the Gauls have access to units like the Gaesatae, their militia are better than Roman militia, etc. But the Gauls soon loose these advantages as the Romans / others catch up and overtake them. To put things in perspective, look at the imperial legions that Rome can field by game’s end. The Celts, whilst still progressing themselves, do not have any unit equivalent… and rightly so.

Having said that however, the Celts do have some good units and these represent the elite of their Culture, again nothing in comparison to the likes of the Roman Triarii. Now if we could force the game to play out historically, the Gauls would rarely get some of these units, but this is an open ended game. So we can get full ahistorical Roman armies full of Triarii as much as we can get Gallic armies full of Neitos, Soldurii, Gaesatae, etc. One can’t claim they wish to have all a factions stats reduced because they are having problems dealing with these circumstances. This is the beauty of the historical ‘what if’ scenario.

Finally, in regards to the collapse of the Gauls, as previously stated, the Gauls were critically weakened. To put in EB terms, there would be no Gaesatae, no Brihentin, no Neitos, no Cingetos, no Mairepos, no Curoas, etc. Bataros, Gaelaiche etc would be few and far between and few if any Arjos and Soldurii, etc


my2bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Psyco I see you are well read and Im glad of that. With that being said I still disagree with you.
In skills of arms the Romans and Germanics bested the Celts on almost all terms. The Romans had better skills at arms then the Germanics and the Germanics had better skills at arms then the Celts. So within the scope of EB I just don’t agree with the Celts having most of its troops being superior of arms to the Germanics and especially the Romans REGARDLESS of the time frame. ..

---

I’m afraid you may be extrapolating your understanding of the 1st C BC to the stats of EB’s Gallic troops in the 3rd C BC.
In addition, I believe you are making some flawed assumptions. Just because group ‘X’ defeats group ‘Y’, does not automatically translated to mean that all of ‘X’ were better / superior to that of ‘Y’. By the same rationale the Spartans completely sucked in comparison to the Persians (eg Thermopylae). Now I’m not saying the Gauls were Celtic equivalents to the Spartans, I just wish to make the point.
History is not just about who was the strongest / best fighters on the field of battle. It was also about resources of material and men, trade and commerce, diplomacy and politics, the internal stability / revolts within kingdoms, etc etc. Just because Rome and the Germans were ultimately victorious over the Celts does not naturally mean there was always a huge discrepancy between the former and later.

To ignore the fact that Gallic weakness was the underlying factor in the Gallic collapse in the 1st C BC, is like doing the same with any other major empires / kingdoms…whether that be Egypt, Imperial Rome, Mogolian Khanate, etc etc.

There was a reason why the Romans had not succeeded in conquering Transalpine Gaul in the previous 300 years of conflict. It was only when Caesar realised the state of weakness of the Gauls in the 1st C BC, that he was emboldened to try his hand. In his very own commentary he admits to taking extreme levels of caution to test the Gallic forces, only to discover what scholars have since recognised, the Gauls were fielding green, untrained and ill-equipped troops. This being due to the slaughter of all but a relative few of their exisiting troops in a civil bloodbath. Was this weakness the only reason why the Gauls were overcome, no ..not by any stretch, but it was the main underlying issue. A house of cards will fall if only one major support is critically weakened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

But the whole point is that most of the battles that the Romans and Germanics fought against the Celts were won by the Romans and Germanics. ..

---

We only have three recorded battles between the Gauls and Germans. Two of which were late in 1st C BC, by which stage, as already mentioned, the Gauls were in peril.

A battle between the Boii and Cimrbi but details are sketchy at best. All we know was that they fought and the Cimbri were defeated. The Battle of the Rhine (71 BC) – The Aedui Confederacy was defeated by the Sequani Alliance, majority being Germanic Seubi, and the Battle of Admagetobriga (61 BC) - Aedui Confederacy leads a futile attempt to throw out Ariovistus and his Germans.

Considering the fact that German intrusions into Gaul were being persistently repulse all along the Rhine, Danube, etc, there must have been a substantial number of Gallic victories… a testament to feat of Gallic arms on the field of battle despite internal chaos. Chaos that ultimately brought about their doom.

As far as Roman victories, well again there were many defeats (Celtic victories) that were unrecorded, downplayed or dismissed. Even when admitted, Roman loss wasn’t due to being outwitted or out fought, but due to treachery, betrayal and generally underhanded actions or the over eagerness of troops. Eg. Caesar’s defeat at the Battle of Gergovia or the explanation offered for the slaughter of one and a half of his legions by the tiny Eburone tribe. Again, I’m not trying to deny the superiority of Roman arms / war machine, but rather wish show that one needs to be careful drawing conclusions from outcomes without looking at the bigger picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

The Romans and Germanics still won most of their battles against the Celts. ..

---

We will never know what really went on between these groups. Yes there are a lot of Roman victories recorded but even the most naïve reader will acknowledge that the records are inherently bias. It was the victors / Romans writing their own version of history, and they generally did so for overt political reasons or under political patronage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

You listed multiple battles in favor of the Celts, if I had my resources with me I could come up with twice as many in favor of the Romans with similar situations. ..

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

You did say that you dont disagree that the Romans are superior in arms, Ill Im saying is that if the Romans are superior in arms as we agree it should be reflected in the game and I dont believe it is. ..

---

They are, you just need to play through the period enough to note the historic changes / adaptions / improvements the Romans made. Again try not to extrapolate one’s understanding of late-Republican / Imperial Rome on the early 3rd C BC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Is the Celtic system different? Did they choose a child and say "you will be trained as a hero or elite"? Most tribes did the standard way including the Germans, they chose the best and made them into body guards and other "shock" type troops.

---

Yes. The Celts had extensive and often complex systems of clientage, where children were chosen, taken from their parents and made to study / undertake a certain specific role in the community (be that as a craftsman, druid, warrior, etc). In times of trouble, an overlord would first call on his retainers / body guard, then the remainder of his warrior pool (usually novices in training) and finally if need be, the masses / other males (eg craftsmen and farmers) who had little / no rudimentary training.
The Germans were different and were much more militaristic and egalitarian with each member being regarded an intricate if not equal part in the collective ‘volk’. Every German male child was trained in warfare from an early age with certain tribes having intricate ritualistic rights of passage for young men on becoming a warrior… much the same as many native American Indian tribes did.


my2bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

Hence EB / Tank / I have for example, sought to add the odd unit of club troops to demonstrate this diversity.

---

but how does this comply if supposedly every youth was given his spear and shield as his personel weapons when becoming of age - why should they use a primitve club ?

The practice does not always follow the principle. Plus some warriors may simply have preferred a different fighting style and weapons kit, of which a sturdy club was obviously the most affordable kind (the higher-end version of course being axes).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teutobod II

why should they use a primitve club ?

---

Imagine what a baseball bat would do when it connects to a head with proper velocity. Not pretty. Now, add a helmet. Not such a mess as without one, but the head is still pretty much out of the game for a sufficiently long time to land a few more wallops.

Primitive, perhaps, but not that ineffective, what with most armors not protecting well from hard concussions.

ok, that sounds logical as they still have their throwing spears. Dont know if they also have spears as secondary weapons ?
Ash or oakwood is pretty hard, drive in some short pointy things (not too long as not to get stuck on the enemies shield when bashing it) harden it over a fire and you got a nasty weapon

Never underestimate the stick. Its mankind's oldest weapon besides the rock and has been the basis of many other weapons such as spears, swords, staffs and maces. As long as man needs mechanical leverage and range, the stick will be effective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

The practice does not always follow the principle. Plus some warriors may simply have preferred a different fighting style and weapons kit, of which a sturdy club was obviously the most affordable kind (the higher-end version of course being axes).

---

The wooden club was the weapon of the poor man. We could also asume that is was a fine weapon for ambushes, because it was easily affordable.

For their typical fighting style the germanics preferred their frame and shield though.
Naturally clubs were used, but it is definately not the weapon a warrior of renown would have chosen.
The sword at first is to mention and even swordbearers sticked to their trusted spear at least as secondary weapon.
Axes were also used, especially after conflict and trading with raetian tribes.

On the claim of the bias of Roman historians being not wholly valid, as they were the eventual victors:

If your only study on Norman warfare in the mezzogiorno was [toolazytoprovidelinkbutisonwikipediawithdownloadabletranslation]Malaterra[/too...], you would think that all Normans were ten feet tall, shot fire from their eyes, and had an ability to defeat entire Greek armies by *staring* at them.

Quite simply, the bias is very important here, because we only have the biased view of one side, while about the Norman conquests in the Mezzogiorno we have Anna Komnena's considerable bias and gullibility against Malaterra's (admittedly worse) considerable bias and fawning.

:whip: I usually play as the Romans and they consistenly run away from the Gestae, I assume in a homophobic stampede.....or maybe they're just not into snuff porn. Whatever it is, it's funny. In all seriousness, keep up the great work EB team!!

http://world6.monstersgame.co.uk/?ac=vid&vid=114017506

So, the Celtic downfall was due to Logistics... As it should.
Now, to all of you who say the Celtic units arfe overpowered, Just reach the Polybian reforms not even Marians are needed. If you play historically, you'll see a big diference. If you're not, well, you'll se a big diference as well. Basically, your Polybian Princeps are as good as they come and can shred most Gallic infantry to pieces no time. Now, when you reach Marian, you won't even have a chalenge. By the time you field Legions, the Naked fanatics are no match for the Roman army. And if you're able to reach imperial and still have Gauls messing around, you'll win most batles with litle to no casualities. Check the trading card game and you'll find that for you to have Celtic units compared to a post Marian legion, you'll need a level 4~5 MIC. Also they'll come out in units of 60 whilst the Legions com in the 100s.
I've been a "civilised" faction player for a long time however, once I discovered some Gallic mercs, I tried the Avernii and after reading this topic, again even greater respect for the so called "Barbarians". I believe from what I've read that EB is pretty accurate save for some minor discrepancies that is. But nothing that'd affect the balance of the gameplay.

BTW, try playing with the Celts and see if you still think they are over powered. You'll have a tough time trying to reach your most advanced units!

Cheers...

They usually get destroyed fairly early in the campaigns I've played, though the Aedui hang in for longer due to rebellions in central and eastern europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

The stats for EB are not designed for any difficulty level other than medium for battle. The reason that the celtic units appear overpowered to you is because of those bonuses. If you don't play on medium battle difficulty, we can't really help with any complaints.

Foot

---

this really does answer alot of questions:yes:

This is the way I look at it. ROMANS
1.a: We all agree that the Roman martial prowess was greater post Marius.
b: According to Watchman and Psyco Celts were at there strongest pre-Marius.
c: This being the case why is it that the pre-Marius (weaker) Roman troops defeated the pre-Arverni-Aedui war(stronger) Celts. Most historians say that on equal terms the Romans of this period defeated the Celts most of the time. The time frame Iam talking about is starting from 250 b.c. The battles Iam referring to are stated in historical writings. There were times when the Romans outnumbered the Celts and vice versa. There were times when one ambushed the other and other events which take place in warfare. With all these things taken into account, the Romans bested the Celts the majority of the time. Im not talking about the ultimate victory here, Im talking about individual battles, not just the whole war. By 200 B.C. the romans had occupied all northern Italy and had started into southern Gaul. You even have leader vs. leader in that M. Claudius Marcellus defeating Virdomarus in a duel.
Pyco you said: There was a reason why the Romans had not succeeded in conquering Transalpine Gaul in the previous 300 years of conflict. It cold be because of the other wars going on like with carthage.

2. Post Marius: Not all Celtic tribes were involved in the Arverni-Aedui war. These Celts were defeated by the Romans as well. They didnt lose their most experienced troops in this on going war, yet they were defeated just as the Arverni and Aedui were. You even have the Britons who were off the mainland and they were defeated just as well. These Celts that Caesar faced were NOT green, ill-equipped, untrained troops. Sure some could have been, but the Celts were a warlike people and they most certainly trained their children in the arts of war. Again when Caesar fought the Arverni, they had well trained cavalry and foot soldiers who were mail-clad. The battle of Gergovia and others of this time will show these were not green, ill-equipped, untrained troops. Most troops get their experience in war thus becoming veterans. With all the infighting between the Arverni and Aedui there had to be many veterans as shown in the aformentioned battles. Vercingetorix had plenty of soldiers and there had to be many that were experienced from the infighting of the tribes, they werent all just wiped out and then suddenly a new crop of green soldiers appear.
Again I dont have the time to continue, but I will another time and Im sure there will be comments to this :beam: .

I'm under the impression the Roman/Celtic front in Northern Italy was something of a stalemate for a rather long time. You win some, you lose some, sometimes one side held the upper hand and sometimes the other (especially if someone from beyond the Alps stuck his nose in). Didn't the Romans eventually first subjugate the Cisalpine Gauls into allies and later fully "Romanize" them or something ?

But outside containing the nasty hairy trouser-wearing barbarians in the north (not always succesfully) Roman interests for a long time were focused on the Mediterranean region - Iberia, Sicily, Africa, the Balkans etc., that much is true. Transalpine Gaul was pretty low on their list, partly as they had no pressing reason to get stuck there (the Alps doing a decent job as a barrier, and the major players there were busy fighting each other) and partly because they weren't too keen on adding their heads to some hairy nutjob's trophy collection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teutobod II

… why should they use a primitve club ?

---

The club is not a primitive weapon perse. Ie the design of the weapon may be primitive but it is a major error to then infer the same of it’s user. Remember, the club was the weapon of choice by many of Europe’s most powerful and wealthy during the Medieval period.

The facts of the matter is that a good solid club, as already mentioned by others here, is an effective weapon, especially when one if facing heavily armoured troops. I believe that rather than the Germans displaying their “primitive” nature by employing clubs, they were actually doing the opposite. They were demonstrating their willingness to adapt to circumstances, ie fighting armoured Gauls, Ligurians, Rhaetians and Romans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mAIOR

Now, to all of you who say the Celtic units arfe overpowered, Just reach the Polybian reforms not even Marians are needed. If you play historically, you'll see a big diference. If you're not, well, you'll se a big diference as well. Basically, your Polybian Princeps are as good as they come and can shred most Gallic infantry to pieces no time. Now, when you reach Marian, you won't even have a chalenge. By the time you field Legions, the Naked fanatics are no match for the Roman army. And if you're able to reach imperial and still have Gauls messing around, you'll win most batles with litle to no casualities. Check the trading card game and you'll find that for you to have Celtic units compared to a post Marian legion, you'll need a level 4~5 MIC. Also they'll come out in units of 60 whilst the Legions com in the 100s.
I've been a "civilised" faction player for a long time however, once I discovered some Gallic mercs, I tried the Avernii and after reading this topic, again even greater respect for the so called "Barbarians". I believe from what I've read that EB is pretty accurate save for some minor discrepancies that is. But nothing that'd affect the balance of the gameplay.

BTW, try playing with the Celts and see if you still think they are over powered. You'll have a tough time trying to reach your most advanced units!

Cheers...

---

:2thumbsup:
Yup, exactly. One can’t project one’s understanding of late Republican / Imperial Rome on the 3rd C BC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

This is the way I look at it. According to Watchman and Psyco Celts were at there strongest pre-Marius.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

This being the case why is it that the pre-Marius (weaker) Roman troops defeated the pre-Arverni-Aedui war(stronger) Celts. Most historians say that on equal terms the Romans of this period defeated the Celts most of the time. The time frame Iam talking about is starting from 250 b.c. The battles Iam referring to are stated in historical writings.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

The Romans bested the Celts the majority of the time. Im not talking about the ultimate victory here, Im talking about individual battles, not just the whole war.

---

No, we can’t say anything of the sort. We just don’t know

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

By 200 B.C. the romans had occupied all northern Italy and had started into southern Gaul.

---

And your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

You even have leader vs. leader in that M. Claudius Marcellus defeating Virdomarus in a duel.

---

I’m sorry to be a kill joy, but the account of M. Claudius Marcellus defeating Virdomarus is pure fiction. Again, this is not my opinion but rather that of the world’s leading scholars on this subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Pyco you said: There was a reason why the Romans had not succeeded in conquering Transalpine Gaul in the previous 300 years of conflict. It cold (sic) be because of the other wars going on like with carthage.

---

I’m sorry but the Carthage hypothesis / excuse just does not stand up critical analysis. The Romans managed to expand their empire throughout the 3 Carthaginian Wars .. the last being little more than an excuse to plunder. If the Gauls were such a walk over as you seem to suggest, Gaul would have been a temptation too great to resist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Post Marius: Not all Celtic tribes were involved in the Arverni-Aedui war. These Celts were defeated by the Romans as well. They didnt lose their most experienced troops in this on going war, yet they were defeated just as the Arverni and Aedui were.

---

Well, I have stated time and time again that the underlying cause for the complete Gallic capitulation was the civil war. All the tribes in Gaul were involved in this war as they sided with one or the other or in some isolated cases, sought to profit from circumstance ..incurring bloody / devastating reprisals (eg. Ossimii, Turoni, Venelli, Lingones, etc). It was into this internal loathing/ hatred and blood shed that Caesar came, playing on old hatreds and using Gauls to continue killing Gauls now for Rome’s / his benefit.

It is true however, that the likes of the Belgae (whom I was not originally referring to) had not been as involved in the Gallic civil war as the Gauls proper..and they were to prove a shock to the likes of Caesar. Remember Caesar was very nearly bested by one remote and primitive tribe the Nervii. The Nervii, who had little to no weapon producing facilities within their lands / having to import from the south, who had no equestrian knowledge or heritage … only had their courage, skill and training. Unlike the Romans, they had never fought their new enemy prior and yet gave a notable account of themselves.

The ultimate defeat of the Belgae was due in part to the prior defeat of the powers to their south. This caused great consternation within the loose Belgae confederation, causing it’s leading and most powerful tribes (eg Remi ‘Premier ones’, Suessiones ‘Six clans’, etc) to side with the Romans. Thus the Romans / Caesar was able to avoid facing a united Belgae force in battle (something he obviously wished to avoid) and instead use his new Belgae forces to ravage lands and strike at the heart and soul of his enemies…their women and children, .. only employing Roman arms to mop up any remaining tribe that continued to resist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

You even have the Britons who were off the mainland and they were defeated just as well. These Celts that Caesar faced were NOT green, ill-equipped, untrained troops.

---

The Britons were a different kettle of fish. Again I was talking about Gauls. The Britons succumbed for much the same reason as the continental Belgae.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

The battle of Gergovia and others of this time will show these were not green, ill-equipped, untrained troops. Most troops get their experience in war thus becoming veterans. With all the infighting between the Arverni and Aedui there had to be many veterans as shown in the aformentioned battles. Vercingetorix had plenty of soldiers and there had to be many that were experienced from the infighting of the tribes, they werent all just wiped out and then suddenly a new crop of green soldiers appear.

---

One can’t assume, “Well they beat the Romans so they must have been supermen”. All that demonstrates is one’s attempt at trying to fit facts within a pre-conceived paradigm / world view. Yes the Gauls at Gergovia defeated Caesar, and yes they probably had had some experience / rudimentary training by this point in the campaign, unlikely for a leader like Vercingetrix to have over looked this. But the fact remains that these guys were only recently mobilised and thus inexperienced. As much as you may wish it otherwise, this wasn’t a trained / experienced force of veteran troops.

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


my2bob

I really don't know which sources to trust about these things, but is it generally accepted that Celts had a more individual fighting style, while Romans acted as a unit and that while Celts might have generally been better fighters, the Roman tactics hampered their ability to fight one-on-one? If this is true then it would justify stronger stats to Celtic units. Damn, I hate to generalize...

Well, the Roman method stemmed from the highly collectivist phalanx tradition albeit with fair bit of modifications AFAIK. They relied more on sustaining unit-level cohesion and wearing down that of the enemy, a perfectly viable approach particularly if you can't afford to train every soldier into a mighty warrior (drill and discipline being way faster to instill in fresh recruits). While the Celtic tradition produced cohesive enough battlefield formations I understand its focus and reliance was more on the fighting skill of the individual, an approach that certainly has its perks but also certain problems as discussed above - particularly if you're short on fully trained and experienced warriors for some reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

The club is not a primitive weapon perse. Ie the design of the weapon may be primitive but it is a major error to then infer the same of it’s user. Remember, the club was the weapon of choice by many of Europe’s most powerful and wealthy during the Medieval period.

---

That would be maces, and a mace is not the same thing as a wooden club already per definition. Commanders' paraphenelia commonly included some sort of baton as a sign of their rank, a very ancient affectation from which royal sceptres also stem from AFAIK and still around as late as WW2 (if not today), but those would only have been used for combat in a dire emergency if the officer in question hadn't had time to draw his sword or something.

When people had to go into battle with wooden percussion weapons, usually in the context of peasant revolts or suchlike, they tended to make a point of adding all kinds of metal reinforcements and nasty pointy bits to improve the terminal effect. Among the examples I can name off the top of my head are the (somewhat obscure) godendags of High Medieval Flemish urban militias, the flails of the Hussite rebels that swiftly saw the addition of spiky metal bands and suchlike added to their business ends, and the spiky clubs of the peasant rebels in the 1500s "War of Clubs" uprising in Finland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

That would be maces, and a mace is not the same thing as a wooden club already per definition. Commanders' paraphenelia commonly included some sort of baton as a sign of their rank.....

---

Effectively the same blunt force weapon. One fashioned out of wood, the other metal. The same could be said if we depicted Germanics wielding primitive malets / hammers. The weapon doesn't by nature infer a primitive state on the user.

my2bob

Interesting what you say about gamply. With no Gaesatae, Celts seem fairly easy to defeat (i laways play battles on hard and campaing on medium for the sake of roleplaying).

If you say that Celts are too strong, just try a custom battle or fight a campaign with anything against the Romans or the Macedonoans.. those are damn strong ! ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

Effectively the same blunt force weapon. One fashioned out of wood, the other metal. The same could be said if we depicted Germanics wielding primitive malets / hammers. The weapon doesn't by nature infer a primitive state on the user.

---

The main difference is that a wooden club isn't nearly as good a "mass" weapon for smashing stuff as a metal-headed mace (although the earliest specimen I know of are Neolithic stone-headed ones; whether they were used for seal-hunting, to keep the valuable skin intact, disputing hunting rights with competing groups, or both, is unknown). Wood just isn't all that hard and heavy, and the use of actual wooden clubs would seem to imply rather low overall standards of equipement.

'Course, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if what the sources call "clubs" were actually some kinds of maces or hammers. For example I recall reading that at one battle Palmyrene cataphracts were attacked in the flank by auxiliary troops from the Judea/Syria region, whose "clubs" were remarked to be very effective against their armour - quite certainly a somewhat confused reference to maces, known in the region since at least Late Bronze Age and also popular among the Parthian-style cataphract cavalry that had become common there.

Quote:

---

You even have the Britons who were off the mainland and they were defeated just as well. These Celts that Caesar faced were NOT green, ill-equipped, untrained troops. Sure some could have been, but the Celts were a warlike people and they most certainly trained their children in the arts of war.

---

Yes, and they were facing Marian legions, not Camillan ones. I suspect that the majority of players attempt to take on Gaul proper before the Marian reforms. Also note that large numbers of the 'barbarians' were actually on the Roman side, having agreed to being clients of Rome, expecting fair treatment. Large numbers of these had their weapons taken away and were thus ill-equipped when they actually girded themselves into rebellion.

Also, IIRC (I use that abbreviation a lot, it's been a while since I read anything connected), the Romans had to use a disproportionate number of men just to garrison Britain. If the Britons (as Celts) were such poor warriors, they wouldn't have needed to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orb

.....

Also, IIRC (I use that abbreviation a lot, it's been a while since I read anything connected), the Romans had to use a disproportionate number of men just to garrison Britain. If the Britons (as Celts) were such poor warriors, they wouldn't have needed to.

---

Ok here ur talking about keeping law and order, or in this case preventing a rebellion to flare up. That is COMPLETELY different than facing an army in battle. One of the things nessesary to prevent a rebellion is a good size garrison. It doens't matter that the rebellios citizenry only has knives, pikes and shovels to fight. They will still loot, burn gov't buildings, assasinate leading gov't officials, destroy economic infrastructure, etc.

Mantaining a conquered people under control is not the same as defeating them in a conventional battle. For a recent example just look at Iraq....

Ok Im tired of not knowing how to put down peoples quotes, how is this done? i.e the "originally posted by..."

At the bottom of a person post there's a big quote button.

Im not blind, really Im not! :dizzy2: Thanks fondor

Ok Im not blind just stupid and impatient.:furious3: How do I get a single sentence from someones quote?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by k_raso

paste it the place you want to quote

---

Thanks k_raso :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Ok Im not blind just stupid and impatient.:furious3: How do I get a single sentence from someones quote?

---

like this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Ok Im not blind just stupid and impatient.:furious3:

---

You simply delete the part from the other quotes that`s unuseful to your post.

Or, you could just:

1º Select the text you want to quote
2º copy it
3º paste it the place you want to quote
4º Add at the quoted phrase the [/QUOTE] command, and at the beginning of it, the [QUOTE=[I]type here the name of the guy you are quoting from[/I]] command.

Easy peacy, japaneasy. :grin:

PS: JUST ONE MAYOR WARNING, DON`T EDIT or ALTER QUOTATION, there have been some problems, bitter fightings and flamings, that have originated from that. Just a healthy advice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

"When appeals of peace where ignored and Roman greed again drove them on, it so happened that a nobleman of the Boii went with his sons to the camp of the Consul Lucius Quinctius Flaminius, imploring the protection of the Roman people. The Consul was partying with a boy prostitute, and he enquired of the boy if he would like to see a man being killed. The boy nodded, and straight away Flaminius drew his sword and slew the unfortunate nobleman and then proceeded to rape the nobleman's son over his father's carcass" - (The Celts, Defeat of Cisalpine Gaul; D'O Hogain)


my2bob

---

Sorry this is a bit off topic but I just had to say something when I read this quote. As much as I enjoyed your posts in this thread so far I'm a bit surprised to see something like that. You seem to have read quite a lot on the topic, so why back up your arguments with something as stupid as this? Sorry nothing against you but you talk about bias in Roman sources and then post a quote which is surely biased and completely unscientific. Is that taken from a novel?

No offence here. BTW great discussion.

He gave the source at the end of the story "The Celts, Defeat of Cisalpine Gaul; D'O Hogain" Daithi O'Hogain/Daithí O hOgáin is the authors name and he looks to be a fairly respectable authority on the celts. As to it being unbalanced and completely unscientific, hate to burst your bubble here lad but such acts did take place, similar ones sparked a famous rebellion in Britain in later years. Reality can be a lot more ugly than history books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Casuir

He gave the source at the end of the story "The Celts, Defeat of Cisalpine Gaul; D'O Hogain" Daithi O'Hogain/Daithí O hOgáin is the authors name and he looks to be a fairly respectable authority on the celts. As to it being unbalanced and completely unscientific, hate to burst your bubble here lad but such acts did take place, similar ones sparked a famous rebellion in Britain in later years. Reality can be a lot more ugly than FICTION books.

---

I think thats what you meant to say... Fixed it for ya :2thumbsup: