Gaesatae Question

[Ludens]

Does this suggest that the armoured Elite Thraikons(with the double handed nasty weapon) are weaklings, or that the 2hit points of the Naked Galations gives an unfair advantage?

Thracian Rhomphaiaphoroi are a specialist anti-armour unit. Their huge blades are meant to smash armour, but cumbersome to wield so they are easily dodged (relatively speaking), especially when you are not weighed down by armour. Hence they don't perform well against unarmoured units, let along elite ones like the gaesatae.

[paullus]

Ludens is right. For example, I'm pretty sure the Rhomphaiaphoroi do better against, say the Seleukid elite thorakitai, than the Tindanotae do.

And as far as our representation, I don't feel like 1 HP is going to be enough. With our stat-ing, they wouldn't last quite long enough under missile fire. Missile fire is supposed to be the way to kill them, but its not supposed to be a simple task either. Rather than removing 1 HP, I might argue that the shield value is too high, because right now I think its impossible to kill them with missile volleys from the front.

[bovi]

I think its impossible to kill them with missile volleys from the front.

Certainly not, I'm massacring them with horse archers, normally they only reach the position were my skirmishing line originally stood before breaking. HA have a decent 6 attack though, but regular archers are very good against them too with twice the number of attacks at 4.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Yup. One. v. one missile units don't kill much other than the most lightly armoured opponents without a shield worth mentioning (aka: akontistai; sphedonetai etc.).

However having a couple of archer units or slinger units will ensure that the enemy unit gets attacked from multiple angles --> end of your Gaesatae. It's all in the effective deployment of your skimishers; and really when it comes to that the Gaesatae or Tindanotae simply don't cut it as your super unit.

One would rather have Hypaspistai for that job.

[Elmetiacos]

Thracian Rhomphaiaphoroi are a specialist anti-armour unit. Their huge blades are meant to smash armour, but cumbersome to wield so they are easily dodged (relatively speaking), especially when you are not weighed down by armour. Hence they don't perform well against unarmoured units, let along elite ones like the gaesatae.

Be careful here - this post contains two long-held myths; firstly that the way to use a two handed weapon is to swing it around over your head, like the villain in a "teen slasher" horror film and secondly that armour slows movement. Check out various websites of organisations that build their own armour and weapons to fight with, such as ARMA. Most aren't concerned with the Roman era, but the same facts apply.

[Hax]

I've wore chainmail.

No, it doesn't exactly slow your movement, but it tires you faster.

[russia almighty]

^Same, plus scale.

All the weight is on your shoulders; a belt helps reduce it somewhat, but, it can't beat full plate.

[Frostwulf]

Here is a simple question in which still has not been answered.
Where anywhere in any classical text or otherwise does it state anything about the Gaesatae being so great in martial ability?
You don't see it at Telemon, Clastidium or anywhere else! Lets pretend they were hopped up on drugs, so what. The Gaesatae were destroyed fairly easy. If you look at the texts of these battles when they did get engaged they were killed off.

Also worth noting that, while Polybius says that many of the javelins struck home, he doesn't really talk about Gaesatae dying, he talks about them spending a looong time trying to run down the skirmishers, failing, returning to the ranks, taking more and more fire, and then eventually retiring into the other ranks or charging into the front lines of the waiting legions.

He mentions that the other Celts were well protected by trousers and cloaks and the Gaesatae were reduced to the utmost distress and perplexity. He also doesn't mention that they were ripping out the javelins and throwing them back, which he most certainly would have if that would have been the case. Also if the didn't die then why didn't they hold their ground?
If the Gaesatae were chasing the skirmishers for so long, why didn't they just engage the regular infantry?

My view of what happened is simple, the Roman skirmishers threw javelins killed some Gaesatae, some charged and died, and the others ran into the better protected Celts. Why the high armor class of the Gaesatae?

Now, when I write Gaesatae I'm not implying the near 'Naked Fanatics (shock troops).' While the fanatics appear as companies among the ranks of Gaesatae, they did not define the Order or Class, per se.

So what is the difference between the two and what are you basing this on? Where is this written, what are your sources?

Looking at that, I agree with Abou, who suggested to me that the description express the possibility of some form of drug use by the champions of the Gaesatae.

And yes, any of the EB Celtic experts would tell you that they see the Gaesatae in EB as the warrior champions from among the Gaesatae. There were a few attempts to figure out some hiring scheme for the Gaesatae that would see a faction hiring a Gaesatae army, with a couple of the EB Gaesatae accompanied by several units of regular soldiers.

Where any where can I find any information of the "champions" of the Gaesatae?

Right,
for the EB Gaesatae, the stats, yes. As far as drug use, its a game.

As the historic counterpart, these represent relatively small groups of fanatics common within the much larger formation of Gaesatae (spearmen; the term used as the spear was the most common weapon). These fanatics seemed to have been used as psychological shock troops. Drugs used among the fanatics possible or possibly not. Drugs used among the troops of the larger Gaesatae formations, other than wine, most likely not. Remember, that the ancient Kelts believed that their soul was immortal and among some religious orders, if killed in battle they would simply be reborn into another life. Those who were convinced that their soul would live forever and that if killed they would be reborn in an instant were indeed these naked fanatics. Most likely they were naked to demonstrate the last full measure of their devotion, which in turn would scare the holy B-jesus out of their enemy. More so, if their enemy understood that they were not drugged. Yes, yet another...


...this is madness, moment.

I agree with you on the drug use and perhaps the psychological shock troops, but what are you basing the stats on? What battles have taken place that would show this?

Now please understand my post here, its as with the others on this thread. I'm not picking on anyone or trying to be disrespectful, but when people make these claims I would like to know where the sources are.

To me the two biggest factoids in EB are the Gaesatae and the "Devastating Civil War". I have a feeling that these were perpetuated by the same person for whatever reason.

@Foot,
Thanks for that information on EB2

[chairman]

Elmetiacos: if you feel that swinging a two-handed weapon around your head is an incorrect way to use it, how do you think it should be used. The way you say this reminds me of the long-held myth about Landsknecht two-handed swordsmen, the Dopplesoldners who used the zweihander/beidhander, which claimed that they swung the swords around their heads to cut the heads off of enemy pikes. This myth happens to be untrue, as these swordsmen used the great length of their swords to jab at opponents from within the great mixed-pike formations of the Landsknecht mercanary core. However, the rhomphaia is a very different weapon, and its use continued for over a thousand years into the Byzantine empire, where it is said to have been a favorite of the Varangian guardsmen. How exactly the rhomphaia was used is not fully known, but from what we know about its cousin the falx, overhead slashing may not be completely out of bounds. Indeed, as the rhomphaia is a cutting/slashing weapon and not a stabbing weapon like the zweihander, it seems reasonable that at least some of the time it was used overhead. Also take into account other single edged swords like the falcata and the saber. These are known to have been used in an over-arm, over-the-head slashing motion to cut through armor or clothing. While these weapons are small enough that they do not suffer agility penalties, the rhomphaia is a much bigger weapon, even bigger in some cases than the falx, though admittedly not as big as the zweihander.

From this, I would say that the Rhomphaiaphoroi might need to have their attack or lethality checked/raised (funny that even the lowly Thrakioi Peltastai have higher lethality than the Rhomphaiaphoroi [probably just something that was overlooked]) while the Gaesatae and Tindanotae should have their shields' defence value lowered (AFAIK the only other units to have a 4 in this catagory are hoplites etc.).

Also, as several others already mentioned, the Rhomphaiaphoroi are an AP unit, designed for cracking open heavily armored elite units, like a can opener. Against unarmored units, they are not nearly as effective; this is the way it has always been in TW games and was how it was in history: the mighty can-opening hoplite of the Greek city-states floundered incredibly easily against completely unarmored Thracian peltasts until the ekdromoi was invented and used.

I hope this clears some things up.

Chairman

[cmacq]

So what is the difference between the two and what are you basing this on? Where is this written, what are your sources?

Where any where can I find any information of the "champions" of the Gaesatae?

Frostwulf encore une fois, moue déjà lu en déjà vu? This was not a simple question; it was in fact several simple questions, as is your nature, that have all been answered many times before. Still, I figure its my turn in the barrel.


Πολύβιος
Histories, book 2

The Romans had been alarmed by the advance of the Gauls, and a legion was on its way; but, on hearing of the Gauls' self-inflicted losses, they returned home. 7 Five years after this alarm, in the consulship of Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, the Romans divided among their citizens the territory in Gaul known as Picenum, from which they had ejected the Senones when they conquered them. 8 Gaius Flaminius was the originator of this popular policy, which we must pronounce to have been, one may say, the first step in the demoralization of the populace, as well as the cause of the war with the Gauls which followed. 9 For what prompted many of the Gauls and especially the Boii, whose territory bordered on that of Rome, to take action was the conviction that now the Romans no longer made war on them for the sake of supremacy and sovereignty, but with a view to their total expulsion and extermination.

The two largest tribes, therefore, the Insubres and Boii, made a league and sent messengers to the Gauls dwelling among the Alps and near the Rhone, who are called Gaesatae because they serve for hire, this being the proper meaning of the word. 2 They urged and incited their kings Concolitanus and Aneroëstus to make war on Rome, offering them at present a large sum in gold, and as to the future, pointing out to them the great prosperity of the Romans, and the vast wealth that would be theirs if they were victorious. 3 They had no difficulty in persuading them, as, in addition to all this, they pledged themselves to be loyal allies and reminded them of the achievement of their own ancestors, 4 who had not only overcome the Romans in combat, but, after the battle, had assaulted and taken Rome itself, 5 possessing themselves of all it contained, and, after remaining masters of the city for seven months, had finally given it up of their own free will and as an act of grace, and had returned home with their spoil, unbroken and unscathed. 6 When the kings had been told all this, they became so eager for the expedition that on no occasion has that district of Gaul sent out so large a force or one composed of men so distinguished or so warlike.

------------------------------------------------

As I noted above this translation is not that good. You need to get the greek copy to actually understand what he wrote.

[Elmetiacos]

Elmetiacos: if you feel that swinging a two-handed weapon around your head is an incorrect way to use it, how do you think it should be used.

I never said that; I only mean that swinging it over your head is not the only way it can be used and that therefore it is an unfavourable situation if you cannot swing the weapon because your opponent is not encumbered by heavy armour and can dodge your slow, clumsy overhead blows.

[Ludens]

I never said that; I only mean that swinging it over your head is not the only way it can be used and that therefore it is an unfavourable situation if you cannot swing the weapon because your opponent is not encumbered by heavy armour and can dodge your slow, clumsy overhead blows.

True, but in such a case the blows would lack momentum and be insufficient to pierce armour. Unfortunately, this cannot be statted in the R:TW engine. The weapon is either always or never armour piercing. In any case, such two-handed weapons are unwieldy compared to one-handed weapons, so they are not the weapon of choice when facing unarmoured enemies.

You are right about armour not slowing one down. My bad.

[Elmetiacos]

Although I've no experience with a rhompaia or a falx and don't know anyone who has, come to that, when I look at the weapon I don't get the impression that it's unwieldy. I do agree with the idea that it's not necessarily more effective than a spear or a gladius, and so the only way to model this in RTW is to make it AP to simulate it's notorious ability to cut right through a legionary's helmet. I don't think, though, that's it's necessarily worse either, so a lowered attack might not be as good a solution as greater spacing between troops in the unit.

Returning to the Gaesatae, I can't find any evidence for drugs, either. All we have on them is that one Roman account. I'm not terribly bothered by them being tough; the only problem I have really is that when the Britons get their own version, they don't have the same stats as the Gaesatae: I see no justification for making one set of howling, naked nutters different from another, except perhaps game balance?

[Megalos]

Pausanias


INVASION OF THE GAULS, HISTORY

[10.19.5] I have made some mention of the Gallic invasion of Greece in my description of the Athenian Council Chamber.31 But I have resolved to give a more detailed account of the Gauls in my description of Delphi, because the greatest of the Greek exploits against the barbarians took place there. The Celts conducted their first foreign expedition under the leadership of Cambaules. Advancing as far as Thrace they lost heart and broke off their march, realizing that they were too few in number to be a match for the Greeks.

[10.19.6] But when they decided to invade foreign territory a second time, so great was the influence of Cambaules' veterans, who had tasted the joy of plunder and acquired a passion for robbery and plunder, that a large force of infantry and no small number of mounted men attended the muster. So the army was split up into three divisions by the chieftains, to each of whom was assigned a separate land to invade.

[10.19.7] Cerethrius was to be leader against the Thracians and the nation of the Triballi. The invaders of Paeonia were under the command of Brennus and Acichorius. Bolgius attacked the Macedonians and Illyrians, and engaged in a struggle with Ptolemy, king of the Macedonians at that time. It was this Ptolemy who, though he had taken refuge as a suppliant with Seleucus, the son of Antiochus, treacherously murdered him, and was surnamed Thunderbolt because of his recklessness. Ptolemy himself perished in the fighting, and the Macedonian losses were heavy. But once more the Celts lacked courage to advance against Greece, and so the second expedition returned home.

[10.19.8] It was then that Brennus, both in public meetings and also in personal talks with individual Gallic officers, strongly urged a campaign against Greece, enlarging on the weakness of Greece at the time, on the wealth of the Greek states, and on the even greater wealth in sanctuaries, including votive offerings and coined silver and gold. So he induced the Gauls to march against Greece. Among the officers he chose to be his colleagues was Acichorius.

[10.19.9] The muster of foot amounted to one hundred and fifty-two thousand, with twenty thousand four hundred horse. This was the number of horsemen in action at any one time, but the real number was sixty-one thousand two hundred. For to each horseman were attached two servants, who were themselves skilled riders and, like their masters, had a horse.

[10.19.10] When the Gallic horsemen were engaged, the servants remained behind the ranks and proved useful in the following way. Should a horseman or his horse fall, the slave brought him a horse to mount; if the rider was killed, the slave mounted the horse in his master's place; if both rider and horse were killed, there was a mounted man ready. When a rider was wounded, one slave brought back to camp the wounded man, while the other took his vacant place in the ranks.

[10.19.11] I believe that the Gauls in adopting these methods copied the Persian regiment of the Ten Thousand, who were called the Immortals. There was, however, this difference. The Persians used to wait until the battle was over before replacing casualties, while the Gauls kept reinforcing the horsemen to their full number during the height of the action. This organization is called in their native speech trimarcisia, for I would have you know that marca is the Celtic name for a horse.

[10.19.12] This was the size of the army, and such was the intention of Brennus, when he attacked Greece. The spirit of the Greeks was utterly broken, but the extremity of their terror forced them to defend Greece. They realized that the struggle that faced them would not be one for liberty, as it was when they fought the Persian, and that giving water and earth would not bring them safety. They still remembered the fate of Macedonia, Thrace and Paeonia during the former incursion of the Gauls, and reports were coming in of enormities committed at that very time on the Thessalians. So every man, as well as every state, was convinced that they must either conquer or perish.

[10.20.1] XX. Any one who so wishes can compare the number of those who mustered to meet king Xerxes at Thermopylae with those who now mustered to oppose the Gauls. To meet the Persians there came Greek contingents of the following strength. Lacedaemonians with Leonidas not more than three hundred; Tegeans five hundred, and five hundred from Mantineia; from Orchomenus in Arcadia a hundred and twenty; from the other cities in Arcadia one thousand; from Mycenae eighty; from Phlius two hundred, and from Corinth twice this number; of the Boeotians there mustered seven hundred from Thespiae and four hundred from Thebes. A thousand Phocians guarded the path on Mount Oeta, and the number of these should be added to the Greek total.

[10.20.2] Herodotus32 does not give the number of the Locrians under Mount Cnemis, but he does say that each of their cities sent a contingent. It is possible, however, to make an estimate of these also that comes very near to the truth. For not more than nine thousand Athenians marched to Marathon, even if we include those who were too old for active service and slaves; so the number of Locrian fighting men who marched to Thermopylae cannot have exceeded six thousand. So the whole army would amount to eleven thousand two hundred. But it is well known that not even these remained all the time guarding the pass; for if we except the Lacedaemonians, Thespians and Mycenaeans, the rest left the field before the conclusion of the fighting.

[10.20.3] To meet the barbarians who came from the Ocean the following Greek forces came to Thermopylae. Of the Boeotians ten thousand hoplites and five hundred cavalry, the Boeotarchs being Cephisodotus, Thearidas, Diogenes and Lysander. From Phocis came five hundred cavalry with footmen three thousand in number. The generals of the Phocians were Critobulus and Antiochus.

[10.20.4] The Locrians over against the island of Atalanta were under the command of Meidias; they numbered seven hundred, and no cavalry was with them. Of the Megarians came four hundred hoplites commanded by Hipponicus of Megara. The Aetolians sent a large contingent, including every class of fighting men; the number of cavalry is not given, but the light-armed were seven hundred and ninety, and their hoplites numbered more than seven thousand. Their leaders were Polyarchus, Polyphron and Lacrates.

[10.20.5] The Athenian general was Callippus, the son of Moerocles, as I have said in an earlier part of my work,33 and their forces consisted of all their seaworthy triremes, five hundred horse and one thousand foot. Because of their ancient reputation the Athenians held the chief command. The king of Macedonia sent five hundred mercenaries, and the king of Asia a like number; the leader of those sent by Antigonus was Aristodemus, a Macedonian, and Telesarchus, one of the Syrians on the Orontes, commanded the forces that Antiochus sent from Asia.

[10.20.6] When the Greeks assembled at Thermopylae34 learned that the army of the Gauls was already in the neighborhood of Magnesia and Phthiotis, they resolved to detach the cavalry and a thousand light armed troops and to send them to the Spercheius, so that even the crossing of the river could not be effected by the barbarians without a struggle and risks. On their arrival these forces broke down the bridges and by themselves encamped along the bank. But Brennus himself was not utterly stupid, nor inexperienced, for a barbarian, in devising tricks of strategy.

[10.20.7] So on that very night he despatched some troops to the Spercheius, not to the places where the old bridges had stood, but lower down, where the Greeks would not notice the crossing, and just where the river spread over the plain and made a marsh and lake instead of a narrow, violent stream. Hither Brennus sent some ten thousand Gauls, picking out the swimmers and the tallest men; and the Celts as a race are far taller than any other people.

[10.20.8] So these crossed in the night, swimming over the river where it expands into a lake; each man used his shield, his national buckler, as a raft, and the tallest of them were able to cross the water by wading. The Greeks on the Spercheius, as soon as they learned that a detachment of the barbarians had crossed by the marsh, forthwith retreated to the main army. Brennus ordered the dwellers round the Malian gulf to build bridges across the Spercheius, and they proceeded to accomplish their task with a will, for they were frightened of Brennus, and anxious for the barbarians to go away out of their country instead of staying to devastate it further.

[10.20.9] Brennus brought his army across over the bridges and proceeded to Heracleia. The Gauls plundered the country, and massacred those whom they caught in the fields, but did not capture the city. For a year previous to this the Aetolians had forced Heracleia to join the Aetolian League; so now they defended a city which they considered to belong to them just as much as to the Heracleots.

Brennus did not trouble himself much about Heracleia, but directed his efforts to driving away those opposed to him at the pass, in order to invade Greece south of Thermopylae.

[10.21.1] XXI. Deserters kept Brennus informed about the forces from each city mustered at Thermopylae. So despising the Greek army he advanced from Heracleia, and began the battle at sun-rise on the next day. He had no Greek soothsayer, and made no use of his own country's sacrifices, if indeed the Celts have any art of divination. Whereupon the Greeks attacked silently and in good order. When they came to close quarters, the infantry did not rush out of their line far enough to disturb their proper formation, while the light-armed troops remained in position, throwing javelins, shooting arrows or slinging bullets.

[10.21.2] The cavalry on both sides proved useless, as the ground at the Pass is not only narrow, but also smooth because of the natural rock, while most of it is slippery owing to its being covered with streams. The Gauls were worse armed than the Greeks, having no other defensive armour than their national shields, while they were still more inferior in war experience.

[10.21.3] On they marched against their enemies with the unreasoning fury and passion of brutes. Slashed with axe or sword they kept their desperation while they still breathed; pierced by arrow or javelin, they did not abate of their passion so long as life remained. Some drew out from their wounds the spears, by which they had been hit, and threw them at the Greeks or used them in close fighting.

[10.21.4] Meanwhile the Athenians on the triremes, with difficulty and with danger, nevertheless coasted along through the mud that extends far out to sea, brought their ships as close to the barbarians as possible, and raked them with arrows and every other kind of missile. The Celts were in unspeakable distress, and as in the confined space they inflicted few losses but suffered twice or four times as many, their captains gave the signal to retire to their camp. Retreating in confusion and without any order, many were crushed beneath the feet of their friends, and many others fell into the swamp and disappeared under the mud. Their loss in the retreat was no less than the loss that occurred while the battle raged.

[10.21.5] On this day the Attic contingent surpassed the other Greeks in courage. Of the Athenians themselves the bravest was Cydias, a young man who had never before been in battle. He was killed by the Gauls, but his relatives dedicated his shield to Zeus God of Freedom, and the inscription ran:–

Here hang I, yearning for the still youthful bloom of Cydias,
The shield of a glorious man, an offering to Zeus.
I was the very first through which at this battle he thrust his left arm,
When the battle raged furiously against the Gaul.

[10.21.6] This inscription remained until Sulla and his army took away, among other Athenian treasures, the shields in the porch of Zeus, God of Freedom. After this battle at Thermopylae the Greeks buried their own dead and spoiled the barbarians, but the Gauls sent no herald to ask leave to take up the bodies, and were indifferent whether the earth received them or whether they were devoured by wild beasts or carrion birds.

[10.21.7] There were in my opinion two reasons that made them careless about the burial of their dead: they wished to strike terror into their enemies, and through habit they have no tender feeling for those who have gone. In the battle there fell forty of the Greeks; the losses of the barbarians it was impossible to discover exactly. For the number of them that disappeared beneath the mud was great.

[10.22.1] XXII. On the seventh day after the battle a regiment of Gauls attempted to go up to Oeta by way of Heracleia. Here too a narrow path rises just past the ruins of Trachis. There was also at that time a sanctuary of Athena above the Trachinian territory, and in it were votive offerings. So they hoped to ascend Oeta by this path and at the same time to get possession of the offerings in the temple in passing. <This path was defended by the Phocians under Telesarchus.> They overcame the barbarians in the engagement, but Telesarchus himself fell, a man devoted, if ever a man was, to the Greek cause.

[10.22.2] All the leaders of the barbarians except Brennus were terrified of the Greeks, and at the same time were despondent of the future, seeing that their present condition showed no signs of improvement. But Brennus reasoned that if he could compel the Aetolians to return home to Aetolia, he would find the war against Greece prove easier hereafter. So he detached from his army forty thousand foot and about eight hundred horse. Over these he set in command Orestorius and Combutis,

[10.22.3] who, making their way back by way of the bridges over the Spercheius and across Thessaly again, invaded Aetolia. The fate of the Callians at the hands of Combutis and Orestorius is the most wicked ever heard of, and is without a parallel in the crimes of men. Every male they put to the sword, and there were butchered old men equally with children at their mothers' breasts. The more plump of these sucking babes the Gauls killed, drinking their blood and eating their flesh.

[10.22.4] Women and adult maidens, if they had any spirit at all in them, anticipated their end when the city was captured. Those who survived suffered under imperious violence every form of outrage at the hands of men equally void of pity or of love. Every woman who chanced to find a Gallic sword committed suicide. The others were soon to die of hunger and want of sleep, the incontinent barbarians outraging them by turns, and sating their lust even on the dying and the dead.

[10.22.5] The Aetolians had been informed by messengers what disasters had befallen them, and at once with all speed removed their forces from Thermopylae and hastened to Aetolia, being exasperated at the sufferings of the Callians, and still more fired with determination to save the cities not yet captured. From all the cities at home were mobilized the men of military age; and even those too old for service, their fighting spirit roused by the crisis, were in the ranks, and their very women gladly served with them, being even more enraged against the Gauls than were the men.

[10.22.6] When the barbarians, having pillaged houses and sanctuaries, and having fired Callium, were returning by the same way, they were met by the Patraeans, who alone of the Achaeans were helping the Aetolians. Being trained as hoplites they made a frontal attack on the barbarians, but suffered severely owing to the number and desperation of the Gauls. But the Aetolians, men and women, drawn up all along the road, kept shooting at the barbarians, and few shots failed to find a mark among enemies protected by nothing but their national shields. Pursued by the Gauls they easily escaped, renewing their attack with vigor when their enemies returned from the pursuit.

[10.22.7] Although the Callians suffered so terribly that even Homer's account of the Laestrygones and the Cyclops35 does not seem outside the truth, yet they were duly and fully avenged. For out of their number of forty thousand eight hundred, there escaped of the barbarians to the camp at Thermopylae less than one half.

[10.22.8] Meantime the Greeks at Thermopylae were faring as follows. There are two paths across Mount Oeta: the one above Trachis is very steep, and for the most part precipitous; the other, through the territory of the Aenianians, is easier for an army to cross. It was through this that on a former occasion Hydarnes the Persian passed to attack in the rear the Greeks under Leonidas.36

[10.22.9] By this road the Heracleots and the Aenianians promised to lead Brennus, not that they were ill-disposed to the Greek cause, but because they were anxious for the Celts to go away from their country, and not to establish themselves in it to its ruin. I think that Pindar37 spoke the truth again when he said that every one is crushed by his own misfortunes but is untouched by the woes of others.

[10.22.10] Brennus was encouraged by the promise made by the Aenianians and Heracleots. Leaving Acichorius behind in charge of the main army, with instructions that it was to attack only when the enveloping movement was complete, Brennus himself, with a detachment of forty thousand, began his march along the pass.

[10.22.11] It so happened on that day that the mist rolled thick down the mountain, darkening the sun, so that the Phocians who were guarding the path found the barbarians upon them before they were aware of their approach. Thereupon the Gauls attacked. The Phocians resisted manfully, but at last were forced to retreat from the path. However, they succeeded in running down to their friends with a report of what was happening before the envelopment of the Greek army was quite complete on all sides.

[10.22.12] Whereupon the Athenians with the fleet succeeded in withdrawing in time the Greek forces from Thermopylae, which disbanded and returned to their several homes. Brennus, without delaying any longer, began his march against Delphi without waiting for the army with Acichorius to join up. In terror the Delphians took refuge in the oracle. The god bade them not to be afraid, and promised that he would himself defend his own.

[10.22.13] The Greeks who came in defence of the god were as follow: the Phocians, who came from all their cities; from Amphissa four hundred hoplites; from the Aetolians a few came at once on hearing of the advance of the barbarians, and later on Philomelus brought one thousand two hundred. The flower of the Aetolians turned against the army of Acichorius, and without offering battle attacked continuously the rear of their line of march, plundering the baggage and putting the carriers to the sword. It was chiefly for this reason that their march proved slow. Futhermore, at Heracleia Acichorius had left a part of his army, who were to guard the baggage of the camp.

[10.23.1] XXIII. Brennus and his army were now faced by the Greeks who had mustered at Delphi, and soon portents boding no good to the barbarians were sent by the god, the clearest recorded in history. For the whole ground occupied by the Gallic army was shaken violently most of the day, with continuous thunder and lightning.

[10.23.2] The thunder both terrified the Gauls and prevented them hearing their orders, while the bolts from heaven set on fire not only those whom they struck but also their neighbors, themselves and their armour alike. Then there were seen by them ghosts of the heroes Hyperochus, Laodocus and Pyrrhus; according to some a fourth appeared, Phylacus, a local hero of Delphi.

[10.23.3] Among the many Phocians who were killed in the action was Aleximachus, who in this battle excelled all the other Greeks in devoting youth, physical strength, and a stout heart, to slaying the barbarians. The Phocians made a statue of Aleximachus and sent it to Delphi as an offering to Apollo.

[10.23.4] All the day the barbarians were beset by calamities and terrors of this kind. But the night was to bring upon them experiences far more painful. For there came on a severe frost, and snow with it; and great rocks slipping from Parnassus, and crags breaking away, made the barbarians their target, the crash of which brought destruction, not on one or two at a time, but on thirty or even more, as they chanced to be gathered in groups, keeping guard or taking rest.

[10.23.5] At sunrise the Greeks came on from Delphi, making a frontal attack with the exception of the Phocians, who, being more familiar with the district, descended through the snow down the precipitous parts of Parnassus, and surprised the Celts in their rear, shooting them down with arrows and javelins without anything to fear from the barbarians.

[10.23.6] At the beginning of the fight the Gauls offered a spirited resistance, especially the company attached to Brennus, which was composed of the tallest and bravest of the Gauls, and that though they were shot at from all sides, and no less distressed by the frost, especially the wounded men. But when Brennus himself was wounded, he was carried fainting from the battle, and the barbarians, harassed on all sides by the Greeks, fell back reluctantly, putting to the sword those who, disabled by wounds or sickness, could not go with them.

[10.23.7] They encamped where night overtook them in their retreat, and during the night there fell on them a “panic.” For causeless terrors are said to come from the god Pan. It was when evening was turning to night that the confusion fell on the army, and at first only a few became mad, and these imagined that they heard the trampling of horses at a gallop, and the attack of advancing enemies; but after a little time the delusion spread to all.

[10.23.8] So rushing to arms they divided into two parties, killing and being killed, neither understanding their mother tongue nor recognizing one another's forms or the shape of their shields. Both parties alike under the present delusion thought that their opponents were Greek, men and armour, and that the language they spoke was Greek, so that a great mutual slaughter was wrought among the Gauls by the madness sent by the god.

[10.23.9] Those Phocians who had been left behind in the fields to guard the flocks were the first to perceive and report to the Greeks the panic that had seized the barbarians in the night. The Phocians were thus encouraged to attack the Celts with yet greater spirit, keeping a more careful watch on their encampments, and not letting them take from the country the necessities of life without a struggle, so that the whole Gallic army suffered at once from a pressing shortage of corn and other food.

[10.23.10] Their losses in Phocis were these: in the battles were killed close on six thousand; those who perished in the wintry storm at night and afterwards in the panic terror amounted to over ten thousand, as likewise did those who were starved to death.

[10.23.11] Athenian scouts arrived at Delphi to gather information, after which they returned and reported what had happened to the barbarians, and all that the god had inflicted upon them. Whereupon the Athenians took the field, and as they marched through Boeotia they were joined by the Boeotians. Thus the combined armies followed the barbarians, lying in wait and killing those who happened to be the last.

[10.23.12] Those who fled with Brennus had been joined by the army under Acichorius only on the previous night. For the Aetolians had delayed their march, hurling at them a merciless shower of javelins and anything else they could lay hands on, so that only a small part of them escaped to the camp at Heracleia. There was still a hope of saving the life of Brennus, so far as his wounds were concerned; but, they say, partly because he feared his fellow-countrymen, and still more because he was conscience-stricken at the calamities he had brought on Greece, he took his own life by drinking neat wine.

[10.23.13] After this the barbarians proceeded with difficulty as far as the Spercheius, pressed hotly by the Aetolians. But after their arrival at the Spercheius, during the rest of the retreat the Thessalians and Malians kept lying in wait for them, and so took their fill of slaughter that not a Gaul returned home in safety.

[10.23.14] The expedition of the Celts against Greece, and their destruction, took place when Anaxicrates was archon at Athens, in the second year of the hundred and twenty-fifth Olympiad, when Ladas of Aegium was victor in the footrace. In the following year, when Democles was archon at Athens, the Celts crossed back again to Asia.

[Elmetiacos]

Pausanias does not use the word "Gaesatae" at all. Once again, we have only that single Roman reference to go on. They are described as living near the Alps and in the Rhone valley, as if they're a tribe, but then the word is translated as meaning mercenaries, which would be an odd name for a tribe to adopt... and by the time Caesar arrives a century and a half later, there is no trace of them in Gaul whatsoever. I agree with the people who say they weren't a tribe, but some sort of fianna type institution.

[cmacq]

To demonstrate so that Frostwulf may better understand.

Polybius, Histories

Book 2, chapter 22
[1] διόπερ ευτηεὀσ τα μεγιστα τὀν ετηνὀν· το τε τὀν Ινσομβρὀν και Βοιὀν· συμπηρονὑσαντα διεπεμποντο προσ τουσ κατα τασ Αλπεισ και περι τον Ρηοδανον ποταμον κατοικουντασ Γαλατασ· προσαγορευομενουσ δε δια το μιστηου στρατευειν Γαισατουσ; ηὑ γαρ λεχισ ηαυτὑ τουτο σὑμαινει κυριὀσ.

[6] ηὀν ακουοντεσ ηοι περι αυτουσ ηὑγεμονεσ ηουτὀ παρὀρμὑτηὑσαν επι τὑν στρατειαν ηὀστε μὑδεποτε μὑτε πλειουσ μὑτ᾿ ενδοχοτερουσ μὑτε μαψηιμὀτερουσ ανδρασ εχελτηειν εκ τουτὀν τὀν τοπὀν τὑσ Γαλατιασ,

my rendering̣
[1] Accordingly, the greatest of this nation, the Insubres and Boii, agreed to send [word] by different routes towards the Rhone River, yet to enter among the Gauls, and call the Gaesatae by means of the wage to serve in war, this well said as to indicate authority.

[6] This in due course their leaders heard, and thus were spurred on upon an expedition, inasmuch as never had more men fit for battle nor held in such high esteem come out of this part of Gaul.

Paton Translation
[1] The two largest tribes, therefore, the Insubres and Boii, made a league and sent messengers to the Gauls dwelling among the Alps and near the Rhone, who are called Gaesatae because they serve for hire, this being the proper meaning of the word.

[6] When the kings had been told all this, they became so eager for the expedition that on no occasion has that district of Gaul sent out so large a force or one composed of men so distinguished or so warlike.

E. S. Shuckburgh Translation
[1] Accordingly the two most extensive tribes, the Insubres and Boii, joined in the despatch of messengers to the tribes living about the Alps and on the Rhone, who from a word which means "serving for hire," are called Gaesatae.

[6] These arguments made the leaders so eager for the expedition, that there never at any other time came from that part of Gaul a larger host, or one consisting of more notable warriors.

-------------------------------------------

One will note that the Greek text in line 1, there is no mention of the Alps and nowhere does Polybius claim that the meaning of the word Gaesatae was, 'they served for hire.' Indeed what Polybius wrote was that word (they did not form an alliance) was sent by different routes to the Gauls (not tribes) in the area of the Rhone (not the Alps), that called the Gaesatae to war for pay, saying this in an authoritative manner; so that they would understand the offer was legitimate. However, this in no way means that Polybius did not indeed see the Gaesatae as Mercenaries.

In line 6 Polybius suggests that this wasn't the first time that Gaesatae had come to Italy, but rather that it was quite common. However, herein he indicates this was the largest contingent, particularly from this part of Gaul. He also points out that within this particular group of Gaesatae there were many high status individuals.


And, yes some kind of a Paladinic or Fenian Order may be somewhat of a good analogy.

[Megalos]

Pausanias does not use the word "Gaesatae" at all. Once again, we have only that single Roman reference to go on. They are described as living near the Alps and in the Rhone valley, as if they're a tribe, but then the word is translated as meaning mercenaries, which would be an odd name for a tribe to adopt... and by the time Caesar arrives a century and a half later, there is no trace of them in Gaul whatsoever. I agree with the people who say they weren't a tribe, but some sort of fianna type institution.

I think you misunderstand. I should have been a little clearer. I was posting that, to show where the reference for the "pulling out of spears" probably came from.

Pausanias does say this though "and few shots failed to find a mark among enemies protected by nothing but their national shields". Now can we deduce that they were naked from that? I guess it's a matter of interpretation.

However Pausanias does mention in the first few chapters, that these Gauls campaigning in Greece were enticed to do so, by the stories they heard from the men on the fist campaign who were very rich after returning, and by the promise of even greater reward upon their completion of the second campaign. Sound familiar to the way the Gauls enticed the Gaesatae in Polybius? Again I guess it's a matter of Interpretation.

We also know from Various archaeological sources, Livy and DoH, that there were the "naked warriors" living in asia minor, and these guys came direct from this same branch of Gauls attacking Greece. Also the three tribes instigating this attack on Greece would have frequented the lands that the Gasatae came from accoring to Polybius' description from where they hailed...also those lands are also on, or very near the direct marching route the Gauls would have taken on their way to greece...make of that what you will I suppose?

... and by the time Caesar arrives a century and a half later, there is no trace of them in Gaul whatsoever. I agree with the people who say they weren't a tribe, but some sort of fianna type institution.

BTW, Caesar probably doesn't mention them due to the fact that their lands described in Polybius, were already Roman at this point. So probably they had either moved on, or they were subjugated.

[Atilius]

It was this Ptolemy who, though he had taken refuge as a suppliant with Seleucus, the son of Antiochus, treacherously murdered him, and was surnamed Thunderbolt because of his recklessness.

Yeah, those guys name Keravnos are no good.

[Frostwulf]

Frostwulf encore une fois, moue déjà lu en déjà vu? This was not a simple question; it was in fact several simple questions, as is your nature, that have all been answered many times before. Still, I figure its my turn in the barrel.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...3&postcount=70

To demonstrate so that Frostwulf may better understand.

I thank your for your posts, but I do believe I understand this situation. I am familiar with the Boii,Insubres and even the Roman allies the Cenomanes(They did turn on the Romans at one time). I have read multiple authors and have also posted on this situation, so my understanding is fine.

I have read the texts(several times over the past year) in which you have posted here but you have repeatedly failed to answer my questions. I will ask the same questions and hopefully ask them in a way you will understand what I am after.

Now, when I write Gaesatae I'm not implying the near 'Naked Fanatics (shock troops).' While the fanatics appear as companies among the ranks of Gaesatae, they did not define the Order or Class, per se.

Where is it written or where are you getting your information on the difference between the 'naked fanatics' and the Gaesatae?
Where does it say or where is your information on the "'naked fanatics' appearing among the ranks of Gaesatae"?

As the historic counterpart, these represent relatively small groups of fanatics common within the much larger formation of Gaesatae (spearmen; the term used as the spear was the most common weapon).

Where is it written or where did you get your information on there being a small group of fanatics among the Gaesatae?

I think the questions I asked here are all supposition on your part as there is no writing to support what your saying. If there is please let me know where that is. Just about all the historian who write on the Gaesatae say about the same thing, they are semi-professional mercenaries. None of the historians I have read, nor anywhere in the texts I have read(this would of course include the ones you put on your post) say anything about a small group of fanatics among the Gaesatae.

Returning to the Gaesatae, I can't find any evidence for drugs, either. All we have on them is that one Roman account. I'm not terribly bothered by them being tough; the only problem I have really is that when the Britons get their own version, they don't have the same stats as the Gaesatae: I see no justification for making one set of howling, naked nutters different from another, except perhaps game balance?

I agree with you on this. Again looking at the battles the Gaesatae where involved in there is nothing at all to justify their stats with the exception of a good(not high) morale, intimidation and vulnerability to missile weapons.

Right,
for the EB Gaesatae, the stats, yes.

You agree with the stats of the Gaesatae, based on what; Clastidium, Telemon?

@anyone
Where can I find any information that would support the high stats for the Gaesatae? For those that point out the battle of Thermopylae in 279/8 BC you have to remember no Gaesatae was mentioned. The ones who were mentioned was the Tectosages, Trocmi, Tolistobogii and some others. Even if we were to pretend that the Gaesatae were present, this still doesn't bode well for them. While it was a narrow pass you still would have had roughly the same numbers of combatants facing off against each other. If the Gaesatae were so tough why did they get defeated so badly at Thermopylae? The Celts outnumbered the Greeks and the reason the Greeks went back home was that they were about to be flanked just as their ancestors were against the Persians. Overall the Celtic foray into Greece was a disaster for the Celts.

Ill state as I have in other posts that the Gaesate would have the intimidation ability and the vulnerability to missiles, other then that their amour,attack rating and moral should be reduced. I base this on their performance at Clastidium and Telemon.

[Flying Pig]

The Romans refused to engage in hand-to-hand combat at first, but seem to have kept up a longer-than-usual period of ranged attack (see "at length"), perhaps out of hesitation to engage the gaesatae, who were, in fact, intimidating.

Didn't want to close in? After seeing the proud sons of Italia massacred by the...gaesatae, I don't wonder why. 3:1, historical composition of the romani for camillan era, and 4 gaesatae. As for Thermopylae, the Achmeniad (sp?) persians used them in 480, Herodotus says that some of the persians were naked, and while Proffessor Tom Holland calls that a metaphor for their light armour I believe that the force included Galatian gaesatae, and they, when called in, won the battle. The first two days of the battle were given to the Immortals and the medians., but on the third day Xerxes ordered the 'general advance'. Also, a wall of bronze death in a pass is not much fun to charge at. And we don't know the greek motives, the Hellenes SAY that they went out bbecause they were worried about a flank attack, but perhaps they were afraid of the Galatikoi. We don't know that the Telemon 'Gaesatae' were the real McCoy, but that they fought naked. Many Keltoi words have also degenerated for war units, take R&#237;glach (irish Gaelic), originally Hippeis, Machimoi etc, later veterans, now old people. If you say that the R&#237;glach at Stoke (150~) prove the superiority of the English, in fat they are not the R&#237;glach we know. Same for Gaesatae, in my opinion. I think the romans misinterpreted the word.

Gaesatae as I know it means a group of warriors, from a caste, that fought with just a large shield and a helmet (sometimes). They acted as heroic berserkers, but had discipline: Hannibal (the great discipline-worshipper) took them as bodyguards. They had a ceremonial drink made of some kind of drug (Polybius) and at least most of them used spears. They were the masterless (alliance in Keltoi implies servitude). Some warriors may have imitated them for psychological reasons. The analogy with Fi&#225;nna is a good one. I am even unsure if they had tribes, or were a military cult, though maybe godless.

This may have later degenerated, but that, I think, is EB's understanding as well.

[Elmetiacos]

Didn't want to close in? After seeing the proud sons of Italia massacred by the...gaesatae, I don't wonder why. 3:1, historical composition of the romani for camillan era, and 4 gaesatae. As for Thermopylae, the Achmeniad (sp?) persians used them in 480, Herodotus says that some of the persians were naked, and while Proffessor Tom Holland calls that a metaphor for their light armour I believe that the force included Galatian gaesatae, and they, when called in, won the battle.

Impossible: there were no Galatians in 480BCE. This was the late Halstatt era and no Celts had ventured East of Austria in significant numbers.

[Ludens]

Although I've no experience with a rhompaia or a falx and don't know anyone who has, come to that, when I look at the weapon I don't get the impression that it's unwieldy. I do agree with the idea that it's not necessarily more effective than a spear or a gladius, and so the only way to model this in RTW is to make it AP to simulate it's notorious ability to cut right through a legionary's helmet. I don't think, though, that's it's necessarily worse either, so a lowered attack might not be as good a solution as greater spacing between troops in the unit.

I don't have any experience either, but its curved point would make it less suitable for thrusting than a spear, and the long handle inhibits the ability for parrying and fast strikes because the wielders body would get in the way. You also don't get the momentum you would when you would swing it, hence it wouldn't be AP. That's why it's got a low attack value. Perhaps a bit too low, but the AP should compensate for that. A wider spacing would be more realistic, but do soldiers still obey the spacing rules when in combat? To my knowledge the engine does not give troops a penalty for being to close together.

I cannot answer the gaesatae question.

[cmacq]

I thank your for your posts, but I do believe I understand this situation. I am familiar with the Boii,Insubres and even the Roman allies the Cenomanes(They did turn on the Romans at one time). I have read multiple authors and have also posted on this situation, so my understanding is fine.

If your understanding is fine then I can no longer help you, and on your part there should not be a need for further questions on this topic? If indeed your understanding is not in fact fine, please read Miklos Szabo and Andre Rapin. Then get a greek copy of Polybius' Histories and translate it for yourself so that you may better understand the mistakes in the English copies you are now reading.

[Frostwulf]

If your understanding is fine then I can no longer help you, and on your part there should not be a need for further questions on this topic? If indeed your understanding is not in fact fine, please read Miklos Szabo and Andre Rapin. Then get a greek copy of Polybius' Histories and translate it for yourself so that you may better understand the mistakes in the English copies you are now reading.

I have read both Szabo and Rapin and no where do they support your claims. I,m not trying to insult you but I have noticed this is your way of avoiding a losing argument. I asked you some simple questions and you have chosen not to answer them. I will try once more:

1. You claim that "As the historic counterpart, these represent relatively small groups of fanatics common within the much larger formation of Gaesatae (spearmen; the term used as the spear was the most common weapon)."

Again I ask you where is it written any where of this? Where is it written that there was a small group of fanatics within the Gaesatae? Now either you have writings on this or you don't, you made this claim how about backing it up?

2.You claim that the EB stats for the Gaesatae are fine, what are you basing this on?

Nothing you have posted addresses either of these questions, you simply put down what most historians say, that the Gaesatae are mercenaries. Why don't you show me where Szabo or Rapin support your claims or anyone for that matter?

[cmacq]

It is difficult to measure a response...

So that I may better understand why these questions continue, can you please tell me; are you young, old, or in between? Also, what is your level of education in general terms? I assume you are a native English speaker as you use these translations of Polybius. Overall, this will greatly aid in designing a proper reply.

I've just returned from the field, I'm very tired, have several sherd counts to record, and don't have much time, but I'll help if your questions are indeed sincere.

[lobf]

Pretend he's as smart as you.

[mcantu]

I don't have any experience either, but its curved point would make it less suitable for thrusting than a spear, and the long handle inhibits the ability for parrying and fast strikes because the wielders body would get in the way. You also don't get the momentum you would when you would swing it, hence it wouldn't be AP. That's why it's got a low attack value. Perhaps a bit too low, but the AP should compensate for that. A wider spacing would be more realistic, but do soldiers still obey the spacing rules when in combat? To my knowledge the engine does not give troops a penalty for being to close together.

I cannot answer the gaesatae question.

i would treat it as a 2-handed sword...

[cmacq]

As you have it...

Rapin

Weaponry

Combat Techniques

In the 3rd century BC, the Macedonian phalanx, which succeeded those assembled by Philip of Macedon and Alexander the Great, had became an academic model for Mediterranean armies. This apparently invulnerable block several rows deep, bristling with spears, proved increasingly static due to the complex maneuvers needed for facing the enemy on all sides. The ploy the Celts adopted to confuse and destabilize this compact mass of men was the dynamic onslaught of their foot soldiers, whose effectiveness lay in the sheer force of their initial attack. The violence of this onslaught was crucial to the success of the operation and justified the need to be able to dash unimpeded into the enemy lines. The rapid expansion of the Celts into eastern Europe is sufficient proof of the success of this assault tactic, which was even effective against the heavily armed hoplite solders. However, the tactic cost many lives and much energy, and could rarely be performed more than once. Hence the cliches in battle accounts, which stress the Gauls apparent indifference to death, or their sudden despair when their frontal attack was not immediately successful.
-------------------------------
As this was a synthetic work, Rapin did not provide the citation for each assertion. Yet, it is clear the evidence for Rapin's claims can largely only come from Polybius and Pausanias. Thus, Rapin's claim relates to the tactics employed by some elements within the Gaesatae (from Gaulish gaesum or those of the throwing-spear) formations. Not the entire contingent. These formation-breakers were the fanatics.

Turning to...
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Szado

Mercenary Activity

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Although only mentioned by name once, much of this chapter is actually about the Gaesatae. This chapter points out that the Mediterranean world saw them as mercenaries, whereas they appear to have been largely landless young adult males recruited in relatively large groups.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andreae

The Image of the Celts in Etruscan, Greek, and Roman Art
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In this chapter you'll note many depictions of Celt warriors as nearly naked. These are the Roman and Greek stereotypical Celt warrior, the character they most feared, none other than the battle field bogyman, or the naked fanatic; aka the formation-breakers. They were feared because, without their formations the Mediterranean type armies were not well matched.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Right, the Romans were very aware of Celtic battle field tactics (see Battle of Faesulae). Thus, at Telamon as the formation-breakers were forming up, the Latins countered with light missile infantry, so the attempt to rush the Romans and break their formation only partly materialized. If you still do not understand how this fits together you need to retranslate Polybius. With a more accurate translation all your questions should be answered.

[Power2the1]

There is one encounter in which the Romans lost to a Gaulish army containing Gaesatae.

Leading up to Telamon, the Gaesatae and crew (warriors from the Boii, Taurisci, and Insubres) apparently ambushed and defeated a force of Romans at Faesulae. 6,000 Romans were said to have died in that battle. The Roman survivors were forced to retreat atop a hill, which the Gaesatae and allies besieged until they recieved news of a large Roman force heading their way, thus causing them to head back to their homelands.

While on their way back on that road is where get the events that lead up to the famous Telamon battle.

[the_handsome_viking]

Here is a simple question in which still has not been answered.
Where anywhere in any classical text or otherwise does it state anything about the Gaesatae being so great in martial ability?
You don't see it at Telemon, Clastidium or anywhere else! Lets pretend they were hopped up on drugs, so what. The Gaesatae were destroyed fairly easy. If you look at the texts of these battles when they did get engaged they were killed off.

He mentions that the other Celts were well protected by trousers and cloaks and the Gaesatae were reduced to the utmost distress and perplexity. He also doesn't mention that they were ripping out the javelins and throwing them back, which he most certainly would have if that would have been the case. Also if the didn't die then why didn't they hold their ground?
If the Gaesatae were chasing the skirmishers for so long, why didn't they just engage the regular infantry?

My view of what happened is simple, the Roman skirmishers threw javelins killed some Gaesatae, some charged and died, and the others ran into the better protected Celts. Why the high armor class of the Gaesatae?

So what is the difference between the two and what are you basing this on? Where is this written, what are your sources?



Where any where can I find any information of the "champions" of the Gaesatae?




I agree with you on the drug use and perhaps the psychological shock troops, but what are you basing the stats on? What battles have taken place that would show this?

Now please understand my post here, its as with the others on this thread. I'm not picking on anyone or trying to be disrespectful, but when people make these claims I would like to know where the sources are.

To me the two biggest factoids in EB are the Gaesatae and the "Devastating Civil War". I have a feeling that these were perpetuated by the same person for whatever reason.

@Foot,
Thanks for that information on EB2

Hi, I'm not sure if you can remember me from the old Germanics thread a while ago but I remember you, it's nice to see you are still on the forum.

To be totally honest, the consistent trend from my research has been the the Gaesatae were something of an organization of mercanaries, they most likely had quite a number of weapons, and fighting styles, which would include the berserker like fighting of the famous naked Gaesatae, possibly their numbers and diversity in terms of arms and methods of combat could be what led Classical writers to assume that they were a tribe, this is however obviously not the case, they were mercenaries.

They saw a lot of action in the Po-Valley and probably throughout Europe. They made quite an impact on the Romans in the various conflicts they engaged in, obviously they were good, some of them fought naked, if they did take drugs I've not really seen much in the way of physical evidence for it, I could be wrong though, I know that obviously things like alcohol were wide spread amongst the Celtic world and there is apparently Halstatt period evidence of Cannibis being used, but this could just be an Indo-European thing in generanl for example the Scythians smoked it, the ancient and later Germanic peoples smoked it, or at least did something with it, so it is't all that far fetched that these types of early forms of PCP could have existed, I just personally have seen little evidence for it.

I personally feel the best way to represent the "livishly equipped" Gaesatae would be as quite a diverse group of mercenaries, some very well armed and armored, some exhibiting the shock troop status, I know drugs were used in war but I can't specifically say that the Gaesatae deserve their 2 hit point etc stuff.

For the record, I know for a fact that you don't always need drugs to be extremely brave, religion and extreme conviction can often create people who are like this, for example the Knights Templar often believed that dying in battle against the enemies of Christiandom gave them an automatic place in heaven, or at least bolstered the chances of giving them an automatic place in heaven, I recall reading one account where a Knights Templar seemed genuinely very excited and happy that he was going to go out a Muslim enemy who out numbered him because this would grant him an automatic place in heaven, this is very psychologically close to the older styles of berserkers and really to berserk is a psychological thing, not so much a specific product of a specific religion, some human beings as a general rule can work them up into this extactic frenzy, the biology of it could be discussed but I don't feel it really has to.

I persoanlly feel that the Naked Gaesatae should be represented as elite berserker shock troops, not so much super men, just very physically capable elite shock troops, they should scare the pants off their enemies (no semi-pun intended) and should have extremely high moral, as for being super soldiers? no. only 1 hit point required.

And lets face it, even if they did have these drugs that made it hard for them to get killed, they would die from their wounds later on once the drugs wore off.

On the subject of the civil war, from what I last read we seemed to agree. There was indeed a devistating civil and Roman accounts do seem to make this clear, but I think that there is a whole number of factors which contributed to the decline of Celtic power in Gaul.

I will list a few(including the obvious).

1)It wasn't really a civil war as it was a war between seperate polticial entities, only on the cultural and possibly semi-Ethnic level was it a civil war, and even then possibly not.

2)There was indeed a power struggle for a sort of centralization attempt in Gaul at the time, this had exhausted forces on both sides of the war, which is why they ultimatly started to bring in foriegners which was for them a major mistake and an all too common one in the history of Civilization.

3)Julius Caesar was as skilled a general as he was a politician, the Romans were experts at dipolamacy, alliances making and alliance breaking, this contriubted to the conquest of Gaul.

4)Though it is most likely that at one point some Germanic peoples had been under the administrative control of a Celtic elite, which isn't that far fetched as Celtic culture, especially in terms of weapons technology was extremely successful and far ranging, it is clear that the Germanic peoples had become exceptionally tough despite having something of a constant resource crisis(which arguably could have contributed to the rise of their famous levels of discipline)and when they entered the conflict, especially under the form of elite mercenaries, it was going to be an exceptionally hard fight for many Celtic people to engage in, at least for those within close proximity to this large group of mercenaries turn pseudo-settlers, as for whether or not Ariovistus, if he had not conflicted with Caesar would have dominated Gaul? I personally doubt it as the Instability was somewhat isolated, more self sufficient tribes would have most likely been able to repell them or at least check their advance and once wind had been taken out of the sails of Ariovistus if he was to attempt empire, he would have been forced to really settle, reform the organization of his army and people, make alliances with surrounding tribes and ultimatly would have just produced another tribe in Gaul. The Celtic response to the Cimbri(whether they were Celtic or German, though they were possibly a mixture of both be it ethnic, linguistic or cultural) is what sort of motivates my opinion here as many Celtic tribes seemed to be totally capable of repelling the Cimbri from their lands, the nature of the old Celtic way of life probably was a bit more self sufficient and geard for warfare than the later.

5)The decline in use of hill forts, and a less aggressive view of foriegners probably made their decline more likely, Caesar himself says that the Gauls had become quite soft whereas groups like the Belgae who were not unfamiliar with regular warfare, were much more up for a fight, the resserection of Celtic aggressive attitudes for the Gauls seems to have come too little too late.

6)The fact that the Cimbri really, for a lack of better words, gave the Romans some very firm defeats forced the Romans, or perhaps we should say, Marius, to revise and reform the Roman military, this reformation was successful, and turned the Romans into arguable the premiere fighting people of earth at least in terms of military consistency, which contributed to their successes in Gaul and against the Germans(though the Armies of Ariovistus were arguably a total match for the Romans, being technically professional, organized in Germanic fashion, well equipped from their conquest and successes and well experienced, perhaps this being one of the most vital factors).

7)Roman society, possibly as a result of georgraphical location had been almost in a constant state of warfare, they had suffered horrendous defeats and they had attain extremely amazing victories, their very survival depended on their capacity to fight viciously, ruthlessly and efficiently, and by the time of the Gallic wars, they were definitely seasoned experts in war economy, organization, they had land, men and resources to draw from, so really, they were a major force to be reckoned with.

I could probably name more reasons for it but I would say that I don't think the "civil war" was the major reason for the defeat, but obviously in a few areas in Gaul there was genuine fatigue setting in that the Germans and Romans capitalized on, but was this the only reason for the Roman conquest of Gaul? no, of course not.