Celtic overpowered!

[Sarcasm]

I'm still not convinced that the Arverni,Aedui,Sequani and etc. that is was any thing excessive. I just haven't read anything to the contrary of Simon James or A. Goldsworthy. But yes very little disagreement between us.

I don't understand why you can't picture that a civil war between the major powers in Gaul (and both among the top 5 most powerful realms of the Celts), would lead to a major destabilization of the region, and eventually leading to them being so damn bloodied that any loss that their field army could incur, would be catastrophic, especially to an already limited number warrior class.

There's literally dozens of cases in history where rival regional powers are too busy fighting each other to notice emerging enemies, that in the long run would eventually consume them both.

The only thing I can agree with you on the Celts being overpowered is their levies and slingers. Maybe.

[Watchman]

Not to forget that such unpleasant conditions doubtless motivated many an up and coming young warrior to search his fortunes elsewhere. Celtic mercenaries fought for pretty much everyone anyway; wouldn't be a great leap to sign up for the Romans, especially as they certainly looked like one powerful bunch with money to spare and battles to fight...

[Frostwulf]

I don't understand why you can't picture that a civil war between the major powers in Gaul (and both among the top 5 most powerful realms of the Celts), would lead to a major destabilization of the region, and eventually leading to them being so damn bloodied that any loss that their field army could incur, would be catastrophic, especially to an already limited number warrior class.

There's literally dozens of cases in history where rival regional powers are too busy fighting each other to notice emerging enemies, that in the long run would eventually consume them both.

Sarcasm I can picture this with no problem. The problem lies with the limiting factors that occurred within the Celtic Realms. Have not the Celtic peoples been raiding, in-fighting and fighting since the 4th century BC? Yet there is no cry of "these are weaker Celts" or "spent" Celts. What makes this "civil war" time period different what so ever from any in previous era's? The Sequani brought over the Germans to help against the Aedui over a trade rout dispute, do you really think this is the first time such things occurred? Again ever since the 4th century there has been inter-tribal conflict. I haven't read anything on these forums about the Arverni and Allobroges being weaker Celts during their defeat at the Romans hands in the 120's BC. I keep reading about on these forums how devastating this "civil war" was, but no one puts any sources or quotes down. If you have something that conflicts with what Simon James or Adrian Goldsworthy says I would love to read about it. I just believe the conflict is being exaggerated.

Not to forget that such unpleasant conditions doubtless motivated many an up and coming young warrior to search his fortunes elsewhere. Celtic mercenaries fought for pretty much everyone anyway; wouldn't be a great leap to sign up for the Romans, especially as they certainly looked like one powerful bunch with money to spare and battles to fight...

I agree, Celtic mercenaries have been used since the 4th century. Of course I would think the if the Celts homeland was under attack he would be unlikely to leave it to become a mercenary. I'm fairly sure most would stay to defend their home.

[Watchman]

Caesar's cavalry was mostly Gauls, remember ? The way the warrior class thought was obviously rather more complex than "stay defending your homeland".

[The Celt]

Sarcasm I can picture this with no problem. The problem lies with the limiting factors that occurred within the Celtic Realms. Have not the Celtic peoples been raiding, in-fighting and fighting since the 4th century BC? Yet there is no cry of "these are weaker Celts" or "spent" Celts. What makes this "civil war" time period different what so ever from any in previous era's? The Sequani brought over the Germans to help against the Aedui over a trade rout dispute, do you really think this is the first time such things occurred? Again ever since the 4th century there has been inter-tribal conflict. I haven't read anything on these forums about the Arverni and Allobroges being weaker Celts during their defeat at the Romans hands in the 120's BC. I keep reading about on these forums how devastating this "civil war" was, but no one puts any sources or quotes down. If you have something that conflicts with what Simon James or Adrian Goldsworthy says I would love to read about it. I just believe the conflict is being exaggerated.
.

So, according to your logic, we shouldn't call all those conflicts within the Roman Empire between rival Emperors or generals Civil Wars because, since the 3rd century AD, they happened quite often? Not that I'm saying that the Celts were an empire or anything. Hell, they were far from it. However, just because its not the first "Civil War" in Gaul doesn't mean it's not a "Civil War".(Depending on your definition of Civil War that is.)

But then again, the Roman army wasn't considerably "weaker" during the Age of Crisis or the 5th century. They just weren't as numerous, and had to rely on foreign aid like the foederati.(Much like the Sequani hiring Germans to help them in fighting the Aedui, only I don't think the Germans were allowed to settle afterward. )

I honestly can't tell if I'm agreeing with you or disagreeing with you Frostwulf. Maybe I'll just sit back and watch from a afar instead....

[Frostwulf]

Caesar's cavalry was mostly Gauls, remember ? The way the warrior class thought was obviously rather more complex than "stay defending your homeland".

Something you also need to consider though. When Caesar confronted the Helvetii some of his Gallic troops defected to the Helvetii. When Caesar went to war with Vercingetorix about the only Gauls he could rely on were the Aedui, and that was after he confronted them for wavering as his allies. When I say the Celt's homeland, I'm referring to the land each tribe owned. If Caesar would have gone to crush the Aedui homeland(territory) I believe most of the Aedui in his charge would have left him and joined their own people for defense. If Caesar was going against the Arverni I dont see any of the Aedui having much problem helping the Romans beat up on them.

So, according to your logic, we shouldn't call all those conflicts within the Roman Empire between rival Emperors or generals Civil Wars because, since the 3rd century AD, they happened quite often? Not that I'm saying that the Celts were an empire or anything. Hell, they were far from it. However, just because its not the first "Civil War" in Gaul doesn't mean it's not a "Civil War".(Depending on your definition of Civil War that is.)

I think your misunderstanding the situation. Some are saying that the "Civil War" with the Sequani,Arverni vs. the Aedui (there were others involved) in 70-60 BC was devastating and nearly brought all these tribes to ruin. I am disagreeing with this on the basis of the findings of Simon James and the writing of A. Goldsworthy. My point about the in-fighting in the earlier years is that they didn't have the same kind of claims as being catastrophic as the one in the 70-60BC. It doesnt have anything to do with the amount of in-fighting it's just the level of devastation claimed.

I honestly can't tell if I'm agreeing with you or disagreeing with you Frostwulf. Maybe I'll just sit back and watch from a afar instead....

I hope you don't. I disagree with watchman and others, but I learn from them as well. Anything you have to offer whether we agree or not is to me a good thing.

[Watchman]

Something you also need to consider though. When Caesar confronted the Helvetii some of his Gallic troops defected to the Helvetii. When Caesar went to war with Vercingetorix about the only Gauls he could rely on were the Aedui, and that was after he confronted them for wavering as his allies. When I say the Celt's homeland, I'm referring to the land each tribe owned. If Caesar would have gone to crush the Aedui homeland(territory) I believe most of the Aedui in his charge would have left him and joined their own people for defense. If Caesar was going against the Arverni I dont see any of the Aedui having much problem helping the Romans beat up on them.

Well, sure. Dunno about the incident with the Helvetii, but otherwise you're talking about warriors already affiliated with one tribe, region or whatever or another. Of course they'd be sensitive to threats to those; that's their personal property, friends and family at stake there after all.

But any such community can only support a limited number of the as-such rather unproductive warrior class. The surplus would have had to go find their fortunes elsewhere, very much like the younger sons of Medieval warrior aristocracy, becoming essentially unattached mercenaries (if not outright brigands - the difference between the two was probably rather muddy) until they found a patron whose retainer they could become or won enough loot and/or land as mercenaries to "settle down" so to speak. Wandering warrior cults like the Gaesatae may well have been an institutionalized version of this, although one gets the impression they were more out to die heroically than become rich - I've read that institution had largely died out by the end of 2nd century BC or somesuch, which if true could be taken as a symptom of there for one reason or another no longer being such a surplus of "unemployed" young warriors, or a sign that they had by and large taken to seeling their fortunes in another fashion.

In any case, if the economic base of a Celtic community was severely distrupted (for example due to particularly intense conflicts and raiding) it duly follows that the number of "standing" warriors it could support decreased - and the same would logically apply to more expensive war gear becoming common, as more resources would be needed to equip and support such well-armed warriors. It then follows that this would create a larger surplus of unemployed "free agent" warriors looking for a patron or a war to fight in in order to support themselves in a manner befitting their status, and unlikely to be excessively picky about their paymasters or who they were to fight against.

One would imagine the steady pay and "killer rep" of the post-Marian Roman army, and the prospect of loot in the feud between the Aedui and Arverni, attracted many of such rootless warriors. And the worse the infrastructural damage from the latter got the less the communities would be able to maintain their "standing" pool of warriors, and the more fickle the loyalties of mercenaries (who have always tended to become unruly if the paycheck runs into problems), and the greater the attraction of wealthy and succesful leaders... like, say, a certain balding Roman.

[The Celt]

Something you also need to consider though. When Caesar confronted the Helvetii some of his Gallic troops defected to the Helvetii. When Caesar went to war with Vercingetorix about the only Gauls he could rely on were the Aedui, and that was after he confronted them for wavering as his allies. When I say the Celt's homeland, I'm referring to the land each tribe owned. If Caesar would have gone to crush the Aedui homeland(territory) I believe most of the Aedui in his charge would have left him and joined their own people for defense. If Caesar was going against the Arverni I dont see any of the Aedui having much problem helping the Romans beat up on them.


I think your misunderstanding the situation. Some are saying that the "Civil War" with the Sequani,Arverni vs. the Aedui (there were others involved) in 70-60 BC was devastating and nearly brought all these tribes to ruin. I am disagreeing with this on the basis of the findings of Simon James and the writing of A. Goldsworthy. My point about the in-fighting in the earlier years is that they didn't have the same kind of claims as being catastrophic as the one in the 70-60BC. It doesnt have anything to do with the amount of in-fighting it's just the level of devastation claimed.

Yeah thats what I was thinking. No offense but it was kinda hard trying to read that paragraph I hardly tell what you were saying. I now understand that your saying the Celts during 70-60BC were not as weak and devastated as people are assuming, and that there are solid sources stating otherwise.

I admit, the only place where I've read this "Caesar vs. The Pussy Celts" theory is the EB forums. Books on the subject are not of the same opinion from what I can tell.(Granted, they base their stuff on James & Goldsworthy's research) They say that the Celts were not "weak" at all, just not as organized as the Romans, and that were used to a very different way of fighting a war then Caesar's men were.

[Watchman]

Then again, most of what I've read of Celtic politics in easily accessible books was really pretty vague and general. The ones I've seen pretty much don't even mention the Aedui-Arverni one-upmanship issue (or any major tribal divisions for that matter), and what they have on Celtic warfare patterns seemed to concern itself all but entirely on the business-as-usual back-and-forth raiding which was pretty much the operative norm in such "hero" societies - and the argument here is after all that the power struggle in Gaul went way beyond that in scale and intensity.

Sort of like the difference between the standard Medieval feudal-baron squabbling and the Hundred Years' War if I've understood correctly.

[the_handsome_viking]

Just out of curiosity, and it does actually have relevance to the overall subject, do you guys think that the Helvetii were actually ravanging the lands of the Aedui?

Theres just something quite suspicious about the idea that the Helvetii were actually ravaging lands, when they had already shown signs of wanting to avoid conflicts and engaged in acts of surprisingly effective and efficient deplomacy with tribes like the Sequani, who were initially against them.

It is odd that a group of people that would seek to avoid conflict initially with other tribes, with all their belongings on their backs and their families and what not, would suddenly just decide to pick a fight with the Aedui immediatly after all the bloody hard work and conflict avoiding stuff they had undergone.

I guess what I'm getting at is, could Julius Caesar have simply lied so that he could go to war with them? or perhaps, worringly, he might have been a genuinely deluded man.

Theres something quite comical about reading Julius Caesars books in that he always seems to be sort of wandering along trying to do the good thing then decides that the best course of action for maybe someone forgetting to say maybe, return a pair of fur skin boots to some local chieften is automatically logical reason to assume that that person is plotting to attack Rome and therefore has to be attacked and destroyed.

Going back onto the point, the Aedui apparently asking for help, or getting help from Caesar does imply that they were in something of a weakened state of the Helvetti were really considered a major threat. But really, the real question is, how much of a threat were they? was Caesar just looking for trouble?

[The Celt]

Then again, most of what I've read of Celtic politics in easily accessible books was really pretty vague and general. The ones I've seen pretty much don't even mention the Aedui-Arverni one-upmanship issue (or any major tribal divisions for that matter), and what they have on Celtic warfare patterns seemed to concern itself all but entirely on the business-as-usual back-and-forth raiding which was pretty much the operative norm in such "hero" societies - and the argument here is after all that the power struggle in Gaul went way beyond that in scale and intensity.

Sort of like the difference between the standard Medieval feudal-baron squabbling and the Hundred Years' War if I've understood correctly.

Excellent point Watchman! I too have noticed that these two tribes are barely mentioned in most books about the Celts.(Gaul itself tends to get glanced over anyway. In favor of the more popular image of the "Celts" I.e Ireland & Scotland)

[Lowenklee]

Well to address the confusion about the Aedui Arverni rivalry...I also can't find direct documentation for this. Undoubtably the Aedui and Arverni were two powerful tribes. The Aedui seemed to have inherited their position after the collapse of the Bituriges. The Arverni i'm not so sure about other than they were allied with the powerful Allobroges during the Roman campaign against them in 121bce.

What we do know is that the Sequani were among the Arverni's allies and were in in conflict with the Aedui who lived nearby across the Arar river. At some point around 70bce the dispute between the Aedui and the Arverni turned violent. The Sequani enlisted the aid of Ariovistus the Suebian. The rest is well documented by Caesar.

So, is it safe to conclude that a conflict between the Aedui and an Arverni ally, the Sequani, left both sides vulnerable to Ariovistus' invasion and conquest of both their lands? If so that might qualify the "pussy celts" statement somewhat.

It's also worth pointing out that the Arverni and Aedui only represent two Celtic tribal confederations...I'm sure that if it weren't a matter of limited faction slots the Allobroges might just have easily been included. The Aquitanii were also quite the regional powerhouse. It's a shame that the faction limit precludes their inclusion.

[The Celt]

Well to address the confusion about the Aedui Arverni rivalry...I also can't find direct documentation for this. Undoubtably the Aedui and Arverni were two powerful tribes. The Aedui seemed to have inherited their position after the collapse of the Bituriges. The Arverni i'm not so sure about other than they were allied with the powerful Allobroges during the Roman campaign against them in 121bce.

What we do know is that the Sequani were among the Arverni's allies and were in in conflict with the Aedui who lived nearby across the Arar river. At some point around 70bce the dispute between the Aedui and the Arverni turned violent. The Sequani enlisted the aid of Ariovistus the Suebian. The rest is well documented by Caesar.

So, is it safe to conclude that a conflict between the Aedui and an Arverni ally, the Sequani, left both sides vulnerable to Ariovistus' invasion and conquest of both their lands? If so that might qualify the "pussy celts" statement somewhat.

It's also worth pointing out that the Arverni and Aedui only represent two Celtic tribal confederations...I'm sure that if it weren't a matter of limited faction slots the Allobroges might just have easily been included. The Aquitanii were also quite the regional powerhouse. It's a shame that the faction limit precludes their inclusion.

So if we had enough faction slots, Gaul would look quite a bit like France not long after Charlemagne's Empire collapsed.

[the_handsome_viking]

So if we had enough faction slots, Gaul would look quite a bit like France not long after Charlemagne's Empire collapsed.

It didn't really collapse, it was just broken down into more easily administrational regions, three infact, West Francia, Middle Francia and East Francia.

The map would look more like modern Europe than Carolingian Europe, I'm not sure if that makes us look better or worse.

[Watchman]

Please now. These days we have proper Westphalian territorial states in place. They had nominal kings and to a greater or lesser degree intractable barons.

[the_handsome_viking]

Please now. These days we have proper Westphalian territorial states in place. They had nominal kings and to a greater or lesser degree intractable barons.

Yeah, but they had better clothes.

Actually on a serious note, you could argue that not very much has changed, replace kings with political leaders and barons with business men and you have pretty much the same thing. The EU is actually surpringly a lot like Frankish Feifdom, but instead of a Fief being a little economic unit overseen by a lord, you have a country acting as an economic unit.

Perhaps this seems especially true when you live in the United Kingdom and take into consideration that after Thatcher, the government pretty much doesn't own anything other than the NHS(which is falling to bits) and the Royal Mail.

Scary stuff really.

[The Celt]

It didn't really collapse, it was just broken down into more easily administrational regions, three infact, West Francia, Middle Francia and East Francia.

The map would look more like modern Europe than Carolingian Europe, I'm not sure if that makes us look better or worse.

Yes and then the Barons/Vassal Kings/Dukes gradually gained more power than the King of W.Francia(France) such as Aquitaine and Normandy for example. But your right, directly after his death Chuck's Kingdom was divided among his sons, and divided even further after that.

Watchman's right BTW, Europe is much more peaceful and united now then it ever was before. Not that it will be that way forever...... and whats wrong with genes, T-shirts and expensive suites?

[the_handsome_viking]

Yes and then the Barons/Vassal Kings/Dukes gradually gained more power than the King of W.Francia(France) such as Aquitaine and Normandy for example. But your right, directly after his death Chuck's Kingdom was divided among his sons, and divided even further after that.

Watchman's right BTW, Europe is much more peaceful and united now then it ever was before. Not that it will be that way forever...... and whats wrong with genes, T-shirts and expensive suites?

In this situation, I'd honestly say pictures are better than words.



VS.

[Lowenklee]

Just out of curiosity, and it does actually have relevance to the overall subject, do you guys think that the Helvetii were actually ravanging the lands of the Aedui?

Theres just something quite suspicious about the idea that the Helvetii were actually ravaging lands, when they had already shown signs of wanting to avoid conflicts and engaged in acts of surprisingly effective and efficient deplomacy with tribes like the Sequani, who were initially against them.

It is odd that a group of people that would seek to avoid conflict initially with other tribes, with all their belongings on their backs and their families and what not, would suddenly just decide to pick a fight with the Aedui immediatly after all the bloody hard work and conflict avoiding stuff they had undergone.

I guess what I'm getting at is, could Julius Caesar have simply lied so that he could go to war with them? or perhaps, worringly, he might have been a genuinely deluded man.

Theres something quite comical about reading Julius Caesars books in that he always seems to be sort of wandering along trying to do the good thing then decides that the best course of action for maybe someone forgetting to say maybe, return a pair of fur skin boots to some local chieften is automatically logical reason to assume that that person is plotting to attack Rome and therefore has to be attacked and destroyed.

Going back onto the point, the Aedui apparently asking for help, or getting help from Caesar does imply that they were in something of a weakened state of the Helvetti were really considered a major threat. But really, the real question is, how much of a threat were they? was Caesar just looking for trouble?

Caesar was always looking for trouble. Caesar was an opportunistic punk. My only regret with EB is his absence from the timeline. Oh how irrationally happy, no...jubilant, how jubilant I would be at having a chance to smush his brussel sprout shaped head into the rich gallic soil. I would quite literally dance with joy. But alas one can only dream

Caesar's motives must always be taken with skepticism. As I understand it his Gallic commentaries were meant to be publicly read back in Rome. This was no doubt an effort to prostelitize(sp?) his own greatness more than to inform the public of the general state of affairs in Gaul.

I for one don't believe the Helvetii were ravaging anyone although in the absence of a king they may have been somewhat unruly, i'm not sure how the succession was handled following Orgetorix. It would be rather ironic though wouldn't it? I don't believe Dumnorix was that naive. I also don't recall reading that Dumnorix requested any help from Rome?

[Watchman]

Factually, regardless of however good intentions they may have had that many people on the move pretty much just aren't going to be able to feed themselves without "living off the land". Which, as one historian drily put it, is "a polite euphemism for some very rude activities".

Odds are Caesar didn't have to look very far for an excuse in the case he felt one was needed.

[the_handsome_viking]

Caesar was always looking for trouble. Caesar was an opportunistic punk. My only regret with EB is his absence from the timeline. Oh how irrationally happy, no...jubilant, how jubilant I would be at having a chance to smush his brussel sprout shaped head into the rich gallic soil. I would quite literally dance with joy. But alas one can only dream

I must say I really like the venomous tone you have when it comes to Julius Caesar.

I honestly think someone could write a really good comedy about him, where it basically just depicts him as the same man, but actually very much oblivious to all of the subtleties of ancient politics. The man may very well have been one of these really warped geniuses that honestly didn't know his arse from his elbow when it came to politics, but was an absolute expert at war.

Thus a group of people moving through someone elses territory was automatically an invasion and automatically a threat to Rome and therefore Rome had no choice but to conquer the entire region of Gaul just to protect Gaul from itself.

P.S. Are you sure Julius Caesar isn't in the game? I mean, Hannibal showed up in Spain at one point, and I killed him and his army. I remember admiring the modernized Hoplite units and then noticed that the General was called Hannibal, so I mobalized one of my best armies and took him down and murdered him in the woods.

Moving back to the subject of the Helvetti, who I personally don't think were actually invading or causing much trouble in the first place, this is quite a funny part in De Bello Gallico, that sort of adds a layer of validation to the concept of Julius Caesar being absolutly oblivious to everything that was going on.

To these words Caesar thus replied: - that "on that very account he felt less hesitation, because he kept in remembrance those circumstances which the Helvetian embassadors had mentioned, and that he felt the more indignant at them, in proportion as they had happened undeservedly to the Roman people: for if they had been conscious of having done any wrong, it would not have been difficult to be on their guard, but for that very reason had they been deceived, because neither were they aware that any offense had been given by them, on account of which they should be afraid, nor did they think that they ought to be afraid without cause.

I'm pretty sure a lot of Celtic peoples were surprised and therefore "insulting" to Julius Caesar in their tendancy to not actually know what they had done wrong. Most likely because any offense was actually probably something that existed only in his own mind. That said, It does also seem like he was just desperate for an attempt at revenge on many Celtic peoples, which means he could just be a very skilled ultra nationalist.

It's either that or the man was literally so clever that he realized that essnetially, if you have two factions on earth, Romans and Non-Romans that you can bet your bottom dollar that if there is one group that is unpredictable and dangerous to his and his peoples own existance, it is the Non-Romans and therefore conquering them as fast as possible is one sure way to ensure the existance and survival of your people.

The irony of that would however be that he caused a civil war and undoubtably set into motion a string of events that would ultimatly result in the demise of the Roman Empire which believe it or not, many, many Roman, Christian Scholars actually believed was deserved due to Romes apparent past sins.

These past sins undoubtably would have been in many ways the ones commited by Julius Caesar and arguably the man that made the Roman Empire in the first place.

All that said, the man is one of histories major super geniuses.

Caesar's motives must always be taken with skepticism. As I understand it his Gallic commentaries were meant to be publicly read back in Rome. This was no doubt an effort to prostelitize(sp?) his own greatness more than to inform the public of the general state of affairs in Gaul.

He also enjoyed talking about himself in the third person, he probably had a sock puppet also.

I for one don't believe the Helvetii were ravaging anyone although in the absence of a king they may have been somewhat unruly, i'm not sure how the succession was handled following Orgetorix. It would be rather ironic though wouldn't it? I don't believe Dumnorix was that naive. I also don't recall reading that Dumnorix requested any help from Rome?

I think the irony here is really in the fact that when the Helvetti wanted to pass through Roman guarded territory initially, after the Romans said no, after fortifying the area and after a few skirmishes between the Romans and the Helvetti, the Helvetti essentially just decided that it was pointless in their situation to fight and simply went to move through another route, and even managed to get the right to move through the territory of an enemy tribe just through a bit of diplomacy and networking, only of couse (according to Caesar) to then randomly decide to attack the Aedui, who had close ties with the people who chased them away from their first route in the first place?

Sorry, I think it's evidently clear that Julius Caesar is a down right liar, either that or a complete mental case.

There is another interesting historical comparison to this situation, but much later than the time period we are discussing. The Goths were pushed into Roman territory by the Hunnic movements. The Goths were then put into a situation by the Romans where they basically had little or no choice but to arm themselves and fight the Romans, the only other alternative if you consider it an alternative was to basically starve to death and continue selling their children as slaves to the Romans in exchange for rotton food.

The Romans consistently have a very interesting way of driving people to violence. Infact I'm honestly starting to form the opinion that the wild eyed savage war loving barbarians that we typically consider to come in the form of the Celts, Germans etc, were infact the Romans all along.

[Captian Cornelius]

Caesar was always looking for trouble. Caesar was an opportunistic punk. My only regret with EB is his absence from the timeline. Oh how irrationally happy, no...jubilant, how jubilant I would be at having a chance to smush his brussel sprout shaped head into the rich gallic soil. I would quite literally dance with joy. But alas one can only dream

Someone likes the barbarian factions a little too much.

[the_handsome_viking]

Someone likes the barbarian factions a little too much.

The more I start to feel that the Barbarians were perhaps just nicer softer people most of the time, the more I start to like the Romans.

[the_handsome_viking]

Factually, regardless of however good intentions they may have had that many people on the move pretty much just aren't going to be able to feed themselves without "living off the land". Which, as one historian drily put it, is "a polite euphemism for some very rude activities".

Odds are Caesar didn't have to look very far for an excuse in the case he felt one was needed.

That is often the case when it comes to the situation with say, the Goths, they didn't really have much time to prepare for a migraiton.

The Helvetti on the other hand had prepared extensivly for their move, loony toons Caesar said so himself in his own book.

[Lowenklee]

Someone likes the barbarian factions a little too much.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[the_handsome_viking]

For these Divitiacus the Aeduan spoke and told him: "That there were two parties in the whole of Gaul: that the Aedui stood at the head of one of these, the Arverni of the other. After these had been violently struggling with one another for the superiority for many years, it came to pass that the Germans were called in for hire by the Arverni and the Sequani. That about 15,000 of them [i.e. of the Germans] had at first crossed the Rhine: but after that these wild and savage men had become enamored of the lands and the refinement and the abundance of the Gauls, more were brought over, that there were now as many as 120,000 of them in Gaul: that with these the Aedui and their dependents had repeatedly struggled in arms - that they had been routed, and had sustained a great calamity - had lost all their nobility, all their senate, all their cavalry. And that broken by such engagements and calamities, although they had formerly been very powerful in Gaul, both from their own valor and from the Roman people's hospitality and friendship, they were now compelled to give the chief nobles of their state, as hostages to the Sequani, and to bind their state by an oath, that they would neither demand hostages in return, nor supplicate aid from the Roman people, nor refuse to be forever under their sway and empire.

From De Bello Gallico.

That seems quite convincing in the sense that the Aedui at least had had a lot of their forces destroyed in war.

[Sarcasm]

...And (After these had been violently struggling with one another for the superiority for many years) the Arverni had to bring in germans to fight for them. Which can speak for the damage they suffered from the Aedui.

Seems to be a general trend with Celts. What, getting our asses kicked by the picts and the irish? Hell, call some Anglo-Saxons.

[the_handsome_viking]

...And (After these had been violently struggling with one another for the superiority for many years) the Arverni had to bring in germans to fight for them. Which can speak for the damage they suffered from the Aedui.

Seems to be a general trend with Celts. What, getting our asses kicked by the picts and the irish? Hell, call some Anglo-Saxons.

They were Celts too.

There is though an interesting and consistent trend throughout history that basically, if put into one simple rule, would go like this.

Immigration, unless completely under the direct control of natives, will often wreck the native society and have it fall into the hands of the immigrants who will in turn simply create a society of their own in place of it.

In a Celtic power war the Arverni brought in Germans who ended up trying to rule the roost, the Aedui responded to this by bringing in the Romans, who ended up ruling the roost, who ended up much later on bringing in the Germans to fight on the frontiers, who ended up ruling the roost.

That said, I wouldn't exactly say that the Germans would be an example of immigrants who wrecked the society they entered many improved it, the power though undoubtably fell out of the Romans hands though.

As for the Romans and the Celts? I'm really starting to wonder if the Celts actually had a very good quality of life when compared to the Romans. We know they had walled cities and quite a number of them, and we know that they were quite easy going when it came to things like sex, women, law, elections and at times even enemy tribes wandering through their territories "like the Helvetti example".

Perhaps something wonderful was lost because of the Gallic wars.

[Sarcasm]

They were Celts too.

There is though an interesting and consistent trend throughout history that basically, if put into one simple rule, would go like this.

Immigration, unless completely under the direct control of natives, will often wreck the native society and have it fall into the hands of the immigrants who will in turn simply create a society of their own in place of it.

In a Celtic power war the Arverni brought in Germans who ended up trying to rule the roost, the Aedui responded to this by bringing in the Romans, who ended up ruling the roost, who ended up much later on bringing in the Germans to fight on the frontiers, who ended up ruling the roost.

That said, I wouldn't exactly say that the Germans would be an example of immigrants who wrecked the society they entered many improved it, the power though undoubtably fell out of the Romans hands though.

That's sort of the point of the analogy. They were all celts, or demi-celts. Britons are getting trashed by picts, and bring in Irish mercs. Irish mercs get restless and burn half the country, get some Anglo-Saxons to take care of it. Anglo-Saxons get a foothold in britain, call in the Irish and the Picts to fight them. See the pattern forming here?

I wouldn't say that about immigration in general. We're talking about a huge intake (even by today's standards) of armed men.

As for the Romans and the Celts? I'm really starting to wonder if the Celts actually had a very good quality of life when compared to the Romans. We know they had walled cities and quite a number of them, and we know that they were quite easy going when it came to things like sex, women, law, elections and at times even enemy tribes wandering through their territories "like the Helvetti example".

Perhaps something wonderful was lost because of the Gallic wars.

I have no real doubt that the Celts of Gaul had a good life for the most part. Every single source we have on them, shows them to be a prosperous and sophisticated people.

Well, we'll never know will we?

[the_handsome_viking]

That's sort of the point of the analogy. They were all celts, or demi-celts. Britons are getting trashed by picts, and bring in Irish mercs. Irish mercs get restless and burn half the country, get some Anglo-Saxons to take care of it. Anglo-Saxons get a foothold in britain, call in the Irish and the Picts to fight them. See the pattern forming here?

Gotcha, and yes the pattern is so shockingly obvious that I'm surprised people are still missing it.

I wouldn't say that about immigration in general. We're talking about a huge intake (even by today's standards) of armed men.

In general, it's not always a bad thing, often it has short term benefits and long term negatives, the Arverni got their little victory over the Aedui, and simply imported a new enemy into the territory.

The Aedui got their support from the Romans, they ended up losing everything.

Short term gain, long term disaster.

I have no real doubt that the Celts of Gaul had a good life for the most part. Every single source we have on them, shows them to be a prosperous and sophisticated people.

Well, we'll never know will we?

We know enough to know that if anything is to be agreed upon, regardless of their true military capabilities at the time, they were undoubtably a civilized people in all senses and that there was absolutly nothing barbaric, backwards or primitive about them.