Celtic overpowered!

[SaFe]

Wasn´t that a sort of offering to the gods ?

Sure, those victims were offering to the gods, but the roman gladiator-fights were also a religious thing in the beginning and ended as a brutal sports for the plebs.

Every culture or nation exaggerate the cruelties of their enemies.
The Aedui for example told the romans how cruel and evil the suebian warking Ariovist was, to enlist the romans for their side against the germanics.
I doubt that the suebians were really this cruel, as they brought their families with them and had to arrange themselves with the native gauls somehow.
It was not a clever thing, because so good old Julius Caesar had his invitation to "free" the poor gauls.

[The Celt]

The Parthians weren't conquered by Rome or any other power (basicly a coup by a former Persian satrap)
Their problem was that they weren't real Persians, the Sassanians were and they neglected the historical legacy of the former and changed certain parts of historical accounts to better fit certain Zoroastrian prophecies.

That, and they destroyed all the Parthian written history in good o'l fashioned book-burnings.(Thank you Ardashir I. )

[Urnamma]

Re clubs:

Psycho is absolutely right. The club or cudgel, when made out of wood or otherwise, is a surprisingly effective weapon.

A blunt force weapon is not about the material used, but about the weight involved. Probably the most damaging historically speaking are the Arab 'amud or the Nubian basalt-headed maces. There are firsthand accounts of 'amud weighing 10-15kg (yes, that heavy), and also crushing helmeted heads into a lopsided bowl full of brain soup.

From testing maces vs. clubs on various types of armor, metal or otherwise, I can tell you that clubs are about .03 less effective than most mace types, excepting flanged maces of the East Greeks and Parthians. That is to say, they managed to defeat armor and 'kill' the wearer a significant percentage of the time.

I'm not sure I know enough about the topic to argue as eloquently as Psycho has here, but I would like to add one bit. Written sources will always favor the Romans, because they, umm, wrote them. Archeology has only just begun to unravel the complexity of Celtic society and warfare.

Psycho: as far as Cunliffe is concerned, a (albeit much truncated) Boii kingdom existed until about ~100 A.D. Are you disputing that? I'm a bit confused, I would like a clarification of your point where you mentioned the defeat by the Dacians.

Btw, Anthony is quite right about the Germanic vassals of the Boii, at least with regard to current scholarly opinions. Excavations in Austria and Czech have confirmed large amounts of tributary items of Germanic origin at the sites of principle Boii-controlled Oppidae concurrent with the layers precisely dated with contemporary Roman pottery. This in itself (the very abundance of items) is as good an indication as any with regard to tributary payments.

Further, the very expanse of the dated areas mean that the Boii of central Europe controlled a vast area at their height.

[The Celt]

Further, the very expanse of the dated areas mean that the Boii of central Europe controlled a vast area at their height.

So on that note:The Boii should definitely be a faction for EB2 correct?

[Watchman]

Probably the most damaging historically speaking are the Arab 'amud or the Nubian basalt-headed maces.

The first one's all metal though. A hexagonal or octagonal iron bar about a meter long with a sword handle, by what I've read. Cost like the dickies too, given that it took the metal of something like five swords to make one and the Middle East isn't exactly swimming in iron to begin with. Bet you the concept was copied off those Byzantine and Sassanid heavy maces (as pre-Conquest Arabs mainly stuck to swords and spears), the former which were apparently something of a source of awe and fear well into the Middle Ages.

While it is true that in blunt-trauma weapons like maces weight, leverage and how the impact is conveyed to the target is more important, one somewhat suspects most wood had a bad tendency to yield and deform in such encounters with metal which would presumably sort of dampen the effect. That people seem to always have made a point of sticking all kinds of metal reinforcements and contact surface add-ons to the hefty lenghts of wood they intend to go clobber armoured fellers with would seem to hint in the same direction.

And there was presumably a practical reason even a small solid metal business end was preferred to all-wood pummeling instruments as well.

[SaFe]

Btw, Anthony is quite right about the Germanic vassals of the Boii, at least with regard to current scholarly opinions. Excavations in Austria and Czech have confirmed large amounts of tributary items of Germanic origin at the sites of principle Boii-controlled Oppidae concurrent with the layers precisely dated with contemporary Roman pottery. This in itself (the very abundance of items) is as good an indication as any with regard to tributary payments.

This is simply wrong.
Anthony said the Cimbri were vassals of the Boii.

I will not argue about some minor germanic vassals of the Boii - perhaps refugees from other tribes, but it is absolutely incorrect to assume the Boii very the masters of important germanic tribes.

I find it very irritating to back up your assumption by the findings of germanic craft items - we could assume that numerous gallic tribes were vassals of north-germanic tribes, because in their territory many celtic made crafts were found - which is also wrong.
Raiding and trade goes in two ways.

The only point we can be sure of is that at some time the Cimbri during their migration, tried to invade Boii territory and were repulsed, because of the strong defense position the Boii had. I find it very believeable that there was no major battles, because of the strong oppidas the Boii had during these times and so the Cimbrii wandered off to find better and easier lands to conquer and places to live.

[SaFe]

About the wooden club:
Yes, it is a weapon with great impact, but after all we know is was not a esteemed weapon for germanic warriors.
More than often the importance of the frame and the shield as well as sword are mentioned.
Rituals of young men on their way to adulthood had to do with swords, if germanics warriors lost their shield on the battlefield it was a great shame for them and to fight in their - for western "barbarians" rather disciplined way they had to use the spear(frame).
Even the renowned far ranged spear throwing ability of germanic warriors is often mentioned.
Clubs were the weapon of the poor man - simple as that.

[SaFe]

So on that note:The Boii should definitely be a faction for EB2 correct?

About this i would be careful, if fear some people would also like to include the Lugians as a faction of celtic overlords ruling germanic vassals.
But that is another theme...


Less is sometimes more concerning the inclusion of numerous celtic factions.

[Casuir]

They're needed for reasons you've already stated, to keep the sweboz in check, as it is they have to easy a time expanding into eastern and central europe.

[Frostwulf]

To me the purpose of this thread was to show that the Celtic units are more powerful then they should be.

sometimes i feel the celtic units are unrealistic

With EB we should be looking at the units themselves from a historical perspective as best we can. The units should be accessed points based on the armor value, weapons, skill, morale and special abilities (hide in woods,charge etc). Some of these factors can be determined in a fairly scientific/historical fashion such as the weapons and armor. The rest has to come from the historical writings and archaeology of the battlefield, there is no other way.
I havent played EB enough to see how things transition, Ive played battles and looked at stats. It seems to me from a historical perspective that in the west the Praetorian guard should be the strongest infantry unit. The reason I say this is because they took the best men from the Roman legions and gave them the best equipment available. But in EB the Celts have more powerful units then the Praetorian guard. Its not just these units either, there are several others that seemed mismatched to me.

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

This is what Im referring to, I dont believe this is reflected properly in EB. Yes Romans and the Greeks do exaggerate but that doesnt change the situation of Roman superiority of arms.

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

What do you base this on? If you mean by relative that the Celts were stronger at this time because there opponents were weaker I agree. If this is the case you might as well ignore the rest of this section. Who did the Celts really fight of consequence during the 5th and 4th centuries other then the Greeks? During the late 4th centry to the early 3rd Century BC we find them attacking pre-Camillus Rome and other Italic/Etruscan peoples. If you look at the battles during this time Rome won most of the battles, including Camillus defeating the Celts in 367 BC.

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..

Most of the battles you listed the Celts outnumbered the Romans, and after some of these battles the Romans avenged themselves on the Celts.

Arrentium-Picenum:(283 BC) Britomaris of the Senones was defeated.
Faesulae-Telamon (224BC)
Battle of the Boii-Battle of Mutina (194 BC)
As you already know there are plenty of battles in which the Romans defeated the Celts.

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.

Cant argue with you on this particular battle, except for the numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Telamon

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.

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.

I wont disagree with your first statement, the Celts were tough! The second statement about attrition and the second quote doesnt matter to much to me as I am looking for statistical points for units, not the war. That being said, Rome in the 3rd century BC was at war with Carthage, Illyria,Macedon, Etruscans, etc. etc. Who were the southern Gauls at war with? Yes they raided one another but to my knowledge there was no major infighting during this time. Did the Gauls have a low birth rate or something?

I know you keep talking about merciless slaughters and horrid atrocity's of war that the Romans did. Which one of these people didnt commit any kind of slaughters or atrocity's:Germans,Celts,Samnites,Etruscans etc. etc. Ill give you a hint, it wasnt the Celts, they were as guilty as all of them.

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.

The numbers do count against the devastation claim of the civil war as it shows that there were plenty of people around and were not completely ground down due to civil war. In history there are many peoples who received their veteran status through war. If the Celts were battling amongst themselves they would have vital war experience. If these wars are long drawn out events then training would take place in addition to the war experience. During these times it is rare for entire armies to be wiped out. If these people had enough people to continue these wars they would be getting war exp. I dont buy that all the experienced soldiers were wiped out and only green troops were left. If you look into the Mogadishu (blackhawk down) situation, the constant warfare and experience is shown. The U.S. expected little resistance from the Somalia's because they didnt really have a standing army. What they forgot to take into account is the constant battling between the warlords which gave the Somalia's battle hardened veterans. There are many more historical precedents for such cases, it is the norm!

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
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

Roman records are not completely accurate but nor are they entirely false. You can use the Records and educated assumptions to determine what happened. Will this be 100% correct? Of course not but it is the best that can be done. From these records and educated assumptions we can see that the Romans bested the Celts most of the time. Yes archaeology can play a role in discovering some of the facts of battlefields, but just like other things these can be misinterpreted. I still stand by the statement that most historians will claim that the Romans were victors most of the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
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.

Tim Newark-editor of Military Illustrated/Peter Connolly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Connolly /Peter Berresford Ellis(considered the foremost authority on the Celts). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Berresford_Ellis .These authors say it happened, why would it be hard to believe? Ellis in his book Celt and Roman mentions several others like this that happened. What could there be against this? Also there is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viridomarus This post doesnt really have anything to do with accessing statistics to units.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
By 200 B.C. the romans had occupied all northern Italy and had started into southern Gaul.

And your point?

My point was to say that the Romans prior to Caesar did go into southern Gaul. Transalpine Gaul according to Barry Cunliffe ("The Ancient Celts") was annexed in 123 BC, over 60 years prior to Caesar entering Gaul. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transalpine_Gaul This doesnt have anything to do with accessing points to units.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
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.

Why doesnt it stand up? Rome at this time as I stated earlier was dealing with multiple opponents. This hypothesis holds up much more then the constant tribal struggles you suggest for the Celts. Again there are many peoples that went through tribal conflicts (Germans, Scythians, Sarmatians, etc.) and Civil wars and still were able to expand. Am I misunderstanding what your getting at here? Also I have never suggested the Celts were a walk over. If you look at my posts I say that the Celts are tough. The only thing I have suggested is that the Romans and Germans are overall better skilled and I dont see that reflected in the unit stats. I still maintain that the Celts were tough and fierce. This post doesnt really have anything to do with accessing points to units.
I still maintain that Vercingetorix had elite units(5,000 Arverni guard) trained units (Peter_Connolly states that Vercingetorix took time to train his units) and experienced troops from the constant tribal warfare.

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.

I agree fully with this statement. I also agree that a united Belgae confederation would have defeated Caesar. Well I need to break off and end this as its getting a bit long.
I do appreciate the way this thread has been going. Even though there is disagreement its still Civil Ive been working alot lately with not much sleep so if I put something in here that was offensive I apologize as it wasnt my intent. Also I know this is dominated by Psyco V quotes, but I intend to try to address others such as Watchman and a later time.

[Orb]

I did a long and intelligent reply, but then lost it.

Which stats are you looking at in particular?

Gaesatae are drugged up maniacs, drilled, disciplined, obscenely brave and conditioned mercenaries. The Praetorians are basically limited to coups.

[JeffBag]

I havent played EB enough to see how things transition, Ive played battles and looked at stats. It seems to me from a historical perspective that in the west the Praetorian guard should be the strongest infantry unit. The reason I say this is because they took the best men from the Roman legions and gave them the best equipment available. But in EB the Celts have more powerful units then the Praetorian guard. Its not just these units either, there are several others that seemed mismatched to me.

Not a fair comparison since Praetorians have a bugged armor stat; its lower than Cohors Imperatoria even though they have two greaves more. I'm guessing that they should have 14 or 15 armor rather than 10, which would put them at 13 attack, 0.13 lethality, and 31 defense. Coupled with the fact that they come in neat 100 men cohorts, they would readily beat the crap out of any of those 60 in a unit Celtic elites. Actually, even without the +4 armour, Praetorians are still superior to any Celtic units, so I don't know what uber unit you are talking about. Remember that Caesar was always trying to avoid fighting the Averni guard head-on in battle.

[Frostwulf]

Orb the stats Im talking about are the ones listed for the units. The attack value, defense value and etc. What Im trying to say that if the Praetorian Guard unit came up against a unit of Gaesatae, Uachtarach or the Carnute cingetos, it seems to me the Praetorian Guard wins.About the Carnute cingetos if I thought druids were exempted from military service.Also Im going to make another reply on the Gaesatae thread, if you have the chance I would appreciate a reply.

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 ?

The Romans were the dominant force by 200 BC. The Romans were victorious over Boii in 191 BC which sealed it. There were still Celts and Italic tribes in this area, but they wore the yoke of the Romans. There was a revolt in 175 BC but this was "quickly suppressed, with no great effort". According to Livy Cisalpine Gaul was a province by 170 BC, but Peter B. Ellis disputes this and figures 81 BC is more accurate.

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...

In general terms I tend to agree with you on the Celts having a more individual fighting style with the Romans being team or unit oriented. Im not sure if you meant to say the Celtic units should be stronger or not but if you did I disagree with you. The cohesion of Roman units trained to fight together is more effective the individuals put together to fight as a unit. One on One Id say the Celt in general would win because of their size and type of training. In battles such as these units reigned supreme, not individuals.

This is simply wrong.
Anthony said the Cimbri were vassals of the Boii.

I will not argue about some minor germanic vassals of the Boii - perhaps refugees from other tribes, but it is absolutely incorrect to assume the Boii very the masters of important germanic tribes.

I find it very irritating to back up your assumption by the findings of germanic craft items - we could assume that numerous gallic tribes were vassals of north-germanic tribes, because in their territory many celtic made crafts were found - which is also wrong.
Raiding and trade goes in two ways.

The only point we can be sure of is that at some time the Cimbri during their migration, tried to invade Boii territory and were repulsed, because of the strong defense position the Boii had. I find it very believeable that there was no major battles, because of the strong oppidas the Boii had during these times and so the Cimbrii wandered off to find better and easier lands to conquer and places to live.

I completely agree with everything SaFe has to say here, especially the last statement. Not to mention archaeology does have its problems with interpretation of items found.Urnamma I do have an interest in archaeology, where can I find more information on these sites?

Praetorians are still superior to any Celtic units, so I don't know what uber unit you are talking about. Remember that Caesar was always trying to avoid fighting the Averni guard head-on in battle.

I listed some of the units at the top of this post but there are others of lesser strength and ability that seem off to me. I know the Arverni Guard were tough but I dont ever remember reading about Caesar avoiding a head on battle as he had tried to get Vercingetorix into open warfare.

[Orb]

'Orb the stats Im talking about are the ones listed for the units. The attack value, defense value and etc. What Im trying to say that if the Praetorian Guard unit came up against a unit of Gaesatae, Uachtarach or the Carnute cingetos, it seems to me the Praetorian Guard wins.About the Carnute cingetos if I thought druids were exempted from military service.Also Im going to make another reply on the Gaesatae thread, if you have the chance I would appreciate a reply.'

Yes, but which units' stats specifically? Where is the Celtic superiority you're alluding to?
Druids did fight on several occasions, but you'll have to ask a Celtic historian about that, I'm just a traitor.

[Watchman]

I'm pretty sure the Cingetos aren't Druids per ce, but a sort of elite "temple guard" with close associations with them.

Anyway, "palace guard" units like the Praetorians, stationed in an imperial capital far from the constant low-intensity action of the ever-troubled borders, have always tended towards a nasty tendency to becoming "parade units" of rather lower military calibre than their running costs and prestige would make one except, with entry requirements having a bad habit of degenerating into issues of pure politics, favouritism and brown-nosing (not to say outright bribery...). Although I understand the Praetorians were relatively well able to maintain their military usefulness.

That being said, Rome in the 3rd century BC was at war with Carthage, Illyria,Macedon, Etruscans, etc. etc. Who were the southern Gauls at war with? Yes they raided one another but to my knowledge there was no major infighting during this time. Did the Gauls have a low birth rate or something?

If you mean the Cisalpines, come on now. They were like the Po river valley vs. the whole rest of the peninsula, with no quarantees of any kind of assistance from either the mountain tribes or the Transalpines (who in any case were busy fighting each other and the Germans). If nothing else the Romans were able to wear them down by sheer attrition over time, nevermind now "turning" them bit by bit to their own side. It doesn't take great genius to realize being a subject-ally tends to be preferable to being eradicated, all the more so given the rather Assyrian approach the Romans had to intractability. Not that a very vae victis approach to defeated foes wasn't rather more the norm than the exception those days anyway, but I understand the Romans were fairly good at exploiting it as a psychological weapon.

As for the Mediterranean coast of southern Gaul, the fact the Romans could easily ship in armies from Italy and the close trading links might have something to do with the way it fell into Roman orbit quite early on. Plus weren't there a few major Greek trading colonies like Massilia there, independent of the major Gallic powers and by what I've seen mentioned of them in passing relatively willing to enter into associations with major powers (both the Romans and Carthaginians had such client-cities in Iberia as well, I understand) ?

The numbers do count against the devastation claim of the civil war as it shows that there were plenty of people around and were not completely ground down due to civil war. In history there are many peoples who received their veteran status through war. If the Celts were battling amongst themselves they would have vital war experience. If these wars are long drawn out events then training would take place in addition to the war experience. During these times it is rare for entire armies to be wiped out. If these people had enough people to continue these wars they would be getting war exp.

You're missing the point of the division of labour in Celtic society and warfare. The fighting was done by the warrior class (and mercenaries); the commoner levy only became involved in dire emergencies (primarily the defense of their homes, I understand) and was not normally mobilized for offensive operations (with the possible exception of the segments providing the missile troops), ie. not only was their training rather poor but whatever combat experience they might earn was very sporadic, often quite brief and dismal, and quite possibly finished with getting massacred or sold into slavery.

Do recall that the Celts did not ascribe to the same sort of fully tribal warfare as the Germans for example did.

If you look into the Mogadishu (blackhawk down) situation, the constant warfare and experience is shown. The U.S. expected little resistance from the Somalia's because they didnt really have a standing army. What they forgot to take into account is the constant battling between the warlords which gave the Somalia's battle hardened veterans.

Oh come on. The warlords had thousands of irregular Tupac Army gunmen who had to chew drugs to deal with their fear, and had never been told blasting away at full auto is chiefly a good way to waste ammunition. The fighting lasted for something like half a day, and the total American casualties amounted to under twenty.

You try to do battle with comparable forces against an opponent of comparably vastly higher calibre in the context of premodern warfare, and what you most get is an utter massacre. Which in fact seems to more often than not have been exactly the result whenever the Celts had to try to fight the Romans head on mainly with their tribal levies, and duly why for example (AFAIK) Vercingetorix's strategy was one of harassement and guerilla warfare, not pitched battle (which in turn Caesar did his best to force). Any rag-tag bunch of bandits and angry natives can pull off frustrating guerilla warfare well enough.

I know the Arverni Guard were tough but I dont ever remember reading about Caesar avoiding a head on battle as he had tried to get Vercingetorix into open warfare.

I'd say JB was talking tactically - that is, contain and thus render impotent such elite heavies while the rest of their army is destroyed, after which it's entirely irrelevant how badass they are. Strategically Caesar of course wanted to force a decisive pitched battle where his superior troops could tear the heart out of the resistance (and scare the rest into submission), rather than try to manage an intractable province crawling with elusive and persistent bandits and guerillas.

[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...

[NeoSpartan]

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...

hum..... I don't quite think so.... you are streching it a bit TOO much here.

[SaFe]

Concerning your argument Teutobod II:
Well, naturally raided and traded equipment became more roman during the last decades of EB's timeframe, but we should stick with celtic and germanic-styled sword for the germanic units.
I once made plans for a germanic reform, especially for Gastiz and Herthoz units, but i really don't know what became of this plans.
Surely the germanics need a reform too, because Gastiz as example are much too well equiped for the beginning time they are hireable and their equipment should change after the reform.

[Fondor_Yards]

If you check in the script file, you can see there's a proposed Iron Reform for the germans in there.

[Urnamma]

Indeed. I think the original debate here still stands. So... bump.

[PSYCHO V]

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.

No as cited it is from Daithi O Hogain, Professor of Celtic Studies, University of Dublin. I believe he is para-phrasing Siculus amongst others.

I'm studying ancient history at university and I think a modern historian should try to avoid any kind of bias or steroetypes like "greedy Romans", "uncivilised barbarians" and so on...

I assume you have similar problems with the likes of Tacitus’ Roman “Pillagers of the world” etc etc.
Unfortunately, I believe you’ve jumped to all sorts of assumptions here and missed the wood through the trees. These are the Roman accounts and neither the aforementioned scholar nor I believe they should be taken on face value. Whilst there is often truth still there, accounts tend to be wrapped up in a whole lot of bolox. …best examples Livy & Caesar imho.

Oh I know that such things happened. It is the way it is written. for example "Roman greed". A completely unscientific statement. As if all Romans were greedy and Roman expansion was driven by greed. I haven't read this specific author but he sounds biased and unprofessional in this quote, and I guess he is. Many people pretend to be an authority, or are called such by some people, but this kind of bias and sentimental involvement and message disqualifies him. Using nationalistic prejudice is not welcome in science and is unprofessional…..etc etc.

“Unscientific”? As a student of ancient history I’m sure you’d be well aware that ‘Romanic’ historians wrote for their audience under the patronage of a Roman leader / family. Hence we do have ‘biased’ / politically expedient Roman accounts condemning the actions of other Romans / Roman dynasties / families, etc. eg. Plutarch, Poseidonius, Polybius, etc etc.

I fully agree with what SaFe said, that's why I didn't like the "greedy, evil Romans vs innocent, poor Celts" mood of the quote. A historian should not mark events as good or bad out of personal preference..

Again, I believe you are the one adding the qualitative dimension here. The only ones who mention “barbarians”, “greed” etc are the Roman / Greek historians themselves. The addition of the “evil” / “poor” nomenclatures are entirely your doing..no doubt to make your point.
All I ask is that people look at the facts in a holistic manner and don’t regress to 2D stereo-types. One needs to keep an open mind and refrain from knee-jerk assumptions whenever others recount less that flattering aspects of their own pets. Fact is often stranger and more complex than fiction.

That's true. The problem is that we have only very very few sources and non of them is without bias. It's a pitty we don't have more things from the celts, parthians, germanics and so on. Of course they would contain the same things the Romans wrote just the other way round when it comes to cruelty and such but it would make things much easier for us.

Absolutely!

[PSYCHO V]

Why should even the Nervii - a tribe belonging to the Belgae spoke of their germanic origins? Was it a sign of strenght and honour to belong to those backward forest dwellers?:

“This account means no more than that they had trans-Rhenine origins. We know they were a Celtic people.” – Finding The Celts, T.G.E Powell

About the wooden club: Yes, it is a weapon with great impact, but after all we know is was not a esteemed weapon for germanic warriors. Clubs were the weapon of the poor man - simple as that.

And how pre-tell have you come to that conclusion?

More than often the importance of the frame and the shield as well as sword are mentioned. Rituals of young men on their way to adulthood had to do with swords...

Yes amongst the Germanics post (in some cases several hundred years) the period EB is depicting here. You can’t just extrapolate anachronistic data.

One can claim that the Germanics of this period were all (bar the poor) well equipped with swords, spears, etc that subsequently mysteriously disappeared from the material record but I believe otherwise. Whilst the likes of Tacitus need to be taken with a grain of salt as he has a propensity to over generalise, I do not believe his work a complete fiction / he lost his marbles when describing the Germanic tribes of the early 1st C AD. His account happens to be reflected in the material record.

“The Germans wear no breastplates or helmets. Their shields are not reinforced with either iron or leather, but are painted wood or wicker work. Spears, of a sort , are limited to their front rank. The rest have only clubs burnt at the end, or with short metal points” – ‘Anals of Imperial Rome’, Tactitus II.10).

Now obviously there would be exceptions to the above descript, as aptly recognised by EB, but what we need to acknowledge here is his points of note / the generic norm. To continually deny / refuse to acknowledge facts (ie Germanic did indeed use clubs on a large scale) because it didn’t fit in with preconceived ideas or was believed to infer a primitive condition on the user… is imho, unacceptable in the objective quest for historical truth.

Re clubs:
Psycho is absolutely right. The club or cudgel, when made out of wood or otherwise, is a surprisingly effective weapon….From testing maces vs. clubs on various types of armor, metal or otherwise, I can tell you that clubs are about .03 less effective than most mace types, excepting flanged maces of the East Greeks and Parthians. That is to say, they managed to defeat armor and 'kill' the wearer a significant percentage of the time. .

Yup, exactly.

Every culture or nation exaggerate the cruelties of their enemies.
The Aedui for example told the romans how cruel and evil the suebian warking Ariovist was, to enlist the romans for their side against the germanics..

Yup, the Gauls had no idea how bad things could get

This is simply wrongThe only point we can be sure of is that at some time the Cimbri during their migration, tried to invade Boii territory and were repulsed, because of the strong defense position the Boii had. I find it very believeable that there was no major battles, because of the strong oppidas the Boii had during these times and so the Cimbrii wandered off to find better and easier lands to conquer and places to live.

“no major battles” / “repulsed, because of the strong defense position”. Again how have you come to that conclusion? Is this recognition that one can not acknowledge that the uber Germans / Cimbri could ever be beaten by the inferior Gauls / Boii? I certainly hope not.

Psycho: as far as Cunliffe is concerned, a (albeit much truncated) Boii kingdom existed until about ~100 A.D. Are you disputing that? I'm a bit confused, I would like a clarification of your point where you mentioned the defeat by the Dacians..

Not sure what you are asking here? The aforementioned slaughter of the Boii by the Dacians is attested in several classical accounts as well as the material record. …?

Btw, Anthony is quite right about the Germanic vassals of the Boii, at least with regard to current scholarly opinions. Excavations in Austria and Czech have confirmed large amounts of tributary items of Germanic origin at the sites of principle Boii-controlled Oppidae concurrent with the layers precisely dated with contemporary Roman pottery. This in itself (the very abundance of items) is as good an indication as any with regard to tributary payments..

One can’t attribute these material finds to the Cimbri, the chronological dating of the material just doesn’t support this hypothesis. There is no sudden deposit … rather this was a increasing phenomina prior the Cimbri arrival that most attribute primarily to trade. The likes of Kuta, Powell, etc state quite clearly that these finds are predominantly the remnants of an extensive trade network with peoples north of the Danube / through the lands of the Aravisci and Osi and up the Oder River (to a lesser extent the Elbe and Vistula). This very trade may have actually contributed to luring the Cimbri through this otherwise / relatively inhospitable landscape. Yes there were some obvious items of tribute (and we have no doubt local peoples both Celtic and Germanic had become clients of the Boii), but the material is shown to have come from a very wide area, including parts where to our current knowledge, the Cimbri never ventured. Now that itself doesn’t necessarily preclude the Cimbri coming by this material through many distant hands but considering the chronological dating of the finds I believe the hypothesis that the deposit of this material was result of the Cimbri offering tribute… to be a mere flight of fancy.


my2bob

[PSYCHO V]

I also agree that a united Belgae confederation would have defeated Caesar…I do appreciate the way this thread has been going. Even though there is disagreement its still Civil Ive been working alot lately with not much sleep so if I put something in here that was offensive I apologize as it wasnt my intent. Also I know this is dominated by Psyco V quotes, but I intend to try to address others such as Watchman and a later time.

No prob, working a lot myself… and no offence intended here...and sorry for the delay in response.

Roman records are not completely accurate but nor are they entirely false. You can use the Records and educated assumptions to determine what happened. Will this be 100% correct? Of course not but it is the best that can be done.

True

To me the purpose of this thread was to show that the Celtic units are more powerful then they should be…..I havent played EB enough to see how things transition..

Having had this discussion with you, funnily enough, this doesn’t surprise me. If I may make a humble suggestion, please start a campaign and play it through. You may just find (like others here) that EB has done both Romans, Celts (amongst others) due justice

…In the west the Praetorian guard should be the strongest infantry unit. But in EB the Celts have more powerful units then the Praetorian guard. Yes Romans and the Greeks do exaggerate but that doesnt change the situation of Roman superiority of arms. This is what Im referring to, I dont believe this is reflected properly in EB.

Well for one I believe you are again trying to court the argument in terms of your pre-conceived understanding of Imperial Rome….ignoring the importance of chronology in the process. You can’t extrapolate an elite unit to a period decades if not centuries prior. By the same rationale one could claim that US forces were always superior to French because the modern US Home Gaurd could always best the Napoleonic Imperial Guard.
In the 4th C BC the Praetorian Guard didn’t even exist. When the unit did begin to evolve in the 3rd C BC, it wasn’t anything significant.

What do you base this on?

On the writings of scholars that are far more learned than I.. Hogain states that following the Roman slaughter at Allia (the so-called ‘infaustus dies’ - “unlucky day”), “Roman historians were anxious to disguise the fact that in this period (4th / early 3rd C BC), the Celts had military superiority in Italy”.

Who did the Celts really fight of consequence during the 5th and 4th centuries.

Arrr..Everyone! Remember ‘these Gauls’ who you believe were of “inferior skill” were in fact cherished as mercenaries throughout the entire ancient world / from Iberia to the Indus. There was a very good reason for this and I have to say, it had nothing to do with them lacking any skill / being a push over in battle / or in any other way inferior.

…we find them attacking pre-Camillus Rome and other Italic/Etruscan peoples. If you look at the battles during this time Rome won most of the battles, including Camillus defeating the Celts in 367 BC.

Oh please! Don’t throw up accounts of Camillus as fact, next you’ll be claiming Roman accounts of Remus and Romulus were fact too.

Powell, Hogain and Kuta note that following Allia, Revisionist Roman historians “invented a campaign of resistance” led by the ‘renowned’ Roman General Camillus who supposedly returned from exile to save Rome. They have this Camillus confronting the Gauls about the ransom and (according to Plutarch at least), Camillus ordered them to depart without their gold, for “it was customary with the Romans to deliver their country with iron, not with gold!”. Both Plutarch and Livy then give a dramatic “fictional” account of a Gallic rout in Rome and then a final huge / “great victory on the road to Gabii”. Livy then cites several “fictitious” Roman victories but all the while fails to explain why the Gauls were able to raid with impunity during the period (raiding which he himself acknowledges)…often unchallenged in small bands. One such so-called “victory” that was actually based on fact was an incident in 349 BC when the Romans confronted a band of Gallic raiders who had just raided several Roman towns. When the two sides lined up for battle, the Roman army failed to attack. The Gauls, burdened with booty merely turned their backs and continued home untouched, happy with their spoils. In an attempt to cover for Rome’s overt failure / weakness, the incident was henceforth presented as a victory and the road along which the Gauls travelled was named Gallica (‘the Gaulish Way’).

The Roman weakness is further born out by the Roman relief when Transalpine Gauls crossed the Alps wanting a piece of the action. Initially a disaster for the Romans, in the end the Transalpine Gauls (Arverni, Allobroges, Cadurci, etc) fell out with the Cisalpine Gauls (Insubres, Senones, etc)… feelings that were part of broader Gallic politics in Transalpine proper. The conflict came to a head in 299 BC when the combined group had returned from a raid deep into Roman territory. When “burdened with a great quantity of booty”, they quarrelled over the division and in the end ended up destroying most of the spoils “as well as the best part of their own forces”. Following this slaughter, the opportunistic Romans noted the weakness of the Cisalpine Gauls and decided to finally push north. Thus in 296 BC, the Gauls (still reeling from the slaughter with their brethren) sought an alliance with their former enemies, the Etruscans, Samnites and Umbrians.

Other scholars believe that Celtic superiority lasted much later in the period . Eg. Powell states that he believed the Romans were the weaker party for far longer, that “the Romans finally managed to turned the tide of Gaulish supremacy from the victory at the battle of Telamon (225 BC)”

From these records and educated assumptions we can see that the Romans bested the Celts most of the time. I still stand by the statement that most historians will claim that the Romans were victors most of the time.

So you acknowledge that Roman sources are biased, that they play down, dismiss or ignore Roman defeats yet you are willing to take them on face value because that is what you wish to believe?

An “educated assumption” is looking at the issue in a holistic manner and not assuming things that fit a pre-conceived idea. Looking to the Romans to tell us who won most of the battles is like looking to G.W Bush to tell us if there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Again, one needs to consider the whole picture…including archaeological as well as literary evidence, length of conflicts, resources invested, freedom of movement of the various factions, incidence of raids, anthropological data, etc etc.

Livy may claim that over a half a million Gauls and Samnites were defeated in one battle by four Roman legions, or Plutarch claim that Roman legions jogged half a mile in mid summer and fought for a day against the Cimbri but “were so tough that not a single Roman was seen short of breath or had a bead of sweat” … but the more discerning eye with note the obvious bolox.

Tim Newark-editor of Military Illustrated/Peter Connolly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Connolly /Peter Berresford Ellis(considered the foremost authority on the Celts). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Berresford_Ellis .These authors say it happened, why would it be hard to believe? Ellis in his book Celt and Roman mentions several others like this that happened. What could there be against this? Also there is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viridomarus

Firstly, I’d suggest not relying too heavily on what you read on the net / places like wiki. The ‘info’ is usually provided by those who have no more understanding than you or I.
Secondly, you can’t cite Newark as an expert on the Gauls and whilst I personally adore Ellis, he does tend to be prone to over stating things.
Thirdly, neither Ellis, Connolly nor any other scholar to date has stated that Livy’s account is undeniable fact, they merely recount the telling of the tail. Quite to the contrary in fact, many are explicit in denouncing the account as “dramatic fiction”, which is the point I made previously. James calls it “works of propaganda”, Collis “a dramatised account”, Cunliffe “an entertaining tail”, Hogain “a dramatised anecdote”.

Hogain continues, “that besides strengthening military morale and serving feelings of Roman patriotism, there was a further purpose to such stories, that of family propaganda - for Roman aristocrats of later centuries found it expedient to invent accounts of how their illustrious ancestors had saved the city in times of need”.

In the midst (349-348 BC) of the fictional campaign of Camillus, Livy gives an account of Titus Manlius slaying a huge Celt in single combat, taking his huge torc and the name “Torquatus” for himself. Livy even goes so far as to tell the tale of Marcus Valerius (from Camillus’ forces) slaying a Celt of similar stature after the later was set upon and blinded by a raven!

If one had any appreciation for Celtic culture, one would note the propaganda / message that Livy wished to convey by the telling of these tails. Devoid of roman success, Livy / others invented accounts and used cultural features dear to the Celts to claim supremacy of the Roman cause and power of arms.

My point was to say that the Romans prior to Caesar did go into southern Gaul. Transalpine Gaul according to Barry Cunliffe ("The Ancient Celts") was annexed in 123 BC, over 60 years prior to Caesar entering Gaul…see wiki

Lol… I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood the text. Cunliffe was talking about what the Romans claimed. The Romans hadn’t conquered Gaul at all.. merely a small part.

The Arverni had previously led a large alliance in bitter civil war against the northern Aedui and their confederates. The Arverni Alliance had been victorious and by the beginning of the 2nd C BC, had reduced their enemies to clientage. The Romans were concerned about this turn of events and accordingly sought a casus belli to both weaken the power of the Arverni and gain loot. That opportunity apparently came with the Salluvii. The Romans subsequently sent two consular armies and several Elephants against the Arverni. At the Battle of Vindalium (121 BC) some of the Gallic cavalry were put to flight at the sight of the Elephants. The uncertainty quickly turned to tragedy as the Elephants born down on the bewildered Gauls. When this heavily armoured / veteran force tried to withdraw back across the Rhone, panic set in and the crowded Gallic pontoon bridges collapsed, drowning almost the entire force.

This defeat critically weakened the Arverni and after the Romans made a nominal alliance with their enemy the Aedui, the Romans extended their influence in the south / establish the province of Narbonesis (very bottom of Gaul). The Aedui now emboldened sought to wrest control back from the Arverni and thus the final chapter to this tragic event played out. By the mid 1st C BC, the conflict had all but wiped out the Gallic warrior class.
Which is the whole point I’ve made about this debate.

Most of the battles you listed the Celts outnumbered the Romans, and after some of these battles the Romans avenged themselves on the Celts.

Your starting to sound like a Roman apologist seeking to argue and end point rather that addressing the actual points of the debate. Next you’ll be claiming, like Livy, that Roman’s weren’t defeated by Gauls, they (a whole consular army) were wiped out by falling trees!

The point I made was in response to the claim that “most of the time” the Romans were victorous..therefore they were almost always superior and this therefore should be born out in EB stats.

I have argued several points to the contrary;
A) The above rationale is flawed as it ignores a great deal of additional data
B) Not all battles (esp Roman losses) were recorded
C) Those that are recorded have often been distorted by the gloss of Roman propaganda
D) Many so-called Roman victories were no more than the slaughter non-combatants seeking to defend themselves.
E) One needs to consider chronology and actually play the game before coming to conclusions.

With regard to numbers, the numbers are fairly even in most cases. Much more so than Roman historians would usually like us to believe. I have already recounted Livy’s tale of Romans facing half a million in battle.

Cant argue with you on this particular battle, except for the numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Telamon

I was actually being conservative.

Again drawing from what the aforementioned scholars have written on the subject, the Gauls were heavily outnumbered at Telamon, almost 2 to 1. According to Roman sources, the Gauls started the campaign with 50,000 foot and 20,000 cavalry. The Romans had never faced such a number of Gauls since they sacked the city over a century prior. The inter-Gallic conflict previously mentioned in 299 BC and the subsequent one in 236 BC had severely weakened the Cisalpine Gauls and the Romans had only had to deal with small bands. When the Romans got news of this force, bolstered by large contingents of experienced Transalpine troops, they apparently went mad with fear. Plutarch states “never before nor since were so many thousands of Romans called upon to bear arms at once”. The Romans went on to sacrifice a Greek man and women and a Gallic man and women to propitiate the gods.
Far from the Romans being confident that they had “superior skill” and would thus “most likely be victorious”, they feared the worse. They feared fighting a large experienced force of Gauls.

This Gallic force that Roman historians claim was 70,000 (which is unlikely at the outset) was then forced to leave several thousand to garrison their rear when they were threatened by the Veneti.. It is believed that less that 45,000 marched south. In response (from Roman records), the Romans had mustered several legions and around 100,000 auxilaries / allies. In addition to this they had hundreds of thousands of additional troops spread out along the Gallic line of advance.
Some of these later Roman troops the Gauls bested to sack / loot several to towns in Etruria before heading to Rome. Here they defeated a large Roman army sent to stop them (point of note that again this defeat is relegated to a relative foot note and the leader’s name omitted). By the time both sides faced each other at Telamon, the Gauls would have fielded no more than 30,000 – 40,000 troops. The Romans 70,000 – 80,000. The Gauls, despite their bravery, didn’t stand a chance.

I wont disagree with your first statement, the Celts were tough! The second statement about attrition and the second quote doesnt matter to much to me as I am looking for statistical points for units, not the war…. Yes they raided one another but to my knowledge there was no major infighting during this time. Did the Gauls have a low birth rate or something?

Look the point is very simple. Consider WWII for a moment. One can’t take Hitler’s ‘Home Guard’ circa 1944 complete with units of ‘Hitler Youth’ and assume a correct qualitative evaluation on the standard of German armed forces throughout the conflict. We all know that Germany had very well trained / experienced troops at the outset of the war but as a result of defeat / casualties they could not sustain, their forces had progressively suffered in quality the closer the end came.

I’m merely making the same point about the Gauls. Once that balance of power shifted, and horrendous casualties sustainted, there was no turning back. The Gauls couldn’t sustain the number of warriors required to stem the super power of Rome.

That being said, Rome in the 3rd century BC was at war with Carthage, Illyria,Macedon, Etruscans, etc. etc. Who were the southern Gauls at war with?

Again everyone!

I know you keep talking about merciless slaughters and horrid atrocity's of war that the Romans did. Which one of these people didnt commit any kind of slaughters or atrocity's:Germans,Celts,Samnites,Etruscans etc. etc. Ill give you a hint, it wasnt the Celts, they were as guilty as all of them.

I’m sorry but your wrong on this account. Yes the Germans, Celts, Samnites, Etruscans, etc did terrible things, they weren’t angels by any stretch, but they didn’t engage in systematic genocide like the Romans did.

The numbers do count against the devastation claim of the civil war…. In history there are many peoples who received their veteran status through war. If the Celts were battling amongst themselves they would have vital war experience.

I believe that to be extremely simplistic, albeit flawed thinking. By the same rationale, Hitler’s “Home Guard” should have been elite veterans after 6 long years of war. Same deal. If you kill all your troops, yes you can continue the conflict but don’t expect the mobilised militia to count for much. They are not the same as properly trained and equipped troops. The efficient Germans took several years of peace to prepare for WWII and even then some generals though it too soon.

If you look into the Mogadishu (blackhawk down) situation, the constant warfare and experience is shown. The U.S. expected little resistance from the Somalia's because they didnt really have a standing army. What they forgot to take into account is the constant battling between the warlords which gave the Somalia's battle hardened veterans. There are many more historical precedents for such cases, it is the norm!

Sure, but I’m afraid you have extrapolated a circumstance very different to that which we are discussing here. Of course troops acquire experience over time …If They Live! A dead veteran is no good to anyone..and this was the problem for the Gauls.
The inter gang / tribal conflict of Somalia is very much removed from the blood letting of the Gallic civil war. At the point that the Gallic warrior class was wiped out, the Germans then the Romans became involved. The Gauls didn’t have time for a new generation of warriors to rise to the fore nor for their militia to be mobilised and gain some semblance of experience. It is true that by the battle of Georgovia and Alesia, over a decade had passed and many young Gallic youths had appeared as novice warriors. This is born out in the archaeology record as previously mentioned. But these boys were no where near the same quality of their adult predecessors.

Why doesnt it stand up? Rome at this time as I stated earlier was dealing with multiple opponents. This hypothesis holds up much more then the constant tribal struggles you suggest for the Celts. Am I misunderstanding what your getting at here?

Why you say? ..Well you stated that Rome couldn’t conquer the Gauls because they were distracted fighting Carthage. The point I made was that during the same period (ie when the Romans were supposedly busy fighting Carthage), they managed to conquer other (non Gallic) peoples, thus the hypothesis “does not stand up critical analysis”.


my2bob

[SaFe]

@Psycho:
Concerning the Belgae and here especially the Nervii:
In the future it would be better if you quote my complete sentences, i never disputet that the Nervii were celtic. I just said that they themselves seemed to be proud of germanic heritage - which is wrong.

Concerning the wooden club:
For the typical germanic style of warfare in open field battles the wooden club wouldn't fit.
Also it was in germanic society a sign of wealth to have good quality weapons ( the spear as standard weapon for every warrior doesn't count here ).
A self-made wooden club was ..
a) a poor weapon for germanic battle tactics except ambushes and
b) a weapon without showing the wielders wealth.
So we can assume that it was definately not the most loved weapon of free men or even nobles.

I will ignore your mentioning about "continual denying" here, because it is you who seems to totally ignore the well-known fact about the reason for the lack of weapons, armor or even tools of trade as grave givings again and again.
I would also suggest if you would take a look at your own sentences. You say germanics use clubs on a large scale, but here also we have no other source as Tacitus (and one picture on a roman column) whom you seem to believe only if it fits you.
Naturally you will also not find archaelogical proofs of your point here, because of the germanic tradition of burning of their dead.
Final note from me concerning clubs:
I said never that clubs were not used. I only said that by all we know about germanic sense of honour concerning weapons and style of warfare before AD the club was not the most loved weapon.

Concerning the swords:
Again Tacitus. If Tacitus is your source here than i hope you don't forget to mention the beastmen of the northeastern tribes. You should read something about the iron finds in germanic lands and also i'm sure we both don't know at what time those sword-rituals started.
Interesting that the Cheruscii ( a tribe that existed well before the time you mentioned ) named themselves Sword-People in their own language without any access to swords or the knowledge to fabricate them as you seem to imply.

Concerning Ariovist and his conquest of the Aedui:
Gallic propaganda tour 73BC

Concerning the Cimbrii and Boii:
Cheap shot from you and not your usual style - i never said that the Cimbri or Ambronii were better combatants than their Boii counterparts. But it is well known that the Boii had a very good defensive position and no major battle between those tribes are mentioned, so we can assume that the wandering germanic tribes gave up and marched on for easier targets. Surely some fighting took place, but perhaps you could find some evidence of major battles between them. But it seems logical, that the Cimbrii who travelled along with their families would not try to asault fortified oppida's or even try to lay some kind of siege. Even against the romans they tried to fight open field battles and the Boii would have been very dumb to fulfill the germanics their wishes, as they had a better position.

Hopefully we could agree at least at some points here.
Wish you well

[Frostwulf]

Orb what Im trying to say, apparently not very well is that the attack factor and defense factors are higher in Celtic units then on the Roman and German units albiet sometimes slightly. I simply just disagree with the numbers is all.

Anyway, "palace guard" units like the Praetorians, stationed in an imperial capital far from the constant low-intensity action of the ever-troubled borders, have always tended towards a nasty tendency to becoming "parade units" of rather lower military calibre than their running costs and prestige would make one except, with entry requirements having a bad habit of degenerating into issues of pure politics, favouritism and brown-nosing (not to say outright bribery...). Although I understand the Praetorians were relatively well able to maintain their military usefulness.

I agree with you on this, I should have chosen a different unit for an example. Your last sentence is true as well in that they did have some constant warfare experience. Marcus Aurelius and a few others used them in combat.

if you mean the Cisalpines, come on now. They were like the Po river valley vs. the whole rest of the peninsula, with no quarantees of any kind of assistance from either the mountain tribes or the Transalpines (who in any case were busy fighting each other and the Germans). If nothing else the Romans were able to wear them down by sheer attrition over time, nevermind now "turning" them bit by bit to their own side. It doesn't take great genius to realize being a subject-ally tends to be preferable to being eradicated, all the more so given the rather Assyrian approach the Romans had to intractability. Not that a very vae victis approach to defeated foes wasn't rather more the norm than the exception those days anyway, but I understand the Romans were fairly good at exploiting it as a psychological weapon.

Not that this has a bearing on this topic...
For Cisalpines are you talking about the Boii and their allying themselves with the Etruscans and Samnites to attack the Romans(295 BC - Battle of Sentinum , 283 BC - Battle of Lake Vadimo etc,etc)? Are you talking about the Insubres, Cenomani, Lingones and Senones who were also allied to the Boii? Who were attacking the Celts in Cisalpine? The Romans won through major battles not just piecemeal. Yes after these battles some of the tribes would join the Romans, but they were for the most part conquered.
Romans wear them down through attrition? Again look at who Rome was fighting during this time. Rome had way more foes then the Celts did in Cisalpine! How is it that the Celts are susceptible to attrition yet the Romans are not? It was the loss in 191BC of the Boii that ended any real Celtic problems in Cisapine.

You're missing the point of the division of labour in Celtic society and warfare. The fighting was done by the warrior class (and mercenaries); the commoner levy only became involved in dire emergencies (primarily the defense of their homes, I understand) and was not normally mobilized for offensive operations (with the possible exception of the segments providing the missile troops), ie. not only was their training rather poor but whatever combat experience they might earn was very sporadic, often quite brief and dismal, and quite possibly finished with getting massacred or sold into slavery.

Do recall that the Celts did not ascribe to the same sort of fully tribal warfare as the Germans for example did.

Im not going to completely disagree with you on this.I have not done much studying on this subject. "The Celts fought as a tribal army and were probably divided into septs or sub-divisions of the tribe just as they were 2000 years later at Culloden"/ "The Celtic military system, as it survived in Scotland in 1745, was that every male over the 'age of choice', usually seventeen years old, and fit enough to carry arms was automatically part of the 'regiment' of his clan or tribe. The chieftain was the automatic commander. Brother fought with brother, father with son." -Peter Ellis
I have 4 books that deal with the Celts but only Celt&Roman-Peter Ellis even comes close to addressing this issue. What Ellis is saying seems to differ from what your saying. Ellis does mention an Elite upper class but in no way says anything about them being the only warriors. If you know where I can find out information on this subject please post it, Id like to know which book or article etc. I just dont have anything that addresses this subject.

Oh come on. The warlords had thousands of irregular Tupac Army gunmen who had to chew drugs to deal with their fear, and had never been told blasting away at full auto is chiefly a good way to waste ammunition. The fighting lasted for something like half a day, and the total American casualties amounted to under twenty.

You try to do battle with comparable forces against an opponent of comparably vastly higher calibre in the context of premodern warfare, and what you most get is an utter massacre. Which in fact seems to more often than not have been exactly the result whenever the Celts had to try to fight the Romans head on mainly with their tribal levies, and duly why for example (AFAIK) Vercingetorix's strategy was one of harassement and guerilla warfare, not pitched battle (which in turn Caesar did his best to force). Any rag-tag bunch of bandits and angry natives can pull off frustrating guerilla warfare well enough.

Im just repeating what the commander of the Delta's said. Yes they chewed drugs but he also said they had considerable experience from constant in-fighting amongst themselves. This wasnt the one day event your mentioning, its the time they were there and the problems they had with the soms. The soms knew what they were doing and were not green, thats what Im getting at. Of course the U.S. is going to thump on the soms, better equipment and better training. But what would have been the course if the soms had no practical experience?This isnt a new thing, in the U.S. civil war, the U.S. revolution, medieval warfare and etc. soldiers get experience fighting in wars therefore becoming more effective warriors.
I dont remember reading about Vercingetorix guerilla warfare though I do know that he had some problems with others not associated with Vercingetorix. Regardless Vercingetorix didnt want a pitched battle simply because the Romans had overall better soldiers. Not that his soldiers were inexperienced, after all Vercingetorix did spend around a year getting his people trained. The Celts must have had some warfare experience from the raids and infighting. But what it comes down to is the Romans had the better soldiers, this is due to their tactics and discipline.
About the Arverni Guard, I still dont remember Caesar saying anything or doing anything to avoid them. Where was this mentioned?
As far as the Germans are concerned Im thinking it would be easier to start a new thread on them then to continue with them here.

[NeoSpartan]

....

The numbers do count against the devastation claim of the civil war as it shows that there were plenty of people around and were not completely ground down due to civil war. In history there are many peoples who received their veteran status through war. If the Celts were battling amongst themselves they would have vital war experience.If these wars are long drawn out events then training would take place in addition to the war experience. During these times it is rare for entire armies to be wiped out. If these people had enough people to continue these wars they would be getting war exp. I dont buy that all the experienced soldiers were wiped out and only green troops were left. If you look into the Mogadishu (blackhawk down) situation, the constant warfare and experience is shown. The U.S. expected little resistance from the Somalia's because they didnt really have a standing army. What they forgot to take into account is the constant battling between the warlords which gave the Somalia's battle hardened veterans. There are many more historical precedents for such cases, it is the norm!

....

Let me point out somethign, all wars are different. What happens in one civil war, does not happen in all civil wars, there are too many variables involved. With that in mind I continue:

You state: If the Celts were battling amongst themselves they would have vital war experience.If these wars are long drawn out events then training would take place in addition to the war experience. During these times it is rare for entire armies to be wiped out.

-Says who? Depending on the intensity of a conflict a nation will either drain its expireinced forces and adult males, or it will end up with a good number of expirienced soldiers. Also, not only do entire Armies are destroyed but entire towns and populations are exterminated too. Again it all depends on the intensity of the conflict, and what the winning side decides to do when they conquer enemy towns. In the case of the Gallic Civil war killing for killing's sake was common practice. To illustrate this point, think of General Sherman marching throught the South in the American Civil War.

You also state: If these people had enough people to continue these wars they would be getting war exp.
-Or they could have just as easely field young men and boys to battle, as the war drags on and the casualties mount.

Now this is just off, seriously: I dont buy that all the experienced soldiers were wiped out and only green troops were left. If you look into the Mogadishu (blackhawk down) situation, the constant warfare and experience is shown. The U.S. expected little resistance from the Somalia's because they didnt really have a standing army. What they forgot to take into account is the constant battling between the warlords which gave the Somalia's battle hardened veterans.

First, soldiers and adult males were dying out, and young men and boys are then FIELDED into battle with some/no trainning.

Now, in Mogadishu the US sent in an EXTRACTION team of Rangers and Delta Force supported by Transport Black Hawck helicopters. And those soldiers were to be picked up by a small convoy of Hummvees and trucks along with the prisoners. All these men were fighting against and ENTIRE CITY, where men and children, doped up, and wielding AKs where going after them. And, at the end of the day, 19 US soldiers (R.I.P) were killed, and one taken prisoner.

Another point about the ongoing Somali civil war. In this particular conflict you don't see towns burnt to the ground and entire populations massacered. So far the capital city, Mogadishu. has exchanged many hands from local War Chiefs, the Islamists, to the National Somali gov't (which is exiled in Ethiopa).

[Watchman]

Romans wear them down through attrition? Again look at who Rome was fighting during this time. Rome had way more foes then the Celts did in Cisalpine! How is it that the Celts are susceptible to attrition yet the Romans are not? It was the loss in 191BC of the Boii that ended any real Celtic problems in Cisapine.

How many times will I have to repeat this, I wonder ? Whatever the shortcomings of the armies it produced (especially right after being formed, when the soldiers weren't yet "knit" to units), the militia system gave the Romans a huge manpower pool to draw on, plus allies and subjects on top of that. Look at the way they just kept conjuring up new fully equipped legions during Hannibal's rampage; they suffered truly catastrophic casualties on several occasions, but that in no way kept them from raising enough armies to contain the Big H in Italy and simultaneously press the Carthies back on at least two other theaters - and I'd be surprised if they didn't have to deal with a couple of opportunistic Celtic raids on the side to boot.

The Celtic "heroic" system may have produced better warriors, but it could never have absorbed such appalling losses with such ease and kept on going. Its warriors took a long time to train to the required level of skill and courage, and serious setbacks and casualties could well mean they had to wait for a more or less entirely new generation of warriors to "grow to the role" so to speak.

And the Romans were stubborn. Bulldogs, figuratively speaking. Both strategically and tactically they had a noticeable tendency towards sheer bloody-minded tenacity, trying to just plain outlast and wear out the opponent on the battlefield, and on larger scale they typically just kept throwing armies at the salient problem until it had had enough and either collapsed or went away.

The Cisalpine Gauls may have been able to raid deep down the Italian peninsula, but they apaprently never established permanent footholds there (probably as even trying would have subjected them to an endless stream of angry militiamen from the assorted rather territorial Latin peoples). What that means is that they did damage, but hardly something the Romans and others could not recover from - there was always someone willing to take over the devastated farmland, and duly fill the rosters of the militia (and under the professional legions, well, there was always all kinds of flotsam and jetsam willing to enlist in exchange of steady meals and a roof over their heads). Once the Romans grew relatively strong enough to start hitting back, however, the Cisalpines with their rather smaller territoty and decidely poorer rate of replacing casualties would have been in major strategic trouble - and the bloodletting and quakes inside the Celtic world did not help one bit.

Im not going to completely disagree with you on this.I have not done much studying on this subject. "The Celts fought as a tribal army and were probably divided into septs or sub-divisions of the tribe just as they were 2000 years later at Culloden"/ "The Celtic military system, as it survived in Scotland in 1745, was that every male over the 'age of choice', usually seventeen years old, and fit enough to carry arms was automatically part of the 'regiment' of his clan or tribe. The chieftain was the automatic commander. Brother fought with brother, father with son." -Peter Ellis
I have 4 books that deal with the Celts but only Celt&Roman-Peter Ellis even comes close to addressing this issue. What Ellis is saying seems to differ from what your saying. Ellis does mention an Elite upper class but in no way says anything about them being the only warriors. If you know where I can find out information on this subject please post it, Id like to know which book or article etc. I just dont have anything that addresses this subject.

I'd say it's cutting corners a bit too close to assume the fighting tradition of the Highland clans can be taken as a representative of Celtic armies a good two millenia earlier in any but the most vague sense. In any case I understand the Highlanders' main punch came from their warrior nobles, the gentry, who were supported by the deep but by far less formidable rank and file commoners of the clans. The aristocrats, well equipped and trained, formed the front ranks and led their fellows forward by example; the common clansmen, little more than mobs of tribal irregulars really, followed to the best of their ability, and provided the numbers. If one wants to find analogies to for example the Gallic armies of Antiquity, about most that can be said is that the gentry were roughly analogous to the warrior class of old (at least in their military function) and the rank-and-file to the emergency tribal levies. But frankly I have a feeling the Highland tradition was closer to a true "tribal" or perhaps a quasi-feudal form of warfare, than the ancient Celtic system with its specialized warrior class that normally all but monopolized warfare.

This isnt a new thing, in the U.S. civil war, the U.S. revolution, medieval warfare and etc. soldiers get experience fighting in wars therefore becoming more effective warriors.

Experience in banditry, pillaging and fighting equally incompetent gunmen in clumsy skirmishes that would make any trained officer weep in despair hardly builds a fighting force capable of taking on well-equipped soldiers trained to do the whole thing right from the start. What such troops mostly learn that way is competence in banditry, not soldiering. It takes dedicated drill and training to turn volatile rabble into dependable soldiers.

And the thing is, the Celts had no institutionalized methods for doing so quickly. Their whole military tradition was based on patiently building up experience and war gear over a long period (and, obviously, the slow learners Darwinizing in the process...), with a mighty hero as the end product. What they would have needed at the time the Romans and Germans began to invade Celtic territory with serious intent was a system that would have allowed the mobilizing of commoners into effective fighting units, in the manner of the citizen-soldiers of Classical Greece and Republican Rome or the every-man-a-warrior approach of the Germans and others with less specialized division of labour.

I would actually hazard a guess the Celts on the whole just plain could not let go of their old "hero" system even when it was visibly failing them; it seems to have been very deeply integrated into their society and worldview, and they would not have been neither the first nor the last ones to sink grimly holding onto a dear but useless if not outright harmful relic.

[Frostwulf]

I just finish posting and what happens
Im glad to see you back again Psyco
Im sure I dont understand the mechanics of the game so I hope you dont mind answering my questions. Do the Celtic units degrade to reflect there loss in power? Are the 4th and 5th century Celtic units better then the 3rd century Celts who's armor began to improve then (according to Ellis)? If I was to take a 4th or 5th century Celtic unit against a 2nd century Celt unit of the same level(elite vs elite) would the 4th-5th be stronger, if so why? Again this is going strictly by the stats of the overall unit, not whats going on around him. In other words would an Arverni Guard unit be beaten by an elite 4th-5th century elite unit, and if so why(both game and historically, only referring to the units ability).

Well for one I believe you are again trying to court the argument in terms of your pre-conceived understanding of Imperial Rome….ignoring the importance of chronology in the process. You can’t extrapolate an elite unit to a period decades if not centuries prior. By the same rationale one could claim that US forces were always superior to French because the modern US Home Gaurd could always best the Napoleonic Imperial Guard.
In the 4th C BC the Praetorian Guard didn’t even exist. When the unit did begin to evolve in the 3rd C BC, it wasn’t anything significant.

This is what Im wondering if EB is doing about using stats from one era to another. Would an elite Celtic unit from the 3rd cent. beat the 1st cent. praetorian? About the same question as above. Do you believe that 5th and 4th century Celts transported by time or whatever could defeat like Celts in the 2nd century, historically speaking and game speaking? Are you saying that the 5th and 4th cent. Celts are more powerful to their enemies as compared to the Celts of the 2nd cent. vs their enemies?

Arrr..Everyone! Remember ‘these Gauls’ who you believe were of “inferior skill” were in fact cherished as mercenaries throughout the entire ancient world / from Iberia to the Indus. There was a very good reason for this and I have to say, it had nothing to do with them lacking any skill / being a push over in battle / or in any other way inferior.

I was thinking of them as a group and forgetting about them as mercenaries. Yes they were known for their cavalry.

Oh please! Don’t throw up accounts of Camillus as fact, next you’ll be claiming Roman accounts of Remus and Romulus were fact too.

So are you saying Camillus was not a real person or his feats were exaggerated? If you say exaggerated I would agree with you up to a point.
the rest of your quote Ill address after your next quote.

So you acknowledge that Roman sources are biased, that they play down, dismiss or ignore Roman defeats yet you are willing to take them on face value because that is what you wish to believe?

An “educated assumption” is looking at the issue in a holistic manner and not assuming things that fit a pre-conceived idea. Looking to the Romans to tell us who won most of the battles is like looking to G.W Bush to tell us if there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Again, one needs to consider the whole picture…including archaeological as well as literary evidence, length of conflicts, resources invested, freedom of movement of the various factions, incidence of raids, anthropological data, etc etc.

Livy may claim that over a half a million Gauls and Samnites were defeated in one battle by four Roman legions, or Plutarch claim that Roman legions jogged half a mile in mid summer and fought for a day against the Cimbri but “were so tough that not a single Roman was seen short of breath or had a bead of sweat” … but the more discerning eye with note the obvious bolox.

We both agree that the romans exaggerate, but you are doing exactly the same thing you accuse me of doing! You take what you want to read from the Romans (battle losses, cruelty,or Celtic stories of heroism, etc), but you wont take the opposite view(Celtic losses, cruelty, stories of Roman heroism etc). Your sources, yes the modern ones are just as bias! More on this below.

Firstly, I’d suggest not relying too heavily on what you read on the net / places like wiki. The ‘info’ is usually provided by those who have no more understanding than you or I.
Secondly, you can’t cite Newark as an expert on the Gauls and whilst I personally adore Ellis, he does tend to be prone to over stating things.
Thirdly, neither Ellis, Connolly nor any other scholar to date has stated that Livy’s account is undeniable fact, they merely recount the telling of the tail. Quite to the contrary in fact, many are explicit in denouncing the account as “dramatic fiction”, which is the point I made previously. James calls it “works of propaganda”, Collis “a dramatised account”, Cunliffe “an entertaining tail”, Hogain “a dramatised anecdote”.

Hogain continues, “that besides strengthening military morale and serving feelings of Roman patriotism, there was a further purpose to such stories, that of family propaganda - for Roman aristocrats of later centuries found it expedient to invent accounts of how their illustrious ancestors had saved the city in times of need”.

In the midst (349-348 BC) of the fictional campaign of Camillus, Livy gives an account of Titus Manlius slaying a huge Celt in single combat, taking his huge torc and the name “Torquatus” for himself. Livy even goes so far as to tell the tale of Marcus Valerius (from Camillus’ forces) slaying a Celt of similar stature after the later was set upon and blinded by a raven!

If one had any appreciation for Celtic culture, one would note the propaganda / message that Livy wished to convey by the telling of these tails. Devoid of roman success, Livy / others invented accounts and used cultural features dear to the Celts to claim supremacy of the Roman cause and power of arms.

I completely agree with you on wikipedia, I use them rarely for the problems you say. I used them for the authors for the sake of verification.
None of the authors I mentioned seem to have a problem with the duels. "but the Romans had even beaten the Celts at their own game. Challenged to single combat by the chieftan of the Insurbres, M.Claudius Marcellus accepted" -Newark. He goes on to tell of how Marcellus won."The surprise is that the consul Claudius Marcellu accepted the challenge in spit of the law forbidding single combat by Roman officers. He succeded in slaying Viridomarus and the Celtic army crumble before a renewed Roman attack"-Ellis
These quotes sound like they believe it to me. The Titus Manlius one also finds its way into Ellis's book, he even goes on to mention more. The Roman troops would have witnessed these events and if the person involved said it happened dont you think that a least one of the Romans would have let the cat out of the bag? With these guys being of high rank and political dont you think that their enemies would have made a stink about it?What facts are there to disprove these duels? Is it impossible for a Roman to beat a Celt in a duel? I think that its interesting that your quoted authors seem to think that it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
My point was to say that the Romans prior to Caesar did go into southern Gaul. Transalpine Gaul according to Barry Cunliffe ("The Ancient Celts") was annexed in 123 BC, over 60 years prior to Caesar entering Gaul…see wiki

Lol… I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood the text. Cunliffe was talking about what the Romans claimed. The Romans hadn’t conquered Gaul at all.. merely a small part.

I considered Transalpine Gaul as southern Gaul. I only meant that the Romans had entered into and annexed Transalpine Gaul, just the southern part of Gaul not its entirety.

Your starting to sound like a Roman apologist seeking to argue and end point rather that addressing the actual points of the debate. Next you’ll be claiming, like Livy, that Roman’s weren’t defeated by Gauls, they (a whole consular army) were wiped out by falling trees!

The point I made was in response to the claim that “most of the time” the Romans were victorous..therefore they were almost always superior and this therefore should be born out in EB stats.

I have argued several points to the contrary;
A) The above rationale is flawed as it ignores a great deal of additional data
B) Not all battles (esp Roman losses) were recorded
C) Those that are recorded have often been distorted by the gloss of Roman propaganda
D) Many so-called Roman victories were no more than the slaughter non-combatants seeking to defend themselves.
E) One needs to consider chronology and actually play the game before coming to conclusions.

With regard to numbers, the numbers are fairly even in most cases. Much more so than Roman historians would usually like us to believe. I have already recounted Livy’s tale of Romans facing half a million in battle.

Im not a Roman appologist, I see their failings. Of course the falling tree's is just plain dumb. A) Archealogical data? can be very misleading and the interpretation can be way off.B) Agreed, and I assume nearly 100percent wins were.C)agreed.D)I disagree, most troop types are mentioned when they did have battles.They may mention slaughters but those arent battles. E) Yea

Look the point is very simple. Consider WWII for a moment. One can’t take Hitler’s ‘Home Guard’ circa 1944 complete with units of ‘Hitler Youth’ and assume a correct qualitative evaluation on the standard of German armed forces throughout the conflict. We all know that Germany had very well trained / experienced troops at the outset of the war but as a result of defeat / casualties they could not sustain, their forces had progressively suffered in quality the closer the end came.

I’m merely making the same point about the Gauls. Once that balance of power shifted, and horrendous casualties sustainted, there was no turning back. The Gauls couldn’t sustain the number of warriors required to stem the super power of Rome.

Excellent analogy. I just not sure its applicable. Ill have to read more on the Gallic infighting.

Why you say? ..Well you stated that Rome couldn’t conquer the Gauls because they were distracted fighting Carthage. The point I made was that during the same period (ie when the Romans were supposedly busy fighting Carthage), they managed to conquer other (non Gallic) peoples, thus the hypothesis “does not stand up critical analysis”.

I must be missing something. Im saying that Rome was caught up with many enemies and they would have had the same hard time as the Celts. Just because the Celts gave way doesnt mean the Romans didnt have the same problems. The Romans were successfully attacking the Celts,Illyrians,Greeks and etc. why would it only befall the Celts that they lose to attrition? I must be missing something. Sorry Psyco your just going to have to break out the crayons for me.
Alot of these last ones were rushed as Im pressed for time, sorry about that. Psyco if you wouldnt mind putting down the first names of the authors you mentioned, Id like to find more out about them.