Why are Sotaroas cheaper than Toxotai?

[QuintusSertorius]

I'm looking at the two archer variants, Celtic (sotaroas) and Hellenic (toxotai). Their missile attack is the same. Their defense is the same. Most of their features are the same, bar the Celts have a bonus in woods, where the Hellens have a bonus against elephants and chariots.

Then the real differences, Celts are pretty good in melee, and have spears. Hellenes are fast moving. Not sure why the Celts aren't, given other unarmoured Celts (Lugoae, Gaeroas, etc) are.

Upshot of it is, though, the Celts are a cheaper unit. Is it simply because of the lack of fast moving?

[vartan]

Upshot of it is, though, the Celts are a cheaper unit. Is it simply because of the lack of fast moving?

I don't even know why that unit isn't fast-moving, while another heavier unit may be fast-moving. And as we know, there were no inherent strengths of one peoples over another peoples. That is to say that Celts were not any stronger, better in melee than any other peoples, Hellenes included.

[moonburn]

probably because forest hunters where easyer to find in the celtic kingdoms then in the hellenic one´s

vartan the fact that the keltic society had less disparities and thus those of lower ranks where better fed and their inherited lifestyle made them better suited for warfare makes keltois better warriors then the hellenes so they ate more meat had more muscle but they weren´t stronger ? those who ate meat in the hellenic world weren´t strong they where fat ...

also keltois where better at melee 1 vs 1 if not for much then their better quality swords and shorter more easily usable shields made precisely for hand to hand combat while the hellenic warrior ethos was mainly based on cooperation

[Andy1984]

IIRC, the prices in EB were based on unit skills and stats. Fast moving is probably an expensive trait. The same can be seen in the east, where persian archers (fast moving I believe) are actually more expensive than the persian archer spearmen (not fast moving). Just like in your example, the persian archer spearmen performs better in melee than the persian archer. The range of the former is worse than that of the latter though.

[Lysimachos]

The Sotaroas have only a very limited amount of ammunition (or are those the germanic archers?), which reduces their uses as ranged troops in comparison to the Toxotai. Their better performance in melee can't outweigh that, since that is only a secondary capability.

At least that is my take on it.

[vartan]

vartan the fact that the keltic society had less disparities and thus those of lower ranks where better fed and their inherited lifestyle made them better suited for warfare makes keltois better warriors then the hellenes so they ate more meat had more muscle but they weren´t stronger ? those who ate meat in the hellenic world weren´t strong they where fat ...

also keltois where better at melee 1 vs 1 if not for much then their better quality swords and shorter more easily usable shields made precisely for hand to hand combat while the hellenic warrior ethos was mainly based on cooperation

Only in Hollywood (5 minute drive from here) or in the cartoon that is RTW, sure. But I've yet to read anything conclusive to that extent. As far as the world is concerned, people were more or less on par. No matter where you go, people are composed of the same organs. Averages might vary slightly regionally, but people are in general the same. And unlike architecture or crafts that have remains, you won't find any organic remains that indicate what antiquity's Celts consumed, thus making it even more difficult to come to any generalisations regarding their diet. Someone enlighten me, I'm looking to go on a Celtic diet.

[Burebista]

Only in Hollywood (5 minute drive from here) or in the cartoon that is RTW, sure. But I've yet to read anything conclusive to that extent. As far as the world is concerned, people were more or less on par. No matter where you go, people are composed of the same organs. Averages might vary slightly regionally, but people are in general the same. And unlike architecture or crafts that have remains, you won't find any organic remains that indicate what antiquity's Celts consumed, thus making it even more difficult to come to any generalisations regarding their diet. Someone enlighten me, I'm looking to go on a Celtic diet.

Not true. In Europe you can actually see differences in size of people as Germans/Brits/Nordics are in average about 5 centimeters higher than central european and 7 cm over southerners such as greeks/spanish. i can feel the difference each time i go into those countries.

[Lysimachos]

An interesting thing in context with size is that, opposed to popular belief, the size of people has not always increased. Findings of sceletons in central and northern europe show that the average size has actually decreased from antiquity to the middle ages and later increased again. The most logical explanation is the diet. The more populated and the more agrarian a society becomes, the more has it to rely on the output of its agriculture instead. So while an agricultural society can support more eaters, the quality of its diet according to modern nutritional science is worse than the mixed diet on which a less agricultural society sustains. Result of a strong hunting culture is a more protein rich diet, which in turn enables more growth and thus physical strength.
On this grounds, I think it is highly plausible that in ancient times the average member of a mixed hunter-farmer-community possessed indeed a greater physical strength than the average member of a mostly agricultural community.
This only swings around once more advanced methods of breeding and organisation of agriculture make meat more readily available to the public outside the upper classes.

Edit: Well, this really becomes offtopic, so: sorry

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Only in Hollywood (5 minute drive from here) or in the cartoon that is RTW, sure. But I've yet to read anything conclusive to that extent. As far as the world is concerned, people were more or less on par. No matter where you go, people are composed of the same organs. Averages might vary slightly regionally, but people are in general the same. And unlike architecture or crafts that have remains, you won't find any organic remains that indicate what antiquity's Celts consumed, thus making it even more difficult to come to any generalisations regarding their diet. Someone enlighten me, I'm looking to go on a Celtic diet.

This is all incorrect.

We can tell from skeletal remains the amount of muscle a person had, in addition to height and (for example) breadth of shoulder. From this we can conclude that the average Celtic warrior was several inches tall as well as being heavier set and having greater muscle mass. We know this had to do with their lifestyle because we have written accounts from Greeks and Romans, as well as being able to recover things like seeds and bones from rubbish tips at Celtic sites.

This not to say Greeks and Romans were weak, both peoples were incredibly tough, but they weren't as big, strong or hairy.

[vartan]

This is all incorrect.

We can tell from skeletal remains the amount of muscle a person had, in addition to height and (for example) breadth of shoulder. From this we can conclude that the average Celtic warrior was several inches tall as well as being heavier set and having greater muscle mass. We know this had to do with their lifestyle because we have written accounts from Greeks and Romans, as well as being able to recover things like seeds and bones from rubbish tips at Celtic sites.

This not to say Greeks and Romans were weak, both peoples were incredibly tough, but they weren't as big, strong or hairy.

Lys makes a good point about the food. That's really great though. I never knew you could infer muscle mass from analysing bones. (EDIT: How does that work by the way? How do you relate bone mass to muscle mass?) @Lys: Safe to say that man today is on average weaker than man ~2000 years ago? (i.e. when you look at nutrition.)

[QuintusSertorius]

Lys makes a good point about the food. That's really great though. I never knew you could infer muscle mass from analysing bones. (EDIT: How does that work by the way? How do you relate bone mass to muscle mass?) @Lys: Safe to say that man today is on average weaker than man ~2000 years ago? (i.e. when you look at nutrition.)

It's fairly easy, actually. Strengthening your muscles in life necessarily strengthens and thickens your bones. They're the support structure, they have to be reinforced to accomodate the greater loads and stresses stronger muscles put on your skeleton.

Modern humans (assuming developed nations) have more pooling at the extremes than ancient peoples; more sedentary and weak people, but also more highly-active and strong people. People in the middle are probably weaker because they're not engaged in manual labour every day.

[Gabicho]

Modern humans (assuming developed nations) have more pooling at the extremes than ancient peoples; more sedentary and weak people, but also more highly-active and strong people. People in the middle are probably weaker because they're not engaged in manual labour every day.

This.
An average modern man is going to have less stamina and muscle mass than the average man 2,000 years ago, because nowadays people do comparatively much less manual labor and are mostly sedentary.
On the other hand, the high-end athletes of modern times, would surely out-run Pheidippides, out-wrestle Ajax and beat the crap out of Achilles. Modern sports science, advanced nutrition, steroids, etc, etc, means human physical capabilites are almost at the peak, while back then, well, they didn't have much of that.
There's also some type of tasks that were done in ancient times that would surely exert even the best athletes of this day. Like holding a hoplon for hours. But that's because nowadays, we don't have high-end-hoplon training. If there was an olympic sport about holding a hoplon, today's athletes would put the Spartans to shame.

[Tellos Athenaios]

No. Lysimachos point is true for Europe, up until about mid 20th centurty when at least in North West Europe people start to gain “length parity” with antiquity, and in case of some peoples especially males start to outgrow their counterparts of yore. Which is to say that in the Netherlands and Sweden we are on average bigger barbarians than we used to be.

Those length drops Lysimachos talks about coincide with times traditionally celebrated as some kind of “golden” age of growth and prosperity: growth and prosperity for a few extracted from society at large by further increasing relative poverty of the poor.

[Ludens]

From this we can conclude that the average Celtic warrior was several inches tall as well as being heavier set and having greater muscle mass. We know this had to do with their lifestyle because we have written accounts from Greeks and Romans, as well as being able to recover things like seeds and bones from rubbish tips at Celtic sites.

Do these findings relate to all Gauls, or just to warriors? Because the way you phrase it, it sounds like you are comparing the average Roman to the Celtic warrior caste. I'd say a fairer comparison would be with Roman centurions (military lifestyle, but also a degree of affluence so they wouldn't be affected by famine as much as ordinary grunts).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Do these findings relate to all Gauls, or just to warriors? Because the way you phrase it, it sounds like you are comparing the average Roman to the Celtic warrior caste. I'd say a fairer comparison would be with Roman centurions (military lifestyle, but also a degree of affluence so they wouldn't be affected by famine as much as ordinary grunts).

Ah, no because the Average Celtic Warrior (ACW) is equivilent to the Average Roman Citizen (ARC). Both the ACW and ARC are landed, both probably have at least one slave, both are rasonable well fed in most years. Whether or not Centurians were better off once they gained rank is a difficult question, because they likely grew to manhood under the same or very similar conditions to the "grunts".

Lys makes a good point about the food. That's really great though. I never knew you could infer muscle mass from analysing bones. (EDIT: How does that work by the way? How do you relate bone mass to muscle mass?) @Lys: Safe to say that man today is on average weaker than man ~2000 years ago? (i.e. when you look at nutrition.)

The bones not only increase in mass, but the connections of tendans and ligiments leave markers on the bones which indicate how thick/long they were and therefore what kind of muscle they were attached to.

[The Celtic Viking]

Err, my EDU says that both cost 411 mnai.

Edit: actually, looking more carefully, there are two Sotaroas units with different costs. For Arverni, Aedui and Casse they cost 411. For the rest they cost 392, but have 1 less armour point.

[QuintusSertorius]

Err, my EDU says that both cost 411 mnai.

Edit: actually, looking more carefully, there are two Sotaroas units with different costs. For Arverni, Aedui and Casse they cost 411. For the rest they cost 392, but have 1 less armour point.

These are regional Sotaroas (I'm playing Epeiros-as-Massila) compared to factional Toxotai.

[The Celtic Viking]

These are regional Sotaroas (I'm playing Epeiros-as-Massila) compared to factional Toxotai.

Yes, I realized that, hence the edit.

In any case, while the total defence value is the same for regional Sotaroas and factional Toxotai, the Toxotai has one higher armour value but one lower in def skill. If def skill cost less than armour, then that can answer for some, and I believe Sotaroas get their 1 armour value from being Celtic, which might even mean that its value is free. That, along with worse modifiers and apparently a slower speed, might help explain the difference.

[Ludens]

Ah, no because the Average Celtic Warrior (ACW) is equivilent to the Average Roman Citizen (ARC). Both the ACW and ARC are landed, both probably have at least one slave, both are rasonable well fed in most years.

Except that the average Roman citizen was not a full-time warrior, but I see your point.

About centurions: I recall reading in Goldsworthy that the social background of centurions is unknown. The attention lavished on them in Caesar's commentaries indicates that he felt it worthwhile to court them. This must mean they, as a class, had more political influence than the rank-and-file, and hence were more affluent as well.

[antisocialmunky]

The Average Celtic Freeman was also probably not a full-time warrior...

[Drunk Clown]

probably because forest hunters where easyer to find in the celtic kingdoms then in the hellenic one´s

vartan the fact that the keltic society had less disparities and thus those of lower ranks where better fed and their inherited lifestyle made them better suited for warfare makes keltois better warriors then the hellenes so they ate more meat had more muscle but they weren´t stronger ? those who ate meat in the hellenic world weren´t strong they where fat ...

If you're fat you are pretty strong too, you have to support the weight you know. Now, you were better off having a bit o' fat back in those days. Fat tissue heals better and quicker than muscle tissue. Gladiators for instance were fatty due to this.

Just to make clear..... they did't look like this:

[QuintusSertorius]

If you're fat you are pretty strong too, you have to support the weight you know. Now, you were better off having a bit o' fat back in those days. Fat tissue heals better and quicker than muscle tissue. Gladiators for instance were fatty due to this.

Not really, if you're fat you may be strong enough to carry it around, but that can easily go too far in the wrong direction. There are obese people who cannot jump, for example, fat can easily run away and outstrip the ability of your body to strengthen to accomodate. It's certainly no guarantee of being "pretty strong" either.

[Drunk Clown]

Not really, if you're fat you may be strong enough to carry it around, but that can easily go too far in the wrong direction. There are obese people who cannot jump, for example, fat can easily run away and outstrip the ability of your body to strengthen to accomodate. It's certainly no guarantee of being "pretty strong" either.

Why does everybody think "super obese" by just saying fat? I have never talked about obese people, cos I do know they are not able to perform heavy physical movements. If you cannot jump you're pretty messed up, and a regular fattie can jump.

It's certainly no guarantee of being "pretty strong" either.

Face him, I dare you.

[QuintusSertorius]

Why does everybody think "super obese" by just saying fat? I have never talked about obese people, cos I do know they are not able to perform heavy physical movements. If you cannot jump you're pretty messed up, and a regular fattie can jump.

A "regular fattie" can't jump as high as someone who isn't carrying an extra load that doesn't contribute anything but weight. A gladiator or professional soldier of antiquity would be much like a professional sportsman of today, like a rugby player, for example.

Face him, I dare you.

You've picked a corner case where someone is both overweight and strong (and trained in a particular way to use both). That's certainly not representative of any average overweight person. They don't live very long, which is a good indication of how healthy and sustainable that sort of diet and training is.

[Drunk Clown]

A "regular fattie" can't jump as high as someone who isn't carrying an extra load that doesn't contribute anything but weight. A gladiator or professional soldier of antiquity would be much like a professional sportsman of today, like a rugby player, for example.

False, that wouldn't be practical, if the gladiators would wound themself during sparring/training(whatsoever) they wouldn't be able to perform in the arena in a short period. That's why they were a bit fat so they would heal quicker and be able to fight again.

By the way being able to jump isn't relevant, e.g. if an elephant would jump (if he's able ? dunno about that) he would break all of his legs, but that doesn't make him weak. Try moving a man/woman who's 130 kilos, you have to be strong to do that, if they try to move a normal/average weighted man they would succeed without even trying that hard. The mass has an important role.

The gladiator in this painting is how I believe they looked like. Not that muscular but with a little bit of fat. (Nowhere as how a professional sportsman of today would look like)


Now this is running a bit too far from the original topic, so if you want to react do so by P.M. me or something.

[vartan]

Why does everybody think "super obese" by just saying fat? I have never talked about obese people, cos I do know they are not able to perform heavy physical movements. If you cannot jump you're pretty messed up, and a regular fattie can jump.

I was in Europe and certainly their idea of 'normal' is far more reasonable IMO than our (American) idea. That is to say that here the word 'fat' has (at least by now) gotten this connotation of not only overweight but practically obese. It's disgusting and just as bad if not worse than the obesity itself.

[NoHelmet]

Hard life is what produces true "strenght". Rural and remote areas usually produce REALLY tough men. I have a lot of contact with people from the interior that have truly hard lives, and they are not to be angered. Some people may have genetic predispositions that give them a headstart, but without constant work it's useless. Strongest and toughest men i know are hillmen that worked from the day they were born. Oh, and for extra weight, it helps every time you get hit, as a rugby player, i know that. Injuries are lighter, you heal quicker and have extra colision mass.

[Geticus]

There is abundant ancient historical evidence of cultural disparities and ethnic differences in military performance and physical capacity. According to Herodotus, after the Persian conquests Kuros the Great advised the Persian nation not to migrate to Tigris/Euphrates region, on the grounds that they would become mollified by the luxurious lifestyles associated with Babylonian agriculture (date palms etc.) and become physically weaker, ceasing to qualify as a nation of conquerors. The Spartans are well known to have rejected many luxuries present in other cities, their sheepskin coats were notorious symbols of their hardihood, their black broth that they ate everyday was infamous for its unpleasant taste, their entire lifestyle was militarily geared in order to produce a greater median level of martial fortitude than the citizens of all other Hellenic poleis, this is one cause of the Spartan reputation for invincibility in massed melee combat for a long period until Spartan oliganthropy became obvious and they suffered the defeat at Leuktra. Similarly the old Romans had a peculiar culture of morals associated with hard work, piety, and military virtue known as mos maiorum, which was considered by Roman historians as one major cause for the superior manhood displayed by the Roman legions through centuries of successful wars. In general the Romans considered themselves to be harder working, more modest, more morally resolute, and having greater powers of bodily endurance than the average Celt or Teutonic northerner, whereas both Celts and Teutons were viewed as taller, larger, and harder striking in the initial charge, hence the often repeated Roman addage about the Celts being more than men during the initial charge, and less than women at the end of a battle as exhaustion set in. I also recall a statement by Procopious during the time of the East Roman emperor Justinian I, Procopius was secretary to Belisarios who was one of the most successful of all Roman generals, Belisarios commanded a mercenary army attracted from all over including Moors, Huns, many Germanic tribes including the Lombards and Heruls, and Procopius affirmed that the Scandinavians were the strongest men in the world during his time and that the Danes were reputed to be the tallest. Likewise during that era Moorish mercenaries were famous for agility and quickness. Also noteworthy was Belisarios request to Justinian during the second phase of the Ostrogothic War, as the East Roman fortunes began to decline Belisarios sent to Justinian a request for more money, and especially for as many Hunnish mercenaries as possible, proving again that the Hunnish horsemen were still the most elite and desirable mercenaries in the European theater of war despite the political decline of the Hunnish kingdoms after the death of Attila. One might also look at late western imperial literature, Vegetius' Epitoma Rei Militaris composed during the time of Theodosius I (c. 385) affirmed very clearly that during the late western imperial era, the best military manpower in the Roman Empire came from Gaul and the northern provinces, because of the natural robust constitution and capacity to withstand bloodshed that was common among the Celtic subject population. This demonstrated a drastic shift from the Julio-Claudian period when Italian manpower reigned supreme throughout Europe. This clearly foreshadowed Rome getting sacked multiple times by the Goths and Vandals as the city of Rome no longer actually contained large numbers of citizens physically qualified for the rigors of war.

[QuintusSertorius]

False, that wouldn't be practical, if the gladiators would wound themself during sparring/training(whatsoever) they wouldn't be able to perform in the arena in a short period. That's why they were a bit fat so they would heal quicker and be able to fight again.

This is a nonsense. Having more or less fat has nothing whatsoever to do with healing. Roughly speaking and for the purposes of this discussion, your body is composed of four types of tissue arranged in layers. At the top the skin cells (to keep out infection and seal everything inside). Underneath those fat cells (for insulation and padding). Underneath that muscle cells (for articulation) and lastly bone cells (for structure and support). Each regenerate or repair differently, the presence of another type makes no difference to the others.

Now having some fat can act as padding against blunt force traumas (including anything striking armour). That's why rugby players, in addition to being very muscular, don't work to strip away all their body fat. However it's of no use whatsoever against anything sharp that lacerates or punctures the skin. Furthermore, fat alone isn't sufficient padding without the bulk of developed muscles underneath them. Just being fat, without being muscular isn't going to be of much use. Just being fat won't make you as strong as someone who actually works on developing their strength.

By the way being able to jump isn't relevant, e.g. if an elephant would jump (if he's able ? dunno about that) he would break all of his legs, but that doesn't make him weak. Try moving a man/woman who's 130 kilos, you have to be strong to do that, if they try to move a normal/average weighted man they would succeed without even trying that hard. The mass has an important role.

We're talking about human beings here, an elephant is completely irrelevant. Elephants have different skeletons, different musculatures and attachments, and precisely nothing that is applicable to this discussion of human strength. Not even apes count, given their attachments and musculature are different to humans.

Being able to jump is a simple measure of strength. I'm 65 kilos, I've run with a 100 kilo man on my back. Not far (shuttles back and forth across a hall with squats at either end) but it wasn't simply picking him up and putting him down again. I can leg press 150 kilos, so I'm confident I could move a 130 kilo man. Especially if I'm applying strength with some intelligence, rather than simply trying to go power on power. There is no linkage between fat and strength, that two things might sometimes occur together doesn't mean one causes the other.

There are fat people who are strong, but in modern societies there are a lot more fat people who are weak because they are sedentary.

There is no way someone who is training at the level a gladiator or professional soldier is wouldn't be muscular, regardless of how much fat they might have. The human body is now as it was two or more millenia ago, eat correctly and train it hard, and you develop muscles.

The gladiator in this painting is how I believe they looked like. Not that muscular but with a little bit of fat. (Nowhere as how a professional sportsman of today would look like)


Now this is running a bit too far from the original topic, so if you want to react do so by P.M. me or something.

That painting was by Jean-Léon Gérôme, who created that in 1872. He had no idea what a gladiator actually looked like, he's just gone with what was a contemporary notion of how a strong man might look. Since he probably used a model who looked like that.

[Ca Putt]

why all this hassle? nobody claims fat people are stronger, just that an extra layer of fat(over the muscles) helps when you in melee as you're slightly padded and have more mass when "bouncing" towards someone^^, provided offcource that you're trained enough that you don't tire too fast that is.
thinking that gladiators would've had some fat over their muscles is not too far off as modern counterparts(not sprinters or boxers but hammertossers, wrestlers, weightlifters) often have a thick fat layer over their humongous muscles. probably some gladiator classes generally had less body fat(like the guy with the net) as they had to be agile.

i don't think anyone here claims gladiators were utter fatsoes that role into the arena rather than entering it on foot