Gaesatae Question

[Fenrhyl]

Ribemont sur Ancre (Ribemont near the Ancre river) is in France. Since this topic sounds interesting to some of you, i'll read again the book and give you more details.

If you found sources in french, i can translate them for you. That's my current job.

[russia almighty]

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.

He's a classicist; which, is a polite way of calling him a Romanophile.



Why don't you guys like, I don't know, ignore him? He's a trouble maker; he doesn't bring up any good points except to troll.

[cmacq]

In part I just assume he is very young and for other reasons not able to process large amounts of information. I understand the problem is that he can’t conceptualize the abstract, yet very real convergence of tumult, spectacle, chaos, escalating fear, unexpected speed, and a thunderous impact; followed by the perception of impeding pain, a sudden horrid dead, and total uncontrolled feelings of panic. If he could, I'm sure he would also have more of a problem fitting this into the stats of a game piece. Yet above all else he appears unable to get a grip on the possiblity that not everyone can be the disposable foci of collision, as this is a task best saved for the callow, dim witted, and inexperienced; after spending great energy to destabilize, the majority follow on, slower yet better armed and protected to exploit. Thus, armed with the vast insights he professes, for him I’m sure the issue of battle field tactic vs individual ablity is indeed very simple.

[Frostwulf]

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?

As Bernard says the stereo typical Celt in there eyes was the naked warrior. In some of the classical writings they also considered those non armored to be naked. You are simply reading to much in to Benards statement as you were with Szabo and Rapin. You are welcome to show me where it says that the 'naked fanatics' were the 'tip of the spear'.

He's a classicist; which, is a polite way of calling him a Romanophile.

You forgot to add Germanophile and now probably Grecophile.

Why don't you guys like, I don't know, ignore him? He's a trouble maker; he doesn't bring up any good points except to troll.

I really don't think this is a fair statement. I'm not to much into supposition like most of those who disagree with me, but I prefer to have professional opinion that can be checked on. So now because I don't agree with the "Devastating Civil War"(and used professional opinion) and with the Gaesatae and voice my opinion that makes me a troll?

In part I just assume he is very young and for other reasons not able to process large amounts of information. I understand the problem is that he can’t conceptualize the abstract, yet very real convergence of tumult, spectacle, chaos, escalating fear, unexpected speed, and a thunderous impact; followed by the perception of impeding pain, a sudden horrid dead, and total uncontrolled feelings of panic. If he could, I'm sure he would also have more of a problem fitting this into the stats of a game piece. Yet above all else he appears unable to get a grip on the possiblity that not everyone can be the disposable foci of collision, as this is a task best saved for the callow, dim witted, and inexperienced; after spending great energy to destabilize, the majority follow on, slower yet better armed and protected to exploit. Thus, armed with the vast insights he professes, for him I’m sure the issue of battle field tactic vs individual ablity is indeed very simple.

Your last statement is in contrast to what Goldsworthy and Connoly and other historians said. They say the better armed leaders and their contingents lead first as is to be expected for that kind of society. Again this is complete speculation on your part, and I'm sure you will have nothing to back it up with other then conjecture.
I haven't professed any sort of vast insights, that would be you reading into things again. I fully admit I'm just a guy who enjoys and reads history. The only reason I may disagree with something is from said readings and then I will state as to why, and try to back it up with professional opinion.

So far you have proven nothing. You have put down both Szabo and Rapin to show your point of an elite among the Gaesatae and have most assuredly failed there. The only point you somewhat have is that of Andraee Bernard, and thats tenuous at best. The only thing I have seen from you on this thread thus far is statements you cant back up, attempts to demean me, quotes that in no way conform to your supposition and one statement from Bernard that you extrapolated (weakly at that) to support your point.

[blitzkrieg80]

this is not appropriate conversation... is it all your will to have this thread locked and/or worse consequences? please try to behave like adults.

I don't agree at all with the personal attacks being made, Frostwulf has an excellent point- these things are very interpretative, thus why evidence is useful...

OT- Cmacq, you shouldn't be talking shit- for the record, you totally misinterpreted that essay you referenced concerning How (non)Indo-European is the Germanic Lexicon? by Salmons(?)... if you really think that the evidence used proves a non-IE element, it makes me wonder... the writer himself pretty much states the evidence available proves the opposite.

what i don't agree with is that Germanic or Celtic kings sacrificed themselves on the frontline on every battle possible and thus never won a single battle because the general died far too early: 'leading first' is in relation to more cowardly nobility/commanders who hide behind the ranks. this by no means implies they are the front line... ancient peoples have a common sense concerning probability and sharp objects flying at them, esp. when no armor invented to date can protect a person from a random shot into the eye 100% esp. if one wants to have vision... even mechanical tanks have openings to see... it is possible that a war-leader might be at the front during a charge late in the battle, but never at the beginning when they knew to expect shots fired. svínfylking and ord formation elaborated on by non-Roman literary sources (since not being a coward is seen as frontline to 'civilized') concerning Germanic warriors and their wedges imply that the king is behind 'able warriors', beside 'loyal bodyguards' and generally flanked by supporting troops. If the youth stood behind, it would be much easier to run away (fight or flight is a well known animal behavior- it would be unnatural NOT to experience it- and unnatural not to recognize that one has to worry about it, EVEN in heroic culture... bards' very existence is to reinforce the behavior of the warrior! OT- exactly why modern nations promote cowardice!)... thus, primarily worthless people stood in front if not at the baggage train (Germanic bowmen), the young and generally less useful would fight with make-do weapons (Greek levy skirmisher anyone?) at the frontline as human-'shields' or 'targets' and benefit as receivers of experience which earns them a place among the 'Proven' where they prob won't be killed in later life. The youth can be given advice by older veterans behind them in this way, besides motivating them to do well before their eyes. it may seem too similar to Roman velite / hastati / principes / triarii but its a cross-cultural common sense that older and experienced troops are nice to keep around rather than cowardly youth.

visual aid:


btw, how would Ariovistus row across the Rhine (nonetheless survive) from the frontline of battle when he lost against Caesar?

[Anthony III]

I tend to agree with cmacq. Frostwulf doesn't appear to offer a tenable argument in reply...certainly with no supporting data.


mere seems to

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?

Yes, I believe this was the site of a significant battle between the invading Belgae and the group of maritime Gauls known as Armoricans. The Belgae appear to have been victorious and impaled the beheaded enemy leaders and elite. I believe they have found several hundred bodies at the site, giving evidence of the scale of the conflict. The Belgae appear to then have overun the Western seaboard until their expulsion across the Seine by the Carnutes and the Aedui confederacy.

[Parallel Pain]

Simply put Frostwulf:

1) Don't call your opinion the professional opinion while using Roman-focused authors, and at the same time denouncing all other points that use Gallic-focused authors as "reading too much into it."

2) Romans exaggerate the number of their enemies.

3) Gaesatae in EB represents the elites of the Gallic army. All detailed accounts of armies from all places at all times have elites and they will eat levies for breakfast, so why assume that a roughly-described army like a Gallic one would be any different?
Personally I had never got the chance to fight them with my own elites, having only played Romani a bit in 0.81 and having beaten them with levies only (in VH/VH). But from what I hear they certainly don't do as well as other elites (specialists not withstanding). So from the point of view of balancing the game according to history, it's accurate.

4) Battles are decided by a lot more than numbers and the quality of your elite units.

5) There are theses two things in studying history called "extrapolation" and "reading between the lines". They are not perfect, but they are the best we've got until archeology (or time travel) can prove or disprove them.

6) Be more open-minded. There could be other interpretations to the works of authors and ancient sources other than your own. Unless you can phone up these authors (or invent a time machine to talk to those ancient authors) and ask them directly what they meant, accept that it is possible you can be wrong and others can be right.

On a totally separate note. From the terracotta army of the (not really) first emperor of China are front rank warriors that wore VERY LIGHT armor, or simply their THIN ROBES, who had NO SHIELDS and used IRON BARS or BARE HANDS as their weapons. From their placement and battle stances, military historians deduced that they were most likely used as shock troops to mess up the enemy ranks.
While this does not prove naked elite shock warriors existed in Gaul, it does prove that they could have, as the feat could be accomplished by such lightly armed and armored troops.

[Frostwulf]

what i don't agree with is that Germanic or Celtic kings sacrificed themselves on the frontline on every battle possible and thus never won a single battle because the general died far too early: 'leading first' is in relation to more cowardly nobility/commanders who hide behind the ranks.

I should have gone more in depth on my response, but you seem to have taken care of it. I didn't mean my statement to come off as the leader being at the pinnacle of the charge, it would be as you and the book said. There are to many instances of leaders escaping for them to be personally at the head of the charge.

1) Don't call your opinion the professional opinion while using Roman-focused authors, and at the same time denouncing all other points that use Gallic-focused authors as "reading too much into it."

I didn't say that, I said this:

I'm not to much into supposition like most of those who disagree with me, but I prefer to have professional opinion that can be checked on.

2) Romans exaggerate the number of their enemies.

No disagreement here, I have said it multiple times in different threads.

3) Gaesatae in EB represents the elites of the Gallic army. All detailed accounts of armies from all places at all times have elites and they will eat levies for breakfast, so why assume that a roughly-described army like a Gallic one would be any different?

The army wouldn't be different, the Gauls had some very good troops. The problem lies with the Gaesatae and their stats, if you look at the battles they participated in, they were sub-par.

Personally I had never got the chance to fight them with my own elites, having only played Romani a bit in 0.81 and having beaten them with levies only (in VH/VH). But from what I hear they certainly don't do as well as other elites (specialists not withstanding). So from the point of view of balancing the game according to history, it's accurate.

Do custom battles with one unit of Gaesatae and one unit of whatever you choose, that is the best way to judge an individual units power.

4) Battles are decided by a lot more than numbers and the quality of your elite units.

Agreed, but during those battles you can see how certain units perform, such as the Gaesatae.

5) There are theses two things in studying history called "extrapolation" and "reading between the lines". They are not perfect, but they are the best we've got until archeology (or time travel) can prove or disprove them.

I have no problem with this, but it does matter how much of a stretch the extrapolation is.

6) Be more open-minded. There could be other interpretations to the works of authors and ancient sources other than your own. Unless you can phone up these authors (or invent a time machine to talk to those ancient authors) and ask them directly what they meant, accept that it is possible you can be wrong and others can be right.

I have been proven wrong several times, and when I am I freely admit it(though its not much fun being wrong )As far as the authors and ancient sources I agree with you. On another thread I had to use three different versions of Caesar's "The Gallic War" to show the intent of Caesar.

As far as there being an "elite" among the Gaesatae I would have no real objection to it in the confines of them being the bodyguard of Concolitanus and Aneroëstes. These "elite" would have been better because they would have been hand chosen(most likely) just like any other bodyguard. The problem still remains the same though, their battlefield performance.

[Parallel Pain]

I should have gone more in depth on my response, but you seem to have taken care of it. I didn't mean my statement to come off as the leader being at the pinnacle of the charge, it would be as you and the book said. There are to many instances of leaders escaping for them to be personally at the head of the charge.

Charging first only mean the possibility of becoming a casualty is increased by something like 5%. And when you have like 300 bodyguard ready to give you his horse or take a hit for you, it only really increase by 1% or something. (Proven again at the other side of the world. During the Three Kingdoms era (and not from RoTK) while the commanding general often did not charge first, the subordinate generals did, and that's where people like Lu Bu and Zhao Yun got their fame. All those generals always charge first, and still came out very much alive most of the time even when they were defeated. It was also the same during the Sengoku Jidai Japan with only a handful of exceptions.

Do custom battles with one unit of Gaesatae and one unit of whatever you choose, that is the best way to judge an individual units power.
Agreed, but during those battles you can see how certain units perform, such as the Gaesatae.

Eh, no. That is the WORST way to judge an individual unit's power. The BEST way is to go online with either two accounts or a friend. Both get one general, with one side one Gaesatae and the other whatever. For map choose the grassland plain thingi where it's totally flat grass. Then when the battle starts, both take their general off to the side somewhere and let the two other units duke it out head on.

Even then, it doesn't take into account the specific tactical functions units are designed for either. Some units are just not designed to hold their ground in melee, some specialize in taking out armored units, some (like the Gaesatae) are designed to kick ass in a forward, infantry line battle, and they suck at all other jobs. Then there are some that's designed to be a jack-of-all-trade but can't really stand out in any area and are just used as fodder to wear down the enemy. So really, it would only make sense if you do the online-game test I mentioned with Gaesatae vs some other unit designed to kick ass in straight melee (armor-breaking specialists not withstanding). In which case, a lot of people have mentioned that Gaesatae gets easily defeated by these other units.

And even with all that, it's only unit power, not campaign balance, which is what the balancing is supposed to be based on.
I believe someone already told you in another thread that one on one in custom battle counts for nothing in unit balance. For one it doesn't take into account the cost and availability during campaign. For another the unit get a huge morale boost by having the general. The first time you complained, you haven't played a campaign with or against them. If you still haven't go play a campaign before coming back to complain any further.

I have no problem with this, but it does matter how much of a stretch the extrapolation is.

They were deemed to be an acceptable level by historians (indeed done by one), so I don't see why you're complaining about it.

I have been proven wrong several times, and when I am I freely admit it(though its not much fun being wrong )As far as the authors and ancient sources I agree with you. On another thread I had to use three different versions of Caesar's "The Gallic War" to show the intent of Caesar.

So let's see you throw out all books focusing on Romans start pulling out some books focusing on Celts to source your complains.

As far as there being an "elite" among the Gaesatae I would have no real objection to it in the confines of them being the bodyguard of Concolitanus and Aneroëstes. These "elite" would have been better because they would have been hand chosen(most likely) just like any other bodyguard. The problem still remains the same though, their battlefield performance.

That's what I'm talking about. The others have pulled out a lot of examples in which the Gauls won, as well as talked about ones that the Romans didn't write down but proved by archeology and others that the Romans just manipulated the story. The EB team has decided to take this as evidence that the Celts doesn't suck, but were quite good. But you systematically rejects everything the team says as "misinterpretation" and refuse to accept there's a possibility the team could be right. Please be more open minded.
And again, if I can beat them with levies, they then most certainly don't stand up well to other elites (just like what other members said). So the stats most certainly is very balanced according to history.

[blitzkrieg80]

Charging first only mean the possibility of becoming a casualty is increased by something like 5%. And when you have like 300 bodyguard ready to give you his horse or take a hit for you, it only really increase by 1% or something. (Proven again at the other side of the world. During the Three Kingdoms era (and not from RoTK) while the commanding general often did not charge first, the subordinate generals did, and that's where people like Lu Bu and Zhao Yun got their fame. All those generals always charge first, and still came out very much alive most of the time even when they were defeated. It was also the same during the Sengoku Jidai Japan with only a handful of exceptions.

Now you're just being argumentative and antagonistic. Try reading the discussion you commented on "1%." You also might try using some mathmatical/empirical skills, because 1% is a lot, especially on the battlefield. Unless you claim to be a veteran of several wars, you and I both don't have a clue about how 'battle fatigue' would wear down even the bravest of warriors in a hero culture to the point that the instrinct of self-preservation cannot be suppressed. It is a fact that even 'berserkr'-type warriors want to kill as much as possible, have as much victory/glory/fame as possible, and therefore need to live, recognize that and desire to do so. The idea that they aren't afraid to die doesn't touch this. I am not afraid to die, but that doesn't mean i am going to walk in front of a moving car who has no chance to avoid me due to physics/obliviousness... and i still don't back down to vehicles on foot when i know they see me.

Your point on this does not need to be made because nobody is holding a strong opinion. Frostwulf already admitted he wasn't talking about this. If you want to disagree on other points, go ahead. Otherwise, save yourself some face.

[Parallel Pain]

Eh, if that 1% is 1 battle out of 100, then na it's not tha big. If it's 1 person in 100, yes it's quite big. But I was saying the former.

As for the rest of that. I was just saying that the huge amount of times leaders got away from battles they lost can happen even if they charged first, so the rest of those is umm...not even on the argument?

[blitzkrieg80]

true- ''leading the way" and carrying victory isn't the same as holding the line... prob. why cavarly had a function distinct from uber-knights... i shouldn't be generalizing

[Anthony III]

Frostwulf ....Frostwulf ....Frostwulf ...Frostwulf ...Frostwulf already admitted he wasn't talking about this...save yourself some face.

Are you frostwuf?

[SaFe]

I will not say anything about the battle display of the 2hitpoint warriors from gaul, as i'm not able to play EB anymore, because of a very bad pc, but i think it is sadly common these days here to attack members for their views.
I agree with Blitzkrieg considering not to agree with Frostwulf on all aspects of germanics, celts and romans in comparison, but at least he gives us every time the data he quotes from without reinterpreting it for his personal position.

Quotes like "why don't we ignore him" are just laughable and this is perhaps one of the reasons some "oldtimers" like Handsome Viking and me (still more pre-historical than him i think) doesn't give much input these days.
I really miss the days we could discuss in a very fine matter (a nice Hello to Teleklos and blitz b.t.w.)

Perhaps calling respected modern authors "romanophiles" is a little over the top also.

About Berserkers and drug-driven elite warriors:
As far as i know these are not presented in EB except the Gaesatae and rightly so. (Arguing that the display of Wolf-Warriors and Bear-Warriors is missing in the germanic roster, the current Wargoz are not correctly displayed as mercenary elite, as Blitzkrieg will agree i think) Still i would never suggest giving them these incredible stats or even 2 HP.

Concluding this, we should never forget who came up with the uber warrior from Gaul on this boards, perhaps then we can reconsider our thought on them.

[Parallel Pain]

1) Every single historian ever lived has reinterpreted his sources for his personal position

2) Elite, yes, but I have yet to see someone prove to me that Gaesatae are uber supermen in the game or that there is anything incredible about their stats.

3) Even if not by you, he obviously was a member of the team well respected by others.

On this whole argument:
Everyone is trying to interpret history, and both sides have evidence to back their view. So as long as you accept that "there is a high enough possibility the EB team can be right" (which doesn't need to reach 50%, considering the lack of information we have about these people, 20~30% in your view is fine) then you have to accept why the team designed it this way. Yes, they could be wrong, but so could you. If in your view the possibility is so low it's not worth mentioning, then go fix the stats yourselves. If you refuse to accept there is a possibility at all (which, from all the "these are fantasy units", seems often to be the case) then there's no point debating as you wont' accept anything.

[SaFe]

1) Every single historian ever lived has reinterpreted his sources for his personal position

2) Elite, yes, but I have yet to see someone prove to me that Gaesatae are uber supermen in the game or that there is anything incredible about their stats.

3) Even if not by you, he obviously was a member of the team well respected by others.

On this whole argument:
Everyone is trying to interpret history, and both sides have evidence to back their view. So as long as you accept that "there is a high enough possibility the EB team can be right" (which doesn't need to reach 50%, considering the lack of information we have about these people, 20~30% in your view is fine) then you have to accept why the team designed it this way. Yes, they could be wrong, but so could you. If in your view the possibility is so low it's not worth mentioning, then go fix the stats yourselves. If you refuse to accept there is a possibility at all (which, from all the "these are fantasy units", seems often to be the case) then there's no point debating as you wont' accept anything.

I think you responded to me with your answer, so i will try to answer.

1) You're right, but there is a difference in a modern day historian with access to all available data and a historian in the ancient times with mostly "mouth to mouth" knowledge. Look for example what we learned these days about the battle in Teutoburg Forest comparing the knowledge our grandfathers had.
2) I already said it is not possible to give a answer about the unit's perfomance in battle as i can no longer play EB, but after all we know about those elite unit, 2 HP in comparison to most other elite units seems not right in my opinion. To be honest it is not the stats of the unit that is disturbing, but rather the way of discussion in this thread.
3) Sadly Ranika(the celtic expert and i learned a lot during our many discussions from him) is not around anymore, he would give you the better answer.
I can surely respect other views, but i can and never will respect a person's view backed up by quotes from a book that never existed. Perhaps you know what i mean, but i will not going deeper into this sad example of "scholarship".

[Parallel Pain]

All right, I am now REALLY confused, and I ask all the complainers to help me out.

Since lately I had read so much complains about how Gaesatae are overpowered supermen, I thought I'd give it a try myself.

So I turned to the really unrealistic custom battle and pit one polybian principate against one Gaesatae. The map is grassy flatland and obviously medium difficulty.
My only tactics were 1) to put my men with fire at will on to get both javelin off before melee 2) put them in five ranks deep as I usually do with infantry on huge 3) put them in guard formation and wait until the Gaesatae are at "Tired" before turning it off and attacking them.

The result? Gaestae won, but only 37 Gaesatae are left at the end of the day (I had 3 principate left). I am already here wondering, a polybian principate cost 1647 minai while a Gaestae cost a whopping 3457. Something's wrong here. I mean I can do a lot better if I just wait until they are exhausted and not turn guard mode off.

And sure enough, this time Gaestae won after killing my general, but I had 40 guys left to Gaestae's 67 (after healing) and I already found out the longer the fight dragged on the more casualties the Gaestae would take. And I figured if I don't chase after it every time it pulls back but only when it's about stationary or close, I could do even better.

And sure enough, this time my principate gave the Gaestae a complete thrashing, killing its general and routing it at 30 men with 63 left.

And I repeated it. This time we both lost our general (I lost it a bit later than he did) the Gaestae won with 60 men left and I only had 6. I went "hey! this must be what those complainers are talking about!"

Saddly, I was mistaken. On the next try, I won with 72 men remaining and the Gaestae routed with 47 men left, its general having died. But even if he didn't I would have won.

And again it was repeated. I won with 70 men remaining and the Gaestae again routed at 47 men.

So I am here thinking: There must be something wrong. Surely a unit that can't even readily beat a polybian principate would not be called "uber supermen".


So I decided to try pitting the camillan principate against it. Unfortunately after pressing the random button for about 300 times (seriously I spent like half an hour clicking) and after seeing every single recruitable Romani unit EXCEPT the camillan principate, I decided to go for the next best thing.

And the unit I chose was Allied Samnite Medium Spearmen, at 15xx minai (forgot to write it down, you guys can go check). It's stats is very close to that of the camillan principate and it uses a spear like the camillan principate

I tried it three times. Sure enough the Gaestae won all three times. But the remaining men were: first time 94 Gaestae to 56 Samnite, second 84 to 8, third 71 to 11. With one single Allied Samnite Medium Spearmen at less then half the cost (and it using spear which isn't that good against infantry), I readily took down average about 25~35 men from the Gaestae unit.

I look at the statistics and thought "with two units of samnites I can beat one unit of Gaestae." I tried, and sure enough, the surrounded Gaestae was beat with me having a total of 158 samnites left to 22 fleeing Gaestae (and I haven't killed his general yet).

So now I am really confused. Gaestae can't even readily win against polybian principate in guard mode, and when fighting with both units I had more than enough time to run another heavy infantry to its rear to throw stuff at it or charge it. Give me two units of half-decent swordsmen each with cost at about 1500~1600, which is less than half of the Gaestae's cost, and I'll kick its ass.

So now I am really confused. If anything, for its cost, Gaestae is a unit of slightly-underpowered swordsmen. So why are so many people complaining that its overpowered? I can't even classify this unit as elite. If this is the elite of the Gallic faction, I'd hate to see what their levies are.

[Parallel Pain]

As for the book that never existed, I suppose you meant
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ghlight=cycles

Well just so you know after reading through the entire bloody discussion for two hours from 4~6 in the morning, Riadach failed MISERABLLY at convincing me that Ranika is wrong. If only all of you just take into account Ranika is not here to defend himself and the team has had to defend him from things they remember he having said.
Riadach on the other hand blindly attacked the person right near the start and refuse to accept some of them are placeholders, others are attempts at making the language sound old, while even more are just trying to fit stuff into the game engine
Even the choosing of the word "cycle" had to be explained, and since I was just talking to my brother about it yesterday, I'll use it as an analogy. My mom asked me what manga is. I told her it's Japanese comic book. My brother jokingly said that if I said that to any manga fan they'll strangle me. I shrugged and laughed with him. Well that's exactly what Riadach did. He tried to strangle Ranika for using the wrong term that really has a similar level of mistake (and if Riadach comes and read this I bet he'll try to strangle me).

Not to mention Urnamma pretty much threw most of his argument out the window with proper research, which Riadach on the other hand either interpret them and push them as his own arguments, or just flatly refuse to acknowledge them. Then he tries to go out like a martyr.

I'm sorry but the impression I get is an arrogant ass twice as close-minded as Frostwulf in the other thread (sorry Frostwulf, it's 6:30am and while there are lots of people I know personally who are a lot worse than you I can't think right now) with an undergrad under his belt and thinks he's the know-it-all in his field. Even a PHD in English Literature would not make such a claim and make a mess of a debate about English Literature that he did.

The thread preceded like every other thread. First it was genuine. Then the OP degenerated into attack. Some of the wise guys caution him but he ignores them. Then they debate and it gets hotter and hotter, with half of his opponents dropping out half way through because they found out he would never accept anything short of a signed statement by a PHD and they obviously had not the time. Meanwhile, the more sensitive half, continued to defend their friend but the OP refuse to believe any word of it as he has already established himself as the know-it-all of the subject (to himself obviously), and finally one of the friends of the accused had enough and closed the thread.

[blitzkrieg80]

About Berserkers and drug-driven elite warriors:
As far as i know these are not presented in EB except the Gaesatae and rightly so. (Arguing that the display of Wolf-Warriors and Bear-Warriors is missing in the germanic roster, the current Wargoz are not correctly displayed as mercenary elite, as Blitzkrieg will agree i think) Still i would never suggest giving them these incredible stats or even 2 HP.

Hi, Safe.

Actually the wolf-warriors ARE statted as elite mercenaries... but using the stat-system which is systematic and equally applied, they simply can't be compared to mail-shirt battle-worms. It's sad, but that's the case- this is a result of the very definition of those wolf-warriors who are on the fringes of society and not partaking in deep Celtic trade and cannot be said to have been successful on conscription appearance with the gear they might acquire through conquest later. OT- Warg means one who deserved strangulation, interesting, which is better to think of as their name origin, imo, than previously thought as stranglers.

have i told everyone that the Proto-Germanic voice mod isn't going to happen? why? because it's Pre-Germanic Indo-European, baby! and it's very close to completion, pretty crazy to look at with only 2/3 stages of Grimm's law, but anyhoo, just like to tell people my new name which I think is very apt, as opposed to Pre-Proto


I really don't agree at all that anybody has 'quote' work that doesn't exist... or did i miss something? DONT RESPOND TO THIS BECAUSE I KNOW WHERE YOURE GOING. My point is that nobody has proof of such an accusation so riding that trendy-train is not cool.


and it REALLY makes sense that i am Frostwulf, because i like to purposely argue with myself? ha. i supposed i am not a German-hater like some people who know who they are, who have made statements and work to that effect.

[Tellos Athenaios]

So now I am really confused. If anything, for its cost, Gaestae is a unit of slightly-underpowered swordsmen. So why are so many people complaining that its overpowered? I can't even classify this unit as elite. If this is the elite of the Gallic faction, I'd hate to see what their levies are.

There are a numer of reasons for that:
1) The Gaesatae are often overestimated. Heck, I reckon they'll be toast when pitted against Pantodapoi Phalangitai. And those aren't exactly the most uber-phalanx unit around either, now are they?
2) The real use of Gaesatae is as a mobile reserve to plug a hole or two. They aren't as effective in an all-out charge; nor are they really exceptional fighters. But they do cause a morale drop for infantry units nearby, and they do pack some serious punch with their javelins. That makes them excellent second-line units: the main, easily to replace bulk of your army holds the enemy; the gaesatae treat 'em on some javelins and intimidating gestures (or sth?). Then when the main line get's in a difficult position or when it is about to break through you give the Gaesatae a go. You can also deploy them on the flanks; especially if the flanks are two units deep.

Still: if the Gaesatae get caught in melee too early; or worse yet: are targeted by Peltastai and similar nasty skimirshers -- then it's over with the nudism and fanatism (see the AAR fora... ).

[Taneda Santôka]

Yea, in a battle (not a 1vs1 unit test) they have nothing of supermen, and I've been cought more the once overestimating their prowess, as I've been also cought kicking their nudist ass more then once...

[Flying Pig]

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

Probably not then! But there must have been some similar subcultures somewhere in Asia, no? Or mercs from Austria that had travlled through Hellas?

[NeoSpartan]

All right, I am now REALLY confused, and I ask all the complainers to help me out.

....

Hehehehehe

I decided to stay away from this thread... but to Help Parallel of Pain out of his confusing I wil post here the same thing I and others have posted in other places.

1st re-read what "Tellos Athenaios" said. A LOT of people give too much hype to the Gaesatae. And this gets in head of people who say Gaesatae are too strong (no they are not, they are just stong like all other elites).

2nd. Don't test in Costum as u already know, get in MP and test there

3rd. Frostwolf argues that Gaesate (along with Soldurus and Cornute, maybe Neitos too) have their stats too high because:
.... "drum roll"....

They preform well in EB battles, as they come very close to beat/could beat Cohortes Imperatoria (although they are not "elite" per say they are really good infantry), Hypaspistai, Dorkim Afrikanim Aloophim (Elite African Infantry), Thorakitai Agematos Basilikou (Hellenic Elite Spearmen), etc.

Now the REASON why the Gaesates should NOT preform so well in battle is beacause:

..."drum roll"....

1. In 50some BC Celts ALWAYS got beat by Ceasar and the German General guy (forgot his name).
2. In Telemon the Gaesatae did not preform well. The battle before it (forgot the name) was an ambush so it doesn't count.
3..... in case my memory fails me.

In other words, what this means in regards to EB:
A. Gaesate should get manhandled by Cohorts (pre & post marian), and all other elite infantry-non-phalanx units in the game.
B. Gaesate should preform in hand to hand combat like a good mid-range unit... like Pricipes, Hoplies, Pezetaroi (sp) without phalanx mode.

-----------
Also don't forget, Unit Cost, where they can be trained, and availability (which will be shown in EBII thanks to MTWII recruitment pool system) are not considered in the argument against Gaesate.
-As frost, Safe, and maybe somebody else said: "Costs are Irrelevant" (praphrasing a bit), causing me to go creazy saying "**** No" in the Germans & Celtic thread.

I hope this clears ur consusion.

[Elmetiacos]

As for the book that never existed, I suppose you meant
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ghlight=cycles

Oh, not this again! "Like the Parthian boot, eh?"

[Flying Pig]

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?

Right. 1, If you have fanatics, and the word means spearmen, then obviously not all spearmen are fanatics and so some are a distinct group.

2 is an opinion. No challenges acceptable.

I may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend till death your right to say it

[paullus]

as for the 480 bc, they're certainly not in xerxes' army, but Herodotus does describe that one little tribe that migrated into Anatolia from beyond Thrace, had light hair and big bodies, and carried heavy spears. Anyone remember that? I can't find the reference on a brief search.

Neospartan, that seems like a good summation of most of the argument. The one thing I would add is the use of drugs, which I hope we've moved past by rewriting part of the unit description.

edit: just for fun...an etruscan gaesatus merc?

[Elmetiacos]

as for the 480 bc, they're certainly not in xerxes' army, but Herodotus does describe that one little tribe that migrated into Anatolia from beyond Thrace, had light hair and big bodies, and carried heavy spears. Anyone remember that? I can't find the reference on a brief search.

The Phrygians? The Cimmerians? A lot of people in earlier decades fell down the big trapdoor of pseudo-science, assuming that "Cimmerian" must be related to "Cymru" and so they were the ancestors of the Celts, but Cymru is the modern Welsh form of *Kom-mrog- meaning someone from the same country - contrast the Gaulish tribe the Allomroges, the "foreigners", who although they'd become Celts by Caesar's time were presumably regarded as having non-Gaulish origins.

[chairman]

Paullus: I'm going to postulate that it is just an Etruscan, sans-clothes. The helmet is more Phrygian-Thracian which doesn't strike me as something a Gaul would wear, especially not in the Etruscan time period. Also, the sword looks more like a xiphos or kopis weapon based on the handle and the way he holds it. I think the shield is just an aspis that is in perspective, making it look taller than wide, given the angle. He is also wearing Greek style greaves, which would seem strange even on a mercanary if he was Gallic. Also, AFAIK, alot of Etruscan art show men wearing very little clothing, except for a cloak, like this guy. I think it was an aesthetic choice by the artists rather than an accurate reflection of RL, similar to the nude pezhetairoi and other greeks on the Alexander Sarcophogus (sp?).

That's just my opinion.

Chairman

[paullus]

everyone around the soldier is wearing full armor, and in spite of the Etruscan style aspis, helmet, sword, and greaves, he wears a woad-colored cloak in the Celtic tradition and--a tell-tale detail--a chain link belt.

And no, Elmetiacos, its a much smaller tribe than either of thus. Some tiny people in Anatolia near the Trallians.

[chairman]

Hmm... I'm kinda stumped then, but my gut tells me that aside from the characteristic blue cloak (yeah, I know it's the obvious clue in that direction, but...) and the chain link belt (which is hard to see, and I don't what to make of) he doesn't seem very Gallic. All of his equipment is within the traditional range of Greco-Hellenistic-Roman military equipment, which would only make sense on a Gaul either in Massilia or another Greek colony (though the phrygian helmet would seem rather odd at that point) or as a Galatian mercanary in Egypt or Syria (but only at a later date than the painting and far away from Etruria). Also, the way he wears his cloak reminds me of the Royal pages of Alexander's court (or just the way that Hellens in general wore their cloaks). I don't claim to be an expert so... I don't know. You definitively know more about the galatians in Greek lands, so in that sense the blue cloak would point straight to a Celtic origin, but my gut feeling still says native Etruscan. Maybe someone else with a better knowledge of ancient Italy can help.

Chairman