Celtic overpowered!

[mucky305]

I usually play as the Romans and they consistenly run away from the Gestae, I assume in a homophobic stampede.....or maybe they're just not into snuff porn. Whatever it is, it's funny. In all seriousness, keep up the great work EB team!!

http://world6.monstersgame.co.uk/?ac=vid&vid=114017506

[mAIOR]

So, the Celtic downfall was due to Logistics... As it should.
Now, to all of you who say the Celtic units arfe overpowered, Just reach the Polybian reforms not even Marians are needed. If you play historically, you'll see a big diference. If you're not, well, you'll se a big diference as well. Basically, your Polybian Princeps are as good as they come and can shred most Gallic infantry to pieces no time. Now, when you reach Marian, you won't even have a chalenge. By the time you field Legions, the Naked fanatics are no match for the Roman army. And if you're able to reach imperial and still have Gauls messing around, you'll win most batles with litle to no casualities. Check the trading card game and you'll find that for you to have Celtic units compared to a post Marian legion, you'll need a level 4~5 MIC. Also they'll come out in units of 60 whilst the Legions com in the 100s.
I've been a "civilised" faction player for a long time however, once I discovered some Gallic mercs, I tried the Avernii and after reading this topic, again even greater respect for the so called "Barbarians". I believe from what I've read that EB is pretty accurate save for some minor discrepancies that is. But nothing that'd affect the balance of the gameplay.

BTW, try playing with the Celts and see if you still think they are over powered. You'll have a tough time trying to reach your most advanced units!

Cheers...

[Casuir]

They usually get destroyed fairly early in the campaigns I've played, though the Aedui hang in for longer due to rebellions in central and eastern europe.

[Frostwulf]

This is the way I look at it. ROMANS
1.a: We all agree that the Roman martial prowess was greater post Marius.
b: According to Watchman and Psyco Celts were at there strongest pre-Marius.
c: This being the case why is it that the pre-Marius (weaker) Roman troops defeated the pre-Arverni-Aedui war(stronger) Celts. Most historians say that on equal terms the Romans of this period defeated the Celts most of the time. The time frame Iam talking about is starting from 250 b.c. The battles Iam referring to are stated in historical writings. There were times when the Romans outnumbered the Celts and vice versa. There were times when one ambushed the other and other events which take place in warfare. With all these things taken into account, the Romans bested the Celts the majority of the time. Im not talking about the ultimate victory here, Im talking about individual battles, not just the whole war. By 200 B.C. the romans had occupied all northern Italy and had started into southern Gaul. You even have leader vs. leader in that M. Claudius Marcellus defeating Virdomarus in a duel.
Pyco you said: There was a reason why the Romans had not succeeded in conquering Transalpine Gaul in the previous 300 years of conflict. It cold be because of the other wars going on like with carthage.

2. Post Marius: Not all Celtic tribes were involved in the Arverni-Aedui war. These Celts were defeated by the Romans as well. They didnt lose their most experienced troops in this on going war, yet they were defeated just as the Arverni and Aedui were. You even have the Britons who were off the mainland and they were defeated just as well. These Celts that Caesar faced were NOT green, ill-equipped, untrained troops. Sure some could have been, but the Celts were a warlike people and they most certainly trained their children in the arts of war. Again when Caesar fought the Arverni, they had well trained cavalry and foot soldiers who were mail-clad. The battle of Gergovia and others of this time will show these were not green, ill-equipped, untrained troops. Most troops get their experience in war thus becoming veterans. With all the infighting between the Arverni and Aedui there had to be many veterans as shown in the aformentioned battles. Vercingetorix had plenty of soldiers and there had to be many that were experienced from the infighting of the tribes, they werent all just wiped out and then suddenly a new crop of green soldiers appear.
Again I dont have the time to continue, but I will another time and Im sure there will be comments to this .

[Watchman]

I'm under the impression the Roman/Celtic front in Northern Italy was something of a stalemate for a rather long time. You win some, you lose some, sometimes one side held the upper hand and sometimes the other (especially if someone from beyond the Alps stuck his nose in). Didn't the Romans eventually first subjugate the Cisalpine Gauls into allies and later fully "Romanize" them or something ?

But outside containing the nasty hairy trouser-wearing barbarians in the north (not always succesfully) Roman interests for a long time were focused on the Mediterranean region - Iberia, Sicily, Africa, the Balkans etc., that much is true. Transalpine Gaul was pretty low on their list, partly as they had no pressing reason to get stuck there (the Alps doing a decent job as a barrier, and the major players there were busy fighting each other) and partly because they weren't too keen on adding their heads to some hairy nutjob's trophy collection.

[PSYCHO V]

… why should they use a primitve club ?

The club is not a primitive weapon perse. Ie the design of the weapon may be primitive but it is a major error to then infer the same of it’s user. Remember, the club was the weapon of choice by many of Europe’s most powerful and wealthy during the Medieval period.

The facts of the matter is that a good solid club, as already mentioned by others here, is an effective weapon, especially when one if facing heavily armoured troops. I believe that rather than the Germans displaying their “primitive” nature by employing clubs, they were actually doing the opposite. They were demonstrating their willingness to adapt to circumstances, ie fighting armoured Gauls, Ligurians, Rhaetians and Romans.

Now, to all of you who say the Celtic units arfe overpowered, Just reach the Polybian reforms not even Marians are needed. If you play historically, you'll see a big diference. If you're not, well, you'll se a big diference as well. Basically, your Polybian Princeps are as good as they come and can shred most Gallic infantry to pieces no time. Now, when you reach Marian, you won't even have a chalenge. By the time you field Legions, the Naked fanatics are no match for the Roman army. And if you're able to reach imperial and still have Gauls messing around, you'll win most batles with litle to no casualities. Check the trading card game and you'll find that for you to have Celtic units compared to a post Marian legion, you'll need a level 4~5 MIC. Also they'll come out in units of 60 whilst the Legions com in the 100s.
I've been a "civilised" faction player for a long time however, once I discovered some Gallic mercs, I tried the Avernii and after reading this topic, again even greater respect for the so called "Barbarians". I believe from what I've read that EB is pretty accurate save for some minor discrepancies that is. But nothing that'd affect the balance of the gameplay.

BTW, try playing with the Celts and see if you still think they are over powered. You'll have a tough time trying to reach your most advanced units!

Cheers...

Yup, exactly. One can’t project one’s understanding of late Republican / Imperial Rome on the 3rd C BC

This is the way I look at it. According to Watchman and Psyco Celts were at there strongest pre-Marius.

Strength is relative. The Celts were relatively stronger in the 5th, 4th and very beginning of the 3rd C BC.. as previously stated.

This being the case why is it that the pre-Marius (weaker) Roman troops defeated the pre-Arverni-Aedui war(stronger) Celts. Most historians say that on equal terms the Romans of this period defeated the Celts most of the time. The time frame Iam talking about is starting from 250 b.c. The battles Iam referring to are stated in historical writings.

For the record, “most historians” do not claim that the Romans were victors “most of the time”, what they do state is that according to Roman records, we are told that was the case. As I’ve previously stated, there has been many Roman battles / defeats not recorded / lost (giving the benefit of the doubt) to us.

Further the battles you refer to involve Cisalpine Gauls, who by the mid 3rd C BC (250 BC) were already on the back foot. The Romans had waged a brutal war of attrition for over 150 years prior. The Cisalpine Gauls could not sustain their looses as the Romans could and once they reached a critical point the Cisalpine Gauls collapsed. Much celebrated Roman victories like the Battle of Minicio (196 BC), Battle of Bonnonia (191 BC), etc bear this out as they were no more a battle than the massacres of plains Indians at the likes of the ‘Battle of Wounded Knee’. The Romans in a genocidal blood lust, wiped out whole towns, tribes and nations.

The Romans bested the Celts the majority of the time. Im not talking about the ultimate victory here, Im talking about individual battles, not just the whole war.

No, we can’t say anything of the sort. We just don’t know

By 200 B.C. the romans had occupied all northern Italy and had started into southern Gaul.

And your point?

You even have leader vs. leader in that M. Claudius Marcellus defeating Virdomarus in a duel.

I’m sorry to be a kill joy, but the account of M. Claudius Marcellus defeating Virdomarus is pure fiction. Again, this is not my opinion but rather that of the world’s leading scholars on this subject.

Pyco you said: There was a reason why the Romans had not succeeded in conquering Transalpine Gaul in the previous 300 years of conflict. It cold (sic) be because of the other wars going on like with carthage.

I’m sorry but the Carthage hypothesis / excuse just does not stand up critical analysis. The Romans managed to expand their empire throughout the 3 Carthaginian Wars .. the last being little more than an excuse to plunder. If the Gauls were such a walk over as you seem to suggest, Gaul would have been a temptation too great to resist.

Post Marius: Not all Celtic tribes were involved in the Arverni-Aedui war. These Celts were defeated by the Romans as well. They didnt lose their most experienced troops in this on going war, yet they were defeated just as the Arverni and Aedui were.

Well, I have stated time and time again that the underlying cause for the complete Gallic capitulation was the civil war. All the tribes in Gaul were involved in this war as they sided with one or the other or in some isolated cases, sought to profit from circumstance ..incurring bloody / devastating reprisals (eg. Ossimii, Turoni, Venelli, Lingones, etc). It was into this internal loathing/ hatred and blood shed that Caesar came, playing on old hatreds and using Gauls to continue killing Gauls now for Rome’s / his benefit.

It is true however, that the likes of the Belgae (whom I was not originally referring to) had not been as involved in the Gallic civil war as the Gauls proper..and they were to prove a shock to the likes of Caesar. Remember Caesar was very nearly bested by one remote and primitive tribe the Nervii. The Nervii, who had little to no weapon producing facilities within their lands / having to import from the south, who had no equestrian knowledge or heritage … only had their courage, skill and training. Unlike the Romans, they had never fought their new enemy prior and yet gave a notable account of themselves.

The ultimate defeat of the Belgae was due in part to the prior defeat of the powers to their south. This caused great consternation within the loose Belgae confederation, causing it’s leading and most powerful tribes (eg Remi ‘Premier ones’, Suessiones ‘Six clans’, etc) to side with the Romans. Thus the Romans / Caesar was able to avoid facing a united Belgae force in battle (something he obviously wished to avoid) and instead use his new Belgae forces to ravage lands and strike at the heart and soul of his enemies…their women and children, .. only employing Roman arms to mop up any remaining tribe that continued to resist.

You even have the Britons who were off the mainland and they were defeated just as well. These Celts that Caesar faced were NOT green, ill-equipped, untrained troops.

The Britons were a different kettle of fish. Again I was talking about Gauls. The Britons succumbed for much the same reason as the continental Belgae.

The battle of Gergovia and others of this time will show these were not green, ill-equipped, untrained troops. Most troops get their experience in war thus becoming veterans. With all the infighting between the Arverni and Aedui there had to be many veterans as shown in the aformentioned battles. Vercingetorix had plenty of soldiers and there had to be many that were experienced from the infighting of the tribes, they werent all just wiped out and then suddenly a new crop of green soldiers appear.

One can’t assume, “Well they beat the Romans so they must have been supermen”. All that demonstrates is one’s attempt at trying to fit facts within a pre-conceived paradigm / world view. Yes the Gauls at Gergovia defeated Caesar, and yes they probably had had some experience / rudimentary training by this point in the campaign, unlikely for a leader like Vercingetrix to have over looked this. But the fact remains that these guys were only recently mobilised and thus inexperienced. As much as you may wish it otherwise, this wasn’t a trained / experienced force of veteran troops.

This is not only born out in the material record (eg. Thigh bones of Gallic youth, etc) but by other examples. Eg the fact Vercingetrix mounted all his most experienced / well equipped troops and when they were in turn defeated, the whole army (some of whom were apparently young boys) naturally lost heart.


my2bob

[Thaatu]

I really don't know which sources to trust about these things, but is it generally accepted that Celts had a more individual fighting style, while Romans acted as a unit and that while Celts might have generally been better fighters, the Roman tactics hampered their ability to fight one-on-one? If this is true then it would justify stronger stats to Celtic units. Damn, I hate to generalize...

[Watchman]

Well, the Roman method stemmed from the highly collectivist phalanx tradition albeit with fair bit of modifications AFAIK. They relied more on sustaining unit-level cohesion and wearing down that of the enemy, a perfectly viable approach particularly if you can't afford to train every soldier into a mighty warrior (drill and discipline being way faster to instill in fresh recruits). While the Celtic tradition produced cohesive enough battlefield formations I understand its focus and reliance was more on the fighting skill of the individual, an approach that certainly has its perks but also certain problems as discussed above - particularly if you're short on fully trained and experienced warriors for some reason.

The club is not a primitive weapon perse. Ie the design of the weapon may be primitive but it is a major error to then infer the same of it’s user. Remember, the club was the weapon of choice by many of Europe’s most powerful and wealthy during the Medieval period.

That would be maces, and a mace is not the same thing as a wooden club already per definition. Commanders' paraphenelia commonly included some sort of baton as a sign of their rank, a very ancient affectation from which royal sceptres also stem from AFAIK and still around as late as WW2 (if not today), but those would only have been used for combat in a dire emergency if the officer in question hadn't had time to draw his sword or something.

When people had to go into battle with wooden percussion weapons, usually in the context of peasant revolts or suchlike, they tended to make a point of adding all kinds of metal reinforcements and nasty pointy bits to improve the terminal effect. Among the examples I can name off the top of my head are the (somewhat obscure) godendags of High Medieval Flemish urban militias, the flails of the Hussite rebels that swiftly saw the addition of spiky metal bands and suchlike added to their business ends, and the spiky clubs of the peasant rebels in the 1500s "War of Clubs" uprising in Finland.

[PSYCHO V]

That would be maces, and a mace is not the same thing as a wooden club already per definition. Commanders' paraphenelia commonly included some sort of baton as a sign of their rank.....

Effectively the same blunt force weapon. One fashioned out of wood, the other metal. The same could be said if we depicted Germanics wielding primitive malets / hammers. The weapon doesn't by nature infer a primitive state on the user.

my2bob