I've heard it mentioned many times that Gaesate fought often as mercenaries. I am curious as to why they are not recruitable as mercenaries (I checked the mercenaries file and they aren't there).
Printable View
I've heard it mentioned many times that Gaesate fought often as mercenaries. I am curious as to why they are not recruitable as mercenaries (I checked the mercenaries file and they aren't there).
I want to know too, I remember they were in 0.8. Didnt Hannibal have some Gaesatae?
While they did fight as mercenaries (i.e. for others in exchange for pay) they were very picky about who they fought for, so we didn't think the RTW merc system would be appropriate. Many units fall under the same situation.
Interesting. So why did they choose to fight for, say Hannibal, and later at Telamon?Quote:
Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX
you mean the naked guy with 2HP?
i can hire them around pella...and i played as romani.
No those are the Tindanotae, the Galatian version of the Gaesatae. Galatians belong to the portion of Celts who were extremely warlike; and Galatians weren't above service to any master provided he had the money to afford them AFAIK.
It seems you and Qwerty disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
No, they don't. The Tindanotae and the Gaesatae are two different units, from two different subcultures of the Celtic world. The Galatians - where the Tindanotae come from - tend to be more warlike, evidentially, and showed up in Asia Minor as mercenaries in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by TWFanatic
Perhaps, but this is probably due to my poor expressive skills. Here we go again:
Gaesatae can be
1) A tribe
2) A type of elite soldier (EB meaning)
3) An actual instance of (2) (Tindanotae are an instance of Gaesatae, as are Gaesatae - if you find it confusing: a home may be a buidling, a house may be a home and a house may be a building. It doesn't mean that all houses are homes nor that all homes are houses, though!)
And I have sinned against clarity by using multiple meanings of the Gaesatae whithout warning I did.
Now here's the message rephrased:
"No those are a Galatian version of Gaesatae called the Tindonatae units, who unlike the Gaesatae which form the Gaesatae units weren't picky about who employed them."
Ah I see. I get it now.
I believe Gaestatae fought for Hannibal because Celts were jealous because Romans were soo rich in resource but they often failed attacking the Romans because of their lack of commander.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefy187
O.o I thought the Gauls were rich out the wazoo, considering they wore a bunch of flashy stuff into battle and whatnot, along with most soldiers had an expensive longsword, but im no Gallic expert.
Tellos or QwertyMIDX do you have any suggested readings on the Gaesatae? If you do I would greatly appreciate such information. The only things I can find is about the battles of Telamon, Clastidum and Medionalum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
I know Polybius mentions them several times, but I do not remember where. Perhaps you can find these references in here:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...01.0234&query=
Which are better Gaesatae or Tindanotae?
.
Gaesatae can -allegedly- eat any melee infantry in the game raw. That's why they have been a matter of controversy among some fans.
Personally, they posed no real problem in our not many encounters. Outnumber and flank have been my usual tactics against them, indifferent than against Romani heavy infantry. :shrug:
.
I think they have the same stats, but while Tindanotae are recruitable as mercenaries, Gaesatae are only recruitable by Aedui, Arverni (native MIC 4) and Carthage (regional MIC 4).Quote:
Originally Posted by Xehh II
Edit: Actually Gaesatae have morale 22 while Tindanotae have 20. So Gaesatae are better.
Hardly a signifigant difference, though.
Romans were rather poor compared to the Celts or CarthaginiansQuote:
Originally Posted by Beefy187
Are you sure that Gaesatae were mentioned after Telamon?
BTW: What do you mean with "poor"?
Not so much money or bad soldiers? I would doubt both interpretations and I'm not a Roman fanboi.:beam:
Not so much money.
And sure, the romans were rich - but only once they'd pinched all the carthies and gauls money.:beam:
I doubt that Carthago was so much richer than Rome between the first and second Punic war and the great sums they had to pay even when we consider the Spanish achievements of the Barcas. And when Carthago recovered even a little bit in the years before 150, the paranoiac Romans destroyed it immediatly.
"The Celts" hardly existed as a political factor. SPQR and allies were stronger and richer than every Celtic faction they faced. Italia south of the Po and Sicily and Sardinia and Corsica were relatively rich areas. You know that Telamon was the end of a big raid of the northern Italian Celts (plus mercenaries from beyond the Alps) to plunder Roman colonies.
Prior to the First Punic War, Carthage was much, much richer than Rome; but they lacked national manpower for the army, so they relied on mercenaries. Italy (especially central and Southern Italy) and Sicily were rich because they were grain-exporting regions, in an era where agriculture dominated the economy. Northern Italy was (and is) less fertile but has more mineral ressources (not, however, much by way of precious metals--iron, however, they did have). Sardinia and Corsica were relatively poor (and stayed that way throughout history). The real strength of Italy, though, was the dense population--there seems to have been no end to the ammount fo manpower the Romans could draft.
And the will of the Romans citizens and their Italian allies to fight and die if need be, something the Carthaginians lacked, except when pressed by the Lacedaemonian Xanthippus.Quote:
Originally Posted by CirdanDharix
But this is a wee bit off topic.
Well, the Carthaginian citizens were often willing to fight and die, and the Italic allies of Rome (not the Romans themselves) were often willing to change sides if the Carthies looked like they were going to win (as happened on a large scale during the Second Punic War). AFAIK, all those Liby-Phoenicians we have in EB were technically citizens, if usually of lower social status than the pure-blooded descendants of the original colonists. More problematic to Carthage was internal division; the Romans never questioned whether they had to expand into Sicily and later along the Mediterranean coastline into Iberia. The Carthaginians did question whether they should expand overseas into Europe--which is what the merchants wanted--or in North Africa, which was then far more fertile than it is now--this second option is what the landowners wanted. So, from the start, you had people in Carthage arguing it wasn't worth fighting a war over their overseas possessions, and when the war didn't go well, the people who had opposed it from the start were bound to make political gains. There is evidence, though, that Carthage between the two Punic Wars was much like Germany in the 'tween wars period.
It is said that when the Roman senate convened following Cannae, two thirds of the senatorial body was missing. They had sacrificed their lives for the Republic. Meanwhile, in Carthage, the senators were sitting on their plump arses and, led by anti-war politicians such as Hanno, trying to call Hannibal back home. This is a generalization but you see what I mean.Quote:
Well, the Carthaginian citizens were often willing to fight and die
Indeed. This is probably what Hannibal was intending to play on when he invaded Italy--the support of disgruntled Italian allies. According to Livy I believe, he told Italian soldiers captured at the Battle of Lake Trasimene, "I have come not to make war on the Italians, but to aid the Italians against Rome."Quote:
the Italic allies of Rome (not the Romans themselves) were often willing to change sides if the Carthies looked like they were going to win (as happened on a large scale during the Second Punic War
I'd have to disagree on this point. The consuls of Rome were often members of the Fabii family, or their allies or subordinates. They were conservative, moderate, and never set foot outside of the Italian peninsula. However, for reasons unknown, the contemporary generation of Fabii were rather apolitical. As a result, another major family, the Claudii, held influence. Luckily for the Messanians (who were appealing to Rome for help prior to the First Punic War), the Claudii were expansionists who had a great interest in Sicily and had been pushing for Rome to build a fleet for 35 years now. For this reason, the Messanians appealed to the Claudian administration.Quote:
More problematic to Carthage was internal division; the Romans never questioned whether they had to expand into Sicily and later along the Mediterranean coastline into Iberia.
My point is that there was political division.
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by TWFanatic
The senators sitting on the sea cliffs of Carthage and yelling "Come home, Hannibal" towards Rome :2thumbsup:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xehh II
Tindanotae has an officer where Gaesatae doens'tQuote:
Originally Posted by Thaatu
z
Hmm strange i was under the impression that the regions around the Po were the Italy's most fertile outside of Sicily... I learn something new everyday I guess...Quote:
Originally Posted by CirdanDharix
So the Tindanotae having an officer makes them a better unit?
Well, its one more man to fight, isn't it?
TWFanatic, sounds like you have a very good grasp of Roman history in this period.Quote:
Originally Posted by TWFanatic
Why thank you. Yes it is one of my stronger points.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
AFAIK, officers also give their unit higher morale (until they die that is). They're hard to kill as well, I think they have an extra hitpoint.
Don't Tindanotae only have one HP? IIRC that was the difference, stats-wise.
I don't know, though. I'm an eastern faction kinda guy. I've only ever faced Tindanotae once, and even then I had a Pahlav HA army, so I wasn't too focused on their stats. Just their lack of armour :)
No, they have the full 2hp.
:eyebrows:Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtwisties
Taking things out of context can make them sound quite different than their intended meaning.:laugh4:
Also an exageration. The Romans lost eighty persons of senatorial rank at Cannae, which was alot but definately not two-thirds of the Senate. The ordo equester was harder hit and maybe you were thinking of them?Quote:
Originally Posted by TWFanatic
At any rate, the Carthaginian senators, when they heard of the victory at Cannae, didn't bitch (for once) about the exepenses of the war and how Hannibal should never have started it but instead (with the exception of Hanno, who saw no point in fighting Rome) were quite enthusiastic when they saw the gold rings taken from the dead equites, and voted to send him massive reinforcements. Four thousand Numidian horsemen and forty elephants, all that could be assemble don short notice, did reach him; the senate also raised a powerful force of twelve thousand foot, fifteen hundred horse and several dozen elephants which was due to be shipped to Italy in 215, but instead (and this is where the difference in manpower between Rome and Carthage really showed) they were sent to Iberia, where the situation was already critical.
However, most importantly for the Second Punic War, it must be remembered that Hannibal was a rogue general who started a war on his own authority, without having the constitutional right to do so. His supporters in Carthage prevented the senate from disavowing him; but he did provoke Rome into declaring the war, without the approval of his government for such a plan. It's hardly surprising the senators were not campaigning with him in Italy, whereas the Roman senators were fighting directly in defence of their city. In the First Punic War, the Carthaginian aristocracy led their army, like their Roman counterparts.
Not to the same extent as in Carthage. A Fabius declared the Second Punic War, although the embassy to Carthage was their initiative ; the Fabii's dominance during the two years after the naval defeat off Drepana (247-45) did slacken the war effort in Sicily, but by then, it didn't matter--Hanno and his allies had persuaded the Carthaginian senate to give Sicily up as a lost cause. It was the Attilii and Claudii who pushed for the First Punic War, and the Aemilii and Cornelii Scipiones who pushed for the Second, but the Fabii never frankly opposed the Punic Wars the way the landowners of Carthage opposed overseas expansion. Some of this was geographic realities, but the underlying social conflicts of Carthage played a great role as well.Quote:
I'd have to disagree on this point. The consuls of Rome were often members of the Fabii family, or their allies or subordinates. They were conservative, moderate, and never set foot outside of the Italian peninsula. However, for reasons unknown, the contemporary generation of Fabii were rather apolitical. As a result, another major family, the Claudii, held influence. Luckily for the Messanians (who were appealing to Rome for help prior to the First Punic War), the Claudii were expansionists who had a great interest in Sicily and had been pushing for Rome to build a fleet for 35 years now. For this reason, the Messanians appealed to the Claudian administration.
My point is that there was political division.
Probably not. He does have 100% lethality though, and I think extra hitpoint(s) so can make a significant difference until he dies.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaesarAugustus
Even though the Celtic nobles might have had golden torcs and what not, their warriors still sought fame and fortune. After all, many warriors were under Celtic lords because of debt-vassalage, well later on anyways. In such a society, the top few percent have most of the money, but most of the manpower comes from the bottom 50%.
So loot, fortune, and fame might indeed have been a critical motivating factor for the Gauls to join Hannibal's army.
Does the world really need anymore rampaging bloodcrazed nudists:inquisitive:
Funny you should say that when you posted something about the conditions that needed to apply to any non-specific mod of the Sims game in order to make you play it... :rolleyes:
are the sims games even moddable? AFAIK, the TW series are the only games that are modded.
At least the Sims 2 platform is. I know for certain that there was some in-built feature to donwload & install fan-made content...
Well they simply annoy me in EB and are often the thorn in my side, but in a game like the sims I'd gladly employ them to my hearts content :jester:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios