Sweboz (Germans) slightly underpowered

[Frostwulf]

Sorry for the misunderstanding Blitz. As far as the TCA the quote is an iron breastplate, I might have some more information on this in a few days, but I should at least be able to get some of the battle information for you.

[blitzkrieg80]

thanks! i will try to keep you guys posted on the progress of the unit development.

no need to apologize- i just wanted to make clear that what i value most is the ability to cite evidence and scholarship on material, even if rhetoric has its value. those of us who merely talk cannot err talk

[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.

[Erebus26]

Never mind the Romans - the 'Germans' were the uber warriors of the age and could beat anyone! You've made some excellent points Frostwulf but besides from Ariovistus' defeat of the weakened Aedui can you give me a list of battles where the 'Germans' defeated the 'Gauls' in battle? And I don't mean Gallic Cavalry against German Cavalry during Caesar's conquest, or the battles of the TCA - as they were most likely a mixture of different tribal groupings.

As I've stated in the 'Celtic Overpowered' thread - I don't think there was much difference between the tribal groupings on either side of Rhine. This was a political statement by Caesar so he could raise his profile with the people of Rome to say that he had conquered Gaul. Again with the supposed German threat to Gaul prior to Caesar's invasion - again this was Caesar playing at politics so he had the excuse of intervening in Gaul. At the time of his invasion, Caesar had enemies like Cato within the senate who were trying to strip of his military power and his governorship of Transalpine Gaul. So what better excuse than to tell of massed Helveti and Suebi tribesman spilling into Gaul, near to the boundaries of a Roman Province.

[Frostwulf]

Never mind the Romans - the 'Germans' were the uber warriors of the age and could beat anyone! You've made some excellent points Frostwulf but besides from Ariovistus' defeat of the weakened Aedui can you give me a list of battles where the 'Germans' defeated the 'Gauls' in battle? And I don't mean Gallic Cavalry against German Cavalry during Caesar's conquest, or the battles of the TCA - as they were most likely a mixture of different tribal groupings.

If you read most of this you would see that I have said multiple times the Romans were superior to the Germans. You seem to mistake my intent and your following in the foot steps of others who claim I'm a Roman apologist and now a Germanophile. I think the Celtic units in EB are overpowered especially considering how the elites match up against others. Historically this doesn't match up if you have read the battles. Just because I believe the historical record bears out that the Romans and the Germans were martially superior to the Celts doesn't mean I'm ebullient over them or any of the ancients for that matter.
As for your question of the Germans defeating the Gauls in battle we only have Caesar and a few others to my knowledge. Other then the 10 years of Ariovistus and the TCA there is nothing written that I'm aware of.
With that do you have any battles in which the Gauls defeated the Germans? Is there any information you have in which the Celts pushed back the Germans at any time period?

How were the Aedui weakened? Would you mind putting down your sources and other such information? When I ask for information its not to be obnoxious, its sincere. I see plenty of people talking about this but yet no one has put down a credible source or even where they heard or read about it.

[Erebus26]

I have no problems with your arguments Frostwulf. I know you're not being obnoxious - far from it!!! I agree that Celtic units are overpowered in EB - the Gaesatae were never that good! :D

I would say that Aedui were weakened by their long conflict with the Sequani. Ariovistus took advantage of the situation and attacked both Gallic tribes when they were both exhausted by constant warfare between each other. I believe Caesar mentions as much in his commentaries.

As for Gauls pushing back Germans - you've got me stumped for sources of specific battles. So I yield to you this time! :D

Overall I think your arguments are sound and I enjoy reading your posts, as you have a good grasp of history.

[Watchman]

What I fail to see if how you could actually weaken the Celtic units without rendering them absurdly feeble compared to those of other, uh, origins. I mean, compare the stats of the rank-and-file Celtic infantry with those of, say, Thureophoroi, taking into account that both are more or less regular, professional troops and in the case of the Celts practically per definition with a decent bit of practical combat experience under their belts. Not much difference fas as I know that isn't directly traceable to the equipement kit...

And given that by some campaign descriptions I've read the Sweboz, even under the sorry AI, can give Polybian Roman armies serious trouble, I also fair to comprehend how a legitimate case could be made for making their line units stronger. Doubly so keeping in mind the better part of them are part-time tribal levies.

[blitzkrieg80]

really though, tribal levies were very uncommon, even among the Germanic tribes. the kind of increased military activity seen during Caesar's era is an increase in tribal levies yes and less so professional warriors, although they could easily have increased as a ratio, but otherwise (before the growing trend which lead to the Migration Age): most typical German warriors were professional, as much as any warrior aristocracy, so there is no reason to state they should have "levy" status and training when in fact they enjoyed the benefits of warrior culture, trained solely for it, and took on its subsequent responsibilities. the Germans weren't all craftsmen and farmers, and those who were only rarely composed the army of the EB era except in extreme circumstances such as defense, or a larger calling, such as Caesar.

it is true that common people of the Germanic tribes participated in ritual warfare, but that cannot be used to argue for part-time levy composition or other cultures with similar practices such as the Celts, could then also be classified in such a manner, which would not be true either.

I do agree that there is no point in reducing the strength of the Celts, though, esp. with consideration to balance and other factions / cultures. a professional warrior should have similar characteristics across the board and no particular culture should have a superior essence... the beauty of the EB system is that the equipment DOES matter stat-wise and concerning gameplay and it gives quirks to every unit and it ideally matches to history and reflects the superior technology and/or tactics of the use of that equipment, ect.

[Moros]

Yeah let us make one thing clear, we won't be making the Gauls weaker. We've ,well Blitz and his team, just made the germans much more historical.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Nice!

[NeoSpartan]

Ok I've been a follower of this discussion since the two theards (this one and the Celts one) came up. And I gotta say, this discussion has helped me learn a lot about Germans and Gauls, and Romans too.

Now I will say this:
NO THE SWEBOZ ARE NOT UNDERPOWERED!
--The ONLY thing they lack is an expensive heavy cavarly, and thats it.

I just played 2 MP battles with the sweboz and they KICK A**!!!! One against carthage and the other one against KH.

Now let me explain why I say the Sweboz are fine:
-ALL their units have a rather hight morale when u campared them other units of similar AND better stats.
-Also they are very cheap to make, exept for the Hundllz (Group of Hundred).
-On top of that, exept for their regular spearman and The Sinotoz ("Swordbondsmen"), all other units are have AP weapons.

What does that mean in terms of gameplay?
-You can train a rather large army on a budget.
--This large army on a budge will NOT suffer from a weak morale, which is a risk u take when u train large armies on a budge with everyone else.
-Ur army will tear a whole through more heavely armored units thanks to the AP.
[In my MP game, the MᲪoz (axemen) and Wodᮡwulfoz (black painted guys) cut the number of Epilektoi Hoplitai from 70some to 50some in about 1 minute.]
-When ur Germans are hit with cavarly from behind most of your units will not rout instantly due to their high morale.
-Thier AP capabilities combines with the Wodᮡwulfoz (black painted guys) ability to scare infantry to have heavier stronger infantry routing IF the enemy's general is not present.
-Although ur cavarly is weak compared to the heavy cavalry of other factions, it is extremely fast, very cheap, has good morale, and is very tough for a medium cavarly.

I kicked A*** with this guys and my cavarly was relaged to "check" the enemies cavarly from outflanking. I rarely used it to engage enemy cavarly, nor did I use it in full force to hammer pinned enemy infantry.
WHICH MEANS: that my Sweboz infantry did most the fighting themselves and ROUTED the enemy without cavarly support.

So.... no the Sweboz are NOT underpowered. If u beat the Ai to easy well... thats because is the AI!! Play MP and u will see thier true power.

Take it from me an almost exclusive Aedui/Arverni player.
WIth my gauls I cannot do what I did with the Germans, I cannot count on my infantry to beat heavy infantry without Gaestae and cavalry support. I may bet lucky and rout some heavy infantry with Gaestae and other infantry alone, but that rarely occurs.

Hell, I think I should start a thread called "Gauls Underpowered" because UNLESS I used Mori Gaesum + Gaestae + Brihentin there is no way I am going to win. Yes, those 3 units must be present!

And is ESPECIALLY hard to win if I am on a budjet. With Gauls my regular units just don't cut it, even Minhalt get beat by Polybian Pricipes! (let alone legionaries). Getting a gallic big army on a budjet is suicide, u ain't winning, ur center won't hold long enough for u to beat the enemies flank (UNLESS u have Mori Gaesum)

Gauls don't have (exept for Casse champions) any AP infantry. Although thier stats are decent, thier moral is not any better. This translates to: NO gauls won't cut a hole through heavier troops like the Sweboz do.

ALSO, the best overall Gallic spearmen are: AljậGae the spearmen you train in towns bordering Germania! WHY? 120men, good stats, decent cost, AND much higher moral than regular Gauls!!! So they don't rout that easy.

So my friend... at the end of the day the Sweboz are FINE! The only thing they lack is a heavy cavalry, which should be insanely expensive due to thier rarity. And even without heavy cavarly support they kick a**!

[Watchman]

really though, tribal levies were very uncommon, even among the Germanic tribes. the kind of increased military activity seen during Caesar's era is an increase in tribal levies yes and less so professional warriors, although they could easily have increased as a ratio, but otherwise (before the growing trend which lead to the Migration Age): most typical German warriors were professional, as much as any warrior aristocracy, so there is no reason to state they should have "levy" status and training when in fact they enjoyed the benefits of warrior culture, trained solely for it, and took on its subsequent responsibilities. the Germans weren't all craftsmen and farmers, and those who were only rarely composed the army of the EB era except in extreme circumstances such as defense, or a larger calling, such as Caesar.

it is true that common people of the Germanic tribes participated in ritual warfare, but that cannot be used to argue for part-time levy composition or other cultures with similar practices such as the Celts, could then also be classified in such a manner, which would not be true either.

Now waittasec. I thought specifically the single biggest "structural" difference between the Celtic and Germanic armies was that only the Celts were rich enough to be able to delegate warfare virtually entirely to a specialist warrior class, whereas the Germans could only form a small hard core out of such (ie. the nobles and their retainers) and had to turn to the common tribesmen to furnish the numerical backbone ?

Such commoner-soldiers are levy/militia per definition AFAIK; how *good* levy/militia is an entirely separate question, and the Germanic one was apparently pretty good.

[blitzkrieg80]

My point was that there would be a small professional element and much of the time no need for the larger backbone of common people, unless in defense or great rare occaision... So I don't think we're disagreeing on this at all The great "waves" seen in later times is essentially a mobilization of this levy element hithero uninspired/unutilized... no huge undertakings during the EB period aside from the infamous few: TCA, Ariovistus, Arminius, and thus no need to go beyond smaller professional bands

it is true that the small elite could never hope to go without supplementation by some others for larger conflicts, but they could very much be described as more than part-time, simply because they had very important status, land and "favor" from their lord, because of their military responsibility, thus why the "Proven" are referenced repeatedly in Beowulf, the Duguð / Dugunthiz. Definitely NOT a levy, the unit represents the most common and integral element of any Germanic army for 1500 years or so... the shield-wall spearmen, who are experienced, because they're Germanic freemen who deeply understand that a good part of life is war, defense and otherwise, and even if they are merely wealthy land-owners or less-wealthy lower class, they actively partake of booty and ritual warfare, they indeed are usually retainers but do not have "noble blood", such as earls/jarls, or long-term/prefered status as champions and bodyguard who Beowulf himself represents. i would say part-time warrior class, rather than non-warrior class as levy troops are, the churls/karls.

some examples of Duguð (Dugunthiz) as used in Beowulf, courtesy BEOWULF an edition with relevant shorter texts by Mitchell & Robinson:

āhte ic holdra þý lǽs,
dēorre duguðe
þē þa dēað fornam.
(lines 487b-8) which i translate as: "I had less of loyal [men] [for that], of dear proven [warriors], then when death took [them] away"

Scop hwīlum sang
hādor on Heorote.
þǽr wæs hæleða dram,
duguð unlýtel
Dena ond Wedera.
(lines 496b-8) which i translate: "while the poet sang clear-voiced in Heorot. there was the joy of heroes, the great proven [warriors] of the Danes and Weather-(Geats)"

Ymbēode þā
ides Helminga
duguþe ond geogoþe
dǽl ǽghwylcne.
(lines 620-1) which i translate: "Then the woman of the Helmings (Wealhþēow) went [with] a portion around among to each of the proven [warriors] and youth"


Similarly, Cincinatus and early Roman soldiers might be then considered non-professional warriors also yet that wouldn't describe their status or military skills/training fully either; they certainly were not levy troops.

[Watchman]

I think our only actual disagreement stems from the term "levy", really. Insofar as I use it it refers simply to part-time soldiery called to fight when needed and (usually) for limited periods, ie. who aren't standing professional troops. Medieval knights were one example of this actually - as were, say, Viking Age Scnadinavian and Anglo-Saxon armies for the most part.
Essentially interchangeable with "militia" as far as I'm concerned.

The fighting qualities of the troops involved have nothing to do with the issue. Historically they ranged from virtually useless to startlingly capable, this being above all a matter of training, equipement and motivation.

[Frostwulf]

I have no problems with your arguments Frostwulf. I know you're not being obnoxious - far from it!!! I agree that Celtic units are overpowered in EB - the Gaesatae were never that good! :D

I appreciate you kind words. The Gaesatae have always troubled me considering their performance in the three battles they were in. Clusium/Faesulae: nothing is mentioned of their performance here. Telamon: They became porcupines and died. Clastidium: They did ok here, but no better then the rest of the Celts and ended up fleeing upon the death of their leader.

Clastidium:

until he came upon the ten thousand Gaesatae near the place called Clastidium, a Gallic village which not long before had become subject to the Romans. 4 There was no time for him to give his army rest and refreshment, for the Barbarians quickly learned of his arrival, and held in contempt the infantry with him, which were few in number all told, and, being Gauls, made no account of his cavalry. For they were most excellent fighters on horseback, and were thought to be specially superior as such, and, besides, at this time they far outnumbered Marcellus. Immediately, therefore, they charged upon him with great violence and dreadful threats, thinking to overwhelm him, their king riding in front of them. 5 But Marcellus, that they might not succeed in enclosing and surrounding him and his few followers, led his troops of cavalry forward and tried to outflank them, extending his wing into a thin line, until he was not far from the enemy. And now, just as he was turning to make a charge, his horse, frightened by the ferocious aspect of the enemy, wheeled about and bore mostly forcibly back. 6 But he, fearing lest this should be taken as a bad omen by the Romans and lead to confusion among them, quickly reined his horse round to the left and made him face the enemy, while he himself made adoration to the sun, implying that it was not p451by chance, but for this purpose, that he had wheeled about; for it is the custom with the Romans to turn round in this way when they make adoration to the gods. And in the moment of closing with the enemy he is said to have vowed that he would consecrate to Jupiter Feretrius the most beautiful suit of armour among them.

7 Meanwhile the king of the Gauls espied him, and judging from his insignia that he was the commander, rode far out in front of the rest and confronted him, shouting challenges and brandishing his spear. His stature exceeded that of the other Gauls, and he was conspicuous for a suit of armour which was set off with gold and silver and bright colours and all sorts of broideries; it gleamed like lightning. 2 Accordingly, as Marcellus surveyed the ranks of the enemy, this seemed to him to be the most beautiful armour, and he concluded that it was this which he had vowed to the god. He therefore rushed upon the man, and by a thrust of his spear which pierced his adversary's breastplate, and by the impact of his horse in full career, threw him, still living, upon the ground, where, with a second and third blow, he promptly killed him. 3 Then leaping from his horse and laying his hands upon the armour of the dead, he looked towards heaven and said: "O Jupiter Feretrius, who beholdest the great deeds and exploits of generals and commanders in wars and fightings, I call thee to witness that I have overpowered and slain this man with my own hand, being the third Roman ruler and general so to slay a ruler and king, and that I dedicate to thee the first and most beautiful of the spoils. Do thou therefore grant us a like fortune as we prosecute the rest of the war."

4 His prayer ended, the cavalry joined battle, fighting, p453not with the enemy's horsemen alone, but also with their footmen who attacked them at the same time, and won a victory, in its sort and kind, was remarkable and strange. For never before or since, as we are told, have so few horsemen conquered so many horsemen and footmen together. After slaying the greater part of the enemy and getting possession of their arms and baggage, Marcellus returned to his colleague, who was hard put to it in his war with the Gauls near their largest and most populous city.9 5 Mediolanum was the city's name, and the Gauls considered it their metropolis; wherefore they fought eagerly in its defence, so that Cornelius was less besieger than besieged. But when Marcellus came up, and when the Gaesatae, on learning of the defeat and death of their king, withdrew, Mediolanum was taken, the Gauls themselves surrendered the rest of their cities, and put themselves entirely at the disposition of the Romans. They obtained peace on equitable terms.

It makes no sense to me why the Gaesatae are as powerful as they are, it sure didn't show in these battles.

I would say that Aedui were weakened by their long conflict with the Sequani. Ariovistus took advantage of the situation and attacked both Gallic tribes when they were both exhausted by constant warfare between each other. I believe Caesar mentions as much in his commentaries.

Is this what you were referring to?
Caesar-"The Gallic War"If the unsuccessful battle and flight of the Gauls disquieted any, these, if they made inquiries, might discover that, when the Gauls had been tired out by the long duration of the war, Ariovistus, after he had many months kept himself in his camp and in the marshes, and had given no opportunity for an engagement, fell suddenly upon them, by this time despairing of a battle and scattered in all directions, and was victorious more through stratagem and cunning than valour."

Here is the other translation:

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.

As for Gauls pushing back Germans - you've got me stumped for sources of specific battles. So I yield to you this time! :D

I think of this we will never know. The TCA is the first recorded appearance of the Germans excluding the Bastarnae and possibly some German involvement in 222BC along side the Celts.

Overall I think your arguments are sound and I enjoy reading your posts, as you have a good grasp of history.

Thank you, I apply this quote to you as well.

What I fail to see if how you could actually weaken the Celtic units without rendering them absurdly feeble compared to those of other, uh, origins. I mean, compare the stats of the rank-and-file Celtic infantry with those of, say, Thureophoroi, taking into account that both are more or less regular, professional troops and in the case of the Celts practically per definition with a decent bit of practical combat experience under their belts. Not much difference fas as I know that isn't directly traceable to the equipement kit...

For me its not reducing the rank and file tribal levies, its the elites that bother me. One base line unit that does bother me is the Batacorii, these guys should have an increase in moral.

it is true that common people of the Germanic tribes participated in ritual warfare, but that cannot be used to argue for part-time levy composition or other cultures with similar practices such as the Celts, could then also be classified in such a manner, which would not be true either.

I'm not sure I agree with this, I believe the Germans differed in that every free man was supposed to train. The nobles went on raids and battles but battles between tribes the German free man also participated. I'm fairly sure the same is not true of the Celtic system. Ill have to check on a few things first though.

the beauty of the EB system is that the equipment DOES matter stat-wise and concerning gameplay and it gives quirks to every unit and it ideally matches to history and reflects the superior technology and/or tactics of the use of that equipment, ect.

The problem though is things like this:
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

You have historically unarmored units defeating a more numerous and better equipped units.

Now waittasec. I thought specifically the single biggest "structural" difference between the Celtic and Germanic armies was that only the Celts were rich enough to be able to delegate warfare virtually entirely to a specialist warrior class, whereas the Germans could only form a small hard core out of such (ie. the nobles and their retainers) and had to turn to the common tribesmen to furnish the numerical backbone ?

Such commoner-soldiers are levy/militia per definition AFAIK; how *good* levy/militia is an entirely separate question, and the Germanic one was apparently pretty good.

This is the way I understood it as well.

Neospartan the reason for EB was to have as realistic units as possible, I just don't think that is the case. From my understanding the Germans base line units-levy should be a little better then their Gallic counter parts, but the Celtic elites outstrip the Germans and the Romans and I don't find that accurate. If it takes increasing the cost of the German/Roman units or what ever then so be it, but as far as the statistics are concerned that is where the historical part comes in. Balance the units through cost or some other method.
As far as the moral goes the German units have 10 units with 11 moral and under, and have 2 with 13 moral and 1 with 15 moral 3 with 16 and 1 with 17..
The Celts have 18 under 11 and 5 with 13 moral/3 with 15/5 with 16/1 with 17/2with18/1 with 19/ 1 with 22

[Watchman]

Telamon: They became porcupines and died.

That was actually the expected result whenever unarmoured close-order infantry had to suffer the attentions of skirmishers without a skirmish screen of their own to dissipate the effect. Skirmishers rarely did much damage to each other (since they could dodge most of the javelins), but if unopposed could severely hurt close-order troops (who couldn't, and AFAIK even light javelins can pierce shields worrisomely easily).

Is this what you were referring to?
Caesar-"The Gallic War"If the unsuccessful battle and flight of the Gauls disquieted any, these, if they made inquiries, might discover that, when the Gauls had been tired out by the long duration of the war, Ariovistus, after he had many months kept himself in his camp and in the marshes, and had given no opportunity for an engagement, fell suddenly upon them, by this time despairing of a battle and scattered in all directions, and was victorious more through stratagem and cunning than valour."

Here is the other translation:

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.

But didn't the Sequani and Arverni originally engage the services of Ariovistus and his Germans specifically against the Aedui, after which the Germans turned against them and subjugated the Sequani ? That doesn't sound like something factions with their own armed forces in a decent condition would do; in other instances in history such large-scale employement of little short of entire warlike tribes to fight your enemies has tended to be a clear sign of acute weakness of the employer, who has similarly more often than not found he is incapable of keeping his nominal employees in check.

The way Ariovistus ducked into the swamps until the alliance against him began to fragment can also be interpreted as the individual Gaulish factions having by themselves too few effectives to oppose him, and thus had to pool their forces in a bid to get rid of their unwelcome guests.

The problem though is things like this:
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

You have historically unarmored units defeating a more numerous and better equipped units.

Cavalry fighting is often decided by psychological factors though, and particularly shock and momentum and aggressiveness. Even fairly lightly equipped cavalry that can gain an edge in those has often been able to rout mounted forces of higher calibre simply by the psychological shock of the sudden and determined assault. Once panic sets in even a large and powerful formation can irrecoverably collapse in moments, and cavalry is inherently more volatile than infantry; whereas heavy-infantry clashes could take hours to be decided, shock cavalry actions tended to be resolved in minutes if one side could not reorder its squadrons adroitly enough in the see-saw of charge and counter-charge.

Indeed, cavalry officers were among the few for whom reckless courage and impulsiveness were desirable traits, as they made it that much easier to unhesitantly seize the initiative and gain the upper hand.

The way the Germans in many of the clashes seem to have unhesitantly charged en masse once they caught sight of their opponents - who were conversely often apparently somewhat dispersed and slow to react - might speak of such a factor. 'Course, that one can be a little difficult to model under the RTW engine...

It may also be that at least the lighter Gallic cavalry was more distinctly skirmishers than a shock arm in outlook, and was thus ill disposed to take on the highly aggressive Germans.

Neospartan the reason for EB was to have as realistic units as possible, I just don't think that is the case. From my understanding the Germans base line units-levy should be a little better then their Gallic counter parts, but the Celtic elites outstrip the Germans and the Romans and I don't find that accurate. If it takes increasing the cost of the German/Roman units or what ever then so be it, but as far as the statistics are concerned that is where the historical part comes in. Balance the units through cost or some other method.
As far as the moral goes the German units have 10 units with 11 moral and under, and have 2 with 13 moral and 1 with 15 moral 3 with 16 and 1 with 17..
The Celts have 18 under 11 and 5 with 13 moral/3 with 15/5 with 16/1 with 17/2with18/1 with 19/ 1 with 22

But by what concrete justification can it be argued well-trained professional troops with practical combat experience should not have at least a slight advantage over even quite competent part-timers ?

[Sarcasm]

You do realize that our Gaesatae are merely the elite part of the entire Gaesatae force, right?

And I seem to recall an entire Spartan mora - the premier fighting force of Greece - wiped out by lightly armed peltasts, so there's really no point in saying a unit is weak because it fell victim to skirmishing tactics.

[Sarcasm]

Cavalry fighting is often decided by psychological factors though, and particularly shock and momentum and aggressiveness. Even fairly lightly equipped cavalry that can gain an edge in those has often been able to rout mounted forces of higher calibre simply by the psychological shock of the sudden and determined assault. Once panic sets in even a large and powerful formation can irrecoverably collapse in moments, and cavalry is inherently more volatile than infantry; whereas heavy-infantry clashes could take hours to be decided, shock cavalry actions tended to be resolved in minutes if one side could not reorder its squadrons adroitly enough in the see-saw of charge and counter-charge.

Indeed, cavalry officers were among the few for whom reckless courage and impulsiveness were desirable traits, as they made it that much easier to unhesitantly seize the initiative and gain the upper hand.

The way the Germans in many of the clashes seem to have unhesitantly charged en masse once they caught sight of their opponents - who were conversely often apparently somewhat dispersed and slow to react - might speak of such a factor. 'Course, that one can be a little difficult to model under the RTW engine...

It may also be that at least the lighter Gallic cavalry was more distinctly skirmishers than a shock arm in outlook, and was thus ill disposed to take on the highly aggressive Germans.

But by what concrete justification can it be argued well-trained professional troops with practical combat experience should not have at least a slight advantage over even quite competent part-timers ?

Arabian light cavalry defeating Sassanian clibanarii anyone? Should they have lesser stats?

[Watchman]

As I understand it the Clibanarii of the Muslim Conquest period were much lighter than had been the norm previously - essentially heavy horse-archers, with just the horseman clad in body armour - but yeah, more or less. They were still probably rather heavier armed than the Arabs.

It's not actually particularly difficult to find cases of even quite excellent cavalry forces being put to flight by markedly "lesser", or at least lighter, squadrons simply by the virtue of a poor tactical approach or "getting caught napping" so to speak. Just for one example around the "pike and shot" period even quite light cavalry, so long as it attacked aggressively, could regularly defeat the heaviest armoured horse around that was using the caracole "heavy skirmish" technique. ('Course, once the heavies started getting straighforward too the lights were in trouble...)

[Sarcasm]

As I understand it the Clibanarii of the Muslim Conquest period were much lighter than had been the norm previously - essentially heavy horse-archers, with just the horseman clad in body armour - but yeah, more or less. They were still probably rather heavier armed than the Arabs.

Clibanarii of that period did have some sort of horse armour, but at most probably only the front of the horse was protected. Still, even if they didn't, they were in a full suit of mail (or plate mail or lamellar over mail) and adding to that a heavy iron helmet and probably even cheires for the legs and arms, they were considerably heavier than our celtic brihentin. And they were defeated by light cavalry loosely equivalent to the ridarharjoz.

That *still* doesn't mean they should have worse stats than Arabian light cavalry.

[Watchman]

I understand cavalry so heavily armoured was actually somewhat unusual among the Sassanids by that period, but that's not really relevant here. I'd actually rather rank the Arab cavalry by terms of the Saba horse, as the two were probably quite similar - mostly light opportunistic skirmishers, with some better equipped formations better suited for shock action (the richer Arabs wore mail, after all).

Doesn't much change the point of course. Heck, even full-blown cataphracts seem to have been routed with relative ease even by comparatively light infantry if caught unprepared...

[Erebus26]

Watchman - your points about skirmishers doing damage to unarmoured close order troops I agree with, but the Gaesatae have be looked at more closely in the context of the overall way they performed it battles like Telamon or Clastidium.

To the Romans these guys are going to be scary - 6ft naked warriors taunting you and making a loud noise, and then charging you with long spears and swords - but the Gaesatae quickly faltered when their charges failed, pretty much like any other Gallic attack, the examples being hurt by Javelins and Pilum at Telamon or by losing their leader at Clastidium. I think these guys were elite mercenaries, but when it came to the crunch they seemed to have performed poorly. In fact at Telamon it was the Insubres, the Boii and Taurisci, who formed into lines and made the battle hard fought for the two Roman armies, who come out with the most credit.

Frostwulf & Watchman - As for the quotes from Caesar's Gallic Wars regarding the state of the Aedui and Ariovistus, I'm inclined to agree with the first quote about the Gauls wearing themselves out and then Ariovistus seizing his moment, as this is the quote I have read. But the second quote is interesting about Ariovistus waiting for the Gauls to lose interest and disperse, as Caesar used this tactic against a massive Belgae force in 57BC.

[Watchman]

Although it may also have just been that the Romans identified the front-rank Gaesatae ("point men" you could say) as something both worrisome in psychological terms at least and relatively easy to whittle down with skirmishers (which the Celts apparently didn't use much themselves, when it comes to that - macho warrior-class mentality at work no doubt), and singled them out for some extra "softening up" so by the time the heavy infantries made contact the nekkid dudes were no longer much of a factor.

I mean, that's exactly what I do to the buggers in EB and it has exactly the same effect...

[NeoSpartan]

....
Neospartan the reason for EB was to have as realistic units as possible, I just don't think that is the case. From my understanding the Germans base line units-levy should be a little better then their Gallic counter parts, but the Celtic elites outstrip the Germans and the Romans and I don't find that accurate. If it takes increasing the cost of the German/Roman units or what ever then so be it, but as far as the statistics are concerned that is where the historical part comes in. Balance the units through cost or some other method.
As far as the moral goes the German units have 10 units with 11 moral and under, and have 2 with 13 moral and 1 with 15 moral 3 with 16 and 1 with 17..
The Celts have 18 under 11 and 5 with 13 moral/3 with 15/5 with 16/1 with 17/2with18/1 with 19/ 1 with 22

And if u look and play the game German basic units are a little better than Gallic ones. Especially in the morale side of the story. Only Minhalt and Bataroas can give a real hard fight to Germanic non elites. Now, part of the reason Gallic non elite infantry will hold up against germanic infantry is because they won't get hit with the AP of most Germanic units.

Only Gallic elites are better than the Germanic troop line up. BUT, exept for the Gaestae, they will all suffer from the AP damage most Germanic units do.

Now u have to understand these Gallic elites are outragusly expensive!!! Only the Mori Gaesum have a good cost, and u can only get them in one province. The Cornutos are EXTREMELY expensive and you can only get them in one province too.
Also, all Gallic Elites GET BEAT by Cohorts Imperatoria, each and every time. PLUS the Cohorts are cheaper. So YES the roman troop lineup already beats the Gallic Elites, especially the Cohorts imperatoria.
-The only exeption is the Brihentin who is a very good cavarly and I am not afraid to have it fight Hetairoi.

As for Polybian troops, in my post I explained the Polybian Principes beat Minhalt. They also happen to beat all other non-elite Gallic infantry.