Celtic overpowered!

[Frostwulf]

It seems to me that it comes down to several points.
1. Even before the Arverni-Aedui wars there were conflicts with the Romans. Most of these battles were won by the Romans. Therefore Romans>Celts most of the time. Yes yes, Brennis and such. Romans still won most of the battles prior to Marius and especially after Marius.

2. I dont buy into the idea that the Celtic tribes were weakened. If you look at the battles and numbers during Caesars expansion into Gaul, the numbers do not bare this out. In the battle of Alesia there were over 300,000 Gauls, not to mention 5,000 of them were the elite Arverni Gaurd. I know there was a conglomeration of tribes, but it has almost always been that way. Soldiers die, new ones are born and trained, this never stopped happening in Gaul. The Gauls were a tough and warlike people(I know they were also other things).

3. The Teutons,Cimbri and Ambrones (TCA)were certainly not vassals of the Boii. Yes they were repulsed by the Boii in hungry. I do have questions about this particular situation. Every thing I read on this (which isnt much) leads me to believe that is wasnt so much a victory as it was not worth the effort on the Germans part. I keep reading repulsed as opposed to defeat in the books I have read but none tend to go into details on the situation. I know the Boii were a very tough tribe so I dont have a problem believing they out fought the Germans. But the way its been presented in these books (again not much detail of the battle(s) ) it lead me to believe the Boii were in a strong defensive position. It couldnt have been much of a battle as the (TCA) kept on moving without much interference. If anyone can give me any information (books, websites) on this, I would like to see it.

4. The TCA entered Gaul and began rampaging through there which caught the attention of the Romans who's allies the TCA were attacking. The Romans came up and got hammered by the TCA and the TCA kept on pillaging. The TCA split up and some went into spain and pillaged there until they were repulsed by the Celt/Iberians. Again the TCA must have come out without much losses because they started again through Gaul and besting the very tough Belgae.

5. What Im trying to get at is that the Stats in the game for the Celts are rated to high for their units. The Celts were most certainly a tough group of people but they were bested by the Romans and the Germans Most of the time. And I still dont buy into the "they were weakened" argument, the numbers just dont bare it out. The Gauls still had lots of well trained cavalry and elite units, even in Caesars time.

[Orb]

'1. Even before the Arverni-Aedui wars there were conflicts with the Romans. Most of these battles were won by the Romans. Therefore Romans>Celts most of the time. Yes yes, Brennis and such. Romans still won most of the battles prior to Marius and especially after Marius.'

Which battles in particular? I'm not being sarcastic here, just curious. I haven't read much about the period/it's not the one talked about much. Telamon is the only real example I've heard of.

'over 300,000 Gauls' - really? This seems implausible. 300,000 including (large numbers of) non-combatants, possibly. 300,000 soldiers, I doubt.

[Frostwulf]

I didnt take your question as being sarcastic. I think its a very legitimate question and I should actually put down more information and sources then I do. The only information I have at the moment is from what I remember. This means the best I can do is give you the name of the battle from memory and use wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alesia . This was a large conglomeration of different tribes of Gauls. To me this shows the leadership skills and charisma of Vercingetorix . Other battles you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rs_and_battles
These are a few as there were many other battles and skirmishes. Im sorry that this is the best I can do, my books are still packed away and probably will be for awhile.

[PSYCHO V]

I try to be civil and friendly all the time.
If sometimes my comments sounding rude, it's just my poor english

No offence taken mate

As ever - please excuse my poor english

Your English is perfectly fine, but it probably has contributed to mis-interpreting some of my past positions / intentions.

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.

Yes, much of the theory has been founded on the like of Jordane’s ‘Gettica’, the works of Germanic Romanticists Gottfried Herder and dare I say, Ludwig Schmidt (eg Geschichte der deutschen Stämme – “History of the German Tribes”). Whilst I personally am not outright denying the existence of the aforementioned cultures, there is a significant degree / enough scholarly doubt to warrant careful consideration. It’s hardly conclusive fact.

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’m not trying to offend the Germanic sense of national pride here. This is not a generic qualititative statement about the value / impact of the Germanic peoples throughout time. This was merely a response to your statement that the Celts “were pushed west- and southwards from the germanic tribes”. That is just not true. At the time of the Celtic / Gallic migrations, the Germans were only a “blip on the historical radar”. The point was that I believe you had the cart before the horse / mistaken the consequence for the catalytical action.
Sure, by the end of the period the Germans did force some Celts to move, but only after they had been critically weakened, as I’ve previous mentioned.

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….It is logical that this trading included fine celtic weapons too. Last week i had a really interesting discussion ….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.

And your point? This only further supports the hypothesis that the Germans coveted Celtic / Gallic wealth / wares and when an opportunity came to seize those by force of arms / when the aforementioned were in a weakened state, they pounced. The same situation was repeated with the Romans… and has been repeated throughout history. It was evident in the first recorded annals of human history, when Nubian / Libyan raiders attacked Ancient Egypt and has been evident throughout history ever since.

..there is proof about germanic iron working around the time 300 BC - 100 BC.… 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?

So first century AD Germanics used these prised pieces of equipment (captured Roman swords) until they rusted away. Again, your point? You stated that you did not agree with the commonly held position of Celtic weakness facilitating their downfall and ultimate defeat / in some cases annihilation of Celtic peoples…again, what has this got to do with the issue?

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.

I’m sorry but one can claim for example, a priori in stating Joseph Smith (founder of the Mormons) did indeed discover ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs in the US and then interpret them with magical glasses presented by the angel Gabriel, only to claim later that all evidence had since been lost, but critical scientific analysis requires more substantiation. It requires a posteriori

Sure the Germans maintained, by then antiquated practices, regarding their dead (Cremation / Urn burial), but so did the Celtic Belgae. Yet we have significantly more evidence of the advanced development and use of iron working within their realms of influence. If the Germans were as advanced as you seem to be implying, the material record does not bear this out.
Further, it is little wonder that the closer / more involved they came with the La Tene Gauls, the more they adopted aspects of their culture eg. Inhumation tumuli, etc etc. The Gauls had exactly the same sort of effect on the Germanics as did the Romans after them.

This is correct, but again you seem to forget that celtic oppidas were not given up without a fight….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.

True there is evidence of conflict / battle around several oppida sites in central / northern Europe, but they are all dated to a period when any semblance of Celtic power in those regions had long ceased to exist. In many cases the locals whilst retaining some antiquated Halstatt traditions, re-asserted themselves. The major powers / majority of Gauls moved out of central Europe looking for new opportunities / a better place to live long before. They were NOT fleeing some supposed force of Germanics. When the Celts / Gauls migrated to France / Gaul the Germans were not to present any kind of threat for another 800 – 300 years. They (Germanics) were barely a blip on the historical radar.

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…

Exactly, "no united Germanic tribes". In this period, did the Germans ever achieve the degree of political unity required to wage such a widespread civil war on anywhere near the same scale? ..no. This war affected the whole of Gaul and all those individuals there-in. For the Germans, any damage tended to be localised.

Further, it also appears you may have forgotten a significant point yourself. What was the nature of these groups..or any other at the time? Where the Gallic Cemonani, Insubres, Boii and Senones politically united when they invaded and sacked Etruscan / Latin and Roman towns? No, they merely colluded on occasion because they sought to take collective advantage of the weakness of targets rich in spoils. At the same time that the Etruscans were focusing on internal strife and their struggle / defeats at the hand of Rome to their south, the Gauls struck in the north. This is exactly what the Germanics themselves did…and continued to do so with Rome until they over ran the Roman State critically weakened by Civil war, etc etc.

Did the Germanics fight each other, of course, but when they did it was localised and in the end usually turned out to be far more profitable for them to expend their considerable energies attacking their richer / weaker neighbours when opportunity came knocking.

It’s worth noting that historically, there is clear evidence that Germanics had problems making any headway against Gallic / Celtic groups that had retained some semblance of power on their arrival eg. The Boii defeated / repulsed the same Cimbri that would go one to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Romans … as did the relatively primitive Belgae who continued to repulse strong Germanic groups until they were themselves were devided / overrun by Caesar.

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.

Well, no one said the Germanics were united. They merely colluded on occasion either by design or co-incidence, to take advantage of what they must have regarded a crippled animal (Gauls) ... as the Gauls themselves had done previously to the etruscans, Ligurians, etc
What would you attribute Germanic success to?

It seems to me that it comes down to several points.
Even before the Arverni-Aedui wars there were conflicts with the Romans. Most of these battles were won by the Romans. Therefore Romans>Celts most of the time. Yes yes, Brennis and such. Romans still won most of the battles prior to Marius and especially after Marius.

Whilst I fulling acknowledge Roman superiority of arms, one does need to remember that history is written by the victors / Rome is known for excusing, downplaying or out-right ignoring / denying their defeats. Here’s a few which we do know about but most are not aware of;

Prior Marius...

Battle of Arrentium (286 BC) – Praetor Lucius and 24,000 Romans attempt to relieve the aforementioned town (garrison 5,000) from a siege by 33,000 Insubres and Senones. The Romans are defeated, the town taken and Lucius beheaded.

Battle of Faesulae (225 BC) – 45,000 Insubres, Boii and Gaesatae defeat a Roman army of 45,000

Battle of Mutina (218 BC) – 15,000 Insubres and Boii defeat 4,500 Romans

Battle of Litana (216 BC) – 35,000 Boii defeat and slaughter everyone of the 25,000 Romans under Postumius Albinus. Albinus was beheaded and his skull gilded as a drinking vessel

Battle of Mutilum (200 BC) – 16,000 Boii defeated Gaius Ampius and 13,000 Romans

Battle of the Boii (196 BC) – 15,000 Boii defeated Consul Claudius Marcellous and 12,000 Romans

etc etc..

Many of the ‘great victories’ that were most celebrated by Rome were not quite as stunning as first glance would suggest eg Telamon where the Romans outnumbered the Gauls by almost 2 to 1 (30,000 men) and had them surrounded from the outset.

It is also worth noting that Rome (like the Germans) had significant problems with any strong Celtic / Gallic group. The Romans in such cases, inevitable won victory by a war of attrition. Despite Gallic victories, Rome had substantial resources of men and materials at their disposal that enabled them to make good their losses (as the likes of Hannibal was to discover). Their enemy, the Celtic nations / tribes, didn’t share such a luxury and quickly ran out of both.

This lead to many situations were the Romans ended up celebrating hollow victories. eg. Battle of Minicio (196 BC) when 24,000 Romans under Consul Gaius Cornelius refused peace terms and slaughtered 12,000 old men, boys and women of the Insubres as they made a last ditch attempt at defending themselves. Similarly the Boii suffered the same fate.

"When appeals of peace where ignored and Roman greed again drove them on, it so happened that a nobleman of the Boii went with his sons to the camp of the Consul Lucius Quinctius Flaminius, imploring the protection of the Roman people. The Consul was partying with a boy prostitute, and he enquired of the boy if he would like to see a man being killed. The boy nodded, and straight away Flaminius drew his sword and slew the unfortunate nobleman and then proceeded to rape the nobleman's son over his father's carcass" - (The Celts, Defeat of Cisalpine Gaul; D'O Hogain)

Publius Scipio then (191 BC) marched with his 38,000 veterans to attack 35,000 Boii men, women and children. Despite great pomp and ceremony, the battle was no more than a slaughter of desperate Gauls, predominantly non-combatants forced to defend themselves with cooking utensils and farming tools.

I dont buy into the idea that the Celtic tribes were weakened. If you look at the battles and numbers during Caesars expansion into Gaul, the numbers do not bare this out. In the battle of Alesia there were over 300,000 Gauls, … I still dont buy into the "they were weakened" argument, the numbers just dont bare it out..

Firstly, whilst the Gauls did significantly outnumber Caesar’s forces, the 300,000 + that Caesar claims is most likely an exaggeration. Caesar’s commentaries are a dramafication of events, not a factual objective account.

Secondly, numbers themselves count for nothing. You can have a public riot of millions of civilians disperse by a handful of trained and well equipped troops. The inherent weakness wasn’t in potential man power, it was in trained and equipped / experienced troops.
The Gauls didn’t have the advanced training techniques the Romans did. It took significantly longer / many many years and great (usually personal) expense to train as a Gallic warrior. It was these that they were bereft of. They had squandered these troops in bitter civil war so much to the point that not one of the Aedui council remained alive. The devastation of this war cannot be understated. It was unprecedented / appears more extensive and vicious that any internal Celtic conflict prior.

This is born out in the material record with significant deposits of fragmentary war material, remains and most significantly thick ash levels around major sites dating to the period… prior to Germanic and Roman intervention. We also know commercial production of many goods and trade all but ceased and large portions of the population starved or suffered from malnutrition.

The Romans were well aware of this having deliberately contributed to the instability. They were aware of the long standing animosity between the southerners and northerners and true to Roman policy of ‘keeping the barbarians at each other’..acted. In 121 BC the Romans using other events (Saluvii) as a pretext to war, sought to reduce the power of the then undisputed power in Gaul, the Arverni Alliance / empire. After defeating them in the Battle of Vindalium with two consular armies and several elephants, the Romans made a nominal alliance with their sworn enemy, the Aedui, thus formenting the last final and most bitter chapter in this protracted conflict.


my2bob

[NeoSpartan]

.....

[Redmeth]

This is just great this sort if educated debates are a great reason of my passion for history, EB and my admiration for this community.

[SaFe]

As ever, Psycho and me could not agree on the topics about germanics. What dissapoints me here is, that he only admits the books and writings where his points are valued and question every other.

I never said that germanics were as advanced as celts during the centuries b.c. ,( in fact germanics were very eager to gain celtic weapons and trading tools because they were better!) but it seems many on this boards still imply that they were just a bunch of half-naked wooden-club swinging savages who had the luck to find some places the celts left...because hundreds of mile westward two of their leading federations ( Averni and Aedui ) fought a endless war...
Very logical indeed.

Interesting sidenote:
If the germanics were so backwards and not able to stand against a stong celtic enemy, why should even the Nervii - a tribe belonging to the Belgae spoke of their germanic origins? (which is totally wrong to be honest)
Was it a sign of strenght and honour to belong to those backward forest dwellers?

But:
As i said, if we want to continue this discussion, we should start a other tread.
This one here was about stats for celtic units...

Thanks to all who contributed here though

[PSYCHO V]

As ever, Psycho and me could not agree on the topics about germanics. What dissapoints me here is, that he only admits the books and writings where his points are valued and question every other. ..

Well I think you’ll find we disagree more often than not due to you pre-supposing an alleged position / bias I’m supposed to have against the Germans. In spite or continually inferences and accusations, I have no such bias, nor do I seek to romanticise / over state the position of the Celts / Gauls. I merely wish to present what I regard as the other side of the coin / the data that I am aware of.

I never said that germanics were as advanced as celts during the centuries b.c. ,( in fact germanics were very eager to gain celtic weapons and trading tools because they were better!) but it seems many on this boards still imply that they were just a bunch of half-naked wooden-club swinging savages who had the luck to find some places the celts left...because hundreds of mile westward two of their leading federations ( Averni and Aedui ) fought a endless war... Very logical indeed. ..

I never claimed you did … nor have I implied or inferred that all the Germanics were animalistic Neanderthals only recently emerged from the primordial bog. Just because I have argued (in the past) against equipping several Germanic units with fine armour, swords and 1st-3rd C AD shields and helmets, does not then mean I have a thing against the Germans. I merely seek a balanced / “most likely scenario” for the faction. Hence EB / Tank / I have for example, sought to add the odd unit of club troops to demonstrate this diversity. We did / EB are doing the same for the Celts, with more primitive units eg Caturige. We have also sought to tone down many of the bright clean colours, as I also did with the Celtic units.

Interesting sidenote:
If the germanics were so backwards and not able to stand against a stong celtic enemy, why should even the Nervii - a tribe belonging to the Belgae spoke of their germanic origins? (which is totally wrong to be honest).Was it a sign of strenght and honour to belong to those backward forest dwellers? ..

Well for starters, I believe you have made a common mistake here, assigning meaning that was never intended. The Belgae weren’t inferring Germanic superiority by claiming decent from a heroic past / peoples as the Romans did Mars / Trojans, etc, they were merely stating from whence they had come. Kuta, Collis, O’ Hogain, Ellis, etc all agree on this.

Secondly, I have never argued against the martial traditions / status of the Romans and Germans. Yes the Germans were great fighters but the underlying reason fro the Gallic collapse wasn’t German interference. The Germanics played a small part very late in the period.

As i said, if we want to continue this discussion, we should start a other tread. This one here was about stats for celtic units...

And it’s all related. The argument was that the Celtic units were over powered. The whole debate about the reasons for the fall of the Gaul is significant and related due to what EB has tried to depict, historical reality.

For starters, it’s important to note that those claiming that the Gauls are overpowered are generally doing so when they have only progressed some 50 odd years into the game / period. They are trying to achieve in the first several turns what it took Rome, etc 300 years / the whole period to achieve…and then complaining it’s all too hard.

It’s worth noting that the Gauls had complete military supremacy over the Romans throughout the 4th and very early 3rd C BC. The balance of power then began to shift as the Roman state adapted to dealing with these peoples. Thus in EB, at the beginning of the game, the Gauls have access to units like the Gaesatae, their militia are better than Roman militia, etc. But the Gauls soon loose these advantages as the Romans / others catch up and overtake them. To put things in perspective, look at the imperial legions that Rome can field by game’s end. The Celts, whilst still progressing themselves, do not have any unit equivalent… and rightly so.

Having said that however, the Celts do have some good units and these represent the elite of their Culture, again nothing in comparison to the likes of the Roman Triarii. Now if we could force the game to play out historically, the Gauls would rarely get some of these units, but this is an open ended game. So we can get full ahistorical Roman armies full of Triarii as much as we can get Gallic armies full of Neitos, Soldurii, Gaesatae, etc. One can’t claim they wish to have all a factions stats reduced because they are having problems dealing with these circumstances. This is the beauty of the historical ‘what if’ scenario.

Finally, in regards to the collapse of the Gauls, as previously stated, the Gauls were critically weakened. To put in EB terms, there would be no Gaesatae, no Brihentin, no Neitos, no Cingetos, no Mairepos, no Curoas, etc. Bataros, Gaelaiche etc would be few and far between and few if any Arjos and Soldurii, etc


my2bob

[PSYCHO V]

Psyco I see you are well read and Im glad of that. With that being said I still disagree with you.
In skills of arms the Romans and Germanics bested the Celts on almost all terms. The Romans had better skills at arms then the Germanics and the Germanics had better skills at arms then the Celts. So within the scope of EB I just don’t agree with the Celts having most of its troops being superior of arms to the Germanics and especially the Romans REGARDLESS of the time frame. ..

I’m afraid you may be extrapolating your understanding of the 1st C BC to the stats of EB’s Gallic troops in the 3rd C BC.
In addition, I believe you are making some flawed assumptions. Just because group ‘X’ defeats group ‘Y’, does not automatically translated to mean that all of ‘X’ were better / superior to that of ‘Y’. By the same rationale the Spartans completely sucked in comparison to the Persians (eg Thermopylae). Now I’m not saying the Gauls were Celtic equivalents to the Spartans, I just wish to make the point.
History is not just about who was the strongest / best fighters on the field of battle. It was also about resources of material and men, trade and commerce, diplomacy and politics, the internal stability / revolts within kingdoms, etc etc. Just because Rome and the Germans were ultimately victorious over the Celts does not naturally mean there was always a huge discrepancy between the former and later.

To ignore the fact that Gallic weakness was the underlying factor in the Gallic collapse in the 1st C BC, is like doing the same with any other major empires / kingdoms…whether that be Egypt, Imperial Rome, Mogolian Khanate, etc etc.

There was a reason why the Romans had not succeeded in conquering Transalpine Gaul in the previous 300 years of conflict. It was only when Caesar realised the state of weakness of the Gauls in the 1st C BC, that he was emboldened to try his hand. In his very own commentary he admits to taking extreme levels of caution to test the Gallic forces, only to discover what scholars have since recognised, the Gauls were fielding green, untrained and ill-equipped troops. This being due to the slaughter of all but a relative few of their exisiting troops in a civil bloodbath. Was this weakness the only reason why the Gauls were overcome, no ..not by any stretch, but it was the main underlying issue. A house of cards will fall if only one major support is critically weakened.

But the whole point is that most of the battles that the Romans and Germanics fought against the Celts were won by the Romans and Germanics. ..

We only have three recorded battles between the Gauls and Germans. Two of which were late in 1st C BC, by which stage, as already mentioned, the Gauls were in peril.

A battle between the Boii and Cimrbi but details are sketchy at best. All we know was that they fought and the Cimbri were defeated. The Battle of the Rhine (71 BC) – The Aedui Confederacy was defeated by the Sequani Alliance, majority being Germanic Seubi, and the Battle of Admagetobriga (61 BC) - Aedui Confederacy leads a futile attempt to throw out Ariovistus and his Germans.

Considering the fact that German intrusions into Gaul were being persistently repulse all along the Rhine, Danube, etc, there must have been a substantial number of Gallic victories… a testament to feat of Gallic arms on the field of battle despite internal chaos. Chaos that ultimately brought about their doom.

As far as Roman victories, well again there were many defeats (Celtic victories) that were unrecorded, downplayed or dismissed. Even when admitted, Roman loss wasn’t due to being outwitted or out fought, but due to treachery, betrayal and generally underhanded actions or the over eagerness of troops. Eg. Caesar’s defeat at the Battle of Gergovia or the explanation offered for the slaughter of one and a half of his legions by the tiny Eburone tribe. Again, I’m not trying to deny the superiority of Roman arms / war machine, but rather wish show that one needs to be careful drawing conclusions from outcomes without looking at the bigger picture.

The Romans and Germanics still won most of their battles against the Celts. ..

We will never know what really went on between these groups. Yes there are a lot of Roman victories recorded but even the most naïve reader will acknowledge that the records are inherently bias. It was the victors / Romans writing their own version of history, and they generally did so for overt political reasons or under political patronage.

You listed multiple battles in favor of the Celts, if I had my resources with me I could come up with twice as many in favor of the Romans with similar situations. ..

Which proves little. For example, where are all the records of the several Roman defeats at the hands of the Cisalpine Gauls that archaeology has since discovered?

You did say that you dont disagree that the Romans are superior in arms, Ill Im saying is that if the Romans are superior in arms as we agree it should be reflected in the game and I dont believe it is. ..

They are, you just need to play through the period enough to note the historic changes / adaptions / improvements the Romans made. Again try not to extrapolate one’s understanding of late-Republican / Imperial Rome on the early 3rd C BC.

Are you saying the average fighting Celt in Caesars time is not as tough as those in years past?

Basically yes. Due to the civil war killing almost all of the experienced / trained troops.

Is the Celtic system different? Did they choose a child and say "you will be trained as a hero or elite"? Most tribes did the standard way including the Germans, they chose the best and made them into body guards and other "shock" type troops.

Yes. The Celts had extensive and often complex systems of clientage, where children were chosen, taken from their parents and made to study / undertake a certain specific role in the community (be that as a craftsman, druid, warrior, etc). In times of trouble, an overlord would first call on his retainers / body guard, then the remainder of his warrior pool (usually novices in training) and finally if need be, the masses / other males (eg craftsmen and farmers) who had little / no rudimentary training.
The Germans were different and were much more militaristic and egalitarian with each member being regarded an intricate if not equal part in the collective ‘volk’. Every German male child was trained in warfare from an early age with certain tribes having intricate ritualistic rights of passage for young men on becoming a warrior… much the same as many native American Indian tribes did.


my2bob

[Frostwulf]

Psyco I see you are well read and Im glad of that. With that being said I still disagree with you.
1. As far as the Germans in general being poorly equipped Ill agree with you for some of the stages of invasion. When the TCA came into Gaul, they were well equiped. Most of the equipment was probably made by the Celtic tribe but they were well equipped. I still think that the TCA were not really defeated by the Boii but were repulsed. The TCA still left Bohemia in good order and were still able to defeat other Gallic tribes Including the Belgae. And from the readings I believe even the Celts themselves said that the Belgae were the toughest among them, with the Nervii being the toughest of the Belgae. The only tribes the TCA had problems with is the Boii and the Celt/Iberians and those were one battle each. If Iam wrong on this please correct me and let me know where I can find information contrary to this.

2. Your arguments can be used against you. Who took note of the wars between the Romans and Celts? Were they not all Roman scholars? Just as in this country today we have writers that hate their own for what ever reason, could not have the Romans? What Im getting at is the numbers may be skewed in favor of the Romans and Germanics for the most part but that still does not change the situation. The Romans and Germanics still won most of their battles against the Celts. You listed multiple battles in favor of the Celts, if I had my resources with me I could come up with twice as many in favor of the Romans with similar situations. You did say that you dont disagree that the Romans are superior in arms, Ill Im saying is that if the Romans are superior in arms as we agree it should be reflected in the game and I dont believe it is.

3. I dont see how you can say that Rome didnt have the same problems as the Celts in man power. Rome had wars within Italy, Greece, North Africa etc. Romans also had civil wars (Caesar/Pompey and others).The Celts had plenty of people and with their type of culture, training of warriors as with the Germans began at a young age.

4. The number of Gauls available in all times has been numerous as shown by the battles taken place through out the wars with Rome and the Germanics. I still believe that the Celts had very well trained warrior like the 5,000 Averni Guard at Alesia. The Celts had numerous and well trained cavalry prior to and during battles with Caesar. The warlike culture of the Celts would keep trained warriors coming through the ages until they were devastated in certain areas like the Dacians did to the Boii. The Celts were not devastated in Gaul until the Germanic invasions of the 400's. You can disagree with the Roman writers but they and the Greeks are our only source only source of the matter.The Romans still wrote about the battles they lost, so yea there could be numbers that are skewed but I dont believe greatly so.

5. The Celts are a tough people without doubt. I agree with you that the Romans and Germanics did have problems with the tougher Celtic tribes. But the whole point is that most of the battles that the Romans and Germanics fought against the Celts were won by the Romans and Germanics. In skills of arms the Romans and Germanics bested the Celts on almost all terms. The Romans had better skills at arms then the Germanics and the Germanics had better skills at arms then the Celts. So within the scope of EB I just dont agree with the Celts having most of its troops being superior of arms to the Germanics and especially the Romans REGARDLESS of the time frame.

6.I do enjoy the information that you guys are all providing. I may not agree with the analysis of the information but your arguments do make sense. I also appreciate the way these debates are handled, no name calling or basic infantile behavior. These have been respectful and very informative.

[Watchman]

3. I dont see how you can say that Rome didnt have the same problems as the Celts in man power. Rome had wars within Italy, Greece, North Africa etc. Romans also had civil wars (Caesar/Pompey and others).The Celts had plenty of people and with their type of culture, training of warriors as with the Germans began at a young age.

Quite incorrect AFAIK. Among the Celts warfare was the virtual monopoly of a distinct warrior class, with the common farmers and craftsmen and such normally only becoming involved in emergencies as rather low-quality tribal levies. I understand this warrior class was all things considered fairly large - a testament to the material wealth of the Celts and the agricultural productivity of their lands, as it takes a major surplus to support such a class in large numbers - and very influental in the society, in essence forming the ruling elite (or in any case providing most of the members of the ruling elite).

As Psycho already explained the making of a Caltic warrior was a very do-it-yourself business and took a long time to bear good fruit (presumably due to fierce competitiveness, ie. relatively little instruction from your peers, and in the absence of true standardized training institutions), although the final product could be quite formidable indeed and Roman sources readily ascribe to them an ability to work passably as large units.

In essence, the Celtic warrior system was a mechanism for creating heroes, elite warriors.

The Romans and Germans had quite different approaches, namely full militia service. Republican Roman citizen-soldier system should not need to be further examined here, save for reminding it gave the state a near-unlimited pool of decently equipped militia soldiers who, once they got used to operating as cohesive units after being mustered, could be a quite formidable and above all a very stubborn opponent on the battlefield. One notes from Psycho's short list of pre-Marian Celtic victories over Romans that most seem to involve at least some numerical superiority on the part of the Celts for example.

The post-Marian professionals were just scary in comparision, being as full-time soldiers much more readily "knit" to cohesive and effective combat formations from the start - and even more inexhaustible if not nearly as cheap as the earlier self-equipped reservists, as the urban and rural poor, all kinds of adventurers and drifters, subjects wanting to better their lot by earning citizenship under arms etc. provided a very ready supply of manpower that could be tapped by anyone with enough funds. Recall the way the Romans could keep on conjuring fully armed legions from Italy alone during the Spartacus mess.

By what I understand of it the Germanic version quite simply called for every freeman to also be a warrior, and indeed to be downright eager to be; one gets the impression they could actually surpass the Celtic warrior class in sheer bloody-mindedness. This would have been out of sheer necessity; being by far poorer than their Celtic neighbours there was no way the German peoples could have afforded a similar large class of dedicated warriors, so it duly fell to the great mass of common tribesmen (backed up by the better-equipped and trained nobles and their personal retainers, the rather less numerous analogy of the Celtic warrior aristocracy) to do the fighting and raiding.

In other words, while they were in top form the Celtic warrior class could take on either of the other two with at least a fair chance of success, all other things being equal. The Romans might be better equipped and organized, but on the other hand the Celtic warriors by and large held the edge in skill and gusto and seem to usually have enjoyed at least a marginal local superiority in numbers even if the Roman manpower base was actually rather larger. The Germans conversely were rather worse equipped and unlikely to be quite as good as the Celtic warriors in a major stand-up fight (given that their practical experience was more in small-scale raiding), with the obvious exception of the elites but then the Celts outnumbered those, but numerous and persistent.

The trouble came when the Celts started running out of dedicated warriors. A major flaw in their approach was the long incubation period of fresh replacements for fallen heroes, and the fact their backup levy was pretty poor. In Gaul as already mentioned the warrior class was decimated in the long internecine strife, in the eastern parts apparently by constant squabbling with assorted increasingly formidable barbarian neighbours (Illyrians, Dacians, the increasingly better armed and organized Germans) and Roman probes nevermind now incessant small raids from the German side of the border. And this on top of what "natural attrition" the compulsive pugnaciousness of the Celtic warrior class, the very mechanism through which it trained its better warriors, inflicted. Over time the Celts simply couldn't make good for their casualties fast enough, all the more so as their neighbours were only ever growing stronger in many cases directly on spoils looted from Celtic lands. The fact the Romans began co-opting Celtic tribes near their borders into their own political orbit and siphoned off parts of the warrior class into their own armies by the simple virtue of being able to offer good pay and looting prospects would not have helped one bit.

So when the other shoe dropped what the Celts could send against the formidable Legions and screaming hordes of ferocious German tribal warriors was all too few real warriors and far too many lousy militias, who simply weren't up to snuff. Moreover increasing numbers of the remaining warrior class could doubtless read the writing on the wall and unabashedly jumped ship to side with the winners; Caesar had no shortage of allied Gallic troops and I'd be very surprised if by that time enterprising Celtic border chieftains had not long ago aligned themselves with the more formidable among the Germanic confederations and kings to pull their butts out of the fire.

[Watchman]

Also, unless I'm entirely mistaken during the early spread of Celtic culture the proto-Germanic peoples had been driven to the northern areas of heavy clay soil, which could not be fully claimed for agriculture until the invention of the heavy iron swing-plough in the Late Middle Ages. Poor, second- and third-rate farming regions in other words as far as the people of Antiquity were concerned, with lots of sheer uncultivable wilderness.

That'd certainly be a good reason for both the Celts and the Romans to not bother contesting those cold forests with their fierce spear-toting inhabitants; the return-of-interest calculation of an invasion would at best have been in the red. In a way this would have been an advantage to the Germans - they were in fact pretty much safe from actual invasions by their neighbours, and thus had a more or less quaranteed refuge from which to always return for another raid no matter what damage a punitive Roman chevauchee might do to the border tribes; if those were meaningfully weakened their place would juts be usurped by a stronger group from further away.

And the Germans stood everything to gain from at first raiding and eventually invading their more prosperous neighbours; the eternal paradox of poor tribes eking out a living in desolate lands near rich and powerful areas, where that very destitution becomes a kind of strenght and source of safety.

[Wolfman]

If the germans were the masters of the celts before rome than why is it that their culture didn't achieve dominance of europe until the the 5th aand 6th centuries A.D.. The celtic culture had been on the rise well before that as stated before this culture was dominant and using metal weaponry in the B.C. era while the germans when the romans first encountered them were using sharpened hardened sticks, stones, and clubs not counting the aristocracy who raided celtic lands. I got my sources from books that I got at my public library including History of the Celts, History of Northern Europe, and The Rise and Fall of the Roman empire.

[SaFe]

If the germans were the masters of the celts before rome than why is it that their culture didn't achieve dominance of europe until the the 5th aand 6th centuries A.D.. The celtic culture had been on the rise well before that as stated before this culture was dominant and using metal weaponry in the B.C. era while the germans when the romans first encountered them were using sharpened hardened sticks, stones, and clubs not counting the aristocracy who raided celtic lands. I got my sources from books that I got at my public library including History of the Celts, History of Northern Europe, and The Rise and Fall of the Roman empire.

As far as i know nobody said germanics were the overlords of celts before rome.
Naturally they ruled over the celts that stayed in those areas the germanics conquered.

Now concerning your question about germanics used only stones, clubs and hardened sticks when encountering romans for the first time:
What we know today is the following - the first germanics the romans encountered were the tribes of the Cimbri, Ambroni and Teutoni(the Teutoni were half celtic though).
Those tribes wandered for many, many years through celtic ruled territory - raided, plundered and sometimes lived a few months in "peace" with the celtic natives, where surely some trading took part also.

Don't you think, they got their hands during this time on enough better weapons as stones and wooden clubs?

No, it seems some of the discussion members here think, that the germanics saw some fine swords, axes and other weapons - and finally throw them away because they loved their wooden clubs so much

Yes, it is known that the Cimbri for example offered all the captured weapons and armor of the romans to their gods (along with the captured romans b.t.w.) after winning a battle vs. the romans.
But this didn't happen every time - they wandered over many years through today's' Europe and had enough good weapons at least for their best warriors captured by this time.

Same with my next argumentation point:
Ariovist, War-king of the suebian federation conquered the lands of the Aedui, beat them in battle and was de facto overlord of the gauls living in this area for a few years.
So, nobody thinks he equipped his warrior elite with the best weapons available?
Again no - some of us still think the germaics ignored those weapons and stuck to their wooden clubs...Funny idea...

The suebians (he had also Harudes and men from other tribes with him) under Ariovists command were excellent warriors.
They were not poor farmes but trained and very experienced fighters.
( Remark - even poor farmers in germanic society had more than enough combat experience though )
Those warrios knew a good weapon when they saw it and would have take the most advantage of their situation in a foreign land.

Please guys, stop thinking of germanics only as savage wooden-club wielding and stone throwing idiots, who ignored better weapons and were unable to produce own iron weapons.

Not only me tried to explain many times why we had so few proofs of germanic iron weapons finds (for example they burned their dead before A.D., so we had simply no weapon finds here, as those weapons were given from father or uncle to son or nephew) and it seems some of us here ignore the fact that the germanics produced iron weapons too.
(Raseneisen is the german word for the material they used, not sure of the english word for the iron, it was of poorer quality than celtic iron, but still they used it)

As i want to come to a end here -
Germanics - at least the better warriors in a tribe - when they encountered romans were equipped with weapons of good celtic quality ( raiding, conquering and trading, even some of own fabrication )

I wouldn't believe solely the roman biased books about their savage and barbarian enemies not able to take advantage of raided and traded better quality weapons.

It is just wrong and incorrect to assume only germanic aristocracy was able to afford those iron weapons, this may be true for some tribes that lived far from celtic territory, but even here we have the known fact that they produced weapons made of Raseneisen, but is simply wrong for the mentioned tribes above.
On reason why romans often described germanics as only using spears and shields may be the fact that the mostly fought against them in this way.
Germanics tried to stay together in battle and tried to hold a line unlike the way they are often displayed.
For this fighting method the use of throwing and stabbing spears was necessary.

Thanks for your attention

[Teutobod II]

Germanics - at least the better warriors in a tribe - when they encountered romans were equipped with weapons of good celtic quality ( raiding, conquering and trading, even some of own fabrication )

One thought for a Germanic reform: due to more contact with Rome (won battles and hired mercs) they had more Roman equipment, the swords got shorter and looked more like a gladius, to the end of the EB timeframe...

[L.C.Cinna]

"When appeals of peace where ignored and Roman greed again drove them on, it so happened that a nobleman of the Boii went with his sons to the camp of the Consul Lucius Quinctius Flaminius, imploring the protection of the Roman people. The Consul was partying with a boy prostitute, and he enquired of the boy if he would like to see a man being killed. The boy nodded, and straight away Flaminius drew his sword and slew the unfortunate nobleman and then proceeded to rape the nobleman's son over his father's carcass" - (The Celts, Defeat of Cisalpine Gaul; D'O Hogain)


my2bob

Sorry this is a bit off topic but I just had to say something when I read this quote. As much as I enjoyed your posts in this thread so far I'm a bit surprised to see something like that. You seem to have read quite a lot on the topic, so why back up your arguments with something as stupid as this? Sorry nothing against you but you talk about bias in Roman sources and then post a quote which is surely biased and completely unscientific. Is that taken from a novel?

No offence here. BTW great discussion.

[Casuir]

He gave the source at the end of the story "The Celts, Defeat of Cisalpine Gaul; D'O Hogain" Daithi O'Hogain/Daithí O hOgáin is the authors name and he looks to be a fairly respectable authority on the celts. As to it being unbalanced and completely unscientific, hate to burst your bubble here lad but such acts did take place, similar ones sparked a famous rebellion in Britain in later years. Reality can be a lot more ugly than history books.

[NeoSpartan]

He gave the source at the end of the story "The Celts, Defeat of Cisalpine Gaul; D'O Hogain" Daithi O'Hogain/Daithí O hOgáin is the authors name and he looks to be a fairly respectable authority on the celts. As to it being unbalanced and completely unscientific, hate to burst your bubble here lad but such acts did take place, similar ones sparked a famous rebellion in Britain in later years. Reality can be a lot more ugly than FICTION books.

I think thats what you meant to say... Fixed it for ya

[Casuir]

No, its not, in fact it makes no sense like that, well done.