Re: Celtic overpowered!
No prob, working a lot myself… and no offence intended here...and sorry for the delay in response.Originally Posted by Frostwulf
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 CivilIve 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.
True
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
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.
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”.
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.
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)”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Again everyone!
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.
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.
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 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
Bookmarks