Celtic overpowered!

[Thaatu]

@Frostwulf, if I remember correctly, you had a quote somewhere from Paul Simon's "Still Crazy After All These Years" Simon James' "Exploring the World of the Celts". I've been reading it for a hundred pages, so I'd like your opinion on it. Did you find any outdated info in it? It's not exactly old, but it was published 14 years ago, so it may not have the most up to date info. Is it good, or do you recommend something else? Granted, it does support your argument somewhat. Loosely translated (from a Finnish translation): "Surely the Gaul that Caesar described and conquered didn't show signs of weariness from internal wars - it was a wealthy and blossoming land - so apparently there were ways to restrict devastation caused by wars". Although, this doesn't refer to the state of the warrior class.

What I'm curious about is how many tribes were under Aedui and Arverni authority? Also do any of the books you've read give the approximate population of Bibracte?

[Frostwulf]

@Frostwulf, if I remember correctly, you had a quote somewhere from Paul Simon's "Still Crazy After All These Years" Simon James' "Exploring the World of the Celts". I've been reading it for a hundred pages, so I'd like your opinion on it. Did you find any outdated info in it? It's not exactly old, but it was published 14 years ago, so it may not have the most up to date info. Is it good, or do you recommend something else?

First please remember that I am an amature at best, and all the information I have is from reading the professionals. That being said to my knowledge his book still holds true. I have not come across anything that contradicts his views on any of the subjects he wrote about. Rankin's "Celts and the Classical World" is a good book as well, though it is around 10yrs older then James's book.Venceslas Kruta-"The Celts" is another that is good, he has differing views on the Belgae then does Rankin and others. I have read that some people have problems with Cunliffe, but for me I thought for the most part he was a good read with plenty of information. I recommend just about any of Goldsworthy's books, especially "Caesar-Life of a Colossus". Goldsworthy's book goes into Caesars "The Gallic War" and is well worth the read. I would suggest being very wary of Peter Ellis, he tends to exaggerate and leave out certain things.

Granted, it does support your argument somewhat. Loosely translated (from a Finnish translation): "Surely the Gaul that Caesar described and conquered didn't show signs of weariness from internal wars - it was a wealthy and blossoming land - so apparently there were ways to restrict devastation caused by wars". Although, this doesn't refer to the state of the warrior class.

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

I thought it supports my argument completely. My view is that their was still some raiding with a few score of men going on as well as a few battles going on every once in awhile. This was the case elsewhere amongst Celtic peoples, nothing different then the Belgae, Brits, Galations, etc. The state of the warrior class wouldn't have been any different then that of the other Celts. You have some dying in these raids and small battles but as with the others there would have been those that would have be replaced with the younger generation. This certainly flies in the face of the supposed "Devastating Civil War".

What I'm curious about is how many tribes were under Aedui and Arverni authority? Also do any of the books you've read give the approximate population of Bibracte?

You will find some of the tribes listed in Dr.James book, I don't recall exactly where though. As far as the population of Bibracte I don't recall reading about the size of the population anywhere. I think in Caesars "The Gallic War" he mentions the population of some of the other oppida.

[Maksimus]

Sorry for posting here, but I got the info for this and my campaign in this thread..
I would like to say thank you Thaatu.. so now you can see what I am playing in EB 1 - it is Armenia, on VH/VH Huge units -- NO CHEATS!

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...t=93151&page=5

[Thaatu]

I thought it supports my argument completely. My view is that their was still some raiding with a few score of men going on as well as a few battles going on every once in awhile. This was the case elsewhere amongst Celtic peoples, nothing different then the Belgae, Brits, Galations, etc. The state of the warrior class wouldn't have been any different then that of the other Celts. You have some dying in these raids and small battles but as with the others there would have been those that would have be replaced with the younger generation. This certainly flies in the face of the supposed "Devastating Civil War".

I'm just wondering whether the scale of the Aedui-Arverni conflict was a bit different from the others. There were probably no huge armies facing each other, but when the both sides grew in power and size, was it just tribes in the alliances raiding each other, or was there some "centralized" effort to damage the other side, ie. an Arverni lead force against an Aedui lead one?

Also, one thing that's on my mind are the seasons in which raiding took place. According to EB at least, winter was a "dark period" in which combat was avoided. If the farmers took part in raiding, the raiding seasons would be restricted, because the crops need attetion too. That doesn't make for much devastation, since raids only took place a few times per year. But if the warrior class continued raiding through the whole year, except winter, then the warrior class would soak up most of the damage.

Although, I must admit. I know almost nothing of the conflict itself. I don't know if it was border disputes amongs their clients or a blood feud. All I know is that since tribes and clans regularely raided each other, even friendly ones, there must have been something deeper in this, or I don't know why it's even mentioned anywhere.

Sorry for posting here, but I got the info for this and my campaign in this thread..
I would like to say thank you Thaatu.. so now you can see what I am playing in EB 1 - it is Armenia, on VH/VH Huge units -- NO CHEATS!

Let me recommend either Aedui or Arverni, in M battle difficulty. The battles are a bit harder in that theatre. I personally play with H/M because VH cripples AI's brains, and I like my enemies thinking. Although I play with general camera, which I guess adds a little more to the challenge.

[NeoSpartan]

I'm just wondering whether the scale of the Aedui-Arverni conflict was a bit different from the others.....

Very much in deed... however I'll let those who know do the talking for me.

Oh my bad they already did. Here is a CLIP of the info on page 11 of this thread.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=83475&page=11

"Transalpine Gaul was suddenly seized with social and political turmoil. Following the Roman defeat of the Arverni in 121 BC, most of the inhabitants of region were plunged into a devastating civil war. The Aedui with their clients challenged the weakened Arverni and her allies in order to reassert prior claims of leadership and regain control of the lucrative trade routes that ran through the Rhone river valley.
Over the course of this protracted conflict, both sides became exhausted. In 71 BC, the Arverni and their allies the Sequani, sought desperate new measures to bring a favourably end to the conflict. They hired Germanic mercenaries from various tribes across the Rhine.
The leader of this mercenary body, the Seubi king Ariovistus, quickly noted the weakened military condition of the Gauls and immediately began exerting his own power, first amongst his ‘hosts’ the Sequani and then to the surrounding tribes. Towns were seized, hostages taken and considerable re-enforcements acquired from across the Rhine. The Aedui attempted to mobilise a Gallic resistance to this German incursion but support was limited. The united Gallic militia proved to be no match for Ariovistus’ mercenaries and the Gauls were slaughtered in 61 BC at a battle near Admagetobriga,” – (‘Indo-European History’, ‘La Tene Gaul’, XVI, 5.63, Univerzita Karlova v Praze)"

this is to give u an idea of the difference of this conflict... that don't look like a typical move in the part of "seasonal raiders", this is a whole 'nother ball game.

[Thaatu]

Wow, thanks for that quote NeoSpartan. Btw, It would be helpful to know where Psycho got his info. Did he mention it anywhere?

[Frostwulf]

I'm just wondering whether the scale of the Aedui-Arverni conflict was a bit different from the others. There were probably no huge armies facing each other, but when the both sides grew in power and size, was it just tribes in the alliances raiding each other, or was there some "centralized" effort to damage the other side, ie. an Arverni lead force against an Aedui lead one?

This is a reasonable assumption I think its quite possible to have these small battles which would end up with a moral defeat of one side or the other. I still don't think it would have been much different then any of the others.

Also, one thing that's on my mind are the seasons in which raiding took place. According to EB at least, winter was a "dark period" in which combat was avoided. If the farmers took part in raiding, the raiding seasons would be restricted, because the crops need attetion too. That doesn't make for much devastation, since raids only took place a few times per year. But if the warrior class continued raiding through the whole year, except winter, then the warrior class would soak up most of the damage.

In general this is true that most fighting did not happen during the winter though in some cases they did(Eubrones attacking the Romans). As far as raiding and these small battles I would think it would only be the warriors and not the tradesmen,farmers and etc who participated. How many of the warriors would have died during these raids and small battles, I'm not sure. When Ariovistus destroyed the nobles,senate and all the knights of the Aedui, Caesar was still able to gather 4,000 cavalry 2 years later. Again most of the raids were just a few score men, not thousands,not hundreds. The raids probably happened every year, but my thought is the small battles did not.

Although, I must admit. I know almost nothing of the conflict itself. I don't know if it was border disputes amongs their clients or a blood feud. All I know is that since tribes and clans regularely raided each other, even friendly ones, there must have been something deeper in this, or I don't know why it's even mentioned anywhere.

In general its not mentioned by most modern authors, those who do mention it say things like squabble,rivalry,struggle etc. nothing on the scale of the supposed "Devastating Civil War". The reason it is brought up is because of Caesar giving an idea of what the situation was and how he had to protect the "friends and brothers" (Aedui) from the German menace.

Very much in deed... however I'll let those who know do the talking for me.

Oh my bad they already did. Here is a CLIP of the info on page 11 of this thread.
this is to give u an idea of the difference of this conflict... that don't look like a typical move in the part of "seasonal raiders", this is a whole 'nother ball game.

I have asked for the authors 3 times now, I and others have also checked many other avenues and it wasn't there. But here is a link to the University itself, I can find the other papers and books published by them but for some reason I just cant seem to find this one.
http://www.cuni.cz/

[NeoSpartan]

ah dammit, it sucks u fellas can't find the reference it messes up the discussion.

I can't read what their saying, well I can sort of understand a few words due to its similary with English & Spanish but... thats it really.

[NeoSpartan]

Wow, thanks for that quote NeoSpartan. Btw, It would be helpful to know where Psycho got his info. Did he mention it anywhere?

np...

I know I am joking a little when I tell people to REREAD the thread .... but there is A LOT OF truth in that joke.

(btw... guess who u will find on the 1st page of this thread? )

[The Celtic Viking]

that should do it...

Oh yes, how wrong you turned out to be...

[Andronikos]

ah dammit, it sucks u fellas can't find the reference it messes up the discussion.

I can't read what their saying, well I can sort of understand a few words due to its similary with English & Spanish but... thats it really.

I don't know exactly what you mean but if you want to translate something from Czech, perhaps I could help.

[NeoSpartan]

Oh yes, how wrong you turned out to be...

LOL!!!!!!

tell me about it

[Frostwulf]

@Frostwulf, if I remember correctly, you had a quote somewhere from Paul Simon's "Still Crazy After All These Years" Simon James' "Exploring the World of the Celts". I've been reading it for a hundred pages, so I'd like your opinion on it. Did you find any outdated info in it? It's not exactly old, but it was published 14 years ago, so it may not have the most up to date info. Is it good, or do you recommend something else?

Well it does seem I was in error, at least partially.

Thanks for your e-mail and glad you liked World of the Celts, although you should be aware that it is now quite an old book, and my views have changed a lot since I wrote it, mainly in that I no longer believe the generic, Europe-wide 'Ancient Celts' existed as such (see my Atlantic Celts on this, out of print but usually available on Abebooks.com).

I believe allot of the information in "The World of the Celts" is still valid, but I will read "Atlantic Celts" to see what is different.

[Thaatu]

Wow, I admire your balls. It seems to be only a minor flaw in the book, so I'll continue reading. And yes, I am that slow of a reader.

[Frostwulf]

Sorry Thaatu, I know this has taken a long time. This is the second time I am starting the summary as the first time my computer glitched(once again) and I lost all my material. I won't be going into detail as I had the first time due to time constraints and the irritation of losing everything .
This thread was created because of the claim of the Celts being to overpowered. I agreed with this(and still do) that the Celt stats are to powerful compared to their historical counter parts.

Please remember when reading this summery it is from my perspective. I will try to be fair but I am human and I will make mistakes. I'm sure some will be found and hopefully will be presented to balance things out. Of this summery I will be sticking to the main points and will not be going off on other subjects(Germans, Gaul prior to 272 b.c,clubs,Belgae, etc.).

I'm breaking this up into three posts, the first being the Celts of northern Italy during the 4th thru the 2nd century where several things were claimed. Here are the things that were claimed:

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

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

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=129
This is the "critically examined/ debunked response:

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

And this:

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

My response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I put the bold in this post, it wasn't in the original post.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=143
Here is another quote to support my position:

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

The first Punic War started in 264B.C., So the Romans could have brought the Celts to their knees as early as the 260's and possibly earlier. As shown by the above scholars the Romans were busy conquering southern and central Italy first.

The only counter to the above(which I have to get from prior posts as no one tackled this particular post):

Which proves little. For example, where are all the records of the several Roman defeats at the hands of the Cisalpine Gauls that archaeology has since discovered?

My response to the above is the same, "What defeats are you referring to? Which archaeologist? Where in Cisalpine Gaul?" Again no proof forthcoming whatsoever. For the historical records you have the lying Romans and untrustworthy Greek defense. Yes the Romans were biased but they did record the defeats they suffered and you had multiple authors describing allot of the battles.

The Celts were tough opponents and did defeat Roman and Greek armies:

Atlas of the Celts-“Through a combination of sheer weight of numbers and fighting prowess (the equal of any army in the Mediterranean region), the Celts were able to subdue native populations along their line of advance, including the Illyrians and Pannonians, leaving some of their number behind as a ruling or tribute-exacting elite.
The vanguard reached the Balkan region in 350BC. Behind them, stretched and scattered across eastern Europe, were assortments of Celtic groups whose size and composition must have varied considerably.” pg 63

While I agree with the above statement you should understand the date (300's B.C.) and that the Romans and Greeks(270's) won most of the battles.

For the "attrition" factor:

For the record, “most historians” do not claim that the Romans were victors “most of the time”, what they do state is that according to Roman records, we are told that was the case. As I’ve previously stated, there has been many Roman battles / defeats not recorded / lost (giving the benefit of the doubt) to us.

Further the battles you refer to involve Cisalpine Gauls, who by the mid 3rd C BC (250 BC) were already on the back foot. The Romans had waged a brutal war of attrition for over 150 years prior. The Cisalpine Gauls could not sustain their looses as the Romans could and once they reached a critical point the Cisalpine Gauls collapsed. Much celebrated Roman victories like the Battle of Minicio (196 BC), Battle of Bonnonia (191 BC), etc bear this out as they were no more a battle than the massacres of plains Indians at the likes of the ‘Battle of Wounded Knee’. The Romans in a genocidal blood lust, wiped out whole towns, tribes and nations.

Strength is relative. The Celts were relatively stronger in the 5th, 4th and very beginning of the 3rd C BC.. as previously stated.

My response to the above are here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=144
The only thing new I could put down is more information on the battles supplied by John Montagu from his book "Battles of the Greek & Roman Worlds". The chronologies and battles are just about the same. The little differing there is, is with the places the battles took place. Montagu is more recent and I tend to go with his explanation as to where the battles took place.Also at the bottom of the post mentioned above I said that the Celtic cavalry was underpowered, that no longer holds true.

As shown the Romans won the majority of the time and often outnumbered. The attrition excuse is also nonsense:
H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical World"-"Polybius' theory of successive waves of tribes pressing on each other was substantially correct."pg.111/ "In the Celts, Rome had a formidable enemy with resources of population that must have seemed interminable."pg.118

Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"-"The migrations were largely at an end by 200 BC."

Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier"-"The wars against the Samnites ground on. In Etruria internal strife increased. The population in the Celtic homeland was again growing." pg.24




The next post will deal with the supposed "Devastating Civil War". I have new information on it.

[Thaatu]

On this note I would like to say a few things. I won't nitpick on the above, just because it's a disputed matter and I feel that some of the authors have a personal rather than a purely objective look on some events. Just about my view of the EB Celts...

The Celts are, in my mind, underpowered in finances. It's not just once or twice in my campaigns that AI Rome has forced AI Aedui to become a protectorate in a matter of a few turns. I feel that this is because Rome is so stinking rich and has enormous "military power" (meaning units in the field) compared to any of the Celtic factions. It's a difficult question whether the Celtic tribes were rich, or did the wealth go to individuals that can't be included in the "faction". The fact is, Gallic Celts were supposedly rich, EB Celts are not. I don't know if it's justifiable or not.

In the unit power sense, the only truly overpowered unit I've found is the basic Bataroas. It's either that they're too strong or too cheap. They have almost the same stats (202 men) as Belgian Swordsmen (162 men), but cost about 390 where as the Belgians cost 513. They are EXTREMELY effective and behave more like elites than the basic backbone unit, and this is based on my two Aedui campaigns.

[NeoSpartan]

dang on it... i have to go work and this thread is back... ok I'll respond better when I get back. In the meantime a quick responce:

In the unit power sense, the only truly overpowered unit I've found is the basic Bataroas. It's either that they're too strong or too cheap. They have almost the same stats (202 men) as Belgian Swordsmen (162 men), but cost about 390 where as the Belgians cost 513. They are EXTREMELY effective and behave more like elites than the basic backbone unit, and this is based on my two Aedui campaigns.

uhm.... neither bataroas or Minhalt (sp) are very good units. They BOTH get beat by Polibian Principes without much trouble.

I recommend some tests on that claim Thaatu, pit both Bataroas and Minhalt agains Principes (camillian and Polybian), Hoplites, Theuroporoi (sp), and similar "good" units. Oh and don't forget to deal with the "Captain effect".

Unfortunaly since my PC is F***ed I can't do any tests nor play

[Frostwulf]

On this note I would like to say a few things. I won't nitpick on the above, just because it's a disputed matter and I feel that some of the authors have a personal rather than a purely objective look on some events. Just about my view of the EB Celts...

I am curious what you consider disputed? Which authors do you think are not objective?

In the unit power sense, the only truly overpowered unit I've found is the basic Bataroas. It's either that they're too strong or too cheap. They have almost the same stats (202 men) as Belgian Swordsmen (162 men), but cost about 390 where as the Belgians cost 513. They are EXTREMELY effective and behave more like elites than the basic backbone unit, and this is based on my two Aedui campaigns.

The next summery post will be on the supposed"Devastating Civil War" and the third and final one will be on the units themselves. I wont get into the units or the so called "Devastating Civil War" until I post the information.

Unfortunaly since my PC is F***ed I can't do any tests nor play

I think your situation deserves one of these:
It is very annoying when one's computer doesn't respond properly, I hope you resolve the situation soon.

I will try to get my next summery post done on friday.

[Thaatu]

I recommend some tests on that claim Thaatu, pit both Bataroas and Minhalt agains Principes (camillian and Polybian), Hoplites, Theuroporoi (sp), and similar "good" units. Oh and don't forget to deal with the "Captain effect".

I've fought with them a few hundred battles and have found that they are so cheap compared to their abilities that there's no sense in recruiting anything else but a Gaesatae, a few slingers and lots of Bataroas. I've fought against Sweboz, Rome, Carthage, Lusotania and Epirus, in addition to other mainland Celts. I'm not saying they are a super unit, but that they are too cheap. That being said, I didn't compare them to any unit, just their performance in those battles. They rarely failed me.

I am curious what you consider disputed? Which authors do you think are not objective?

I just hate seeing people refer to some ancient text as pure fact. It's just my personal scepticism. In my mind there are just too many reasons why ancient historians can't be trusted to produce accurate details. I'm not accusing the modern authors, but they do tend to trust ancient sources a little too much.

Oh, and I'm not saying it's a disputed matter in the scientific community, since I wouldn't know even if it was. Just that it's a disputed matter here.

[NeoSpartan]

I've fought with them a few hundred battles and have found that they are so cheap compared to their abilities that there's no sense in recruiting anything else but a Gaesatae, a few slingers and lots of Bataroas. I've fought against Sweboz, Rome, Carthage, Lusotania and Epirus, in addition to other mainland Celts. I'm not saying they are a super unit, but that they are too cheap. That being said, I didn't compare them to any unit, just their performance in those battles. They rarely failed me.

....

... LOL! I know u don't mean of them as a super unit, and I take them any day for Botroas or Minhalt (due to cost/benefit ratio) they are pretty good.

But honestly is really hard to get an accurate picture on unit strenght/cost ratio when playing against the AI. I say it because when I got to MP back in .80 everything changed. Thats why when anyone claims X is stronger I ask them to test that hypothesis.


Frostwolf... I think I'll wait for your other posts that way we don't off on a tanget, or commit to a topic before you have finished ur point.

p.s PC should be here by Monday latest. Had to drop down $300+ in total to get that laptop fixed and upgraded. Of that about $160 was dedicated to keep EB saved games (among other important docs), and more RAM to play EB.

[Thaatu]

Btw, can't do any testing after today. Tomorrow I'm moving into a place where I don't know if they even have electricity. I'll probably still read some of the stuff in here, so if I keep posting, it's not a ghost.

[Frostwulf]

As I said in the first one this is from my perspective and some things may not have been included. Again if this is the case and it has some bearing on this debate, hopefully someone will bring it up.

The summery of the supposed "Devastating Civil War":
I don't have a problem with the term war being used to describe the conflict between the Aedui and the Sequani. Devastating and Civil war I do have a problem.
Websters College Dictionary: civil war-"1.a war between political factions or regions within the same country".

Civil war does not apply as it was a confederations of tribes squabbling amongst themselves. There was no country of Gaul nor any central government of Gaul. State/tribal conflict-yes, civil war-no. This of course really doesn't matter.

What about Devastation? When you have quotes like this your bound to think it is devastating:

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.

On a severity level of 1-10 it seems the claim of the supposed "Devastating Civil War" ranks up there around 9(Caesars war in Gaul being a 10). I believe the squabble,rivalry,struggle ect. to be around a 2 verging close to a 3 on a severity scale.

Again, there being no mention of armies with really any notable contingents of armored nobles leading their professional troops against Caesar looks really suspect to their simply not being enough professionals left over from the Civil War to affect any major outcome in battle.

I have seen others say similar things. I answered this in this post:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=434
This went back and forth for a few posts:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=439
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=446
Ross Cowan-“For the Glory of Rome”-“Vercingetorix now launched one of the greatest cavalry attacks in history on Caesar’s marching army. Some 15,000 mounted warriors in three divisions bore down upon it, but Caesar was not daunted. In the early stages of the campaign he had recruited large numbers of German mercenary cavalry, of whom the Gauls had an almost irrational fear. Vercingetorix’s final hammer blow made hardly a dent as caesar formed the legions into a hollow square (agmen quadratum) with the baggage in the centre, then let loose the Germans who routed the Gallic cavalry. Thus Caesar’s retreat halted abruptly. His army turned about and eagerly pursued Vercengetorix.” pg. 192-193

How is it that if there was a "Devastating Civil War"(started in 120s'BC) the Aedui were able to field any kind of forces against Ariovistus and Caesar? Caesar was able to raise 4,000 cavalry from the Aedui and their allies, the Bellovaci (who would have been involved in the supposed "Devastating Civil War" as allies to the Aedui) could field 60,000 "picked" troops. What of the Soldurii and other such troops mentioned?
You have basically the same type of situation in the Po Valley in the 3rd and 4th century BC. Most of the ancient authors just mentioned the tribe names (Insubres,Boii etc.) they didn't always specifically mention "warriors".

If there was a "Devastating Civil War" why did Caesar(paraphrasing) say that the Belgae were the strongest because they stayed away from luxuries? Wouldn't he have said that the Belgae were the strongest because the rest of the Gauls had decimated themselves?

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.

My reply to the subject of slavery:

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

A new citation:

The Celts: Europe's People of Iron-"One of the most important commodities that these oppida provided Roman merchants was slaves, captured in neighboring districts by men who had not forgotten their raiding traditions. And beyond the immediate sphere of Roman influence in regions to the west and to the north, the old ways persevered.pg. pg.70

Now on the oppida:

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.

My reply:

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.

New information:

Ferdinand Maier-"The Celts*"-"The main features of the oppida are the architectural construction of the walls and gates, the spacious layout and commanding view of the surrounding area. Internally, excavation has revealed the first clear signs of urbanization in Celtic society." pg.423

Ferdinand Maier-"The Celts*"-"The decisive step toward the full-blown oppidum, as described here, came with the erection of defense walls, which probably occurred in the last fifty or even thirty years of the second century B.C These operations may have been a response to rivalry between Celtic groups, or to a growing sense of insecurity after the invasions of the Cimbri and Teutons. It is widely thought that the oppida were created in such a relatively short time because of social upheaval or similar circumstances.
This is disproved by the Manching oppidum, which demonstrates progressive, uninterrupted growth form its early days as a village-type settlement midway through the third century B.C." pg.437-438

Peter S. Wells-"Celtic Chiefdom, Celtic State"-"A major reason for the establishment and rapid growth of oppida is likely to have been to serve as protection for people, supplies, livestock, raw materials, and other goods, from the marauding bands that were a persistent feature of the central European landscape during much of the second and final centuries BC(Fischer 1988)." pg.92

Rivalry between Celtic groups,Cimbri and Teutons, marauding bands. Nothing at all that would denote a "Devastating Civil War".

John Collis-"The European Iron Age"-This trade may have been the direct cause of the state formation, and the move to defended oppida in western Europe. Caesar says that hardly a year passed without one Gallic state making war on another. Victory in war could extend territorial limits, but it also provided tribute, booty and slaves. It could both extend control over trade routes and provide the goods with which to trade. In the west it is clearly the trade which comes first, and the oppida second. The Arverni, perhaps because of their military power, were one of the last tribes to construct an oppidum-Gergovie was not founded until the Roman conquest or even later. Urbanism was not necessarily a sign of civilization and power, it was more a sign of weakness. It does not however explain the early move to defended sites in central Europe. Filip has suggested Germanic pressure from the north, which was certainly a reality by the end of the first century BC. There was also the expanding power of Burebista, king of the Dacians in Romania."pg.157

The Arverni were supposedly "weakened" during the supposed "Devastating Civil War" and yet here we have Collis suggesting that because of their military power they didn't construct an oppidum until the Roman conquest or later.

What others have said of the supposed "Devastating Civil War":

The Celts: Europe's People of Iron-"On the Suebi side of the Rhine, the Gallic Sequani tribe called on Ariovistus to intervene in its long-standing squabble with the rival Aedui, also a Gallic tribe." pg.121

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.

Christian Meier-"Caesar"-"The political and social order was aristocratic, the power structure apparently unstable. Wars between tribes, and alliances between nobles from different tribes, often caused unrest, but most of these seem to have had only local significance. The system was occasionally disturbed from the outside as a result of tribal movements beyond the Rhine. Pressure from the north and east, for instance, caused the Helvetians to move from southwestern Germany to what is now Switzerland. Larger or smaller groups of Germans often entered the country, invited or uninvited, to make conquests or merely to take booty. Yet such incursions seldom affected large areas of Gaul. Hence, what went on in this part of the world need not as a rule concern the Romans, even if the Gauls occasionally tried to involve them in their affairs."pg.238

Dr. Barry Raftery; Dr.Jane McIntosh, Clint Twist
*Atlas of the Celts-"Warfare between Celts-to restore hurt pride, score points off neighbours or just for sheer entertainment-may well have developed into fairly ritualised affairs intended to minimise casualties among the elite. The concept of 'national' warfare would have been entirely alien to Celts at the end of the 5th century BC. Such concepts could only arise when the elites came into military conflict with a significant other (as opposed to peoples less well organised then themselves), in the form of highly disciplined Mediterranean armies." pg.53

The two quotes above support what Simon James and Adrian Goldsworthy are saying in the following two quotes:

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

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

So what do we have for those who say there is a "Devastating Civil War":

Quote:
Individually the Romans were better equipped and armoured than the majority of Celtic warriors, but there is little indication (from earlier periods) of the great superiority which Caesar’s troops in the first C BC would display against Gallic opponents. (Roman Warfare, World Conquest, p96 Adrian Goldsworthy)

Very nice, gives the indication that the reason Caesar had a great superiority was because of the "Devastating Civil War". Lets take a look at how its really written:

Adrian Goldsworthy-“Roman Warfare”-“ Tactics were simple, and relied on a headlong charge by a screaming mass of warriors. The first charge of a Gallic army was a dreadful thing, but the Romans believed that if they could withstand this onslaught then the Gauls would steadily tire and become vulnerable. Classical literature claims that the barbarians were poorly conditioned and easily tired by strenuous activity and heat. But probably the main reason why the Romans were likely to win a prolonged combat was their triplex acies formation that allowed them to reinforce threatened parts of the line. Individually the Romans were better equipped and armoured than the majority of Celtic warriors, but there is little indication of the great superiority which Caesar’s troops in the first century BC would display against similar Gallic opponents.” pg.88

Not levies as has been claimed but similar Gallic opponents!

We mustn't forget this "Devastating" piece of evidence:

Quote:
“Transalpine Gaul was suddenly seized with social and political turmoil. Following the Roman defeat of the Arverni in 121 BC, most of the inhabitants of region were plunged into a devastating civil war. The Aedui with their clients challenged the weakened Arverni and her allies in order to reassert prior claims of leadership and regain control of the lucrative trade routes that ran through the Rhone river valley.
Over the course of this protracted conflict, both sides became exhausted. In 71 BC, the Arverni and their allies the Sequani, sought desperate new measures to bring a favourably end to the conflict. They hired Germanic mercenaries from various tribes across the Rhine.
The leader of this mercenary body, the Seubi king Ariovistus, quickly noted the weakened military condition of the Gauls and immediately began exerting his own power, first amongst his ‘hosts’ the Sequani and then to the surrounding tribes. Towns were seized, hostages taken and considerable re-enforcements acquired from across the Rhine. The Aedui attempted to mobilise a Gallic resistance to this German incursion but support was limited. The united Gallic militia proved to be no match for Ariovistus’ mercenaries and the Gauls were slaughtered in 61 BC at a battle near Admagetobriga,” – (‘Indo-European History’, ‘La Tene Gaul’, XVI, 5.63, Univerzita Karlova v Praze)

As I had mentioned before I went through GS, WCAT and I had the ILL team look for this and none of us could find it. I even went through the publishings of Charles University of Prague and couldn't find it. I have asked for multiple times for authors or further information on this citation and I never received any. I decided to go to the source and ask them, here is my e-mail:

Subject: Item search
To: jana.konecna@cerge-ei.cz


I was hoping to find out if the Univerzita Karlova v Praze has
published this item:

(`Indo-European History´, `La Tene Gaul´, XVI, 5.63, Univerzita
Karlova v Praze)"

If this item exists could you perhaps let me know where I might be able
to find it? If it doesn't
exist I would like to know. Any reply would be greatly appreciated,
thank you for your time.

Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your
homepage.
Jana Konecna
Knihovna CERGE-EI
Politickych veznu 7
111 21 Praha 1

Here is the response I received:

Hello,

Iam afraid no book or article with title "Indo-European history" or "La
Tene Gaul" were
published by Karlova Univerzita. Maybe its not correct citation but I
didn't find anything with
this title.

Best regards,

Jana Konecna

Who is Jana Konecna?
http://www.cerge.cuni.cz/library/about/staff/
Jana Konecna CERGE-EI Librarian

* Interlibrary Loans
* Cataloguing

In conclusion of the supposed "Devastating Civil War" part of this summery I think this quote best sums it up:

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

Next and final part will be on the units themselves.

[Raphia]

Sigh we are still on this topic?

[Anthony II]

Wow so much typing! Frostwulf, do you work?

Sigh we are still on this topic?

Sad

This thread was created because of the claim of the Celts being to overpowered. I agreed with this(and still do) that the Celt stats are to powerful compared to their historical counter parts..

..And from what I've read, Frostwulf justified this with a simplistic opinion that Germans > Gauls / Celts / German “volk” were superior to Celts, etc.

He then denied the fact that this hypothesis had its Genesis in German nationalism and romanticism and then ignored the fact that it has long been resoundingly discarded / disproved.

He also proceeded to try and defend this position by ignoring significant amounts of relevant data and preferred to adhere to select quotes from scholars, often taken out of context and in some cases later refuted by the scholars themselves.

I’m sure Psycho would have something to say about this if he were allowed to reply (unbanned)

My2bob

[Frostwulf]

Sigh we are still on this topic?

Not really I told Thaatu I would do a summery and I had additional information. Raphia I'm not trying to insult you, but if this annoys you why do you bother to read it? I do believe that my final section of the summery will be the last as there has been no one who had any substantial proof to counter my arguments.

[Raphia]

I have nothing against you, just cannot believe this topic has lasted so long!

[SaFe]

Wow so much typing! Frostwulf, do you work?



Sad



My2bob

Anything constructive or do we have the pleasure to hear the thoughts of Psycho2?
My opionion was always that Psycho used data that was not available to others for proof and perhaps finally we all can recognize that error we made to take his work on the celts for non debatable.

[Anthony II]

Ah common SaFe... no pom poms, cheers and dancing moves celebrating the apparent victory of good (everyone who disagrees with Psycho) over evil (Psycho himself)?

Psycho always said he pictured you in a little pink cheer girls uniform popping in with a "yer Psycho sucks" here and a "take that you Celtic bastard" there.

What happened to the love, unrequited? I feel your pain, I once had this goat ....... ah, for another time

Anything constructive or do we have the pleasure to hear the thoughts of Psycho2?.

Psycho2? Psycho junior? I wouldn't know I'm just his cousin. Thank god I'm not that privy to the intricate details of his "personal life".

My opionion was always that Psycho used data that was not available to others for proof and perhaps finally we all can recognize that error we made to take his work on the celts for non debatable.

Oh oh...really!!? Did someone take his work for "non debatable"!? He must have missed that or failed to mention it in his notes.


my2bob

[antiochus epiphanes]

Ah common SaFe... no pom poms, cheers and dancing moves celebrating the apparent victory of good (everyone who disagrees with Psycho) over evil (Psycho himself)?

Psycho always said he pictured you in a little pink cheer girls uniform popping in with a "yer Psycho sucks" here and a "take that you Celtic bastard" there.

What happened to the love, unrequited? I feel your pain, I once had this goat ....... ah, for another time




Psycho2? Psycho junior? I wouldn't know I'm just his cousin. Thank god I'm not that privy to the intricate details of his "personal life".




Oh oh...really!!? Did someone take his work for "non debatable"!? He must have missed that or failed to mention it in his notes.


my2bob

if your not "privy to the intricate details of His life, how do you know about his disdain for SaFe?
lets see here, flaming another board member,
general self martyrdom,
knows alot about "psycho"
and signs his posts with "my2bob"
hmmmn lets see my guess is that your A psycho? seriously, make another account so you can E-harrass members again? whats wrong man you really need help....

[Frostwulf]

I have nothing against you, just cannot believe this topic has lasted so long!

I glad to here that. It has lasted a long time, but I believe it will come to its final conclusion soon.

Anything constructive or do we have the pleasure to hear the thoughts of Psycho2?
My opionion was always that Psycho used data that was not available to others for proof and perhaps finally we all can recognize that error we made to take his work on the celts for non debatable.

Psycho couldn't substantiate his claims(leading scholars, archaeological evidence) I believe because he made most of these claims up. Then he went into distorting texts(Goldsworthy and others) to support his claim and to finally just making up texts(‘Indo-European History’, ‘La Tene Gaul’, XVI, 5.63, Univerzita Karlova v Praze). Truly Sad.