Sweboz (Germans) slightly underpowered

[Frostwulf]

This is an attempt to summerize things.
To the statement:

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.

According to William Maehl there was a increase of population and the tribes needed land which became intense in 500 BC.

William H. Maehl-"Germany in Western Civilization"-"Failure to drain bogs and marshy soil only made the situation of the Germans worse. Henceforth the Celts were subjected to steady pressure.
On the eve of the mastery of Germany, the Germans comprised three main groupings: northern,eastern, and western. From the first were to spring the Norse, Danes and Swedes. from the eastern tribes, who had taken up abandoned lands from the middle Oder to the Vistula, were to emerge such great protonations as the East and West Goths, Vandals Burgundians and Langobards(Lombards). The western Germans, who were to furnish the shock troops in the first skirmishes with Rome, comprised the Ingaevoni of Jutland, Schleswig-Holstein, and Hanover, the Herminoni of north-central Germany, and the Istvaenoi, who inhabited the Rhine Valley and were geographically closest to the civilized peoples and included Chatti, Bructi, Chattuari, Batavians, Teutons, Marsi, Cimbrians, and Chauki.
All efforts to block the German advance availed nothing. At some time in the course of the third century B.C. the backbone of the Celtic resistance was broken, and this people for the most part evacuated central and western Germany, fleeing to the east, south, and west. Many Celts, of course, were captured and enslaved or even remained behind as allies or free subjects of the Germans. The vacated areas were filled by Quadi, Marcommani, Suebi, and other western Germans. As the second century BC dawned, Germany was under the domination of one race at last. However, that race could no longer claim to be pure, for the conquest of middle Europe had involved racial admixture with the conquered." pg.7

J.B. Bury-"The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians"-" In the second millennium BC the homes of the Germanic peoples were in southern Scandinavia, in Denmark, and in the adjacent lands between the Elbe and the Oder. East of them beyond the Oder were Baltic or Lettic peoples, who are now represented by Lithuanians and Letts. The lands west of the Elbe, to the Rhine were occupied by Celts.
After 1000BC a double movement of expansion began. The Germans between the Oder and the Elbe pressed westward, displacing the Celts. The boundary between the Celts and Germans advanced to the west, and by about 200BC it had been pushed forward to the Rhine, and southward to the Main. Throughout this period the Germans had been also pressing up the Elbe. Soon after 100BC southern Germany had been occupied, and they were attempting to flood Gaul. This inundation was stemmed by Julius Caesar." pg.5

H.D. Rankin-"Celts and the Classical World"-"By the end of the sixth century BC, the Germans had expanded into Belgium and the southern part of Holland. They occupied both banks of the lower Rhine, and they reached as far south as the Ardennes.
Across Europe the long line of Celtic hill-forts may be said to have restrained German expansion for centuries, though, as we have said, there was considerable intermingling. Certain tribes of Gaul, such as the Aedui, boasted of Germanic descent. The Belgae also were a mixture of German and Celt. There is no reason to suppose that it was specifically German pressure that detonated the great Celtic invasions of Italy and Bohemia at the end of the fifth century BC. There is no evidence that the line of Celtic fortifications did not hold good at that time. On the other hand, Celtic pressure seems to have caused Eastern Germanic tribes, such as the Bastarnae, to move eastwards." pg.18-19

The Oxford Classical Dictionary-"The conventional view is that German language and culture originated in northern Germany and land about the western Baltic from about 500BC. Movement of peoples, leading to the reversal of Celtic expansion and Germanic contact with the Mediterranean world, took place from 300BC. In the west, this included the Cimbric migration of the 2nd cent. BC -probably also the date of German settlement across the lower Rhine. The early 1st cen. saw teh arrival of the Suebi on the upper Rhin. In the east, the Germanic Bastarnae appeared on the borders of Thrace as early as 200BC; and the same period saw the establishment of the distant ancestors of, amongst others, Burgundians, Goths, and Vandals, between the Oder and the Vistula." pg. 635 Contributers: Anderson,Much,L.Schmidt,E.A.Thompson,M.Todd,P.Heather

The Germans reversed the Celtic expansion. If the Celts had been defeating the Germans for centuries, then how could this happen? If the Celts were so tough, why were they reversed during their expansion phase?

If around 400BC the Celts began to expand, why did it take around 100 years to reach Thrace and Macedonia?

*Atlas of the Celts-"Broadly following the course of the Danube, Celtic war parties and their families, reinforced by latecomers who could find no place in an overcrowded Italy, traveled more than 1500 kilometers (1000) miles eastwards across Euope. Progress was slow and, we may suppose, completely disorganized." pg.63

This is similar to what I was saying about the Germans.

Dissenting view:

One, because we know they (Germans) were there but made no attempt on Gaul, a rich and prosperous area. Two, archeology shows very little in the way of Gallic arms and armour have been found across the Rhine. What does exist tends to be dated (Halstatt 'D' / La Tene 'A') equipment use by the Celtic inhabitants who had been ruling over the local Indo-Europeans (urnfield, Germanics, etc). Three, the Gauls acted as a wall from which Germanic population pressures washed against ..even up ‘til Caesar’s time (eg. The Usipetes and Tenctheri fleeing the Seubi).

Expansion stops from two reasons: either you run out of steam and can go no further, or the other guy keeps you from going further. And odds are the Germans weren't so short of people all those centuries they lacked the resources and impetus to try proceeding further into the rich lands of Gaul (and other choicer Celtic lands), which leaves being checked by its inhabitants the only logical explanation.

The rank lack of succesful German expansion at Celtic expense for centuries sounds pretty conclusive to me, doubly so given the highly warlike nature of both peoples.

The Germans prior the 2nd C BC were generally beholden to the Celts.

D.H. Green “Language and History in the early Germanic World”-“Although the earlier view that the Celts established a political hegemony over Germanic tribes may no longer be acceptable, the cultural flow, as revealed by archaeological finds, is clearly from the Celtic south to the German north."


The subject of the supposed "Devastating Civil War"
Adrian Goldsworthy"The Roman Army at War 100bc-ad200"-"Before Caesar's arrival in the country, the Gallic states used to fight offensive or defensive wars almost every year (BG6.15). The scale of these conflicts is hard to judge, but it is probable that the aim was the reduction of the enemy to a subject tribe through a moral defeat rather then his destruction. For the nobles, warfare offered the opportunity of wealth, prestige, and reputation to further political aspirations at home.As in Germany, a retinue could only be maintained by actual fighting. The reason given for the migration of the Helvetii, that the geography of their homeland did not allow them full scope for raiding(BG1.1),and the subsequent raids on Rome's allies (BG1.2) reinforces the importance of warfare in Gallic society. Again, both factors are similar to those discussed as encouraging endemic warfare in Germanic culture. This is the customary method of opening hostilities in Gaul. A law common to all the tribe alike requires all adult males to arm and attend the muster, and the last to arrive is cruelly tortured and put to death in the presence of the assembled host." pg56


Simon James "The World of the Celts"-" The complex web of clientage and alliance which Caesar reveals in Gaul was largely based on the outcome of frequent wars. The theater of combat was where many personal and tribal relations were tested, broken and forged. We may suppose conflicts ranged from great wars associated with migrations of whole peoples to mere brigandage, inter-family feuds, and cattle raids by individual warriors seeking quick wealth and prestige. Probably most Celtic warfare was on a small scale, involving no more then a few score men on each side. The population was growing and states were developing in late Iron age Gaul, and this may have led to an increase in the scale of warfare. But it is clear that the vast armies commanded by Vercingetorix and others were assemble only as a response to the great threat from Rome (p.127). In fact, Rome changed the very rules of Celtic warfare, bringing large armies into an area where, internally at least, they may have been much rarer before. Certainly, the Gaul described and conquered by Caesar showed no signs of exhaustion by internal wars-it was a rich and prosperous land-so means were evidently found for limiting the damage war could cause. Caesar says that the Druids were involved in disputes and in the decision to wage war, providing some evidence for the existence of limiting social mechanisms. War did not threaten the fabric of society as a whole, even if the fortunes of the individual clans and tribes did wax and wane. It would be probably also be wrong to think that love of war was confined to the nobility, at the expense of the suffering of a pacifist peasantry: admiration for the warrior ethic appears to have been general, and was not restricted to men either (see box). Violence was endemic, but sufficiently intermittent for most people to get on with their lives successfully most of the time: warlike display was at least as important as actual fighting." pg. 74

*Atlas of the Celts-"During the first half of the 1st century BC, the rest of Gaul attained an uneasy accommodation with the Roman occupation of the south. Celtic Gaul was generally a prosperous and peaceful region where farms flourished and oppida (towns), stimulated by Roman trade grew ever larger. In central Gaul, societies became sufficiently complex and well organized to be on the brink of independent statehood, and left to their own devices they might well have achieved this within a generation or two. pg.82


Dissenting view:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by Frostwulf
It could be because Caesar was referring to the battles with the Germans. For some reason I cant find that quote, is it in the 1st chapter? It sounds like when he would be addressing his troops and this quote isn't there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
If you had read all of De Bello Gallico, you couldn’t have missed it. Again, you can’t just take quotes that you like and ignore those you don’t. Its bad enough to claim some scholarship as definitive truth, much worse to only use select pieces of any said work.


This is out of context. This has nothing to do with the "Gallic Civil War", its all about the Gauls being exhausted by the fight with the Germans. So yes I do deny and dismiss the supposed "Devastating Civil War".

Wow!... It never ceases to amaze me how some will only see what they want to see.

Why the bloody hell would Caesar try to calm his troops by telling them “Don’t worry about how the Germans fight! The Germans only managed to slaughter the Gauls because they slaughtered them previously”!?

It doesn’t make sense! You have to be having a lend ...surely?

The comment only makes sense when one acknowledges the context, that the Gauls had been slaughtering each other and were “exhausted by a long war”. The Civil war that you now partly deny

I explained this in the Celts overpowered thread and Ill explain it here as well. Your misreading this, as you are Simon James.
Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"If there be any who are concerned at the defeat and flight of the Gauls, they can discover for the asking that when the Gauls were worn out by the length of the campaign Ariovistus, who had kept himself for many months within his camp in the marshes, without giving a chance of encounter, attacked them suddenly when they had at last dispersed in despair of a battle, and conquered them rather by skill and stratagem than by courage."book 1,40 Translated by H.J. Edwards

He is talking of the battle of Magetobriga. He makes no mention of Gallic infighting at all in this, he is always referring to the battles with the Germans. He is saying that the Gauls were tired of waiting months for the Germans to emerge and fight them.

Troop quality of Germans:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=223
This is during Caesar's Gallic war campaign. I believe there's no reason to believe that the Germans or the Celts would be much different from 270BC till Caesar's time. The equipment of the Celts may have been better by Caesars time but the Germans were still superior to them.

Dissenting view:
It all revolves around the supposed "Devastating Civil War" theory.

Troop quality of Gauls:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=219
The Gallic troops had moved from mostly footmen to cavalry, and the majority of the elites were cavalry. As shown by the wars the Gauls were certainly not short on cavalry.

Stephen Allen-"Lords of Battle, the World of the Celtic Warrior"-"The change in emphasis from skirmishing with javelins to shock tactics using a spear and long sword can be detected in Caesar's description of the cavalry engagements during his campaigns in Gaul. By this period, the elite Gallic warriors who provided the urban aristocracies with their armed retainers were almost entirely cavalry, armed with spear and long slashing sword, protected by an iron helmet and mailshirt, and mounted on a larger horse capable of bearing the weight of the rider and his equipment. To the Romans, they were the equivalent of their own 'knightly' class, the equites." pg.132

Dissenting view:
It all revolves around the supposed "Devastating Civil War" theory.

Quotes to be cleaned up:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=235

By your rationale Frosty, if 6 Legions defeated 120,000 Germans but 11 Legions were defeated by 80,000 Gauls..shouldn’t we all be jumping up and down claiming that the ‘Gauls were better than the Germans most of the time’

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=265

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!

It wasn't 120,000 combatants, the total number of people (woman,children,warriors etc.) is 120,000. For combatants you have 6,000 horsemen, 6,000 footmen, 16,000 light infantry.

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"Upon these they set their women, who with tears and outstretched hands entreated the men, as they marched out to fight, not to deliver them into Roman slavery." Book 1, 51

Just like the others,Helvetii, Usipetes and Tencteri etc. had non-combatants(woman,children etc.) thats why you end up with the large numbers in these cases.

What about the alleged force of 430,000 Germans who threw down their arms and fled in panic at the sight of 8 Legions in open country

Again another you brought up multiple times and I answered multiple times.

Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"The legions marched out in three columns, which could readily be converted into the battle line of the triplex acies, and advanced the 8 miles to the German camp.The Usipetes and Tencteri were surprised and leaderless, so that what followed was more of a massacre than a battle." pg.275

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"Triple line of columns was formed, and the eight mile march was so speedily accomplished that Caesar reached the the enemy's camp before the Germans could have any inkling of what was toward".Book 4,14

Another multiple statement:

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.

Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-" The convoys of the Helvetii moved onwards, and Caesar followed them, sending his 4,000 cavalry out in advance. Amongst them was a sizeable force of Aedui led by Dumnorix, the same chieftain who had allied with Orgetorix and then aided the Helvetii. Advancing too carelessly, the allied cavalry were ambushed and beaten by a force of Helvetion cavalry a fraction of their size." pg.215

Caesar "The Gallic War"-" Caesar discovered the unsuccessful cavalry engagement of a few days before, that Dumnorix and his horsemen (he was commander of the body of horse sent by the Aedui to the aid of Caesar) had started the retreat, and that by their retreat the remainder of the horse had been stricken with panic. All this Caesar learnt, and to confirm these suspicions he had indisputable facts. Dumnorix had brought the Helvetii through the borders of the Sequani; he had caused hostages to be given between them; he had done all this not only without orders from his state or from Caesar, but even without the knowledge of either; he was now accused by the magistrate of the Aedui. Caesar deemed all this to be cause enough for him either to punish Dumnorix himself, or to command the state so to do." Book 1, 19
Caesars cavalry were duped by Dumnorix and surprised, thats why they retreated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
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.

Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Exactly my point! How could you miss it? The 800 German cavalry defeated/chased off 5,000 of these troops! This is why that at the minimum the German cavalry should be stronger then the Remi Mairepos. Not to mention its Caesar who praises the German cavalry, not the Remi nor any other Gauls. As far as the Gauls Caesar faced they may not have been as good as the Remi, but they gave them a hard time in battle. That is of course till Caesar threw in his Germans.

This again shows the superiority of the German horse vs. the cream of the crop of the Celts, and 800 of the Germanic cavalry ran of around 5000 of the Gallic cavalry which included the Remi. Caesar never mentions how good his Gallic cavalry only his German cavalry, why do you think that is?

When it comes to evidence, the dissenters have nothing at all.


* "Atlas of the Celts";Dr. Barry Raftery; Dr.Jane McIntosh, Clint Twist

[Watchman]

For someone who'd read his Sidnell, you seem to quite actively ignore the man's repeated discussions on the importance of momentum, speed and shock in the inherently highly volatile field of cavalry combat. Heck, Romans at least once appear to have been put pretty much the whole cataphract force of an Armenian army to flight just by hitting them suddenly in the flank with light infantry from a direction they thought was secure.

Not to forget his talk about the victory in a horse fight tending to go to the side who last has fresh and uncommitted reserves - which is exactly what Caesar usually used his Germans as. The Gauls would take the initial brunt of the fighting, and the Germans would be thrown in once the moment was judged suitable to tip the balance and put the engaged enemy cavalry to flight.

Bet you the main reason he did it that way was because he regarded the hired Germans as more politically reliable than the Gauls.

[Frostwulf]

For someone who'd read his Sidnell, you seem to quite actively ignore the man's repeated discussions on the importance of momentum, speed and shock in the inherently highly volatile field of cavalry combat. Heck, Romans at least once appear to have been put pretty much the whole cataphract force of an Armenian army to flight just by hitting them suddenly in the flank with light infantry from a direction they thought was secure.

Not to forget his talk about the victory in a horse fight tending to go to the side who last has fresh and uncommitted reserves - which is exactly what Caesar usually used his Germans as. The Gauls would take the initial brunt of the fighting, and the Germans would be thrown in once the moment was judged suitable to tip the balance and put the engaged enemy cavalry to flight.

We will skip Ariovistus who did well against the Romans and go with the Usipetes and Tencteri.

Goldsworthy “Caesar”-The Germans had some 800 horsemen still guarding their encampment. Caesar had 5,000 cavalry, although if these were performing their duties as a patrolling and screening force properly, then they would not all have been concentrated in one place. Even so, the Gallic auxiliaries probably had a significant numerical advantage, and were mounted on larger horses than their opponents, which makes it all the more notable that the Germans quickly gained an advantage. In Caesar's account the Germans charged first, chasing away part of the Gallic cavalry, but were in turn met by their supports. Many of the Germans then dismounted to fight on foot-perhaps with the support of the picked infantrymen who regularly supported the horsemen of some Germanic tribes. The Gauls were routed and fled, spreading panic amongst a large part of the auxiliary and allied cavalry who galloped in terror back to the main force, which was probably several miles away.” pg.274

Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"Although not more than eight hundred German horsemen were present, as soon as they caught sight of Caesar's cavalry they charged and 'soon threw them into disorder'-all five thousand of them. The Celts did not break immediately, 'but in their turn, made a stand' and a sharp fight ensued in which the Germans, 'overthrowing a great many of our men, put the rest to flight'. pg.230-231

The Germans charged first then later in came more Gallic cavalry, no reserves and a pitched battle after the first charge.

Caesars German mercenaries:

Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"On the following day the Gaulish cavalry attacked in three groups-one striking the head of the column and the others threatening the flanks. Caesar's cavalry were heavily outnumbered but he likewise divided them into three groups and moved up the infantry as close support whenever they were hard pressed. The legionaries could not catch the enemy horsemen, but they provided a solid block for their own horsemen to rally behind and re-form. In the end the Germans won the combat on the right, routing the warriors facing them and causing the rest to withdraw. pg.335

The charge began with the Gauls but ended with the heavily outnumbered German cavalry defeating them. No reserves, no initial brunt excuse, simply the martial ability of the Germans defeated the more numerous Gauls.

Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"It was the German cavalry, possibly with their own light infantry in support even though they are not mentioned, who made the breakthrough.
At length the German horse gained the top of some rising ground on the right, dislodged some of the enemy, and chased them with heavy loss to a river where Vercingetorix's infantry was posted. At this the rest of his cavalry fled, afraid of being surrounded, and were cut down in numbers all over the field.pg. 234

The Germans fought there way to the top and dislodged the Gauls, I don't recall if there was an initial charge(I figure there must have been) but they fought there way up to the top of the hill.

Bet you the main reason he did it that way was because he regarded the hired Germans as more politically reliable than the Gauls.

What about that Caesar considered the Aedui to be his closest allies even though they came real close to mutiny and also the Remi who stood by Caesar the whole time. The Cavalry Caesar had by the time he gained the Germans had been with him for 5 or 6 years.

Speaking of Sidnell:
Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-One might expect that the combination of the long-famed Celtic prowess as mounted warriors with this new state-of-the-art military equipment (to which add spurs, superior ironwork in their weapons and armour and, at first, larger horses) would have proved unstoppable, yet it is the German cavalry who really stand out in Caesar's accounts and we are specifically told they did not have the advantage of saddles. Indeed, Caesar makes clear that the Germans positively scorned such aids as a sign of weakness:' In their eyes it is the height of effeminacy and shame to use a saddle, and they do not hesitate to engage the largest force of cavalry riding saddled horses, however small their own numbers may be'." pg.228

As another reminder:
Goldsworthy “Caesar”-"Throughout the Gallic campaigns German warriors consistently defeated their Gallic counterparts, each success adding to their fierce reputation". Pg.274

Michael P. Speidel-"Riding for Caesar"-"Caesar threw his Germani into the fray-'some four hundred horsemen he had with him from the beginning'. the Gauls, unable to withstand their onslaught, broke and fled. Caesar's horse guard thus saved him from being trapped in certain defeat.
Holding back reserves until the decisive moment, Caesar had won by tactical skill. It is nevertheless astonishing that only four hundred men made such a difference. They must have been the kind of men Caesar's own army feared, 'huge, unbelievably bold and expert fighters'."pg.12

All 3 of these authors were impressed with the Germans! I wasn't ignoring what he was saying, I was simply agreeing with him.

[Charge]

Gauls are more powerful than germans in EB??? And there is historicity? I will check it soon; (completely agree, that germans was most superior warriors, both infantry and cavalry, in barbarian world, especially in Ceasar's times!)

[Moros]

Err... first of all The Game starts much earlier than Caesar. Second of all I think it's hard to say which civilization is the strongest and has the best warriors. What we do know from Archeology is that the gauls had better supplies of Iron and that the average Gaul wore more Armour than the average German, during most if not our complete time period.

EB tries to portray all factions equally detailled and correctly. And as you see we and a lot of fans weren't comletly pleased with our German units. Currently we have reworked them and in our opinion did a better job of reflecting their historical strenghts, weaponry, armour, looks, stats...

Also this particular dicussion isn't about whether one civilization was superior or not, but about game balancing. And as our germans got a whole new unit roster and has been worked on a whole lot, thanks to Blitz (great work!), w can assure that the gameplaybalance of the germans, has been reworked. And will be much more historical accurate and better balanced in the next version.

great discussion none the less.

[blitzkrieg80]

You 'bout summed it up quite well, Moros, and thank you for the acknowledgement, TRULY, it wasn't easy and hopefully this evolution will satisfy all of these issues, balance and historical. I am VERY excited about the next release because there are so many changes and hopefully I have done the Germanic peoples justice, but as always, I will be first person to admit I am not perfect, so there might be some fine-tuning (so bring on the feedback) such as with the Reforms which haven't been implemented in any previous version.

The main problem is that potentially any faction is playable (not really a problem) so game-balance-wise we don't want to have any faction stand out as ALWAYS the unstoppable juggernaut, it just doesn't make sense. Also, a certain amount of free will in the shaping of history is a wholly desirable element in the RTW engine, which does not allow overbalancing and certain history, besides the fact that the Germans were just not THAT active until Caesar's time, and I would argue that it's not because of Caesar at all (although certainly the ability to rally a large collective army against a particular foe is an element, smaller forces were always common). The Time of the Warband was the reason shameless promotion of my reform, haha, ok I'm being silly, but anyways.

We're appreciative of the thoughtful discussions, though, so don't get us wrong.

[Frostwulf]

Err... first of all The Game starts much earlier than Caesar. Second of all I think it's hard to say which civilization is the strongest and has the best warriors. What we do know from Archeology is that the gauls had better supplies of Iron and that the average Gaul wore more Armour than the average German, during most if not our complete time period.

This is true, yet even though the Gauls had more armor they still were being defeated by the Germans in Caesar's time. As far as events and battles prior to Caesar we only know the Germans had reversed the Celtic expansion. Later we have the TCA who were deflected by the Boii but the circumstances are unknown. The TCA had defeated Romans who in the 120'sBC had defeated the Celts and we know more of the circumstances of these battles. The Roman soldiers would have been of the same type who fought both the Gauls and the TCA. I still don't think there would be much difference between 270BC and Caesars time for the Germans. As for the Celts they moved more to a cavalry elite starting around 250BC(Kruta).
Thanks for the info Moros, its nice to know a bit of the behind the scenes things.

The main problem is that potentially any faction is playable (not really a problem) so game-balance-wise we don't want to have any faction stand out as ALWAYS the unstoppable juggernaut, it just doesn't make sense. Also, a certain amount of free will in the shaping of history is a wholly desirable element in the RTW engine, which does not allow overbalancing and certain history, besides the fact that the Germans were just not THAT active until Caesar's time,

I agree with the juggernaut thing, but I guess for the Germans not being to active would be a matter of opinion. You do have the Bastarnae/Scirii going to the Black Sea area and causing problems around 200-250 BC, and there is the situation with reversing the Celts.
I know game balance is very important but I personally would rather have more realistic units offset by cost or some other form of balance. Regardless of what I say, I don't have to go through the headache and the time consumed to make this work. I'm sure you will do a great job at this. I would also like to thank you guys that take time out to respond, it is appreciated.

Blitz I told you I would put down some more TCA material. I don't think this will help you but I will put it down anyway.

Fighting Techniques of the Ancient World-"Aquae Sextae 102BC
Marius ordered Claudius Marcellus to hide 3000 men in the hills. Marius then instructed his legionaries to all the Germans to charge uphill; they were to throw pila once the Germans were in range. The Germans charged up the hill, where their formation was disrupted by the slope, the rocky terrain , and the volleys of pila from the Romans above, which inflicted heavier casualties than usual, due to the Germans dense formation and lack of armour. A shoving and stabbing match then ensued, in which the Romans, with the gladius, better training and uphill position, had a decisive advantage. The Germans were pushed back down onto the plain, where they tried to form a shield wall. It was now that Marcellus cohorts charged down from the hills behind the Teutones and hit them in the rear, just as Marius attacked their front. The Germans rear routed, scattering the front ranks, and the entire army fell apart. Plutarch estimates that 100,000 Germans were killed." pg.58
The 100,000 would include woman and children.

I do have information on the battle of Vercellae against the Cimbri but its about the same as above. If you want it the information Ill put it down for you.