Celtic overpowered!

[Frostwulf]

Right. Must've been awfully half-assed about following up their victories then, given how bloody large territories the Celts in general and Gauls in particular still controlled in the 1st century BC. And were able to spare the manpower for some pretty big campaigns - indeed, at least one full-scale migration as well - on the side.

Are we to believe these mighty all-conquering warriors who scattered Celtic warbands like sticks into the wind before them lacked the inclination to take their lands too or something ? Perhaps they thought it unsporting...?

Could it be that they were land hungry and once they kicked out the Celts they settled the land? As more tribes started growing they kept displacing the Celts? Rankin thinks the Celtic hill forts may have held them for awhile. The Helvetii were forced out of their territory by the Germans in the 1st century BC. The Germans did take their land:

H.D. Rankin-"Celts and the Classical World"-"By the end of the sixth century BC, the Germans had expanded into Belgium and the southern part of Holland. They occupied both banks of the lower Rhine, and they reached as far south as the Ardennes.

H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical World"-"We begin to learn of significantly insistent Germanic penetration into Celtic Lands in the first Century BC. The Celtic Helvetii moved out of western Switzerland in 58BC: their migration was caused by Germanic pressure." pg.20

Or that the Celts sat on their thumbs for four hundred years getting beat up by their neighbours and never once tried to come up with ways to turn the tables ?

I'm sure they tried, they just failed is all. If you have information contrary to this please post it.

And if the Roman record of fighting the Celts even pre Caesar etc. really was that one-sided, one really has to wonder at the Celtic enthusiasm to try major raids against them over the centuries... Are we to believe the Celtic warrior class had a collective pathological death wish, marching to supposed certain doom like that ?
Nevermind now the fact Cisalpine Gaul did hold out for a fairly long time against the increasingly overwhelming might of Rome. Given the Roman flair for ruthless opportunism one really has to wonder why they didn't just walk in and grind the nasty trouser-wearing buggers under their sandals the second they could spare an army from fighting the Carthaginians and Hellenics, if they now were so militarily superior...

I have the list of the battles posted here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=144
The Celts held out so long because the Romans were busy conquering central and southern Italy.

H.D. Rankin “Celts and the Classical World”-“The First Punic War had prevented the Romans from dealing finally with the Celtic menace. It was after this war that the Celts made their concerted attack of 225BC: it may have been intended as a pre-emptive attack by the Celts but it was much too late for this purpose. Then came Hannibal’s invasion of Italy, which prevented the Romans from bringing the Celtic question to a conclusion for a number of years.” pg113

You line of reasoning lacks credibility I'm afraid. If both the Germans and the Romans had held such a clear advantage over the Celts in battle already so early on, independent of any domestic trouble the latter might have developed, then why the Hell did it take them so bloody long to conclusively overrun them ? Answer that.

For the Germans that is just speculation on my part as to why they stopped when they did. For the Romans they were conquering central and southern Italy first. The Romans were interrupted from dealing with the Celts as Rankin and others say. Again I answer that in the above link.
So I have Rankin,Dyson,Connoly,James and etc. for credibility, what do you have?

*shrug* The Gauls were richer and better metalworkers so logic dictates their top guys had better war gear. As these also were the creme de creme of their warrior class (given the logic of their "promotion" system) they should obviously be pretty hardcore. The German top dudes might have enough accumulated experience to make up the difference, but I find the prospect somewhat difficult to accept - we're talking highly trained crack veterans on both camps here; all other things being equal the advantage in a straight slugging match then per definition goes to the guys with the better war gear.

I agree that the Gauls would be outfitted better then the Germans for the most part. Prior to Caesar we don't really have any written records of battles between the Germans and the Gauls. All we know prior to Caesar is that the Germans were encroaching on the Celtic territory's. From Caesar's writings during his time we know that the Germans were martially superior to the Celts.

And *I* still think you're severely biased in favour of the Germans. Personally I find the parity to be somewhat generous, but I guess it's the only way to simulate, within the confines of the game engine, the way well-practised militia troops can match professionals by means of well-thought tactics, teamwork and group cohesion.

Of course I am, I am also a Roman apologist, and maybe in time I'll be a Graecophile.
I agree with you about the game engine and its confines.

[PSYCHO V]

First off the important things: Psycho I pray for your grief to subside, happiness to renew and fond memories to remain..

Thanks mate

No need for apologies… sometimes it will take me a few days to complete one post. Sometimes it will take multiple days to weeks to get back to a reply..

Cheers.

Secondly, Jame’s comment “that the vast armies commanded by Vercingetorix and others were assemble only as a response to the great threat from Rome. In fact, Rome changed the very rules of Celtic warfare, bringing large armies into an area”.. I have to say is ridiculous. Did Rome have anything to do with the large forces involved in Spain, Greece or Anatolia hundreds of years prior Vercingetrix? Was the Gallic victories and sacking of Etruscan and Roman cities a response to Rome…no, it was a Gallic initiative. Gallic states had long used large forces before any Roman influence.

You forgot to put in this part "Rome changed the very rules of Celtic warfare, bringing large armies into an area where, internally at least, they may have been much rarer before."

I “forgot” nothing. What do you suppose was the cause of these mass movements of Gallic warriors! Even your beloved Livy states that these groups had come into being due to internal pressures and turmoil. Was the battle of Admagetobriga a response to Rome?

James even acknowledges that Rome and Greece had no influence in the development of these large Gallic states (pg 120) and the associated employment of force, so he appears to contradict himself when suggesting that large Celtic forces were a response to Rome.

James is talking about the urbanization of Gaul, he says nothing here about the "associated employment of force" here. Your throwing them together when they are two separate issues in separate chapters.

Actually, by this juncture he is talking about the generic development of the various power blocks / proto-states, etc… and no, they are not two separate issues. One’s prosperity / power depended on the number of clients / retainers / forces.

..why was it necessary for the Gauls (with the exception of the Belgae) to have to arm and train their armies anew on the arrival of Caesar? They were a mobilized militia because the warrior caste was all but wiped out previously, in the war you deny happened.

Venceslas Kruta-"The Celts"-"…cavalry totally replace the war-chariots ..blah blah blah." pg.110

Stephen Allen-"Lords of Battle, the World of the Celtic Warrior"-"The nature of Celtic warfare changed … to large conflicts between tribal confederations …A major consequence was the increasing importance of cavalry …blah blah blah." pg.83

Stephen Allen-"Lords of Battle, the World of the Celtic Warrior"-" By this period, the elite Gallic warriors who provided the urban aristocracies with their armed retainers were almost entirely cavalry…blah blah blah" pg.132

I know you like to post alot of quotes but I fail to see what has this has got to do with the price of tea in China?

…Romans>Germans>Celts
…The Germans outclassed the Celts..regardless of the territory.
…The Celts were not as good as the Romans nor the Germans.
…I believe the German warrior to be superior.
…The Germans should be superior to them (Gauls).

I don't think it was the infighting but the external force that may have brought them (Gauls) low…. If there was any weakening to the Celts during Caesar's time it was because of the Germans which Caesar himself alludes to..

I'm afraid I'm going to have to quote your own words back to you.

Do you know of any reputed author, paper, or anything on this subject? If you mention the book, paper or whatever research I will be more then happy to read it.

Goldsworthy “Caesar” -“ Throughout the Gallic campaigns German warriors consistently defeated their Gallic counterparts, each success adding to their fierce reputation… The tactics and the quality of the Germanic warriors usually gave them the edge over the Gaulish cavalry”

As I mentioned previously, repetition does not a good argument make when one ignores context. Context ! Ie “Throughout the Gallic campaigns”

Its not just me claiming this. I will repeat myself and say yes Goldsworthy is saying in the Gallic campaigns, but thats because his subject was Caesar and his time frame.

Really? I don’t see anyone else claiming the Germans to be innately superior throughout several hundred years of history.

Some are saying that the "Civil War" with the Sequani, Arverni vs. the Aedui (there were others involved) in 70-60 BC was devastating and nearly brought all these tribes to ruin. I am disagreeing with this on the basis of the findings of Simon James and the writing of A. Goldsworthy.

So at the end of the day, all you have is a quote about how the Gauls didn’t wage total war (James) and how the German units fought well in the 1st C BC (Goldsworthy)…just before they (Gauls) were overrun. Hardly a convincing argument there my friend

As I have said ad naseum, there were several factors that lead to the Gallic demise not one issue only. You have to look at the big picture, remember my analogy of the White Elephant? Internal martial and political weakness, fiscal prosperity, centralisation of governance, external military and socio-economic pressure, both internal and external population pressures, etc etc all contributed. Like the fall of most states / empires, one would be naïve to just to consider the most obvious. Did the western Roman empire fall because they could not stop the Germanic Master Race in 410 AD, no. Just like the Gauls, there were years of decline / political instability, civil war, etc etc that contributed.

Anyone who aims to understand the human past - must seek out the remaining driftwood of earlier times, traces surviving in the present: old documents, objects, monuments, etc. They must then use these, applying their knowledge of how the world works, to construct histories. (Simon James, University of Leicester, UK, 10 September 2005)

You will also have to remember the Romans were defeating the Gauls well before the supposed "Devastating Civil War".

And the Transalpine Gauls were defeating the Romans as well (before the civil war)..even as late as 63 BC. Your point?

The Celts were being defeated most of the time by a pre-Marius conscript army. The Romans were generally outnumbered and won the majority of the battles.

Oh here we go again! The perceptual short cut.


my2bob

[PSYCHO V]

Gday again Frosty. You have posted quite a few comments which I would like to address but don’t think I’ll have time to do so now. This for starters...

The Eubrones (sic) were a Germanic speaking people, and they were part of the Belgae.

Well they may have been bi-lingual and spoken German (we don’t know) but they definitely had Celtic customs, culture and tongue. Further, the Eburones (‘yew people’) were not Belgae but rather (along with the Treveri, Levaci, Condrusi, Caeroesi, Paemani, Segni and Ceutrones), remnants of the Moselle Celts.

“Other tribes who appear to have descended from these Moselle Celts, who had occupied that entire region in the early La Tene period, were the Eburones, a small but hardy group in the forest of the Ardennes….” (The Celts a History, The Destruction of Gaul, pg 149 – Daithi O’Hogain)

Caesar said that the Eburones, Condrusi, Caerosi and Paemani were Germanic.

No, Caesar said that the aforementioned were “known as German tribes”. Known to whom? The ‘Marne’ tribes of central Gaul from which Caesar was getting his information. Why?, because the Marne Celts regarded the Moselle Celts, who happen to have had a thriving culture on the Rhine,.. as easterners / ‘Germans’ (1st C BC). Not too dissimilar to how the Allies of WWI / WWII referred to Germans as Huns.

For the Belgae about the only thing we know of them is they intermingled early on with the Celts in now northern France.

Not true, we know a little more than that.

The Belgae (‘furious ones’), like all Celts, had originally come from Germany. More specifically, they appear to have originated between the Tauber and Main rivers. These were an adventurous people who had their origins in the warrior cults of central Germany that thrived with the collapse of the old Celtic Halstatt chiefdoms. Some Belgae nobility may have even been descendants of the old Halstatt regimes. Some scholars claim they were related to the Volcae.

We also know about many aspects of their material culture. We know of their distinctive art, type and quality of arms, antiquated (by ‘Marne’ standards) ceramics and methods of manufacture, antiquated smithing techniques and treatment of the dead, etc etc.

And whilst you may believe the Belgae to be Germanic because their martial prowess fits in with this ‘master race’ hypothesis, facts say otherwise. Of course, if you dig around long enough you will be able to find some great quotes to support this very old myth.

Belgae history (like all Celtic history) has been written and re-written over centuries, swayed by the tumult of ethno-political events, movements and agendas,... only recently being clawed back from obscurity. They have suffered from agenda based revisionism since the first accounts of their existence were recorded.

This revisionism, was given new impetus in the ‘new dawning’ of European national identity.

When the last Breton army was defeated in 1488 by the French, the Bretons were forced to sign the Treaty of Union between Brittany and France. Frenchman Jean le Fevre was sponsored by his King to write ‘Les Fleurs et Antiquitez des Gaules, ou il est traits des Anciens Philosophes Gaulois applelez Druides’ (1532) in which he stated “we are all Celts now”, claiming that the Germanic Franks and Celto-Belgae Bretons were all of the one Celtic stock.

Elias Schedius claimed that Belgae and Germans were the same people and that the Druids were the ancestors of all German peoples (1648, De Dis Germanis).

By the mid 1700s the French were again having problems with the Bretons. French centralist policies were encroaching on Brittany’s autonomous status, guaranteed under the Acts of Union and several Breton leaders had been executed for attempting to reassert Breton independence. Simon Pelloutiers was sponsored by his King to write another work, claiming that “the religion of the Germanic Franks and the Celtic Belgae was one and the same thing” (1740, Histoire des Gaulois).

Not surprising that the Nazis drew heavily on such texts to support their ethnic theories on the Aryan race. The myth lives on!

William H. Maehl-"Germany in Western Civilization pg.7"-"On the eve of the mastery of Germany, ..blah blah blah …. As the second century BC dawned, Germany was under the domination of one race at last. However, that race could no longer claim to be pure…

Even if one ignored how dated this work is, doesn’t this strike you as a little odd? Do you think Maehl is being completely dispassionate and objectivity considering his ‘measured’ choice of words.

I could make a considerable list of the authors who don't mention the supposed "Devastating Civil War".

We’ll if you keep quoting stuff as dated as this, I wouldn’t be surprised.

I know because it runs counter to your hypothesis of the German Master Race.

As I have said earlier I'm neither an apologist nor of Germanic or Roman ancestry. Just in case the subject comes up… Just because I disagree with you is no reason for you to allege such things.

Ooo k…? The above comment has nothing to with the aforementioned. The comment was made because it exhibits the same perceptual shortcut. You like things simple and generic, I have just offered assistance by providing an appropriate nomenclature for your hypothesis.

…Romans>Germans>Celts
…The Germans outclassed the Celts..regardless of the territory.
…The Celts were not as good as the Romans nor the Germans.
…I believe the German warrior to be superior.
…The Germans should be superior to them (Gauls).

I notice a propensity to dismiss my comments and religiously quote / defer to that which is published / mentioned by others….. so it seems I’m going to have to do a little quoting myself… and I hate having to type stuff out.

“It is not surprising that they (Gauls) are still being reinvented at this time because, in our sad and sorry contemporary world, people still want a quick fix because people, in the quest for truth and meaning in life, which seems the perennial human drive, prefer simple answers. It is easier to accept the cosy pictures than ponder the uncomfortable realities…” - (Dr Peter Berresford Ellis)

Again, seeing as you like quotes I happened to be speaking with Dr James on Tuesday and mentioned our debate. In response to the your supposition that the Germans were superior to the Gauls he stated, and I quote:

“The Germans were not superior, then or more recently. Though they clearly were tough soldiers..” – (Dr Simon James PhD BSc FSA, Tuesday 11th September 2007, University of Leicester, UK)

Do you know of any reputed author, paper, or anything on this subject? .

Did I happen to mention how much I hate retyping stuff…

“Transalpine Gaul was suddenly seized with social and political turmoil. Following the Roman defeat of the Arverni in 121 BC, most of the inhabitants of region were plunged into a devastating civil war. The Aedui with their clients challenged the weakened Arverni and her allies in order to reassert prior claims of leadership and regain control of the lucrative trade routes that ran through the Rhone river valley.
Over the course of this protracted conflict, both sides became exhausted. In 71 BC, the Arverni and their allies the Sequani, sought desperate new measures to bring a favourably end to the conflict. They hired Germanic mercenaries from various tribes across the Rhine.
The leader of this mercenary body, the Seubi king Ariovistus, quickly noted the weakened military condition of the Gauls and immediately began exerting his own power, first amongst his ‘hosts’ the Sequani and then to the surrounding tribes. Towns were seized, hostages taken and considerable re-enforcements acquired from across the Rhine. The Aedui attempted to mobilise a Gallic resistance to this German incursion but support was limited. The united Gallic militia proved to be no match for Ariovistus’ mercenaries and the Gauls were slaughtered in 61 BC at a battle near Admagetobriga,” – (‘Indo-European History’, ‘La Tene Gaul’, XVI, 5.63, Univerzita Karlova v Praze)

When it comes to the Germans what else can you do? You only have information from certain time periods... You take the information you have and apply it the best you can.

So if we didn’t have any understanding of ancient Rome you would be happy to directly extrapolate knowledge of modern day Italy? Look at the big picture!

The difference between ancient Rome and modern Italy is vast.

You didn’t answer my question. As I said, if you had “no understanding of ancient Rome”, you wouldn’t know that now would you? The only difference here is that you regard some data expedient to substantiate your hypothesis of the Germanic Master Race… whilst other data is not.

It would be hard to compare Germans and Gauls prior to Ariovistus because of the lack of information…

Apparently not.

What real differences would their have been between the Germanics of 300BC and 100BC? The Germanics of 100BC would have the advantage of better arms and armor because of increased trade/war with the Celts/Romans. The advanced armor would for the most part only belong to the elites, not the majority of the warriors.

Again I believe you need to look at the big picture for fear of missing the wood through the trees. Your ignoring context by focusing on the Germans devoid of eternal factors. Strength is only regarded as such through the paradigm of relativity.

The German cavalry of Caesar's time were superior to that of the Gauls as shown by the events of this time. What reason would there be to assume that these same German units would have changed from earlier times?

Yes during Caesar’s time. Again strength is relative.

The point I was making (which I have made all along), is that the Germans didn’t suddenly wake up one morning in 70 BC as this elite unstoppable force you claim is inferred by Caesar in the 1st C BC. You can’t extrapolate the relative strength of the Germans during Caesar’s War to those several hundred years prior. The Gauls were comparatively weaker in the 1st C BC… as you have cited and every scholar noted. Ask yourself why?

The supposed "Devastating Civil War" started in the 120's BC, so how is it that the Germans were already pushing the Celts back 500-400BC? The Celts started expanding south during that time period, so how are they weaker? The Celts sacked Rome around 390 BC, yet up north they were being pushed back. Your theory doesn't work because your time frame is off.

(*sigh*) .. Frosty, you aren’t even talking about the same people!!

Ignoring the fact that most of the inhabitants of northern Europe were not Celtic at all but rather remnants of the Urnfield and some cases Germanic peoples (most of which had long freed themselves from their Halstatt overlords). They didn’t have an ancient cookie cutting to pop out some sort of generic Celt.

It’s extremely naïve to compare the Germano-Celtic remnants of these northern Halstatt chiefdoms to the advanced powerful La Tene ‘D’ states of Gaul.

The Menapii claim wasn’t out of context? You jump on / continually cite a few select pieces of data without acknowledging the context to support this claim that all Germans throughout all of ancient history were a superior master race ..yet cite context / dismiss similar examples involving the Gauls

I already answered this in my post before this one. Again the Sugambri, the Usipetes/Tenceri cavalry and Caesar's German mercenary cavalry they are in context. You harp on this one but ignore the others, what Gallic ones are you referring to me dismissing?

The problem is that your method of analysis appears to be completely dependant on the type of data, or should I say the interpretation one wishes to gain from the said data.

For the few examples given us of German troops during the 1st C BC (during Caesar’s war of conquest), you are quite happy play up, even make erroneous claims from events that (as you have even admitted) should never be used as supposed evidence. Eg. The Menapii.

On the other hand, when I post equivalent information about the Gauls (merely to prove how preposterous it is to extrapolate isolated events devoid of context), you appear quite comfortable dismissing them.

Eg.

You have continually cited (ad naseum) this example from Caesar’s De Bello Gallico as evidence of the German’s superiority. It’s interesting to note that you have failed to take account of a similar / more impressive event of 400 hundred Gallic cavalry routing a larger contingent (4,000) of the same Roman (Gallic) cavalry (De Bello Gallico; I.XVI.VI). This Gallic cavalry being better than the other Gallic cavalry, why? …funnily enough the victorious 400 Gauls came from a nation that managed to avoid involvement in the great Gallic civil war.

Caesars 4,000 were ambushed over extended ..and were rolled off the field. If you read the situations with the Germans this is not the case, the Germans fought pitched battles and won.
The Helvettii I already explained it, they were surprised and spread out.

Are you just making stuff up now? How did you get the “over extended, rolled off the field, spread out” bit?

Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"….the allied cavalry were ambushed and beaten by a force of Helvetion (sic) cavalry a fraction of their size." pg.215

Regarding the ambush comment, Goldsworthy has made an assumption here. There is no evidence to that effect. Caesar only states that the Helvetii engaged them on “unfavourable ground”. Some scholars believe Caesar is just excusing his defeat as he did with Gergovia and the slaughter of several thousand Romans by the puny Eburones. We will never know for sure.

If you want to adopt Goldsworthy’s rationale then one would have acknowledge the same likelihood with your beloved 800 super Germans.

Caesar states; “Our men (Gallo-Romans) who thought themselves safe from attack because the enemy’s (German) envoys had only just left Caesar and had asked for a truce that day”.

The Germans attacked whilst seeking peace! If you’re happy to accept “unfavourable ground” as evidence of an ambush then surely you would accept the surprise attack of the Germans as an ambush as well!?

As for the other accounts of Germanic cavalry in De Bello Gallico, there is nothing to suggest that they were anything other than an effective / experienced force of mercenaries. An elite force bought at a price that fought a weakened Gallic aristocracy long reduced by civil war.

A rather gross misrepresentation I’m afraid.

Ariovistus did not “dominate several Gallic factions” with just 15,000 men. The 15k were the first contingent to cross the Rhine and provide support to the Sequani. Ariovistus had not acquired hegemony over these central Gallic factions until he was reinforced by some 105,000 Seubi, Marcommanni, Vangiones, Triboci, Eudusii, Nemetes and 24,000 Harudes and then defeated what must have then been a pitiful force of Gauls at the Battle of Magetobriga. This purported 120,000 - 144,000 army of Ariovistus would have vastly outnumbered anything the Aedui confederacy could have fielded at the time, little loan what the beleaguered Sequani were capable of.

I believe your misunderstanding the numbers mentioned. The 120,000 Germans encompasses tribal peoples, not just warriors. This many troops were not there at Magetobriga, though there may have been more then the 15,000 I said.

And how, prey tell, do you know that?

Why not suggest that 4,000 Romano-Gauls that fought ‘The mighty (German) 800’ were all kids from the local pony club?

You love to repeatedly cite the example of the 800 but what about the others instances I have cited about the Gauls. Couldn’t we just as likely draw all sorts of strange conclusions / make all sorts of grandiose claims?

Remember that 430,000 of these “superior” Germans (Usipetes and Tenctheri, to which the mighty 800 belonged) ran like girls when faced with 8 Roman legions.

“The Germans threw down their weapons, deserted their standards and rushed out of their camp. When they reached the confluence of the Moselle and the Rhine, they realized that they could flee no farther. A large number were killed, and the rest plunged into the water and perished, overcome by the force of the current in their terror-stricken and exhausted state. The Romans returned to camp without a single fatal casualty, and with only a very few wounded, although a grim struggle had been anticipated against an enemy 430,000 strong.” – (De Bello Gallico; IV.XXIV.V)

Yet we have several accounts on much smaller numbers of Gauls at least putting up a fight. The 92,000 Helvetii attacking 6 legions up hill and retiring in good order. Vercingetrix’s 80,000 Gauls being surprised by an assault of 10 legions and winning..etc etc Should we now assume that the Gauls were the master race / innately superior!? ..Of course not!

One, because we know they (Germans) were there but made no attempt on Gaul, a rich and prosperous area. Two, archeology shows very little in the way of Gallic arms and armour have been found across the Rhine. What does exist tends to be dated (Halstatt 'D' / La Tene 'A') equipment use by the Celtic inhabitants who had been ruling over the local Indo-Europeans (urnfield, Germanics, etc). Three, the Gauls acted as a wall from which Germanic population pressures washed against ..even up ‘til Caesar’s time (eg. The Usipetes and Tenctheri fleeing the Seubi). .

..Yes they were there. The lands they settled could have been fine with them. .

Of course. How heavenly pleasant ……. / convenient.

It was Ariovistus who after being invited to Gaul realized that is was good land and didn't want to leave..

You don’t seriously think that the Germans were ignorant / didn't have an appreciation of what Gaul was like prior to 71 BC ....do you!?

The Germans had had extensive contact with the Gauls for centuries. The Seubi had long been heavily influenced by the Gauls. Ariovistus spoke Gallic fluently and even had a Gallic aspect to his name .. ario-vid-s (‘he who forsees’). Many scholars even believe that he had significant contingents of Gauls amongst his mercenary force.

According to William Maehl there was a increase of population and the tribes needed land which became intense in 500 BC.

But if this was the only determiner for Germanic success in 70-65BC, why didn’t the Germans overrun Gaul in 500BC etc?

Why didn't the Usipetes and the Tencteri raid the land earlier if there was such a devastating "Civil War"? It seems to me to be a minor Volkerwanderung with the Germanic tribes slowly moving forward.

Ah..of course! Silly me … they were dancing the "slow version" of the Volkerwanderung!

Again, if you are so happy citing Caesar, why ignore his statement regarding the aforementioned battle. “If anyone is alarmed by the fact that the Germans have defeated the Gauls (Battle of Magetobriga) and put them to flight, he should inquire into the circumstance of that defeat. He will find that it happened at a time when the Gauls were exhausted by a long war” (De Bello Gallico; I.XL.XIII). The Civil War you deny / dismiss.

It could be because Caesar was referring to the battles with the Germans. For some reason I cant find that quote, is it in the 1st chapter? It sounds like when he would be addressing his troops and this quote isn't there.

If you had read all of De Bello Gallico, you couldn’t have missed it. Again, you can’t just take quotes that you like and ignore those you don’t. Its bad enough to claim some scholarship as definitive truth, much worse to only use select pieces of any said work.

This is out of context. This has nothing to do with the "Gallic Civil War", its all about the Gauls being exhausted by the fight with the Germans. So yes I do deny and dismiss the supposed "Devastating Civil War".

Wow!... It never ceases to amaze me how some will only see what they want to see.

Why the bloody hell would Caesar try to calm his troops by telling them “Don’t worry about how the Germans fight! The Germans only managed to slaughter the Gauls because they slaughtered them previously”!?

It doesn’t make sense! You have to be having a lend ...surely?

The comment only makes sense when one acknowledges the context, that the Gauls had been slaughtering each other and were “exhausted by a long war”. The Civil war that you now partly deny

No. Firstly, Jame’s comment (‘Exploring the World of the Celts’ pg 74.) about “warfare was on a small scale” is true if one takes it as a generic comment applicable to all Celts across all time periods (eg. Germany, Ireland, Britain and early Gaul) but it is not applicable to Gaul in our period. Again if you have taken note of all the data and not just select bits you would have noted that he states the escalation / “increase in the scale of warfare” due to the growing states. This was the point which I made and you denied concerning the devastation wrought the Great Gallic Civil War.. which you continue to deny. See also Jame’s comments about the changes in Gallic society and the centralization of power.

He said it may have led to an increase, not- this may have led to the increase in the scale of warfare.

Oh please…semantics! Is that the best you can do?

You also ignored Goldworthy "The scale of these conflicts is hard to judge, but it is probable that the aim was the reduction of the enemy to a subject tribe through a moral defeat rather then his destruction."

Ignored? What are you talking about? This is exactly what I have been saying all along!

The Gauls didn’t engage in total war! They fought until one side had wiped out the others forces / retainers or had gained a significant advantage in such, hostages exchanged and homage paid. The problem for the Gauls was that the Civil war in question was a wide reaching conflict of large evenly balanced forces, so what followed was an attrition of the aforementioned retainers / warrior elite until the balance started to shift and the Sequani took over the leadership of the Southern alliance. The Germans were brought in, at great shame to the Sequani, to even up the numbers. The Aedui confederacy, now bereft of fighters themselves, appealed to Rome.

The 400 were the Helvetii (who authors say were under pressure from Germans to leave) defeated Caesars Gallic cavalry.
The Helvetii moved due to German pressure?

“The Helvetii ..are almost in daily conflict with the Germans, either repulsing them or themselves invading Germany….
Orgetrix… organised a conspiracy of nobleman, and persuaded his countrymen to emigrate enmass, telling that they ..could very easily conquer the whole country (Gaul). They listened the more readily to his proposal because their territory is completely hemmed in by natural barriers, etc etc…. These obstacles restricted their movement and made it more difficult to attack their neighbours… they greatly resented constraint. Considering their military prestige, and reputation for bravery, they felt that their territory …” – (De Bello GallicoI.1&2)

Caesar-"Gallic war"-XL – “In short, that these (Germans) were the same men whom the Helvetii, in frequent encounters, not only in their own territories, but also in theirs [the German], have generally vanquished, and yet cannot have been a match for our army”

Doesn’t sound like they were fleeing in panic to me.

From this it seems that is was the Germans who were the ones who had been defeating the Celts for centuries.

Well that may be your deduction but those with a little more objectivity may disagree.

The vulnerability doesn't mention the "Devastating Civil War"! Why, because its and exaggerated event.

Hmm.. “exaggerated”? .. so you're acknowledging it now?


my2bob

[Geoffrey S]

The German cavalry of Caesar's time were superior to that of the Gauls as shown by the events of this time. What reason would there be to assume that these same German units would have changed from earlier times? They would have had the same equipment, so what would have changed? I'm not referring to the armored cavalry of Ariovistus's or the TCA. I'm writing about Caesars mercenaries and the other German cavalry(Sugambri, Usipetes/Tenceri ).

What indications do you have that Germanic warfare was that stagnant? To me that sounds like equating the Marian legions to the legions of 270 bc.

The books that I have been referring to use both historical records from different ancient authors as well as archeology. Again the authors I have been reciting are amongst the best in the field.

And they are also primarily concerned with the culture of the Celts with only a very loose frame of history outside the well-documented parts with contacts with Mediterranean civilizations.

Yes but some speculation is better then others based upon reading and research. The supposed "Devastating Civil War" started in the 120's BC, so how is it that the Germans were already pushing the Celts back 500-400BC? The Celts started expanding south during that time period, so how are they weaker? The Celts sacked Rome around 390 BC, yet up north they were being pushed back. By 200BC the Germans were to the Rhine, thats nearly 80yrs before the supposed "Devastating Civil War".

Took them an awful long time to achieve that, then, certainly since the Celts were migrating all over the place in the meantime, leaving the homelands less densely populated.

You will also have to remember the Romans were defeating the Gauls well before the supposed "Devastating Civil War"

Not in every battle, but in battles that the (later!) Romans decided to include in their histories, sometimes little more than overblown skirmishes at that.

Simon James "The World of the Celts"-" the Gaul described and conquered by Caesar showed no signs of exhaustion by internal wars-it was a rich and prosperous land-so means were evidently found for limiting the damage war could cause." pg.74
A rich and prosperous land, not the lack of population your suggesting.

It was rich and prosperous, I'll agree completely, but that says nothing about the population or the state of the available troops. If anything, the wealth of the region can be taken to mean less people to divide the available means over, much like the plague in Europe for a time increased the fortunes of those that survived.

Caesar undoubtedly exaggerated the numbers of the Gauls he came against, but if you look at how many people that were in the cities of the time they certainly didn't have a population problem. Your claim that the population must have been lower because the lack of migrations, I simply counter with what really happened-Urbanization.

Urbanization is an interesting possibility that needs to be considered. But was it necessarily a good thing, like you suggest? I recall that deathrates in cities prior to modern sanitation was significantly higher that in the countryside; it's a delicate balance between population growth and decline, and quite conceivably the latte was the case. But I'll admit it's a good point that needs more thought.

If you will go back and read these posts you will see this was in response to Psyco V claiming the Celts had been defeating the Germans for centuries. You said they matched the best in the world, yet were not able to stop the Germans. The Romans were able to stop enemies that had more troops then they, if the Celts were there equal why couldn't they?

I did not say they were the best in the world; quite the opposite, I argued that by the time of Celtic decline their troops were somewhat worse and available in far smaller numbers (particularly professionals) than before, certainly in comparison to their enemies.

Again, the Germans began pushing into Celtic territory the same time the Celts were doing their expansion.

And again, you don't see a possible connection between these two expansions?

Did you not read were it says the "elite Gallic warriors"? Did you not read the quotes that I posted from Kruta that talks about their training?

Not that that counts for much, if they're constantly being lost in skirmishes with neighbouring Celts and don't accrue much experience in battle, also gradually eroding the amount of professionals that can be fielded. And they're a small elite regardless, what about the levies that are being expended against each other and also gain very little in the way of actual battle experience?

As I have said earlier the Romans were already beating the Celts with pre-Marian troops. What did you think was going to happen with post-Marian troops?

They'd get beaten. While I disagree they were consistently beaten by pre-Marian troops, and I'd say they weren't consistently beaten by Marian troops (though more regularly), I'll agree the Celtic levies and small amounts of relatively inexperienced professionals were outclassed by the professional Roman legions.

I'm glad you do contribute, I think it helps in the understanding of things. But I do have some criticisms.
1. I don't believe you read the thread very well as I have had to repeat things I have replied to Psycho V about.
2. I think your history in this area is lacking a bit. When I first started posting on this thread, I had to re-read and firm up and expand my education on this subject. I would suggest you do the same thing.
3.Where did you get your education on this subject? Most likely from the things you say generalize and condense and etc.
4. What makes you think that the Celts were so tough? Could it be from the lying Romans? Isn't it the lying Romans and the untruthful Greeks where we get the majority of our information of the battles from?

1. Replied, sure, but that doesn't mean a consensus was reached or that I agree with the reply.

2. It is a bit lacking since it's not what my studies are focused on now. But that does not mean I can't pick out what I perceive to be flawed arguments and question their reasoning.

3. And I realise their limitations.

4. Right, I see this really needs clearing up. I don't believe the Celts were the toughest bastards around. My opinion on this matter is that there is no indication of innate Germanic toughness or skill that allowed them to eventually beat the Celts, that yes, they were in general more skilled warriors and more numerous (a key point) by the time Caesar describes Gaul but that there is no indication that this state of affairs can be directly linked to the Germanics needing to be stronger than Celts or that Celts should be comparatively weaker than other factions at the start of EBs timeframe.

Geoffrey, you have been civil, so I am sorry if I came off as targeting you inappropriately or in particular, which was not my intent

No problem.

[Watchman]

Could it be that they were land hungry and once they kicked out the Celts they settled the land? As more tribes started growing they kept displacing the Celts? Rankin thinks the Celtic hill forts may have held them for awhile. The Helvetii were forced out of their territory by the Germans in the 1st century BC. The Germans did take their land:

H.D. Rankin-"Celts and the Classical World"-"By the end of the sixth century BC, the Germans had expanded into Belgium and the southern part of Holland. They occupied both banks of the lower Rhine, and they reached as far south as the Ardennes.

H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical World"-"We begin to learn of significantly insistent Germanic penetration into Celtic Lands in the first Century BC. The Celtic Helvetii moved out of western Switzerland in 58BC: their migration was caused by Germanic pressure." pg.20

...weren't those Germans who went into Belgium more or less the same bunch the Romans knew as the Belgae, and regarded as a particularly fierce and savage subspecies of the Celt proper...? Even if they originated from the Germanic culture sphere they appear to have gotten pretty Celticized in the meantime - and AFAIK the classification as "Celtic" these days goes by the basis of language and culture due to the heterogenous nature of that umbrella group, so by it they'd have become Celts through and through. Moot point.

That's a funny three-four-hundred year gap in expansion right there anyway. And given what we know of Germanic culture and mindset (and the standard pattern of both in general regarding these matters those days), that sure as Hell wasn't because they felt the poor Celts deserved a break or something.

Expansion stops from two reasons: either you run out of steam and can go no further, or the other guy keeps you from going further. And odds are the Germans weren't so short of people all those centuries they lacked the resources and impetus to try proceeding further into the rich lands of Gaul (and other choicer Celtic lands), which leaves being checked by its inhabitants the only logical explanation.

I'm sure they tried, they just failed is all. If you have information contrary to this please post it.

The rank lack of succesful German expansion at Celtic expense for centuries sounds pretty conclusive to me, doubly so given the highly warlike nature of both peoples.

I have the list of the battles posted here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpo...&postcount=144
The Celts held out so long because the Romans were busy conquering central and southern Italy.

H.D. Rankin “Celts and the Classical World”-“The First Punic War had prevented the Romans from dealing finally with the Celtic menace. It was after this war that the Celts made their concerted attack of 225BC: it may have been intended as a pre-emptive attack by the Celts but it was much too late for this purpose. Then came Hannibal’s invasion of Italy, which prevented the Romans from bringing the Celtic question to a conclusion for a number of years.” pg113

When did Cisalpine Gaul become a Roman province, anyway ? Anyone happen to know ? The Wiki list of provinces under the Republic and early Empire is rather unhelpful - the late date seems to suggest the region was long some sort of client-state or allied province which was integrated as a proper province only much later.

In any case, the Cisalpines were obviously tough enough that it took until sometime after the Second Punic War for the Romans to be able to subdue them, in spite of the fact they were a real pain in the arse what with the incessant raids, occasional major invasion (the one culminating in Telamon was doing quite well until the army was caught between two Roman ones) and a noted tendency to sign up with anyone intent on doing the Republic grievous harm. That the Romans did not walk in and kick their heads in for such persistent aggravation suggests doing so required a major investement of military power they long could not spare, or were not willing to risk; clearly the Gauls of Italy were no pushovers, and they had roosted in the Po valley for quite a few centuries after pushing the Italics out of there.

For the Germans that is just speculation on my part as to why they stopped when they did. For the Romans they were conquering central and southern Italy first. The Romans were interrupted from dealing with the Celts as Rankin and others say. Again I answer that in the above link.
So I have Rankin,Dyson,Connoly,James and etc. for credibility, what do you have?

See above - the only logically tenable reason I can see for the stalled German expansion was the blunt fact the Celts were holding them at bay, much like the Romans did for a fair few centuries longer.

As for the Romans, might you care to explain why exactly it took until the late 2nd century or so before the Romans had even a decent province in the rich Transalpine Gaul (apparently centered around the old Greek city of Massilia at that), and took until the next century to make serious succesful efforts at grabbing land from the fertile and wealthy Gaul proper ? By that point they certainly could muster armies for military adventures if they smelled profit; we're talking about the period when wealthy magnates kept pulling whole Legions out of thin air by their personal fortunes after all.

Given the Romans' note streak of ruthless opportunism and certain complexes they had concerning the Gauls, it is difficult to find a rational reason for such heel-dragging other than Gallic military power having still been strong enough to check their ambitions. Heck, Caesar originally only went in at the invitation of his Gallic allies...

[NeoSpartan]

....
The Gauls didn’t engage in total war! They fought until one side had wiped out the others forces / retainers or had gained a significant advantage in such, hostages exchanged and homage paid. The problem for the Gauls was that the Civil war in question was a wide reaching conflict of large evenly balanced forces, so what followed was an attrition of the aforementioned retainers / warrior elite until the balance started to shift and the Sequani took over the leadership of the Southern alliance. The Germans were brought in, at great shame to the Sequani, to even up the numbers. The Aedui confederacy, now bereft of fighters themselves, appealed to Rome.

....

Guys I vote this thread to be stickied!

I FINALY understand wtf happened in that time period.

[blitzkrieg80]

hey everybody, suppose away and join in on the 0 evidence gang-bang! oh yeah!

(where's my evidence that you have no evidence?...err umm- good point!)

[Watchman]

Yeah, logic is overrated anyway.

[Frostwulf]

Glewas I didn't mean to skip you, you posted as I was in the middle of mine.

Now here's the question... why would Caesar describe these Celtic combatants, who come from what is generally accepted as a "warrior culture" in which glory and valor in battle is highly regarded, as such? Could it be that the Celts were fielding young men who had yet seen battle or at least seen very little? If so... then why? Maybe that devestaing civil war that you claim wasn't such a big deal really was?

A good and legitimate question. My version has "unskilled barbarians" as well. Here is the situation, you can make up your mind on it.

1.Gallic traders began to tell Caesars men about the Germans "men of a mighty frame and incredible valour and skill at arms". Book 1, 38

2.Caesars men were frightened "So great was the panic, and so suddenly did it seize upon all the army..." Book 1,39

3.Caesar convenes a council of war and speaks with his men. Book 1,40

4. Caesar says Ariovistus wont attack and if he did attack "why do you despair of your own courage or of my competence." Book 1,40

5. Caesar says "on the occasion when, in defeat of the Cimbri and Teutoni by Gaius Marius, the army was deemed to have deserved no less praise than the commander himself." Book 1,40

6. Caesar talks about the slave revolt(referring to the German element) "and yet the slaves had the practice and training which they had learnt from us to give them some measure of support." Book 1,40

7.Caesar talks of the Helvetii and how they often subdued the Germans "Yet the Helvetii have not proved a match for our army. Book 1,40

8.Caesar said the Gauls were worn out by the campaign with Ariovistus, then he attacked them as they dispersed.Book 1,40

9."Even Ariovistus himself does not expect that our own armies can be caught by tactics for which there was a chance against unskilled barbarians." Book 1,40

The way I see it is:
The Gauls scare the Roman troops with stories of the Germans, Caesar has his counsel of war. He tries to encourage his men in the proper way.
4. He says don't despair Ariovistus wont attack unless he is mad, then if he does think of your own courage and Caesar competence

5-6 He doesn't mention the multiple defeats inflicted on the Romans. The reason is obvious he is trying to build up their courage and moral.

7.The Helvetii beat the Germans and we(Romans) beat the Helvetii. A win by proxy another courage and moral builder.(Caesar probably didn't know they were most likely forced out by the Germans).

8. Caesar builds the moral and courage of his soldiers by saying the Gauls were just worn out by the battles with the Germans. Caesar of course doesn't mention the victories of the Germans prior to this.

9.Caesar says that Ariovistus "knows" the Romans are to wily and smart to be caught in the same way as the Gauls. Again building up moral and courage by saying the Romans are to intelligent to be caught by the tactics of Ariovistus.
Caesar says the Gauls are unskilled thats why they lost, not because of the Germans being powerful. The Romans are skilled the Gauls are not, again another courage and moral booster.

So basically you tell your troops how the Germans had been defeated by Romans, then you say the Germans are not very tough because they only fought weaklings.

(‘Indo-European History’, ‘La Tene Gaul’, XVI, 5.63, Univerzita Karlova v Praze)

Is this an encyclopedia? What is the full title and the date of publishing? Who is the author(s)?
Ill have to address the rest at a later time.

[Fraekae]

In response to the statements that Celtic units are overpowered compared to the Germanic units, based on stats, I would like to object. At least partially. I took a look at the unit stats shown in the unit cards made by Arkatreides (Stickied topic, "Trading card style unit cards for offline use"). (Hopefully these are still correct for the current EB version, otherwise my whole post might be a load of BS :)

Using these cards I compared the celtic and germanic spear units. From the stats we can see that the celtic spear units are mostly weaker and more expensive than their germanic counterparts. This is true both before and after the first reforms. Only after the second celtic reforms do the celts get better spear units and these are actually heavy infantry with small unit sizes and swords as their primary weapons, so we cannot really compare them.

Of the normal spear units, the Belgae Batacorii are the best celtic ones, and these are worse than Frameharjoz, who are cheaper, and significantly worse than Heruskoz-Swaiut who are only a little more expensive. The Batacorii recruitment is also limited to two provinces IIRC, and I think that at least the Frameharjoz can be recruited in a larger number of provinces. (I am not sure about Sweboz recruitment as I haven't played them yet). The celts really have nothing that can be compared to the Gaizaharjoz.

When looking at other melee units (sword, axe, mace, club) the celts have the upper hand at least regarding the number of different units and the best stats. Still, the Sweboz has really good infantry, especially compared to pre-2nd reform celtic ones. The only widely available good infantry of the Gauls before the 1st reform are the Bataroas and the Gaesetae. The former is really good, but not nearly as good as the better sweboz infantry. The Gaesetae are of course a different chapter as they are killer and widely available, and I would really like to see their availability decrease significantly, if not their stats. (This will be easy in EB2 using MTW2s unit replenishment rates.) The Casse really don't have any widely available good infantry before the 1st reforms, as Botroas are limited to Britain (and some other areas far from Britain) and Cwmyr is available in only three Brittish provinces.

After the first reforms, the celts receive a lot of new cool units with good stats, but most of these are available in only a couple of provinces. These are e.g. Ordmhornaghta, Deaisbárd and Laecha in Ireland (and the ultracool Uachtarach DuboGaiscaocha which is sadly unbuildable in the current EB version) and the Carnute Cingetos in one Gallic province for the Gauls. The Kluddargos also become available in some places in Britain. The only more easily/widely available units are the Milnaht in the 4 belgic provinces and the Calawre in large parts of Europe for Casse. Compared to the more widely available units, the Sweboz infantry is still really good.

Only after the 2nd celtic reforms do the celts receive significanlty better infantry units (disregarding the Gaesetae) than the Sweboz. These are the Arjos, Neitos, Rycalawre and Solduros, and they are truly awesome. Most of them even have quite large recruitment zones. The problem is that the 2nd reform occurs so late in the game, that very few people will ever get them without cheating. If the player plays with another faction, the Gauls will probably be wiped out before they are able to get these troops.

Regarding the missile troops, the problem with spamming Iosatae is ever present, and it is up to the individual player to chose whether to do this. In EB2, their availability can again be limited by decreasing their replenishment rate.

As a conclusion, I would say that I mostly disagree with the statement that the Celts are overpowered. The infantry is fairly well balanced before the 2nd reform, with the Sweboz IMO having the upper hand until the 1st (not counting Gaesetae). The only thing I would really like to see is some better cavalry for the Sweboz, as the Ridoharjoz are quite weak.

(Ok, I know I haven't said anything about Sweboz unit availability and this is a problem. As I stated earlier, I haven't played with them yet and there are no unit availability maps for them as for the celts as far as I know)

[NeoSpartan]

And Ridoharjoz are a little better than the Gallic Leuce Ecpos.

Most of Germanic infantry has really good morale.

[Frostwulf]

I “forgot” nothing. What do you suppose was the cause of these mass movements of Gallic warriors! Even your beloved Livy states that these groups had come into being due to internal pressures and turmoil.

Again he is saying these armies internally were rarer then before, not Spain,Italy Greece etc. but internally.Yes you had tribal movements because of overcrowding and etc. but he is not talking about tribal movements but movements of armies and those like the Gaesatae who were most likely a social escape valve. Large armies were rare in these areas until Rome arrived. If you look at the large armies of the Gauls that raided Italy its still rare considering their close proximity. 390 BC-300 BC you have 4 maybe 5 invasions.From 299-200 BC you have 5 invasions from the different tribes of the Gauls.I never have said or claimed to have held Livy in any esteem.

I know you like to post alot of quotes but I fail to see what has this has got to do with the price of tea in China?

The quotes were saying that the cavalry were the new elite warriors who were now the main defensive forces, not the tribal levies. This was a time of relative peace therefore the only ones that were really trained for the most part was the cavalry, and there was plenty of cavalry around. If you would have had this devastating war as you claim, there would have surely been some experienced and veteran troops.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
…Romans>Germans>Celts
…The Germans outclassed the Celts..regardless of the territory.
…The Celts were not as good as the Romans nor the Germans.
…I believe the German warrior to be superior.
…The Germans should be superior to them (Gauls).

I don't think it was the infighting but the external force that may have brought them (Gauls) low…. If there was any weakening to the Celts during Caesar's time it was because of the Germans which Caesar himself alludes to..

I'm afraid I'm going to have to quote your own words back to you.

I'm not sure what your saying here. I was getting at if there was any tribe that was damaged it was the Aedui who were beat up on by the Germans. The Aedui claimed that the Germans had destroyed their nobility,senators and etc. At the battle of Magetobriga the Germans waited for the Gauls to start to disperse, so there obviously would have been plenty men of fighting age still around. Most likely these Gauls would have been fighting with or against the Germans at one time or another and therefore would be experienced warriors. After Magetobriga the Gauls became subservient to Ariovistus. The Gauls still had plenty of men, they most likely didn't want to attack the Germans because of the fear from constant losses to them. We don't know the losses of the Sequani or any of the other clients, we just know the German crushed the Aedui elite. Again the Germans waited for the Gauls to disperse before emerging to do battle with the remaining Gauls, therefore there were plenty of Gauls left.

As I have said ad naseum, there were several factors that lead to the Gallic demise not one issue only. You have to look at the big picture, remember my analogy of the White Elephant? Internal martial and political weakness, fiscal prosperity, centralisation of governance, external military and socio-economic pressure, both internal and external population pressures, etc etc all contributed. Like the fall of most states / empires, one would be naïve to just to consider the most obvious. Did the western Roman empire fall because they could not stop the Germanic Master Race in 410 AD, no. Just like the Gauls, there were years of decline / political instability, civil war, etc etc that contributed.

Yes Caesar won because he defeated the Gauls for the most part piecemeal and such things. Thats not the subject here though. You are claiming the Gallic warriors were weak(not experienced etc.) because they were devastated from a "Civil War" and are therefore not of the same caliber of the Celts of the 3rd century BC and before. This again comes down the units, and the Gauls faced by Ariovistus and Caesar would have been the of the same skill as those of the 3rd and 4th century BC. The Celtic units are overpowered!

And the Transalpine Gauls were defeating the Romans as well (before the civil war)..even as late as 63 BC. Your point?

My point is the same as it always has been, it wasn't a supposed "Devastating Civil War" that was the problem. What is comes down to is the Romans were simply better soldiers, defeating the Celts the majority of the times. What battle are you referring to in 63 BC? If your referring to Solonium the Romans defeated the Gauls.

Well they may have been bi-lingual and spoken German (we don’t know) but they definitely had Celtic customs, culture and tongue. Further, the Eburones (‘yew people’) were not Belgae but rather (along with the Treveri, Levaci, Condrusi, Caeroesi, Paemani, Segni and Ceutrones), remnants of the Moselle Celts.

We know Caesar said the spoke German and there is very little reason to think they didn't. Being bilingual is a possibility but regardless the authors I have read say that these tribes are Belgae. The Belgae as you have said did have a Celtic culture.

No, Caesar said that the aforementioned were “known as German tribes”. Known to whom? The ‘Marne’ tribes of central Gaul from which Caesar was getting his information. Why?, because the Marne Celts regarded the Moselle Celts, who happen to have had a thriving culture on the Rhine,.. as easterners / ‘Germans’ (1st C BC). Not too dissimilar to how the Allies of WWI / WWII referred to Germans as Huns.

Herwig Wolfram "The Roman Empire and its Germanic Peoples"-"Tacitus closes the second chapter with the interesting comment that the Germanic name was a relatively recent additional name that had developed from the specific name for a single tribe. He relates that the Tungri were the first to cross the Rhine on their push westward and were subsequently called Germani by the Gauls. The victories of the Tungri imparted such prestige to this name that it was also adopted by other tribes as a generic name.
Debates concerning the Germanic identity of the Germanic tribes who lived east of the Rhine fill entire libraries, and a good deal of nonscholarly interests have kept the controversy alive. In actual fact, however, the few sentences in Tacitus offer a quite credible and convincing account of what happened. Successful conquerors, whether they already spoke Germanic or not, crossed the Rhine and were called Germani by the Gauls. The name was used first by outsiders, and it remained so even after the Romans had taken it over from the Gauls. However, and here I correct Tacitus, it did not establish itself as the name of all Germanic tribes, just as French Allemands did not become the self-chosen name of the Germans." pg.4

I notice a propensity to dismiss my comments and religiously quote / defer to that which is published / mentioned by others….. so it seems I’m going to have to do a little quoting myself… and I hate having to type stuff out.

I mean no offense by what I'm about to write but why should I believe what your saying? I quote others because these authors are credible and your not. I don't know you, I never read anything published by you or have seen anything that gives you credibility. I'm not going to believe you just because you say so. Why do you think I use authors for my points, its because you have no reason to believe me for the same reasons. Both of us have been wrong in areas so to me the best method is for those of noted authority to be quoted.

Again, seeing as you like quotes I happened to be speaking with Dr James on Tuesday and mentioned our debate. In response to the your supposition that the Germans were superior to the Gauls he stated, and I quote:
Quote:
“The Germans were not superior, then or more recently. Though they clearly were tough soldiers..” – (Dr Simon James PhD BSc FSA, Tuesday 11th September 2007, University of Leicester, UK)

I cannot consider this as anything relevant because it cannot be proven with any reasonable effort. Even if I were to consider it as evidence I would have to disagree with Dr.James and go with what Goldsworthy says because of his specialty and because of the events that happened during this time period. The Germans of the Gallic war era simply were superior to their Gallic counterparts.

(‘Indo-European History’, ‘La Tene Gaul’, XVI, 5.63, Univerzita Karlova v Praze)

I went through GS, WCAT and I had the ILL team look for this and none of us could find it. I even went through the publishings of Charles University of Prague and couldn't find it. I will have to dismiss it.

Again I believe you need to look at the big picture for fear of missing the wood through the trees. Your ignoring context by focusing on the Germans devoid of eternal factors. Strength is only regarded as such through the paradigm of relativity.

The only factors your coming up with is the supposed "Devastating Civil War", which I don't believe.

The point I was making (which I have made all along), is that the Germans didn’t suddenly wake up one morning in 70 BC as this elite unstoppable force you claim is inferred by Caesar in the 1st C BC. You can’t extrapolate the relative strength of the Germans during Caesar’s War to those several hundred years prior. The Gauls were comparatively weaker in the 1st C BC… as you have cited and every scholar noted. Ask yourself why?

This is the main problem with this subject. You wrongly claim there was a "Devastating Civil War" and I say there wasn't. The Celts were as strong as they had been since the 3rd century and before, possibly even better due to the more availability of better armor and weapons. I never claimed the Germans to be unstoppable, quite the contrary I always have said they are not as good as the Romans. Ill expand on this later.

(*sigh*) .. Frosty, you aren’t even talking about the same people!!

Ignoring the fact that most of the inhabitants of northern Europe were not Celtic at all but rather remnants of the Urnfield and some cases Germanic peoples (most of which had long freed themselves from their Halstatt overlords). They didn’t have an ancient cookie cutting to pop out some sort of generic Celt.

It’s extremely naïve to compare the Germano-Celtic remnants of these northern Halstatt chiefdoms to the advanced powerful La Tene ‘D’ states of Gaul.

The Germans began reversing the Celts around 3rd century BC, wouldn't that put it in the La Tene B era? These are the same Celts who were moving about and invading elsewhere but being pushed back up north. More on this later.

The problem is that your method of analysis appears to be completely dependant on the type of data, or should I say the interpretation one wishes to gain from the said data.

What do you base yours on? There is no difference except I use credible authors and cite their works. You use yourself as a reference and try to interpret the citations of Dr. James to fit your claims.

For the few examples given us of German troops during the 1st C BC (during Caesar’s war of conquest), you are quite happy play up, even make erroneous claims from events that (as you have even admitted) should never be used as supposed evidence. Eg. The Menapii.

I never made an erroneous claim, I said it was unfair to use it, and it was out of context for the situation. Erroneous would be claiming that Caesar's quote of :
"if they made inquiries, might discover that, when the Gauls had been tired out by the long duration of the war, Ariovistus, after he had many months kept himself in his camp and in the marshes, and had given no opportunity for an engagement, fell suddenly upon them, by this time despairing of a battle and scattered in all directions, and was victorious more through stratagem and cunning than valour"
was about a supposed "Devastating Celtic War" as opposed to what it really was, a 10 year war with the Germans. What about the duel with Virdomarus? How about the Celts defeating the Germans for centuries? These are erroneous statements.

On the other hand, when I post equivalent information about the Gauls (merely to prove how preposterous it is to extrapolate isolated events devoid of context), you appear quite comfortable dismissing them.

Again your way off on your examples. Your erroneous example of the 120,000 Germans(again something Ill address later) against Caesar, compared to your 80,000 Gauls which to this date have not told me which battle your talking about, and this is the third time Ill ask you, what battle are you talking about. I have already answered you on the Helvetii example.

Are you just making stuff up now? How did you get the “over extended, rolled off the field, spread out” bit?

I'll see if I can find the quote from Sidnell.

If you want to adopt Goldsworthy’s rationale then one would have acknowledge the same likelihood with your beloved 800 super Germans.

With the Helvetii, Caesars cavalry were routed and lost a few men, they were on unfavorable ground and betrayed by Dumnorix.
With the 800 they charged Caesar's cavalry and it was a set battle as more of Caesars cavalry showed up and joined the battle. There is also a 3yr time difference which allowed Caesars troops to become battle hardened not to mention Caesar also had the Remi. So yea, there was a difference.

The Germans attacked whilst seeking peace! If you’re happy to accept “unfavourable ground” as evidence of an ambush then surely you would accept the surprise attack of the Germans as an ambush as well!?

As for the other accounts of Germanic cavalry in De Bello Gallico, there is nothing to suggest that they were anything other than an effective / experienced force of mercenaries. An elite force bought at a price that fought a weakened Gallic aristocracy long reduced by civil war.

Goldsworthy read the book and may have received more information from Cicero and others of the time.
Caesar "The Gallic War"-" Caesar discovered the unsuccessful cavalry engagement of a few days before, that Dumnorix and his horsemen (he was commander of the body of horse sent by the Aedui to the aid of Caesar) had started the retreat, and that by their retreat the remainder of the horse had been stricken with panic. All this Caesar learnt, and to confirm these suspicions he had indisputable facts. Dumnorix had brought the Helvetii through the borders of the Sequani; he had caused hostages to be given between them; he had done all this not only without orders from his state or from Caesar, but even without the knowledge of either; he was now accused by the magistrate of the Aedui. Caesar deemed all this to be cause enough for him either to punish Dumnorix himself, or to command the state so to do." Book 1, 19

And how, prey tell, do you know that?

Why not suggest that 4,000 Romano-Gauls that fought ‘The mighty (German) 800’ were all kids from the local pony club?

You love to repeatedly cite the example of the 800 but what about the others instances I have cited about the Gauls. Couldn’t we just as likely draw all sorts of strange conclusions / make all sorts of grandiose claims?

Remember that 430,000 of these “superior” Germans (Usipetes and Tenctheri, to which the mighty 800 belonged) ran like girls when faced with 8 Roman legions.

Again misrepresented and ignorance of the facts.
Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"Triple line of columns was formed, and the eight mile march was so speedily accomplished that Caesar reached the the enemy's camp before the Germans could have any inkling of what was toward".Book 4,14

Yet we have several accounts on much smaller numbers of Gauls at least putting up a fight. The 92,000 Helvetii attacking 6 legions up hill and retiring in good order. Vercingetrix’s 80,000 Gauls being surprised by an assault of 10 legions and winning..etc etc Should we now assume that the Gauls were the master race / innately superior!? ..Of course not!

You do realize that the Gauls outnumbered the Romans in each of these cases. For the Helvetii situation 2 of the six legions were left guarding the baggage, and may not have engaged at all. Also as the Romans began to push the Helvetii , 15000 troops from the Boii and the Tulingi showed up on their flank.

Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"The third line of cohorts was peeled away and formed into a new line to face the Boii and Tulingi. The first and second lines dealt with the Helvetii, who had rallied at the appearance of their allies and returned to the fray. The Eleventh and Twelfth do not seem to have been brought up from the extra reserve Caesar had in this battle and appear to have remained mere observers of the action." pg.222
Romans outnumbered defeated the Helvetii.

As for Gergovia the Romans overran the 6ft wall halfway up the hill and met little resistance at first. They charged the Gallic camps that were dotted around the slope and Caesar sounded the recall as he felt enough damage had been done. Most of the men kept going through the camps and against the wall of the town itself.

Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"By this time the Gauls working on the fortifications beyond the far side of the town heard the noise of the Roman attack and realized that they had been duped. Vercingetorix also started to get messengers bringing pleas for help from the townsfold. He sent his cavalry back to meet the Roman attack and the warriors on foot followed. As they arrived thoughts of surrender were banished from the minds of the townsfolk and the women on the walls now started to implore their menfolk to save them. The Roman attack had run out of steam, the men being tired and disordered and unprepared to meet fresh opponents. Many panicked when the Aedui suddenly appeared on their flank, mistaking them for hostile Gauls and failing in the heat of the action to notice that they had their right shoulders bared-the accepted sign of a Gallic ally in Caesar's army. The elation of success soon turned sour" pg. 333
Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"Caesar could do little more than cover the retreat, using the Tenth and quickly ordering up the cohorts of the Thirteenth that had been left behind to guard the small camp. In this way the Gauls were prevented from pursuing to far, but even so casualties were very high." pg.333
Yes the Gauls were surprised but the majority were not engaged till later so the surprise had little effect on them. Caesar only had 2 legions to cover the retreat why didn't the Gauls pursue? They outnumbered a fleeing enemy yet didn't engage.

Wow!... It never ceases to amaze me how some will only see what they want to see.

Why the bloody hell would Caesar try to calm his troops by telling them “Don’t worry about how the Germans fight! The Germans only managed to slaughter the Gauls because they slaughtered them previously”!?

It doesn’t make sense! You have to be having a lend ...surely?

The comment only makes sense when one acknowledges the context, that the Gauls had been slaughtering each other and were “exhausted by a long war”. The Civil war that you now partly deny

It doesn't make sense to you because your trying to make this text fit your claim of the supposedly "Devastating Civil War" when it has nothing at all to do with it.
Caesar-"The Gallic War"If the unsuccessful battle and flight of the Gauls disquieted any, these, if they made inquiries, might discover that, when the Gauls had been tired out by the long duration of the war, Ariovistus, after he had many months kept himself in his camp and in the marshes, and had given no opportunity for an engagement, fell suddenly upon them, by this time despairing of a battle and scattered in all directions, and was victorious more through stratagem and cunning than valour."

Here is another translation that might help you understand what Caesar is talking about.

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"If there be any who are concerned at the defeat and flight of the Gauls, they can discover for the asking that when the Gauls were worn out by the length of the campaign Ariovistus, who had kept himself for many months within his camp in the marshes, without giving a chance of encounter, attacked them suddenly when they had at last dispersed in despair of a battle, and conquered them rather by skill and stratagem than by courage."book 1,40 Translated by H.J. Edwards

He is talking of the battle of Magetobriga. He makes no mention of Gallic infighting at all in this, he is always referring to the battles with the Germans. He is saying that the Gauls were tired of waiting months for the Germans to emerge and fight them.
Yes I do deny the supposed "Devastating Civil War".

The Gauls didn’t engage in total war! They fought until one side had wiped out the others forces / retainers or had gained a significant advantage in such, hostages exchanged and homage paid. The problem for the Gauls was that the Civil war in question was a wide reaching conflict of large evenly balanced forces, so what followed was an attrition of the aforementioned retainers / warrior elite until the balance started to shift and the Sequani took over the leadership of the Southern alliance. The Germans were brought in, at great shame to the Sequani, to even up the numbers. The Aedui confederacy, now bereft of fighters themselves, appealed to Rome.

Your trying to fit these things to fit your ideology and reading things into what these authors are saying. You keep ignoring James saying the warfare of large armies was rare. If there was such an internal conflict it would involve disruption in trade and damage to the surrounding area. "it was a rich and prosperous land-so means were evidently found for limiting the damage war could cause", not just to the land and crops as you suggest but to the people and warriors involved as well. It was not till the external Germanic influence that the Aedui lost their senators,nobility and etc.

What indications do you have that Germanic warfare was that stagnant? To me that sounds like equating the Marian legions to the legions of 270 bc.

What I'm saying is that the majority of the German cavalry that Caesar fought against and with(exception Ariovistus) had for the most part the same arms and armor of those from 270BC. Why is there reason to think that they would be any different?

And they are also primarily concerned with the culture of the Celts with only a very loose frame of history outside the well-documented parts with contacts with Mediterranean civilizations.

Goldsworthy's specialty is Roman warfare and Caesar, Warry and Connoly is warfare for both the Greeks and Romans. What else could you want, you have the archaeologists and the historians that deal with this area and time frame.

Took them an awful long time to achieve that, then, certainly since the Celts were migrating all over the place in the meantime, leaving the homelands less densely populated.

The less dense is a possibility for the Germans replacing them, or it could be that the Germans had more people or it could just come down to the martial prowess of the Germans.

It was rich and prosperous, I'll agree completely, but that says nothing about the population or the state of the available troops. If anything, the wealth of the region can be taken to mean less people to divide the available means over, much like the plague in Europe for a time increased the fortunes of those that survived.

Caesar states plainly about the population, and for the time/era its abundant. You would have to believe there wouldn't have been disruption in trade from the constant battles and raiding during this supposed "Devastating Civil War".

Urbanization is an interesting possibility that needs to be considered. But was it necessarily a good thing, like you suggest? I recall that deathrates in cities prior to modern sanitation was significantly higher that in the countryside; it's a delicate balance between population growth and decline, and quite conceivably the latte was the case. But I'll admit it's a good point that needs more thought.

Rome boasted of nearly a million people at times, and the Gauls had means of sanitation.

And again, you don't see a possible connection between these two expansions?

Some could say the Celts were being pushed out of their areas and were moving south. Rankin doesn't agree with that but he does say the Celts were being displaced. It could be as you said, less densely populated and the Germans moved in. Ill state again, the reason I put this down is from Psycho V saying the Celts were defeating the Germans for century's before. If thats the case why were the Germans displacing them, not to mention where is the evidence to support this.

Not that that counts for much, if they're constantly being lost in skirmishes with neighbouring Celts and don't accrue much experience in battle, also gradually eroding the amount of professionals that can be fielded. And they're a small elite regardless, what about the levies that are being expended against each other and also gain very little in the way of actual battle experience?

This is a legitimate statement if you subscribe to the "Devastating Civil War" theory which I do not. Yes there were skirmishes,raiding and some small battles but it was a time of relative peace.

They'd get beaten. While I disagree they were consistently beaten by pre-Marian troops, and I'd say they weren't consistently beaten by Marian troops (though more regularly), I'll agree the Celtic levies and small amounts of relatively inexperienced professionals were outclassed by the professional Roman legions.

The majority(not consistently) of the times the generally outnumbered Romans would beat the Gauls pre-Marius. I wouldn't say the Gauls of Caesars time were inexperienced as they had their raids,skirmishes and minor battles. Not to mention according to Kruta they were well trained and drilled.

...weren't those Germans who went into Belgium more or less the same bunch the Romans knew as the Belgae, and regarded as a particularly fierce and savage subspecies of the Celt proper...? Even if they originated from the Germanic culture sphere they appear to have gotten pretty Celticized in the meantime - and AFAIK the classification as "Celtic" these days goes by the basis of language and culture due to the heterogenous nature of that umbrella group, so by it they'd have become Celts through and through. Moot point.

I agree with this. All I was pointing out is that the Germans moved into Holland,Belgium and etc. There would have been intermarriage and they spoke a Celtic language and had a Celtic culture.

Expansion stops from two reasons: either you run out of steam and can go no further, or the other guy keeps you from going further. And odds are the Germans weren't so short of people all those centuries they lacked the resources and impetus to try proceeding further into the rich lands of Gaul (and other choicer Celtic lands), which leaves being checked by its inhabitants the only logical explanation.

How do you know those odds? What are the odds? What is the base amount of people thought to live in Germany at the time. What is the base amount of people thought to be in the Scandinavian countries at the time? What is the required amount of land to sustain a certain amount of people based on the farming/hunting lifestyles of said people? Was the population of the Germans growing at the same rate in the new lands they conquered? Did the Germanic peoples need to keep moving to have enough land for their tribes? If so how many people were to fit in a square mile to survive? Was there continuous expansions from other Germanic tribes that caused all this movement?
Again going from the people who study these things, they say the Germans expanded into Celtic lands.

In any case, the Cisalpines were obviously tough enough that it took until sometime after the Second Punic War for the Romans to be able to subdue them, in spite of the fact they were a real pain in the arse what with the incessant raids, occasional major invasion (the one culminating in Telamon was doing quite well until the army was caught between two Roman ones) and a noted tendency to sign up with anyone intent on doing the Republic grievous harm. That the Romans did not walk in and kick their heads in for such persistent aggravation suggests doing so required a major investement of military power they long could not spare, or were not willing to risk; clearly the Gauls of Italy were no pushovers, and they had roosted in the Po valley for quite a few centuries after pushing the Italics out of there.

Cisalpine Gaul was considered conquered by 191 BC. You had the second Illyrian war 220-219BC, followed by the second Punic war 218-201BC, followed by war with the Macedonians 200-196BC and you had Spanish wars going on.

As for the Romans, might you care to explain why exactly it took until the late 2nd century or so before the Romans had even a decent province in the rich Transalpine Gaul (apparently centered around the old Greek city of Massilia at that), and took until the next century to make serious succesful efforts at grabbing land from the fertile and wealthy Gaul proper ? By that point they certainly could muster armies for military adventures if they smelled profit; we're talking about the period when wealthy magnates kept pulling whole Legions out of thin air by their personal fortunes after all.

The southern part was heavily influenced by Greeks colonization and the Romans helped Massalia against the Gauls to protect its trade route to Spain. I believe there was an alliance between the two. Also there was the Syrian war 191-188BC, Wars in Spain,Galatian expedition, Ligurian wars,Third and Fourth Macedonian Wars.

Given the Romans' note streak of ruthless opportunism and certain complexes they had concerning the Gauls, it is difficult to find a rational reason for such heel-dragging other than Gallic military power having still been strong enough to check their ambitions. Heck, Caesar originally only went in at the invitation of his Gallic allies...

Or perhaps as so often over looked in these forums is the Romans commitments elsewhere. Caesar had at first planned to go to Dacia till their "allies" the Aedui asked for help.

Yeah, logic is overrated anyway

Watchman this isn't a dig against you, but what good is logic if you don't have the information to back it up?

I'm going to try to do a summery of this in the Germans underpowered thread.

[Watchman]

You know, I've for a while thought that an awful lot of the German success around Caesar's time seems to revolve around the person of Ariovistus. Kinda seems to me it could be more of a matter of the man's ability as a warlord that was tilting the power balance and allowing the German successes against the Celts, whatever their condition now was...

Put this way: if the German combat troops were so consistently superior to those of the Celts as you argue, why did Ariovistus even feel the need - as he apparently did - to first wear them out by clever strategy and maneuvering before suddenly falling on them when they had already began to break up for want of an actual battle ? (Extended campaigns appear to have been a bit of a problem for the Celtic approach to war.) That's not the strategy you use with superior forces; it's a strategy you use when you think your troops can't be counted to win a straight-up fight.

Not having read Caesar I don't know the context, but it sounds like Ariovistus had to dance around massed Gallic fighting forces on several occasions like that - presumably several chieftains and communities and whatnots joining together to try to deal with him.

Watchman this isn't a dig against you, but what good is logic if you don't have the information to back it up?

When information is unavailable, what you fill the holes in with is logic. Hopefully, anyway. 'Cause the alternatives give worse results.

[Frostwulf]

Put this way: if the German combat troops were so consistently superior to those of the Celts as you argue, why did Ariovistus even feel the need - as he apparently did - to first wear them out by clever strategy and maneuvering before suddenly falling on them when they had already began to break up for want of an actual battle ? (Extended campaigns appear to have been a bit of a problem for the Celtic approach to war.) That's not the strategy you use with superior forces; it's a strategy you use when you think your troops can't be counted to win a straight-up fight.

For the same reason that Caesar waited for the Belgae to break up and leave, he would have lost. Both were outnumbered by a powerful foe, the Gauls were not weak, they just were not as powerful as the Germans or the Romans. Caesars troops were clearly superior to the Gallic troops, but that can change drastically if outnumbered and on unfavorable ground.

A counter point to this would be: how come the Gauls didn't go into the marsh after Ariovistus?

Not having read Caesar I don't know the context, but it sounds like Ariovistus had to dance around massed Gallic fighting forces on several occasions like that - presumably several chieftains and communities and whatnots joining together to try to deal with him.

From the way I understand it, Ariovistus defeated the majority of the Aedui nobility,cavalry,senators and etc. He then began to make demands on the Sequani, which didn't go over to well. The Sequani,Aedui and others proceeded with this battle: Magetobriga

Unknown site of a military engagement fought in 61 BCE between the Gallic tribes of the Aedui, Averni and Sequani on one side and the Germanic Suebi, under their King Ariovistus. The Suebi had moved into the region of Gaul comprising modern Alsace and had emerged as a powerful rival to the Gauls on the Rhine. Hoping to evict the unwelcome Germans, the local peoples, headed by the Aedui, confronted Ariovistus in the field. The resulting battle was a display of the martial superiority of the Suebi, for the tribes were crushed. Ariovistus established his rule over much of eastern Gaul. By 58 BCE, Rome was willing to listen to the pleas of the Gallic chieftains, and war erupted once again.
Citation Information:
Text Citation: Bunson, Matthew. "Magetobriga." Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 1994. Facts On File, Inc. Ancient History & Culture. <www.factsonfile.com>.

I also forgot to mention you have to take what Caesar was thinking into account.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=309

[Erebus26]

Weren't the Helveti invited by a rogue Aedui Noble to help him in his dynastic struggle, and to provide a fighting force to cobat Ariovistus and his Suebi? I would have to disagree with H.D. Rankin if he implies that the Helveti were pushed out of their homelands by 'Germans', as the Helveti were a powerful tribal confederation.

To be honest we have to blame Caesar himself for this whole argument about 'Gauls' and 'Germans'. He created the Rhine boundary so he could back to the senate and say that he had conquered the whole of Gaul. It was more a political statement than a question of ethnicity, which I'm sure Caesar wouldn't have cared too much about. To sum up I don't think there is a lot of difference between the peoples who were at that time living on both sides of the Rhine.

[Watchman]

Could be that the Helveti weren't so much "pushed out" as simply "had had enough" - of fending off pesky raiders and would-be settlers who didn't appear to be inclined to give up no matter how often you chased them away, that is. Gaul wasn't apparently in the best of conditions at the time, so it's hardly inconceivable the Helveti bigwigs figured they could carve themselves a less contested (and probably rather more prosperous) domain there and let the damn northern barbarians have the mountains they so dearly wanted.

Weren't the dynamics of steppe-nomad "domino" migrations rather similar ?

A counter point to this would be: how come the Gauls didn't go into the marsh after Ariovistus?

And try to fight the Germans on the ground of their choosing which they were obviously more used to, and had the defender advantage to boot ? Bad idea. The Romans wouldn't do that kind of thing either for equally sensible reasons if they could avoid it.

[Erebus26]

Yeah I suppose so - it's was probably a number of reasons why the Helveti moved. But like you said better lands and less hassle were the main reasons. It's just I contest the point made by some authors that the Helveti were just another Gallic tribe that were ripe for the picking by 'uber' german warriors. But thats just my opinion.

[Frostwulf]

Weren't the Helveti invited by a rogue Aedui Noble to help him in his dynastic struggle, and to provide a fighting force to cobat Ariovistus and his Suebi? I would have to disagree with H.D. Rankin if he implies that the Helveti were pushed out of their homelands by 'Germans', as the Helveti were a powerful tribal confederation.

Atlas of the Celts-"A suitable pretext for military intervention arose in 58 BC, when the Helvetii, who lived beyond the eastern borders of Gaul, began massing for a planned migration in the face of Germanic pressure." pg.82
The Atlas and Rankin are hardly the only ones to say this, Warry, Newark, etc. etc.

To be honest we have to blame Caesar himself for this whole argument about 'Gauls' and 'Germans'. He created the Rhine boundary so he could back to the senate and say that he had conquered the whole of Gaul.

I agree with this.

It was more a political statement than a question of ethnicity, which I'm sure Caesar wouldn't have cared too much about. To sum up I don't think there is a lot of difference between the peoples who were at that time living on both sides of the Rhine.

I think there was a difference, technology,artistry,religion,culture in general. There were also many similarities, but they were different and both Celts and Germans recognized it.

Could be that the Helveti weren't so much "pushed out" as simply "had had enough" - of fending off pesky raiders and would-be settlers who didn't appear to be inclined to give up no matter how often you chased them away, that is.

This is a possibility, though I still tend to believe people who actually are historians/archaeologists for a living.

Gaul wasn't apparently in the best of conditions at the time, so it's hardly inconceivable the Helveti bigwigs figured they could carve themselves a less contested (and probably rather more prosperous) domain there and let the damn northern barbarians have the mountains they so dearly wanted.

Gaul wasn't in the best of conditions?

Simon James "The World of the Celts"-"Certainly, the Gaul described and conquered by Caesar showed no signs of exhaustion by internal wars-it was a rich and prosperous land" pg.74

*Atlas of the Celts-"During the first half of the 1st century BC, the rest of Gaul attained an uneasy accommodation with the Roman occupation of the south. Celtic Gaul was generally a prosperous and peaceful region where farms flourished and oppida (towns), stimulated by Roman trade grew ever larger. In central Gaul, societies became sufficiently complex and well organized to be on the brink of independent statehood, and left to their own devices they might well have achieved this within a generation or two. pg.82

And try to fight the Germans on the ground of their choosing which they were obviously more used to, and had the defender advantage to boot ? Bad idea. The Romans wouldn't do that kind of thing either for equally sensible reasons if they could avoid it.

I think you are correct on this, same for the reasons the Germans and Caesar chose not to fight in certain situations.

Yeah I suppose so - it's was probably a number of reasons why the Helveti moved. But like you said better lands and less hassle were the main reasons. It's just I contest the point made by some authors that the Helveti were just another Gallic tribe that were ripe for the picking by 'uber' german warriors. But thats just my opinion.

So what do you base this on? Where did you get your information from? Any information you have from a credible source would be sincerely welcomed.

[Watchman]

Wasn't one of the Gauls' prime trade commodities with the Romans slaves, though ? And you usually don't sell your own subjects as such in any great numbers, and obviously those of neighbours tend not come willingly...

Also, if the Helveti were to be genuinely pushed away from their lands by the encroaching Germans, one has trouble imagining they could actually afford to prepare for their migration as thoroughly as they did (as opposed to, you know, barely escaping with their lives). Moreover one would expect them to have been seriously militarily weakened by the Germanic raids and victories; yet they were apparently a formidable enough force that the potentates of Gaul proper did not apparently even try to check them by their own force of arms (which begs the question if they didn't have an acute shortage of that, doubly so if one were to follow the Helvetii-chased-away-by-Germans hypothesis), instead calling on their Roman contacts to defend them.

[Erebus26]

Frostwulf - for questions about German and Celtic ethnicity I found "Beyond Celts, Germans and Scythians" by Peter Wells useful. He just puts forward the case that not all what ancient Greek and Romans put forward about the northern barbarians is correct.

For your point about the Helveti - Caesar states that the Helveti wage constant war against the Germans, either repelling them from their own territories, or invading German lands. Caesar also say because of this they had the most valour of Gallic tribes. Orgetorix proposed that the Helvetti, whoes lands were confined to the mountains, move into the territory of the Aedui - to do this he married his daughter off to Dumnorix - a noble of the Aedui. He also made an alliance with the Sequani noble Casticus so he could pass through their lands. Unfortunately Orgetorix never fulfilled his ambition as he was killed, whilst Dumnorix was driven out by his brother Divitiacus, who had the backing of the Romans. I don't think Caesar mentions that the Helveti's migration was because of germanic raiding, but he does mention that they wanted better land. This is all from Caesar's Gallic Commentaries - the first few pages.

*I've edited this post because the guys below think I'm referring to Caesar's pep talk, but I'm not as I'm referring to the first few pages when Caesar's discusses the movement of the Helveti*

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Oh my God! Does everyone here use the same avatar?!? This is madness!!! No wonder I stay away from this thread.

[Watchman]

Eh, I haven't changed my avatar from the default for... ever, actually.

Now that you mention it though, wonder if there were interesting ones in the pool ?

[Glewas]

When Caesar mentions the Helvetii successfully defending their lands against the Germans and even defeating them in their own (German) lands, he is doing so when giving his troops a pep talk, (see my post above). Frostwulf has replied that he takes what Caesar said as basically a motivational speech - just some "lies" made up to keep the Roman troops from worrying about facing the Germans.

Basically Helvetii beat Germans, Romans beat Helvetii, ergo Romans will beat Germans.

I find it odd that anyone would use lies to motivate and boost morale, but it isn't out of the question so Frostwulf can interpret the passage as he may.

As a Celtophile I am going to be a bit biased even though I try not to be, but I'll take Caesar's pep talk for fact. Which leads me to agree with Watchman that the Helvetii left their lands not because they were forced by the Germans, but because there were better lands to be had and the "unsuccessful" German raids were becoming too annoying to bother with anymore. It's not like the Helvetii could cross the Rhine and defeat all the Germanic tribes - maybe one or two or possibly 10 but more would eventually take their place. There are many times playing as the Aedui that I flirt with the idea of abandoning Mediolanum to postpone the inevitable war with Rome, who, no matter how many times I defeat them in battle, just will not stop attacking...

That aside, here is an interesting question I pose to everyone...

We all know the Helvetii burnt their homes and everything they couldn't take with them before leaving their land (for whatever reason), and that they were defeated in battle by Caesar and forced to return home...

How long until proof of Germanic artifacts, (tools, weaponry, pottery, vessels, etc) appear in the homelands of the Helvetii?

Best answers would be based on archaeological data, but if anyone can give any clues maybe based in ancient literary sources, I'd like to hear...

Because if true artifacts were found in say... 30 BCE then it would seem that almost immediately the Germans took over the surviving Helvetii... If not till much later, 100+ years or so, then it would seem that the Helvetii were capable of defending themselves from Germanic incursion even after losing many, many fighting men from the battle with Caesar...

[Watchman]

Now that you mention it, I've wondered about that bit as well. What did happen to the Helveti after Caesar beat them up and sent them packing ? Wiki, for what it's worth, says they were given foederati status and eventually more or less assimilated into the Empire, what now with a major uprising in 68/9 AD.

That certainly would sound like they were still strong enough to hold off the Germans even after the casualties suffered against the Romans.

[blitzkrieg80]

Glewas, the only error in that logic is to expect that scientists have been interested enough to find those archaeological samples so one could come to such a conclusion, when in fact there are entire gaps in time and findings simply because of disinterest, besides overpopulation and other factors, so one would be hard-pressed to prove such... but I think it would be cool if that was achievable... it could be that I do not have access to the 'latest findings' yet unpublished, but for the most part we are lucky to have scraps at the table, which is usually before (la tene and period closely following) and after (migration age)

[Frostwulf]

Wasn't one of the Gauls' prime trade commodities with the Romans slaves, though ? And you usually don't sell your own subjects as such in any great numbers, and obviously those of neighbours tend not come willingly...

Simon James-"The World of the Celts"-"Slavery existed, although on a smaller scale than in the Classical world; slaves may have been most important as export commodities." pg. 53

I believe most slaves were acquired while raiding and the battles, but it doesn't seem to be in large numbers.

Also, if the Helveti were to be genuinely pushed away from their lands by the encroaching Germans, one has trouble imagining they could actually afford to prepare for their migration as thoroughly as they did (as opposed to, you know, barely escaping with their lives). Moreover one would expect them to have been seriously militarily weakened by the Germanic raids and victories; yet they were apparently a formidable enough force that the potentates of Gaul proper did not apparently even try to check them by their own force of arms (which begs the question if they didn't have an acute shortage of that, doubly so if one were to follow the Helvetii-chased-away-by-Germans hypothesis), instead calling on their Roman contacts to defend them.

Erebus answers your question of the Gaul proper situation.

For your point about the Helveti - Caesar states that the Helveti wage constant war against the Germans, either repelling them from their own territories, or invading German lands. Caesar also say because of this they had the most valour of Gallic tribes. Orgetorix proposed that the Helvetti, whoes lands were confined to the mountains, move into the territory of the Aedui - to do this he married his daughter off to Dumnorix - a noble of the Aedui. He also made an alliance with the Sequani noble Casticus so he could pass through their lands. Unfortunately Orgetorix never fulfilled his ambition as he was killed, whilst Dumnorix was driven out by his brother Divitiacus, who had the backing of the Romans. I don't think Caesar mentions that the Helveti's migration was because of germanic raiding, but he does mention that they wanted better land. This is all from Caesar's Gallic Commentaries - the first few pages.

As a Celtophile I am going to be a bit biased even though I try not to be, but I'll take Caesar's pep talk for fact. Which leads me to agree with Watchman that the Helvetii left their lands not because they were forced by the Germans, but because there were better lands to be had and the "unsuccessful" German raids were becoming too annoying to bother with anymore. It's not like the Helvetii could cross the Rhine and defeat all the Germanic tribes - maybe one or two or possibly 10 but more would eventually take their place. There are many times playing as the Aedui that I flirt with the idea of abandoning Mediolanum to postpone the inevitable war with Rome, who, no matter how many times I defeat them in battle, just will not stop attacking...

What you guys are saying makes sense.

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-" in such circumstances their range of movement was less extensive, and their chance of waging war on their neighbors were less easy; and on this account they were greatly distressed, for they were men that longed for war."
If they left their homeland for lack of raiding what about what he says about going into the German lands and subduing them there? The Germans would have had cattle and other items that were "raid worthy". I'm sure it wouldn't have been up to the level of loot that Gaul could produce.

That the Helvetians originally lived in southern Germany is confirmed by the Alexandrian geographer Claudius Ptolemaios (ca. 90-168 AD), who tells us of an Ελουητίον έρημος (i.e. “Helvetic deserted lands”) north of the Rhine.[7] Tacitus knows that the Helvetians once settled in the area between Rhine, Main and the Hercynian forest.[8] The abandonment of this northern territory is now usually placed in the late 2nd c. BC, around the time of the first Germanic incursions into the Roman world, when the Tigurini and Toygenoi/Toutonoi are mentioned as participants in the great raids.

We all know the Helvetii burnt their homes and everything they couldn't take with them before leaving their land (for whatever reason), and that they were defeated in battle by Caesar and forced to return home...

I have also wondered this. I don't know what the reason these authors have said they were pressured to leave their home by the Germans. I should be receiving a new book soon that may cover the subject.

Frostwulf - for questions about German and Celtic ethnicity I found "Beyond Celts, Germans and Scythians" by Peter Wells useful. He just puts forward the case that not all what ancient Greek and Romans put forward about the northern barbarians is correct.

I have seen his book but have not read it of as yet. I hope to get to it before the years end. Thanks for the information.

When Caesar mentions the Helvetii successfully defending their lands against the Germans and even defeating them in their own (German) lands, he is doing so when giving his troops a pep talk, (see my post above). Frostwulf has replied that he takes what Caesar said as basically a motivational speech - just some "lies" made up to keep the Roman troops from worrying about facing the Germans.

Basically Helvetii beat Germans, Romans beat Helvetii, ergo Romans will beat Germans.

I find it odd that anyone would use lies to motivate and boost morale, but it isn't out of the question so Frostwulf can interpret the passage as he may.

Glewas I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I don't think Caesar was lying at all, but I do think he was omitting things. I even put down that I didn't think Caesar knew that the Germans pressured the Helvetii. You have to take into account he did omit the defeats of the Romans and for good reason.
For the Aedui weakling thing Rome didn't exactly have fond references to the Gauls, thinking them fickle and other such things. But we do know that the "weaklings" would have involved the elite of the Gauls at the time.
Glewas what part of my analysis did you disagree with and why?

[Watchman]

Simon James-"The World of the Celts"-"Slavery existed, although on a smaller scale than in the Classical world; slaves may have been most important as export commodities." pg. 53

I believe most slaves were acquired while raiding and the battles, but it doesn't seem to be in large numbers.

Given the first paragraph and the fact the Mediterranean region could always use more slaves, I'd actually be rather curious to hear where you drew that last conclusion from. Especially given the Celts' fondness of almost institutionalized raiding and fighting.

One thing I've been wondering about is the fact the Helveti ended up ravaging Aedui territory, and the latter asked the Romans to do something about the buggers. Now unless I've entirely misunderstood something the Aedui weren't exactly the smallest tribe around, so why is it one gets the impression they didn't do anything about their unwanted guests themselves ?

[Erebus26]

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-" in such circumstances their range of movement was less extensive, and their chance of waging war on their neighbors were less easy; and on this account they were greatly distressed, for they were men that longed for war."
If they left their homeland for lack of raiding what about what he says about going into the German lands and subduing them there? The Germans would have had cattle and other items that were "raid worthy". I'm sure it wouldn't have been up to the level of loot that Gaul could produce.

What I can't understand is why they(the Helveti) would they burn their oppida and other settlements. Was this a normal thing for Gallic tribes to do in times of war or migration? Or was it simply because they were afraid of invading tribes from the north taking over their settlements? Anybody have any theories?

Frostwulf - I found that wiki article you quoted about abandoned Helvetic lands north of the rhine very interesting. Especially the quotes from Tacitus and Claudius Ptolemaios. In fact Claudius seems to be writing about a recent event, or maybe I'm merely taking the quote out of context. There was a tribe called the Vindelici who were very powerful on the German side of the Rhine during the last centuries BC, but were finally subjugated by Tiberius in 15BC. I think they are also mentioned briefly by Caesar but I'm afraid I can't get a quote at this time.

[Fionnlagh]

What I can't understand is why they(the Helveti) would they burn their oppida and other settlements. Was this a normal thing for Gallic tribes to do in times of war or migration? Or was it simply because they were afraid of invading tribes from the north taking over their settlements? Anybody have any theories?

I think it had something to do with not giving the impression they were running away or retreating.

[Frostwulf]

Given the first paragraph and the fact the Mediterranean region could always use more slaves, I'd actually be rather curious to hear where you drew that last conclusion from. Especially given the Celts' fondness of almost institutionalized raiding and fighting.

The reason is because it was still a relatively peaceful area. The raids consisted of small groups of men, and the battles would have been few. With the raids and few battles there would not have been many slaves taken, but enough for trade to happen, I believe from what James was saying it was on a smaller scale.

One thing I've been wondering about is the fact the Helveti ended up ravaging Aedui territory, and the latter asked the Romans to do something about the buggers. Now unless I've entirely misunderstood something the Aedui weren't exactly the smallest tribe around, so why is it one gets the impression they didn't do anything about their unwanted guests themselves ?

The Sequani didn't stop the Helvetii because they were on good terms with them. The Germans had wiped out most of the nobles and cavalry of the Aedui but still later they were able to bring 10,000 men to aid Caesar.

What I can't understand is why they(the Helveti) would they burn their oppida and other settlements. Was this a normal thing for Gallic tribes to do in times of war or migration? Or was it simply because they were afraid of invading tribes from the north taking over their settlements? Anybody have any theories?

I believe Caesar said they burned down their oppida so they wouldn't be tempted to return.

Frostwulf - I found that wiki article you quoted about abandoned Helvetic lands north of the rhine very interesting. Especially the quotes from Tacitus and Claudius Ptolemaios. In fact Claudius seems to be writing about a recent event, or maybe I'm merely taking the quote out of context. There was a tribe called the Vindelici who were very powerful on the German side of the Rhine during the last centuries BC, but were finally subjugated by Tiberius in 15BC. I think they are also mentioned briefly by Caesar but I'm afraid I can't get a quote at this time.

It has piqued my curiosity as well, I hope to have a chance to check into it.

I have diverted the Gaesatae back to this thread:

That was actually the expected result whenever unarmoured close-order infantry had to suffer the attentions of skirmishers without a skirmish screen of their own to dissipate the effect. Skirmishers rarely did much damage to each other (since they could dodge most of the javelins), but if unopposed could severely hurt close-order troops (who couldn't, and AFAIK even light javelins can pierce shields worrisomely easily).

And I seem to recall an entire Spartan mora - the premier fighting force of Greece - wiped out by lightly armed peltasts, so there's really no point in saying a unit is weak because it fell victim to skirmishing tactics.

At Telemon the Gaesatae that did reach the Romans were dispatched quite easily, which is to be expected considering the situation. If you consider how they did at Clastidium and Mediolanum it was fairly poor.

You do realize that our Gaesatae are merely the elite part of the entire Gaesatae force, right?

I didn't see this in Plutarch,Polybius,nor Livy. If it were the elite of the Gaesatae why were they not differentiated by name. Irregardless of this, were did they stand out in any of the battles? Where is any evidence what so ever that shows the Gaesatae being anything but average at best?What it comes down to is the Gaesatae statistics are ridiculous based upon their performance of the battles they were in.