Celtic overpowered!

[Frostwulf]

? To date you have only given indication that you have read or part-read two books that specialise on the Celts. Could be good to look at a few quotes from the legends in the field? Few better than Powell.

Books read specifically on Celts:Stephen Allen-"Lords of Battle, the World of the Celtic Warrior",Venceslas Kruta-"The Celts",Simon James "The world of the Celts", Barry Cunliffe-"The Ancient Celts,H.D. Rankin “Celts and the Classical World”
Why would I read a book that was written in 1958? Yes it was republished in 1980 but the material is still the same only the format is different. You complained about me citing a book from the mid 60's and here you are citing older material. You also have to remember this is the same guy who said:

Eg. Powell states that he believed the Romans were the weaker party for far longer, that “the Romans finally managed to turned the tide of Gaulish supremacy from the victory at the battle of Telamon (225 BC)”

This statement of his is obviously wrong. As shown by historical records the Romans were defeating them while embattled with others.
H.D. Rankin “Celts and the Classical World”-“The First Punic War had prevented the Romans from dealing finally with the Celtic menace. It was after this war that the Celts made their concerted attack of 225BC: it may have been intended as a pre-emptive attack by the Celts but it was much too late for this purpose. Then came Hannibal’s invasion of Italy, which prevented the Romans from bringing the Celtic question to a conclusion for a number of years.” pg113
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=143

Quote:
“Caesar also learnt that the Belgae, in earlier times, had themselves come from beyond the Rhine. Modern archaeological research supports the tradition as to the Rhenine, or trans-Rhenine, origins of these peoples. (The Celts, The Celtic Survival, 190 T.G.E Powell)

Quote:
It is along the Rhine that the use of the name Germani is really important, and the archaeological evidence for Celtic settlement east of the river, together with the Celtic topographical names that survive as far east as the Weser, and even the lower Elbe, combine with the observed characteristics of the Belgae, the Treveri, amongst others, to suggest that Germani was originally a Celtic tribe name which perhaps, in former days, had achieved a suzerain position. From the 2nd C BC, it is clear that the name began being used indiscriminantely for any intruders coming into Gaul from across the Rhine. (The Celts, The Celtic Survival, 191 T.G.E Powell)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
The Belgae as you have said did have a Celtic culture.

And!?

Relatively simple. The Germans came over and became Celtized, just as they later had become Romanized in different areas. Again your using outdated material. For more recent material we have:
"Certain tribes of Gaul, such as the Aedui, boasted of Germanic descent. The Belgae also were a mixture of German and Celt." Pg.19. "After their defeat, the Belgae, a group of mixed Celtic and German origins, were treated with comparative moderation." pg.128. H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical world".

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

Barry Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"-"But apart from recourse to chronologically ill-focused maps of Celtic and Germanic place names, there is no sure way of distinguishing which tribes were German speaking.All we can do is to accept the ethnic identifications made by the Roman commentators". pg.238
J.E.Drinkwater-"Roman Gaul"-"Nevertheless, it now seems that we can talk, if only with much qualification, of early 'German' peoples in northern Europe from around the middle of the fifth century BC. Expansion, leading to contact with the Mediterranean world, took place from the third century BC, including, of course, the movement of the Cimbri into Gaul at the end of the following century. It is likely that full German settlement across the lower Rhine (involving Caesar's Eburones, Condrusi, Caerosi, and so on) and a fusion of Germanic and Celtic peoples around the Eifel (to form, above all, the future civitas of the Celtic-speaking Treveri) also belong to this period. There is no doubt that the Gallic nations were seriously disturbed by this activity, particularly the Cimbric invasions, but they seem to have learned to live with the new circumstances. However, towards the middle of the first century BC there was renewed and increased pressure in Gaul as a result of the arrival of Germanic latecomers, who plunged Gallia Comata into further unrest. The stress manifested itself in two distinct bu related forms, both potentially dangerous to Roman interests. In the first place German penetration into the upper Rhineland threatened to displace the nation of the Helvetii. A Celtic people who had originally lived beyond the Rhine, they had been increasingly forced into the area of modern Switzerland from about the third century BC onwards. They lost their last foothold across the river probably around 100BC, and from about the late 70s BC began to feel embattled in their new habitat. They started to plan a retreat through central Gaul, which would have disrupted the peoples already settled there, including their neighbors, the Allobroges, who were the direct responsibility of Rome, and the Aedui, who could claim a 'special relationship' with the City." pg.12-14

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
I will repeat myself and say yes Goldsworthy is saying in the Gallic campaigns, but that’s because his subject was Caesar and his time frame.

Exactly! So if you are going to quote an author, please do so in the context they intended. Don’t go taking random data, extrapolating that to any given anachronistic period in order to serve a preconceived agenda.. and expect us to see the “logic” in it.

It wasn't random data and it is logical to assume that the Germans fought roughly in the same way as they had before. I already laid this out.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=333

Ah yes, the superior Germanic master race and their innate martial superiority. All we need now is some credible supportive evidence for this romantic ideal.

Ah yes the refuge of the losing argument- "you must be a Nazi"
Goldsworthy isn't credible? He unequivocally states they were superior during Caesars time, also Sidnell,Speidell,etc. Prior to that we have the TCA(granted they had some Celts with them).

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"The Aduatici were descended from the Cimbri and the Teutoni who, when they invaded our province and Italy [45 years before], left such baggage as they could not drive or carry on this side of the Rhine with 6,000 of their men to guard it. When their main body was destroyed this band was for many years harassed by war with their neighbors, defensive and offensive. Finally peace was made, by general agreement, and they chose this district to live in. Book2,29

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"If, in keeping with the compassion and kindness of which they had heard from others, Caesar would resolve to spare the Aduatici, they prayed that he would not deprive them of their arms. Their neighbors were almost all hostile and envious of their prowess; if they surrendered their arms they would be defenseless against them, and in that case would prefer to suffer any fate at the hands of the Roman people than be tortured and killed by men among whom they were used to be masters." Book 2,31

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"It arose from the remarks of Gauls and trader who declared that the Germans were huge men and unbelievably brave and skillful fighters;"Book 1,39

J.E.Drinkwater-"Roman Gaul"-"In the course of the long-running rivalry between the Arverni and the Aedui, the Sequani, allies of the former, were tempted to invite in a German princeling and his followers, Ariovistus and the Suebi, as mercenary troops, to be paid in land. Militarily, this policy proved a great success; the 'friends' of the Roman People were severely mauled, which must have reflected very poorly on the credibility of Roman power and influence." pg.12-14

Of the TCA:
Barry Cunliffe-"Greeks,Romans & Barbarians"-"After defeating a Roman army on the Danube in 113BC they crossed the Rhine in 109, and for a decade terrorized Gaul." pg.57
We also have the numerous defeats on the same type of Roman armies that had been defeating the Gauls.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=243
Where is your proof disproving this?

Thus, in the third century you have the area of Southern Gaul – “La Tene C”, Northern France – “Middle La Tene II & III”, Hunsrück-Eifel (Reinecke) – “La Tene A & B”, Switzerland – La Tene “Ic & Iia”, Baden Württemberg (Zürn) Halstatt D3 / La Tene A, Northern Plain – “Late Iron Age / Halstatt A & B”, Briton – “Early & Mid Iron Age”.

Secondly, notwithstanding the previous paragraph, I repeat, you’re NOT talking about the same peoples. You may as well start making claims about the Germans vs the forces of the United States of America.

Those peoples in northern Europe, whom the so-called Germani dealt with in the 3rd and early 2nd C BC had almost nothing in common with the La Tene D Gauls of France nor the La Tene B & C Gauls of southern Germany. In fact, La Tene culture never extended beyond the 51st parallel.

So we go from:

the Gauls had been defeating the Germans for centuries prior the beginning of the 1st C BC.

to:

I repeat, you’re NOT talking about the same peoples. You may as well start making claims about the Germans vs the forces of the United States of America.

Atlas of the Celts-"During the La Tene A phase, this new culture spread rapidly across central Europe, forming a cultural continuum from northern France to Austria." pg.45
Of course La Tene A-D are different because of the area and time, but the situation stays the same when you claim the Celts had been defeating the Germans for centuries.During Caesars time the central Celts(Arverni,Aedui,etc.) were different from the Belgae who in turn were different from the British Celts. Was not the La Tene culture considered militaristic, so there were differences but all A-D still had this characteristic. It was during the La Tene B/C that the Celts expansion was reversed around 300BC.
J.E.Drinkwater-"Roman Gaul"-"Europe from around the middle of the fifth century BC. Expansion, leading to contact with the Mediterranean world, took place from the third century BC, including, of course, the movement of the Cimbri into Gaul at the end of the following century. It is likely that full German settlement across the lower Rhine (involving Caesar's Eburones, Condrusi, Caerosi, and so on) and a fusion of Germanic and Celtic peoples around the Eifel (to form, above all, the future civitas of the Celtic-speaking Treveri) also belong to this period. "pg.12
The Germans still pushed back the La Tene B Celts of NE Gaul.

Quote:
During the second and first centuries BC, the Darcians and (later) certain of the so-called Germanic peoples began making territorial inroads on Celtic lands (The Ancient Celts, The Developed Celtic World, p221, Barry Cunliffe)

Barry Cunliffe-"Greeks,Romans & Barbarians"-"After the middle of the third centuries BC the Gauls came under increasing pressure, in the south from the Romans, in the east from the Hellenistic kingdoms and in the north from the Dacians and the Germans." pg.37

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Ill state again, the reason I put this down is from Psycho V saying the Celts were defeating the Germans for century's before. If thats the case why were the Germans displacing them, not to mention where is the evidence to support this.

Apparently in the material yet to be studied.

Meaning you have no proof as it has "yet to be studied".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
(‘Indo-European History’, ‘La Tene Gaul’, XVI, 5.63, Univerzita Karlova v Praze)

I couldn't find it. I will have to dismiss it.

I know I should be surprised …

I have asked you before for the date of publishing,authors, and the full title and you have yet to provide it. Again I went through the publishing list of the Univerzita Karlova v Praze and couldn't find it.I went through GS, WCAT and I had the ILL team look for this and none of us could find it. The only thing I found that remotely had anything to do with the subject was the Czech being of Celt and Slavic descent, which isn't surprising considering this is a scientific research university that seems to deal mostly with medical research.

Positionally schizophrenic? You have already acknowledge that the Gauls didn’t wage total war, that they had “limiting factors”. Why are you now suggesting the opposite? ..that they did wage total war and therefore all aspects of society would be so affected?

As with most things you seem to have problems understanding what was written. They had conflicts but not the huge devastating war that you claim.

“I never made..” ..? Ok Bill, time for a reality check. You made a claim that you had to retract because it was “unfair” and “out of context”, but that wasn’t an error?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Erroneous would be claiming that Caesar's quote …was about a supposed "Devastating Celtic War" as opposed to what it really was, a 10 year war with the Germans. What about the duel with Virdomarus? How about the Celts defeating the Germans for centuries? These are erroneous statements.

You forgot the sky being blue and the earth round.

The information I had was true, but it was out of context, therefore it was not erroneous.At least I'm willing to correct my mistake, you are not. Did you not make these claims and are they not in error?

Gallic armies successfully …(defeated Roman armies), but this was only possible when the Gauls had had enough time to muster their whole army along the likely route of Roman advance. Mustering a Gallic army and then deploying it for battle was a slow procedure, and it is notable that very often the (Gauls) were unable to form an army until the Romans had (already) attacked their territory …. (Roman Warfare, World Conquest, p96 Adrian Goldsworthy)

A very valid post. I agree with this completely. Of course you do realize that prior to 200BC it was mostly the Celts roaming around Italy that were defeated, they had already mustered and were spoiling for a fight. During Caesars campaign there are plenty of examples where the Gauls were ready to fight: the Helvetii,Sambre,Axona, the battles with Vercingetorix, etc.

Goldsworthy-"The Roman Army at War 100BC-AD200"-"A war between one of these tribes and Rome was likely to be decisive, either through a massed battle between the respective armies, or when the Romans employed their skill at siegecraft to take the enemy oppida. Although the Romans were more likely to win such a conflict, we should not forget that there was still a chance of defeat, and that such a defeat would be on a large scale." pg.60

You do realise that whether the Romans were outnumbered is a mute point when considering the relevance to my comment!? Or are you still claiming that Ariovistus fought Caesar with only 15,000 men?

Again you didn't read or remember properly. I said that Ariovistus had 6,000 horse, 6,000 footmen and 16,000 light troops. I have said that multiple times.

For starters, Caesar’s cavalry were also betrayed, by Ariovistus and his overtures of peace. Secondly, the mighty ‘800’ (even if Caesar is to believe on the numbers) ambushed the Gauls, experienced or not. Ceasar’s veteran legions ran at Gergovia, should we start claiming that Vercingetrix’s Gauls were all innately superior?

You should read and try to understand what Caesar has written. Fist off the "800" had nothing to do with Ariovistus, they were from the Usipetes and Tencteri. The Usipetes and Tencteri did not ambush the Gauls.

Further the Gauls were initially routed by this un-expected attack, not with the subsequent melee that followed. Ignoring the realities of warfare and the state at which the Gallic morale must have been at the time, it is amazing they returned to the fight at all. We have no account of any Germanic force of the period rallying once routed, so again.. should we confer on the Gauls an innate superiority.

Goldsworthy “Caesar”-Caesar made one modest concession, saying that he would advance 4 miles during the day, moving to a position where his camp would have a convenient water supply. In the meantime fighting had already broken out between the cavalry of the two sides.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

This was hardly a full rout. The only time I recall the Gauls rallying was when reinforcements showed up(Helvetii and this example), that never happened in any of the instances with the Germans.
The Gallic moral must have been high as they had been with Caesar for multiple years and have not lost yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
The Germans attacked whilst seeking peace! If you’re happy to accept “unfavourable ground” as evidence of an ambush then surely you would accept the surprise attack of the Germans as an ambush as well!?

As for the other accounts of Germanic cavalry in De Bello Gallico, there is nothing to suggest that they were anything other than an effective / experienced force of mercenaries. An elite force bought at a price that fought a weakened Gallic aristocracy long reduced by civil war.


Goldsworthy read the book and may have….blah blah blah

Speculative hearsay. Your fishing.

This is addressed below.

It’s also worth mentioning that the Helvetii charged a force ten times their size (400/4000) whilst the Germans only three times their size (1,600/5000)… so again, are the Gauls innately superior? …of course not!

1600 is an assumption as there is nothing really said except that there was 800 cavlary. As far as the 400/4000:
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.

The defeat of the Gauls at Admagetobriga was against a united Gallic force, it is not taking about the Aedui fighting the “Germans more than once”. It is a united pan-Gallic force involved in one major battle. These Gauls (plural ie not just the previously mentioned Aedui) had been exhausted by a “long war” / “fierce struggle for supremacy, lasting many years”.

Caesar then goes on and further stresses the point that even in this battle against exhausted Gauls, Ariovistus had to ambush this united Gallic force after they “broke up into scattered groups” His victory being due to “cunning strategy rather than the bravery (superiority) of his troops.”

If one studies the work in context and refrains from grabing select pieces, joining sentences, etc, one will have a better appreciation of the author’s intended meaning rather than that of the reader.

Yes it was a united front of Gauls, I never said anything to the contrary. In fact I had said there was a united Gallic force multiple times. They were exhausted by the campaign with Ariovistus and dispersed because they were tired of waiting for him. Your really stretching it here.
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

Here is yet another translation that might help you.

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"What then of the defeat and rout of the Gauls? If that case were examined it would be found that the Gauls were tired out by the long campaign, because Ariovistus hid in his camp in the marshes and offered no chance for an engagement, and then when the Gauls had given up hope of a battle, and were dispersing Ariovistus attacked and won by stratagem rather than courage. Against naive natives there was room for a stratagem, but not even Ariovistus could expect that our army would be taken in by it." Book 1,40 Translated by H.E.L. Mellersh/published by Random House Inc./distributed by Heron books.

Again your simply adding in your biased ideas instead of seeing what is really said here. You keep trying to string things together that don't belong together.

“reasonable effort” eh? ..thank god for expediency. My friend, if you truly believe me to be a lier, you could contact Leicester University.

Again this is not evidence, if I were to contact Dr.James and he said that nothing of the sort happened, what does that prove? You will still claim it did happen and my claim would be that it didn't. Books, web sites etc. can be examined by all.

So much for defending this “excellent information by a well known and highly thought of Archaeologist”.

He does have excellent information and is highly regarded. If what you say he said is true about the Germans I would disagree with him on that and refer to Sidnell,Goldsworthy,Warry and others. What I don't understand is why you would ask him this question as opposed to one he specializes in. Why wouldn't you have asked him about the supposed "Devastating Gallic Civil War"?

Goldsworthy’s specialty is Rome, not the Celts.

So what if it is, if you read just books about the Celts you will lose allot of the picture. Goldsworthy obviously knows quite a bit about Caesars time.

Yes, but this wasn’t the main reason for doing so. It was more a case of overstating (and in some cases fabricating) the German threat to Gaul and Rome so as to provide a casus belli for his Gallic campaign. Ensuring his tenure and support at home.

Quote:
“In the fourth book of his commentaries Caesar begins with a sketch of the “warlike” Germans, reminding his readers of the instability of the region…providing sufficient justification for his concern on behalf of the stability of Rome.” (The Ancient Celts, p242 Barry Cunliffe)

Perhaps you need to get into the habit of putting down the whole quote!
Barry Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"“In the fourth book of his commentaries Caesar begins with a sketch of the “warlike” Germans, reminding his readers of the instability of the region. His description of the expansive power of the Suebi, driving other tribes like the Usipetes and the Tenceteri from their lands to seek a new home south of the Rhine, is probably an accurate account of the volatile situation and provides sufficient justification for his concern on behalf of the stability of Rome." pg.242

So you say Caesar is overstating/fabricating then post a quote and completely leave out the part that says its probably an accurate account!

No offence to your beliefs but I’m afraid Watchman is correct.

Whilst previously, slavery had only played a minor role within Gallic society, there was a huge increase in the slave trade (export south) at the end of the 2nd and begging of the 1st century BC. This just happens to coincide with the out-break of a major conflict between northern and southern tribes over the lucrative trade routs. The war you deny.

Quote:
By the beginning of the first century BC the reliance of the Roman economy on slave labour was considerable. One estimate is that in the early first century BC there were 300,000 Gallic slaves in Italy alone, a total which required to be topped up at a rate of 15,000 a year. (The Ancient Celts, The Developed Celtic World, p215, Barry Cunliffe)


Not the “small groups of men” taken in “raids” that you claim but rather implies a much more significant developement. The war you deny.

No offense taken whatsoever, this is a good and legitimate question.

Barry Cunliffe-"Greeks,Romans & Barbarians"-"To arrive at any idea of the volume of the trans-frontier slave trade is extremely difficult, but for Gaul, in the first century BC, Tchernia has offered an estimate. Basing his calculations on figures given for the ethnic composition and numbers of slaves taking part in a slave rebellion led by Spartacus in 74-1BC, he arrives at 300,000 as the total number of the Gallic slaves in Italy. Assuming a replacement rate of 7 percent, and also that the proportion of slaves was maintained, then the annual export of slaves by trade in a non-war year must have been about 15,000. Sufficient will have been said of the calculations to show that the figure can be regarded only as a best guess, rather than an estimate, but nevertheless it offers an order of magnitude." pg. 78

Barry Cunliffe-"Greeks,Romans & Barbarians"-"A replacement rate of 7 per cent per annum is by no means unlikely. Thus, simply to maintain the Italian labour force in the late first century BC would have required the generation of 140,000 slaves a year. Replacement by breading would certainly have contributed, but, as an industry, it had not yet got underway on a large scale. At a rough estimate, therefore, well in excess of 100,000 new slaves had to be acquired every year, assuming a situation of non-growth in the rural estates.
Slaves came from three different sources: by capture during war time; through piracy; and by means of regular trade with territories beyond the frontiers." pg. 77

Even though Tchernia says 15,000 is from non-war gatherings you still have to take into consideration the multiple battles leading up to 74-71BC:200-190,154,125-121,107-2,90,83,77-2. Most of these battles must have contributed to the 300,000 Celts.
Even though the Ligurian pirates were suppressed in 181 BC, you still have to look at how many slaves were being imported by pirates/brigands, Strabo says that in 166BC on the Island of Delos "10,000" slaves were being sold per day. Also this wouldn't all be from Gaul proper but also from Spain and Briton
.
"Trade in the Ancient Economy"-"By contrast Andrea Tchernia discusses the overall penetration of Gaul by wine and amphorae during the last 2 centuries BC; he convincingly links the early Italian commercial success to the trade of Gallic slaves then shows how the decline of the slave trade was accompanied by the rise of local wine production."
Wine seems to be used as prestige and slaves could be used to trade for other items, so if slaves were from the supposed "Devastating Civil War" why would the slave trade go down?

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"As for the common folk, they are treated almost as slaves, venturing naught of themselves,never taken into counsel. The more part of them, oppressed as they are either by debt, or by the heavy weight of tribute, or by the wrongdoing of the more powerful men, commit themselves in slavery to the nobles, who have, in fact, the same rights over them as masters over slaves." Book 6,13

Further, the material record bears this out. The huge increase in the trade of slaves happens to coincide with the huge increase in the trade of wine.

Quote:
They (Gauls) are extremely partial to wine and glut themselves with the unmixed wine brought in by merchants. Their desire makes them guzzle it and when they get drunk, they either fall into a stupor or become manic. For this reason many Italian merchants, with their usual love for money, regard the Celtic passion for wine as a source of treasure. They transport the wine by boat on the navigable rivers and by cart … and get an incredibly good price for it; for one amphora of wine they get a slave. (Hist 5.26 Diodorus Siculus)

Little wonder the Romans / merchants (and James) regarded Gaul as prosperous.


We have deposits of tens of thousands of distinctive Amphora of Dressel Type 1A & 1B dating to this period. Huge dumps like that found in Saone, Cabillonum (Chalon) testify to the significant increase in importation. Thus even in a war that would almost annihilate the warrior class, the precious wine was prized.

Barry Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"-"Whilst it is always necessary to treat texts of this kind with caution, archaeological evidence amply bears out the huge volume of Roman wine which was transported to Gaul in distinctive amphorae of Dressel 1 type. Two trading ports have been identified, one near Toulouse in the Garonne Valley, the other on the Saone at Cabillonum(Chalon)."pg.218-219

Well what do you know,Whilst it is always necessary to treat texts of this kind with caution doesn't help your argument, good thing you didn't put it in!

Quote:
In the late La Tene D1, around 120-100 BC most of the sites in the Grande Limagne (Auvergne) were abandoned, and three successive oppida were established (Corent, Gondole and Gergovie) (The Celts; Origins, Myths and Inventions, Archaeology of the Celts, p172, John Collins)

Another indicator of major conflict, change and attempt to protect the valuable trade in commodities. There is plenty of other evidence, but hey, why let facts get in the way of a good master race story.

Or what it really was:Urbanization.
Barry Cunliffe-"Greeks,Romans & Barbarians"-"The documentary, numismatic,and archaeological evidence, taken together, shows that the tribes of central Gaul underwent a profound change in the period 120-60BC, during which time the old order-the classical Celtic system-was replaced with a new centralized system of government, involving changes in the minting of coins and the development of oppida. To a large extent these changes can be ascribed directly to the proximity of the rapidly developing Roman province of Transalpina. The tribes of central Gaul were now becoming a contact zone with the Roman world. Through them much of the trade was articulated, and those tribes who, like the Aedui, were prepared to accept the situation, grew rich. Stability and centralization, institutionalized in a new system of government, enabled the benefits of the proximity of Rome to accrue." pg.97
The oppida before and after Caesar's time have been occupied later to be abandoned then reoccupied later.
Barry Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"-"Excavation has shown that occupation began in the second century BC and continued until about 20BC, by which time the focus of activity had moved to the newly founded Roman town of Augustodunum(Autun) 20 kilometers away." pg.224 (this is about Bibacte)

So guess the supposed "Devastating Gallic Civil War" lasted into 20BC by your logic.

Yes, for the excess warrior elite. In fact the Gallic warrior elite served as mercenaries throughout the ancient world, suddenly disappearing from the world stage at a time that happen to coincide with major internal turmoil in Transalpine Gaul, etc.

Could it be perhaps because the Senones were almost completely annihilated by the Romans? That the Romans conquered northern Italy.Or perhaps that the Romans were putting in pressure from the south, the Dacians began to push from the east and the Germans from the north. In Anatolia were there not "Gallic" mercenaries still being used. Who was Rome using for their cavalry mercenaries?

So what exactly is your position? The Gauls didn’t fight ? There was no major struggle between the Arverni and Aedui?

Yes they fought each other, but hardly on the level you claim. It's like what James,Goldsworthy,Raftery,McIntosh and Twist are saying. They had some fighting and raiding going on but not the devastation your thinking.

James is again providing a general overview that encompasses several hundred years of history. The point here is that he doesn’t state anything that supports your position that this significant Gallic war never occurred.
Goldsworthy makes exactly the same comment about Celtic society in the 3rd c BC as a prefix to his commentary on the first Punic war.

So when James says "Certainly, the Gaul described and conquered by Caesar showed no signs of exhaustion by internal wars" was general?No exhaustion by internal wars doesn't support my view? When Goldsworthy says that "the aim was the reduction of the enemy to a subject tribe through a moral defeat rather then his destruction." That doesn't support my view? When I say that is was a minor conflict and you say it was a "Devastating Civil War", and you still say these don't support my view? As I have said before your misinterpreting James or just not understanding him. More on this later.

Three battles in fact. Catugnatos and his Allobroges defeated a Roman army led by Manlius Lentius at the Battle of Valence and then again at the Battle of the Isere, in which “His (Lentius’) army would have been wiped out but for a sudden storm which arose and hindred the attack”. Lentius fled and was able to apparently re-equipped his army with astonishing speed, drawing from the considerable reserves used to garrison various departments. The Allobroges were finally crushed between Lentius’ army and another huge force commanded by the Governor of Gallia Narbonesis, Gaius pomptinus. The Gauls / Allobroges, not able to make good the loss of their warrior elite surrendered.

Were not the Allobroges part of the Arverni/Sequani alliance? If so then how is it they were able to resist the Romans at all if the supposed "Devastating Civil War" happened.

The Gauls didn’t have the advanced training techniques the Romans did. It took significantly longer / many many years and great (usually personal) expense to train as a Gallic warrior. It was these that they were bereft of. They had squandered these troops in bitter civil war so much to the point that not one of the Aedui council remained alive. The devastation of this war cannot be understated. It was unprecedented / appears more extensive and vicious that any internal Celtic conflict prior.

This is born out in the material record with significant deposits of fragmentary war material, remains and most significantly thick ash levels around major sites dating to the period… prior to Germanic and Roman intervention. We also know commercial production of many goods and trade all but ceased and large portions of the population starved or suffered from malnutrition.

The Romans were well aware of this having deliberately contributed to the instability. They were aware of the long standing animosity between the southerners and northerners and true to Roman policy of ‘keeping the barbarians at each other’..acted. In 121 BC the Romans using other events (Saluvii) as a pretext to war, sought to reduce the power of the then undisputed power in Gaul, the Arverni Alliance / empire. After defeating them in the Battle of Vindalium with two consular armies and several elephants, the Romans made a nominal alliance with their sworn enemy, the Aedui, thus formenting the last final and most bitter chapter in this protracted conflict.

Yes!!.. Gaul was extremely prosperous (both fiscally and population wise), this is one of the main reasons why Caesar was so keen to pillage / conquer it! He did after all have huge personal debts.

Gaul was extremely prosperous because the Gauls did NOT engage in total war. The very work you are so eager to cite (ie James …as does every other scholar) states this and I’m surprised you appear to ignore this significant fact and appear to prefer to project a 21st C Ad paradigm when rationalising data. The major trade centres remained untouched. The very war was over this wealth / trade / money / power. Archaeology only shows a burning / pillaging of minor settlements of no major value.
.

Hmm I mention what Dr.James says and you go from: "We also know commercial production of many goods and trade all but ceased and large portions of the population starved or suffered from malnutrition."

to this:"Yes!!.. Gaul was extremely prosperous (both fiscally and population wise), this is one of the main reasons why Caesar was so keen to pillage / conquer it! He did after all have huge personal debts".

Then this:"This is born out in the material record with significant deposits of fragmentary war material, remains and most significantly thick ash levels around major sites dating to the period…"

To this:"Archaeology only shows a burning / pillaging of minor settlements of no major value."

From this:The devastation of this war cannot be understated. It was unprecedented / appears more extensive and vicious that any internal Celtic conflict prior.

To this: Gaul was extremely prosperous because the Gauls did NOT engage in total war."
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...7&postcount=39
I'm not trying to insult you or belittle you but this is the kind of problems when you have amateur's trying to do the work of professionals. You keep trying to fit your idea of this supposed "Devastating Civil War" into historical context. The problem is the "Devastating Civil War" never happened, you have two rivals with a dispute over trade routes.

I’m surprised you appear to ignore this significant fact and appear to prefer to project a 21st C Ad paradigm when rationalising data

If one studies the work in context and refrains from grabing select pieces, joining sentences, etc, one will have a better appreciation of the author’s intended meaning rather than that of the reader.

? My friend, if you are happy to dismiss quotes I provide even when references are provided, what should I make of these sort of comments?

Who is rationalizing? Who is grabbing select pieces and leaving information out!
You complain that I don't take your word for it, as I have explained before that I don't know you or read anything by you that would lead me to believe your an expert on the subject. You have a problem understanding Caesar as shown by your responses to Caesar boosting the moral of his troops as well as the situation with the 400 Helvetii chasing off the 4,000 Gallic mercenaries of Caesar. As I have shown Goldsworthy knew what he was talking about and you did not. You get Ariovistus confused with other German tribes and basically you don't understand what Caesar was talking about.
Then you try to rationalize the Celt situation when you say "the Gauls had been defeating the Germans for centuries prior the beginning of the 1st C BC" then you have to come up with "I repeat, you’re NOT talking about the same peoples". You misunderstand data such as that of the Aedui oppida changing and James and multiple others, and also leaving out key parts to quotes you put down. You string my quotes together trying to make it sound like something else(cavalry=peace) and other such things, so no I don't take your word for it.
As for your authorities you have chosen some good ones-Goldsworthy and Cunliffe. The majority of your quotes that you have from this post is from an old outdated book half a century old, Powell. You use Michael Kulikowski's quotes which really has no bearing on the situation except that you might be trying to discredit some of the authors like M. Todd. Todd gets into the same subject as Kulikowski's showing a history of why the subject of the early Germans wasn't much talked about. It's quite obvious that much of that stuff is still around from the nonsense you have been spewing i.e. master race etc.

One last thing on the supposed "Devastating Civil War". As I have said multiple times I will say again, the Arverni and Aedui did fight each other, but nothing even being close to what your saying. If you would examine what the historians and archaeologists are saying you would understand this.

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.pg.56

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 pg.74

Dr. Barry Raftery; Dr.Jane McIntosh, Clint Twist
*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.82Dr. Barry Raftery; Dr.Jane McIntosh, Clint Twist

You notice how the Goldsworthy and James are similar in their beliefs? Dr.Goldsworthy says that the aim was to reduce the enemy not devastate them, and James says the internal warfare was small scale but "may" have led to an increase. Raftery,Mcintosh and Twist say it was generally peaceful and prosperous. Both Goldsworthy and Raftery/McIntosh/Twist tie into what Dr.James was saying.

If you look what other authors say:
Colin Jones-"France(Cambridge Illustrated History)"-"This was combined with the treat of destabilization further north, where the Germanic chieftain Ariovistus had joined in a squabble involving the Arverni, the Sequni and Rome's long standing allies, the Aeduans. To combat this politico-military threat Rome sent Julius Caesar. pg.30

Goldsworthy calls it struggle as does Cunliffe, Drinkwater says long running rivalry. None have I found that say anything that amounts to a supposed "Devastating Squabble" errr I mean "Devastating Civil War" It was simply small battles to erode the others moral to draw clients to ones side, hence generally peaceful.