Celtic overpowered!

[Frostwulf]

Counter what ?

I should have explained that better. What I was referring to is that my assertions that the "Devastating Civil War" didn't exist(not on the level claimed by Psycho and others) and that the Romans were defeating the Celts the majority of the time while mostly outnumbered.

Psycho is not an EB member

He was a member of the EB team until recently. I believe he helped develop the Celtic units, though I'm not entirely sure.

In what aspects are Celtic units wrong ?

Its the explanation thats above, we were posting at the same time.

[Spendios]

I really think you should play a campaign. Reaching the conclusion that EB celts are overpowered simply by playing custom battles is very wrong since you don't take in account, the costs of units, the level at which they are available and the number of provinces where you can recruit them.

Just take a look at the faction expansion thread, it seems that the celts never steamroll on their neighbours even if they should according to you.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Frostwulf: Psycho wasn't an EB member anymore when I became one, which IIRC means before you even joined the conversation on these boards.

In any case I really must echo Spendios suggestion to play a campaign or two with them, both Arverni and Aedui nevermind now about the Casse: I have and from what I saw the standard Celtic units you complain about are perhaps one to one the better, but that advantage is royally nullified by the sheer amount of troops the Sweboz tend to throw at you, and in particular their bodyguards.

[Power2the1]

This was a description of the Celtic invasion of Greece.

[10.21.3]"On they marched against their enemies with the unreasoning fury and passion of brutes. Slashed with axe or sword they kept their desperation while they still breathed; pierced by arrow or javelin, they did not abate of their passion so long as life remained. Some drew out from their wounds the spears, by which they had been hit, and threw them at the Greeks or used them in close fighting."
http://www.theoi.com/Text/Pausanias10B.html



Before anyone replies, we did not live back then so no, its cannot be proven with 110% true scientific fact. Doubts about honesty of the any author in any time period can be made and arguments of "X" writer did not live during "X" time frame cannot always be used as reasoning to dismiss their accounts. The text does not mention these were gaesatae by name either or that these Celts took drugs/pain numbing medicines, etc...However, the mention of Celts hit with a spear and throwing them back at the Greeks or using the spears for themselves should be given more than casual thought. Personally I think its true what he wrote and this was observed by the Greeks whom the Celts were fighting.

Draw your own conclusions about this.

[Frostwulf]

I really think you should play a campaign. Reaching the conclusion that EB celts are overpowered simply by playing custom battles is very wrong since you don't take in account, the costs of units, the level at which they are available and the number of provinces where you can recruit them.

I appreciate what your saying here, but this isn't the problem. Its the elite units themselves I have a problem with. To me cost is irrelevant until the elite units fit the historical perspectives. The purpose of EB was to be more of a historical mod then the original game, but I believe that the Celtic elites are overpowered.

To me its like assigning an early Sherman tank the stats of:
Sherman tank-Firepower 17/armor-23 cost-4,500
and then assigning the Panther the stats of:
Panther V- Firepower 12/ armor-17 cost 4,000

I would have a problem with this. Sure it may make the game more "playable" but historically accurate it would not. The Sherman tank should have both its armor and firepower reduced as well as its cost. By doing this it would better reflect the historical accuracy of the situation. The same is true of the elite Celtic units, they simply were not as good as reflected by this mod. The cost of the units should be reduced along with the attack factor(sword,spear,etc.) and defense.

Frostwulf: Psycho wasn't an EB member anymore when I became one, which IIRC means before you even joined the conversation on these boards.

Thank you for that clarification, I thought I had seen his name in conjunction with some of the units and therefor thought he was still with the team.
Even with him not being a member of the team, wouldn't he have access to the material and at the very least know where the information came from?

I have and from what I saw the standard Celtic units you complain about are perhaps one to one the better, but that advantage is royally nullified by the sheer amount of troops the Sweboz tend to throw at you, and in particular their bodyguards.

This is the way the Celts should be as well, being able to have a large amount of troops as shown by historical accounts.

Before anyone replies, we did not live back then so no, its cannot be proven with 110% true scientific fact. Doubts about honesty of the any author in any time period can be made and arguments of "X" writer did not live during "X" time frame cannot always be used as reasoning to dismiss their accounts. The text does not mention these were gaesatae by name either or that these Celts took drugs/pain numbing medicines, etc...However, the mention of Celts hit with a spear and throwing them back at the Greeks or using the spears for themselves should be given more than casual thought. Personally I think its true what he wrote and this was observed by the Greeks whom the Celts were fighting.

I don't have a problem with this, except I don't think there were very many at all able to do this. Its a common type theme with classical accounts. The Japanese have a guy who gets shot in the eye and pulls the arrow out and shoots it back at the guy who shot him(the enemy of course dies). The Germans have the fountain of Tyr, when the hand gets cut off they blind the enemy with the blood coming out of the stump of the arm. The Norse men were able to grab spears thrown at them out of the air and fling them back at their adversaries. There are stories of Romans doing the same type of things, one guy losing an eye and still holding off many Celts.

Could some of this happen? I believe it could but it would be a handful at best. Also if you look at the battle it really didn't matter if they all could do that, they still lost. If I'm not mistaken the Celts outnumbered the Greeks in this battle.

[Power2the1]

I don't have a problem with this, except I don't think there were very many at all able to do this. Its a common type theme with classical accounts. The Japanese have a guy who gets shot in the eye and pulls the arrow out and shoots it back at the guy who shot him(the enemy of course dies). The Germans have the fountain of Tyr, when the hand gets cut off they blind the enemy with the blood coming out of the stump of the arm. The Norse men were able to grab spears thrown at them out of the air and fling them back at their adversaries. There are stories of Romans doing the same type of things, one guy losing an eye and still holding off many Celts.

Could some of this happen? I believe it could but it would be a handful at best. Also if you look at the battle it really didn't matter if they all could do that, they still lost. If I'm not mistaken the Celts outnumbered the Greeks in this battle.

I believe that if the drug or potions that some Celts took before battle numbed their pain and weakened the effects of wounds (not sure if those other cultures you mentioned took things like that before battle) then I see no reason why a spear hit thats not in the heart or head would easily disable them, at least until they loose enough blood or the drug wears off.

It was on these forums, I think, that the effects of LSD were talked about. Cops shooting guys and hitting them in vital areas, the LSD target breaking through wooden fences and loosing plenty of skin and getting deep cuts in the process and remaining unphased by the wounds, etc...I think its very likely that an enraged + drugged warrior would pull a spear out of him and use it again.

[Frostwulf]

I believe that if the drug or potions that some Celts took before battle numbed their pain and weakened the effects of wounds (not sure if those other cultures you mentioned took things like that before battle) then I see no reason why a spear hit thats not in the heart or head would easily disable them, at least until they loose enough blood or the drug wears off.

The other cultures I mentioned to my knowledge didn't have any of those type of drugs. As far as the effects of the drugs, could they have been that effective etc. I have no idea.
I am very skeptical of the whole situation though, I don't think the Celts had these kind of drugs. I think the drug thing came from the same source as the "Devastating Civil War", I'm very doubtful of its authenticity.

[mlc82]

I believe that if the drug or potions that some Celts took before battle numbed their pain and weakened the effects of wounds (not sure if those other cultures you mentioned took things like that before battle) then I see no reason why a spear hit thats not in the heart or head would easily disable them, at least until they loose enough blood or the drug wears off.

It was on these forums, I think, that the effects of LSD were talked about. Cops shooting guys and hitting them in vital areas, the LSD target breaking through wooden fences and loosing plenty of skin and getting deep cuts in the process and remaining unphased by the wounds, etc...I think its very likely that an enraged + drugged warrior would pull a spear out of him and use it again.

I think you're actually referring to "PCP" there, not "LSD".

[aftzengeier]

Most likely there were no Warriors who used some kind of "battle-drugs"... Historians and biologists found out that they weren't able to produce medicine strong enough to make one immune to pain. Also the drugs that they were able to make weakened their muscles much more then they reduced their ability to feel pain. Additionaly your ability to respond and your endurance dramatically drops, you can not really contol your balance and your instincts are pushed which makes you more susceptible to panic.


All in all:
Keep your hands away from that stuff, kiddy!

[Frostwulf]

Most likely there were no Warriors who used some kind of "battle-drugs"... Historians and biologists found out that they weren't able to produce medicine strong enough to make one immune to pain. Also the drugs that they were able to make weakened their muscles much more then they reduced their ability to feel pain. Additionaly your ability to respond and your endurance dramatically drops, you can not really contol your balance and your instincts are pushed which makes you more susceptible to panic.

This is the way I understood things to work as well. I can't recall where I heard/saw this same kind of information so I am hoping you will be able to provide a source were I could find this.

[bovi]

Most likely there were no Warriors who used some kind of "battle-drugs"... Historians and biologists found out that they weren't able to produce medicine strong enough to make one immune to pain. Also the drugs that they were able to make weakened their muscles much more then they reduced their ability to feel pain. Additionaly your ability to respond and your endurance dramatically drops, you can not really contol your balance and your instincts are pushed which makes you more susceptible to panic.


All in all:
Keep your hands away from that stuff, kiddy!

The norse berserkers used a poisonous mushroom for the same purpose. Why wouldn't the celts have found a drug?

[blitzkrieg80]

The Fly Agaric is suggested, but it is VERY theoretical... I like the idea though (fan of religious ecstacy) anyways, for that, no drug use can be proven, whatsoever... hell, just proving that there were fearsome warriors like Berserkir is a pain in the ass (and futile since there is no Ice-berserkr to study). The fact that berserkir are stock antagonist characters and annoying bullies in Old Norse sagas by the time they record the stories, there isn't much we can concretely say about that and it's MUCH MORE documented than Gaul, Celts or non-Greco-Roman/Judeo-Christian anything of the Classical era and late Antiquity. It is a fact that most information on Celtic culture comes from medieval Irish which flourished during the Migration age of the Germanic peoples. A time-frame frowned upon in consideration to EB timeline. Oh well, too bad we don't have more information- the world is interesting!

BUT also, there is no way in hell that any stage of humanity was unaware of the properties of mushrooms and fermentation from the Neolithic onward. Mead, the 'holy' drink is a perfect example of substance-use that was wide-spread and easy (although not as easy as 'ale'! btw, everyone knows the real word 'beer' means strong cider, right? like medieval 'Welsh ale' /END HIJACK), commonly known to the people who spoke the Indo-European language from which the word sprang.

OT- I posted this recently in our internal Sweboz thread:

Orel, Valdimir. A Handbook of Germanic Etymology. Brill, 2003.

PGmc *aluþ : ON ǫl 'beer, ale' (wa-stem with traces of a root stem), OE ealu, ealo id., OS alu- (in compounds). Connected with or borrowed to OPrus alu 'mead', Lith alùs id., Slav *olъ id. Scyth *alut- (cf. prop. Άλούθαγος and Osset æluton 'beer') from Gmc, indicative of the early chronology of Germanic contacts with East Iranian (from where NCauc *'VlVdwV 'beer'). Grg ludi, dial. aludi id. is also Gmc but hardly via Iranian (16).

ps- guess what? i was going to provide the fun etymology for 'mead' but I spilled coffee all over one of my favorite and most expensive books... AND i lost the post in the fucking IE explorer textbox... that's what I get for even trying- wah wah life sucks

[aftzengeier]

Hello bovi


I'm quite sure I read it in the books Die ersten Deutschen - Über das rätselhafte Volk der Germanen ("the first Germans - about the buffling Germanic peoples") by Siegfried Fischer-Fabian. He is one of the best and most recommened historians of the 20th century. I love his books because he exposes all the steriotype and simply false thoughts that most of the people have. In the chapter he directly exposes the one with the mushroom. If you eat one of that you get terrible nausea, exhalation, giddiness and you are weakened. Another problem is that you cannot say when the effect will actually appear! Sometimes it just takes an hour, sometimes 5!!! The time the effect works is very short and it extremely unhealthy to have physical effort when influenced by this drug (because of the lactats that cause permanent paralysis!!!)! The only way to get the harmful substances out of the mushroom was to eat it and after that drink your own pee. Concerning all this matters it would be self-destruction to use this drugs in battle.



By the way:
The berserks were no fanatic warriors as you may think. They were called "berserks" because of fighting without clothes or at least without any armor, wich is more likely concerning the climate. They did not exist before ~600AD because until that timeframe the Germanic common sense of warfare simply declined the usage of body armor.





Greetings, Aftzengeier

[Power2the1]

I think you're actually referring to "PCP" there, not "LSD".

Arrgh... acronyms

It'd be great if one of the Celtic EB members could shed some extra info on all this though

[bovi]

Hello bovi

Huh?

If you eat one of that you get terrible nausea, exhalation, giddiness and you are weakened.

Of course. According to Wikipedia, as much as 95% of the deaths from mushroom poisoning comes from the Amanita family (mostly the Amanita phalloides, also called Death Cap). Regardless, even today some (few!) people use the Fly Amanita as a hallucinogenic narcotic. Large doses are not recommended.

Concerning all this matters it would be self-destruction to use this drugs in battle.

Quite possibly, and the amphetamine that some of today's soldiers use isn't meant to increase their combat prowess either, just to keep them going longer. I imagine I would be scared of someone who's hell-bent on killing me with no regard to his own health though, regardless of whether he's more effective at it or not. In the same way, the Gaesatae weren't more likely to survive deadly wounds, they would however be able to keep going for longer than others with the same wounds (as the normal shock would be postponed), possibly killing more enemies before dying.

By the way:
The berserks were no fanatic warriors as you may think. They were called "berserks" because of fighting without clothes or at least without any armor

Who said they were fanatics? It's more likely that it means bear-serk, where serk is a type of clothing. The bearskins would signal their berserk "mentality" and cause fear due to their reputation.


Edit: I don't pretend to back this up with evidence, just making a logic argument, which is normally called baseless conjecture hereabouts. I'm not a historian.

[The General]

This thread will (relatively) soon be one year old.

[NeoSpartan]

OK so here we go again..... Just so I don't make a mistake

(I will leave the Sweboz out of this, as 1.0 fixed them)

Frostwolf claims:
1. Celtic Overpowered becuase their Elite units kick too much ass. And this is not true because of.... coutless posts about books and whatnot....

-In addition, Frostwolf suggest that for EB to be "accurate" these 2 things need to happen:
--Celtic Elites should have lower stats.
--Celtic Elites should have lower cost.

And Frostwolf is not refering to cavarly, he is not refering to missiles, and he is not refering to non-Elites like Botroas and the like.

(Edit)
Besides that 1 point Frostwolf claims:
2. There was never a Major Civil war in Gaul around 130BC and the arrival of Ceasar.
-Meaning the Gallic tribes were NOT weak by the time Ceasar and Arventicus (sp) showed up.

Am I correct????????????????? Am I missing anything???????

[paullus]

I think that's correct, save that I think he is in fact referring to cavalry in some instances.

[Frostwulf]

Frostwolf claims:
1. Celtic Overpowered becuase their Elite units kick too much ass. And this is not true because of.... coutless posts about books and whatnot....

-In addition, Frostwolf suggest that for EB to be "accurate" these 2 things need to happen:
--Celtic Elites should have lower stats.
--Celtic Elites should have lower cost.

And Frostwolf is not refering to cavarly, he is not refering to missiles, and he is not refering to non-Elites like Botroas and the like.

(Edit)
Besides that 1 point Frostwolf claims:
2. There was never a Major Civil war in Gaul around 130BC and the arrival of Ceasar.
-Meaning the Gallic tribes were NOT weak by the time Ceasar and Arventicus (sp) showed up.

Am I correct????????????????? Am I missing anything???????

You summed it up quite well, the only thing that might be missing is that from 390BC to 190ish BC the militia/conscript Roman army had been defeating the Celtic armies(the majority of the times) while usually outnumbered.

This link lays out the game aspects of it:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=545
Please note my Sherman tank analogy.

[Watchman]

The Shermans AFAIK had a major problem when facing good German tanks; the Firefly variant with its 17pdr gun was around the only one that could fight the Panthers and such more or less equally, the others just plain were a bit too short of everything (firepower, armour, speed) to hack it one to one.

Which didn't really matter that much because the Allies had a lot more Shermans, and could build and ship in replacements a lot faster, than the Germans their high-end hardware. As the Soviets also so succintly proved, quantity has a quality all of its own.

Which, to a degree, would be analoguous to the situation with the Celtic high-end infantry around the time Caesar and Ariovist came stomping around. It's not that they didn't exist or weren't damn good at their job, there just wasn't enough of them to go around.

Most authors(including the classical ones)say(speculate) the reason for the migrations was because of overpopulation. You also have to remember Cunliffe said this:"during the fifth century a large stable population occupied the region". Large and stable populations don't speak well of "Devastating Civil Wars" or any wars for that matter.

...do I actually have to point out 5th century BC isn't 1st century BC...? That's round three-four centuries you know. It took around comparable time for Rome to become a wholesale Mediterranean superpower, less for the Seleukid empire to go from probably the strongest of the Diadochi to a historical footnote divided between Romans and Parthians, for Rome to start going from an undisputed superpower to a harried, ramshackle has-been no longer able to keep restless barbarians from crossing the border... Many of the great Chinese dynasties underwent the whole cycle from rise and splendor to decay and collapse in a comparable or shorter span of time.

Get some perspective, willya ? Mighty empires rise and fall, entire populations migrate and societies change beyond recognition in much shorter periods.

I don't have a problem with this, except I don't think there were very many at all able to do this. Its a common type theme with classical accounts. The Japanese have a guy who gets shot in the eye and pulls the arrow out and shoots it back at the guy who shot him(the enemy of course dies). The Germans have the fountain of Tyr, when the hand gets cut off they blind the enemy with the blood coming out of the stump of the arm.

Err... yeah. And those are all boasts of how one of "our" guys did this-and-that heroic thing. Why the fig would a Hellenic author come up with that kind of stuff for enemies ? Neither the Romans nor the Greeks had any particular shortage of literary tropes to underline the savagery and ferocity of the Celts after all...

The Norse men were able to grab spears thrown at them out of the air and fling them back at their adversaries.

...which is actually potentially doable, if you're really good. Throwing-spears aren't all that fast projectiles, they're big and easy to see, and have a lot that a sufficiently fast man can grab a hold of.

Not, of course, exactly a safe or easy trick to try.

There are stories of Romans doing the same type of things, one guy losing an eye and still holding off many Celts.

You're thinking of Horatius Cocles; that story has nothing to do with any Celts.

It is also one of the "foundation myths" of Rome, and doubtless mythologised and embellished to Hell and back - do recall that Roman accounts of events before around the period of Punic Wars are kinda limited, and increasingly unreliable the further back you go.

Also if you look at the battle it really didn't matter if they all could do that, they still lost.

Which doesn't particularly say the first thing of the troops involved. For the sake of comparision, I doubt anyone is going to question the capabilities of cataphract-style superheavy cavalry - but there's hardly any shortage of instances where such was virtually neutralised by cunning stratagems and/or poor deployement, or flat out embarassingly put to flight.

If I'm not mistaken the Celts outnumbered the Greeks in this battle.

And the Greeks gave battle in that classic local geographical bottleneck to neutalize superior enemy numbers and maneuverabilty, Thermopylae.

...and that the Romans were defeating the Celts the majority of the time while mostly outnumbered.

You mean the early Republic period fights ? Fair enough; I'd say that rather well illustrates the difference equipement makes in a straight fight, since if you forgot period Roman grunts had around as good armour as Celtic high-rankers... most of those would fall into the period before the EB Celtic reforms that introduce most of the high-end armoured elites, no ?

Ellis says the same thing, the Gaesatae of Telemon are the same as those of Clusium/Faesulae and Clastidium.

In the case of Clastidum it should be bloody obvious the name "Gaesatae" is used as an umbrella name for Transalpine mercenaries you know. Presumably those guys were the part of such that left the biggest impression on the Romans, and the name stuck.

This is the way the Celts should be as well, being able to have a large amount of troops as shown by historical accounts.

You did look at the size of their cheap low-end units right ? Heck, that's about exactly what makes them so potent, as their stats are actually pretty mediocre and armour nominal or nonexistent...


As for whatever accounts for the apparent disregard of pain by the Gaesatae and other "berserk" warriors, my hunch is it was more some sort of autohypnotic state probably helped along with suitable psychoactives (which around every human society has known in one form or another). Humans sometimes survive amazing amount of injury for quite a while solely by refusing to go into system shock, and can do some pretty scary (if injurous) things in a suitable mental state. It is hardly stretch at least some particularly "death or glory"-minded warrior societies would have sought, and potentially also developed, methods for actively inducing such "battle frenzy".


As for the unit stats, meh. EB statting uses a consistent basic system with certain consistent applied modifiers (nevermind now that the actual computations put into the EDU sometimes have hiccups), and those account for equipement differences thoroughly enough that all other things being equal the heavier (and more expensively) armed unit has an advantage in a straight fight. And you're going to have serious problems proving the Celts didn't on the whole have better war gear than their rather poor Germanic neighbours...

[SaFe]

Err... yeah. And those are all boasts of how one of "our" guys did this-and-that heroic thing. Why the fig would a Hellenic author come up with that kind of stuff for enemies ?

The same reason why Tacitus talks about noble savages - in his case the germanics.
Greek historians did have a habit to write about heroic deeds (not only of their own warriors with the ecxception of Persians) and the victory tasted sweeter, if your enemy are described as heroic, fearless and rather invulnerable giants and not just a band of rather unorganized raiders.

[Tellos Athenaios]

suitable psychoactives (which around every human society has known in one form or another).

One that is still used today, often enough: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_nightshade

(Among other things, the substance appears to completely block any signal of pain during the hallucination, and is said to make you feel as if you were flying. (By blocking the other senses the only way you can determine your orientation within a 3D space is by analyzing what you see, which especially if you are lie on your back creates the illusion that you are 'afloat' in the air since you can't tell floor from ceiling anymore.) Basically it's forces your brain to 'dream' whilst awake.

This dreaming whilst being awake (not daydreaming ) is also thought to be responsible for many a report of 'abduction by aliens', and similar frightning/exstatic illusions.)

[Frostwulf]

I think that's correct, save that I think he is in fact referring to cavalry in some instances.

Ok, so thats twice now I skipped you. Next time before I post Ill have to check to see if you didn't slip a post in on me. As far as the Celtic cavalry I thought they were to weak until I found the Brihentin and Remi Mairepos. I think both of these units are well done.

The Shermans AFAIK had a major problem when facing good German tanks; the Firefly variant with its 17pdr gun was around the only one that could fight the Panthers and such more or less equally, the others just plain were a bit too short of everything (firepower, armour, speed) to hack it one to one.

Thats is the reason why I said the early Sherman tank, meaning the basic M4 model as the Firefly,Jumbo and the other variants(including those with the 76mm) were later models.

Which, to a degree, would be analoguous to the situation with the Celtic high-end infantry around the time Caesar and Ariovist came stomping around. It's not that they didn't exist or weren't damn good at their job, there just wasn't enough of them to go around.

You say there wasn't enough high-end infantry around, what are you basing that on?

...do I actually have to point out 5th century BC isn't 1st century BC...? That's round three-four centuries you know. It took around comparable time for Rome to become a wholesale Mediterranean superpower, less for the Seleukid empire to go from probably the strongest of the Diadochi to a historical footnote divided between Romans and Parthians, for Rome to start going from an undisputed superpower to a harried, ramshackle has-been no longer able to keep restless barbarians from crossing the border... Many of the great Chinese dynasties underwent the whole cycle from rise and splendor to decay and collapse in a comparable or shorter span of time.

Get some perspective, willya ? Mighty empires rise and fall, entire populations migrate and societies change beyond recognition in much shorter periods.

Well you might want to read this and the reason for the post you quoted:

The reason for this statement is that Psycho V made a comment that there had been 2 "Devastating Civil Wars", so when Ranika made this comment:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
Now, if we say no civil war, this assumes a few things. One, Ambicatus's kingdom of Gaul never collapsed.
I assumed that the first "Devastating Civil War" happened sometime after his death. But you are correct that this first one has no bearing on EB.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=535
So the perspective is there, you just have to read it.

Err... yeah. And those are all boasts of how one of "our" guys did this-and-that heroic thing. Why the fig would a Hellenic author come up with that kind of stuff for enemies ? Neither the Romans nor the Greeks had any particular shortage of literary tropes to underline the savagery and ferocity of the Celts after all...

Same answer as SaFe not to mention that there was admiration for those kind of things, considering they themselves did "heroic deeds".

You're thinking of Horatius Cocles; that story has nothing to do with any Celts.

It is also one of the "foundation myths" of Rome, and doubtless mythologised and embellished to Hell and back - do recall that Roman accounts of events before around the period of Punic Wars are kinda limited, and increasingly unreliable the further back you go.

Actually I was referring to one of Caesars men who after a vicious battle of holding a fort against the Celts he lost his eye. His comrades said he was the main reason the fort didn't fall and Caesar made him a centurion as well as all kinds of medals,cash etc.
My point to this was and still is there are many heroic deeds that happened on both sides. Again Ill state that there was most likely less then a handful that pulled a javelin out of a leg or a spear from a shoulder and continued to fight. You will find these situations in just about every culture, it doesn't speak only of drugged up Gaesatae(again Ill state I don't believe the drug thing).

You mean the early Republic period fights ? Fair enough; I'd say that rather well illustrates the difference equipement makes in a straight fight, since if you forgot period Roman grunts had around as good armour as Celtic high-rankers... most of those would fall into the period before the EB Celtic reforms that introduce most of the high-end armoured elites, no ?

Well considering that most of these were raids into Roman territory would they not be warriors and not levy's? Was it not the elite that went on these raids? There were a few times that they mustered for war, but most of these battles were of Celtic warriors going for plunder which would mean warriors, not craftsmen and etc(levy's).

In the case of Clastidum it should be bloody obvious the name "Gaesatae" is used as an umbrella name for Transalpine mercenaries you know. Presumably those guys were the part of such that left the biggest impression on the Romans, and the name stuck.

The Romans were able to distinguish between the Gallic tribes(Boii,Insubres,etc.) and they know that in the case of Clastidum that the "king" of the Gaesatae was Virdomarus. There is a reason why the classical authors as well as the modern ones use the same term, because they are the same type of troops.
Again as Connolly puts it:

Connolly-"Greece and Rome at War"-"The next year 30,000 Gaesati (the ones who fought naked) crossed the Alps to assist their kinsmen in the Po valley. The Romans laid siege to the Insubrian town of Acerrae, north of the Po. In an attempt to draw off the legions the Celts attacked the Roman supply depot at Casteggio, 50km west of piacenza." pg.146

Do you have any evidence at all, anything that contradicts this? Do you have anything that supports what your saying? Is there something that the classical authors and the modern authors are missing that you know of? If there is anything that you have please, please put it down.

As for whatever accounts for the apparent disregard of pain by the Gaesatae and other "berserk" warriors, my hunch is it was more some sort of autohypnotic state probably helped along with suitable psychoactives (which around every human society has known in one form or another). Humans sometimes survive amazing amount of injury for quite a while solely by refusing to go into system shock, and can do some pretty scary (if injurous) things in a suitable mental state. It is hardly stretch at least some particularly "death or glory"-minded warrior societies would have sought, and potentially also developed, methods for actively inducing such "battle frenzy".

First where are the accounts of the Gaesatae ignoring pain? Where are they anywhere? Do you have any books, authors, papers anything that talks of this?
For the second part I agree with what your saying.

And you're going to have serious problems proving the Celts didn't on the whole have better war gear than their rather poor Germanic neighbours...

No doubt about it, thats one of the reasons why I wouldn't bother to try to prove it, not to mention I don't even believe the Germanic neighbours had better equipment. But what is impressive is how well the Germanic neighbours were able to defeat the Gauls with sub par equipment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_nightshade[/url]

It may be used but not for the intentions of this discussion as it causes "Symptoms of belladonna poisoning are the same as those for atropine (a tropane alkaloid), and include dilated pupils, tachycardia, hallucinations, blurred vision, loss of balance, a feeling of flight, staggering, a sense of suffocation, paleness followed by a red rash, flushing, husky voice, extremely dry throat, constipation, urinary retention, and confusion." Obviously no one would want to take something like this before going into battle.
I understand what your saying Tellos, but the questions are:
1.Where, anywhere(other then this forum) is there mention of the Gaesatae taking these sort of things.
2.What "drugs" did they take, of the ones listed so far none would come close to what was needed to perform as suggested by these forums. I say these forums because this is the only place you will find that suggests these things about the Gaesatae.

[NeoSpartan]

So to sum up Frostwolf claims:.

1. Celtic Overpowered becuase their Elite units kick too much ass.
So,
-Celtic Elites should have lower stats.
-Celtic Elites should have lower cost.

(not refering to cavarly, he is not refering to missiles, and he is not refering to non-Elites like Botroas)

2. There was never a Major Civil war in Gaul around 130BC and the arrival of Ceasar.
-Meaning the Gallic tribes were NOT weak by the time Ceasar and Arventicus (sp) showed up.

3. From 390BC to 190ish BC the militia/conscript Roman army had been defeating the Celtic armies(the majority of the times) while usually outnumbered.

OK... here we go

Now by analysing these 3 claims I "believe" I understand Frostwolf overall warrant and that is:
"The Roman army was stronger than Celtic armies since the 4th Century BC. Now, the Gauls never had any Devastating Civil War so their power never decreased, meaning the number and strenght of thier Elite soldiers was not significantly reduced. And when Ceasar came around he just kicked Gallic butt the same way the Romans had done before 50some BC. The reason for the delay into Gaul proper was the fact that Rome was busy with Carthege, Makedonia and Seleukeia (sp)"

I am pretty sure this paraphrasing is correct (again I am leaving the Sweboz out as they got new Elite infantry and cavarly). If I missed something Frostwolf just add to it.

Now... here is the thing Frostwolf, ur basically assuming that from 390BC to Ceasar (58BC), 342 years, Gallic society remained static. However, we all know that by the time Ceasar showed up the Gaesatae, both the organization and their elite members, no longer existed. Also even when you posted Ceasar's and other's account of the 50some BC war there is little to no mention of large contingencies of Soldurus, Corneutos, and well armed infantry like EB's Neitos. Instead, from reading through this thread, it shows that the Gallic tribes were pumping out a LOT of levies and other lighter troops like EB's Bataroas, and Gaeroas (which as Thatuu showed, and .81x MP battles show are not very strong troops
162 Classical Hoplites beat 242 Gaeroas with 103 casualties 214 kills.
162 Classical Hoplites beat 202 Bataroas with 103 casualties 157 kills.
162 Classical Hoplites beat 240 Galatikoi Kluddolon with 74 casualties 217 kills.
162 Classical Hoplites beat 202 Botroas with 86 casualties 175 kills.
162 Classical Hoplites beat 200 Uirodusios with 117 casualties 173 kills.
162 Classical Hoplites beat 120 Pictone Neitos with 106 casualties 111 kills
162 Classical Hoplites beat 162 Milnaht with 134 casualties 152 kills.)

-Beside that as I posted before:
--Both the Aedui and Sequani+Arverni were locked in a huge fight. And as a result both had to call on entire foreing armies led by foreing generals! Eventhough for a while Ariovistus (hey I got the name right!) was under the control of the Sequani that didn't last. And Ceasar was autonomos on his decitions all throughout his staying in Gaul. You know... stuff like this doesn't happen in an empire or country that is strong.

-Another thing:
--IF we are to asume that there was no Gallic Civil war then there is very good reason for Ranika's explenation "what Gaul would have been like" to hold true:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=61067
and reposted by Power2the1 a couple of pages back.

But that is as much history stuff ur gonna get from me, I'll let other people do that type of talking I don't have neither the time nor knowledge to continue on.

Now, when it comes to Gallic elites, your test looks pretty accurate
"2units of praetorian(205 soldiers) vs. 3 units of soldurii(184 warriors)
I control the praetorians=3 losses.
I control the soldurii= I won 3 and lost 2."

You see you pitted equal number of soldiers, and as expected pound for pound the Soldorus are better soldiers.
Really... look:
-Soldurous are: "(Sul-dur-ohs; "Devoted Ones") are remarkably skilled, fearless elite guards of Celtic nobles. They pledge themselves to eachother and their charge, and fight to the very end. Small in number, they are a remarkable elite, best used to combat an enemy's opposing elite soldiers or heavy troops. They are very well armored and armed, and can surely break many enemies, but they are rare, very expensive,..." https://www.europabarbarorum.com/fac...dui_units.html
-Pretorians are:
The Cohortes Praetoriae are the highest ranked units in the whole imperial army. Their infantry is the core of the Emperor's Guard in Roma and is considered the best in the empire. Praetorians are equipped as, and fight in, the same manner as the normal legionaries, but their look is often somewhat more magnificent. Their lack of experience in actual combat is compensated by excellent, continuous training, and capable officers..."
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/fac...ani_units.html

In case you haven't noticed EB 1.0 Romani have changed. No longer are Pretorians and Evocata protraid as Hight Level Elites such as Solduros, Hypaspistai, Thorakitai Agematos Basilikou (AS), Dosidataskeli (lusotannam), Basilikon Agema (Ptolemoi), etc...

-As Zakafain explained in another thread:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...n+underpowered

"""1) The Romans were not some super-bad ass military machine.

2) Evocata are just what it says they are--re-enlisted veterans. Theyre EXACTLY the same as a regular legionary, just their term expired and theyve been recalled to service. Pretty much the same equipment, and they're probably about 10-20 years older than your average legionary. They're nothing special. AT MOST, they should have a chevron or two of experience, maybe not even that since they've probably spent their golden years farming a tract of land somewhere in Campania.

3) The Pre-Marian and Marian armies both had not set 'training routines' or drill ceremonies. There were certainly no year-round mobilisation or exercises. Field armies grew experienced whilst in the field, and as Phillip succinctly said, the army was only as good as their commander.
"""

"""Some historians have traditionally ascribed the high level of training and discipline to Romans that you've probably come to know. Lawrence Keppi put it as such:

Quote:
"Discipline and training were its hallmarks; the care with which the camp was laid out reveals no ordinary grouping of amateur warriors."

But honestly, does this apply to all of the Romans? Most Roman armies were, on the one hand rather heterogenous and consisted of a core of more seasoned troops, with a lot of inexperienced troops added in to give it bulk. In Livy, he gives us a detailed story of the dilectus of the army to fight Perseus in 171 BCE. (AUC 42.32). It talks about how there are so many experienced centurions, etc, that all of them couldnt get the proper posting and were complaining.

Livy's story reflects common practice, of course any Roman commander recruiting wanted to get as many experienced officers and soldiers as possible. This is reflected in Livy 32.9.1

Quote:
"Consulem T. Quinctium ita habito dilectu, ut eos fere legeret, qui in Hispania aut Africa meruissent, spectatae virtutis milites, properantem in provinciam prodigia nuntiata atque eorum procuratio Romae tenuerunt."

Or, blah blah blah, Titus Quinctius wanted seasoned soldiers from Spain or Africa.

Even Marius:

Sallust (B. Jug. 84.) said:

Quote:
Ipse interea milites scribere non more maiorum neque ex classibus, sed ut lubido quoiusque erat, capite censos plerosque"

Note: "Mostly proletarians, not all of them!"

Marius' Mules as we know them did not really constitute a professional mercenary force, but became nearly as good as one by experiencing one military campaign after another--Africa, Numidia, Germanics.

From 88 BCE onward, most wars became longer and had to be fought in far off lands, which naturally led the armies fielded to gain more cohesion and a higher level of esprit and drill. Legions came to represent something like a home to the soldiers serving in them, for many, indeed, it was all they knew.

New legions, recruited in the Social Wars and Civil Wars, had to go against these cohesive legions that had been around for in some cases years, and were certainly no match. Not because of a lack of some supposed training, but because they were new formations.

The contingency legions (levies) of the Marians who fought Sulla in 82 and those of Ahenobarbus and other Pompeian generals who commanded recruits against Caesar's veterans had no chance of winning.

In Familiares 10.24.3f Munatius Plancus, one of the combatants in the civil wars of 44-43, wrote to Cicero that the armies that were commanded by Brutus were large, but worthless, because they consisted of miserable recruits who would have to confront the smaller but more homogenous legions of Caesaran veterans.

It wasnt until Augustus and the establishment of a professional army that a regular training routine was emplaced."""""
(btw Zak is da man!)

So... whats the point of all of this:
-Soldurus, Gaesatae, and others from other factions are top notch elite soldiers, extremely rare and extremely expensive (I will come to the "relevancy" of cost and availability in a little bit). And with RTW's engine EB can only portray their "high cost" but it cannot portray their rarity in availability (aside from limiting the provinces from where the unit is trained). Once EBII comes out with MTW2' engine then not only will Elite units be expensive but the number of units you can train in a province will be limited (just as in MTW2).
---Also they are capable of beating non-elites and lower level elites, HOWEVER they take heavy casualties and those fights are by no means walkthroughs. Especially when pitted againts AP units.
-Roman Legions are not extremely rare and extremely expensive elite soldiers. Their best troops came from well seasoned soldiers.

Ok lets switch gears and talk about unit cost, (not much can be said about unit availability unit EBII) and see how that affects gameplay:
.... Wait a minute!!!! I don't need to write anything!!!! I'll just copy and past my OWN comments from this thread: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...z+underpowered

"""""Cost is very relavant, both in MP and SP. Cost limits how many Elite Gallic units you can field!! Not only the recruitment cost, but the upkeep cost hits you. Make 20 Gallic elites, thats 1 full stack, and you will be loosing 10K-14k in UPKEEP alone cost each turn, let alone paying 60000-70000 just to recruit them. Make 3 full stacks and you are loosing 30k-42k on upkeep alone each turn. And is only 3 stacks!!!
--How many stacks of Imperial Legionaries can u make with this $$$? How many elite only stacks can I get with KH with this $$????
....And don't get me started on MP.
(Gallic elites cost 500-600 in upkeep each, and 3000-3300+ to train.. and its only 60 [men per unit] of them!)
Cost is EXTREMELY relevant. As a matter of fact the high cost of Gallic elites is used to illustrate the time and expense it took for Gallic society to produce such fine and elite soldiers.

Those Gallic elites, individually were better soldiers than the Legionaries, but as a group they were not that numerous, very expensive to maintain, and thats their true weakness. (and is a major one). Compare that to Silver Shields who are also expensive, but its 120 of them!""""

-Here why don't you test this in Costum battle:
--Take a budjet of 20k and train all Soldurus and Gaesatae (the 2 best infantry of the Aedui/Arverni). And then train all Pretorian, or all Cohort Imperatoria (with cohort imperatoria you get even more units with almost the same stats). You will see the Romani not only have more units but more men as well


So... again man. Gallic Elites are fine, they preform as expected and cost as expected, however once EBII come out their availability will be as expected. The rest of the Gallic troops are fine as well, getting beat by better armed hoplites and polybian pricipes.

Now... as for the reason why Ceasar and the Germans virtually walked all over Gaul then thats when the civil war and other aspects and considerations kick in. Thats is a very complex topic, just as complex (if not more) as the Fall of the Roman Empire. Its not that Romans>Gauls always...


----------
BTW, ur WWII sherman vs panther analogy is messed up. Instead of:
"Sherman tank-Firepower 17/armor-23 cost-4,500"
Vs
Panther V- Firepower 12/ armor-17 cost 4,000"

It should be:

"Sherman Tank- Firepower 12/armor-17/ cost 4,000"
Vs
"Panther V- Firepower 20/armor 25 (frontal armor impenetrable to sherman fire)/ cost 8,000 and 2turns."


HOWEVER I don't like this analogy because the best of the Gauls was not that much better than a legionary.

[Moros]

wikipedia (from the link):
'It has been suggested by Alexander Kuklin's book How Do Witches Fly? that the aconitine in aconite (another toxic hallucinogen) can counter/reduce the toxic effects of atropine in belladonna, while combining their hallucinogenic effects, and that this combination of belladonna and aconite was used by witches in the Middle Ages.'

[NeoSpartan]

Oh yes with regards to drugs... u know what just search over all the "Gaesatae" threads that pop up once every 2 months ok.

The drugs issue has been talked to death.

[Tellos Athenaios]

It may be used but not for the intentions of this discussion as it causes "Symptoms of belladonna poisoning are the same as those for atropine (a tropane alkaloid), and include dilated pupils, tachycardia, hallucinations, blurred vision, loss of balance, a feeling of flight, staggering, a sense of suffocation, paleness followed by a red rash, flushing, husky voice, extremely dry throat, constipation, urinary retention, and confusion." Obviously no one would want to take something like this before going into battle.
I understand what your saying Tellos, but the questions are:
1.Where, anywhere(other then this forum) is there mention of the Gaesatae taking these sort of things.
2.What "drugs" did they take, of the ones listed so far none would come close to what was needed to perform as suggested by these forums. I say these forums because this is the only place you will find that suggests these things about the Gaesatae.

Meh, you seem to disregard a few things.
One, the Belladona is part of a family of plants, many of whom much less poisonous but still quite funky. (Potatoes!)
Two: there are actually quite many plants such as these and believe it or not: they are nearly all lethal, and nearly all widely used in traditional medicine. The reason for this is that if taken in (very) low doses the danger can be limitted, whilst the usual euphoria/stress relieving effects are retained.
Three: nobody is going to consume any such plant 'straight'; if only because as with any good plant poison, it tastes hideous.

That said Belladonna is not the most likely one but the use of drugs (remember even alcohol is a drug) before battle is not unlikely, and indeed in a culture celebrating a special warrior-class...

[SaFe]

Now... as for the reason why Ceasar and the Germans virtually walked all over Gaul then thats when the civil war and other aspects and considerations kick in. Thats is a very complex topic, just as complex (if not more) as the Fall of the Roman Empire. Its not that Romans>Gauls always...

As it seems you are too a believer of the devasting gallic civil war, could you then tell me why the germanics tribes pushed the celts westwards for decades before?
I mean it as a serious question.
Whenever i asked Psycho or another celtic expert they simply had no answer.
The most celtic tribes living on the east side of the Rhenus were clearly on the move, and their goal was as far away from germanic tribes as possible.
The Helvetii are a good example, if a bit late.
I think EB should rethink their position about a devasting civil war.
I believe - as many historians - that theArverni and Aedui were fighting against each other, but it was by no way a devasting civil war.

[Power2the1]

As it seems you are too a believer of the devasting gallic civil war, could you then tell me why the germanics tribes pushed the celts westwards for decades before?
I mean it as a serious question.
Whenever i asked Psycho or another celtic expert they simply had no answer.
The most celtic tribes living on the east side of the Rhenus were clearly on the move, and their goal was as far away from germanic tribes as possible.
The Helvetii are a good example, if a bit late.
I think EB should rethink their position about a devasting civil war.
I believe - as many historians - that theArverni and Aedui were fighting against each other, but it was by no way a devasting civil war.

You mean there were no Celtic tribes across the Rhine at this time or what decades before are you referring to?


Consider this:
Surrounded by 2 migratory/expantionists (Rome, Germans), a 3rd that possessed a strong leader with a spurt of aggressiveness (Dacia), and a 4th that includes the two biggest tribes of your peoples, its understandable that the Celts could not stand indefinately.

We know around the 100's B.C. the Scordisci hegemony in the easter/balkan area of "Celtdom" all but collapsed due to the Romans constant campaigning against them from Macedonia. However, the Romans had to launch 11-12 campaigns I believe it was against them so that say something of their power. By this time the Celts might have been around but they were no longer they once were, and many would have chose to head west to be closer to fellow tribes.

Beginning around 50 B.C. or so Burebista the Dacian launched an offensive against the Boii and Taurisci who dwelled in Pannonia and Slovakia. The Boii allied with the Taurisci in Noricum under a prince named Critasirus but were defeated by Buribista. The tribes were defeated, and began to leave the area, and according to some Greeks, 32,000 men, women, and children moved from those regions and unsuccessfully besieged a town called Noreia (Neumarkt). Following this they opted to join the Helvetii in their migration into Gaul which was defeated by Julius Caesar. Those that survived were allowed to settle with the Aedui as farmers.

To me it seems to me that the Celts becoming weakened or up and leaving the areas were caused not by a vote but by necessity. Migration from too many military conflicts and defeats. Their lands bordering the Dacians were increasingly hostile. The Celts were a ruling minority overall, not 99-100% of the population like you might find in Gaul. I am not claiming at all the Dacians and Germans were collaborating or anything against the Celts, but, these two powers started their own conquests/migrations towards Celtic lands that found themselves in a pinch. The only way to go was west towards homelands, but...

...Caesar decides to strike the western areas of the Celtic realm which did have a huge civil/tribal war between the two biggest guys on the block, Arverni and their dependent tribes and the Aedui and their dependent tribes. Much of Gaul was split into these two camps and this ongoing war was the meat grinder where they would have increasingly fed their best warriors into. Nobody would conduct a war of this scale with levy troops. It appears to me that this civil war was indeed a major disaster without a doubt to its warrior caste.

When you look at the situation, a vibrant society with plenty of skilled manpower would never have the need to call for outsider help but this is exactly what happened. For example, why start paying foreign troops the sums of money needed to risk their lives, giving them food, repair their weapons, giving them a place to stay, etc... It does not add up. The civil war had to have been going on long enough to take it's toll

How to achieve victory in this Civil War would have been examined intently by both sides. Every option would have been explored and tried before they would have had to call on outsiders to intervene. The situation would have had to have been very dire for this to happen.


(Not meant to be 100% historically accurate, but I think this paints a rough idea of what I am getting at)

[Watchman]

As it seems you are too a believer of the devasting gallic civil war, could you then tell me why the germanics tribes pushed the celts westwards for decades before?
---
The most celtic tribes living on the east side of the Rhenus were clearly on the move, and their goal was as far away from germanic tribes as possible.
The Helvetii are a good example, if a bit late.

The Helvetii, we may recall, also trekked back to their old haunts after getting mauled by Caesar and were still dwelling there centuries later, so the Germanic pressure on them cannot have been too serious in purely military terms.

My money's on Germanic raiding having became intense and frequent enough to render the situation intolerable to many Celtic groups in the border regions between the two (however you now tell them apart there...), motivating them to try relocating to less troubled pastures where you didn't have to fight marauders off your fields and trade routes every other day. The chaos in Gaul ought to have opened many an opportunity for such squatting - for example the Helvetii are unlikely to have tried migrating had they been expecting serious and coordinated opposition from strong tribes and kingdoms, no ?

The Germans may have been severely short of means to reliably invest an oppidia or similar point of strong resistance, but they were certainly very expert low-intensity raiders and ought to have been able to cause severe economical damage to the surroundings - not unlike Medieval chevauchee "spoiling raids", in a sense.

As to what caused this intensification of Germanic hostility (above and beyond the business-as-usual raiding and warring normal among and between the two groups), I'm guessing the same pressures that triggered the Cimbri-Teuton "road trip", the Migrations and the Viking emigration (and, on the other side of the coin, mutatis mutandis the Celtic mass movements up to at least the Galatian migration); a combination of internal sociopolitical pressures, population growth (and associated running short of good farmland), the lure of a more prosperous future elsewhere, climate changes and other ecological shifts...

I think EB should rethink their position about a devasting civil war.
I believe - as many historians - that theArverni and Aedui were fighting against each other, but it was by no way a devasting civil war.

Define devastating. It was obviously severe enough to cause a major depletion in their backbone fighting manpower (attested to by the way the participants were reduced to calling in foreign mercenaries and allies they could not control should it prove necessary), and ought to have created major economical and social distruption since if I understood correctly much of the fighting was over the control of important trade-routes and -centres.