Gaesatae Question

[Elmetiacos]

Which Romans wrote about this supposed "devastating civil war" between the Gauls?

[Power2the1]

Which Romans wrote about this supposed "devastating civil war" between the Gauls?

I do not think theres a specific mention of the Aedui/Arverni/Sequanni situations being mentioned in Roman records, other than Caesar saying that their was some conflict over river tolls leading to and from their areas. The Civil war idea was put forth, I think, by Ranika?

The overall idea iirc is that the constant infighting in Gaul coupled with this "civil war" type atmosphere between the Aedui and allies vs. the Arverni/Sequani and allies helped contributed to the Arverni/Sequani looking to the Germans and their warriros for help. One of the main argument is that Germanic help would not have been needed at all were the Gallic military alive and well.



Heres an interesting tidbit from the book The Celts (A History) by Daithi O'Hogain p. 138-139:

There was, of course, little the Celts in Cisalpine Gaul could do, and Transalpine Gaul was at the same time being seized with a panic of insecurity. This derived largely from the Roman threat, which was giving rise to civil wars between the inhabitants of that region. The Aedui had begun to challenge the weakened Arverni and their allies, the Sequani, and around 71 B.C. these two tribes brought in some Germanic mercenaries to assist them. The result was that the king of the Germanic Seubi, Ariovistus, got a foothold among the Sequani, who came more and more under his control. He occupied all their towns, and began to settle large numbers of Germans in their territory.

The Aedui mustered as many of their neighbors as they could, and spearheaded resistance against Ariovistus. In 61 B.C., however, Arivistus scored a massive victory over a united force of several Celtic tribes at Admagetobriga (In Alcase), after which he began to penetrate further into Celtic territories in Switzerland and eastern France. He now demanded as hostages the children of the Gaulish leaders, and began to issue commands to thee leaders at will. Refusal to obey these commands resulted in torture or death. The Aedui, who he saw as the major stumbling block to his ambitions, had lost many of their best warriors and virtually the whole of their national council. In their hour of desperation, one of the leaders of the Aedui, Divicaicus, went to Rome requesting aid against the Germans, reminding them of the alliance contracted between them two generations before and promising that his tribe would be loyal to the Roman interest. The wolf was at the door, and Celtic Gaul was beginning to doubt its own resources for survival.

The author goes on to describe the pressure from the Romans, Germans, and in the east, Dacians under Burebista, helped to contribute to the takeover/decline of Celtic regions across Europe, each in their own way.

[Strategos Alexandros]

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?

Seeing as no - one has noticed this, the Casse don't have a version of the Gaesatae.

[lobf]

The Civil war idea was put forth, I think, by Ranika?

'Nuff said.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Elmetiacos]

Seeing as no - one has noticed this, the Casse don't have a version of the Gaesatae.

That's what I said on the previous page - there are British naked berserkers (Ranika has called them "Uirodusios") but they don't have the same stats as the Gaesatae.

[paullus]

you dont think, elmetiacos, that the "prime of life, finely accoutred" fearsome Gaesatae of Polybius' description, or the visually comparable nude Galatian berserkers of terracotta and sculptures, should be treated separately from run-of-the-mill non-professional Celtic warriors who still fought nude in the old way?

[Foot]

'Nuff said.

Do you perhaps think we are stupid? Try any more remarks like that, that attack EB members, past or present, and I'll be closing this thread down.

Foot

[the_handsome_viking]

Which Romans wrote about this supposed "devastating civil war" between the Gauls?

Julius Caesar, De Bello Gallico, Book 1

After these had been violently struggling with one another for the superiority for many years, it came to pass that the Germans were called in for hire by the Arverni and the Sequani. That about 15,000 of them [i.e. of the Germans] had at first crossed the Rhine: but after that these wild and savage men had become enamored of the lands and the refinement and the abundance of the Gauls, more were brought over, that there were now as many as 120,000 of them in Gaul: that with these the Aedui and their dependents had repeatedly struggled in arms - that they had been routed, and had sustained a great calamity - had lost all their nobility, all their senate, all their cavalry.

It is evidently clear that there was indeed a power struggle at the time which had taken it's toll on both sides of the conflict, this is what provoked these very powerful Celtic tribes seeking foreign assistance.

Also watch your tone in future when posting to me.

[the_handsome_viking]

'Nuff said.

Hey handsome viking: That's all nice, but you haven't said "according to this source, where they say [x], the Gaesatae's stats are justified" or said "according to this source, they did drugs."

If you had bothered to read my post, you would have seen that I was actually arguing against their stats, you simpleton.

It seems like such a clear question.

Very little in ancient history is clear, especially not when concerning groups such as the Celts, the matters are complex, convoluted and often require constant cross studies and cross referencing.

Don't even bother answering if all you've got is speculation and conjecture.

A troll like yourself, especially one who evidently struggles with basic reading and comprehension skills, is not in the position to tell anyone to basically stay off the thread. You're at the bottom of the intellectual food chain on this forum from what I've observed and heard and really you are not doing "your side" any favors.

[the_handsome_viking]

Seeing as no - one has noticed this, the Casse don't have a version of the Gaesatae.

As far as the British Isles go their was possibly the proto-Fianna of Ireland. They though Mercenaries were a little more, and quite similar to the Gaesatae.

[Elmetiacos]

you dont think, elmetiacos, that the "prime of life, finely accoutred" fearsome Gaesatae of Polybius' description, or the visually comparable nude Galatian berserkers of terracotta and sculptures, should be treated separately from run-of-the-mill non-professional Celtic warriors who still fought nude in the old way?

I disagree with the question...
"run-of the mill non-professional" implies that the Gaesatae were professional soldiers in the modern sense, in contrast to any of the Britons. Can we say that they were and that their insular counterparts were not? "Still fought nude in the old way" implies that fighting nude had once been the default tactic for all Celtic warriors, but that this practice was limited to a small number of warriors in Gaul in the late 3rd Century BC, whereas it continued to be generally of the Britons. Again, why do you feel we can say this?

[Elmetiacos]

It is evidently clear that there was indeed a power struggle at the time which had taken it's toll on both sides of the conflict, this is what provoked these very powerful Celtic tribes seeking foreign assistance.

The Aedui and Sequani calling in German allies to defend them from the Arverni is a long way from the whole of Gaul being devastated by a "civil war". Sounds like normal tribal politics backed up by a little extra muscle.

[the_handsome_viking]

The Aedui and Sequani calling in German allies to defend them from the Arverni is a long way from the whole of Gaul being devastated by a "civil war". Sounds like normal tribal politics backed up by a little extra muscle.

That was exactly it, but those tribes happened to be extremely powerful and influential tribes, this is what my point in my post to frostwulf. The "civil war" as many call it, which Isn't that fair as Gaul wasn't considered a single political entity really at the time by the Celts, was obviously not a civil war but a conflict in the region of Gaul between, as I have said, several very powerful tribes, not everyone was necessiarily effected by at the start but they undoubtably got effected by it by the end it would seem.

The reasons for the Gauls losing the conflict is very complicated, and I have listed quite a few, what I feel are valid reasons, as to how and why they lost.

[paullus]

the uirodosios are not limited only to britain, elmetiacos. they're also available in boii territories, and several other areas (i think).

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Do you perhaps think we are stupid? Try any more remarks like that, that attack EB members, past or present, and I'll be closing this thread down.

Foot

Instead of closing the thread getting rid of the offensive party might be a wiser choice. It is not the first time and he has been warned before too.

[lobf]

snip

I really don't know how I did that. I completely misunderstood your post, and I really apologize for responding like I did. Foolish.

In regards to Ranika: I haven't been warned before, but I'm sorry for bringing it up.

[the_handsome_viking]

I really don't know how I did that. I completely misunderstood your post, and I really apologize for responding like I did. Foolish.

In regards to Ranika: I haven't been warned before, but I'm sorry for bringing it up.

Is snip sarcasm or an insult?

If not then: It's no problem, we all make mistakes. Apology accepted.

[Fenrhyl]

As far as civil war between gauls goes, recent archeological findings point towards constant fights in ancient gaul. This, and the writings of caesar, tend to prove that global fighting was the rule in Gaul from the 2nd century BC to the roman conquest.

I'd recommand reading J-L Bruneaux "Les religions gauloises" to any person willing to understand the concepts and beliefs of warfare among the gauls (the author strongly suggests the whole affair was primarily religious). Such beliefs led the construction of huge trophé were the dead bodies (heads excepted, they were taken by the victors) and weapons of the defeated army were exposed and left to rot as an offering to the pagus' god of the victors. I know 2 of those were found, indicating large battles were fought between neighbours, some of the tribes identified thanks to the remains of the tropé (sorry, my greek is awful). There may be more.

[lobf]

Is snip sarcasm or an insult?

If not then: It's no problem, we all make mistakes. Apology accepted.

"snip" just means that I didn't want to quote everything you said, so I snipped it from the quote to simply refer to the entire post.

Yeah, that was a terrible mistake, I'm glad you understand.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A troll like yourself, especially one who evidently struggles with basic reading and comprehension skills, is not in the position to tell anyone to basically stay off the thread. You're at the bottom of the intellectual food chain on this forum from what I've observed and heard and really you are not doing "your side" any favors.

This is still really insulting, though.

[Elmetiacos]

There's something about heaping up the equipment of defeated enemies and leaving it all to rot in the Tain Bo Cuailgne isn't there? Do you know where these two Gaulish sites are?

[cmacq]

As far as civil war between gauls goes, recent archeological findings point towards constant fights in ancient gaul. This, and the writings of caesar, tend to prove that global fighting was the rule in Gaul from the 2nd century BC to the roman conquest.

I'd recommand reading J-L Bruneaux "Les religions gauloises" to any person willing to understand the concepts and beliefs of warfare among the gauls (the author strongly suggests the whole affair was primarily religious). Such beliefs led the construction of huge trophé were the dead bodies (heads excepted, they were taken by the victors) and weapons of the defeated army were exposed and left to rot as an offering to the pagus' god of the victors. I know 2 of those were found, indicating large battles were fought between neighbours, some of the tribes identified thanks to the remains of the tropé (sorry, my greek is awful). There may be more.

Very good post, I briefly touched on this religious aspect a bit, above. Very well done. About 5 years ago I remember reading about one of these sites, with a wooden temple at I believe Ribmont scr Ancr????, found in northeast france??? Several hundred posed and/or beheaded bodies found therein or round a bout? Plus, given what is known about the development of weapons and tactics, why would these warriors go into battle naked? Actually, Polybius tells us why.

[cmacq]

My mistake, the site name is Ribemont-sur-Ancre.



http://www.ribemontsurancre.cg80.fr/

Don't look here if you are weak of heart.
http://www.ribemontsurancre.cg80.fr/images/histoss8.jpg

This may be Belgy?

My French is not good, yet here in English...

This assumption was amply confirmed by the work of students from the University of Amiens directed by Jean-Louis Cadoux, which explored the different loci revealed by aerial photography from 1968 to 1987: the great temple, theatre, a spa and a craft area.

In 1982, Jean-Louis Cadoux discovered a strange structure made of human bones, since called the "ossuary," which indicated that the Gallo-Roman sanctuary was of Gaulish origin. The following years revealed that it was a large quadrangular enclosure bounded by a ditch. This and the adjacent area was strewn with human remains and iron weapons. By 1987 the identification of a vast and intricate burial of human remains confirmed the infeasibility of continued exploration with the available means and time, thus an investigation using academic standards was planned.

The necessary prerequisites (a multidisciplinary team with technical support, access to the property, permission to store and study the archaeological artifacts and research data) were collected and a new excavation program was begun by Jean-Louis Brunaux in 1990. This was due to the concerted efforts of the General Council, served by Alain Gest, the local representative, the CNRS, superintendent Ecole Normale, with financial support from the Culture Ministry, which made possible the new excavation program, with the creation of the Regional Archaeological Center and plans to develop the site.

Twelve additional years of excavations demonstrated that this site was not a typical Gallic temple, rather it was a memorial that commemorated (with trophies) an important battle that took place on the banks of the Anchor River, in the first decades of the third century BC. In this place the victors brought all the remains of their enemies and deposed them within a "sacred grove" (the quadrangular enclosure whose interior space was abandoned to the vegetation).

This place was respected and honoured by the Gauls for two and a half centuries. Only in the year 30 BC, as the Gallic Ambiani (after the region of Amiens), who had served in the Roman army, carefully dismantled the outdated facilities of their ancestors and replaced it with one inspired by the Roman temple. This place, was likely dedicated to public worship, which was improved until the 3rd century AD.

[Elmetiacos]

Fifty dead warriors, according to the site, in a sort of Gaulish war memorial.

Going off at a tangent slightly, I suppose this is the "Hero Cult Shrine" equivalent for Gauls and Britons. I'll try and conjure up a suitable name unless someone else has an idea.

[lobf]

edit- didn't mean to post here

[blitzkrieg80]

My mistake, the site name is Ribemont-sur-Ancre.

http://www.ribemontsurancre.cg80.fr/

Don't look here if you are weak of heart.
http://www.ribemontsurancre.cg80.fr/images/histoss8.jpg

This may be Belgy?

Bones!

Why I Never! How dare...

You mean living creatures die!?!? my world is upside down.

next I suppose I might learn that the Earth changes temperature, 'warming' and 'cooling' as it revolves around the sun in an elipse!?

[cmacq]

Bones!

Why I Never! How dare...

You mean living creatures die!?!? my world is upside down.

next I suppose I might learn that the Earth changes temperature, 'warming' and 'cooling' as it revolves around the sun in an elipse!?

That was for the very young and those that may honour and respect the dead.

That may be another topic altogether, yet without your elipse, one may call this a year, and as each season follows another, it may indeed warm and cool. This, as night follows day a temperature change may occur, as we know little of how the sun expends its fuel. A quick burn, a slow burn, or a cyclical burn???

[Havok.]

Why you wanna know where do getai drugs come from? curiosity or something.....else?....lol

[cmacq]

Fifty dead warriors, according to the site, in a sort of Gaulish war memorial.

Going off at a tangent slightly, I suppose this is the "Hero Cult Shrine" equivalent for Gauls and Britons. I'll try and conjure up a suitable name unless someone else has an idea.

My French is not good, but I think the 50 may be from another nearby locus excavated in 2001?

[Frostwulf]

Well I guess indirectly you answered my questions. There is no specific writing that says "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)."This is as I figured, complete supposition on your part.

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.

Not true, if you look at Celtic tactics from the 4th century to 50BC in almost every battle had the same tactic, which involved all of the infantry, not just the elite Gaesatae you claim to exist.

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

As you can see this has no real bearing on the Gaesatae situation. This was used before and after the Gaesatae and whether they were present or not. Your conjecture doesn't work.

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.
-------------------------------

Nothing in this quote of Rapin supports an elite group among the Gaesatae. It was a dynamic onslaught of their foot soldiers, a mass charge of all the infantry as both Rapin and Goldsworthy say. Nowhere do they say anything of specialized, hand picked or elite units being the main charge, its the mass of the warriors charging. This tactic was used by all the infantry.

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.

Ok, all this says is what I have said also, they are mercenaries. But you will notice they were recruited(Gaesatae) in large groups. No where does Szabo say anything about a small group of elite among the Gaesatae. I have no qualms at all with what Szabo says; it is what most historians say who the Gaesatae were.

This Celtic "industry" of professional warmongering was one of the most important markets in the north, with its constant turnover of Alpine and Cisalpine Gauls, and would seem to explain the etymology suggested by Polybius for the name of the Gaesatae, who reached Italy in 225BC. "They are called Gaesatae because they are mercenaries, which is the meaning of this word." Actually, it involved the "negotiated migration" of certain tribe called in to bolster the resistance of the Cisalpine races against the Roman Rebublic.Szabo The Celts, pg.354

Again this certainly doesn't support your claim of a small group of elite among the naked fanatics.

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.

Again I have no problem with this, as mentioned Telemon the Romans where apprehensive. But again the majority of the Celts were unarmored. You notice the "stereotypical Celt warrior" and not the elite specialized killing machines we are to believe the Gaesatae are. Again this doesn't support your argument in the least. The Greeks and the Romans viewed all the Celtic warriors this way, battle mad. When he says formation breakers it goes right back to what Goldsworthy,James, Connoly and others have said; the mass charge. They aren't talking just of elite warriors,they are talking of the mass of Celtic warriors as a whole making the charge, the whole mass is the formation breakers not just a group of elites.

Right, the Romans were very aware of Celtic battle field tactics (see Battle of Faesulae).

I'm familiar with the battle of Faesulae:

John Drogo Montagu- "Battles of the Greek & Roman Worlds"-"At daybreak the Romans spotted the cavalry and advanced against them, while the cavalry, following instructions, withdrew toward Faesulae with the Romans in pursuit. At the site of the ambush the Gauls sprang up and charged. In the ensuing fight the Romans were outnumbered and lost 6,000 men. The rest fled to a hill which the Gauls tried to seize but without success, and so they put a cavalry guard on it, determined to have another try next day. Meanwhile the consul Lucius Aemilius Papus, in charge of a second Roman army near the Adriatic, had heard of the invasion of Etruruia and had hurried south, reaching the battlefield at the crucial moment. He camped near the enemy and lit camp fires. When the Gauls saw the flames, they realized the truth of the situation and decided to pull out before dawn and make for home." pg.176

At Faesulae they were ambushed and the ones that survived made it to a hill. Are you saying the Romans are aware of ambush tactics? There is no mention of tactics at Faesulae, there is of course those mentioned at Telemon.

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.

The formation breakers is the typical Celt warrior, not just the Gaesatae. You are reading way to much into this.

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.

I understand what your saying, and its all speculation and most, if not all fail to support your argument.
Nothing you have posted shows directly of elites among the Gaesatae, in fact most of what you posted goes against that.

And for the last part, there is still no justification for the stats of the Gaesatae as shown by their battlefield performance. Even if you want to claim they were involved at Thermoplyae, they were not successful there either.

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.

Unfortunately we don't know much except what you said. But what is interesting is that the Romans being outnumbered prior to the ambush and then being even more outnumbered where still able to hold the hill. Of course the hill did provide some natural defense but this battle is difficult determine what really happened as it didn't go into the same detail as Clastidium and Telemon.

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.

Of course I remember you, and its nice to finally see you writing again.
As far as the rest of your post on the Gaesatae I agree that they were a form of mercenary, I haven't deviated from that. The problem is the high stats for the Gaesatae is wrong in my opinion due to their battlefield performance, there has been nothing to contradict this yet.
As far as the supposed "Devastating Civil War" I will address this on the proper thread.

@everyone Where is the battlefield performance of the Gaesatae that supports their stats? I still don't see any proof of an "elite" Gaesatae, just those that are off base and wishful thinking.

[cmacq]

Still you have your finely stereotypical understanding? So you think that a Gaulish army of the era under consideration consisted entirely of 'the tip of the spear?' And that the naked Greek and Roman art depicted the typical Gaulish foot? Have you gotten a greek copy of Polybius' Histories and translated it for yourself yet? Do you want me to do for you, what you are unwilling to do for yourself? Please, continue frost-wulf, thrill me with your acumen.