Re: Celtic overpowered!
Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
To disagree and say so is one thing, but making judgements that you have no authority on is inappropriate.
Authority?
Admittedly the tone may have been a little curt (apologies Frosty) but the content is far from “inappropriate”.
If an individual came to you and started remonstrating about how the sky was red, it’d be entirely appropriate to encourage such an individual to consider the full body of scientific evidence / data before committing to such conclusions… even at the risk of appearing conceited or lacking in some ethereal sense of “authority”.
Disappointed? .. I’m sorry if you have taken that personally, that wasn’t my intent. I’ve intended to address your position, not your person. I have no personal beef with you .. quite the contrary.I have to admit Im a bit disappointed at your response to this. In the past … there hasn’t been any real disparaging remarks. You.. have been very logical in posting but we just disagree.
I’m also sorry that I haven’t had the time (or desire) to return and make amends / respond.
Having to deal with recent death and mayhem in RL, hasn’t left me the time or patience to deal with this in a manner I would have preferred…again sorry.
Re: Response. Without more ado…
Frosty, whilst no one would argue that both the Germans and Romans enjoyed a noticeable advantage over the Gauls of the 1st C BC, we do differ when one tries to claim that that aforementioned difference is an innate superiority in isolation of any regard for geo-political changes and circumstances that occurred over several centuries.
And I highly commend you for your endeavours thus far.
Again, I commend you.
I believe you’re confusing citation / source with context. Citing author, title and page number doesn’t prevent one from still taking things out of context, misinterpreting or misunderstanding the content if one suffers from a preconceived perceptual paradigm, which may or may not be the case here.
Just for the record, it’s not a matter of “who”, but what is right.
Of course. The situation reminds me of an interesting story about 5 blind men and a White Elephant. Each was led to a different part of the beast (ears, tail, trunk, legs, belly) and asked to explain what an Elephant was. Excited by the challenge they were all quick to return their findings. Not surprisingly, each came to a different conclusion and the endeavour ended in a farce with inflamed tempers and some nearly coming to blows. The problem was of course that all of them, whilst sincere and correct in their analysis, were all incorrect in their conclusions. Whilst all per convinced of their own beliefs and passionately defended these beliefs, none had actually taken the time to gain an understanding of the full picture.
History, particularly ancient history, is our white elephant and we the blind men trying to find out what the hell it is all about. We need to take the time, have the patience and keep an open mind to ascertain as much of the beast as we can / all available data before jumping to the most “obvious” / simple conclusions. We need to address the study of history in a holistic manner.
Neither you nor I have the full picture. Gaining an understanding of ancient history, esp pertaining the so-called barbarians, is like trying to put together a huge jigsaw. Having studied this culture / geographically specific socio-political period / people for some 8+ years, I’ve discovered one can’t take a few chosen quotes from the likes of Jame’s ‘Exploring the World of the Celts’ in isolation and try and deduce some sort of comprehension from it. Especially when the aforementioned is a rather simple albeit informative picture book / historical candy.
It’s worth noting that to date there is no definitive work on the Celts. To get a good understanding one must not only read all the available public works but the published papers, research, archaeological findings and analysis of the material culture, etc from literally dozens upon dozens of scholars from several universities throughout Germany, France, Ireland and the UK.. to stand any chance of making sense of the different pieces of the puzzle.
Here-in lies the problem. This is extremely simplistic and ignores significant variations, changes and situational circumstances over almost Six Hundred Years of history, what Psychiatrists call the perceptual shortcut. One can’t take a few select pieces of data in isolation and draw an informed conclusion.
I do hope this is due to the aforementioned unconscious condition and not a conscious out flow of some ethno-cultural pride issue?
Throughout this debate you have endeavoured to increase your knowledge but appear to have only used data that supports your hypothesis. Data either carefully selected or taken out of context.
This has apparently become your mantra, having posted it several times in several threads. True, we would all be inclined to agree with Adrian on this account. But should we ignore several hundred years of events / changes and extrapolate events in the mid 1st C BC to those in the early 3rd C BC? Note that Adrian states “Throughout the Gallic campaigns”. It appears you have little problem with this, (nor using Tacitus’ accounts 150 years post Gallic subjugation). Are you seriously happy to assume Gallic / Celtic society was stagnant / unchanging over several hundred years of history?
You have continually cited (ad naseum) this example from Caesar’s De Bello Gallico as evidence of the German’s superiority. It’s interesting to note that you have failed to take account of a similar / more impressive event of 400 hundred Gallic cavalry routing a larger contingent (4,000) of the same Roman (Gallic) cavalry (De Bello Gallico; I.XVI.VI). This Gallic cavalry being better than the other Gallic cavalry, why? …funnily enough the victorious 400 Gauls came from a nation that managed to avoid involvement in the great Gallic civil war.
The point here is not some innate genetic supremacy of a Germanic master race but rather the disparity in quality of a seasoned, veteran force of warrior elite to what amounts to the mobilised noblesse oblige and conscripts of a citizen militia. The later having recently survived the most devastating civil war in Celtic History. A war you apparently choose to deny / ignore / play down.
As far as citing Michael P. Speidel – “Riding for Caesar”, pg.12 and his account of “huge, unbelievably bold and expert fighters ..astonishing men making such a huge difference, etc”, I’m afraid he’s getting a little carried away in his dramatisation, an overt attempt to lay a foundation for his whole subsequent work / subject matter, ie Elite Germans in Roman employ. Drama sells.
A rather gross misrepresentation I’m afraid.
Ariovistus did not “dominate several Gallic factions” with just 15,000 men. The 15k were the first contingent to cross the Rhine and provide support to the Sequani. Ariovistus had not acquired hegemony over these central Gallic factions until he was reinforced by some 105,000 Seubi, Marcommanni, Vangiones, Triboci, Eudusii, Nemetes and 24,000 Harudes and then defeated what must have then been a pitiful force of Gauls at the Battle of Magetobriga. This purported 120,000 - 144,000 army of Ariovistus would have vastly outnumbered anything the Aedui confederacy could have fielded at the time, little loan what the beleaguered Sequani were capable of.
What you also failed to note is that this force of 120,000 - 144,000 veteran Germans were defeated by 6 Roman Legions whilst 80,000 Gallic levys ("beggars and outcasts" - Caesar) defeated 10 Roman Legions. Do you see anyone making ridiculous claims about the superiority of Gallic arms, no!
Nope ..sorry
Again, if you are so happy citing Caesar, why ignore his statement regarding the aforementioned battle. “If anyone is alarmed by the fact that the Germans have defeated the Gauls (Battle of Magetobriga) and put them to flight, he should inquire into the circumstance of that defeat. He will find that it happened at a time when the Gauls were exhausted by a long war” (De Bello Gallico; I.XL.XIII). The Civil War you deny / dismiss.
Another favourite. This again is a case where it’s important to have a holistic understanding of the history in question.
Yes!!.. Gaul was extremely prosperous (both fiscally and population wise), this is one of the main reasons why Caesar was so keen to pillage / conquer it! He did after all have huge personal debts.
Gaul was extremely prosperous because the Gauls did NOT engage in total war. The very work you are so eager to cite (ie James …as does every other scholar) states this and I’m surprised you appear to ignore this significant fact and appear to prefer to project a 21st C Ad paradigm when rationalising data. The major trade centres remained untouched. The very war was over this wealth / trade / money / power. Archaeology only shows a burning / pillaging of minor settlements of no major value.
The devastation spoken of was to the Gallic armies, the warrior elite, the professional soldiery. This is what Caesar was referring to (De Bello Gallico; I.XL.XIII) when he stated that the Gauls were “exhausted by a long war”. He (Caesar) also mentions several times throughout his commentary how the Gauls were forced to mobilised their militia (farmers, craftsman, etc) and train them to fight. Why was this necessary in a warrior culture? … because the majority of the warrior elite were dead. The Great War spoken of by James (amongst others) had temporarily drained the coffers and the Gauls of trained fighters BUT all the major infrastructure remained intact. Caesar was an opportunist taking advantage of a wealthy but weaken proto-state.
Please. For the record, the Menapii were not “destroyed” and the account proves nothing. Firstly, it is little surprise that any given group taken by surprise and unable to muster a force in defence would likely be slaughtered. Secondly, most of the tribe had already fled the continent years prior (57-56 BC) due to Caesar. Interestingly enough, they could only muster / mobilise 9,000 troops against Caesar and when they were at full strength. Even if they could have mustered against the Germans, they would have been at a significant numerical disadvantage. Thirdly, if the previous wasn’t enough, the Menapii were a maritime tribe with little martial heritage to this point. I cite your own quote;
Far from some demonstration of supreme martial prowess, the only thing worthy of note here is the “stamina of their shaggy little mounts” and the German’s eye for opportunity.
I’m surprised you have cited this obscure reference in defence of your hypothesis that all Germans were superior to all Gauls regardless of period or location. If one didn’t know better, one could be inclined to believe that such a move was born more out of desperation to substantiate a pre-conceived idea rather than a seeking a conclusion from objective analysis.
…already addressed your example of 800 cavalry.
You can start by reading the rest of what James says…then diversify your reading.
Not even close I’m afraid.
Ok, for starters… I’m sorry but you’re wrong about the Belgae. Most of the Belgae were drawn into the Civil War. They just didn’t suffer nearly as much as their southern cousins.
I have to say I’m surprised by this claim. You wouldn’t have made it if you had done a little checking … I believe even James acknowledges this!
Secondly, the Germans did fight “stronger” Celts, those that had defeated them for several centuries prior the 1st C BC / Great Civil War and even during the 1st C BC (eg Nervii, etc).
Caesar does nothing of the sort! Quite the contrary in fact (see my previous quote). And regarding this hypothesis that the Germans “brought them (Gauls) low” / brought “both the Aedui and Arverni (and supporters) down”, out of curiosity, how do explain away all the evidence to the contrary? Explain the events, contemporary accounts, material data and the works of notable experts in the field. Do you seriously believe that belying the Germanic failure to make any advance against Celtic Gaul until the mid 1st BC that the Germans must have suddenly spontaneously appeared out of nowhere or was it that they just didn’t eat their spinach prior the mid 1st C BC?
The Germans prior the 2nd C BC were generally beholden to the Celts.
Here-in lies a problem. It appears one is far too ready to make suppositions on what one thinks / wishes to be true, rather than what actually is.
I'm going to do some supposition here and really don't have much to back this up with.. I just think the Romans and the Germans were tougher.
I don’t understand…then what is the problem? You state this then deny it?
Again you are ignoring key points here. Firstly, the Germans (TCA) didn’t enter Gaul in 120 BC, it was some years later. Secondly, the Germans had with them significant contingents of Gauls with them, so again it proves nothing. Thirdly, the Gauls did actually manage to repel the aforementioned. Finally and most significantly, you’ve ignored the fact that the very Civil war in question began in 121 BC after the Arverni hegemony over Gaul was critically weakened by the defeat of King Bituitis and his Arverni alliance at the Battle of Vindalium by the Consular armies of Cnaeus Domitius and Quintus Fabius Maximus. It was this blow that struck the death knell to Gallic liberty. From the ensuing civil war, the Germans and Romans pounced.
The very notion that the Belgae (‘furious ones’) were Germanic so that their feats can be explained away / so they can fit into a preconceived paradigm… is ridiculous. They were not “Celticized”, they were Celtic.. long before their move west. The evidence for this is compelling and I haven’t the time to detail it all here. Suffice to say, if the Belgae were “Celticized” on their arrival as you suggest, then their resulting culture would have been a reflection of those they usurped. This was just not the case.
At least we can agree on something
What time are you talking about? 1st C BC, after a bloody civil war that even Caesar acknowledges, then yes.
Yes! ..and understanding the way Celtic power / clientage worked you would understand that being forced to seek help outside one’s ‘tuath’ was a huge blow to one’s prestige. Things must have be dire indeed.I'm not sure I would agree with this. It sounds to me like the Germans were brought over to break a stalemate.
Again, you are ignoring that fact that Gallic society was dynamic rather than static. Huge socio-political changes occurred in the several centuries we are discussing here. You wouldn’t judge 2nd C BC Imperial Rome by the standards of the 4th C BC Roman Republic, so why do it for the Gauls.
The reason for the severity of the last great civil war was due to the evolution of Gallic society. The population was booming and there were no more frontiers that could be easily exploited. Power was becoming more centralised, clientages more extensive. Wealth / largess, rather than martial feats in raiding had become the main source of social prestige and advancement in Gallic society since the major campaigns / migrations of the 5th to 3rd C BC (eg. The account of Lovernios “The Fox”). Production and trade was so lucrative that raiding well-prepared neighbours was of limited value. One’s prestige, power (retainers) depended more on what you could pay rather than what you could provide through petty thievery. So when you suddenly have huge political instability, large numbers of restless youth, constrained avenues for advancement and huge sums of money involved, the scene was set for the tragedy that unfolded.
Seriously, what have you based this on? Again, the Gauls had been defeating the Germans for centuries prior the beginning of the 1st C BC. Is was only relatively late in the period where the balance of power had shifted.
Again you have missed the wood through the trees. The very reason why Caesar found that “his troops” / Gallic cavalry was “as good as theirs (Belgae)” is because Caesar happen to have at this juncture significant contingents of Remi in his employ.. the finest Celtic (Belgae) cavalry to ever have existed.
As far as your complaints that the Celts are too powerful, I suggest you revisit the stats. Both the German & Roman units generally have better stats than the Celts. The weakest Sweboz skirmisher (intended to be an inexperienced youth) does very well against what was supposed to be the experienced Celtic warrior class (eg Botroas / Bataroas, etc). When you add the additional advantage of missile stats, etc I fail to see how you can still have a problem?
Admittedly I believe the German Cavalry to be a little weak in melee (I’ve seen one unit of German skirmishers destroy 4 units of surrounding Cav) but the same can be said for all the Celtic Cav as well. EB’s Gallic cavalry are completely useless except for chasing down routers. Greeco-Roman skirmishers not only chew them up in melee but they can often beat Regular Celtic infantry. Read the reports of those who have actually played the game and they will tell you that the game is almost too easy when playing the Greeco-Romans against the Celts. The only unit that will really offer a challenge is the Gaesatae.
Frosty, I have to say that you have a tendency to grab one event and post several quotes of the same event devoid of any context. Like our discussion on the Romans, you may well believe the Roman story of Romulus and Remus, Livy’s claim that a raven pecked out the eye of a Gallic chieftan during battle, that over half a million Gauls and Samnites were defeated in a few hours by only four Roman legions, or Plutarch’s claim that Roman legions jogged half a mile in mid summer and fought for a day against the Cimbri but “were so tough that not a single Roman was seen short of breath or had a bead of sweat” … but a little objectivity will better serve you in distinguishing fact from fiction. It doesn't matter how many times you post it, fiction will remain fiction.
my2bob
Bookmarks