Less Civilized Factions

[The General]

Actually, barbarians were simply reckless, not brave. Most were notorious for wavering quickly, after the initial charge did not break the enemy. Romans were definitely not that in the Republican and Principate - they very rarely ran unless the situation was hopeless, and even then, many units would continue to fight while others fled. And Roman legionaries were by no means elite, upper-class troops equal to the "barbarian" bodyguard units, nobles and such. But yet Romans fought better than most of those upper-crust barbarians.

How about Battle of Telamon, where the Insubri, Boii and Taurini fought to death even after seeing their Gaesatae allies perish or retreat from their positions?

It's true, that in general the Celts put much focus on the initial charge, but it's worth noting that the way of Celtic warfare was a lot different from what Rome and other organized states had become used to which were much more organized with clearer and often politically driven motives.

Most of the Celtic warfare were small scale clashes between neighbouring tribes' warrior groups, and just as much focus was put the superiority of invidual over his enemies (which exhibited in the head collecting practises, for example), the battles may have been intended to have been solved quickly - he who won the initial clash, established superiority over the opposing force. In smaller communities/populations, warfare has a more ritualistic nature and it's not unheard of that battles have been fought without a drop of blood being shed, as the value of invidual members of the tribe is greater than in nations whose populations are counted in the millions.

So, when Celtic warriors meet cohensive enemy units whose inviduals do not engage in one-on-one duels but rather push on as one solid mass, bashing with their shields and stabbing with their swords, it's quite possible that the Celts could have been at a loss as to how to defeat such a formation. Seemingly unstoppable, it's no wonder if they would've demoralized a tribal host (at least ones like the Celts' who fought primarily in mêlée and not in skirmisher formations).

[Macilrille]

Most of the Celtic warfare were small scale clashes between neighbouring tribes' warrior groups, and just as much focus was put the superiority of invidual over his enemies (which exhibited in the head collecting practises, for example), the battles may have been intended to have been solved quickly - he who won the initial clash, established superiority over the opposing force. In smaller communities/populations, warfare has a more ritualistic nature and it's not unheard of that battles have been fought without a drop of blood being shed, as the value of invidual members of the tribe is greater than in nations whose populations are counted in the millions.

While you are in general right, this view is couloured by a romanticised view of primitive societies, wrong; and very firmly refuted by Lawrence Keely in,
Keely, Lawrence H.; War before Civilisation, Oxford 1996.

I encourage everybody to read it. It gives great insight in tribal warfare. Warfare that is in effect even more total and horrid than that which socalled civilised peoples fight.

[The General]

While you are in general right, this view is couloured by a romanticised view of primitive societies, wrong; and very firmly refuted by Lawrence Keely in,
Keely, Lawrence H.; War before Civilisation, Oxford 1996.

I encourage everybody to read it. It gives great insight in tribal warfare. Warfare that is in effect even more total and horrid than that which socalled civilised peoples fight.

I did not intend to say ritualistic warfare was the only kind of warfare in tribal communities; I'm aware of more lethal forms of conflict between tribes to the point of conflicts that escalate to the level of war of annihilation.

(It's not that hard to imagine to what lenghts people will go to survive, say, in cases of famine.)

[Aemilius Paulus]

How about Battle of Telamon, where the Insubri, Boii and Taurini fought to death even after seeing their Gaesatae allies perish or retreat from their positions?

Shall we then throw lone events, exceptions that deviate from standard behaviour, as valid arguments? No stand on any issue is impervious to such assaults. There are always plenty of irregularities. I am giving you a trend, and you attempt to refute it with a singular happening?

I am sorry, but that will not cut it. There is the general propensity of Gauls to waver swiftly and then there are isolated groups of Gauls in certain events where they actually make a last stand. One of the skills of a historian or a debater is to be able to differentiate between a peculiar instance and a widespread fact of the matter.

Whatever the truth may be, Republican and Principate Romans do not seem to display similar reputation. Nor do the Classical Greeks. Same goes far Carthaginians. Most civilised nations have steadier, more dependable troops who do not take flight as easily. Exceptions abound as usual, but the general history stays the same.

Gausl simply had less incentive to fight. Their culture was not the same, it was a classic example of a semi-tribal, semi-civilised tradition in transition. They had little in the face of centralised states, and their culture did not focus on the overall outcome of the war as opposed to individual glory-hunting. Romans were one of the few who valued ultimate victory in a war as the sole most important goal.

Other nations, such as Carthage for example, had few such convictions. With Hannibal in Italy, the Council could have easily squashed the Romans with a fraction of expenditure of their vast resources. Yet they were suspicious of Hannibal, their rival, and when the war turned in the other direction, they mainly funded the Spanish Wars, which made sense from an economic perspective, given the resources of Spain, but from a military perspective, Hannibal was holding the wolf by its ears, with his ever-depleted army he nevertheless gained new recruits among Southern Italians and Gauls, continuing to keep the Romans down. With 30,000 reinforcements he could have conquered all of Italy.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

You have not given a "trend", AP. In fact you have done the same thing you're criticising now: quoting a single example of Celtic cowardice on the field as the ruling definition of their battle eagerness. Telamon is not just the single example of Celtic prowess on the field, the same prowess alas which would not be possible if Celts did not have balls, as you are suggesting.

[Aemilius Paulus]

You have not given a "trend", AP. In fact you have done the same thing you're criticising now: quoting a single example of Celtic cowardice on the field as the ruling definition of their battle eagerness. Telamon is not just the single example of Celtic prowess on the field, the same prowess alas which would not be possible if Celts did not have balls, as you are suggesting.

I gave you the battles of Hannibalic wars, which were well-documented, and in all the battles where Gauls were a significant force, they wavered, even when Hannibal was winning, such as Metaurus. Then we have the Cisalpine Gallo-Roman wars, or the Gallic invasion of Greece, where in most documented battles, the Gauls routed prematurely.

In general, the Gauls did not have the same drive to win, unless they were defending their homeland, as in the later stages of the of the wars for their homelands. And those skirmishes were not even documented for the most part, save for Caesar's commentaries. But by that time, the Gauls have changed radically, into a much more cohesive, centralised states.

Nor did their culture place great value on the collective victory - you can be recklessly brave in the beginning of the battle, earn some standing, and then retreat with everyone else, only gaining. But what is there to gain by fighting to death, especially when fighting in faraway lands in battles that do not have much direct effect you? As a Gaul, you do not have the same sense of national pride. you do not have a state and government to answer to. You have your hometown or village, and if needed, you will fight to death to defend it. Otherwise, why bother to fight, save for loot and honour?

[ARCHIPPOS]

hey what's the deal ??? is there an ongoing debating feud between you two ???

[Aemilius Paulus]

hey what's the deal ??? is there an ongoing debating feud between you two ???

Not quite. ATHN is my spamming friend, whose only hobby on this site is to spam and troll, aggravating other people. He follows me around, even in the Backroom, and does his best to appear legitimate, but in truth simply rebuking me for the heck of it. He has no conviction to actually research his statements, so most of his arguments are cardboard dummies. Especially in the Backroom, where he sounds downright pathetic. Unknowledgeable trolling is quite simple to spot there. Go figure... Poor fella' has no life.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Not quite. ATHN is my spamming friend, whose only hobby on this site is to spam and troll, aggravating other people. He follows me around, even in the Backroom, and does his best to appear legitimate, but in truth simply rebuking me for the heck of it. He has no conviction to actually research his statements, so most of his arguments are cardboard dummies. Especially in the Backroom, where he sounds downright pathetic. Unknowledgeable trolling is quite simple to spot there. Go figure... Poor fella' has no life.

What do you know of myself to make such statements, AP ? You want to have a discussion, then have it :P.

[Cyclops]

...In general, the Gauls did not have the same drive to win, unless they were defending their homeland, ...

The Galatians must've known their new homeland was in Asia Minor, otherwise they wouldn't have wavered their way through Makedonia to get there.

Sorry AP, this "Gauls were unsteady" doesn't wash (Roman propaganda to the contrary). They either defeated or served in almost every major army after Alexander, and even big Al had to check with them first if he was allowed to go east and conquer.

Keltoi-bitchifying Europe and Asia since 300 BC.

[Aemilius Paulus]

The Galatians must've known their new homeland was in Asia Minor, otherwise they wouldn't have wavered their way through Makedonia to get there.

Nice try. But how strong were the Makedones then? How many other peoples were they fighting? How many Celts were there against them? I read the invasion was immense. And notice I said Celts. Not Gauls. Celts were too varied of a nation to generalise. I never said Celts were unreliable.

Your turn.

[Cyclops]

Nice try. But how strong were the Makedones then?

Not strong enough. Like the Romans. And the Etruscans. And the Hellenes of Asia Minor. In fact the Gauls who founded Galatia were only stopped by several Pachyderms. I read somewhere Elephants are also "wavering" types, so I'm amazed the battelfield wasn't deserted by both sides.

How many other peoples were they fighting?

You tell me, you're the one venturing a interesting claim that Gauls have no staying power.

How many Celts were there against them?

Well there enough Celts that their new homeland was called Galatia, so you tell me?

I read the invasion was immense.

Immense but wavering, of course. "moral power is to physical as three parts out of four..." but what would a Ajaccione know? He was probably a Gaul too.

And notice I said Celts. Not Gauls. Celts were too varied of a nation to generalise.

But the Gauls are not too varied for you to generalise about them .

I never said Celts were unreliable.

Go on, give it a try. You might catch a few more fishes.(I'm using this as a fly-fishing smilie)

Your turn.

Well all this provocation and sniping aside, I agree with you thesis in part. Its fair to say non-urban peoples don't stand and fight as much. Tribal societies fight a more skirmishy type of warfare. Its probably even more true of the Germans and Iberians than of the Gauls.

That doesn't mean they lack courage or staying power: the Romans found out how much staying power the Celtiberians and others in Hispania had, those guys fronted up for centuries of skirmishing and ambush warfare which showed unwavering hostility to foreign rule, often to the death.

I don't think its so much a matter of having a state to believe in or not (that smells like a nationalist back-projection to me, no pun intended) so much as a set of economic and cultural circumstances (hehe, a Socialist back projection!). I have a farm, with a timeline for a harvest, so I want a decisive battle now godammit! One way or another lets finish this thing.

Anyway I suspect you're having some fun teasing, and more fun thread-hijacking. I doubt you really believe "gauls=wavering" anymore than your other thesis "Rome rose because they were brave and fell because they were decadent".

Have you enjoyed playing any of the non-urban factions in EB?

[fleaza]

The Galatians must've known their new homeland was in Asia Minor, otherwise they wouldn't have wavered their way through Makedonia to get there.

Sorry AP, this "Gauls were unsteady" doesn't wash (Roman propaganda to the contrary). They either defeated or served in almost every major army after Alexander, and even big Al had to check with them first if he was allowed to go east and conquer.

Keltoi-bitchifying Europe and Asia since 300 BC.

roman propaganda that the kelts were waverers? ridiculous, theyd want to make the kelts the most terrifying beasts on earth to make their star of glory shine brighter.

[The General]

roman propaganda that the kelts were waverers? ridiculous, theyd want to make the kelts the most terrifying beasts on earth to make their star of glory shine brighter.

The Celts were the boogeymen of Rome for quite a few centuries, downplaying them might've helped motivate troops facing them.