Celtic overpowered!

[Glewas]

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?

Maybe not lie, but you do admit that he omits certain things, stretches the truth, etc.

My problem with your analysis/argument for this whole thread is that you rely a lot on the words of Caesar. Correct me if I am wrong but De Bello Gallico is not an unbiased work, recording the culture and times of the Romans, Celts, and Germans from ca. 60 BCE. on...

Now I may be generalizing, but did not Caesar recorded the events to publish in Rome so that everyone could read/hear how great a man he was, that, not only was he a great politician, and a great man from a respected and wealthy family, but also an accomplished general in battle? Hell, the whole Gallic war was just to refill his coffers after spending so much of his family's wealth as he climbed the political ladder and give him loyal veteran troops to allow him to compete with Pompey.

With all that taken into account why should anyone consider what Caesar said as 100% fact? He paints the Gauls in one stroke as crude backward savages, another as noble warrior barbarians, and another as weak saps (Aedui). The first shows Romans that his slaughter of the Gauls is justified as they are uncivilized and a threat to the Roman way, the second to show that the slaughter is not easy - that every battle is a "heroic victory," and the third to convince the anti-Caesars in Rome that this "war" was to protect Rome's allies against the hostile tribes of Gaul.

There is no real reason why Caesar had to report any truths when he could stretch them to fit his agenda... This doesn't mean that everything is fictionalized, but one should be a bit skeptical, but that is just my observation.

Now you do cite James and Goldsworthy as other sources, but I would be surprised if they didn't use Caesar as a source. Considering Goldsworthy's book is called "Caesar: Life as a Colossus" I would really be surprised if that was the case... but I doubt it. (No I haven't read Goldsworthy, but I am aware that the two authors probably have hundreds of sources for their books - that doesn't mean that every source is used equally or to the same amount).

Two more quick points:

If I remember correctly, you mentioned that, as you are “proving” that the Germans are superior to Gauls/Celts during Caesar's time, that 200 years prior (back to EB’s start time) they should still be superior.

You have made decent arguments backed up with sources (suspect they may or may not be) throughout most of this tread, and if you have rescinded this comment then please ignore the fact that I find said comment to be absurd. In EB’s time period the Romans alone have three different reforms, Celts two, and even the Sweboz will hopefully get one. Are you really trying to tell me that the Germanic armies were static for over 200 years? They didn’t grow in power or even lessen? If what you think is true then you really need to give a damn good reason why they didn’t invade Gaul en masse anytime during EB’s time period.

Of course if am not remembering correctly, and you didn’t make such a statement then I apologize.

Finally... as much energy as you have put into this threat and the thread for the Sweboz, for which I am impressed and commend you... I don’t really see many picking up your side of the argument. There are probably good reasons for this, mainly people not posting their own ideas. But come on... 11, going on 12 pages of pretty much the same thing, although a damn good read for those who care.

You and Psycho, (to give the Celts a single head of their own - not trying to dismiss the other posters), have made your points and neither seem to be willing to budge. I understand the lack of “sources” that the Celtic side has for their argument can be frustrating, but as mentioned above, just because you have them (or not), doesn’t mean you are right (or wrong). Do remember Psycho was the Faction coordinator for the Gauls at one time so I do hope he knows what he is talking about, sources or no.

But then again... you might be totally correct in your arguments and the EB members don’t want to admit a-historicity of the Gallic faction and are conspiring against you.... but they wouldn’t do that would they?

[IrishArmenian]

Yeah, and their defeating Milan only proves it more!
(I couldn't resist!)
However, this could definitley be handeled in EB2 much more appropriately, as the Celtic factions could just have very low loyalty and the kings could have very low authority.

[Frostwulf]

Glewas I agree with what you said in your post up until what I have for the quotes I will address below. Most authors if not all use Caesar as there would be a large gap in knowledge without his writings. As with most writers of Caesars time and before(after) they are subject to cultural prejudices and ignorance of certain things. Archeology alone will not illuminate history, the ancient writer helps to fill in allot of the gaps.

If I remember correctly, you mentioned that, as you are “proving” that the Germans are superior to Gauls/Celts during Caesar's time, that 200 years prior (back to EB’s start time) they should still be superior.

You have made decent arguments backed up with sources (suspect they may or may not be) throughout most of this tread, and if you have rescinded this comment then please ignore the fact that I find said comment to be absurd. In EB’s time period the Romans alone have three different reforms, Celts two, and even the Sweboz will hopefully get one. Are you really trying to tell me that the Germanic armies were static for over 200 years? They didn’t grow in power or even lessen? If what you think is true then you really need to give a damn good reason why they didn’t invade Gaul en masse anytime during EB’s time period.

Of course if am not remembering correctly, and you didn’t make such a statement then I apologize.

As far as the Germans being superior to the Celts prior to the TCA the only thing that could be said is that the Germans reversed the Celtic expansion. As for the TCA the Germans could be said to be superior based on the defeats of the type of Roman armies they defeated, who had previously defeated Celtic armies which outnumbered the Romans. Then of course we have Caesars time frame.
What do you consider static combat? The arms and armour of the Germans didn't change much during these times. The tactics used? The shield wall was used from before Caesars time for at least a 1,000 years later where the Anglo-Saxon's fought the Normans at the Battle of Hastings. Perhaps your referring to battle formations? If you look at the way the troops of Ariovistus were lined up, they are very similar to those used by the Franks,Lombards and etc. several hundred years later.

As far as why they didn't invade Gaul, they did:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=243
Also there is what Drinkwater says in this post:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=273

Finally... as much energy as you have put into this threat and the thread for the Sweboz, for which I am impressed and commend you... I don’t really see many picking up your side of the argument. There are probably good reasons for this, mainly people not posting their own ideas. But come on... 11, going on 12 pages of pretty much the same thing, although a damn good read for those who care.

I appreciate you saying that Glewas. But as far as not many picking up my side of the argument I find interesting. So far the other side of the argument has no evidence to back up its claims. My view is backed up with evidence and yet I'm a Roman apologist and "severely biased in favour of the Germans".

[Watchman]

Uhh... Frosty, not to be rude but thus far your 'evidence' has consisted of some rather selective and tendentious interpretation of what (rather little) is actually known; such as the mistake of assuming strategic success necessitated superior troop calibre...

[Erebus26]

Glewas I agree with what you said in your post up until what I have for the quotes I will address below. Most authors if not all use Caesar as there would be a large gap in knowledge without his writings. As with most writers of Caesars time and before(after) they are subject to cultural prejudices and ignorance of certain things. Archeology alone will not illuminate history, the ancient writer helps to fill in allot of the gaps.



As far as the Germans being superior to the Celts prior to the TCA the only thing that could be said is that the Germans reversed the Celtic expansion. As for the TCA the Germans could be said to be superior based on the defeats of the type of Roman armies they defeated, who had previously defeated Celtic armies which outnumbered the Romans. Then of course we have Caesars time frame.
What do you consider static combat? The arms and armour of the Germans didn't change much during these times. The tactics used? The shield wall was used from before Caesars time for at least a 1,000 years later where the Anglo-Saxon's fought the Normans at the Battle of Hastings. Perhaps your referring to battle formations? If you look at the way the troops of Ariovistus were lined up, they are very similar to those used by the Franks,Lombards and etc. several hundred years later.

As far as why they didn't invade Gaul, they did:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=243
Also there is what Drinkwater says in this post:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=273

I appreciate you saying that Glewas. But as far as not many picking up my side of the argument I find interesting. So far the other side of the argument has no evidence to back up its claims. My view is backed up with evidence and yet I'm a Roman apologist and "severely biased in favour of the Germans".

Totally agree with you frosty, although I'm still inclined to say that the TCA had a mixture of both 'Germanic' and 'Celtic' within their ranks.
As for the ethnicity - how can you define 'Celtic' and Germanic' as these were general names given to the occupants of Gaul and Germania by Roman and Greek historians and writers. The peoples belonging to Gaul and Germania at that time would have thought themselves as belonging to a tribe, and probably didn't have a kind of national identity. The Aedui and Sequani would have been most likely scared of invading Suebi rather than invading Germans. I would be interested to hear your views on this frosty.

I don't there was much difference in tactics either between 'Celts' and 'Germans'. After all the Helveti also used 'shield wall' tactics when fighting Caesar's legions. I think one major difference between the Suebi and their allies and the rest was the fact that they used a combination of cavalry and light infantry in battle. Caesar was obviously suitably impressed to include them in his own ranks at the time of Vercingtorix's revolt.

[Frostwulf]

Uhh... Frosty, not to be rude but thus far your 'evidence' has consisted of some rather selective and tendentious interpretation of what (rather little) is actually known; such as the mistake of assuming strategic success necessitated superior troop calibre...

I don't take it as rude. As for being selective I would have to disagree with you as I have tried to find differing views from the authors I have read. Allot of the authors I quote from came from Pyscho V. Tendentious would apply to all here, not just I. As far as: "such as the mistake of assuming strategic success necessitated superior troop calibre..."

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.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=312

Totally agree with you frosty, although I'm still inclined to say that the TCA had a mixture of both 'Germanic' and 'Celtic' within their ranks.

I agree with you on this, though at the beginning I think the majority would have been Germanic.

As for the ethnicity - how can you define 'Celtic' and Germanic' as these were general names given to the occupants of Gaul and Germania by Roman and Greek historians and writers. The peoples belonging to Gaul and Germania at that time would have thought themselves as belonging to a tribe, and probably didn't have a kind of national identity. The Aedui and Sequani would have been most likely scared of invading Suebi rather than invading Germans. I would be interested to hear your views on this frosty.

I believe this is born out in the ancient writers. The Germani from what I read always said they were Suebi,Chatti,Batavi or whatever. The only exception to this is when they were in Roman service where they may refer to themselves as Germani. As far as the Celts are concerned I'm not sure. They did use the term Germani when describing the Suebi(according to Caesar) so they may have linked those who spoke German to all be Germani.

I don't there was much difference in tactics either between 'Celts' and 'Germans'. After all the Helveti also used 'shield wall' tactics when fighting Caesar's legions. I think one major difference between the Suebi and their allies and the rest was the fact that they used a combination of cavalry and light infantry in battle. Caesar was obviously suitably impressed to include them in his own ranks at the time of Vercingtorix's revolt.

There may have been minor variances but for the most part I agree with you that they would have been very similar.

[Beefy187]

Im soo gonna embrass my self

In terms of strategy I read somewhere that Germans used more of an guerilla tactic. Like raids and ambush. Where Gauls fought field battles like the Romans.

I think Caesar mentioned that Celts were superior to Germans until they started making cities and farm and stuff. They became more rich which made them more weak. While Germans rarely stayed in one place because they preffred hunting and raiding.

Sorry if this has been said before. I didnt have time to read the entire thread.

[Megas Methuselah]

Sorry if this has been said before. I didnt have time to read the entire thread.

Who does?

[NeoSpartan]

Who does?

I did!!!!

Over a period of mothts that is

[Power2the1]

Totally agree with you frosty, although I'm still inclined to say that the TCA had a mixture of both 'Germanic' and 'Celtic' within their ranks.
As for the ethnicity - how can you define 'Celtic' and Germanic' as these were general names given to the occupants of Gaul and Germania by Roman and Greek historians and writers. The peoples belonging to Gaul and Germania at that time would have thought themselves as belonging to a tribe, and probably didn't have a kind of national identity. The Aedui and Sequani would have been most likely scared of invading Suebi rather than invading Germans. I would be interested to hear your views on this frosty.

I don't there was much difference in tactics either between 'Celts' and 'Germans'. After all the Helveti also used 'shield wall' tactics when fighting Caesar's legions. I think one major difference between the Suebi and their allies and the rest was the fact that they used a combination of cavalry and light infantry in battle. Caesar was obviously suitably impressed to include them in his own ranks at the time of Vercingtorix's revolt.

I agree. Regarding battle tactics of boths races here, I can think of a couple differences in battle protocol. Granted, I have not read as much as other historians on this board, so anyone feel free to post where I might be wrong :-)

Celts used "music" to a great effect. I have not heard how the carnyx sounded, but its rather scary if you imagine a Celtic army sounding on them as they begin a battle! I have not read much of the Germans battling with horns blaring, creating the dreadful din (not that they did not, however, I've just not read about evidence of them using horns to the extent of the Celtic armies.)

Germanic tactics, I would assume, relied more on the powerful charge. As we all know, one popular tactic was charging in wedge formation, crashing into their enemies front lines, attempting to break them quickly (like most "barbarian tribes). Its ashame the the wedge cannot be adapted to Germans in game.

Chariot ambushes, with riders throwing spears was mentioned being used heavily by the Briton Celts, the Germans most successful use of ambush in Teutoberg Wald, and the Gaulish use of skirmish and hit and run tactics provides for plenty to keep a "civilized" commander on his toes.

I read somewhere that Celtic oppida were designed in a way that slingers/archers could have an optimal line of fire. Anyone know how accurate this is?

Too bad none of them learned to adopt a more thorough battle plan on the whole. I often ask myself why didn't the barbarians over hundred's of years learn a more complex form of battle. Maybe the standard "charge and hope they break" worked just enough to keep in forefront in their minds

[blitzkrieg80]

the wedge formation CAN be adapted to RTW: in fact it doesn't make sense for a single unit to do a wedge formation, because it should be more tactical in manner, similar to legions:

Saxo Grammaticus describes the svínfylkir "wedge formation" in his History of the Danes, which shows a good map of where Dugunthiz stood on the social/ battlefield importance scale... these scans are from the English Warrior by Pollington and Saxo Grammaticus by David & Fisher: WARNING MASSIVE FILE... some nice text on the right too


The Germany Army composition should consist of 2 main lines (even in ambush) with the Youth (skirmishers) along the front and the Veteran spearmen behind them, flanked with Support and/or Levy troops. The King/General is directly in the middle of the battle line as a 3rd grouping unto themselves, flanked by personal followers/bodyguard, in front of them is a special elite/vanguard 2nd and 1st line middle force who are even with the rest in ambush but will eventually form the point of a wedge formation.

(facing upwards toward the enemy)
1st line:
.........................Club Infantry | Skirmishers| Skirmishers | Chatti Club Infantry | Skirmishers | Skirmishers | Club Infantry

2nd line:

Levy Spear | Levy Spear | Spearmen | Spearmen | Chatti Spearmen | Chatti Spearmen | Spearmen | Spearmen | Levy Spear | Levy Spear

3rd line:
...........................................................Heavy Infantry | (Bodyguard) | Heavy Infantry

KEY:
Germanic Skirmishers: Jugunthiz
Chatti Club Infantry: Jugunthiz Hattisku
Germanic Club Infantry: Slaganz
Germanic Spearmen: Dugunthiz
Chatti Spearmen: Dugunthiz Hattisku
Germanic Levy Spearmen: Gaizōz Aljē
Germanic Heavy Infantry: Thegnōz Drugulē
Germanic Bodyguard Infantry: Herthaganautōz


*Some of this has been copy and pasted from other commentary by me, so when I mention the Dugunthiz it might seem weird and this composition isn't a FOR SURE ALWAYS kind of thing, it's an example, so you can substitute similar units easily: in fact, the scan graphic has the real sketch/reference information we have on such, so you can determine your own wedge formation

[Power2the1]

the wedge formation CAN be adapted to RTW: in fact it doesn't make sense for a single unit to do a wedge formation, because it should be more tactical in manner, similar to legions:

Saxo Grammaticus describes the svínfylkir "wedge formation" in his History of the Danes, which shows a good map of where Dugunthiz stood on the social/ battlefield importance scale... these scans are from the English Warrior by Pollington and Saxo Grammaticus by David & Fisher: WARNING MASSIVE FILE... some nice text on the right too


The Germany Army composition should consist of 2 main lines (even in ambush) with the Youth (skirmishers) along the front and the Veteran spearmen behind them, flanked with Support and/or Levy troops. The King/General is directly in the middle of the battle line as a 3rd grouping unto themselves, flanked by personal followers/bodyguard, in front of them is a special elite/vanguard 2nd and 1st line middle force who are even with the rest in ambush but will eventually form the point of a wedge formation.

(facing upwards toward the enemy)
1st line:
.........................Club Infantry | Skirmishers| Skirmishers | Chatti Club Infantry | Skirmishers | Skirmishers | Club Infantry

2nd line:

Levy Spear | Levy Spear | Spearmen | Spearmen | Chatti Spearmen | Chatti Spearmen | Spearmen | Spearmen | Levy Spear | Levy Spear

3rd line:
...........................................................Heavy Infantry | (Bodyguard) | Heavy Infantry

KEY:
Germanic Skirmishers: Jugunthiz
Chatti Club Infantry: Jugunthiz Hattisku
Germanic Club Infantry: Slaganz
Germanic Spearmen: Dugunthiz
Chatti Spearmen: Dugunthiz Hattisku
Germanic Levy Spearmen: Gaizōz Aljē
Germanic Heavy Infantry: Thegnōz Drugulē
Germanic Bodyguard Infantry: Herthaganautōz


*Some of this has been copy and pasted from other commentary by me, so when I mention the Dugunthiz it might seem weird and this composition isn't a FOR SURE ALWAYS kind of thing, it's an example, so you can substitute similar units easily: in fact, the scan graphic has the real sketch/reference information we have on such, so you can determine your own wedge formation

Are you saying that the wedge formation can be made as a formation in game? I was thinking it could not for infantry, but only for cavalry units. Not sure though. I know that units can position themselves and arrange themselves into wedge formation if thats what you were refering to :-)

Speaking of which, in the wedge diagram you posted above, do you know where (if any) Germanic skirmisher or heavy cavalry units be positioned? Were they on the far left/right flanks, or were they used as strictly skirmishers that would engage only at the beginning of battle to soften them up, and then again when the enemy was routing by riding the enemy down with their swift light horses?

[blitzkrieg80]

the "Youth" who made up the front line would usually be considered skirmishers, which they are in EB, as well as on the colored configuration I show.

Cavalry is a very good question because there isn't much info on that, but I would believe they'd be kept as reserves, similar to how Caesar used them, but depending on the role, since the Ridoharjoz might be considered skirmishers and screen at the front. Also I doubt they'd be positioned on wings as Romans, I'm thinking you got the idea with softening up at the beginning then in reserve.

Yes, i meant using an overall army formation and not a unit ability.

[PSYCHO V]

(*sigh*) …Frosty Frosty

…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 think ..if there was any weakening to the Celts during Caesar's time it was because of the Germans..

I'm not sure what your saying here.

? They’re your comments!

Of course this is simplistic, these are generalities.

General-fantasies. You can’t seriously expect others to take you seriously when you grab select data, ignore chronology and regional variation and extrapolate it where and when you see fit to fit a personal belief / thinking.

The greatest difficulties concern chronology and regional variation. To imply that any generalized description has universal application is evident nonsense (The Ancient Celts, Warfare and Society, p92, Barry Cunliffe).

“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).

This is very much the same way in which Europeans considered the whole of America to be inhabited by “Indians”. In locating the Celts we should ignore such generic usages: Celts, Germans…and perhaps others which no longer exist. (The Celts; Origins, Myths and Inventions, Locating the Celts, p105, John Collins).

Again in principle..

(We run the)… risk of turning an abstract set of material markers, which we have ourselves selected, into a historically real group of humans to which we then attribute a collective identity or ascribe collective value. (Rome’s Gothic Wars, Archaeology, Identity and Ethnicity, p62, Michael Kulikowski)

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.

Why is there reason to think that they would be any different?

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.

…the authors I have read say that these tribes are Belgae.... Ill make the claim, the Belgae were .. descended from the Germans.
….Goldsworthy's specialty is Roman warfare, 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.

? To date you have only given indication that you have read or part-read two books that specialise on the Celts. Could be good to look at a few quotes from the legends in the field? Few better than Powell.

“Caesar also learnt that the Belgae, in earlier times, had themselves come from beyond the Rhine. Modern archaeological research supports the tradition as to the Rhenine, or trans-Rhenine, origins of these peoples. (The Celts, The Celtic Survival, 190 T.G.E Powell)

It is along the Rhine that the use of the name Germani is really important, and the archaeological evidence for Celtic settlement east of the river, together with the Celtic topographical names that survive as far east as the Weser, and even the lower Elbe, combine with the observed characteristics of the Belgae, the Treveri, amongst others, to suggest that Germani was originally a Celtic tribe name which perhaps, in former days, had achieved a suzerain position. From the 2nd C BC, it is clear that the name began being used indiscriminantely for any intruders coming into Gaul from across the Rhine. (The Celts, The Celtic Survival, 191 T.G.E Powell)

The Belgae as you have said did have a Celtic culture.

And!?

(“Unskilled”) - 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?

My version has "unskilled barbarians" as well.

And!? .... horses and water ..and all that.

And there was formerly a time when the Gauls excelled the Germans in prowess, and waged war on them offensively..( De Bello Gallico 6.24)

I'm going to do some supposition here and really don't have much to back this up with.. I just think the Romans and the Germans were tougher.

By all means “just think” away, but it’s not exactly a convincing argument

Why didn't the (Germani) raid the (Gallic) land earlier? It seems to me to be a minor Volkerwanderung with the Germanic tribes slowly moving forward.

The methodological problem is of long standing. In the early years of archaeology’s development as a scientific discipline, it was normal to understand cultural changes as the result of one tribe or people (Germani) conquering or displacing another (Celtoi) and replacing the previous material culture with a new one of their own. This interpretative paradigm goes back to the nationalist scholarship of the Volk (Rome’s Gothic Wars, p64-65, Michael Kulikowski)

In the later half of the eighteenth century, Romanticism became the reigning intellectual paradigm for German-speaking thinkers and artists. Romantic ideals about the intrinsic qualities of individuals and whole peoples helped to articulate a sense of belonging and identity in German-speaking lands. For that reason, Romantic ideology was an inextricable part of German nationalism throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. (Rome’s Gothic Wars, Romanticism and the Rise of Modern Scholarship, p45 Michael Kulikowski)

The Romantic ideal of the German volk helped provide a conceptual framework for the political unification of German-speaking lands that was brought about by Otto von Bismark in 1871. With the creation of a united Germany, the study of a German national past became even more important.
Nazi foreign policy made much of the purity of the German race rooted in the very remote past. The wide distribution of Germans across the European continent could justify the conquest of modern Germany’s neighbours as a ‘reconquest’ of the former lands of the German volk. (Rome’s Gothic Wars, The Volk and Philology, p47, Michael Kulikowski)

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.

Ah yes, the superior Germanic master race and their innate martial superiority. All we need now is some credible supportive evidence for this romantic ideal.

What battle are you referring to in 63 BC?

Three battles in fact. Catugnatos and his Allobroges defeated a Roman army led by Manlius Lentius at the Battle of Valence and then again at the Battle of the Isere, in which “His (Lentius’) army would have been wiped out but for a sudden storm which arose and hindred the attack”. Lentius fled and was able to apparently re-equipped his army with astonishing speed, drawing from the considerable reserves used to garrison various departments. The Allobroges were finally crushed between Lentius’ army and another huge force commanded by the Governor of Gallia Narbonesis, Gaius pomptinus. The Gauls / Allobroges, not able to make good the loss of their warrior elite surrendered.

“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.

“reasonable effort” eh? ..thank god for expediency. My friend, if you truly believe me to be a lier, you could contact Leicester University.

I quote others because these authors are credible.

So you say.

You use yourself as a reference and try to interpret the citations of Dr. James to fit your claims.

Ok, how would you interpret “The Germans were not superior, then or more recently”?

Even if I were to consider it as evidence I would have to disagree with Dr. James and go with … Goldsworthy

So much for defending this “excellent information by a well known and highly thought of Archaeologist”.

As for being selective I would have to disagree with you as I have tried to find differing views from the authors I have read.

And how's that working for you?

There is no difference except I use credible authors and cite their works.

Apparently only when it suits

You keep ignoring James…

I do?

Why do you think I use authors for my points

At a loss ….positional expediency?

I notice a propensity to dismiss my comments …

Why should I believe what your saying? I'm not going to believe you…

At least I'm not alone

I would have to.. go with what Goldsworthy says because of his specialty and because of the events that happened during this time period.

Goldsworthy’s specialty is Rome, not the Celts.

The truth of the matter is you’ll go with anything that can be applied to support your hypothesis of an innately superior Germanic master race.

…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).
… If there was any weakening to the Celts during Caesar's time it was because of the Germans

Im basing this on mostly Goldsworthy…

All that from:

“Throughout the Gallic campaigns German warriors consistently defeated their Gallic counterparts, each success adding to their fierce reputation”. Goldsworthy “Caesar” -Pg.274

I’m sorry, but this hypothesis is just wishful “thinking”

Its not just me claiming this.

Unless you count the writings of the German nationalists and Romanticists, I’m afraid it is.

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

I couldn't find it. I will have to dismiss it.

I know I should be surprised …

The German cavalry of Caesar's time were superior to that of the Gauls as shown by the events of this time.

Yes during Caesar’s time, how many times do we need to go over this!? Again strength is relative.

The Germans of the Gallic war era simply were superior to their Gallic counterparts.

Hallelujah! Yes, the perceived strength was a recent relativity!?

I will repeat myself and say yes Goldsworthy is saying in the Gallic campaigns, but that’s because his subject was Caesar and his time frame.

Exactly! So if you are going to quote an author, please do so in the context they intended. Don’t go taking random data, extrapolating that to any given anachronistic period in order to serve a preconceived agenda.. and expect us to see the “logic” in it.

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.

Ironic

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".

Positionally schizophrenic? You have already acknowledge that the Gauls didn’t wage total war, that they had “limiting factors”. Why are you now suggesting the opposite? ..that they did wage total war and therefore all aspects of society would be so affected?

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"-" 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 ....etc etc" pg.4

I’m confused. Are you arguing with me now?

It can be seen, as viewed by the Gauls, a geographical connotation would have been established so that, by the first century BC, any people coming west across the Rhine, whether Celts, or predatory strangers of still more remote origins (Germans), would naturally be dubbed “Germans” (The Celts, The Celtic Survival, 191 T.G.E Powell)

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.

Which some claim was Celtic.

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.

By the time Tacitus was writing, the time of the Celts was all but over and the Germans were the new barbarians ‘at the gates’. His works the Agricola and Germania were intended to both praise his relation Agricola and rale against the corruption / decadence within Rome, so much was made of the noble savage / German.

Further, it is not unusual that peoples, in retrospect, would claim decent from a supposed heroic / mythical past to add to their prestige. Egyptian Pharaohs, Babylonian kings, etc etc came from the gods, as did the Romans (Mars) claiming decent through the Trojans, the Arverni (‘Dis Pater’) also through the Trojans, etc. Little wonder to find the defeated, subjugated and down trodden Gauls of the late 1st BC and first centuries Ad claiming German ancestry.

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.

These are the same Celts who were moving about and invading elsewhere but being pushed back up north.

Sorry to burst your bubble…

Ok, again I state, you can’t lump everything together just because it fits better with your beliefs. There is no such thing as the “Timeless Celt”. One would have to be incredibly naïve to think otherwise.

Using nineteenth century concepts, ..these ideas were developed by Gustav Kossinna and adopted by the Nazi party as a foundation of the concept of a German master race. Races were thought to have characteristic features such as religion, social structure, language, etc. this leads to racial stereo-typing and the idea that different sources from different places and different times can be collated to define the concept of the “timeless Celt”, an idea that still pervades most general books on the Celts. (The Celts; Origins, Myths and Inventions, Locating the Celts, p224, John Collins)

The Germans began reversing the Celts around 3rd century BC, wouldn't that put it in the La Tene B era?

Firstly, Geo-political demographics and culture varied greatly over time and space. Each area, people, tribe, etc would have geographically specific distinctions. Even the categorical nomenclature has been adapted to demonstrated the variations.

Thus, in the third century you have the area of Southern Gaul – “La Tene C”, Northern France – “Middle La Tene II & III”, Hunsrück-Eifel (Reinecke) – “La Tene A & B”, Switzerland – La Tene “Ic & Iia”, Baden Württemberg (Zürn) Halstatt D3 / La Tene A, Northern Plain – “Late Iron Age / Halstatt A & B”, Briton – “Early & Mid Iron Age”.

Secondly, notwithstanding the previous paragraph, I repeat, you’re NOT talking about the same peoples. You may as well start making claims about the Germans vs the forces of the United States of America.

Those peoples in northern Europe, whom the so-called Germani dealt with in the 3rd and early 2nd C BC had almost nothing in common with the La Tene D Gauls of France nor the La Tene B & C Gauls of southern Germany. In fact, La Tene culture never extended beyond the 51st parallel.

(For all accounts), .. in terms of material culture, socio-economic structure, and language the inhabitants of the Northern European Plain differed from the Celtic communities further south, there was a wide zone between where one graded into the other.(The Ancient Celts, p237 Barry Cunliffe)

There was no Celtic wall that the Germans suddenly smashed through due to their innate superiority. In fact, by the time the ‘Germani’ began putting pressure on Celtic lands across the Rhine and in southern Germany, most of the Celtic colonies had already / previously disappeared, their states collapsed. To this day we don’t know why. We know that significant contingents of Volcae (Osi, Cotini, etc) migrated east to join their kin throughout eastern Europe .. even as far as the black sea. Some scholars claim regional disasters, some disease, some internal warfare fought over the increasing scale of trade with the south. All we know for sure is that dozens of major fortified sites and significant areas of population were suddenly abandoned. To date, only deposits of La Tene weaponry have been found dating to the period.

The martial and cultural ascendancy of the Celts throughout the fifth to the second centuries BC, manifested archeologically in the La Tene culture, exerted a great influence on the remoter barbarians (Germani), lying to the north and east. (The Celts, The Celtic Survival, 192 T.G.E Powell)

The Germani, didn’t begin making an incursion into this area until the mid to late 2nd C BC.

The trans-Rhenine aggressors of the first centuries BC and AD represent but an early phase in a movement that involved an ever-increasing element of Tuetonic-speaking peoples as they pressed forward from their earlier homelands that had previous lain north-eastwards of the Elbe.(The Celts, The Celtic Survival, 192 T.G.E Powell)

During the second and first centuries BC, the Darcians and (later) certain of the so-called Germanic peoples began making territorial inroads on Celtic lands (The Ancient Celts, The Developed Celtic World, p221, Barry Cunliffe)

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.

Apparently in the material yet to be studied.

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

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…

No offence to your beliefs but I’m afraid Watchman is correct.

Whilst previously, slavery had only played a minor role within Gallic society, there was a huge increase in the slave trade (export south) at the end of the 2nd and begging of the 1st century BC. This just happens to coincide with the out-break of a major conflict between northern and southern tribes over the lucrative trade routs. The war you deny.

By the beginning of the first century BC the reliance of the Roman economy on slave labour was considerable. One estimate is that in the early first century BC there were 300,000 Gallic slaves in Italy alone, a total which required to be topped up at a rate of 15,000 a year. (The Ancient Celts, The Developed Celtic World, p215, Barry Cunliffe)

Not the “small groups of men” taken in “raids” that you claim but rather implies a much more significant developement. The war you deny.

After the defeat of Luernio’s son Bituitos by the Romans on the River Isere in 123 BC where he had been opposing the invasion of the Province, the Arverni lost their leading role (in Gaul). As Caesar says that by his time the control of Gaul was being contested by the Aedui and Sequani.(The Celts; Origins, Myths and Inventions, Archaeology of the Celts, p171, John Collins)

The “unsual situation” of the first century BC ..suggests that it was likely due to the instability of the Celtic states brought into sharp focus by the sudden interest of the Roman world (Reduction of Arverni) in the affairs of its northern periphery (The Ancient Celts, Warfare and Society, p223, Barry Cunliffe)

Further, the material record bears this out. The huge increase in the trade of slaves happens to coincide with the huge increase in the trade of wine.

They (Gauls) are extremely partial to wine and glut themselves with the unmixed wine brought in by merchants. Their desire makes them guzzle it and when they get drunk, they either fall into a stupor or become manic. For this reason many Italian merchants, with their usual love for money, regard the Celtic passion for wine as a source of treasure. They transport the wine by boat on the navigable rivers and by cart … and get an incredibly good price for it; for one amphora of wine they get a slave. (Hist 5.26 Diodorus Siculus)

Little wonder the Romans / merchants (and James) regarded Gaul as prosperous.


We have deposits of tens of thousands of distinctive Amphora of Dressel Type 1A & 1B dating to this period. Huge dumps like that found in Saone, Cabillonum (Chalon) testify to the significant increase in importation. Thus even in a war that would almost annihilate the warrior class, the precious wine was prized.

Another factor (for Caesar’s conquest of Gaul), was surely economic. Gaul, as we have seen, provided Rome with an immensely valuable market (of) slaves. (The Ancient Celts, The Celts in Retreat, p239, Barry Cunliffe)

Caesar was to make his personal fortune from the slaves taken in his campaign.

The material record demonstrates other significant changes that took place in the period.

In the late La Tene D1, around 120-100 BC most of the sites in the Grande Limagne (Auvergne) were abandoned, and three successive oppida were established (Corent, Gondole and Gergovie) (The Celts; Origins, Myths and Inventions, Archaeology of the Celts, p172, John Collins)

Another indicator of major conflict, change and attempt to protect the valuable trade in commodities. There is plenty of other evidence, but hey, why let facts get in the way of a good master race story.

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

Yes, in Jame’s paragragh “The Shape of Society, The make-up of Celtic societies”, he again provides a general overview of Celtic society throughout history. More specifically in regards to slavery, he is talking about the use of slavery within Celtic society, suggesting that slavery’s real (most important) value lay in “export” / outside Celtic society / tuath. He is not making a statement about the scale of the slavery trade, but rather the retention / use of slaves within Celtic society. The slave trade of the 1st C BC was something different and new altogether for the Gauls.

..why was it necessary for the Gauls .. 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

Aside from providing support for my argument, 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.

Cavalry = Peace? Those Huns, Alans, Bulgars, Mongols, etc etc were obviously the most peaceful persons on the planet!

The only ones that were really trained for the most part was the cavalry.

The only ones properly trained were the warrior elite, who were increasingly mounted from the second C BC on. Again, your point?

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.

You wrongly claim there was a "Devastating Civil War" ..there wasn't. The Celts were as strong as they had been since the 3rd century and before, possibly even better …

Is this “just” your thinking at play again or do you have something to back that up?

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.

? My friend, if you are happy to dismiss quotes I provide even when references are provided, what should I make of these sort of comments?

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.

“I never made..” ..? Ok Bill, time for a reality check. You made a claim that you had to retract because it was “unfair” and “out of context”, but that wasn’t an error?

Erroneous would be claiming that Caesar's quote …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.

You forgot the sky being blue and the earth round.

On the other hand, when I post… (merely to prove how preposterous it is to extrapolate isolated events devoid of context).you dismiss..

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

Again, you’ve missed the point entirely!

…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.

Gergovia, although it was apparently against 6 rather than 10 legions due to postings elsewhere.

You love to repeatedly cite the example of the 800 but what about the others instances I have.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.

Again missed the point!

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

And there you go …citing context now it’s suddenly relevant. Why hasn’t this worried you before… when it came to the Romans / Germans defeating the Gauls “most of the time”.

Gallic armies successfully …(defeated Roman armies), but this was only possible when the Gauls had had enough time to muster their whole army along the likely route of Roman advance. Mustering a Gallic army and then deploying it for battle was a slow procedure, and it is notable that very often the (Gauls) were unable to form an army until the Romans had (already) attacked their territory …. (Roman Warfare, World Conquest, p96 Adrian Goldsworthy)

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… blah blah blah

You do realise that whether the Romans were outnumbered is a mute point when considering the relevance to my comment!? Or are you still claiming that Ariovistus fought Caesar with only 15,000 men?

Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"The third line of cohorts …blah blah blah" pg.222
Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"By this time the Gauls …blah blah blah" pg. 333
Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"Caesar could do little … blah blah blah" pg.333

I can only assume that in the absence of argument, you hope to distract and confuse with huge amounts of irrelevant quotes.

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

Yea, there was a difference. With the Helvetii, Caesars cavalry were routed and lost a few men, they were on unfavourable 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.

For starters, Caesar’s cavalry were also betrayed, by Ariovistus and his overtures of peace. Secondly, the mighty ‘800’ (even if Caesar is to believe on the numbers) ambushed the Gauls, experienced or not. Ceasar’s veteran legions ran at Gergovia, should we start claiming that Vercingetrix’s Gauls were all innately superior?

Further the Gauls were initially routed by this un-expected attack, not with the subsequent melee that followed. Ignoring the realities of warfare and the state at which the Gallic morale must have been at the time, it is amazing they returned to the fight at all. We have no account of any Germanic force of the period rallying once routed, so again.. should we confer on the Gauls an innate superiority.

It’s also worth mentioning that the Helvetii charged a force ten times their size (400/4000) whilst the Germans only three times their size (1,600/5000)… so again, are the Gauls innately superior? …of course not!

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….blah blah blah

Speculative hearsay. Your fishing.

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!

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 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"… the Gauls had been tired out by the long duration of the war, Ariovistus, after he…"

You’ve merged the sentences to infer direct connection. You have to consider context my friend.

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.

Here, I’ll hold your hand and walk you through it.


Caesar mentions the Gallic war in two sections:

1)

“The Gauls (plural), …were divided into two parties. One dominated by the Aedui, the other by the Arverni. After a fierce struggle for supremacy, lasting many years, the Arverni and Sequani hired some German mercenaries to help them… and there are at present about a 120,000 of them were in the country (Gaul)…The Aedui and their satellite tribes had fought the Germans more than once, and had suffered disastrous defeats… These calamities had broken the supremacy which they formerly maintained in Gaul. (Germans seizing Aedui land) and in a few years time the whole population of Gaul would be expatriated…

….After a single victory over the united Gallic forces at Admagetobriga (61 BC), Arivistus has shown himself an arrogant and cruel tyrant…. Unless Caesar.. would help them, the Gauls (plural) must ..leave their homes, seek other dwelling places … (De Bello Gallico I.XXXI.X)

The points to note here is the fierce Gallic struggle for supremacy lasting many years, the Aedui fighting the German mercenaries more than once and a single victory over a united Gallic force at Admagetobriga


2)

“Observing this state of affairs (fear of the Germans), Caesar summoned the centurions of every grade to a council, and began to severely reprimand them.

• Our countrymen faced this enemy in our father’s time (Cimbri / Teutones) …
• They faced them again more recently in Italy (Spartacus / “rebellious slaves”)
• Moreover these Germans are the same men whom the Helvetii often met in battle … and have generally beaten .. yet were not a match for our army
• If anyone is alarmed by the fact that the Germans have defeated the Gauls (plural) and put them to flight (Admagetobriga), he should inquire into the circumstances of that defeat. He will find that it happened at a time when the Gauls (plural) were exhausted by a long war

(De Bello Gallico I.XXXX.XIII)

The defeat of the Gauls at Admagetobriga was against a united Gallic force, it is not taking about the Aedui fighting the “Germans more than once”. It is a united pan-Gallic force involved in one major battle. These Gauls (plural ie not just the previously mentioned Aedui) had been exhausted by a “long war” / “fierce struggle for supremacy, lasting many years”.

Caesar then goes on and further stresses the point that even in this battle against exhausted Gauls, Ariovistus had to ambush this united Gallic force after they “broke up into scattered groups” His victory being due to “cunning strategy rather than the bravery (superiority) of his troops.”

If one studies the work in context and refrains from grabing select pieces, joining sentences, etc, one will have a better appreciation of the author’s intended meaning rather than that of the reader.

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

He said no such thing.

He is saying that the Gauls were tired of waiting .. for the Germans to emerge (from the marshes) and fight them.

Seriously, think about it

Hoping to evict the unwelcome Germans, ..peoples headed by the Aedui, confronted Ariovistus in the field. The resulting battle was a display of the martial superiority of the (Germans).

Another flight of fancy I’m afraid. If you are referring to Admagetobriga, the battle was fought by a united Gallic force. There is no mention of the Aedui leading, in fact we are told that the Aedui had lost their leading position amongst the Gauls.

Your comment about the so-called display of “martial superiority” flies in the face of what Caesar states and I can only assume one’s imagination has got the better of them yet again.

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.

?

So the Helvetii beat the Germans and we(Romans) beat the Helvetii..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.

Something like that

Caesar probably didn't know they (Helvetii) were most likely forced out by the Germans.

Shame you weren't there to help him

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.

Yes, but this wasn’t the main reason for doing so. It was more a case of overstating (and in some cases fabricating) the German threat to Gaul and Rome so as to provide a casus belli for his Gallic campaign. Ensuring his tenure and support at home.

“In the fourth book of his commentaries Caesar begins with a sketch of the “warlike” Germans, reminding his readers of the instability of the region…providing sufficient justification for his concern on behalf of the stability of Rome.” (The Ancient Celts, p242 Barry Cunliffe)

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

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

The supposed "Devastating Civil War", which I don't believe. I do deny the supposed "Devastating Civil War”

So what exactly is your position? The Gauls didn’t fight ? There was no major struggle between the Arverni and Aedui?

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.

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.

Individually the Romans were better equipped and armoured than the majority of Celtic warriors, but there is little indication (from earlier periods) of the great superiority which Caesar’s troops in the first C BC would display against Gallic opponents. (Roman Warfare, World Conquest, p96 Adrian Goldsworthy)

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.

Was that intentional? No he says that they were rarer before ie more common later in the period due to the changing nature of Gallic society and the increasing power / political hegemony that the various power bloke enjoyed (eg Arverni, Aedui, etc)

James is again providing a general overview that encompasses several hundred years of history. The point here is that he doesn’t state anything that supports your position that this significant Gallic war never occurred.
Goldsworthy makes exactly the same comment about Celtic society in the 3rd c BC as a prefix to his commentary on the first Punic war.

(Celtic) Raiding and small scale warfare were endemic; battle less common but by no means unknown.(The Punic Wars, Opposing Sides, p25 Adrian Goldsworthy).

It’s worth noting that James also mentions that “conflicts ranged from great wars..to mere brigandage..etc”.

He is not talking about tribal movements but movements of armies and those like the Gaesatae who were most likely a social escape valve.

Yes, for the excess warrior elite. In fact the Gallic warrior elite served as mercenaries throughout the ancient world, suddenly disappearing from the world stage at a time that happen to coincide with major internal turmoil in Transalpine Gaul, etc.

As in other Indo-European societies, the Celts produced a warrior class or caste with their own rituals; they were professionals who sold their expertise to whoever would hire their services. Their role might be more quickly understood by comparing them with the Samurai - (The Druids, p28 Peter Berresford Ellis)

How do you think the forces of early feudal Japan would fair without Samurai?

Caesar states plainly about the population, and for the time/era its abundant.

And your point? Either the Celts wage limited warfare (ie predominantly through the warrior class / elites) or they didn't. You can't have it both ways my friend.

I never have said or claimed to have held Livy in any esteem.

Well, you were willing to ignore the commentary of world experts and instead adopt Livy’s bolox verbatim / as truth.

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?

I have a list of references posted around here somewhere. I’ve been fortunate enough to triple my library since then

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.…..

Ah, back to the original subject matter of the thread. Completely agree.


...geez how long is this? ..way too much time better spent elsewhere me thinks..



my2bob

[NeoSpartan]

Ah, back to the original subject matter of the thread. Completely agree.


...geez how long is this? ..way too much time better spent elsewhere me thinks..



my2bob

oh no Psycho V... all was not a waste of time...

Do you realize how many people (including me) now know what happened to the Gauls???

[Watchman]

Me, at least. Between that and some other stuff someone else posted I figure I now have a pretty decent idea of how the whole shebang went.

[Erebus26]

Psycho - I would like you to give me some of your main sources, as I would like to get hold of the books in question.

[Power2the1]

I am not good at the whole quote thing. My opinions are in bold

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking
And there was formerly a time when the Gauls excelled the Germans in prowess, and waged war on them offensively..( De Bello Gallico 6.24)

I might can see that that could have happened. I am sure it was the other way around too. I doubt the Germanic tribes took it sitting down.


Originally Posted by Originally Posted by Frostwulf
1)…Romans>Germans>Celts <~~~
2)…The Germans outclassed the Celts..regardless of the territory.
3)…The Celts were not as good as the Romans nor the Germans.
4)…I believe the German warrior to be superior.
5)…The Germans should be superior to them (Gauls).
6)… If there was any weakening to the Celts during Caesar's time it was because of the Germans

The 1), 2), etc... that you see above are my inserts btw.
1) Depends on time period. Up until the Celtic Civil war, I would put the Celts on par with the Romans. They both defeated and won battle against each other. I should make a tally sheet do see what the ratio was..
2) I doubt that. Again, depends on time frame we are talking about.
3) See #2
4) & 5) I respect your opinion
6) Thats not what I have gleaned in my various readings. This Civil war was between two side of the Celts and their allies adn mercenaries. The Germans were a hired "side show," though they turned out to be decisive I am sure in some battles, they could not have been the only factor. If that was so, and the Gauls were such easy pickings, why didn't we have a Germanic invasion (Like we found with the Anglo-Saxons heading to Britain in the 5-6 centuries A.D. after the Romans left) finding itself doing the same in Gaul?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Erroneous would be claiming that Caesar's quote …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.

This is impossible. If the Celts were constantly fighting Germans, there'd be massive loss of life on both sides. The Germans were hardy, no doubt, but their native lands could not hold the population that Gaul could. So take warrior after warrior, kill them in battles, and its should be obvious that a fertile rolling flatlands of Gaul, full of Celtic farmsteads and crops, could hold and sustain more warriors and people that dark, swampy, shady forest population centers that were prevalent (though perhaps not dominant) in Germany.

That being said, its way more likely that the Civil War would have cost the Celts on both sides (Aedui and Arverni) all their manpower, while one side would have to get a relatively ample supply of warriors from a land that had warriors and lands that were not ravaged and depleted by war (the Germans).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
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.

I agree.


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.
Quote:
“Throughout the Gallic campaigns German warriors consistently defeated their Gallic counterparts, each success adding to their fierce reputation”. Goldsworthy “Caesar” -Pg.274


I would claim the same thing too when you look at the situation. Yes, experienced bands of German Warriors, that had no Civil War ravaging their homelands for decades, would defeat unexperienced, war weary men whose civilization was being torn apart by two opposing side as well as being invaded by the mighty Romans.

You must admit, the Celts fought to the bitter end bravely. They took on Caesars Veteran Legions (routing them at times), the Germans (who were ready, fresh troops from a non civil war affected society), themselves, *and still* managed to offer determined resistance to the Roman Legions and German troops for 7 years (58-51 B.C.E.) in addition to the Civil War which depleted their war machine for decades.

Though I might get flamed hard, and I might veer off in highly debatable issues here, but when I think about it, it seems throughout ancient history when the Germans came on the scene, they never really faced whole, powerful, equal empires that could field warriors on an even platform. I feel they are vastly overrated. They went against and warred versus land and peoples that were long past their prime. Western Rome was declining fast, in fighting, political turmoil, the lack of a strong emperor central figure, etc...had taken its toll for generations, and when the Germans came knocking, their was not a substantial military response tho their advance. In Britain, the Romano-British had all their Legions whisked away, left to fend for themselves versus warrior hordes descending from Scotland (Picts), Ireland, and German Saxons and Angles.

Germans never had to face such odds until WW2

[Hooahguy]

Germans never had to face such odds until WW2

what about WWI and the countless wars that came before it?

[blitzkrieg80]

Power2the1, "non-civil war affected society"?? HELLO- almost all tribes (especially in Europe) participate in ritual warfare, continuous raiding and feuding which is actually a whole lot like civil war... there just isn't a continuous ideological dedication to war with neighbors... go to the ghetto and poor slums of any civilization on earth and see how much peace and lack of violence exists.

btw, the Germans were there the WHOLE time. that's why they're around in EB... you mention the missing emperor figure and Roman military- why? because the Germans were better soldiers and civilization had gotten very used to using them instead of making their own. that is why German soldiers were placing their own emperor on the throne, not because they secretly came in and Romans mysteriously disappeared, but because there was no way to stop that which was accepted by choice.

if you study the early history of Prussia (not the real Prussians who were cool ass pagan Balto-Slavs) but the state with its capital eventually at Brandenburg, you'll notice that a very tiny country faced huge threats continuously over time... seriously, now. there is a reason that Prussian military tradition became the "Roman" variant of its time... the Teutonic Knights suck though, so don't think I mean them even if they started the area, because their un-Christ-like genocide made in his name is as much BS as the one below this paragraph.

the Thirty Years War was a conflict ( I know there is more to it, but I will speak of Germans ) of small and relatively disunited German states who actually put up more of a fight than other similar states, against many nations. Talk about genocide: ignored because it was Catholics peforming it in an effort to control thought, this is vastly ignored due to the "who cares about killing Germans" sentiment of Europe... at least Europeans discovered how good the potato is seriously, crops were burned and they learned how great its nutrition is even though it was "lowly"

if you ask me, one of the primary reasons for the late formation of a unified German state only in the nineteenth century (besides their love of decentralized government) is because the people of the German states were continuously at war (not by choice) especially seen in the Thirty Years War... it is a fact that one of the reasons for WW1 is because Great Britain couldn't handle the idea of competition, Germany had become a GNP powerhouse. there was no "right" or "wrong" in that war, just the idea of "balance of power" which Britain loves to use when it limits other Europeans, but if you look at their military history, they are in more wars than ANYBODY and it's for their own interest and power.

BTW, the reason the Germans were held back so long in antiquity was the fact that the Romans continuously killed them and "defended themselves." so to say that they waited until the time was right is laughable. they struggled for their whole existence as most Eurasian peoples not living off the wealth of others. Not that they wouldn't have if they could (live off the wealth of others). I'm not saying they would be "uber" anything, the Germanic peoples were tribal- and they borrowed technology as much as anybody, why invent an alphabet on your own if you can just borrow it, but it is a fact that Romans "liked" to have reasons to raid Germany and receive triumphs over peoples (not just Germans).

[Erebus26]

if you ask me, one of the primary reasons for the late formation of a unified German state only in the nineteenth century (besides their love of decentralized government) is because the people of the German states were continuously at war (not by choice) especially seen in the Thirty Years War... it is a fact that one of the reasons for WW1 is because Great Britain couldn't handle the idea of competition, Germany had become a GNP powerhouse. there was no "right" or "wrong" in that war, just the idea of "balance of power" which Britain loves to use when it limits other Europeans, but if you look at their military history, they are in more wars than ANYBODY and it's for their own interest and power.

I think you're a good lad Blitzkreig, and I respect your comments, but haven't you heard of the Schlieffen Plan? Germany had, apart from Russia, the biggest army in Europe at that time and it was undoubtedly the most efficient and well trained. Plus Prussia was involved in two wars in the 19th century - against Austria in 1866 and France 1870 - in order to prove it's military superiority and to weaken it's neighbours. Britain was also involved in a lot of wars during the 19th century but all, apart from the Crimea, were in our colonies, although they were to preserve our power and prestige!

[blitzkrieg80]

well if you know your neighbors are going to declare war, amassing an army and planning other manuevers is hardly offensive... Napoleon had the same problem... of course Britain's reasoning was against that scary "revolution" thing and dethroning of the monarchy but also maintaining the "balance of power". if Germany was so power-hungry then the Franco-Prussian war wouldn't have ended so nicely... in fact, reclaiming parts of Charlemagne's empire is hardly anything, so France should be ashamed of making such as fuss to cause WW1

[Power2the1]

I'm sorry guys, I should have clarified. What I meant by "The Germans did not have to face such odd until WW2" is like this:

You have the Germans (i.e. Arverni will be used to keep it simple), steadily being attacked and also attacking, years of very hard war, townships being razed and destroyed, trade, food, and supplies affected, civilians under all the wartime stress, standard of living has went down, etc...and during all this, you have mighty America (i.e. Rome) coming at you full steam. They are not alone, they've brought their British and Canadian allies (i.e. Rome's various Germanic allies). At the same time, you have to contend with keeping intact your own allied countries like Italy, Romania, Bulgaria and aid them (i.e. smaller subjugated Gallic tribes allied with the Arverni). On top of that Russia (i.e. Aedui) is still coming on strong, and you are trying to win on all fronts. Your allies are dropping off and some are joining/surrendering the enemy (i.e. Gallic tribes defecting/joining/surrendering to Caesar)


Basically, like I mentioned earlier, I do believe the Germans are vastly overrated in their Ancient/Dark Age conquests when you consider who they had to face on the whole (frail and failing empires and abandoned demoralized armies at the fringes of the empire). To claim thats a remarkable tactical masterstroke based on "superior" racial constitution just because they were German, is unbalanced.

I hope I illustrated this well enough. Perhaps it falls on its face, I don't know. I makes sense to me, so I hope its conveyed well.

[blitzkrieg80]

Wait... you're claiming that Ariovistus was allied with Caesar?

I don't think industrialized nations can really be compared to ancient tribes... what are the self-propelled artillery- Bartix olyphonts?

how are the Germans vastly overrated when everyone diminishes what actually happened and ignore the huge cultural influence of Celts and Germans, calling it "Dark" simply because Roman bureaucracy/civilization was changed? Franks and Anglo-Saxons proudly claim Roman-heritage these days (and have been for quite a while), forgetting any tie to a Germanic past, so I don't really see where anyone is claiming what you say. WW1 and WW2 wouldn't have even happened if the French and British felt any affinity to Germanic "brothers."

BTW, by your own standards then, who HAS lived up to your expectations... did the Celts of La Tene have vast empires as enemies whom they conquered with ease? Did the Romans have to fight Alexander and his empire? Methinks the Roman land-grab and easy adoption of fragmented and destabilized Hellenistic culture and administration in the East is much more pathetic in triumph while we're using comparison.

[NeoSpartan]

hey... wtf are u guys talking about??? Why are u all looking and arguing about Germany in 19th, and 20th Century????



EB Celts, Germans and Romans.

[PSYCHO V]

Psycho - I would like you to give me some of your main sources, as I would like to get hold of the books in question.

What sort of content are you after? Technical / archeaological material or historical / overview sort of material?

my2bob

[blitzkrieg80]

hey... wtf are u guys talking about??? Why are u all looking and arguing about Germany in 19th, and 20th Century????



EB Celts, Germans and Romans.

Haha Nicely said... sorry for the hijack

"looking?"

damn, i didn't know I looked 19th century, I feel so old but at least Erebus called me 'lad'!

[PSYCHO V]

oh no Psycho V... all was not a waste of time...

.. comforting to know. Thanks

my2bob

[Erebus26]

What sort of content are you after? Technical / archeaological material or historical / overview sort of material?

my2bob

Historical overview would be nice, but I don't mind a few choice archaeological while you're at it!

[Frostwulf]

? To date you have only given indication that you have read or part-read two books that specialise on the Celts. Could be good to look at a few quotes from the legends in the field? Few better than Powell.

Books read specifically on Celts:Stephen Allen-"Lords of Battle, the World of the Celtic Warrior",Venceslas Kruta-"The Celts",Simon James "The world of the Celts", Barry Cunliffe-"The Ancient Celts,H.D. Rankin “Celts and the Classical World”
Why would I read a book that was written in 1958? Yes it was republished in 1980 but the material is still the same only the format is different. You complained about me citing a book from the mid 60's and here you are citing older material. You also have to remember this is the same guy who said:

Eg. Powell states that he believed the Romans were the weaker party for far longer, that “the Romans finally managed to turned the tide of Gaulish supremacy from the victory at the battle of Telamon (225 BC)”

This statement of his is obviously wrong. As shown by historical records the Romans were defeating them while embattled with others.
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
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=143

Quote:
“Caesar also learnt that the Belgae, in earlier times, had themselves come from beyond the Rhine. Modern archaeological research supports the tradition as to the Rhenine, or trans-Rhenine, origins of these peoples. (The Celts, The Celtic Survival, 190 T.G.E Powell)

Quote:
It is along the Rhine that the use of the name Germani is really important, and the archaeological evidence for Celtic settlement east of the river, together with the Celtic topographical names that survive as far east as the Weser, and even the lower Elbe, combine with the observed characteristics of the Belgae, the Treveri, amongst others, to suggest that Germani was originally a Celtic tribe name which perhaps, in former days, had achieved a suzerain position. From the 2nd C BC, it is clear that the name began being used indiscriminantely for any intruders coming into Gaul from across the Rhine. (The Celts, The Celtic Survival, 191 T.G.E Powell)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
The Belgae as you have said did have a Celtic culture.

And!?

Relatively simple. The Germans came over and became Celtized, just as they later had become Romanized in different areas. Again your using outdated material. For more recent material we have:
"Certain tribes of Gaul, such as the Aedui, boasted of Germanic descent. The Belgae also were a mixture of German and Celt." Pg.19. "After their defeat, the Belgae, a group of mixed Celtic and German origins, were treated with comparative moderation." pg.128. H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical world".

/ "Caesar considered all the Belgae were Gauls, but also claims that many of them were descended from German settlers. As we have already seen, the distinction between Gaul and German was not always as clear as our ancient source suggest but there may well have been some truth in this.At the end of the first century AD Tacitus also believed that the Nervii and the Treveri were both Germanic." pg.238 Adrian Goldsworthy "Caesar"/
http://www.duerinck.com/tribes1.html While I havent read all the resources listed on this site, I have read a bit by Herbert Schutz and he acknowledges Caesars claim of the Belgae being of German ancestry. Look what is posted under the Belgae on this site and check it out.

Barry Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"-"But apart from recourse to chronologically ill-focused maps of Celtic and Germanic place names, there is no sure way of distinguishing which tribes were German speaking.All we can do is to accept the ethnic identifications made by the Roman commentators". pg.238
J.E.Drinkwater-"Roman Gaul"-"Nevertheless, it now seems that we can talk, if only with much qualification, of early 'German' peoples in northern Europe from around the middle of the fifth century BC. Expansion, leading to contact with the Mediterranean world, took place from the third century BC, including, of course, the movement of the Cimbri into Gaul at the end of the following century. It is likely that full German settlement across the lower Rhine (involving Caesar's Eburones, Condrusi, Caerosi, and so on) and a fusion of Germanic and Celtic peoples around the Eifel (to form, above all, the future civitas of the Celtic-speaking Treveri) also belong to this period. There is no doubt that the Gallic nations were seriously disturbed by this activity, particularly the Cimbric invasions, but they seem to have learned to live with the new circumstances. However, towards the middle of the first century BC there was renewed and increased pressure in Gaul as a result of the arrival of Germanic latecomers, who plunged Gallia Comata into further unrest. The stress manifested itself in two distinct bu related forms, both potentially dangerous to Roman interests. In the first place German penetration into the upper Rhineland threatened to displace the nation of the Helvetii. A Celtic people who had originally lived beyond the Rhine, they had been increasingly forced into the area of modern Switzerland from about the third century BC onwards. They lost their last foothold across the river probably around 100BC, and from about the late 70s BC began to feel embattled in their new habitat. They started to plan a retreat through central Gaul, which would have disrupted the peoples already settled there, including their neighbors, the Allobroges, who were the direct responsibility of Rome, and the Aedui, who could claim a 'special relationship' with the City." pg.12-14

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
I will repeat myself and say yes Goldsworthy is saying in the Gallic campaigns, but that’s because his subject was Caesar and his time frame.

Exactly! So if you are going to quote an author, please do so in the context they intended. Don’t go taking random data, extrapolating that to any given anachronistic period in order to serve a preconceived agenda.. and expect us to see the “logic” in it.

It wasn't random data and it is logical to assume that the Germans fought roughly in the same way as they had before. I already laid this out.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=333

Ah yes, the superior Germanic master race and their innate martial superiority. All we need now is some credible supportive evidence for this romantic ideal.

Ah yes the refuge of the losing argument- "you must be a Nazi"
Goldsworthy isn't credible? He unequivocally states they were superior during Caesars time, also Sidnell,Speidell,etc. Prior to that we have the TCA(granted they had some Celts with them).

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"The Aduatici were descended from the Cimbri and the Teutoni who, when they invaded our province and Italy [45 years before], left such baggage as they could not drive or carry on this side of the Rhine with 6,000 of their men to guard it. When their main body was destroyed this band was for many years harassed by war with their neighbors, defensive and offensive. Finally peace was made, by general agreement, and they chose this district to live in. Book2,29

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"If, in keeping with the compassion and kindness of which they had heard from others, Caesar would resolve to spare the Aduatici, they prayed that he would not deprive them of their arms. Their neighbors were almost all hostile and envious of their prowess; if they surrendered their arms they would be defenseless against them, and in that case would prefer to suffer any fate at the hands of the Roman people than be tortured and killed by men among whom they were used to be masters." Book 2,31

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"It arose from the remarks of Gauls and trader who declared that the Germans were huge men and unbelievably brave and skillful fighters;"Book 1,39

J.E.Drinkwater-"Roman Gaul"-"In the course of the long-running rivalry between the Arverni and the Aedui, the Sequani, allies of the former, were tempted to invite in a German princeling and his followers, Ariovistus and the Suebi, as mercenary troops, to be paid in land. Militarily, this policy proved a great success; the 'friends' of the Roman People were severely mauled, which must have reflected very poorly on the credibility of Roman power and influence." pg.12-14

Of the TCA:
Barry Cunliffe-"Greeks,Romans & Barbarians"-"After defeating a Roman army on the Danube in 113BC they crossed the Rhine in 109, and for a decade terrorized Gaul." pg.57
We also have the numerous defeats on the same type of Roman armies that had been defeating the Gauls.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=243
Where is your proof disproving this?

Thus, in the third century you have the area of Southern Gaul – “La Tene C”, Northern France – “Middle La Tene II & III”, Hunsrück-Eifel (Reinecke) – “La Tene A & B”, Switzerland – La Tene “Ic & Iia”, Baden Württemberg (Zürn) Halstatt D3 / La Tene A, Northern Plain – “Late Iron Age / Halstatt A & B”, Briton – “Early & Mid Iron Age”.

Secondly, notwithstanding the previous paragraph, I repeat, you’re NOT talking about the same peoples. You may as well start making claims about the Germans vs the forces of the United States of America.

Those peoples in northern Europe, whom the so-called Germani dealt with in the 3rd and early 2nd C BC had almost nothing in common with the La Tene D Gauls of France nor the La Tene B & C Gauls of southern Germany. In fact, La Tene culture never extended beyond the 51st parallel.

So we go from:

the Gauls had been defeating the Germans for centuries prior the beginning of the 1st C BC.

to:

I repeat, you’re NOT talking about the same peoples. You may as well start making claims about the Germans vs the forces of the United States of America.

Atlas of the Celts-"During the La Tene A phase, this new culture spread rapidly across central Europe, forming a cultural continuum from northern France to Austria." pg.45
Of course La Tene A-D are different because of the area and time, but the situation stays the same when you claim the Celts had been defeating the Germans for centuries.During Caesars time the central Celts(Arverni,Aedui,etc.) were different from the Belgae who in turn were different from the British Celts. Was not the La Tene culture considered militaristic, so there were differences but all A-D still had this characteristic. It was during the La Tene B/C that the Celts expansion was reversed around 300BC.
J.E.Drinkwater-"Roman Gaul"-"Europe from around the middle of the fifth century BC. Expansion, leading to contact with the Mediterranean world, took place from the third century BC, including, of course, the movement of the Cimbri into Gaul at the end of the following century. It is likely that full German settlement across the lower Rhine (involving Caesar's Eburones, Condrusi, Caerosi, and so on) and a fusion of Germanic and Celtic peoples around the Eifel (to form, above all, the future civitas of the Celtic-speaking Treveri) also belong to this period. "pg.12
The Germans still pushed back the La Tene B Celts of NE Gaul.

Quote:
During the second and first centuries BC, the Darcians and (later) certain of the so-called Germanic peoples began making territorial inroads on Celtic lands (The Ancient Celts, The Developed Celtic World, p221, Barry Cunliffe)

Barry Cunliffe-"Greeks,Romans & Barbarians"-"After the middle of the third centuries BC the Gauls came under increasing pressure, in the south from the Romans, in the east from the Hellenistic kingdoms and in the north from the Dacians and the Germans." pg.37

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
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.

Apparently in the material yet to be studied.

Meaning you have no proof as it has "yet to be studied".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
(‘Indo-European History’, ‘La Tene Gaul’, XVI, 5.63, Univerzita Karlova v Praze)

I couldn't find it. I will have to dismiss it.

I know I should be surprised …

I have asked you before for the date of publishing,authors, and the full title and you have yet to provide it. Again I went through the publishing list of the Univerzita Karlova v Praze and couldn't find it.I went through GS, WCAT and I had the ILL team look for this and none of us could find it. The only thing I found that remotely had anything to do with the subject was the Czech being of Celt and Slavic descent, which isn't surprising considering this is a scientific research university that seems to deal mostly with medical research.

Positionally schizophrenic? You have already acknowledge that the Gauls didn’t wage total war, that they had “limiting factors”. Why are you now suggesting the opposite? ..that they did wage total war and therefore all aspects of society would be so affected?

As with most things you seem to have problems understanding what was written. They had conflicts but not the huge devastating war that you claim.

“I never made..” ..? Ok Bill, time for a reality check. You made a claim that you had to retract because it was “unfair” and “out of context”, but that wasn’t an error?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Erroneous would be claiming that Caesar's quote …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.

You forgot the sky being blue and the earth round.

The information I had was true, but it was out of context, therefore it was not erroneous.At least I'm willing to correct my mistake, you are not. Did you not make these claims and are they not in error?

Gallic armies successfully …(defeated Roman armies), but this was only possible when the Gauls had had enough time to muster their whole army along the likely route of Roman advance. Mustering a Gallic army and then deploying it for battle was a slow procedure, and it is notable that very often the (Gauls) were unable to form an army until the Romans had (already) attacked their territory …. (Roman Warfare, World Conquest, p96 Adrian Goldsworthy)

A very valid post. I agree with this completely. Of course you do realize that prior to 200BC it was mostly the Celts roaming around Italy that were defeated, they had already mustered and were spoiling for a fight. During Caesars campaign there are plenty of examples where the Gauls were ready to fight: the Helvetii,Sambre,Axona, the battles with Vercingetorix, etc.

Goldsworthy-"The Roman Army at War 100BC-AD200"-"A war between one of these tribes and Rome was likely to be decisive, either through a massed battle between the respective armies, or when the Romans employed their skill at siegecraft to take the enemy oppida. Although the Romans were more likely to win such a conflict, we should not forget that there was still a chance of defeat, and that such a defeat would be on a large scale." pg.60

You do realise that whether the Romans were outnumbered is a mute point when considering the relevance to my comment!? Or are you still claiming that Ariovistus fought Caesar with only 15,000 men?

Again you didn't read or remember properly. I said that Ariovistus had 6,000 horse, 6,000 footmen and 16,000 light troops. I have said that multiple times.

For starters, Caesar’s cavalry were also betrayed, by Ariovistus and his overtures of peace. Secondly, the mighty ‘800’ (even if Caesar is to believe on the numbers) ambushed the Gauls, experienced or not. Ceasar’s veteran legions ran at Gergovia, should we start claiming that Vercingetrix’s Gauls were all innately superior?

You should read and try to understand what Caesar has written. Fist off the "800" had nothing to do with Ariovistus, they were from the Usipetes and Tencteri. The Usipetes and Tencteri did not ambush the Gauls.

Further the Gauls were initially routed by this un-expected attack, not with the subsequent melee that followed. Ignoring the realities of warfare and the state at which the Gallic morale must have been at the time, it is amazing they returned to the fight at all. We have no account of any Germanic force of the period rallying once routed, so again.. should we confer on the Gauls an innate superiority.

Goldsworthy “Caesar”-Caesar made one modest concession, saying that he would advance 4 miles during the day, moving to a position where his camp would have a convenient water supply. In the meantime fighting had already broken out between the cavalry of the two sides.The Germans had some 800 horsemen still guarding their encampment. Caesar had 5,000 cavalry, although if these were performing their duties as a patrolling and screening force properly, then they would not all have been concentrated in one place. Even so, the Gallic auxiliaries probably had a significant numerical advantage, and were mounted on larger horses than their opponents, which makes it all the more notable that the Germans quickly gained an advantage. In Caesar's account the Germans charged first, chasing away part of the Gallic cavalry, but were in turn met by their supports. Many of the Germans then dismounted to fight on foot-perhaps with the support of the picked infantrymen who regularly supported the horsemen of some Germanic tribes. The Gauls were routed and fled, spreading panic amongst a large part of the auxiliary and allied cavalry who galloped in terror back to the main force, which was probably several miles away.” pg.274

This was hardly a full rout. The only time I recall the Gauls rallying was when reinforcements showed up(Helvetii and this example), that never happened in any of the instances with the Germans.
The Gallic moral must have been high as they had been with Caesar for multiple years and have not lost yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
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….blah blah blah

Speculative hearsay. Your fishing.

This is addressed below.

It’s also worth mentioning that the Helvetii charged a force ten times their size (400/4000) whilst the Germans only three times their size (1,600/5000)… so again, are the Gauls innately superior? …of course not!

1600 is an assumption as there is nothing really said except that there was 800 cavlary. As far as the 400/4000:
Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-" The convoys of the Helvetii moved onwards, and Caesar followed them, sending his 4,000 cavalry out in advance. Amongst them was a sizeable force of Aedui led by Dumnorix, the same chieftain who had allied with Orgetorix and then aided the Helvetii. Advancing too carelessly, the allied cavalry were ambushed and beaten by a force of Helvetion cavalry a fraction of their size." pg.215

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
Caesars cavalry were duped by Dumnorix and surprised, thats why they retreated.

The defeat of the Gauls at Admagetobriga was against a united Gallic force, it is not taking about the Aedui fighting the “Germans more than once”. It is a united pan-Gallic force involved in one major battle. These Gauls (plural ie not just the previously mentioned Aedui) had been exhausted by a “long war” / “fierce struggle for supremacy, lasting many years”.

Caesar then goes on and further stresses the point that even in this battle against exhausted Gauls, Ariovistus had to ambush this united Gallic force after they “broke up into scattered groups” His victory being due to “cunning strategy rather than the bravery (superiority) of his troops.”

If one studies the work in context and refrains from grabing select pieces, joining sentences, etc, one will have a better appreciation of the author’s intended meaning rather than that of the reader.

Yes it was a united front of Gauls, I never said anything to the contrary. In fact I had said there was a united Gallic force multiple times. They were exhausted by the campaign with Ariovistus and dispersed because they were tired of waiting for him. Your really stretching it here.
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

Here is yet another translation that might help you.

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"What then of the defeat and rout of the Gauls? If that case were examined it would be found that the Gauls were tired out by the long campaign, because Ariovistus hid in his camp in the marshes and offered no chance for an engagement, and then when the Gauls had given up hope of a battle, and were dispersing Ariovistus attacked and won by stratagem rather than courage. Against naive natives there was room for a stratagem, but not even Ariovistus could expect that our army would be taken in by it." Book 1,40 Translated by H.E.L. Mellersh/published by Random House Inc./distributed by Heron books.

Again your simply adding in your biased ideas instead of seeing what is really said here. You keep trying to string things together that don't belong together.

“reasonable effort” eh? ..thank god for expediency. My friend, if you truly believe me to be a lier, you could contact Leicester University.

Again this is not evidence, if I were to contact Dr.James and he said that nothing of the sort happened, what does that prove? You will still claim it did happen and my claim would be that it didn't. Books, web sites etc. can be examined by all.

So much for defending this “excellent information by a well known and highly thought of Archaeologist”.

He does have excellent information and is highly regarded. If what you say he said is true about the Germans I would disagree with him on that and refer to Sidnell,Goldsworthy,Warry and others. What I don't understand is why you would ask him this question as opposed to one he specializes in. Why wouldn't you have asked him about the supposed "Devastating Gallic Civil War"?

Goldsworthy’s specialty is Rome, not the Celts.

So what if it is, if you read just books about the Celts you will lose allot of the picture. Goldsworthy obviously knows quite a bit about Caesars time.

Yes, but this wasn’t the main reason for doing so. It was more a case of overstating (and in some cases fabricating) the German threat to Gaul and Rome so as to provide a casus belli for his Gallic campaign. Ensuring his tenure and support at home.

Quote:
“In the fourth book of his commentaries Caesar begins with a sketch of the “warlike” Germans, reminding his readers of the instability of the region…providing sufficient justification for his concern on behalf of the stability of Rome.” (The Ancient Celts, p242 Barry Cunliffe)

Perhaps you need to get into the habit of putting down the whole quote!
Barry Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"“In the fourth book of his commentaries Caesar begins with a sketch of the “warlike” Germans, reminding his readers of the instability of the region. His description of the expansive power of the Suebi, driving other tribes like the Usipetes and the Tenceteri from their lands to seek a new home south of the Rhine, is probably an accurate account of the volatile situation and provides sufficient justification for his concern on behalf of the stability of Rome." pg.242

So you say Caesar is overstating/fabricating then post a quote and completely leave out the part that says its probably an accurate account!

No offence to your beliefs but I’m afraid Watchman is correct.

Whilst previously, slavery had only played a minor role within Gallic society, there was a huge increase in the slave trade (export south) at the end of the 2nd and begging of the 1st century BC. This just happens to coincide with the out-break of a major conflict between northern and southern tribes over the lucrative trade routs. The war you deny.

Quote:
By the beginning of the first century BC the reliance of the Roman economy on slave labour was considerable. One estimate is that in the early first century BC there were 300,000 Gallic slaves in Italy alone, a total which required to be topped up at a rate of 15,000 a year. (The Ancient Celts, The Developed Celtic World, p215, Barry Cunliffe)


Not the “small groups of men” taken in “raids” that you claim but rather implies a much more significant developement. The war you deny.

No offense taken whatsoever, this is a good and legitimate question.

Barry Cunliffe-"Greeks,Romans & Barbarians"-"To arrive at any idea of the volume of the trans-frontier slave trade is extremely difficult, but for Gaul, in the first century BC, Tchernia has offered an estimate. Basing his calculations on figures given for the ethnic composition and numbers of slaves taking part in a slave rebellion led by Spartacus in 74-1BC, he arrives at 300,000 as the total number of the Gallic slaves in Italy. Assuming a replacement rate of 7 percent, and also that the proportion of slaves was maintained, then the annual export of slaves by trade in a non-war year must have been about 15,000. Sufficient will have been said of the calculations to show that the figure can be regarded only as a best guess, rather than an estimate, but nevertheless it offers an order of magnitude." pg. 78

Barry Cunliffe-"Greeks,Romans & Barbarians"-"A replacement rate of 7 per cent per annum is by no means unlikely. Thus, simply to maintain the Italian labour force in the late first century BC would have required the generation of 140,000 slaves a year. Replacement by breading would certainly have contributed, but, as an industry, it had not yet got underway on a large scale. At a rough estimate, therefore, well in excess of 100,000 new slaves had to be acquired every year, assuming a situation of non-growth in the rural estates.
Slaves came from three different sources: by capture during war time; through piracy; and by means of regular trade with territories beyond the frontiers." pg. 77

Even though Tchernia says 15,000 is from non-war gatherings you still have to take into consideration the multiple battles leading up to 74-71BC:200-190,154,125-121,107-2,90,83,77-2. Most of these battles must have contributed to the 300,000 Celts.
Even though the Ligurian pirates were suppressed in 181 BC, you still have to look at how many slaves were being imported by pirates/brigands, Strabo says that in 166BC on the Island of Delos "10,000" slaves were being sold per day. Also this wouldn't all be from Gaul proper but also from Spain and Briton
.
"Trade in the Ancient Economy"-"By contrast Andrea Tchernia discusses the overall penetration of Gaul by wine and amphorae during the last 2 centuries BC; he convincingly links the early Italian commercial success to the trade of Gallic slaves then shows how the decline of the slave trade was accompanied by the rise of local wine production."
Wine seems to be used as prestige and slaves could be used to trade for other items, so if slaves were from the supposed "Devastating Civil War" why would the slave trade go down?

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"As for the common folk, they are treated almost as slaves, venturing naught of themselves,never taken into counsel. The more part of them, oppressed as they are either by debt, or by the heavy weight of tribute, or by the wrongdoing of the more powerful men, commit themselves in slavery to the nobles, who have, in fact, the same rights over them as masters over slaves." Book 6,13

Further, the material record bears this out. The huge increase in the trade of slaves happens to coincide with the huge increase in the trade of wine.

Quote:
They (Gauls) are extremely partial to wine and glut themselves with the unmixed wine brought in by merchants. Their desire makes them guzzle it and when they get drunk, they either fall into a stupor or become manic. For this reason many Italian merchants, with their usual love for money, regard the Celtic passion for wine as a source of treasure. They transport the wine by boat on the navigable rivers and by cart … and get an incredibly good price for it; for one amphora of wine they get a slave. (Hist 5.26 Diodorus Siculus)

Little wonder the Romans / merchants (and James) regarded Gaul as prosperous.


We have deposits of tens of thousands of distinctive Amphora of Dressel Type 1A & 1B dating to this period. Huge dumps like that found in Saone, Cabillonum (Chalon) testify to the significant increase in importation. Thus even in a war that would almost annihilate the warrior class, the precious wine was prized.

Barry Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"-"Whilst it is always necessary to treat texts of this kind with caution, archaeological evidence amply bears out the huge volume of Roman wine which was transported to Gaul in distinctive amphorae of Dressel 1 type. Two trading ports have been identified, one near Toulouse in the Garonne Valley, the other on the Saone at Cabillonum(Chalon)."pg.218-219

Well what do you know,Whilst it is always necessary to treat texts of this kind with caution doesn't help your argument, good thing you didn't put it in!

Quote:
In the late La Tene D1, around 120-100 BC most of the sites in the Grande Limagne (Auvergne) were abandoned, and three successive oppida were established (Corent, Gondole and Gergovie) (The Celts; Origins, Myths and Inventions, Archaeology of the Celts, p172, John Collins)

Another indicator of major conflict, change and attempt to protect the valuable trade in commodities. There is plenty of other evidence, but hey, why let facts get in the way of a good master race story.

Or what it really was:Urbanization.
Barry Cunliffe-"Greeks,Romans & Barbarians"-"The documentary, numismatic,and archaeological evidence, taken together, shows that the tribes of central Gaul underwent a profound change in the period 120-60BC, during which time the old order-the classical Celtic system-was replaced with a new centralized system of government, involving changes in the minting of coins and the development of oppida. To a large extent these changes can be ascribed directly to the proximity of the rapidly developing Roman province of Transalpina. The tribes of central Gaul were now becoming a contact zone with the Roman world. Through them much of the trade was articulated, and those tribes who, like the Aedui, were prepared to accept the situation, grew rich. Stability and centralization, institutionalized in a new system of government, enabled the benefits of the proximity of Rome to accrue." pg.97
The oppida before and after Caesar's time have been occupied later to be abandoned then reoccupied later.
Barry Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"-"Excavation has shown that occupation began in the second century BC and continued until about 20BC, by which time the focus of activity had moved to the newly founded Roman town of Augustodunum(Autun) 20 kilometers away." pg.224 (this is about Bibacte)

So guess the supposed "Devastating Gallic Civil War" lasted into 20BC by your logic.

Yes, for the excess warrior elite. In fact the Gallic warrior elite served as mercenaries throughout the ancient world, suddenly disappearing from the world stage at a time that happen to coincide with major internal turmoil in Transalpine Gaul, etc.

Could it be perhaps because the Senones were almost completely annihilated by the Romans? That the Romans conquered northern Italy.Or perhaps that the Romans were putting in pressure from the south, the Dacians began to push from the east and the Germans from the north. In Anatolia were there not "Gallic" mercenaries still being used. Who was Rome using for their cavalry mercenaries?

So what exactly is your position? The Gauls didn’t fight ? There was no major struggle between the Arverni and Aedui?

Yes they fought each other, but hardly on the level you claim. It's like what James,Goldsworthy,Raftery,McIntosh and Twist are saying. They had some fighting and raiding going on but not the devastation your thinking.

James is again providing a general overview that encompasses several hundred years of history. The point here is that he doesn’t state anything that supports your position that this significant Gallic war never occurred.
Goldsworthy makes exactly the same comment about Celtic society in the 3rd c BC as a prefix to his commentary on the first Punic war.

So when James says "Certainly, the Gaul described and conquered by Caesar showed no signs of exhaustion by internal wars" was general?No exhaustion by internal wars doesn't support my view? When Goldsworthy says that "the aim was the reduction of the enemy to a subject tribe through a moral defeat rather then his destruction." That doesn't support my view? When I say that is was a minor conflict and you say it was a "Devastating Civil War", and you still say these don't support my view? As I have said before your misinterpreting James or just not understanding him. More on this later.

Three battles in fact. Catugnatos and his Allobroges defeated a Roman army led by Manlius Lentius at the Battle of Valence and then again at the Battle of the Isere, in which “His (Lentius’) army would have been wiped out but for a sudden storm which arose and hindred the attack”. Lentius fled and was able to apparently re-equipped his army with astonishing speed, drawing from the considerable reserves used to garrison various departments. The Allobroges were finally crushed between Lentius’ army and another huge force commanded by the Governor of Gallia Narbonesis, Gaius pomptinus. The Gauls / Allobroges, not able to make good the loss of their warrior elite surrendered.

Were not the Allobroges part of the Arverni/Sequani alliance? If so then how is it they were able to resist the Romans at all if the supposed "Devastating Civil War" happened.

The Gauls didn’t have the advanced training techniques the Romans did. It took significantly longer / many many years and great (usually personal) expense to train as a Gallic warrior. It was these that they were bereft of. They had squandered these troops in bitter civil war so much to the point that not one of the Aedui council remained alive. The devastation of this war cannot be understated. It was unprecedented / appears more extensive and vicious that any internal Celtic conflict prior.

This is born out in the material record with significant deposits of fragmentary war material, remains and most significantly thick ash levels around major sites dating to the period… prior to Germanic and Roman intervention. We also know commercial production of many goods and trade all but ceased and large portions of the population starved or suffered from malnutrition.

The Romans were well aware of this having deliberately contributed to the instability. They were aware of the long standing animosity between the southerners and northerners and true to Roman policy of ‘keeping the barbarians at each other’..acted. In 121 BC the Romans using other events (Saluvii) as a pretext to war, sought to reduce the power of the then undisputed power in Gaul, the Arverni Alliance / empire. After defeating them in the Battle of Vindalium with two consular armies and several elephants, the Romans made a nominal alliance with their sworn enemy, the Aedui, thus formenting the last final and most bitter chapter in this protracted conflict.

Yes!!.. Gaul was extremely prosperous (both fiscally and population wise), this is one of the main reasons why Caesar was so keen to pillage / conquer it! He did after all have huge personal debts.

Gaul was extremely prosperous because the Gauls did NOT engage in total war. The very work you are so eager to cite (ie James …as does every other scholar) states this and I’m surprised you appear to ignore this significant fact and appear to prefer to project a 21st C Ad paradigm when rationalising data. The major trade centres remained untouched. The very war was over this wealth / trade / money / power. Archaeology only shows a burning / pillaging of minor settlements of no major value.
.

Hmm I mention what Dr.James says and you go from: "We also know commercial production of many goods and trade all but ceased and large portions of the population starved or suffered from malnutrition."

to this:"Yes!!.. Gaul was extremely prosperous (both fiscally and population wise), this is one of the main reasons why Caesar was so keen to pillage / conquer it! He did after all have huge personal debts".

Then this:"This is born out in the material record with significant deposits of fragmentary war material, remains and most significantly thick ash levels around major sites dating to the period…"

To this:"Archaeology only shows a burning / pillaging of minor settlements of no major value."

From this:The devastation of this war cannot be understated. It was unprecedented / appears more extensive and vicious that any internal Celtic conflict prior.

To this: Gaul was extremely prosperous because the Gauls did NOT engage in total war."
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...7&postcount=39
I'm not trying to insult you or belittle you but this is the kind of problems when you have amateur's trying to do the work of professionals. You keep trying to fit your idea of this supposed "Devastating Civil War" into historical context. The problem is the "Devastating Civil War" never happened, you have two rivals with a dispute over trade routes.

I’m surprised you appear to ignore this significant fact and appear to prefer to project a 21st C Ad paradigm when rationalising data

If one studies the work in context and refrains from grabing select pieces, joining sentences, etc, one will have a better appreciation of the author’s intended meaning rather than that of the reader.

? My friend, if you are happy to dismiss quotes I provide even when references are provided, what should I make of these sort of comments?

Who is rationalizing? Who is grabbing select pieces and leaving information out!
You complain that I don't take your word for it, as I have explained before that I don't know you or read anything by you that would lead me to believe your an expert on the subject. You have a problem understanding Caesar as shown by your responses to Caesar boosting the moral of his troops as well as the situation with the 400 Helvetii chasing off the 4,000 Gallic mercenaries of Caesar. As I have shown Goldsworthy knew what he was talking about and you did not. You get Ariovistus confused with other German tribes and basically you don't understand what Caesar was talking about.
Then you try to rationalize the Celt situation when you say "the Gauls had been defeating the Germans for centuries prior the beginning of the 1st C BC" then you have to come up with "I repeat, you’re NOT talking about the same peoples". You misunderstand data such as that of the Aedui oppida changing and James and multiple others, and also leaving out key parts to quotes you put down. You string my quotes together trying to make it sound like something else(cavalry=peace) and other such things, so no I don't take your word for it.
As for your authorities you have chosen some good ones-Goldsworthy and Cunliffe. The majority of your quotes that you have from this post is from an old outdated book half a century old, Powell. You use Michael Kulikowski's quotes which really has no bearing on the situation except that you might be trying to discredit some of the authors like M. Todd. Todd gets into the same subject as Kulikowski's showing a history of why the subject of the early Germans wasn't much talked about. It's quite obvious that much of that stuff is still around from the nonsense you have been spewing i.e. master race etc.

One last thing on the supposed "Devastating Civil War". As I have said multiple times I will say again, the Arverni and Aedui did fight each other, but nothing even being close to what your saying. If you would examine what the historians and archaeologists are saying you would understand this.

Adrian Goldsworthy"The Roman Army at War 100bc-ad200"-"Before Caesar's arrival in the country, the Gallic states used to fight offensive or defensive wars almost every year (BG6.15). 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.pg.56

Probably most Celtic warfare was on a small scale, involving no more then a few score men on each side. The population was growing and states were developing in late Iron age Gaul, and this may have led to an increase in the scale of warfare. But it is clear that the vast armies commanded by Vercingetorix and others were assemble only as a response to the great threat from Rome (p.127). In fact, 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. Certainly, 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

Dr. Barry Raftery; Dr.Jane McIntosh, Clint Twist
*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.82Dr. Barry Raftery; Dr.Jane McIntosh, Clint Twist

You notice how the Goldsworthy and James are similar in their beliefs? Dr.Goldsworthy says that the aim was to reduce the enemy not devastate them, and James says the internal warfare was small scale but "may" have led to an increase. Raftery,Mcintosh and Twist say it was generally peaceful and prosperous. Both Goldsworthy and Raftery/McIntosh/Twist tie into what Dr.James was saying.

If you look what other authors say:
Colin Jones-"France(Cambridge Illustrated History)"-"This was combined with the treat of destabilization further north, where the Germanic chieftain Ariovistus had joined in a squabble involving the Arverni, the Sequni and Rome's long standing allies, the Aeduans. To combat this politico-military threat Rome sent Julius Caesar. pg.30

Goldsworthy calls it struggle as does Cunliffe, Drinkwater says long running rivalry. None have I found that say anything that amounts to a supposed "Devastating Squabble" errr I mean "Devastating Civil War" It was simply small battles to erode the others moral to draw clients to ones side, hence generally peaceful.