Celtic overpowered!

[QwertyMIDX]

But the command atribute..-if you even know how much that is important in battle- - is very important because the point goes beyond this Geoffrey S my friend - Those - command attributes affect all units (in this case) in Casse armies - that means some very powerfull that are Regional based - you see now?! NO? Well, than see my list again:

Umm, not true, the command attribute only affects units within a small radius. Its like the command attribute a general gets with stars, but with much less influence (at least compared to a general with a fair number of command stars).

You see -- the first are generals -- on chariots - if they were heroes very well but they are surely no 'occasional small group of stronger warriors' that give a morale boost - those are units used by family members!

Generals have similar affects with or without the trait, the unit is also recruitable as a non-general of course. Finally, FM bodyguards are almost by definition "small groups of stronger warriors". They're also without a doubt the weakest general's bodyguard in the entire, even with the command attribute.

[Maksimus]

You se Geoffrey S, on the basis of UK nationalist feelings, and, nationalist feelings in general. One can't ever be sure who is who, .. you should no better ,, there are many people here that feell the way I was refering to

QwertyMIDX , thank you again for posting, I realy had no intention of spreading this thread and yes, units within a small radius are only effected by that atribute - I meant it effects 'all' units within a small radius (that means even some very nice recruatable ones).. so that is clear,..

be well (even you Geoffrey S ) !

[blitzkrieg80]

your toughts may not be forthy outside the 'anglo world'

I'm sorry, is this English? OK, it's not your first language... so why did you write that at all? (My tip of the day- secret languages should stay in one's own head: or better yet make a nice new Harry Potter sequel)

Btw, it's not an Anglo-Saxon world, especially when everyone calls Deutschland Germany, the Roman name, despite the fact that they never call themselves that. That's Romanocentric (what most of Europe considers themselves inheritors of, despite Rome's rip-off of Greek learning/culture), so keep dreaming of Anglo-Saxon bullies, write some good fiction on it- but don't pretend like you speak fact. Wah wah wah, British people had money (and were smart/lucky enough) to invest in the First Industrial Revoultion and changed the world, wah wah wah! BUT Romans (the angels), they were inherently supermen who should be able to destroy barbarians (you know, those retards) 1,000,000 to 1... EB, why isn't Rome flying around stopping crime and able to leap buildings in a single bound?! WTF! This is so unhistorical...

Gauls best troops were long gone and killed off, thats what the war did, and so, Caesar had easier pickings then othewise.

Still does not make German conquests in Gaul or Britain anymore grand and awesome in my book...they follow after the real killing had already been done for years and the best troops long gone...

it's a shame there is absolutely no evidence of this, in archaeology or literature, nor oral tradition... as Frostwulf has pointed out and no one has bothered to post anything otherwise, despite use of logic, which is all well and good yet entirely theory... i guess we can leave it to the realm of the Sacred Feminine and the M that can be seen everywhere... Mesus! (no, not you Maskimus)

if you are not happy with my attitude of amusement at your propoganda, i ask: why do you keep bringing up this nonsense as if you have something against Germanic peoples? Every case in history is a case of weaker and stronger. if any of those cases is idolized, then yes point out how wrong that is, but it's hardly the case that Germans are praised by all as sexy beasts based on the small break of luck witnessed in Gaul. who's claiming this? nobody, end of story. if we're bitter that Germanic peoples conquered so much of Europe, nothing will help it, it's like complaing about Rome's success... but to try and diminish it based on our own bias?

[Power2the1]

it's a shame there is absolutely no evidence of this, in archaeology or literature, nor oral tradition...

Are you stating theres no evidence of a Civil War in Gaul before/during Caesar's invasion or what are you referring to?

[blitzkrieg80]

the claim of near extinction of the Gallic warrior class: "Gauls best troops were long gone and killed off"

there is no despute of a civil war by itself which doesn't mean much at all, in-fact, it can hardly be called a "civil war" when there was no united state before the conflict... but what evidence proves what you claim? a lack of evidence is hardly proof

[Power2the1]

the claim of near extinction of the Gallic warrior class: "Gauls best troops were long gone and killed off"

there is no despute of a civil war by itself which doesn't mean much at all, in-fact, it can hardly be called a "civil war" when there was no united state before the conflict... but what evidence proves what you claim? a lack of evidence is hardly proof

Lack of evidence?

Consider how/why the Celts fought, and how/why they would have relished battle against anything that came their way and its easy...

They never backed down from the chance to gain spoils, glory, riches and prestige through battle. Any insult to their tribe was answered with a sword. No attack nor insult went unpunished. Every classical writer basically paints the Celts in that fashion.

You are aware that the nobility and upper class Celts (that would be the professionals and then some) always led their men into battle and to do otherwise was a sign of cowardice? NO Celt worth his reputation in his land and tribe would decline battle. They did not sit around and let others do the fighting for them. There is no glory nor fame to boast of if you did not fight. It is contrary to basically every classical description of their battle ways. Therefore, unless the Celts inexplicably changed how they achieved fame and glory and a mean reputation, they'd have fought in the Civil War in the many thousands, and died in the Civil War in the same fashion.

Again, there being no mention of armies with really any notable contingents of armored nobles leading their professional troops against Caesar looks really suspect to their simply not being enough professionals left over from the Civil War to affect any major outcome in battle.

Caesar would have looked all the more superior by noting the hordes of chain mailed, well trained, nobility he crushed repeatedly battle after battle. He did not mention anything of the sort, so unless he simply forgot that crucial manifestation of the enemies troop composition, anyone can easily reason and conclude that what I am presenting as proof, is backed up by their classical description.

[blitzkrieg80]

your interpretation of Caesar's propoganda is not evidence, although you have a valid point for conversation, but similar deductive "evidence" can be argued for just about anything, thus why materials are necessary. the views of scholars who write on the subject are generally more persuasive than you or I (subject to opinion ), not merely because of their logic, but because of their citation, use and analysis of various scientific records of physical evidence concerning the period as well as literary evidence and their authors' bias, thus why Frostwulf quotes them.

[NeoSpartan]

hum.... wtf are u guys arguing about

[Thaatu]

hum.... wtf are u guys arguing about

That there's no evidence that confirms that the finest warriors of Gallic tribes had been wiped out by their wars prior to the Roman conquest. It's a worthy theory, but I doubt there will ever be conclusive evidence to back it up. Unless someone digs up mass graves along with huge amounts of weapons and armour of the period, with all the skeletons riddled with cuts and breaks. Maybe even a ceasefire document in which all sides state "We have nothing left to throw at you".

[NeoSpartan]

That there's no evidence that confirms that the finest warriors of Gallic tribes had been wiped out by their wars prior to the Roman conquest. It's a worthy theory, but I doubt there will ever be conclusive evidence to back it up. Unless someone digs up mass graves along with huge amounts of weapons and armour of the period, with all the skeletons riddled with cuts and breaks. Maybe even a ceasefire document in which all sides state "We have nothing left to throw at you".

well it kinda sounds to me like power2the1 is bringing up Psycho's info but he is not mentioning it, and then blitzkrieg80 is using Frostwolf info again without mentioning it.

Hey fellas.... re-read the whole thread before you post anything chances are its already been said ESPECIALLY if your going to bring up Ceasar, Goldsworthy, etc.

[Thaatu]

It's fifteen pages. It can't be re-read.

[NeoSpartan]

It's fifteen pages. It can't be re-read.

yeah it can... in a few hours OR in a few weeks. Or u can just read the last three pages were Frostwolf and Psyco V were replying to eachother

[blitzkrieg80]

damnit, no, I am not using anything concerning or about Frostwulf, because I don't need to that's the beauty of sitting back and requiring evidence that can't be found... i mention Frostwulf, because he has used scholarly references to back up his words, which is more than Psycho does, thus why he appears right even if he isn't. If anyone wants to rag on about how the Germanics were pathetic losers who can't get even a shred of credit for a single success on the battlefield, then it will be challenged with: what is your source? That's all, but clearly some people are not happy with giving a shred of credit to those dirty bastards of the North who have nothing to do with modern fascism, or in the other direction, the general bitterness that the mighty yet fragmented Celtic empire had to fall.

It's like Gibbons, man, it can be reread, but why would you want to?

[Frostwulf]

They never backed down from the chance to gain spoils, glory, riches and prestige through battle. Any insult to their tribe was answered with a sword. No attack nor insult went unpunished. Every classical writer basically paints the Celts in that fashion.

Maybe I'm reading to much into what your saying but the Celts would not just go out and attack, they weighed the consequences of their decisions(could they win). They did back down plenty of times as did most people when fighting superior forces(either in number or skill). There are times when they felt insulted by the Romans but didn't do anything about it, or it took many years to do so.

You are aware that the nobility and upper class Celts (that would be the professionals and then some) always led their men into battle and to do otherwise was a sign of cowardice? NO Celt worth his reputation in his land and tribe would decline battle. They did not sit around and let others do the fighting for them. There is no glory nor fame to boast of if you did not fight. It is contrary to basically every classical description of their battle ways.

As was true for the Germans and other peoples, this was not unique to the Celts.

therefore, unless the Celts inexplicably changed how they achieved fame and glory and a mean reputation, they'd have fought in the Civil War in the many thousands, and died in the Civil War in the same fashion.

Up to and during Caesar's time these things still happened, you still had Celts making challenges and etc. The main change was that most of the nobility (elites) were mounted, i.e. became cavalry.

Venceslas Kruta-"The Celts"-"Recruited from the ranks of the warrior nobility, from about 250BCE onwards the cavalry totally replace the war-chariots that had previously constituted the war-chariots that had previously constituted the shock troops of Celtic armies. They became the elite permanent corps of the city-states, formes and maintained by the aristocrats who governed them. The cavalry's essential role in battle is especially well illustrated in Julius Caesar's Gallic wars." pg.110

Again, there being no mention of armies with really any notable contingents of armored nobles leading their professional troops against Caesar looks really suspect to their simply not being enough professionals left over from the Civil War to affect any major outcome in battle.

There is mention of this:
Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-One might expect that the combination of the long-famed Celtic prowess as mounted warriors with this new state-of-the-art military equipment (to which add spurs, superior ironwork in their weapons and armour and, at first, larger horses) would have proved unstoppable, yet it is the German cavalry who really stand out in Caesar's accounts and we are specifically told they did not have the advantage of saddles. Indeed, Caesar makes clear that the Germans positively scorned such aids as a sign of weakness:' In their eyes it is the height of effeminacy and shame to use a saddle, and they do not hesitate to engage the largest force of cavalry riding saddled horses, however small their own numbers may be'." pg.228

Stephen Allen-"Lords of Battle, the World of the Celtic Warrior"-"The change in emphasis from skirmishing with javelins to shock tactics using a spear and long sword can be detected in Caesar's description of the cavalry engagements during his campaigns in Gaul. By this period, the elite Gallic warriors who provided the urban aristocracies with their armed retainers were almost entirely cavalry, armed with spear and long slashing sword, protected by an iron helmet and mailshirt, and mounted on a larger horse capable of bearing the weight of the rider and his equipment. To the Romans, they were the equivalent of their own 'knightly' class, the equites." pg.132

Caesar would have looked all the more superior by noting the hordes of chain mailed, well trained, nobility he crushed repeatedly battle after battle. He did not mention anything of the sort, so unless he simply forgot that crucial manifestation of the enemies troop composition, anyone can easily reason and conclude that what I am presenting as proof, is backed up by their classical description.

He did mention it, see above.

"Had the Celtic Civil War not happened, then Caesar would have never invaded against such warriors. The Celts would rule the world..."

I know this is just your signature but I couldn't resist responding. Lets pretend the supposedly "Devastating Civil War" happened, that still doesn't explain about the Belgae nor the Britons getting beat up by Caesar. Nor does it explain the advance of the Germans or Dacians or of the defeat of the Po Valley Celts of northern Italy.
My belief is that the supposed "Devastating Civil War" is much exaggerated and it was infrequent battles mixed in with raids.

i mention Frostwulf, because he has used scholarly material to back up his words, which is more than Psycho does, thus why he appears right even if he isn't.

My bet blitz is that your one of the few who would say that I appear to be right.

It's fifteen pages. It can't be re-read.

I plan to do a summation in a few weeks (hopefully less), but be warned it will be mostly from my point of view. I will post what others say contrary but there is a possibility that I could miss some relevant material from others perspectives. I do suppose though that said material will be brought to my attention from others.

[J.Alco]

Stop the madness!!

[Thaatu]

I plan to do a summation in a few weeks (hopefully less), but be warned it will be mostly from my point of view. I will post what others say contrary but there is a possibility that I could miss some relevant material from others perspectives. I do suppose though that said material will be brought to my attention from others.

I'd appreciate that very much. All this is just too much for my poor brain.

[Power2the1]

Maybe I'm reading to much into what your saying but the Celts would not just go out and attack, they weighed the consequences of their decisions(could they win). They did back down plenty of times as did most people when fighting superior forces(either in number or skill). There are times when they felt insulted by the Romans but didn't do anything about it, or it took many years to do so.

Right, I am not referring to blind fury knee jerk attacks seconds after the insult or injury.

Up to and during Caesar's time these things still happened, you still had Celts making challenges and etc. The main change was that most of the nobility (elites) were mounted, i.e. became cavalry.

Venceslas Kruta-"The Celts"-"Recruited from the ranks of the warrior nobility, from about 250BCE onwards the cavalry totally replace the war-chariots that had previously constituted the war-chariots that had previously constituted the shock troops of Celtic armies. They became the elite permanent corps of the city-states, formes and maintained by the aristocrats who governed them. The cavalry's essential role in battle is especially well illustrated in Julius Caesar's Gallic wars." pg.110


Stephen Allen-"Lords of Battle, the World of the Celtic Warrior"-"The change in emphasis from skirmishing with javelins to shock tactics using a spear and long sword can be detected in Caesar's description of the cavalry engagements during his campaigns in Gaul. By this period, the elite Gallic warriors who provided the urban aristocracies with their armed retainers were almost entirely cavalry, armed with spear and long slashing sword, protected by an iron helmet and mailshirt, and mounted on a larger horse capable of bearing the weight of the rider and his equipment. To the Romans, they were the equivalent of their own 'knightly' class, the equites." pg.132

I have a problem with accepting this.

For example, I do not recall Caesar never mentioned fighting the Celtic professional cavalry or anything of the sort when he fought the Helvetii. In fact, his whole account of the battle mentions infantry engagments.

In the battle against the Nervii (which was not really involved in the Arverni/Aedui Civil War, therefor should have been left rather in tact overall), no cavalry is mentioned either by Caesar. When Quintus Cicero fought the Nervii, the cavalry was mentioned as skirmishing with the Roman for a few days prior to the battle. Later in the book, Caesar reveals that the Nervii were intentionally weak in cavalry because they preferred to fight on foot.

No doubt there was cavalry in plenty of battles, but if the Celts revamped their nobility to fighting on horse and not foot, as one of your sources claims happened, there either was a vast shortage of horses in Gaul, or nobility to fight upon them.

Celtic Cavalry in any great numbers confronted by Caesar, is mentioned in one section of the book, the section dealing with Vercingetorix, once basically all tribes in Gaul joined with him. The beginning and middle of the War Celtic cavalry is seldom mentioned if at all. Caesar never mentions that cavalry engagement was made of Celtic professional horsemen or nobility or anything out of the ordinary. I am under the conclusion that, again, by this time, there was nobility fighting, perhaps all on horseback, for Vercingetorix, but, because of their small numbers at this time, the overwhelming majority of Vercingetorix's cavalry would have been made of "lesser" horsemen of varying degree of skill.

[Frostwulf]

I have a problem with accepting this.

For example, I do not recall Caesar never mentioned fighting the Celtic professional cavalry or anything of the sort when he fought the Helvetii. In fact, his whole account of the battle mentions infantry engagments.

Next day the Helvetii struck camp. Caesar did likewise and sent all his cavalry, 4,000 men whom he had raised from the whole Province, the Aedui, and their allies, to reconnoiter the enemy's march. In their excessive eagerness to harass the enemy's rear, they engaged the Helvetian cavalry on unfavorable ground and suffered a few casualties. The Helvetians, elated at having repulsed so large a body of cavalry with but 500 men, began to make halts, when their rear guard would attempt to provoke a battle." Book 1, 15 Caesar-"The Gallic War"

Later on we find out that Caesar's cavalry were "duped" into retreating.

In the battle against the Nervii (which was not really involved in the Arverni/Aedui Civil War, therefor should have been left rather in tact overall), no cavalry is mentioned either by Caesar. When Quintus Cicero fought the Nervii, the cavalry was mentioned as skirmishing with the Roman for a few days prior to the battle. Later in the book, Caesar reveals that the Nervii were intentionally weak in cavalry because they preferred to fight on foot.

Caesar had sent his cavalry ahead and was following with all his forces; but the arrangement of his column was different from what the Belgae had reported to the Nervii. Caesar followed his usual practice when approaching an enemy and advanced with six legions light-armed; behind them was the baggage of the whole army, and then the two legions most recently recruited closed the line and formed a guard for the baggage. Our cavalry, with slingers and archers, crossed the river and engaged the enemy cavalry. Book 2,19 Caesar-"The Gallic War"

To my knowledge the Nervii had little cavalry but they did have them.

No doubt there was cavalry in plenty of battles, but if the Celts revamped their nobility to fighting on horse and not foot, as one of your sources claims happened, there either was a vast shortage of horses in Gaul, or nobility to fight upon them.

Here is a link to some of the authors I used on the situation of the Gallic cavalry.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=219

Celtic Cavalry in any great numbers confronted by Caesar, is mentioned in one section of the book, the section dealing with Vercingetorix, once basically all tribes in Gaul joined with him. The beginning and middle of the War Celtic cavalry is seldom mentioned if at all. Caesar never mentions that cavalry engagement was made of Celtic professional horsemen or nobility or anything out of the ordinary. I am under the conclusion that, again, by this time, there was nobility fighting, perhaps all on horseback, for Vercingetorix, but, because of their small numbers at this time, the overwhelming majority of Vercingetorix's cavalry would have been made of "lesser" horsemen of varying degree of skill.

Throughout Caesars "The Gallic War" he mentions in one way or another the cavalry of the Remi,Arverni,Menapii,Treveri,Aedui etc.
Also look at this link as well as the link above for the Celtic cavalry:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...3&postcount=37

[Power2the1]

Later on we find out that Caesar's cavalry were "duped" into retreating.



To my knowledge the Nervii had little cavalry but they did have them.

Here is a link to some of the authors I used on the situation of the Gallic cavalry.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=219


Throughout Caesars "The Gallic War" he mentions in one way or another the cavalry of the Remi,Arverni,Menapii,Treveri,Aedui etc.
Also look at this link as well as the link above for the Celtic cavalry:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...3&postcount=37

Yes, the Nervii, Remi, Arverni, Menapii, Treverii, Aedui all had cavarly, every tribe must had had some, but theres no mention from Caesars many battles of all the Gauls having all their existing nobility all on horse all the time at this period. Nervii preferred to fight on foot as Caesar mentions, not on horseback. I do not believe they were the only tribe in Gaul that did this. Theres a high probability that there were plenty of other tribes that did not adopt the notion of "nobility on horseback, non nobility on foot."

The Helvetii reference I missed, so good eyes on your part. However, theres no details on that cavalry being made up of Celtic nobility or anything mentioning their professional training or high skill.

Caesar does not mention every cavalry engagement as being all nobility as your source claims the Celts all used at this time. Like I said before, until Vercingetorix came on the scene, the details on the horsemen were next to nonexistent, so they must not have been highly trained nobility but overwhelmingly horsemen of lesser skill, despite many of them having some better weapons than pitchforks, leather skins and spears.

If Caesar goes so far to mention details of peasants and detail about mundane corn aquisitions, it stands to reason he'd mention what battle he faced off against elite Celtic cavalry *or* if the Celtic cavalry was all mounted nobility. He mentions the 600 Soldurii, but not countless hordes of elite horsemen showing up in his many battles? Something doesn't add up.


https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...3&postcount=37
In that link above, the Celtic cavalry was mentioned as being basically identical in appearance and the Roman auxiliary had to bear a shoulder to distinguish friend from foe. It also mentions Vercingetorix had about 15,000 cavalry at his disposal. Lets say the 15,000 were raw, bona fide nobility of the highest order (although its very unlikely that they were all nobility on horse). Its agreed that all Gaul was more or less united behind him. How many tribes could that have been, and allies, tributaries, all sending their best to his command? I do not see 15,000 as being a showable display of professional horsemen. Of course every tribe did not send 100% of their nobles, but regardless, only 15,000 nobles left existing in all Gaul? Again, something does not add up, theres a shortage in elite fighters somewhere.

The Celts, in the Po Valley especially, always seemed to be launching invasions into Italy. One classical author (I forget who) mentions the Celts were a very fecund race (meaning they always are reproducing, theres many of them all the time from this), so they always replace their losses and always seems to have high numbers. Gaul was such a place that was very able to sustain vast numbers of people, and this would include nobles. Between the Civil War and to a lesser extent battles with their own external enemies before the Roman invasion, the best fighters in that period were killed off, leaving too few to face the Romans of a more equal footing. Blame the Northern European "barbarian tribal tactic" of constantly fighting with everything and everyone-constantly. Keep this up long enough (Huge losses In Civil War or ones as Ariovistus mention he dealt the Celts in a huge battle) and you might see my point. If all this, especially the ongoing Civil War with the Aedui and Arveni, and their many sub tribes and allies continually going at it, and its kept up long enough and severe enough, it really does not matter how fecund and, pardon the term, "Zerglike," your race is. Your best fighters will be eliminated first.

Perhaps we should agree to politely disagree on some points, of which many of yours hold up to the highest merit and reasoning based on what we know of the time period, but, I guess my overall main point on the matter is that the lack of mounted professional, foot bound professional forces, or any manner of elite forces in Gaul, at the time, is severely lacking. I find it unconvincing that a fertile, supposedly rich land, would have few elites residing within. There should have been plenty of elites on foot (or horse) to throw at Caesar when the time came. The losses of the ongoing Civil War practically eroded their chances...

[NeoSpartan]

come one guys reread a couple pages back. This is turing to the same story different author.

[PershsNhpios]

We are gathered here today to witness the passing of a well-beloved, controversial spirit of our community.
She was birthed by our friend and colleague, Mr. Sweboz Gastiz, who, in his unconscious curiousity - which none of us could check - allowed rise to a somewhat demonic, unholy, warmongering creature that did threaten to outlive us all.

It grew amongst our ranks, and examined us each as individuals.
And when it understood our minds, and our ambitions, it turned us all against one another in a fit of prolonged madness and rebellion.

Very few escaped the terrible web of malicious argument that encumbered it's victims, it forced them into deeds of resentment against their fellow men.
Corrupted their hearts with ignorance - and foul attitude!

When it's siblings has perished, and it began to grow old, it's trickery not so common and voracious as before, it's grip began to lessen upon the souls of those it captured.

On this day, when I noticed it's features unmoving, and it's evils stagnant, I saw fit to give this opportunity to our people - that we may again live in virtue and maybe our scars may heal!

I would of cremated the terribly damned thing, but I dared not touch it's body for fear it would find a hold upon me too!

However, I think even if this thing was burnt to ashes of fine and crisp physicality, no book in the world of religion could abide the darkness and sinful aggressiveness within this creature.



So quickly - 'fore it's chest allows another breath to animate it's destruction once more - help me with shovel or with bare hands, bury this accursed anti-christ beneath the layers of the Earth before it possesses another undeserving human being!

[JMRC]

We are gathered here today to witness the passing of a well-beloved, controversial spirit of our community.
She was birthed by our friend and colleague, Mr. Sweboz Gastiz, who, in his unconscious curiousity - which none of us could check - allowed rise to a somewhat demonic, unholy, warmongering creature that did threaten to outlive us all.

It grew amongst our ranks, and examined us each as individuals.
And when it understood our minds, and our ambitions, it turned us all against one another in a fit of prolonged madness and rebellion.

Very few escaped the terrible web of malicious argument that encumbered it's victims, it forced them into deeds of resentment against their fellow men.
Corrupted their hearts with ignorance - and foul attitude!

When it's siblings has perished, and it began to grow old, it's trickery not so common and voracious as before, it's grip began to lessen upon the souls of those it captured.

On this day, when I noticed it's features unmoving, and it's evils stagnant, I saw fit to give this opportunity to our people - that we may again live in virtue and maybe our scars may heal!

I would of cremated the terribly damned thing, but I dared not touch it's body for fear it would find a hold upon me too!

However, I think even if this thing was burnt to ashes of fine and crisp physicality, no book in the world of religion could abide the darkness and sinful aggressiveness within this creature.

So quickly - 'fore it's chest allows another breath to animate it's destruction once more - help me with shovel or with bare hands, bury this accursed anti-christ beneath the layers of the Earth before it possesses another undeserving human being!

Awesome intervention!

I think this discussion is already far off-topic and I really think that the "contenders" should create a new thread instead of continuing to renew this one.

There have been many changes to the units' stats (celtic and otherwise) in EB 1.0 and the thread's name mislead us to think that the celtic warriors are still overpowered.

If you still think they are overpowered, then, by all means, keep up with the discussion (which is interesting btw )

[Watchman]

Well, a few of them have minor stat gaffes (like those lighter Alpine phalanx guys who had around two points too much armour by mistake), but that's about as far as it goes with "overpowered".

But hey, WIP. Stuff always slips through.

[runes]

yea, seriously, vehemently compaining about something which is basically user-controlled and user-submitted is kinda ridiculous. this is mod, and a mod community. this isn't something given to us as is, with no room for feedback or suggestions.

[blitzkrieg80]

If Caesar goes so far to mention details of peasants and detail about mundane corn aquisitions, it stands to reason he'd mention what battle he faced off against elite Celtic cavalry *or* if the Celtic cavalry was all mounted nobility. He mentions the 600 Soldurii, but not countless hordes of elite horsemen showing up in his many battles? Something doesn't add up.

talkabout tailoring your interpretation, so first Caesar doesn't talk about a complete lack of nobility because he wanted his own people to think he's great, then he is, all of a sudden, completely honest and candid?! and would have definitely mentioned if the nobility was a certain way? this is totally contradictory- either Caesar used his writings as biased propoganda (yes) or he was factual and objective, but you don't get it both ways: using this convenient logic, you can explain that Caesar was descendant from Hector, because they don't say it in true geneology because they don't want to give him credit, but then they do say the truth when it comes to mythology and legend

just because Caesar is the only source for the time period, that doesn't make a single thing true. I suppose we should believe that Alexander really encounted UFOs at Tyre!

[Frostwulf]

Yes, the Nervii, Remi, Arverni, Menapii, Treverii, Aedui all had cavarly, every tribe must had had some, but theres no mention from Caesars many battles of all the Gauls having all their existing nobility all on horse all the time at this period. Nervii preferred to fight on foot as Caesar mentions, not on horseback. I do not believe they were the only tribe in Gaul that did this. Theres a high probability that there were plenty of other tribes that did not adopt the notion of "nobility on horseback, non nobility on foot."

Not all the nobility was mounted, the majority were. The Nervii had no dealings with the supposed "Devastating Civil War" yet he doesn't mention anything about the nobility among them. Caesar doesn't mention allot of things but that doesn't mean that they were not there. The Nervii and other Belgae had nobility but Caesar may mention the leader of the tribe but doesn't mention any others.

The Helvetii reference I missed, so good eyes on your part. However, theres no details on that cavalry being made up of Celtic nobility or anything mentioning their professional training or high skill.

All he says of the Helvetii was that they were skilled, he doesn't differentiate between cavalry or footmen when he says this.

Caesar does not mention every cavalry engagement as being all nobility as your source claims the Celts all used at this time. Like I said before, until Vercingetorix came on the scene, the details on the horsemen were next to nonexistent, so they must not have been highly trained nobility but overwhelmingly horsemen of lesser skill, despite many of them having some better weapons than pitchforks, leather skins and spears.

Because Caesar doesn't mention the details of the cavalry means they were not highly trained? It was known that the Gallic cavalry were very good, thats why Caesar raised them. Most of Caesars readers would have been aware of situations and would not have needed the details. Caesar doesn't go into the arms and armor of his troops because he knows his readers know about them.

If Caesar goes so far to mention details of peasants and detail about mundane corn aquisitions, it stands to reason he'd mention what battle he faced off against elite Celtic cavalry *or* if the Celtic cavalry was all mounted nobility. He mentions the 600 Soldurii, but not countless hordes of elite horsemen showing up in his many battles? Something doesn't add up.

He mentions the corn to finish his story of what was going to happen to the Helvetii and how he took "care" of them. Does Caesar mention the type of food he and his soldiers ate? Are we to assume that they didn't eat because it wasn't mentioned? What were the arms and armor of the Soldurii? Are we to assume because Caesar didn't mention what arms and armor they had that the Soldurii were inexperienced levy's?

In that link above, the Celtic cavalry was mentioned as being basically identical in appearance and the Roman auxiliary had to bear a shoulder to distinguish friend from foe. It also mentions Vercingetorix had about 15,000 cavalry at his disposal. Lets say the 15,000 were raw, bona fide nobility of the highest order (although its very unlikely that they were all nobility on horse). Its agreed that all Gaul was more or less united behind him. How many tribes could that have been, and allies, tributaries, all sending their best to his command? I do not see 15,000 as being a showable display of professional horsemen. Of course every tribe did not send 100% of their nobles, but regardless, only 15,000 nobles left existing in all Gaul? Again, something does not add up, theres a shortage in elite fighters somewhere.

The mustering of Celts would take along time. They did get a sizable force for the amount of time they had. Among the 250,000(I'm sure this is an exaggerated figure) how many of them were nobility? Caesar mentions the Soldurii, but what about others, just because he doesn't mention them doesn't mean they were not there. When he battles Ariovistus he doesn't go into detail about them much, are we to assume they didn't have nobles or elite amongst them?

The Celts, in the Po Valley especially, always seemed to be launching invasions into Italy. One classical author (I forget who) mentions the Celts were a very fecund race (meaning they always are reproducing, theres many of them all the time from this), so they always replace their losses and always seems to have high numbers. Gaul was such a place that was very able to sustain vast numbers of people, and this would include nobles. Between the Civil War and to a lesser extent battles with their own external enemies before the Roman invasion, the best fighters in that period were killed off, leaving too few to face the Romans of a more equal footing. Blame the Northern European "barbarian tribal tactic" of constantly fighting with everything and everyone-constantly. Keep this up long enough (Huge losses In Civil War or ones as Ariovistus mention he dealt the Celts in a huge battle) and you might see my point. If all this, especially the ongoing Civil War with the Aedui and Arveni, and their many sub tribes and allies continually going at it, and its kept up long enough and severe enough, it really does not matter how fecund and, pardon the term, "Zerglike," your race is. Your best fighters will be eliminated first.

Most of the Belgae were not involved in this supposed "Devastating Civil War" yet Caesar doesn't mention much about the nobility. I understand the theory behind what your saying but the historians I have been reading say contrary to this. It seems to me that your basing this theory on the lack of information provided by Caesar. Have you read anything on this that supports your view? If so please put it down, I haven't as yet found anything that supports the supposed "Devastating Civil War".

[Watchman]

Aren't you forgetting the bit (helpfully quoted by someone) where Caesar talks about the Arverni, Aedui and some other major tribe (at the least) having had a major war of supremacy, with Ariovist and his boys having been brought in to break the stalemate that existed or had developed between the sides - and the German mercenaries then developing funny ambitious ideas of their own and turning on their erstwhile employers ?

If you ask me that speaks of a fairly severe level of conflict that cannot have done good for the numbers of capable Gallic soldiery available, given that the defeat of whoever it now was who ended up losing was doubtless rather bloody, and the way Ariovist could run amuck on his onetime allies and employers (and defeating a coalition gathered to get rid of him piecemeal on the side) doesn't exactly suggest the losses were being made good very swiftly. Enter Caesar and the additional drain he brought on the manpower pool (both through recruiting and enlisting, and as battle casualties both for and against) and I don't really see where exactly the major Gallic powers would have had ample opportunity to regenerate their pool of fully competent fighting men, doubly so given the somewhat time-consuming nature of the process in the Celtic "heroic" system.

All he says of the Helvetii was that they were skilled, he doesn't differentiate between cavalry or footmen when he says this.

Fair enough, but I think we can safely assume the Alps did not produce great numbers of capable horse. Unlike some other highland regions that area has AFAIK never been very good "horse country".

[NeoSpartan]

..... I don't really see where exactly the major Gallic powers would have had ample opportunity to regenerate their pool of fully competent fighting men, doubly so given the somewhat time-consuming nature of the process in the Celtic "heroic" system.

....

(to continue WatchITman, I mean, Watchman)

.....AND the disunited nature of Gaul itself which was NOT a "state" like Rome, AS, Carthege, etc. Rather a geographical area made up of independent and temporarily subjected tribes.

[NeoSpartan]

DANG IT!!!! u fellas had me posting again here. Repeating WHAT WAS SAID BEFORE

fellas... play the game .81x IS NOT 1.0.

[Megas Methuselah]

Someone has to close this thread...