Celtic overpowered!

[Zim]

I hate to be pedantic or demening but, "Gaelic" refers to people in Ireland (& Scotland) of a little later period, and "Gallic" refers to the Celts who were in what is modern France. Probably just a typo...

Haha. I just remembered this "rule" I heard about a while back stating that any time you post in a thread to correct somebody's spelling or a grammar mistake, you always make one of your own.

I wonder what kind of mistake I'll have made in this post...

[The_Mark]

Haha. I just remembered this "rule" I heard about a while back stating that any time you post in a thread to correct somebody's spelling or a grammar mistake, you always make one of your own.

I wonder what kind of mistake I'll have made in this post...

Though, I'll have to consult my copy of "A Thousand and One Tempuses" to be certain on this one.

[Zim]

Hmm, "I will have" does sound a bit off.

Regarding the thread topic, playing Celtic factions I've always found them to be a bit weaker than the others, at least until the reforms (which, for the Celts, take a long time. 20 years longer wait than the Romans to get weaker troops than they do, then another 100 years to get troops about as good as Marian troops, that can't be recruited in nearly as many places).

Those Celtic swordsmen (Batoras, or something similiar?) are ok, but don't seem to hold up well to Roman or German heavy infantry. The Gaesatae are great, but extremely expensive and vulnerable to missile fire.

I do remember the Lusotannan shock infantry being a bit on the weak side, though... Lusotannan spearmen, on the other hand, are much better than the celtic spearmen. Post 1st reform Celtic spearmen have a lower attack, and something like 5+ lower defense than the Lusotannan "light" spearmen. The Lusotannan also get those crazy looking guys with the chainmail veils, and a cataphract type unit.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Haha. I just remembered this "rule" I heard about a while back stating that any time you post in a thread to correct somebody's spelling or a grammar mistake, you always make one of your own.

I wonder what kind of mistake I'll have made in this post...

That is really funny. I actually grabbed a dictionary and looked that word up to spell it. I found it, looked at the spelling, read the definition, then didn't change it. Not I feel really stupid and I wasted time.

[PSYCHO V]

If I may comment..

Thats definately too simple but it is also much too simple to say that the gauls just lost vs. the germanic tribes because of inner-tribal struggles.

Well, of course there is an element of luck and skill in battle but ‘weakness’ is regarded the underlying issue by most scholars I’ve read. The Germanics, like the Celts before them and their own Germanic descendants after, took advantage of circumstances and situations. I’m currently reading a work by Dr Michael Kulikowski on the Goths, and he bears this out quite clearly. The eb and flow of large demographics / peoples / tribes / nations is a dance of power, influence and commerce. The Germanics were drawn south initially due to the weakness and wealth of the surviving Halstatt chiefdoms in central Europe, then into the more prosperous Gallic, Rhaetian, etc lands …and finally the Greek and Roman lands.

They (Gauls) were pushed west- and southwards from the germanic tribes a few decades before Ariovist beat the Aedui or Ceasar conquered Gaul.

I’m sorry but that is just so completely wrong. This ignores almost everything we know about the Celts, Halstatt and La Tene culture, the material record, etc etc. The Gauls migrated long before the Germanics were even a blip on the historical radar.

The Gauls (Halstatt Celts) began arriving in ‘Gaul’ / France during the 8th and 7th C BC, over running the weaker indigenous Urnfield peoples, Ligurians, etc. They did so due to the lure of rich trade routs already established with the mediterrainian, better soil and climate, etc etc. In this group came the likes of the Arverni (‘superior ones’), Cavari (‘giants’), Cubi (‘Victors’ – later known as Bituriges ‘World Kings’), Parisii (effective ones’), Vicontii (‘twenty septs’), Salluvii (‘Those settled by the sea’), etc etc.

Thence came the La Tene Celts in the 5th and 6th C BC also seeking wealth and exploiting the weakness of their predecessors. These newcomers included likes of the Ligones (‘energetic ones / leapers’), Aedui (‘followers of the fiery one’ – Aedos the sun god), Boii (‘Attackers’), Volcae (‘wolves’), Redones (‘Chariot drivers’), etc etc. This wave of La Tene Celts pushed even more (then Halstatt / proto-La Tene tribes) west / south-west..like the Senones (‘Old inhabitants’), Cenomani (‘Far removed ones’), Sagii (‘Seekers’), Allobroges (‘foreigners’), Aulerci (‘exiles’), Sequani (named after the river in their new home ‘Sequana’) and their relatives the Helvetii (‘much land possessors’), Pictones (‘Belligerent ones’), Santones (‘Journeyers’), etc etc.

The Cubi, with their capital at Avaricum (modern Bourges) managed to absorb the influx of these new arrivals and adopt La Tene culture. Then under their renown king Ambicatus (‘He who turns battles’), they managed to unite through diplomacy and force of arms, all of greater Gaul by mid 5th C BC. This caused further migration to places like Britain.. as some subjected nations / tribes sought to flee the power of the Cubi, eg the Eburovices (‘yew conquerors’) becoming the Brigantes (‘High ones’), Cenomani becoming the Iceni, the Parisii becoming the Coritani and Parisi, etc etc ..all before these tribes had fully converted to La Tene culture.
...Itlay, Hiberia, etc etc.

The final ‘Gallic’ /Celtic wave was that of the Belgae (‘Furious ones’) in the 4th and 3rd C BC. The Belgae people and their various nations / tribes retained many peculiarities of the old Halstatt culture but meshed them with a proto-La Tene / La Tene ‘A’ flavour. Again they invaded and sought to exploit the weakness and ultimate collapse of the Cubi / Biturige empire, first invading and then over running the Aulerci who had been critically weakened in their struggle against the Cubi. The Belgae continued to advance all down the western coast to Armorica, before being checked by a resurgence of Aedui power through their sub-tribe the Carnutes (‘People of the Horned One’). So successful was the Aedui confederacy that the Belgae were completely pushed back over the Seine and groups like the Viromandui who bcame known as the Trinovantes, Casse / Catuellauni / Cauvellauni (‘Battle superiors’) either migrated to Briton, or in the cases of some of the Casse dispersed into smaller groups (eg Veliocasse, Baiocasse, Viducasse, Tricasse, Vadicasse, etc) and sought the protection other more power nations / tribes like the Remi.

But i also say it is much too easy to give the germanic tribes only credit for their successes because of inner-celtic struggles. They ..drove th Helvetii from their homelands and took many oppidas from their gallic enemies before the war between the Averni and the Aedui as the two major celtic powers.

Again I’m afraid this is wrong. The Arverni and Aedui had been fighting for centuries before the Germans arrived or the Helvetii migrated. The later doing so in an attempt to seize power for themselves in a war ravished land. Remember the Aedui had none of their council left alive and the Sequani, so bereft of fighting men had been forced to mobilise old men, young boys and seek the help of thousands of German mercenaries.

I agree with many things you say Anthony .. but i totally disagree that the Cimbri, Ambrones and Teutones were vassals of the Boii. That is a bold and very disputable point you bring up here.

I'd really like to see some proof here, if you believe in this argument..

I agree. There is no evidence that I’m aware of that suggests that they were clients of the Boii. What is worth noting at this juncture is that the Cimbri (and Tuetones by this point) were defeated in battle by the Boii and force to go around their lands.

As far as the name goes, most scholars state that Boiorix was probably the name given him by his Gallic allies / followers, they being the ones who acted on his behalf in diplomacy and recounted the detail for Roman records. But we will never know for sure. I don't believe one can jump to conclusions about clientage just from this one name.

Also the Boii could hold out longer vs the suebian tribes ( the Marcomannii should be mentioned here ), because the germanics took their effort further west- and southwards and not east into Boii territory.

I’m sorry but by the time the Marcomannii turn up to ravage the ‘lands of the Boii’, the Boii had almost a century earlier ceased to exist in any form of significant power.

The Dacian king Boerebistas had managed to unite the Getae and Boeri into one Darcian kingdom and unleashed his reputed forces of 200,000 on the hapless Celts / Gauls. First to feel the sting were the Scordisci who had only some decades before suffered a genocide at the hands of the Romans. Then Dacian attention was turned on the Boii and Taurisci (Volcae). At the Battle of Tisza (60 BC) in modern day Hungary, Critasiros king of the Boii suffered a crushing defeat. His people were subsequently massacred, the survivors fleeing west and their land becoming hence forth known as “The desert of the Boii”. The Germans had played a part in weakening the Boii but they merely moved into Boii lands once the Dacians had done their work and left.

my2bob

[Ludens]

That's a very interesting read.

[Thaatu]

I agree. Especially the translations of the celtic tribe names.

[SaFe]

If I may comment..


I’m sorry but that is just so completely wrong. This ignores almost everything we know about the Celts, Halstatt and La Tene culture, the material record, etc etc. The Gauls migrated long before the Germanics were even a blip on the historical radar.


my2bob

Have you ever heard about Jastorf or Hapstedt culture. It seems you just mention the celtic cultures but totally ignore other ones.
There is proof about those cultures around ca. 500 BC.
I find it a little curious as you are implying the germanics were a blip on the historical radar as those mentioned cultures are closely connceted with later germanic culture.

I agree with you about Halstatt culture, but during the La Tene culture there is proof about extensive trading contact between celtic and germanic tribes. Especially fine celtic art and jewellry.

The regions where the most trading occured where today's Bohemia and Mähren (sorry - don't know the english word for those region) B.t.w. It is logical that this trading included fine celtic weapons too.

Last week i had a really interesting discussion with a member of the Römisch-Germanisches Museum in Cologne about those points.
It seems often, that some people just took some of Tacitus remarks in his Germania, but ignore others totally. Germanics had no swords ( this i hear over and over from some members - just because Tacitus said so and there are no proofs of germanic grave-belongings / look above) But Tacitus also wrote about half-men half-beast in the nort-eastern part of Germania... Tacitus said so, so it must be correct:-)

One last remark about the lack of germanic ( or better translated traded or raided ) celtic sword in graves during the time B.C.
This is a point where i'm really dissapointed, because of the lack of knowledge of many members here.
It is a fact that germanics burned their dead in those times. It was just not possible to give the dead some things for their last journey, as they had no graves!
Those behaviour only changed in the first century AD, where it became more and more uncommon to burn the dead. So, it is logical that we could not have much archaelogical findings of the time B.C.
B.t.w. there is proof about germanic iron working around the time 300 BC - 100 BC.
Those items that looked a lot like celtic work are from a material that is known as "Raseneisen" and which only was found in those now germanic-settled regions.
Those iron was inferior to other iron, found elsewhere, but it was used!

It is a myth, that germanics used no swords.
Even after the Varus battle, where the germanics gained more than enough roman arms ( swords!) ,there were almost no grave offerings. Why?
Logical: The dead had to suffice with shields and spears as swords were too important.





As ever - please excuse my poor english

[SaFe]

Psycho wrote:
If I may comment..

Again I’m afraid this is wrong. The Arverni and Aedui had been fighting for centuries before the Germans arrived or the Helvetii migrated. The later doing so in an attempt to seize power for themselves in a war ravished land. Remember the Aedui had none of their council left alive and the Sequani, so bereft of fighting men had been forced to mobilise old men, young boys and seek the help of thousands of German mercenaries.


And this is what i have to say here:
This is correct, but again you seem to forget that celtic oppidas were not given up without a fight. Perhaps it is my rather poor english, but you seem to argue with the point that celtic tribes just left their homelands without pressure from the germanic tribes. This is simply not true.
There are clearly signs of battles on these locations.
Concerning the migration of the Helvetii.
I really hope you at least agree with the fact that the were under great pressure from the germanics and did not leave their homelands just to seize power in other lands.
About those mercenaries( who turned out to be rather clever, as the just stayed in those new lands aftr defeating the gauls). At this time they were already just over the river border - becaue of conquering celtic lands for many decades.

[Watchman]

This is correct, but again you seem to forget that celtic oppidas were not given up without a fight. Perhaps it is my rather poor english, but you seem to argue with the point that celtic tribes just left their homelands without pressure from the germanic tribes. This is simply not true.
There are clearly signs of battles on these locations.

I don't think anything of the sort was claimed. Rather the argument is that by the time the German tribes started seriously encroaching on Gallic and Celtic central regions they had a relatively smooth sailing for the exact same reason as the Romans - their opponents were weakened by centuries of internecine strife (above and beyond the tolerable attrition level imposed by the tradition of minor inter-tribal raiding and fighting inherent in the Celtic "hero culture") whereas the invaders had only grown stronger, in the case of the Germans quite literally at the expense of the Celts.

The border regions moreover would have long been subjected to slowly escalating German raids which would have taken their toll on the power of the locals (and the spoils and tribute only further strenghtened the raiders), until they had become sufficiently weakened genuine invasions and seizing the fortified places became a viable outgrowth. Medieval warfare in fact followed a very similar "wearing out" model, as did the more permanent Viking encroachement - you usually couldn't capture the forts, so instead you hit the other guy's economic base and thus wore down his ability to offer resistance in the future.

About those mercenaries( who turned out to be rather clever, as the just stayed in those new lands aftr defeating the gauls). At this time they were already just over the river border - becaue of conquering celtic lands for many decades.

This would be a rather normal developement; the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain more or less got started the exact same way, and both the Romans in Gaul and Moors in Iberia originally came in to stick their noses in local power struggles. In this specific case not only had the Germans grown strong literally at Celtic expense - as succesful mercenaries were able to get that much better war gear and even spread it around thereby aquiring minor personal warbands with the obvious potential for massive "snowballing" - but also gotten the figurative foot in the door in the course of their mercenary activity, as well as doubtless having gotten a good long look at just how much richer lands their Celtic paymasters occupied with the obvious implications...

[SaFe]

Rather the argument is that by the time the German tribes started seriously encroaching on Gallic and Celtic central regions they had a relatively smooth sailing for the exact same reason as the Romans - their opponents were weakened by centuries of internecine strife (above and beyond the tolerable attrition level imposed by the tradition of minor inter-tribal raiding and fighting inherent in the Celtic "hero culture") whereas the invaders had only grown stronger, in the case of the Germans quite literally at the expense of the Celts.

Surely the celts were weakened but it seems you forget one thing. They were no united germanic tribes - they too fought endlessly against each other and so we could also argue that they had been weakened.
Just look as example at the decade-long war the Hermundurii and the Chatti fought. Granted, that was well after the conquering of celtic lands, but even at the time we talk about the germanic tribes were not united and Semnones fought against Harudes for example, though they both were members of the suebian federation. Now let's think for a moment about germanic tribes who didn't belong to those rather loose federation...
It seems we talk ever about the weakened gauls, but forget that they didn't fought against overhelming numbers of a united foe. This is simply not the case.
There was no "Germans" as it is often said - just tribes who struggled against each other AND gallic tribes too.


BUT as i don't want to "going away further" from the original topic of this thread, i contacted The Tank (Jasper) already and try to discuss with him some minor and major points in the display of the Sweboz.
Most are still part of the Sweboz faction - (introduction, names, wonders and the basic ideas of most units) from the time i was faction coordinator and the changes he made after taking over the job.

This thread though was once just about the Celts in game statswise and so it should remain on this focus.

[Sarcasm]

Pity. I was rather enjoying a civil (for once!) discussion.