Is EB 1.2 the most sophisticated turn based computer strategy wargame to this date?

[SlickNicaG69]

Strange, then, that the Romans would adopt both Celtic shield and Celtic ironworking and equip their legions with it.

Indeed, the Romans, like others, implemented equipment into their military standard that had much Celtic influence, but not Celtic materials or workmanship. The famous "Monteforino" helmet, for example, that so many cultures adopted. But, like the helmet, when you say it is of Celtic influence, it is a reference merely to size, shape, etc. It does not refer to its strength of material, its workmanship, or any other variations that may have been introduced (such as the Iron Boss, which was implemented by the Iberians and, then, the Romans - the boss was taken by the Romans from the Iberians, whom had introduced this variation to the Celtic scutum). So just because something has its origins somewhere, doesn't make the place of origin the cause for its many developments.

On a balancing level: yes, the barbarians get +1 armour compared to civilized armies, but that was done to increase historicity, not for game-play reasons.

Wait, if I understand many of the barbarian myths, barbarians would usually sacrifice such spoils into the rivers where they're Gods dwelt or in some other way (i.e. Battle of Teutoborg Forest and the many weapon fragments still found there to this day and accounted for in Tacitus' history).

I suspect it can be justified by the fact that barbarian warriors would often have supplemented their equipment by looting from fallen enemies and so on.

How could this ever be applied as a standard that does not cause historical, let alone basic gameplay, imbalance? Every people that ever wins a battle, to this day, gets the spoils. It is a fact of life. So why would the non-barbarian peoples not be allowed such advantage of spoils? Or is that you assume them to be so haughty as not to deem their opponents barbarian weapons good enough???

I think you are taking a too black-and-white view when it comes to barbarians. Remember that the Roman and Hellenistic states had not left their tribal history far behind. Voting in Athens and IIRC Rome still occurred on a tribal basis, and Hellenistic treaties were only valid as long both of the signers were still alive. Given that the more sophisticated Celtic tribes (the Aedui and the Sequani/Averni) had a senate and a justice system, with procedures in place to prevent abuse of power, it looks to me like they were developing along the same lines, if a century or so behind the Romans.

I understand your point - that barbarians too had civilizations - and I agree. But 100 years of difference is much more than a result of bad luck, and the scale with which each (Rome v. Gauls) is compared is too much to categorize any tribe organization with the level reached by Rome. Rome had tribes, but it began and always was a city-state, centralized by the Senate. The Gauls too had tribes, but each tribe was his own state, his own government. Yes, certain tribes were subject to others, varying from time to time, but such was the organization of Rome when it began in 758 BC. So then, either, as I said, the Gauls were a people incapable of reaching greatness, or simply were 700 years behind...

Just imagine if the United States, when declaring independence, did so as individual states, united only in that one instance of independence. Do you really think they would've achieved anything as great as they have to this day? Do you really think the many innovations brought about by this nation would've been achieved as they have been??... I don't think so.

[Geticus]

This is excessively speculative since the evidence on Gallic politics, based on Caesar, Strabo, and whatever Greek historians comes pretty late in the day after the decline of Gallic martial culture. When the Gauls fought Rome for the first time c. 390, Roman historians recollected that the Gauls invaded Latium in vengeance for a Roman ambassador fighting alongside the Etruscans and slaying a Gaulic warrior in battle. Who was showing respect for justice? The Roman accounts of the battle of the Anio which led to the Gallic sack of Rome and the plebian *desertion of the city as lost*, are so short in detail as to exasperate any serious military historian--the Roman explanation for the defeat, devoid of technical knowledge and respect, ascribes the victory to divine retribution. What cultural advantages did the Gauls demonstrate at the battle of the Anio? Why did the plebs, the backbone of the legions, give up the city? Remember that Rome was not a weak military power at this time, like the Gauls from the north the Romans were breaking the power of the Etruscans from the south, they had just destroyed the once opulent Etruscan city of Veii in an allegedly 10 year siege, at a time when the Spartans had failed miserably to adapt to long sieges vs. Athens. So why did the Romans lose so crushingly? What was the state of Gallic cavalry and chariotry at that time? The Roman historians offer no help.

Your assumptions of Gaulic cultural mediocrity are right in line with Roman historiography. But the Romans didn't have that arrogance in the 4th century BC, it developed over the next three centuries as Gallic power declined, and was cemented by Caesar. But there is a Roman saying- mortuo leoni etiam lepores insultant (even rabbits jump on a dead lion.) Caesar for his part respected the Gallic nobles who sided with him enough to make them senators.

One might consider the case of Makedon. Southern Hellenes viewed them as semi-barbaroi. They were rustics. They partially submitted to the Persians during the Persian wars when the Spartans protected the independence of Hellas. But somehow the semibarbaroi came down from the hills and conquered the world. Would you ascribe this to Makedonian attainment of "civilization"? To Alexander's education by Aristotle? What did any Hellenic philisoph ever accomplish in war? In martial affairs civilization is very much overrated. Have you read Latin histories at all? The Romans ascribed their victories mainly to disciplina militaris and virtus, both of the soldiers and of the generals. They did not ascribe their victories to living in a city. That was the line of the Byzantines later on, but it was a pompous claim, they were generally mediocre in war and their greatest successes under Justinian were reliant substantially on barbarian manpower, notably of the Huns, the most uncivilized of them all. Where do you think the greatest Roman generals came from. Gaius Marius was a rustic. Quinctius Cincinnatus was a rustic. Manlius Torquatus, the exemplar of extreme severe discipline, was a rustic, raised on a farm and worked like a slave alongside the slaves. Granted Caesar and Scipio, Pompeius, the Romans had more urbane generals, but the uniting element was virtue and prudence, personal authority, and knowledge of the art of war. And where did the masses of the soldiers come from? They were farmers for the most part, or their homeless offspring in a later era- the capite censi of the post Marian legions. The fortified urbs of Rome was a commercial and political center but you overrate the importance of urban residents for providing robust manpower for the armies. Look at the Augustan imperial era, how many emperors actually came from Rome? After the Julio-Claudian dynasty very few. Because the culture in that city became increasingly luxurious and enervating. Most later emperors just stayed away from the city.

I might as well argue that Celtic warlords conquered much of Europe during the 5th and 4th century, and their cultural degeneration through luxury opened the way for the expansion of the Roman imperium. In history most conquering martial cultures don't last much more than two centuries after they reach their zenith anyhow. The Median hegemony lasted all of 60 or so years after their conquest of Assyria. The Persians who succeeded them lasted about 200 from the time of Cyrus the Great. The Makedonian dynasties who succeeded the Persians came out of nowhere just like the Persian, and lasted all of 150-250 years. What did the urban poleis of Greece accomplish in the meantime? None of these hegemonic martial cultures originated in a polis. And as for Sparta, the martial hegemon of classical Hellas, well their city scarcely even resembled a regular polis. So "civilization" and "city life" that you cite as some great characteristic are of very dubious value in military affairs. A general or warlord need not reside in a city to have perception and intelligence. People need not reside in a city to have courage, honor, and fortitude.

So I don't really see much connection between military excellence, whether of Rome or of anyone else, and urban life, or civilization for that matter. Rome rose from under the shadow of Gaul, and they fell under the shadow of the Huns. They had 300 or so years of supreme excellence from the time of Marius to the time of Severus. And the peculiar genius of Rome during wartime, wasn't a product of "civilization" and their quarrelsome constitution, unless you follow Polybius' line but I do not- since the history of the Republic is a history of endless political strife. It was mainly a reflection of the culture and character of the Roman people, which gave profound respect to authority, discipline, and martial virtue. Transpose that kind of culture into a semi-barbarian kingdom like Makedon, or a nation of rustics like pre-imperial Persia, and the outcome is pretty similar.

[Torres84]

Well I think it is, here are my reasons:

RTS games (Rise of Nations like): Well, they are quite entertaining but lacks the customization of characters

Turn based (UFO Afterlight and or Jagged Alliance): You are allowed to play, but you are capped to the units and or number of units that the games gives you. You can customize character, bases, weapons but none the fact that I have mentioned

Rome Total War was the first of his class, it lacks a new engine and some options that can see in actual games BUT MAN what do you expect?? this mod is what I have been expecting. As someone mentioned above, games like Master of Orion 3 are the kinds of game that plays you (like in sovie7 russi4 lol).

We all were aware of all the new things that M2TW had over RTW, now... lets get EB into M2TW and... voila, perfection spotted. It is normal that some bugs will pop in the firts versions but we are here to test ^.^

[SlickNicaG69]

One of the things that so hilarious and ming-boggling about the above poster is how, with a mistaken view of history, he constantly uses examples that run contrary to his point!

You know Mr. Fred, when you criticize my views, you sould point out what views you believe to be wrong and justify your critique, as I will do with you, and, also, if you're going to refer to me have the decency to refer to me by name, please:

Well I wouldn't want to be subject to the Aztecs or a serf in medieval Spain

Neither would you like to be a crack addict in the United States of America today, right? But my point, and the truth is, that we still prefer to be that crack addict as opposed to the subject or the serf you referred to. Why? Because the level of society and civilization was raised to a point where even being a crack addict! is not as bad as being a lowly, 15th century serf.

...but it seems clear that the social and economic structure of the Aztec Empire was at least comparable to European kingdoms, if not vastly superior. After all, it was the Spanish themselves (not exactly a non-biased account) that called Tenochititlan larger and finer than any city they'd ever seen.

Look Mr. Fred, I understand the liberal arts attitude of appreciating the subtle and less appreciated. I too recognize that the Incas and Aztecs had developed a unique and rich culture. But you cannot honestly say that a culture that was still fundamentally hunting-and-gathering is comparable to a culture that had developed writing, the fundamentals of modern law, architecture, science, religion, the list goes on... right?!

As far as the Spanish account is concerned (of which I hope you take Cortez's as the ultimate authority in said subject), you should take the previous advice of realizing that, with certainty, what Cortez's main objective was by publishing such papers was to influence those back at home to keep sending reinforcements for more conquests. Besides, who would compare the pyramids of the Aztecs to the Pantheon.

We won't even bother with the logistical feats necessary to hold together a realm as large as the Incas' or the complex political arrangements of the post plague North American tribal confederations since your own exhibit #1 runs directly counter to your own point, disproving yourself.

There you go again... what exhibit?... use evidence not opinion or hearsay as proof... but in regards to your assertion... again... would you really compare the American "Empires" to the logistics of maintaining the Roman Empire? Seriously.

Ooh, Ooh, easy answer! Because you have an idyllic, false view of what a Puritan's life was like and an ignorant concept of Native Americans as dirty savages! As a Puritan, you have little to no freedom in daily life, your days are rigidly controlled by the village elders and the intense study of religion is compulsory. Plus the general prudishness. Life as a Native American in the same broad geographical region as the Puritans wasn't all frolicking in meadows, but it involves considerable more freedom and choice (especially for women), opportunity for travel, and by the standards of the time you're probably wealthier (unless)

You know, if someone asks me would you prefer being a noble or a peasant, I don't assume a peasant to be a better position just because the peasant has the freedom to go anywhere and do what he wants, while the noble is subject to the demands of his king. Same thing here. Yea, maybe the Indians were better off "ideologically," but what on Earth does that have to do with having a better standard of life? The Puritans read, wrote, and had many other advantages that one would say is worth more in this real life.

There's a number of reason why far more English immigrants in that period decided to live like the Native Americans did, as compared with Native Americans adopting an English lifestyle. (Not just racism and bigotry.

How does this prove anything? The Puritan were outcasts, rebels. They hated their own culture, so adopting another one was probably quite welcome to them, not matter how primitive it was.

Similarly, rather than marching on a path to some mythical "greatness," I think its much more realistic to understand that Caesar pretty much made Gaul and the Roman Republic shittier places than they were previously, at least for a generation or two. Assume you're going to be born to some random life in either location before or after Caesar. To my understanding the civil wars increased the turmoil and social problems in Italy, caused a considerable amount of death and economic disruption, and significantly increased the likelihood that in our fictional reincarnation lottery, you are born a slave. Similarly, slavery probably increased in Gaul and at the least the likelihood of becoming a free man of considerable property in the reincarnation lottery probably dropped in Gaul post-Caesar.

How can you say Caesar's achievements were destructive to Rome? Wow. Just call youself Cato man and be quiet for the rest of your life. Caesar led to one of the greatest territorial conquests in that day or the next. It led to Augustus expanding the empire greater than anyone else had up to that point. And in a world where slavery was just as common as pumping gas in your car, where do you get the nerve to criticize them for that? You are acting, Mr. Fred, as if the Gauls had lawyers, or even knew what they were.

I could deconstruct your post further, maybe starting with the irrelevance of the very analogy you center your argument on, but I think pointing out that you don't understand your chosen pieces of evidence themselves is sufficient to warn other readers that your assumption Gauls were 'less advanced' than Romans across the board or that comparing Europeans and Europeans with different Europeans and Native Americans centuries later has nothing to do with anything.

Funny how someone without a face or even an entity, can shun those who have ensured themselves immortality and worldwide recognition. Maybe you should ask yourself if you possess some of that prejudice you seem to criticize in them.

If anyone else is still paying attention, I'd also like to undercut at least a little bit the pervasive and subtle bias in favor of progressive historiography that pervades a lot of discussions on this forum. By 'progressive' I mean that a lot of people view history as a continuum from less-advanced to modern, with cultures progressing inevitably along that continuum to the present state of affairs (closely related to a similar assumption the human race will continue to "advance"). Whenever you catch yourself arguing that one culture is "behind" another, or "less-advanced," or especially something specific like "100 years behind," take a step back and realize you're understanding things through a false 'Sid Meier's Civilization' understanding of history, in which various and distinct 'cultures' advance along an inevitable and universal tech tree. Which, when you think about it, doesn't really hold much relation to reality.

So the fact that most cultures today, read, write, practice modern science, and adhere to a common religion does not insinuate that we are all intertwined under one standard of humanity? Look, no matter what culture or system of government is dominant in the world, that world power will always continue human civilization, whether for good or bad. When the Romans fell, the Muslims assumed their place. How, you may ask yourself, were they able to advance humanity? By using the works of the ancient Greeks themselves. By adopting the mathematical concepts of the Indians, etc. The concept of humanity is not a new one, and you would be wise to figure out its meaning.

A society is great in that it provides a good life, materially and in the intangibles, to its members, not because it preserves the records of friendly historians and creates a fantastic life for a select few on the backs of slaves and conquered peoples, as the above poster seems to suggest.

And since when has blasphemy been allowed to convince in favor of an argument?

One last point: because most people understand history in a 'progessive' context, they often think that the Roman Empire fell when the barbarians managed to reach an similar 'level' of development and overwhelmed the Empire with sheer numbers. They forget that centuries of economic decay and continuous mismanagement (not just civil war) also meant that the Roman Empire in its later days was weaker and less capable than what it had been before. Barbarian life may have improved and made their military power stronger, but the reverse occurring in the Empire was far more important.

Thank you for doing as you said I did: proving yourself wrong. Of course it wasn't the barbarians that defeated Rome, it was the Romans themselves. The barbarians were never able to beat Rome, they just happened to be ALL at the right place at the right time.

Besides, if you don't take my word for it, take Mr. Eugene Weber's, professor of History at UCLA. Particularly, listen to what he says when he compares the Roman to the Barbarian (~6:24: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S6vBXtsgWA).

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Neither would you like to be a crack addict in the United States of America today, right? But my point, and the truth is, that we still prefer to be that crack addict as opposed to the subject or the serf you referred to. Why? Because the level of society and civilization was raised to a point where even being a crack addict! is not as bad as being a lowly, 15th century serf.

Firstly, this rather highlights the point that was being made; that progress isn't linear and that what may seem progress in the eyes of contemporary 'historians' is not necessarily progress for many living under the institutions brought about by it. Serfdom in the 15th century, and the near slavery of those Gauls living under the oligarchic institutions so favoured by (and favourable to) Rome were not an improvement for those 'classes' of peoples.

And that there are 'crack addicts', 'smackheads' etc. surely says something about the state of the 'civilised' modern world. Also, how do you think those citizens in the US and most of Western Europe sustain the 'fat of the land' lifestyles; what makes these civilisations so 'great'? (especially considering the huge amounts of personal and institutional debt). Would it not be more accurate to ask whether one would rather be a factory worker in China, or a farm worker in Africa as a more realistic 'simily'?

How can you say Caesar's achievements were destructive to Rome? Wow. Just call youself Cato man and be quiet for the rest of your life. Caesar led to one of the greatest territorial conquests in that day or the next. It led to Augustus expanding the empire greater than anyone else had up to that point. And in a world where slavery was just as common as pumping gas in your car, where do you get the nerve to criticize them for that? You are acting, Mr. Fred, as if the Gauls had lawyers, or even knew what they were.

I'd call a period of civil war pretty destructive - and I believe that's what MisterFred made specific reference to. As to what he did for the Gauls.... how many does he, himself, claim to have killed and sold into slavery? For the average pleb in Caesar's time, how was their world made better by Caesar? And..., what do you mean by, "as if the Gauls......even knew what they were"?

Funny how someone without a face or even an entity, can shun those who have ensured themselves immortality and worldwide recognition. Maybe you should ask yourself if you possess some of that prejudice you seem to criticize in them.

Ahhh...., so it's hero-worship. The cult of personality. If a man is in the history books he must be worth more than some 'faceless' pleb..... I think that you rather expose your own 'prejudices' here...

So the fact that most cultures today, read, write, practice modern science, and adhere to a common religion does not insinuate that we are all intertwined under one standard of humanity? Look, no matter what culture or system of government is dominant in the world, that world power will always continue human civilization, whether for good or bad. When the Romans fell, the Muslims assumed their place. How, you may ask yourself, were they able to advance humanity? By using the works of the ancient Greeks themselves. By adopting the mathematical concepts of the Indians, etc. The concept of humanity is not a new one, and you would be wise to figure out its meaning.

Apart from the fact that what I certainly do not see in today's world is the adherence to a "common religion", I'm interested in how this single "standard of humanity" is represented in the varying forms of subjugation of people within political-geographical areas. I certainly see that there is a movement against the Western hegemony which has latched itself, for the most part, to a 'brand' of Islam... I just don't see the hippy happy hoppy "concept of humanity" and 'civilsed progress' that you seem convinced is the reality of the 21st Century.

As for the Muslims 'following on' from Rome.....what a lovely, tidy recant of 'history'... Wasn't quite like that though, was it? I'm glad you've brought the muslim world up though, because they didn't just fuse the mathemeatics/science/literature of the East and West... they saved the west from it's own 'civilised' prejudices. Many of the great Greek works only exist because of the muslim translation movement; because the true followers of Rome, in that ever so progressive march forward, had destroyed many of the Greek writings as pagan muck.

And since when has blasphemy been allowed to convince in favor of an argument?

This is very obtuse....

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Many good points Geticus, and its particularly telling - within Caesar's Gallic Wars - that he refers to the martial cultures of the Gauls being corrupted, to varying degrees, by luxury. He refers to the Belgae as "the bravest of all the Gauls", for example, because they eschewed the luxury imports (Roman trade, essentially).

There was, it seems, at some point a united Gaul - under the hegemony of the Bituriges-Cubi confederation. That central authority had broken down, and various of the more powerful tribes sought to re-establish that authority. The two most powerful (as represented in EB1) were the Aedui and Arverni, but there were others.

At some point, there was a cultural shift within Gaul, away from martial 'ethics' and toward trading. Luxury, in other words. And the nobles of various tribes were attracted to that luxury, and so the Aedui, who were 'friends and kinsmen' of Rome, and so who likely had the greatest trading rights with their merchants, gained influence and power among those simlarly placed nobles within other tribes. Their confederacies and 'senates' were in place to avoid warfare - hence the limits on holding office referred to by Caesar. It was to avoid raiding and other martial pursuits. The nobility who lead many of the tribes at this time had become remarkably squeamish about war. It is telling that the main focus of what warring was occurring was regarding toll rights and trade routes. The Arverni were disrupting and interfering with the trade routes of the Aedui, and the Sequani and Aedui were at war over the toll rights to the Arar which ran between them - which resulted in them bringing in Ariovistus in to aid them in subjugating the Aedui...

This deterioration of the martial aspects of the culture of the Gallic nobles is probably what allowed those less 'civilised' Belgae, under the suzerainty of Diviciacus of the Suessiones, to gain ground in Gaul as a whole.

There were those within the various tribes who saw the need for a more martial response to foreign incursions. There was Orgetorix, Casticus, Dumnorix, Ambiorix, Galba and, of course, Vercingetorix. And to highlight a point you made, Geticus, Vercingetorix raised an 'army of the poor'..... farmers, farm workers - the dispossessed of Gallic trading culture.

What was lacking in Gaul was a centralised 'rallying' point. Rome had managed to attain that. But, they could so easily have gone the way of Gaul.... the Social Wars was won not just by military means, but also by giving way on political power within the Senate and the assemblies to those outlying Italian tribes.

It is telling that Roman culture saw land-owenership/farming as acceptable pursuits for their noblemen, while trading for the ruling classes was frowned upon. So, what differentiated the Roman Senate at this time from other 'civilisations' was that the members of that Senate were expected to possess martial skills and knowledge, so that political decisions would support military campaigning. We see the opposite with the Gauls, and also a marked difference with the Carthaginians - whose own senate often undermined military campaigns.

As to the idea that it is not 'accidental' that Rome persisted while others fell by the wayside.. for the reasons given here that's true to an extent. But the geography of Rome's position helped. In the middle of a peninsula. Once they'd gained hegemony over the Roman peninsula, and naval power through the Med and the Adriatic, they were not subject to attack from all sides - so it's interesting that the USA should be brought up as a modern day example (and the wars against the French, the war of independence, the wars against Mexico...all play a significant part in US power, as does the defeat of the secessionist South in the civil war). The Gauls were facing pressure from the North, from the distinct culture of the Belgae, from the East and North with the expansion of the Germanic tribes and from Rome. Rome's other enemies were also subject to incursions on many fronts. The various Greek factions were all merrily weakening each other, the Persians/Eastern Greeks were involved in their own blood-letting...

and, in terms of the Gauls, Caesar was only in Transalpine Gaul because of 'accident'; the man who should have been there died suddenly, and so Caesar was given command of it along with Cisalpine Gaul and Illyria. How differently might things have turned out had that 'accident' not occurred?

Rome's great political nouse was in understanding how to use existing political structures within conquered towns - both prior to and after - to facilitate their expansion; a strategy used later by the church in it's spread across Europe.. and how politics and military matters were one and the same thing. If the political will is not there, any military success will, ultimately, be futile.

[SlickNicaG69]

Many good points Geticus, and its particularly telling - within Caesar's Gallic Wars - that he refers to the martial cultures of the Gauls being corrupted, to varying degrees, by luxury. He refers to the Belgae as "the bravest of all the Gauls", for example, because they eschewed the luxury imports (Roman trade, essentially).

There was, it seems, at some point a united Gaul - under the hegemony of the Bituriges-Cubi confederation. That central authority had broken down, and various of the more powerful tribes sought to re-establish that authority. The two most powerful (as represented in EB1) were the Aedui and Arverni, but there were others.

At some point, there was a cultural shift within Gaul, away from martial 'ethics' and toward trading. Luxury, in other words. And the nobles of various tribes were attracted to that luxury, and so the Aedui, who were 'friends and kinsmen' of Rome, and so who likely had the greatest trading rights with their merchants, gained influence and power among those simlarly placed nobles within other tribes. Their confederacies and 'senates' were in place to avoid warfare - hence the limits on holding office referred to by Caesar. It was to avoid raiding and other martial pursuits. The nobility who lead many of the tribes at this time had become remarkably squeamish about war. It is telling that the main focus of what warring was occurring was regarding toll rights and trade routes. The Arverni were disrupting and interfering with the trade routes of the Aedui, and the Sequani and Aedui were at war over the toll rights to the Arar which ran between them - which resulted in them bringing in Ariovistus in to aid them in subjugating the Aedui...

This deterioration of the martial aspects of the culture of the Gallic nobles is probably what allowed those less 'civilised' Belgae, under the suzerainty of Diviciacus of the Suessiones, to gain ground in Gaul as a whole.

There were those within the various tribes who saw the need for a more martial response to foreign incursions. There was Orgetorix, Casticus, Dumnorix, Ambiorix, Galba and, of course, Vercingetorix. And to highlight a point you made, Geticus, Vercingetorix raised an 'army of the poor'..... farmers, farm workers - the dispossessed of Gallic trading culture.

What was lacking in Gaul was a centralised 'rallying' point. Rome had managed to attain that. But, they could so easily have gone the way of Gaul.... the Social Wars was won not just by military means, but also by giving way on political power within the Senate and the assemblies to those outlying Italian tribes.

It is telling that Roman culture saw land-owenership/farming as acceptable pursuits for their noblemen, while trading for the ruling classes was frowned upon. So, what differentiated the Roman Senate at this time from other 'civilisations' was that the members of that Senate were expected to possess martial skills and knowledge, so that political decisions would support military campaigning. We see the opposite with the Gauls, and also a marked difference with the Carthaginians - whose own senate often undermined military campaigns.

As to the idea that it is not 'accidental' that Rome persisted while others fell by the wayside.. for the reasons given here that's true to an extent. But the geography of Rome's position helped. In the middle of a peninsula. Once they'd gained hegemony over the Roman peninsula, and naval power through the Med and the Adriatic, they were not subject to attack from all sides - so it's interesting that the USA should be brought up as a modern day example (and the wars against the French, the war of independence, the wars against Mexico...all play a significant part in US power, as does the defeat of the secessionist South in the civil war). The Gauls were facing pressure from the North, from the distinct culture of the Belgae, from the East and North with the expansion of the Germanic tribes and from Rome. Rome's other enemies were also subject to incursions on many fronts. The various Greek factions were all merrily weakening each other, the Persians/Eastern Greeks were involved in their own blood-letting...

and, in terms of the Gauls, Caesar was only in Transalpine Gaul because of 'accident'; the man who should have been there died suddenly, and so Caesar was given command of it along with Cisalpine Gaul and Illyria. How differently might things have turned out had that 'accident' not occurred?

Rome's great political nouse was in understanding how to use existing political structures within conquered towns - both prior to and after - to facilitate their expansion; a strategy used later by the church in it's spread across Europe.. and how politics and military matters were one and the same thing. If the political will is not there, any military success will, ultimately, be futile.

If the Gauls were unable to deal with the many vices and pitfalls that come with a more urbane, centralized, and developed society, culture, and government, then what does it say about their ability to be great?!

Look, no one denies that Roman historians always sought to skew history in their country's favor, but even now, as common knowledge, no one knows for certain that there existed a centralized, Celtic authority. There is much more doubt than certainty. All is based on flimsy evidence and speculation, so if you are willing to allow such things as evidence, why would you not accept the basest remarks of the primary sources themselves?

Think of the most vivid comparison of what I'm trying to convey to you: Europeans and Native Americans. There were empires in America, but would you dare to say that their social, economic, and political structure was [I]anything/I] compared to Europe's kingdoms, despite the contemporary difficulties and strifes they were under at the time? I doubt you would and if you do, you are speaking from ignorance. Just ask yourself: Why would, if I could, prefer 1000 times to be an English Puritan, than an Native Indian?

You could say it was luck, time, etc., but, in reality, it's a matter of civilization!

[MisterFred]

One of the things that so hilarious and ming-boggling about the above poster is how, with a mistaken view of history, he constantly uses examples that run contrary to his point!

There were empires in America, but would you dare to say that their social, economic, and political structure was [I]anything/I] compared to Europe's kingdoms, despite the contemporary difficulties and strifes they were under at the time?

Well I wouldn't want to be subject to the Aztecs or a serf in medieval Spain, but it seems clear that the social and economic structure of the Aztec Empire was at least comparable to European kingdoms, if not vastly superior. After all, it was the Spanish themselves (not exactly a non-biased account) that called Tenochititlan larger and finer than any city they'd ever seen. We won't even bother with the logistical feats necessary to hold together a realm as large as the Incas' or the complex political arrangements of the post plague North American tribal confederations since your own exhibit #1 runs directly counter to your own point, disproving yourself.

Why would, if I could, prefer 1000 times to be an English Puritan, than an Native Indian?

Ooh, Ooh, easy answer! Because you have an idyllic, false view of what a Puritan's life was like and an ignorant concept of Native Americans as dirty savages! As a Puritan, you have little to no freedom in daily life, your days are rigidly controlled by the village elders and the intense study of religion is compulsory. Plus the general prudishness. Life as a Native American in the same broad geographical region as the Puritans wasn't all frolicking in meadows, but it involves considerable more freedom and choice (especially for women), opportunity for travel, and by the standards of the time you're probably wealthier (unless one places unreasonably high values on cows and pigs) than your average Puritan. There's a number of reason why far more English immigrants in that period decided to live like the Native Americans did, as compared with Native Americans adopting an English lifestyle. (Not just racism and bigotry.)

Similarly, rather than marching on a path to some mythical "greatness," I think its much more realistic to understand that Caesar pretty much made Gaul and the Roman Republic shittier places than they were previously, at least for a generation or two. Assume you're going to be born to some random life in either location before or after Caesar. To my understanding the civil wars increased the turmoil and social problems in Italy, caused a considerable amount of death and economic disruption, and significantly increased the likelihood that in our fictional reincarnation lottery, you are born a slave. Similarly, slavery probably increased in Gaul and at the least the likelihood of becoming a free man of considerable property in the reincarnation lottery probably dropped in Gaul post-Caesar.

I could deconstruct your post further, maybe starting with the irrelevance of the very analogy you center your argument on, but I think pointing out that you don't understand your chosen pieces of evidence themselves is sufficient to warn other readers that your assumption Gauls were 'less advanced' than Romans across the board or that comparing Europeans and Europeans with different Europeans and Native Americans centuries later has nothing to do with anything.

If anyone else is still paying attention, I'd also like to undercut at least a little bit the pervasive and subtle bias in favor of progressive historiography that pervades a lot of discussions on this forum. By 'progressive' I mean that a lot of people view history as a continuum from less-advanced to modern, with cultures progressing inevitably along that continuum to the present state of affairs (closely related to a similar assumption the human race will continue to "advance"). Whenever you catch yourself arguing that one culture is "behind" another, or "less-advanced," or especially something specific like "100 years behind," take a step back and realize you're understanding things through a false 'Sid Meier's Civilization' understanding of history, in which various and distinct 'cultures' advance along an inevitable and universal tech tree. Which, when you think about it, doesn't really hold much relation to reality.

A society is great in that it provides a good life, materially and in the intangibles, to its members, not because it preserves the records of friendly historians and creates a fantastic life for a select few on the backs of slaves and conquered peoples, as the above poster seems to suggest.

One last point: because most people understand history in a 'progessive' context, they often think that the Roman Empire fell when the barbarians managed to reach an similar 'level' of development and overwhelmed the Empire with sheer numbers. They forget that centuries of economic decay and continuous mismanagement (not just civil war) also meant that the Roman Empire in its later days was weaker and less capable than what it had been before. Barbarian life may have improved and made their military power stronger, but the reverse occurring in the Empire was far more important.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Ooh, Ooh, easy answer! Because you have an idyllic, false view of what a Puritan's life was like and an ignorant concept of Native Americans as dirty savages! As a Puritan, you have little to no freedom in daily life, your days are rigidly controlled by the village elders and the intense study of religion is compulsory. Plus the general prudishness. Life as a Native American in the same broad geographical region as the Puritans wasn't all frolicking in meadows, but it involves considerable more freedom and choice (especially for women), opportunity for travel, and by the standards of the time you're probably wealthier (unless one places unreasonably high values on cows and pigs) than your average Puritan. There's a number of reason why far more English immigrants in that period decided to live like the Native Americans did, as compared with Native Americans adopting an English lifestyle. (Not just racism and bigotry.)

Similarly, rather than marching on a path to some mythical "greatness," I think its much more realistic to understand that Caesar pretty much made Gaul and the Roman Republic shittier places than they were previously, at least for a generation or two. Assume you're going to be born to some random life in either location before or after Caesar. To my understanding the civil wars increased the turmoil and social problems in Italy, caused a considerable amount of death and economic disruption, and significantly increased the likelihood that in our fictional reincarnation lottery, you are born a slave. Similarly, slavery probably increased in Gaul and at the least the likelihood of becoming a free man of considerable property in the reincarnation lottery probably dropped in Gaul post-Caesar.

Though (as a side issue) I would question placing the blame for the civil wars entirely upon Caesar's shoulders (and most especially the era of the principate that followed - I have my doubts as to whether that 'sort of thing' was what Caesar had in mind), the main point is well made. In fact, prior to the aristocracies and their 'senates' within the Gallic 'proto-states', life as a lesser Gaul would likely have been much better. Those aristocracies were making their fortunes, and power bases, by essentially betraying their own people - feeding the slave markets of Rome with their 'bretheren' Gauls..... from what little information we have, these polities were oligarchic, the lesser classes becoming - even within their own country - all but slaves.

That's what Vercingetorix utilised with his 'army of the poor' - the dispossessed of the Gallic oligarchical structures, which were bound up with good relations/trade with the Romans. Orgetorix, Ambiorix, Dumnorix.., all were dealt with by those entities to the pleasure of Rome.

If anyone else is still paying attention, I'd also like to undercut at least a little bit the pervasive and subtle bias in favor of progressive historiography that pervades a lot of discussions on this forum. By 'progressive' I mean that a lot of people view history as a continuum from less-advanced to modern, with cultures progressing inevitably along that continuum to the present state of affairs (closely related to a similar assumption the human race will continue to "advance"). Whenever you catch yourself arguing that one culture is "behind" another, or "less-advanced," or especially something specific like "100 years behind," take a step back and realize you're understanding things through a false 'Sid Meier's Civilization' understanding of history, in which various and distinct 'cultures' advance along an inevitable and universal tech tree. Which, when you think about it, doesn't really hold much relation to reality.

Indeed. Cultures don't necessarily have to follow the same path..... I think that the Roman interference with much of Europe (and beyond) tends to suggest that this is so, in many peoples' minds. As a counter example I will offer Switzerland, and it's sovereign Cantons, it's Landsgemeinden - people's assemblies. Just because a culture/polity might not have become Rome, might not have subjugated it's own and it's neighbours people, doesn't mean that civilisation was beyond them. It just depends upon what you regard as civilised....

One thing that really grates is when I read something along the lines of 'We know that the Gauls were illiterate......'. We know no such thing. We have been told so, but look a little closer and little cracks appear in this version of history. Caesar refers to the alphabets that the Gauls used for different functions. The Helvetii had conducted a census of their tribes before (and for the purpose of) their migration. Dumnorix is attested as being granted the tolling and taxing rights of the Aedui - which require literacy and numeracy. He speaks of the Druids as being forbidden to write down their teachings.....

[SlickNicaG69]

Though (as a side issue) I would question placing the blame for the civil wars entirely upon Caesar's shoulders (and most especially the era of the principate that followed - I have my doubts as to whether that 'sort of thing' was what Caesar had in mind), the main point is well made. In fact, prior to the aristocracies and their 'senates' within the Gallic 'proto-states', life as a lesser Gaul would likely have been much better. Those aristocracies were making their fortunes, and power bases, by essentially betraying their own people - feeding the slave markets of Rome with their 'bretheren' Gauls..... from what little information we have, these polities were oligarchic, the lesser classes becoming - even within their own country - all but slaves.

Again, what does this say about their government and people, and their ability to be great!

Indeed. Cultures don't necessarily have to follow the same path..... I think that the Roman interference with much of Europe (and beyond) tends to suggest that this is so, in many peoples' minds. As a counter example I will offer Switzerland, and it's sovereign Cantons, it's Landsgemeinden - people's assemblies. Just because a culture/polity might not have become Rome, might not have subjugated it's own and it's neighbours people, doesn't mean that civilisation was beyond them. It just depends upon what you regard as civilised....

Wait Switzerland was never conquered by the Romans? I thought the people of the Alps were seen as more barbaric than the Gauls themselves... and when you say Canton, were they the original people of the Alps, or modern Swiss who are probably more German than Alpian.

One thing that really grates is when I read something along the lines of 'We know that the Gauls were illiterate......'. We know no such thing. We have been told so, but look a little closer and little cracks appear in this version of history. Caesar refers to the alphabets that the Gauls used for different functions. The Helvetii had conducted a census of their tribes before (and for the purpose of) their migration. Dumnorix is attested as being granted the tolling and taxing rights of the Aedui - which require literacy and numeracy. He speaks of the Druids as being forbidden to write down their teachings...

You must learn to interpret what people say. When the Gauls are "illiterate," they don't mean that every Gaul didn't know how to read and write. It meant their culture had not developed their own system of letters. The Helvetti census was written in Greek, fyi, and is the reason why the Romans could decipher it...

[Geticus]

Well I wouldn't want to be subject to the Aztecs or a serf in medieval Spain, but it seems clear that the social and economic structure of the Aztec Empire was at least comparable to European kingdoms, if not vastly superior. After all, it was the Spanish themselves (not exactly a non-biased account) that called Tenochititlan larger and finer than any city they'd ever seen. We won't even bother with the logistical feats necessary to hold together a realm as large as the Incas' or the complex political arrangements of the post plague North American tribal confederations since your own exhibit #1 runs directly counter to your own point, disproving yourself.

If anyone else is still paying attention, I'd also like to undercut at least a little bit the pervasive and subtle bias in favor of progressive historiography that pervades a lot of discussions on this forum. By 'progressive' I mean that a lot of people view history as a continuum from less-advanced to modern, with cultures progressing inevitably along that continuum to the present state of affairs (closely related to a similar assumption the human race will continue to "advance"). Whenever you catch yourself arguing that one culture is "behind" another, or "less-advanced," or especially something specific like "100 years behind," take a step back and realize you're understanding things through a false 'Sid Meier's Civilization' understanding of history, in which various and distinct 'cultures' advance along an inevitable and universal tech tree. Which, when you think about it, doesn't really hold much relation to reality.

One last point: because most people understand history in a 'progessive' context, they often think that the Roman Empire fell when the barbarians managed to reach an similar 'level' of development and overwhelmed the Empire with sheer numbers. They forget that centuries of economic decay and continuous mismanagement (not just civil war) also meant that the Roman Empire in its later days was weaker and less capable than what it had been before. Barbarian life may have improved and made their military power stronger, but the reverse occurring in the Empire was far more important.

Awesome critique of linear progressive historiography. If I was as eloquent on arguing that point as you are, I might have made better headway and had the patience to complete my PhD:)

And though in some ways I loathe cultural relativism, I will take it one step further in this military context that you cite. Remember that Rome despite its great successes during the 3rd and 2nd century BC, was shaken to its foundation during the Cimbri-Teutonic invasion, and Gaius Marius was hailed as the third founder of Rome for winning the first victory at Aquae Sextiae over the Teutones and Ambrones. So we see two times, that Rome following great successes, almost met with terminal defeat- first victory over Veii followed by near destruction at the hands of the Gauls, and then the victories of the 2nd century in Spain, North Africa, Hellas and Asia followed by repeated major defeats in Gaul by the Cimbri and Teutons. So regardless of the excellence that Rome reached for a while, I like to maintain some Gibbonesque pessimism and see the seed of the ultimate failure of Roman martial culture in the Augustan reforms. This is to say the cessation of universal military service led to remission of martial culture among the general child-bearing populace, while the martial culture bearing fraction- the imperial military itself, did not have children at all, unless after completion of military service at the age of 40. So this led to a kind of martial culture-bearing oliganthropy, since the increasingly luxurious general populace of Rome was no longer the brute "durum genus" of farmer-soldiers from the old Republic. So I see Hannibal as ultimately having a kind of success in arresting Rome's destiny, the destruction and ravaging of the Roman farms through 15 years of continuous war shattered the continuity of Roman agrarian culture, which was replaced by slave latifundia. The patriotic durum genus of farmer-soldiers gave way to the landless capite censi of the Post Marian era, who became the Augustan urban soldier class than dissolved through oliganthropy and luxury. This ultimately led to the incremental reliance upon Iberian, Illyrian, Gallic and ultimately German manpower to fill out the legions, epitomized by Vegetius' shocking axiom in De Re Militari, that the best military manpower came from the northern provinces of the empire, because of their robust physiques and abundance of blood, which enabled them to withstand bloodshed well! Whatever happened to the world conquering durum genus of Rome?

So granted I do believe that Rome attained an extremely great culture of infantry warfare, but Roman equestrian culture proper was not very strong, and against a sufficiently state of the art cavalry force, like Hannibal's, or the Parthians at Carrhae under Surenas, I don't really know that the Romans ever had a good answer. How many post-Augustan emperors were more astute than Marcus Crassus or Marcus Antonius, both of whom failed in their Parthian invasions? So if the Parthians had risen the bar a bit higher, or the Sarmatians came under stronger central rule, I think the arete of the empire might not have appeared quite as bright as it did for its 300 years. Anyhow, that to me is the appeal of EB, destroying the Roman myth of invincibility and role-playing a more chaotic world, where there is more to excellence than mechanical discipline and self-sacrificing servility to a headstrong Roman imperator.

[athanaric]

One of the nice aspects of EB is that you don't have to give up the Republic with all its instutions (such as the farmer-soldiers) as a Roman player - but then again that makes reaching even the Marian reforms much harder, because of the Latifudia requrements.

As to military commanders, I'd say that Crassus wasn't really much use, even compared to most later commanders.
What the Romans were quite successful at - from a Parthian perspective - was strategic warfare via economy. They caused a lot of trouble in Mesopotamia and even found ways around the Parthian Empire. In other words: they were always good at winning the actual war, even if some of the battles turned out less than favourable. One of the major causes in the downfall of the Arsacids, one might say. Which - in theory - might also have been the cause for the Sassanid fixation on the Persian-Roman conflict, with fatal consequences for both.

But what you were basically saying - and I agree with that - is that most societies ultimately defeat themselves, for example through structural changes that are foolish in hindsight. We're just experiencing this live in Western Europe, and possibly some other societies. There are a great many parallels to the late Roman Empire.

[Geticus]

Many good points Geticus, and its particularly telling - within Caesar's Gallic Wars - that he refers to the martial cultures of the Gauls being corrupted, to varying degrees, by luxury. He refers to the Belgae as "the bravest of all the Gauls", for example, because they eschewed the luxury imports (Roman trade, essentially).

At some point, there was a cultural shift within Gaul, away from martial 'ethics' and toward trading. Luxury, in other words. And the nobles of various tribes were attracted to that luxury, and so the Aedui, who were 'friends and kinsmen' of Rome, and so who likely had the greatest trading rights with their merchants, gained influence and power among those simlarly placed nobles within other tribes. Their confederacies and 'senates' were in place to avoid warfare - hence the limits on holding office referred to by Caesar. It was to avoid raiding and other martial pursuits. The nobility who lead many of the tribes at this time had become remarkably squeamish about war. It is telling that the main focus of what warring was occurring was regarding toll rights and trade routes. The Arverni were disrupting and interfering with the trade routes of the Aedui, and the Sequani and Aedui were at war over the toll rights to the Arar which ran between them - which resulted in them bringing in Ariovistus in to aid them in subjugating the Aedui...

This deterioration of the martial aspects of the culture of the Gallic nobles is probably what allowed those less 'civilised' Belgae, under the suzerainty of Diviciacus of the Suessiones, to gain ground in Gaul as a whole.

What was lacking in Gaul was a centralised 'rallying' point. Rome had managed to attain that. But, they could so easily have gone the way of Gaul.... the Social Wars was won not just by military means, but also by giving way on political power within the Senate and the assemblies to those outlying Italian tribes.

It is telling that Roman culture saw land-owenership/farming as acceptable pursuits for their noblemen, while trading for the ruling classes was frowned upon. So, what differentiated the Roman Senate at this time from other 'civilisations' was that the members of that Senate were expected to possess martial skills and knowledge, so that political decisions would support military campaigning. We see the opposite with the Gauls, and also a marked difference with the Carthaginians - whose own senate often undermined military campaigns.

As to the idea that it is not 'accidental' that Rome persisted while others fell by the wayside.. for the reasons given here that's true to an extent. But the geography of Rome's position helped. In the middle of a peninsula. Once they'd gained hegemony over the Roman peninsula, and naval power through the Med and the Adriatic, they were not subject to attack from all sides - so it's interesting that the USA should be brought up as a modern day example (and the wars against the French, the war of independence, the wars against Mexico...all play a significant part in US power, as does the defeat of the secessionist South in the civil war). The Gauls were facing pressure from the North, from the distinct culture of the Belgae, from the East and North with the expansion of the Germanic tribes and from Rome. Rome's other enemies were also subject to incursions on many fronts. The various Greek factions were all merrily weakening each other, the Persians/Eastern Greeks were involved in their own blood-letting...

Rome's great political nouse was in understanding how to use existing political structures within conquered towns - both prior to and after - to facilitate their expansion; a strategy used later by the church in it's spread across Europe.. and how politics and military matters were one and the same thing. If the political will is not there, any military success will, ultimately, be futile.

Well martial law can, at least for a time, substitute for political will :)

Concurred as to the advantages of Rome's position, Polybius spoke at length about the fecundity and abundance of Italy, with timber, livestock, great produce, rivers, and all other needful things for great power in that day.

Your observation about Roman injunctions against Senators owning many commercial vessels again confirms the unique character of the Roman nobility, which enabled Rome to fuse arts of civilization and statescraft with the brute art of war to such a rare degree, perhaps only rivalled by Sparta in its heydey under the Lycurgan constitution. For my part I like to side with Caesar and accept the mythical notion that this character was of Trojan provenance. For those who laugh-- laugh at Caesar as well!

As to Gaulic martial cultural remissness, indeed I have read Hellenic historians of the late Republican era relating the famous wealth of Gaulic kings of that day, and their extreme alcoholism and overfondness for Hellenic wine, even going so far as to trade human slaves for amphorae of wine on a one to one basis. This sort of lifestyle surely detracted from martial virtue.

Was it necessary for Gallic statescraft to follow a similar trajectory to the Roman during the social wars and lead to liberation/inclusion of other states in some sort of Pan-Gallic identity? Makedon was pretty effective at conquering the world, and Alexander did use pan-Hellenic ideals to fill out the ranks of the army, certainly what he did was inspired in part by Xenophon's Anabasis and other Hellenic philosophers who advocated pan-Hellenic ideals and unification against Persia. Later Makedonian kings tried to ride the fine line between popularity with the Southern Hellenic states, and preservation of autokratic power, and wasted a lot of strength in wars against other Hellenic nations as a result.

But I think it can go both ways, inclusion can lead to popular support which can be of advantage. But the Roman Republic was generally successful during its first 400 years pursuing a policy of Roma uber Alles. Latin urbes that disputed the primacy of Rome were ruthlessly quashed, notably during the beginning of the Samnite War c. 340 during the consulship of Manlius Torquatus and Decius Mus. Mus rather sacrificed himself to the infernal gods in battle than lose a battle to the Latin confederacy, likewise Torquatus executed his own son to preserve Roman military discipline with the utmost severity-- and his decision was successful, the Latins political will was pretty well permanently crushed, they didn't even dare revolt in meaningful numbers when Hannibal reached out his hand, and it took another 250 years and a united Italy to finally break the strength of Roman ethnocentric bigotry.

As to the martial equation of Gauls vs. Romans, I think the major weakness of the Romans was in its equestrian class, especially after the shift of equestrian culture towards commerce following territorial and economic expansion after the Samnite Wars. The total route following the battle of the Anio has all the markings IMO of an atrocious cavalry route, I don't think that the plebs would have given up the city if the pursuit was a slow affair, they couldn't even reenter the city or do a well ordered defensive retreat- only cavalry can accomplish this. So to me the question is, what cavalry/chariotry advantages did an optimized Celtic army possess over the Romans? Since technical literary evidence is lacking I can only speculate. But consistent with Caesar's observations that you cite from De Bello Gallico I.1., it is clear that the Gauls were growing martially remiss. Gaul was dominated by a forked aristocracy of horsemen and druids. Vercingetorix tried to optimize the cavalry numerical advantage but he failed in his day. But I suspect that back in the day the Gallic aristokrats, when chivalry was uppermost in their daily priorities, were capable of fielding cavalry forces beyond any Roman capability and I think that this is the key to the debacle at the Anio, and the great dread of Gallic invasions that persisted for 150 years thereafter. At any rate in speculating on Celtic chivalry capabilities we are definitely dealing with a different culture, one that confirms Mr. Fred's observations on the fact that culture doesn't always improve, and knowledge is not always preserved.