Celtic overpowered!

[PSYCHO V]

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?

Ok….. no, the game mechanics do not allow EB to do so and your missing the point here. EB is not seeking to replicate the course of history / guarantee the Celts are defeated and the Romans victorious. Otherwise everything would be strictly scripted and the player afforded little / no choice. In fact if one wishes to have history represented accurately, you’d be watching a documentary…not gaming at all.

Now you claim the Celts are over powered in EB but do so whilst projecting a simplified / generic view of Roman superiority devoid of any consideration of time, circumstance, etc. EB is a game that provides the player with a historically accurate paradigm to explore the ancient world of ‘what if’. Hence the Celts in EB are not depicted in a weakened state no more than the Romans (any other faction) are depicted when they happened to be starving, emaciated, flighty / green, tactically rebellious, etc etc. EB have (after a great deal of research and debate) taken what a standard / reasonably generic unit was like and reflected that in game. Using what one may call intrinsic value devoid of other 'short term' / circumstantial / ‘environmental’ factors that deviated them from their 'norm'.

The EB world, whilst limited by historical constraints, provides a mechanism to greatly diverge from ‘history’ as we know it. Thus, one may find EB’s Celtic factions in a stronger position in game (ie wealth / heavy units, etc) that what they were in real life depending on gameplay / AI player choices. To force any faction, whether it be Celtic, Roman, Greek, Iberian, Germanic etc etc into a pre-conceived box devoid of any historical imperative is a grave injustice to those peoples, history and contrary to the principles and directives of EB.

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? ….

If I personally had a choice between taking an actual 4th / 5th C BC Gaul or a 1st C BC Gaul for a body guard, I’d be taking the 4th / 5th C BC Gaul. Not because on any difference in intrinsic value but because by the 1st C BC, the Gallic states weren’t in a position to properly supply, equip and train their warrior elites to the same proficiency.

As I answered you before…

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

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

I don’t know how else I can spell this out.

This is what Im wondering if EB is doing about using stats from one era to another. 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?.

Yes …because by the 2nd C BC the Celts were on the decline. Their neighbours had gotten stronger so there was more incentive to kill the guy next door and make off quick with your spoils rather than track hundreds / thousands of miles into uncertainty and try and lug the stuff home through unfamiliar, inhospitable terrain. This internal blood letting with the growing power of their neighbours completely tipped the balance of power. Few peoples / states in history have manage to successfully fend off several strong powers whilst engaging in a bloody civil war.

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

Not just the cavalry my friend. Celtic Gauls (As oppose to Romanised Gauls) were being use for elite body guards well into the 1st C AD.

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.

What part of ‘fiction’ do you not understand?. This ‘Arthurian’ Camillus character may well have existed (with or without a magical sword) / we will never know for sure.. but his feats / campaign are the work of a creative mind according to the world’s top scholars.

Your sources, yes the modern ones are just as bias! More on this below.

Well? You got my attention. I was looking forward to the said critique of our “modern sources”

None of the authors I mentioned seem to have a problem with the duels.

Newark and Ellis you mean…ignoring (I might add) my comments on both. Newark isn’t what one would call a Celtic expert and takes things on face / Roman value.

"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.

Do you know why there was “surprise”? Read Goldsworthy on the strict Roman law pertaining to leaving one’s station to seek single combat. It’s a dramatic fabrication by Livy.

He succeded in slaying Viridomarus and the Celtic army crumble before a renewed Roman attack"-Ellis.

Ellis is recounting the tale exactly as Livy had written it. He is not claiming it as unequivocal fact.
Again, as previously stated, I love Ellis but he’s prone to over stating. I could write a whole thesis on all of the aforementioned Scholars but I just don’t have the time and you’ll either have to take me at my word or do your own reading.

These quotes sound like they believe it to me. ….. 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.

So you’re willing to dismiss the opinions of some of the worlds leading scholars because….?

I don’t know what else to say?

I have tried to coin the debate in simple terms.
Now this will no doubt sound condescending but that is not my intention. If you are serious about debating this issue, may I suggest the following readings;

For the fictious campaign of Camillus; Livy (5.49), Plutarch, Camillos (29), Dionysius of Halicarnassus (13.6; 14.9), Appian’s ‘Celtica’ (1.1, 4-9 ..well the fragment we have), Frontinus’ ‘Strategematon’ (2.6.1;3.13.1) .. and then read ‘Camillus: Indo European Religion as Roman History’, Georges Dumezil.

For other early fictious Roman wars / victories against the Celts – Florus (1.7 (1.13)), Livy (6.42; 7.1-15, 22-26), Dionysius of Halicarnassus (13.6; 14.8-10;15.1), Dio Cassius (7.24), Diodorus (14.5-7), Appian’s ‘Celtica’ (1.1-2 ..again from the fragments we have), Frontinus’ ‘Strategematon’ (2.4.5) ..and then ‘Sur l’Historie des Celtes’, Arbois de Jubainville …if you can manage to get a copy ..let alone in English.

Once read, then come back and explain / debate with me about how great / superior the Romans were in the 5th, 4th and early 3rd C BC.

Im not a Roman appologist, I see their failings. Of course the falling tree's is just plain dumb.

Good to hear

Re: WWII; Excellent analogy….Ill have to read more on the Gallic infighting.

I had assumed you already had. What I’d like to know however, is how one comes to the conclusion that “The Celts were not devastated in Gaul until the Germanic invasions of the 400's”?

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.

Yes plenty of people, as there were in Nazi Germany, circa 1945. Numbers prove nothing. Large numbers of trained well equipped forces count for everything.

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? …Sorry Psyco your just going to have to break out the crayons for me.

Ok… where’s those crayons!

Ok for starters, you clearly stated that you believed the Romans couldn’t / most likely didn't conquer the Gauls because they were distracted fighting Carthage. “There was a reason why the Romans had not succeeded in conquering Transalpine Gaul in the previous 300 years of conflict…because of the other wars going on like with carthage..”

Now, when this statement was critically examined / debunked it appears you wished to ignore the former debate and present a new line of inquiry… “attrition”..shifting focus. That’s fine but you probably should concede the former point if you believe it no longer tenable / you no longer wish to defend it…else I’ll just keep rabbiting on about it.

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.

I believe what you’ve missed here is context. You claim that the Romans suffered attrition too / fought other ‘factions’. This therefore (according to your implied rationale) excludes the likelihood of such circumstances / suppositions as an inherent Celtic weakness being due to conditions. I believe the rationale is inherently flawed / wrong because it ignores context.

Context! Again if I may use the WWII analogy. How many millions of men did the Soviets loose on their push to Berlin? Did it strategically cripple or weaken them, no! They had the momentum, supplies, resources, etc to absorb the losses. By 1944 the Germans didn’t, their state was exhausted. The situation though markedly different in many regards reflects the situation between the Romans and the Celts.. The Roman juggernaut lumbered on regardless of cost. Any historian will tell you that few / if any state could sustain the casualties Rome could and still push on. Even the great Hannibal was forced to acknowledge this.

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.

Ok, sorry. So what was your point?

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)…

What exactly are you talking about here?


my2bob