Has anyone here read Michael P. Speidel's Ancient Germanic Warriors?

[SaFe]

So, were these people dismounting from the horses (which could be carrying two) and then fighting, like later dragoons? Or were the horses going slower and being used more like raised fighting platforms?

Do you ask about germanic style of fighting or makedonian?

[Maeran]

Do you ask about germanic style of fighting or makedonian?

Either, but I figured there would be more literary evidence of Diadochi tactics.

[SaFe]

Well, "typical" germanic cavalry warfare during the mentioned timeframe looked like a horsemen with one or two framea (a spear capable of throwing and melee) was accompanied by a young and agile man armed with mostly a long dagger or a frame too. While moving towards the enemy the rider throws one frame at the enemy line while the mount put up speed.
His companion all the while retained his grip on the mane of the horse and runs alongside the rider.
In the moment before the clash the charging germanic horsemen nearly dodged ( no stirrups ) his opponent and thrust his frame at the enemy horsemen while the young running warrior stabs the enemies horse through the belly.
Very effective and succesful tactic b.t.w.

The same tactic could be used vs. enemiy infantry, because the running warrior could so put up great speed for a charge while using his frame in this kind of clash.

B.t.w. germanic warriors loathed their gallic counterparts because of the stirrups they used. It was seen as unmanly for a warrior.

In the known battles between gallic and germanic cavalry those warriors almost ever came up on top and were highly desired as mercenaries by the romans.


One totally different point though:
Another reason why germanic troops often defeated celtic armies is because of discipline.
Sounds curious from a roman or greek view but it is known that while for celtic warriors war was a kind of show of personal bravery and honour germanic armies fought for plunder survival and personal wealth.

So, while celtic armies often became disorganized after the first clash and everyone fought for himself, germanic troops were trained to fight alongside their brothers, fathers and uncles in a typical tribesmen attitude.
Think of the typical shieldwall the vikings or saxon used much later for example.

Another note about germanic honour though:
It was not seen as shame or discgrace to leave the battlefield in a organized way to fight another day, but the shame to come home with your chieftain fallen on the battlefield or come home without the own shield (anyone think of Spartans here ?) was such a disgrace, it was often heard of commiting suicide by hanging from a tree ( one of Wodanaz' holy symbols ).

Another resemblance to the spartans akin the shield-thing was the acception or abadonemnd of a men's childs and the upbringing of the male childs.
Caesar quoted King Ariovist of the Suebians (Sweboz) about the young suebians who had not lived under a roof for many years and were only trained for war.
Although this point about the young tribesmen could not evidenced i think it is interesting and perhaps something new for some of EB's fans.

[paullus]

B.t.w. germanic warriors loathed their gallic counterparts because of the stirrups they used. It was seen as unmanly for a warrior.

Um, you mean saddles?

And on discipline, have you read Lendon's book, Soldiers and Ghosts? He outlines how the Greeks, even when fighting in the phalanx, could still possess a "dueling," individual performance-based mentality. I think you're too quick to say the Gauls cared about individual honor and their battle lines broke apart, while the Germans stayed in their shield walls with their chieftain. I'm tempted to say you're relatively accurate with the Germans, but off base with the Gauls.

Let's also not forget that we don't know that the German's won their westward expansion through primarily pitched battle. In fact, I rather doubt that. Raids on farmlands and villages would fit more with their modus operandi, and over time would force the Gauls westward, as lands were burned and people slain. Sure, pitched battles and sieges would take place, ruined oppida reveal as much, but I doubt they would accurately characterize the majority of the fighting.

[SaFe]

Um, you mean saddles?

Naturally correct - my bad english - Sorry

[Frostwulf]

Sorry Viking, I didnt mean to change the subject of this thread. I just figured it was close to the subject of the book and asked the questions. I hope you dont mind me continuing on this course, if so just say so and we can start a new thread.

Safe, I have to agree with you on most of what you said. Your comments fit my recollection of what I have read. My ignorance mostly is about Celtic warfare prior to 100bc with the arrival of the Teutons,Cimbri and Ambrones. From the limited reading I have done, the Celts before 100 bc still had a hard time with the romans. And if Im not mistaking this is prior to the marius legion reforms. I know the Celts under Brennus did some major damage to the Romans but then again they would have a back and forth struggle. Ill restate that this is from my limited knowledge of the Celts prior to 100bc.
The German cavalry that chased the Celts in Caesars book didnt have the runners with them, at least I dont recollect them being there. I know later on there were numerous times when that did happen.

I do have some questions though.
1. Is it possible to make the runner cavalry in EB?
2.Historically there was the teutonicus furor or something like that. Im sure the Celtic and other "barbarian" tribes would have something simular. In EB is there anything like the battle cry?
3.I still have a problem with the Gaesatae being that tough. According to the stats they are better then the spartans. I have a hard time believing that. If it was based on unit formation such as the legion, I could understand that. But from what I read thats not the case. I just dont see how (drugged, fanatical) or whatever non-armored unit is going to face a unit of people who spend most of there lives learning to fight and come out on top. What are your thoughts on this?

The more I play this mod the more I like it. I think these guys did a great job.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

1. Is it possible to make the runner cavalry in EB?

I don't think so, but would be really pleased to see that, anyway.

2.Historically there was the teutonicus furor or something like that. Im sure the Celtic and other "barbarian" tribes would have something simular. In EB is there anything like the battle cry?

Furor teutonicus is not a warcry, it just means "teutonic anger". Romans described them so because they were really frightened of theese tough warriors.

But I wonder why there is almost no warcry anymore in the game. Wasn't the warcry quite common for barbarian warriors? I've read in a book that the Ambrones cried the name of their tribe in the battle of Aquae Sextiae (it didn't help them that day, btw), and their opponents were always frightened of that.

[SaFe]

Safe, I have to agree with you on most of what you said. Your comments fit my recollection of what I have read. My ignorance mostly is about Celtic warfare prior to 100bc with the arrival of the Teutons,Cimbri and Ambrones.
The German cavalry that chased the Celts in Caesars book didnt have the runners with them, at least I dont recollect them being there. I know later on there were numerous times when that did happen.

1. Is it possible to make the runner cavalry in EB?
2.Historically there was the teutonicus furor or something like that. Im sure the Celtic and other "barbarian" tribes would have something simular. In EB is there anything like the battle cry?

I think we can assume that the Teutonii or Teutones were really at least half celtic and not a pure germanic tribe buth mixed together with theri germanic "partners" on the migration.
While the Cimbrii and Ambrones are definately germanic.

The Baritus (germanic warcry) was rather different from normal warcries.
It started when the warriors were ready with a dull and slow kind of moaned chanting of the own tribe's name - from that point on getting louder and louder - enhanced by the fact that every warrior hold his own shield directly before his mouth which made the Baritus more resonant.
It must have been a very, very frightening sound as it was no typical screech or just plainless insults of the enemy.
BUT - germanic armies were known to be very superstitious.
If, by some matter the Baritus was broken or sounds oddly in their own ears it could be devasting for their own morale.
As i worked as germanic faction coordinator a few months ago i was try to implement the Baritus very eagerly and Jasper (The Tank) told me - now that he is in charge - he is still trying to give the germanic units this ability.

B.t.w. at this time we already had a beautiful sound recording of the Baritus.

As to your other question:
The runner cavalry is modelwise not possible. At least that was told me different times as i tried to implement this important unit to get rid of the typical defeats germanic cavalries suffer in the game by their gallic counterparts. Perhaps the frighten enemy talent helps here. Don't know for sure.

[Kull]

The runner cavalry is modelwise not possible. At least that was told me different times as i tried to implement this important unit to get rid of the typical defeats germanic cavalries suffer in the game by their gallic counterparts.

We actually had this unit included in v.74, but the problem was you couldn't get it to run as fast as a horseman, and you definitely couldn't get indivdual foot units to pair up with a cavalryman. Although.....(heads off to "New Concepts" forum with a completely insane idea)

[SaFe]

We actually had this unit included in v.74, but the problem was you couldn't get it to run as fast as a horseman, and you definitely couldn't get indivdual foot units to pair up with a cavalryman. Although.....(heads off to "New Concepts" forum with a completely insane idea)

I'm really awaiting those insane ideas of your EB-structured mind.

[Conqueror]

Could that be done in MTW2 though? If you can have differently equipped soldiers in the same unit then could you mix mounted and foot soldiers in the same unit?

[Geoffrey S]

3.I still have a problem with the Gaesatae being that tough. According to the stats they are better then the spartans. I have a hard time believing that. If it was based on unit formation such as the legion, I could understand that. But from what I read thats not the case. I just dont see how (drugged, fanatical) or whatever non-armored unit is going to face a unit of people who spend most of there lives learning to fight and come out on top. What are your thoughts on this?

Two things. First, the Spartans weren't the elite in 272 that they were earlier. Second, the Gaesatae were not inexperienced lunatics: they were highly experienced fighters who took drugs to shrug off pain. They didn't simply throw themselves at a line in some disorderly fashion but were also expert swordsmen. The need for armour isn't necessary in such a case and may even hamper maneuverability enough to prevent full use of the blade.

[Teutobod II]

Well, "typical" germanic cavalry warfare during the mentioned timeframe looked like a horsemen with one or two framea (a spear capable of throwing and melee) was accompanied by a young and agile man armed with mostly a long dagger or a frame too. While moving towards the enemy the rider throws one frame at the enemy line while the mount put up speed.
His companion all the while retained his grip on the mane of the horse and runs alongside the rider.
...In the moment before the clash the charging germanic horsemen nearly dodged ( no stirrups ) his opponent and thrust his frame at the enemy horsemen while the young running warrior stabs the enemies horse through the belly.
Very effective and succesful tactic b.t.w...
In the known battles between gallic and germanic cavalry those warriors almost ever came up on top and were highly desired as mercenaries by the romans...

There is no real Germanic cavalry, they are actually only better trained warriors on horseback who would also dismount and fight on foot...
a Germanic specialty was to cut the attacking horses knee tendons - maybe that was their success against the Gaul cavalry ?

[SaFe]

There is no real Germanic cavalry, they are actually only better trained warriors on horseback who would also dismount and fight on foot...
a Germanic specialty was to cut the attacking horses knee tendons - maybe that was their success against the Gaul cavalry ?

Here i disagree with you - a example is the description of the battle between Ariovist and Caesar. And in this battle it is definately clear that the germanics had a cavalry clash with the romans and did not dismount before.
Also a battle between the Aedui and the Suebians is mentioned in this way.

Alone for the previously described tactic the germanic had to train those fast runners along with horsemen over a long time.

But i agree with you when you mean they had no typical cavalry that was only trained for cavalry warfare, because germanic horsemen were very versatile and could dismount if necessary.