Please depict the Gauls accurately this time (duplicate from TWcenter)

[cunctator]

I don't see why contacting CA should be useful. If they really want to depict the Celts accurately this time they will have no problem getting the required data. Unlike in 2003/2004 even the most lazy people can find decent information about Celtic oppida and their defenses after a quick wikipedia search. At least in the german wikipedia already with some relevant scientific literature listed in the bibliography.
Also CA is already aware of EB as the mentioned the mod several times favorably in the past.

[wangchang]

Yeah I explained several times that CA might not be aware that there is more to the gauls than barbarian. If they are not aware of this then they might end up making minimal research and give them the same generic barbarian feeling that they will share with the germans, britons, celtiberians...

[SirGrotius]

I've always viewed TW games as somewhat historical, in terms of concept and spirit, but I never expect them to be similar to the early Paradox Interactive games, for instance. That said, despite the OP's potentially ranting style, I agree that the Gauls were short shifted, and some bumps in their tech, look of their cities, etc. should be incorporated.

[wangchang]

I've always viewed TW games as somewhat historical, in terms of concept and spirit, but I never expect them to be similar to the early Paradox Interactive games, for instance. That said, despite the OP's potentially ranting style, I agree that the Gauls were short shifted, and some bumps in their tech, look of their cities, etc. should be incorporated.

I hope they will do that.
Like I said my main concern is the settlements : they are the only stuff who can't be corrected by mods, and they are the stuff that can make a northern campaign particularly interesting and diverse if accurately done.

[Nelson]

I would like to see oppida properly fortified. They had much better walls than the stockades they get in Rome I. IIRC, the Romans pretty much gave up trying to go through Gallic walls only to go over them at great expense.

[Fisherking]

The misconceptions and myths we have of the Celts is so pervasive that it makes it very difficult to sort truth from the xenophobic ravings of the Romans and Greeks. To them those who spoke other languages or didn’t share their culture were more animal than man and likely had little to show the cultured and civilized peoples.

Roman and Greek writings tell us that the Celts were the preeminent barbarians. They were the Boogey Men that mothers frightened their children. They dressed in skins, planted no crops, held wives in common, and painted themselves blue. Nothing much above animals screaming into battle nude, excepting the paint, of course. The Greeks of all people tell us that they had no interest in the opposite sex and disdained the company of women. Yet somehow they managed to reproduce and populate most of Europe, asexually I presume.

Am I being too harsh? The Classical World did have an overblown view of themselves, rather much like the vestigial views of the stereotypical Italian waiter. But then you have episodes like this: http://balkancelts.wordpress.com/201...tian-genocide/

What is more interesting is that all historic focus is on naked Celtic warriors while the Roman say that they took almost all of their military kit from the Celts. Helmets, swords, shields, chain mail, the list goes on. The Greeks and Macedonians tell us of them fighting in shield walls very much like the Romans. Caesar also talks of phalanx formations against his cavalry when fighting the Helvetii. We have recovered Celtic armor. We know they made breastplates, chain mail and one very distinctive type which was scale sewn to linen over chain mail. That sounds much like a brigantine over chain. Transitional armor of the middle ages.

I don’t dispute that Celtic farmers could not afford much armor or that some warriors went to battle mostly naked to prove their bravery but if they made such good armor are we still to believe they never made any use of it? I suppose it was good that some Celtic Chief showed up dressed in his grave goods so the Romans could copy it. Yet most of the records only say they fought as mobs, albeit mobs who carried standards, for what ever reason…certainly not to distinguish between units, of course.

We have descriptions of battles stating that the clothing of the enemy gave them protection from arrow and javelins. Most descriptions are very vague. Tacitus wrote that their strength lies in their infantry but some had strong a cavalry arm as well.

Much of the Barbarian motif is false propaganda, most likely for political reasons. We have no reason to believe that they only dressed in animal skins, held wives in common, and we can label a lie to the grow no crops easily. Britain and America did the same to the Germans of the First World War, taking the most cultured country in Europe and passing them off as barbarous warmongers. But that image, still in large part, persists to this day.

If they were such undisciplined fighters why were the hired by every power of the time that could manage it? Why are their cities and towns so well protected. Why did they have coinage, paved roads, and a trade network from the Atlantic to the Black Sea? The Romans not only took their kit, they also took their infantry tactics, shield wall and short sword. Roman Cavalry adopted the spath from the Celts. We have some mention of them rotating fresher troops to the for of battle and resting the others.

In describing the difference between Celtic and Celtiberian warriors it was said that the later wore leather and bronze or bronze scale instead of chainmail.

It is also interesting to note that Celts produced steel. This was an art the Romans themselves never mastered but continued to rely upon the conquered craftsmen after they were integrated into the Republic and later Empire. They also came up with pattern welding.

The Romans didn’t learn everything the Celts had to offer, however. Among the things they rejected was the iron Celtic plow. While Roman agriculture was advanced by Celtic contacts, to reach its highpoint in the late Republic and early Empire periods, it was not what it could have been. It not only cut deeper into the soil but also turned it at the same time, eliminating the need to double plow. It would seem while Pliny though the Celtic Plow superior to the Roman it was abandoned, seemingly because they though that iron would poison the soil. They did take their harvesting machine but crop rotation and fertilizers were dropped. The iron plow had to wait until the 1700s to be reintroduced in the west. In China it came into being around 450AD. Another item they seem to have disdained was soap.
Of their engineering and architecture we know little, except, they had a very good road network, built using stone or wood, their city walls we made in such a way as to make breeching by siege weapons in effective, they built with stone or wood and some buildings may have had at least three levels.

It was the Celts who improved the wheel, giving it spokes and the iron tire. They also improved the wheel hub and used iron axels. Their design remained unchanged until the invention of the pneumatic tire. They brought the world the wooden barrel too. When was the last time you saw something packaged in an amphora?

It is a myth that they did not write. They used the scripts of the Greeks and later the Roman. We have inscriptions in Gaul using the Greek alphabet and going back to roughly the same time as the first sack of Rome.

What they didn’t leave were any in-depth records, long lists of their achievements, and a bank of literature. If it was not inscribed in metal or stone it didn’t survive. But what we do know from the Romans themselves is that Gauls were in great demand as tutors and educators. More so even than the Greeks during the Empire.

Far from being the backward barbarians of Roman writings, they were sought after to teach their children. What higher recommendation could you give them?

[Gerula]

No offence, but If CA will remember only this part, where GAULS bring 300.000 mens to fight against of 40,000 Caesar's legionaries, do not expect that this time they will make them better, will remain as an unorganized gang of barbarians who fought with the Romans and lost.

[Fisherking]

Oh yes, right! Caesar would never exaggerate numbers.

What we do know of their tactics is that if they had the logistics to mass 300,000 men they would have enveloped the Romans and awaited them to attack or catch them in a massive ambush and annihilated them. Since this didn’t happen we can assume the odds were fairly even, perhaps 3 to 2 or even 2 to 1.

We know that Caesar defeated an army twice his size at Pharsalus but it was also veterans against recruits and conscripts.

[quadalpha]

Anyone have the loci classici for the more outlandish Greek and Roman descriptions of Celts?

The Celts obviously had to fight naked if the sneaky Romans took all of their military kit!

[Gerula]

Oh yes, right! Caesar would never exaggerate numbers.

Yes I think you have right, except this part.
We talk about an empire with many plots and betrayals, don't you think that they found at least some of its soldiers for money to run quickly and tell the true to Caesar's rivals: "Look, Caesar is a liar, we just beat 50,000" .They could use this against him, so definitely I do not think anyone lied about those numbers in my opinion.

[quadalpha]

As if the common soldier would know whether they were fighting 5000 of the enemy or 500000. Remember, Herodotus estimated the Persian invasion at 1.2 million.

[Gerula]

if you talk about a beginner soldier, whatever possible, but a veteran not approximately correctly estimate the number of enemies around, then I do not think we talk about Roman legionnaires. Herodotus wrote after what he may heard from others not after seeing him with his eyes

[quadalpha]

Considering that 50,000 deployed men would cover several miles, and considering the uneven and forested terrain, and even discounting the effect of fog and light on visibility, unless you have citations attesting to the arithmetic prowess of the veteran Roman soldier, I'd consider it quite unlikely that a challenge to the official numbers would have been taken seriously.

[Gerula]

Your opinion does not convince me with anything that at that time, professional soldiers couldn't able to approximate estimate correctly the number of enemies

[Fisherking]

There were many Romans who disputed Caesars claims on the numbers, particularly the Helvetii. Caesar says 380,000, others say 300,000 or just 200,000.
Modern archeologists surveyed all the areas. They found little to no evidence of such a mass migration from Helvetii lands and only one of the 15 cities of the area had been burned. Surveying the battlefield and known areas they estimated that the Helvetii set out with about 120,000 at most with roughly 20,000 warriors. Smaller than Caesars forces.
Caesar wanted to make a name for himself as a military commander. Beating up women and children would be a lot of bad press.

[Moros]

When it comes to numbers on the battlefield every sane historian of our time agrees they are inflated. It was not just Caesar it was common practise, which is also one of the reasons Caesar could get away with it. Ancient historians and writers also refer to the practice. The argument of the soldier being able to refute the numbers isn't very good either, first we all know the soldiers were rather loyal to him, furthermore few of them would have the possibility to speak up anyway as that was a very limited privilege. Then remains the question of when it was publicized. If it was after the civil wars, well you'd be a fool to speak up either way. Unless you wanted to end up on the capitol. Also due to the nature of the irregular peasants army and strategic situation I even bet Caesar wouldn't even have a clue about the numbers the army had.

Just applying modern day logic and possibilities, situations, reactions,... on the ancient period really doesn't work. Not at all actually.

[quadalpha]

Sources, anyone?

[Fisherking]

Okay, but remember, you asked for it.

Plutarch estimates 300,00 Appian 200,000
Commentarii de Bello Gallico book 1 gives us his count as 380,000

If you read German then:
archäologische Fundorte: Andres Furger-Gunti: Die Helvetier: Kulturgeschichte eines Keltenvolkes. Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Zürich 1984


H. Delbrück, Geschichte der Kriegskunst im Rahman der politischen Geschicte, vol. 1, 1900, pp. 428 & 459f.

Delbrük give the number of fighters as only 16,000 meaning Caesar had them outnumbered 2 to 1.

The Swiss still think of themselves as the Helvetii League and you will find much on the topic.

[Arjos]

Caesar 380.000ish aren't Helvetii only though, it consisted of several tribes that joined the migration...
Imo 16.000 warriors is very very limited...

Though that Caesar throughout the campaign had more professional soldiers is certain :)
All those huge figures even if reasonably reduced, are still made up of levies and youths in the vast majority...

[Vuk]

Hey FisherKing, I noticed that almost all the citations are wiki are German articles and books as well. I was wondering, did any of those ever get translated into English?

[Fisherking]

Short answer: Learn German.

I know of no translations for those references.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In English the titles would be; The Helvetii People: Cultural History of a Celtic Folk.

The second would be: History of the Art of War in Roman times, the Political History.

For instance, in English you may find two or three lines of text on the village I live in and those are uninteresting. Location and where the county seat is.

In German it is a different place, all to gather. There was a Celtic settlement here in 500 BCE. It was the largest known settlement of its type when the Romans got here. There were Irish monks setting up monasteries here before 700. The town was first mentioned in charters by its current name over 1,250 years ago. It was the seat of a duchy at one point, until the duke took on more than he should have and got the ax. There was even what one could, laughably, call a battle here in WWII.

My house sits next to an old moat, known on maps as the black ditch. It was once the mote for the largest moatted castle in Bavaria. Now it is mostly pasture land and a train station. The little Schloss across the river was built after the other was burned and dates from the late 17 or early 1800s. It had one of the earliest train stations in Germany, built in 1832.

Before WWI Germany was known as the most cultured and civilized country in Europe. When war broke out it became the land of militaristic barbarians, and sadly the propaganda has never been refuted and there is not much interest in translating histories from German.

We are missing a lot, but you don’t miss what you don’t know, do you?

[quadalpha]

Well, that sounds a bit unfair, both before and after the war. I suspect the lack of translation is due to the general scarcity of any academic translation. The Delbrück is also over 100 years old and likely superseded by new research, historically if not theoretically.

[Fisherking]

Like many topics, the Celts draw different attitudes depending on language to a great extent. The French , Swiss, and some regions of Germany see themselves as Celts or Gaulls, whereas the British see themselves more in the light of modern heirs of Rome. This attitude may even carry over a bit with Americans. At any rate we get some very childish accounts about them written in English. In other languages some of the accounts may be a bit overblown.

I took it on as a historical specialty in the early 1970s when it was quite obscure. Research was difficult but you had few people knowledgeable enough to question your conclusions. By the end of the 1970s and even into the present much of the information was colored by new-age philosophy and would be shamen who thought of the Celts only in the tales of the Irish Heroic Age or as Europe’s answer to Indians. Needless to say that put off even more serious research.

I know the French have done some extensive digs and found quite a bit but I don’t read French. The Germans have made some large finds as well but much of the information has not been published in full, as yet. I think I have heard of some major finds in the Czech Republic too. At the best of times German is not easy to translate to English and most of it, to me, comes off bad. Written German is even worse than spoken when it comes to us non native speakers trying to wade through it. Luckily I use my wife to translate a great deal of it.

Good luck with your search.

[quadalpha]

I've looked at some Celtiberian inscriptions. Here's a primer if anyone's interested: http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/v...ordan_6_17.pdf

[Vuk]

Short answer: Learn German.

I know of no translations for those references.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In English the titles would be; The Helvetii People: Cultural History of a Celtic Folk.

The second would be: History of the Art of War in Roman times, the Political History.

For instance, in English you may find two or three lines of text on the village I live in and those are uninteresting. Location and where the county seat is.

In German it is a different place, all to gather. There was a Celtic settlement here in 500 BCE. It was the largest known settlement of its type when the Romans got here. There were Irish monks setting up monasteries here before 700. The town was first mentioned in charters by its current name over 1,250 years ago. It was the seat of a duchy at one point, until the duke took on more than he should have and got the ax. There was even what one could, laughably, call a battle here in WWII.

My house sits next to an old moat, known on maps as the black ditch. It was once the mote for the largest moatted castle in Bavaria. Now it is mostly pasture land and a train station. The little Schloss across the river was built after the other was burned and dates from the late 17 or early 1800s. It had one of the earliest train stations in Germany, built in 1832.

Before WWI Germany was known as the most cultured and civilized country in Europe. When war broke out it became the land of militaristic barbarians, and sadly the propaganda has never been refuted and there is not much interest in translating histories from German.

We are missing a lot, but you don’t miss what you don’t know, do you?

Ah, crap. My two semesters of German in College (that I forget entirely) certainly won't be of any use. :P Thanks.

[Gerula]

I saw here only words of praise for Barbarians such as: levy, conscript, youth,etc and you all have forgotten that they were born under the warrior mentality. I think most of this barbarians were warriors before anything else

[Tuuvi]

I saw here only words of praise for Barbarians such as: levy, conscript, youth,etc and you all have forgotten that they were born under the warrior mentality. I think most of this barbarians were warriors before anything else

You need to play yourself some Europa Barbarorum. Or read some history books.

[Gerula]

You need to play yourself some Europa Barbarorum. Or read some history books.

I can not find anything relevant to what you say
p.s: and playing EB is like I will learn the pure truth about history. lol
I'm not sure where you going with these comments.

[Arjos]

I think most of this barbarians were warriors before anything else

Ethos doesn't pay for equipment, in the modern terminology they were all warriors, but in keltic society being a warrior meant having wealth and power...
Those levies and youths, although living in a warlike culture, having developed an according mentality and survived that specific environment, still couldn't do much against well armed legionaries...

[Gerula]

Ethos doesn't pay for equipment, in the modern terminology they were all warriors, but in keltic society being a warrior meant having wealth and power...
Those levies and youths, although living in a warlike culture, having developed an according mentality and survived that specific environment, still couldn't do much against well armed legionaries...

if I am remember correctly, I think Romans copied almost everything they could get from Celts, especially shield and helmet for their armies and thus tend to believe that Celts wasn't so unarmed against Romans, contrary