Unit strength

[kekailoa]

What are the historical basis of certain units being stronger than each other?

A comparison I've always questioned was why is the Northern Gallic Swordsmen tougher than the Southern? He has four more armor points, but what historical basis lead to make the team make this decision?

Sorry, more questions...
-Why are the Germanic Levies stronger than the Celtic levies?
-What makes the Elite African Phalanx worse than the Elite Mak's and Selucids?
-Why are the Gaestae slightly stronger than the Galatian Wild men?

I know these question sound noobish, but it's always been a point of curiosity for me. How did the team give the units stats in comparison to each other? Why are very similar units stronger and weaker?

[A Very Super Market]

Gaesatae took drugs, and were insane. Galatian Wild men were simply insane.

Frankly, the Maks and Seleucids used their phalanxes far more than Carthaginians, and were more militarily minded anyways.

The similarities are simply the units types. Their cultures differ wildly. Generally, the Germanics were more aggresive than the Celts, and had to fight harder to survive, while the Celts lived somewhat more comfortable lives.

[Moosemanmoo]

I'm clearly not the man you're looking for but I can guess the Mak/Seleucid elite phalanxes are better than the African ones because of the tradition of phalanx warfare ingrained in successor militaries, wheras I think the Carthaginians somewhat copied/adopted the formation and therefore would have had less expertise

[Watchman]

A comparison I've always questioned was why is the Northern Gallic Swordsmen tougher than the Southern? He has four more armor points, but what historical basis lead to make the team make this decision?

Gaul was pretty rich AFAIK. Ergo the local warrior class was on the average decked out in more junk, such as now helmets here.

-Why are the Germanic Levies stronger than the Celtic levies?

Note that they're stronger by mere one point of attack... write that down to more practice in minor local scuffles and tribal raids. The Celts had a true warrior class that normally did the fighting, and the commoners were only mobilised in major emergencies. The Germanics weren't prosperous enough to afford such fancy arrangements and instead operated mostly on a straight "peasant-soldier" principle - every able-bodied freeman was expected to turn up with his weapons for a conflict, and they had a *lot* of those...

[moonburn]

[QUOTE=kekailoa;2288039
A comparison I've always questioned was why is the Northern Gallic Swordsmen tougher than the Southern? He has four more armor points, but what historical basis lead to make the team make this decision?
[/QUOTE] as Nietzsche said what doesn´t kill you make you stronger so you can´t compare someone who lives in italy with nice sunny weather and good farm lands with a decent amount of trade to someone living in the forests of armorica hunting wild boars and fighting off all sort of dangers either wolfs bears or the worst beast of all your neighbours

[A Very Super Market]

I'm not sure if that answer works. The fact that Northern Gallic swordmen have more armour than their southern counterparts shows nothing to do with their quality of life. And besides which, Gaul doesn't extend to Italy, and the Northern bits of Italy are just as inhospitable as the rest of Gaul. The Celts were generally farmers anyways, the fact that warrior classes have differences shouldn't have to do with their main population.

My theory is that the team just has sources that describe the Southern Gauls as having less armour (They're bare-chested in EB) than the Northerners (Who seem to have chainmail underneath their shirt)

[/Bean\]

Gaul doesn't extend to Italy, and the Northern bits of Italy are just as inhospitable as the rest of Gaul.

Yeah it does. What about the Po Valley, Cisalpine Gaul and the like? You can't discount them just because they aren't inside modern France.

[Watchman]

Yeah it does. What about the Po Valley, Cisalpine Gaul and the like? You can't discount them just because they aren't inside modern France.

Dude, "Gaul" is above all a geographical region covering mainly the French "hexagon" - that is, within the "natural" geographical barriers. Northern Italy (or rather more specifically the Po valley area) was known as "Cisalpine Gaul" simply because it had been colonised by Gauls; geographically it was most certainly a separate region, what with the Alps in the way.

[/Bean\]

But we're talking about climtate and southern and northern Gauls. The physical borders of Gaul don't make that much of a difference, as long as Gauls existed in the area in question.

[Watchman]

And besides which, Gaul doesn't extend to Italy, and the Northern bits of Italy are just as inhospitable as the rest of Gaul.

...what part of either is supposed to be "inhospitable", anyway ? Far as I know Gaul/France has some of the best farmland and nicest climate in Europe, and by the standards of the Mediterranean climate zone the Po valley is a major breadbasket...

...than the Northerners (Who seem to have chainmail underneath their shirt)

what

I would assume that the Southern parts of Gaul were a little more exposed to the armor-bearing cultures of the Mediterranean, and also according to what I have read, the more successful and economically prosperous Gallic states were to the South (closer to the trade routes and civilized culture). That would seem to me that the richer an area, the more decked out a warrior would be. Also, a large number of armor and helmet finds have been in Northern Italy, along with I believe a few chainmail discoveries. But then again, the southern states were somewhat softer than the northern, so the Northern warriors might be more warlike.

Gaul straddles several trade routes running from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic and further north towards the North Sea and the Danish Straits, though. All those major rivers and relatively few geographical obstacles = profit!
Also important well into the Early Modern era if not later.
Also, and this I suspect is probably the key thing, AFAIK of the various Celtic-dominated regions of Europe Gaul was the furthest along in socioeconomic developements towards a proto-industrial urban society. Ie. the local warrior class is depicted as comparatively well armed on account of having much easier access to at least the relatively basic end of armour such as helmets due to straight economics; the greater the local production capacity the lower the comparative price of such gear and the humbler the warriors who can afford such.

[kekailoa]

as Nietzsche said what doesn´t kill you make you stronger so you can´t compare someone who lives in italy with nice sunny weather and good farm lands with a decent amount of trade to someone living in the forests of armorica hunting wild boars and fighting off all sort of dangers either wolfs bears or the worst beast of all your neighbours

I agree with AVSM. I don't agree with this answer. The Southern Gallic swordsmen dealt with just as much as the Northern, and the difference is not in the defense skill, but the armor. This seems like an answer very much based on stereotypes and Asterix comics.

@Watchmen- I would assume that the Southern parts of Gaul were a little more exposed to the armor-bearing cultures of the Mediterranean, and also according to what I have read, the more successful and economically prosperous Gallic states were to the South (closer to the trade routes and civilized culture). That would seem to me that the richer an area, the more decked out a warrior would be. Also, a large number of armor and helmet finds have been in Northern Italy, along with I believe a few chainmail discoveries. But then again, the southern states were somewhat softer than the northern, so the Northern warriors might be more warlike.

Thank you for your previous answers, too. I had a basic idea about the levy question, and that was pretty much what I was thinking. And with the phalanx question, that makes a lot of sense and should have occurred to me earlier. I have a few more questions, unfortunately...

-Why are the Caledonian Noble cav, the Pannonian/Celto-Germanic cav and the Irish cav so similar in stats and armament? Is there a historical basis?
-Why are the German heavy cavalry so strong? I know they're hard to get to and produce in large amounts, but even with the account of the German cavalry in Ceasar's Gallic wars, what evidence for them being so strong is there?