Celtic overpowered!

[Frostwulf]

Well finally I can respond once again. I even had time to read some more. Im going to start off stating again that the Celts were a tough lot, Connolly states that under a good general the Celts make excellent soldiers. Dyson states that the subjugation of the Gauls involded some of the most brutal fighting and serious losses in Roman military history. The Spartans and some others were impressed with the mercenary cavalry of the Celts. This all being said, the Romans were still better at skill of arms. I still believe that the Celts are overpowered both compared to the Romans and the Germans. I will not contend with the Germans at this time, Ill eventually start a new thread on them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
@Psycho:
Concerning the Belgae and here especially the Nervii:
In the future it would be better if you quote my complete sentences, i never disputet that the Nervii were celtic. I just said that they themselves seemed to be proud of germanic heritage - which is wrong.

And this is exactly what I was responding to. They were taking pride in their achievements having come from what was later called the land of the Germani. ie “we chose to migrate and by feats of valour fought our way here and seized all this land above the Seine.” They were NOT making / inferring some imagined statement about how great they were by trying to associate themselves with the Germanics.

Ill make the claim that the Belgae were indeed making this statement that they were descended from the Germans and were a mix of Celt-Germanic peoples. "Certain tribes of Gaul, such as the Aedui, boasted of Germanic descent. The Belgae also were a mixture of German and Celt." Pg.19. "After their defeat, the Belgae, a group of mixed Celtic and German origins, were treated with comparative moderation." pg.128. H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical world".

/ "Caesar considered all the Belgae were Gauls, but also claims that many of them were descended from German settlers. As we have already seen, the distinction between Gaul and German was not always as clear as our ancient source suggest but there may well have been some truth in this.At the end of the first century AD Tacitus also believed that the Nervii and the Treveri were both Germanic." pg.238 Adrian Goldsworthy "Caesar"/
http://www.duerinck.com/tribes1.html While I havent read all the resources listed on this site, I have read a bit by Herbert Schutz and he acknowledges Caesars claim of the Belgae being of German ancestry. Look what is posted under the Belgae on this site and check it out.

One last one to look at is Barry Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"-"All we can do is to accept the ethnic identifications made by the Roman commentators". pg.238. I would suggest reading from pg.237-238 to get a good idea at what he is getting at. Arghhh I shouldnt have put this here, oh well more on the Germans on new thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
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.
Tim Newark-editor of Military Illustrated/Peter Connolly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Connolly /Peter Berresford Ellis(considered the foremost authority on the Celts). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Berresford_Ellis .These authors say it happened, why would it be hard to believe? Ellis in his book Celt and Roman mentions several others like this that happened. What could there be against this? Also there is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viridomarus This post doesnt really have anything to do with accessing statistics to units.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
None of the authors I mentioned seem to have a problem with the duels.

Newark and Ellis you mean…ignoring (I might add) my comments on both. Newark isn’t what one would call a Celtic expert and takes things on face / Roman value.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
"but the Romans had even beaten the Celts at their own game. Challenged to single combat by the chieftan of the Insurbres, M.Claudius Marcellus accepted" -Newark. He goes on to tell of how Marcellus won."The surprise is that the consul Claudius Marcellu accepted the challenge in spit of the law forbidding single combat by Roman officers.


Do you know why there was “surprise”? Read Goldsworthy on the strict Roman law pertaining to leaving one’s station to seek single combat. It’s a dramatic fabrication by Livy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
He succeded in slaying Viridomarus and the Celtic army crumble before a renewed Roman attack"-Ellis.

Ellis is recounting the tale exactly as Livy had written it. He is not claiming it as unequivocal fact.
Again, as previously stated, I love Ellis but he’s prone to over stating. I could write a whole thesis on all of the aforementioned Scholars but I just don’t have the time and you’ll either have to take me at my word or do your own reading.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
These quotes sound like they believe it to me. ….. What facts are there to disprove these duels? Is it impossible for a Roman to beat a Celt in a duel? I think that its interesting that your quoted authors seem to think that it is.

So you’re willing to dismiss the opinions of some of the worlds leading scholars because….?

I don’t know what else to say?

Authors who put this in matter of fact statements: Connolly "Greece and Rome at War"-"The most noteworthy of these heroes was Marcus Claudius Marcellus, who killed the Gallic chieftain Viridomarus in single combat in 222bc. He went on to become Rome's most successful general against Hannibal during his campaigns in Italy". pg.114. "During the conflict the Gallic chieftain Viridomarus challenged him to single combat and although Marcellus was nearing 50 he accepted the challenge and killed Viridomarus". pg. 146

/ H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical world"- "One of these, at Clastidium in 223BC, was notable for another example of single combat. The consul M. Claudius Marcellus killed the Insubrian leader, Virduromarus". pg.114

/ Adrian Goldsworthy "In The Name Of Rome"-"Then, deciding that Britomarus himself wore the finest equipment, The Roman consul spurred ahead of his men to reach the king. The two leaders met between the rival lines. Marcellus drove his spear into the Gaul's body, knocking him from his horse, and then finished him off with a second and a third blow, before dismounting to strip the corpse." Pg.42

/ Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier"-"The battles saw heroic actions on both sides. The Roman commander Marcellus, won the spolia opima for slaying the Gallic chieftain Virdumarus at Clastidium, for which the Roman poet Naevius wrote a play celebrating the events." pg.32

/David Matz "An Ancient Rome Chronology, 264-27 B.C." -"The outcome was decided when the Roman commander Marcus Claudius Marcellus, overcame the chieftan of the Insubres, a certain Viridomarus in single combat" pg.77

Ellis is recounting the tale exactly as Livy had written it. He is not claiming it as unequivocal fact.

/Peter B. Ellis "The Celtic Empire"-"Here we find a surprising development. It appears that Viridomar offered a challenge, in the traditional Celtic fashion, to the Roman General, Marcus Claudius Marcellus, to settle the issue by combat to the death. Surprisingly, the Roman General accepted. He succeeded in slaying Viridomar and the Celtic army crumbled before a renewed Roman charge." pg.41 this isnt the way livy wrote it, he is interpreting the story himself.
The only thing I could find remotely contrary to this is in Cunliffe's "The Ancient Celts"- in referring to the parallelism between the two stories of Valerius and Manlius: "The parallelism between the two stories may suggest the repetition of a single incident or even a fictitious embroidery, but the fact that Livy had access to the tradition suggests that single combat was a feature of Celtic behavior in Italy." pg.102 Even this says it MAY be fictitious, not that it is fictitious.Not one author I have read denies or seems to doubt what happened with Marcellus. Even though Manlius is a different story this is where the only dissension I could find, and thats with Cunliffe. And even in this statement he is not sure. As far as Manlius it seems some authors are suspect of the story, but this is not true of Marcellus.

Yes plenty of people, as there were in Nazi Germany, circa 1945. Numbers prove nothing. Large numbers of trained well equipped forces count for everything.

I dont agree with you on the Nazi Germany thing but I do agree with trained and equipped forces.

Why you say? ..Well you stated that Rome couldn’t conquer the Gauls because they were distracted fighting Carthage. The point I made was that during the same period (ie when the Romans were supposedly busy fighting Carthage), they managed to conquer other (non Gallic) peoples, thus the hypothesis “does not stand up critical analysis”.

Ok for starters, you clearly stated that you believed the Romans couldn’t / most likely didn't conquer the Gauls because they were distracted fighting Carthage. “There was a reason why the Romans had not succeeded in conquering Transalpine Gaul in the previous 300 years of conflict…because of the other wars going on like with carthage..”

Now, when this statement was critically examined / debunked it appears you wished to ignore the former debate and present a new line of inquiry… “attrition”..shifting focus. That’s fine but you probably should concede the former point if you believe it no longer tenable / you no longer wish to defend it…else I’ll just keep rabbiting on about it.

Hardly debunked or ignored and the attrition situation will be discussed later. A brief history is in order here.
390 bc. Rome sacked and loses dominant position in Latin League. War with Tarquinii in 388 and 386. Rome/Latin League continue conquest of Italy against the Etruscans and Volsci.In 367bc. Celts show up again and are routed.Rome continues once again concentrating on Italy against the Latins and others. In 360/361bc Gauls attack again and are defeated first near Rome then near Tibur. Ill make out a chronology later but it keeps going on and on about wars with Samnites,Etruscans,Greeks,Illyrians etc. etc.
Rome was first and foremost interested in conquering southern Italy then moving up to the north. Most of their resources were spent conquering everything south of Cisalpine Gaul.

Connolly "Greece and Rome at War": after losing 13,000 men to the Gauls in 284-"In an act of massive retaliation the Romans crossed the mountain into the Senonic homeland and drove the entire tribe out of Italy."pg.90-"The Boii, who had captured Bologna from the Etruscans and had settled in the area, now also crossed the Apenines but were defeated in central Etruria. The following year they crossed the mountains again and were once more defeated. They sued for peace. The Romans, preoccupied with the situation in central Italy, agreed to the treaty which lasted for 50 years. With the fall of Samnium, Rome controlled almost the whole of peninsular Italy. Only the Greek cities of the south remained outside the Roman alliance. In order to consolidate her position Rome began to put pressure on these Greek states to try to force them into alliance." Pg. 90: This is the beginning of the Pyrric wars.

/Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier"-Rome continued to strengthen its hold in central Italy. The wars against the Samnites ground on. In Etruria internal strife increased. The population in the Celtic homeland was again growing. In 284bc Gauls invaded the territory of Arretium and started a sequence of events that ended with the near extermination of the Senones.

/Ellis "The Celtic Empire"- referring to the defeats of Celts and Etruscans in 283:"For the first time, Rome was confident of her northern boundaries. She now turned her greedy eyes towards the Greek city states of southern Italy-Magna Graeca." pg.33

/Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"-"By the 330's Rome had recovered sufficiently to begin a new expansionist drive, and, to secure its northern frontier, a peace treaty was negotiated with the Senones in 334".pg.77:"After the First Punic War(264-41bc) Rome's attention turned once more to the north, and in 232 the territory of the Senones was confiscated and made over to Italian settlement. pg77

Connolly "Greece and Rome at War"- "In 225 the Celts crossed the Apennines with an army of 70,000 men. It was bad timing for the Celts as the Romans, free of any other commitment, were able to devote their entire resources to the war." pg.146-"The threat of yet another invasion was over. The Romans vowed it would be the last. The legions now invaded the Po valley itself." pg. 146

/Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier"-"By 225bc the Romans felt that war with the Gauls was imminent. Rumors about the recruitment of the transalpine Gauls by the Celts in Italy had certainly reached them. They stepped up their own precautions, making peace with Hasdrubal in Spain in order to free themselves from concerns over that area, and recruiting strong armies and gathering stores." pg.29

/Simon James "The World of The Celts"-"An uneasy peace followed due to Rome's distraction by war with Carthage; this lasted for a generation, until 232bc, when Rome seized the land of the Senones and parcelled it out to her own colonists." pg.35: "Hannibal's final defeat at Zama in 202bc, however, left the battle-hardened Romans free to resume the conquest of the north, and the Boii and the Insubres were eventually subdued in the 190's".

/Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"- "The Second Punic War completely altered the balance of power in the mediterranean. Rome moved into an expansive mode. From the end of the war in 202bc until the capitulation of Numantia in 133 the Celtiberians and Lusitani were gradually brought under control. The first two decades of the second century saw the Roman armies win a series of major campaigns north of the Apenines paving the way for romanization, largely completed within a century".pg.235: "The migrations were largely at an end by 200bc. This was the moment which Rome, freed from the threat of Carthage by her hard-won victories during the Second Punic War, entered into a more expansive mode". pg273

If you take a look at these quotes you will see what I said earlier. "freed from", "free to resume", "free of any other commitment" etc etc. This shows that the Romans were pre-occupied with other wars and therefore couldnt muster the means to conquer northern Italy.

they managed to conquer other (non Gallic) peoples, thus the hypothesis “does not stand up critical analysis”.

The Romans could conquer the Gallic people, They just went after the southern and middle parts first. Once Rome had completed the conquest of middle and southern Italy they moved north. Also I put in the Senone situation so you could see that they still defeated the Gauls. I have no doubt that if the Romans after 300bc wanted to conquer northern Italy it would have happened. Why do I say this, because of the majority of battles show that Romans are superior in arms to the Celts.

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.

It is true that by the battle of Georgovia and Alesia, over a decade had passed and many young Gallic youths had appeared as novice warriors. This is born out in the archaeology record as previously mentioned.

H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical World"-"The next year they tried once more, and shortage of manpower compelled them to arm young adolescents. (This may be a Greek rationalisation: traditionally, the warriors of the Celts were often remarkably young.)"pg.111

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?

What defeats are you referring to? Which archaeologist? Where in Cisalpine Gaul?
Its getting really late and Ill have to continue later, I really want to get into attrition.