Celtic overpowered!

[Frostwulf]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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