Celtic overpowered!

[Frostwulf]

-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.

Others have said other such things, but this is what Im trying to get at.

Simon James "The World of The Celts"- Hannibal's final defeat at Zama in 202bc however left the battle-hardened Romans free to resume the conquest of the north, and the Boii and the ...."pg.122

Peter B. Ellis "The Celtic Empire"-"The Belgae confederation had come into being to fight the encroachments of the Germans and had been hardened by years of border conflict. pg.133

H.D.Rankin "Celts and the Classical World"-"Polybius also makes the point that as a result of the experience of war that they gained in fighting the Celts, the Romans wre the better able to face the challenge of the war with Pyrrhus(280bc), and also to make war successfully against the Carthaginians."pg.110

For Rome the 2nd punic wars took a heavy toll on the Romans, yet we have "battle-hardened" soldiers.Ill also talk about the Gallic civil war further below. Now in the case of the Celts Ill begin to show the superiority of the Romans in skill at arms and how attrition takes its place.

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

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

In your first paragraph what defeats not recorded or lost are you talking about? What sources are you using?
The second paragraph about attrition as I stated above will be addressed below.

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

4th century B.C.
390- Allia: Gauls defeat Romans and Sack Rome
367- Velitrae: Romans route or defeat Gauls.
360- Near Rome:Romans defeat Gauls and Latins
360- Near Tibur:Romans defeat Gauls and Latins
357-351 No mention of Gauls, Syracuse may have used them as mercenaries.
348- Pomptine area: Romans defeat Gauls or Gauls retreated.
338- Praeneste: Romans defeat Gauls.
334- Treaty with Celts supposed to last 30yrs.
From 334-299 there have been no Gallic involvement of note with the Romans. The Romans continue towards conquest of Central and southern Italy during this time.This is the time of the 4th century "stronger" Celts? Im not trying by any means to say the Celts are weak, Im just pointing out that they lost most of the battles during this time. So again we have the "stronger" Celts losing most of the time to the "weaker" Semi-Militia style Romans. Ill state once again the Celt units are to strong in EB compared to their Roman and German counterparts.
Now lets take a look at attrition during this period, to our knowledge their is none. There doesnt seem to be any tribal clashes nor any prolonged warfare, there were some raids and a few pitched battles in which the "stronger" Celts were chased off or defeated. Here is what some of the authors said about this period of time.

Mackay "Ancient Rome"-"The Gauls returned and despite tepid assistance from the Latins the Romans defeated them with little difficulty"pg.46

Connoly "Greece And Rome At War"-"During the 4th century the Gauls mounted a succession of plundering raids in central Italy. Usually they were deflected by the stronger groups-the Etruscans, Latins and Samnites-and were channelled into Apulia, where it is possible that the founded permanent communities".pg.113

After listing the 3rd century battles Ill discuss raids and more about attrition.
3rd Century
299* see notes below
297- Camerinum: Gauls and Samnites defeat Romans
295- Sentinum: Romans defeat Gauls and Samnites
284- Arretium: Gauls(Senones) defeat Romans
284-?: Romans send a punitive expedition and rout the Gauls(Senones) and chased them out of Italy
283-Vadimon: Romans defeat Gauls(Boii) and Etruscans
283- ? Romans defeat Gauls(Boii) once again.
283* see notes below
238* see notes below
225-Faesulae: Gauls(Boii,Insubres,Taurisci and Gaesatae) defeat Romans
225-Telemon: Romans defeat Gauls(Boii,Insubres,Taurisci and Gaesatae)
224- Boii Land: Romans ravage the Boii territory
223- Bergamo: Romans defeat Gauls(Insubres)
222- Clastidim: Romans defeat Gauls(Insubres)
218- Boii Land: Gauls(Boii) stop Roman advance.
216- Mutina: Gauls defeat Romans
205-Ligurian coast: Romans defeat Carthage with a massive durbar of Gauls and Ligurians
201-?: Gauls defeat Romans
200-Near Ariminum: Romans defeat Gauls
199- Placentia: Gauls(Insubres) defeat Romans
197-?: Romans defeat Gauls and Hamilcar(Hannibal's brother)
196-?: Romans defeat Gauls
195-?: Romans defeat Gauls or is indecisive.
194-?: Indecisive battle
193- Mutina Romans defeat Gauls
191- ?: Romans defeat Gauls
This List was compiled with the main sources of Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier" pgs.11-38/ H.D.Rankin "Celts and the Classical World" pgs. 107-116/ David Matz "An Ancient Rome Chronology 264-27 B.C." pgs.75-80. The minor sources used are-Connolly "Greece and Rome at War"/ Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"/ Simon James "The World of The Celts".
*This denotes inter-tribal warfare.

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.

So the opportunistic Romans decided to go through enemy Etruscan lands to get at the Celts because they knew they were weakened? Were they also going to totally ignore the Umbrians and the Samnites?

H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical World"-"They made their way through Etruria where they were joined by a number of the inhabitants who were anxious to do the Romans some harm. Although these expeditionaries obtained considerable plunder which they managed to take home,they were weakened by internecine quarrels of the kind, Polybius says (2.19), which arise from excessive eating and drinking. In 297 BC the Celts and the Samnites joined together against Rome and defeated a Roman army at Camertium. But the Celts were chased out of the territory of Sentinum by Roman consular armies. Samnites and Celts suffered substantial losses.".pg.110

Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier"-"The year 299 B.C. saw a new attack on Etruria by the Gauls. The Etruscans bought them off and even attempted to turn them against Rome. The Gauls were only willing to follow that risky course if the Etruscans promised them land on which to settle. Fearing such barbarian neighbors, the Etruscans paid off the Gauls and sent them home. Livy mentions the false rumor of a Gallic tumultus at Rome in 299 B.C., while Polybius describes a full-fledged Gallic raid, sparked by the arrival of new tribesmen from over the Alps. The stereotypical accounts of Gallic drinking and internecine strife suggest that the details of Polybius' account should be viewed with caution. The fears of the Romans were real, however, and they reacted vigorously. Ties with Picenum were strengthened. At Narnia, some seventy kilometers up the Tiber valley a settlement was founded to guard the Apennine approaches to Rome. Unrest continued in both Etruria and in the Samnium. Finally, in 296 B.C. Etruscans and Samnites coalesce into a threat to Rome. The uprising ended only with the great Roman victory and Sentinum in 295 B.C."pg.23

283BC*
H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical World"- "Five years had still to pass before the Celts who invaded Greece were defeated at Delphi. Throughout this period, Polybius comments, war raged like a plague amongst the Celtic peoples (2.20)." pg.110

This event took place after the defeats and destruction of the Senones and after the two battles with the Boii.

238BC*
H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical World"-"Some of the Boii made plans to thwart the warlike intentions of their leader. They killed their own two kings, Atis and Galatus.Then the strangers and the Boii liquidated their mutual suspicions by a pitched battle in which both sides suffered severely. The Roman pre-emptive force was able to return home without fighting." pg.112

Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier"-"They demanded the land of Ariminum and the removal of the Romans from the thirty-year-old colony. Attacks were apparently made on Ariminum itself, and the Boii called in fellow tribesmen from across the Alps. The arrival of these newcomers, however, soon caused internal friction between ethnically related but now culturally different groups. Fighting broke out, and the weakened Boii were forced to sue for peace." pg.28

The inner tribal warfare didnt have much effect on these battles. 299bc is the only one that could argue to have any effect on battles and even then there is a lot of questions. In 283bc the inner tribal warfare happened after the battles in 283. In 238bc its of non-consequence as there were many other Gauls involved in the invasions after 238bc. The Celts also had many more tribes added to them and that includes adding more warriors, not to mention the large amounts of Gaesatae.

H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical World"-"Polybius' theory of successive waves of tribes pressing on each other was substantially correct."pg.111/ "In the Celts, Rome had a formidable enemy with resources of population that must have seemed interminable."pg.118

Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"-"The migrations were largely at an end by 200 BC."

Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier"-"The wars against the Samnites ground on. In Etruria internal strife increased. The population in the Celtic homeland was again growing." pg.24

Again we have the "weaker" Romans defeating the "stronger" 3rd century Celts the majority of the time. As far as the attrition theory I think the above statement meets that question. These Celts were raiders, not family units, therefore its safe to assume these were all warriors not farmers or craftsmen.Also lets not forget that the Celts were not the only enemies and wars going on. There is the Punic wars,Samnites,Greeks,Etruscans,Umbrians,Illyrians,Macedonians,etc. etc. Also I didnt include numbers or circumstances(terrain,suprise(Romans need better scouts)). In reference for the Roman army of the time:

Adrian Goldsworthy"In the Name of Rome"-"Most scholars play down the significance of the Marian reform in the transition from a militia to a professional army, preferring to see this as a much more gradual process."pg.122 / "Roman soldiers were not professionals, but men who served in the army as a duty to the Republic. The army is often referred to as a militia force, but it is probably better to think of it as a conscript army, for men would often spend several years consecutively with the legions although no one was supposed to be called upon to serve for more then 16 years.pg.26

Of the Celts:

Adrian Goldsworthy"In the Name of Rome"-"Such restrictions should not lead us to the conclusion that all Roman campaigns agains tribal opponents were 'cheap' victories. A few were, but the majority were difficult operations against an enemy who was brave, often numerous, and well used to exploiting the natural strength of there homeland."pg.98

Im not going to go on about the Celts who went to Greece and other places. Ill not bother with the time between Caesar and 191BC as these are not the "stronger" Celts. I will however deal with the Arverni-Aedui war.

Adrian Goldsworthy"The Roman Army at War 100bc-ad200"-"Before Caesar's arrival in the country, the Gallic states used to fight offensive or defensive wars almost every year (BG6.15). The scale of these conflicts is hard to judge, but it is probable that the aim was the reduction of the enemy to a subject tribe through a moral defeat rather then his destruction. For the nobles, warfare offered the opportunity of wealth, prestige, and reputation to further political aspirations at home.As in Germany, a retinue could only be maintained by actual fighting. The reason given for the migration of the Helvetii, that the geography of their homeland did not allow them full scope for raiding(BG1.1),and the subsequent raids on Rome's allies (BG1.2) reinforces the importance of warfare in Gallic society. Again, both factors are similar to those discussed as encouraging endemic warfare in Germanic culture. This is the customary method of opening hostilities in Gaul. A law common to all the tribe alike requires all adult males to arm and attend the muster, and the last to arrive is cruelly tortured and put to death in the presence of the assembled host." pg56

Goldsworthy"In the Name of Rome"-At times a tribe grew in power, often under the rule of a charismatic war-leader and sometimes bringing neighbouring peoples under control". pg243

Simon James "The World of the Celts"-"Probably most Celtic warfare was on a small scale, involving no more then a few score men on each side. The population was growing and states were developing in late Iron age Gaul, and this may have led to an increase in the scale of warfare. But it is clear that the vast armies commanded by Vercingetorix and others were assemble only as a response to the great threat from Rome (p.127). In fact, Rome changed the very rules of Celtic warfare, bringing large armies into an area where, internally at least, they may have been much rarer before. Certainly, the Gaul described and conqured by Caesar showed no signs of exhaustion by internal wars-it was a rich and prosperous land-so means were evidently found for limiting the damage war could cause." pg. 74

Unfortunately Ive run out of time again. There are other quotes that are similar but will have to get to at a later time. This last quote surely differs then those on this forum. This shows that the Arverni-Aedui war wasnt nearly as drastic as claimed. The elites would still have existed and would have been on comparison to the "stronger" 4th-3rd century Celts.

One other thing I would like to add, while I think the Celts are overpowered, there is one I think they are underpowered. I think the Celtic Cavalry should be much stronger then it is. The Celt cavalry consistently defeated the Roman Cavalry up to Caesar's time.

[Frostwulf]

LOL ... Frosty still propagating the same line huh!? I commend you on your labours but I'm sorry mate, this and much of the other material you cite in defence of your argument is just so contextually wrong. Suffice to say, if you took the time to actually read all the material / consider all the data and see the bigger picture, you wouldn't keep making all these ridiculous statements. Trying to take select points out of any semblance of context and extrapolate that to support some hypothesis is just bolox!

I have to admit Im a bit disappointed at your response to this. In the past though, Watchman, others and you have disagreed with me but there hasnt been any real disparaging remarks. You and others, especially Watchman have been very logical in posting but we just disagree.
The only reason I'm posting is to get a historical perspective and enjoy a game thats supposed to be as historical as possible. After looking at these unit stats things didn't seem right, so I started to respond to these threads. My main interest is combat and how the units are addressed in this. We ended up going to other subjects and so I responded by reading up on these subjects.

I put down authors,books and page numbers so I wouldn't be accused of using quotes out of context. These are books anyone can get. You said I should read up on these subjects and I have. I even read some of the others you quoted from. I even quit quoting from Newark because you didn't find him credible, and also from Ellis with the exception Marcus Claudius Marcellus vs. Viridomarus duel, and this was just to show that he wasn't quoting from livy.

Are you still going to try to say that I'm still misunderstanding the Marcus Claudius Marcellus vs. Viridomarus duel? Do you still contend that this is just a "tale","a dramatised account",“works of propaganda”? What about the above authors, are they wrong or is it I just somehow misunderstood what they said? Others can read these books and they can decide who is right, that's the main reason I have the author, book and page numbers.

You have made this claim that I have used these quotes out of context and extrapolate that to support some hypothesis. I completely disagree with you.

[Frostwulf]

my current idea on the addition of a new MED-ish cavalry is an alternate skin for some horseman model (we have no space for new units) which will be a "proven" or "champion" rider or early "horse retainer" unit. This horse unit will represent the superiority of the higher class Germanic horsemen over the standard issue Leuce Epos and yet still be very similar to the Ridoharjoz. The regular Ridoharjoz should not be automatically superior, because the examples of Celtic defeat against German cavalry was not a representation of the Celts during their heyday and the Germans at that time suredly had experienced units on that front rather than conscripts more accurately portrayed by the normal Ridoharjoz.

Blitz the reason I would like to put this here is because it goes to the topic of this thread more then it would the German one. This game is about being as historically accurate as possible, and I believe that is should be. I also am interested in history and would like to come to the truth as much as possible. Here is my problem, your saying in essence these are "weaker" Celts then in centuries past. I have read multiple books and only two have alluded to or talked about this subject directly. Here are the quotes from the two books concerning this subject:

Adrian Goldsworthy"The Roman Army at War 100bc-ad200"-"Before Caesar's arrival in the country, the Gallic states used to fight offensive or defensive wars almost every year (BG6.15). The scale of these conflicts is hard to judge, but it is probable that the aim was the reduction of the enemy to a subject tribe through a moral defeat rather then his destruction. For the nobles, warfare offered the opportunity of wealth, prestige, and reputation to further political aspirations at home.As in Germany, a retinue could only be maintained by actual fighting. The reason given for the migration of the Helvetii, that the geography of their homeland did not allow them full scope for raiding(BG1.1),and the subsequent raids on Rome's allies (BG1.2) reinforces the importance of warfare in Gallic society. Again, both factors are similar to those discussed as encouraging endemic warfare in Germanic culture. This is the customary method of opening hostilities in Gaul. A law common to all the tribe alike requires all adult males to arm and attend the muster, and the last to arrive is cruelly tortured and put to death in the presence of the assembled host." pg56

Simon James "The World of the Celts"-"Probably most Celtic warfare was on a small scale, involving no more then a few score men on each side. The population was growing and states were developing in late Iron age Gaul, and this may have led to an increase in the scale of warfare. But it is clear that the vast armies commanded by Vercingetorix and others were assemble only as a response to the great threat from Rome (p.127). In fact, Rome changed the very rules of Celtic warfare, bringing large armies into an area where, internally at least, they may have been much rarer before. Certainly, the Gaul described and conquered by Caesar showed no signs of exhaustion by internal wars-it was a rich and prosperous land-so means were evidently found for limiting the damage war could cause." pg. 74

So I'm going to echo Grey_Fox:

Sorry to dig this one up but can I ask what the sources are that you are drawing this stuff from because it's fairly interesting and I;ve gotten involved in a discussion at the .c0mmie over some of this stuff (yes, there are intelligent discussion there, try not to faint).

I for my part have given the information by author,book, page number that support my claim. What I would like to see is the same in return for those that say the Celts were weaker during Caesar's time. I just interested in getting my history straight. So Watchman,Neospartan, Psyco V, Blitz or anyone who can tell me which author and book to read I would really appreciate it.
I also want to make clear that Im not trying to be obnoxious or prove a point, I just want information.

[Frostwulf]

De Bello Gallico is I suppose a good source of information, though I'm not really all that sure if I can trust it, the battles always seem to follow a similar patterm, bascially the Romans encounter a group of Celts, the Celts charge and theres this big fight, and it looks like the Romans are in trouble, then suddenly Julius Caesar does something clever and the Celts rout.

Perhaps thats an oversimplification but I recall a lot of battles in the book that went along those lines, that said, perhaps that is the way it unfolded anyway, Caesar complimented the Celts, I recall the best one being somethin along the lines of "the most innovative people in the world", so obviously there was something he liked about them, and I don't see why a propagandist would want to paint all too nice a picture of his enemies, though perhaps he was setting down the foundations for the idea that these people could become good Romans also, who knows, either way what he does mention is that the most vicious Celtic people were the Belgae, because they were the closest to the Germanic people and fought the Germans on a regular basis and probably came from Germanic stock originally.

I agree that the Celts were a tough people, I have never had a problem with that. Caesar was almost always outnumbered and he lost one battle with the Celts. As far as the Belgae:
Ill make the claim that the Belgae were indeed making this statement that they were descended from the Germans and were a mix of Celt-Germanic peoples. "Certain tribes of Gaul, such as the Aedui, boasted of Germanic descent. The Belgae also were a mixture of German and Celt." Pg.19. "After their defeat, the Belgae, a group of mixed Celtic and German origins, were treated with comparative moderation." pg.128. H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical world".

/ "Caesar considered all the Belgae were Gauls, but also claims that many of them were descended from German settlers. As we have already seen, the distinction between Gaul and German was not always as clear as our ancient source suggest but there may well have been some truth in this.At the end of the first century AD Tacitus also believed that the Nervii and the Treveri were both Germanic." pg.238 Adrian Goldsworthy "Caesar"/
http://www.duerinck.com/tribes1.html While I havent read all the resources listed on this site, I have read a bit by Herbert Schutz and he acknowledges Caesars claim of the Belgae being of German ancestry. Look what is posted under the Belgae on this site and check it out.

One last one to look at is Barry Cunliffe "The Ancient Celts"-"All we can do is to accept the ethnic identifications made by the Roman commentators". pg.238. I would suggest reading from pg.237-238 to get a good idea at what he is getting at. Arghhh I shouldnt have put this here, oh well more on the Germans on new thread.

The Celts were undoubtably the masters of their territory and the replication by others of Celtic weapons does present them as at least a technologically adpet people when it comes to warfare, but as to how good they actually were at fighting? who knows, what we do know is their culture covered a very large amount of territory and really, if you were to view the Celts as a single unit were probably the dominent force in Europe prior to being conquered, so in short, there must have at least at one point been a highly formidible warrior culture in place to have allowed them to hold so much territory and keep it for as long as they did, and the fact that they were still raiding the Italian Peninsula goes to show that there must have been a very expansionist cultural element there.

I would say that if the Celtic people banded together they would have beaten Caesar because of shear numbers, not from martial prowess. The Celts were formidable but they were not as good as the Romans nor the Germans. I dont believe the Celtic units are very accurate, they are to powerful when compared to the Romans and Germans. Look at my posts dated 5/26/07 and 5/29/07. I go through these questions.

[blitzkrieg80]

Don't mean to be rude, but of course Celtic tribes proudly mentioned they were of "German" descent- it's just another Celtic tribe, admittingly mixed with Germanics though... Caesar invented what we think of as "Germans" for propoganda purposes to justify his "peace-keeping" and future Roman interests/defense. "German" really only means "Celts on the other side of the Rhine." One of the reasons Germany is a BS country-name is the fact that no German calls themselves that, they call themselves "Deutsch, ja?" The Oxford English Dictionary even states that the Germani are of Celtic origin. The Teutons are widely believed to be of Celtic origin as well, despite modern connotations of Deutsch-ness. My point being that they weren't refering to being Deutsch, but bad-ass Rhine Celts versus less bad-ass Gaul hinterland Celts, like the Belgae, another Celtic tribe, with mixed elements maybe, but certainly not dominated by the Deutsch. The small clan/tribe structure was as aware as they got concerning language/race, so "Germani" can certainly be treated as geographical and contextual.

That website btw mentions that one of the few pieces of evidence for Germanic ancestry among Belgae is a description of being "tall" and "blonde"- who does that describe? All Indo-Europeans (especially Celts too). Slavs, Celts, and Germans are all especially mentioned early as "tall" and "ruddy" besides rampant "blonde" and "Red" hair references- like China describing the Yueh-Chi. Also, the main argument is analysis of skull types which doesn't prove anything. There were native peoples throughout Europe before the Indo-European invasion, probably quite a few. I have read some of those kind of early archaeology books which fall into "race-theory" a little too much and I really doubt any legitimate scientist pursues that kind of theory anymore, I would hope not. It is true that certain linguistic family/cultures have similar morphology like Siberian/steppe people being short and African people being tall (but not always) similar to skin tone and Vitamin D both being adaptation to weather and sun, but that is hardly proven and mostly opinion and common sense (people still don't believe in evolution!), so skulls of people who are assuredly mixed prove nothing. It can't even be proven that the Battle-Axe culture or the Przeworsk culture are any specific race/language family and we know quite a bit about them.

Although it may sound like I'm being argumentative for fun (well it is fun- probably because I'm not writing a bunch of citations ) but I want to mention that I truly believe that the Germanic tribes were mixing early on along the Rhineland, but they didn't identify themselves separate from those Celtic tribes which took credit for the people. It is the same case with the Slavs who certainly weren't spontaneously generated... in fact, I doubt any Indo-Europeans traveled over the steppe (yes I believe they came from the steppe- for the same reason, if they came from Turkey why did they leave and come back? that's dumb) and went through nicer southern land then went north away from good land far into hostile/cold wasteland then decided to go back to the nice land... don't think so... somehow I think they spread out slowly, slowly forming, slowly migrating... so I'm sure Balts and Thracians, some West Slavs too might be mixed among the Belgae. A melting pot that later uses certain languages that we call them by but certainly were not 100% anything.

[the_handsome_viking]

Don't mean to be rude, but of course Celtic tribes proudly mentioned they were of "German" descent- it's just another Celtic tribe, admittingly mixed with Germanics though... Caesar invented what we think of as "Germans" for propoganda purposes to justify his "peace-keeping" and future Roman interests/defense. "German" really only means "Celts on the other side of the Rhine." One of the reasons Germany is a BS country-name is the fact that no German calls themselves that, they call themselves "Deutsch, ja?" The Oxford English Dictionary even states that the Germani are of Celtic origin. The Teutons are widely believed to be of Celtic origin as well, despite modern connotations of Deutsch-ness. My point being that they weren't refering to being Deutsch, but bad-ass Rhine Celts versus less bad-ass Gaul hinterland Celts, like the Belgae, another Celtic tribe, with mixed elements maybe, but certainly not dominated by the Deutsch. The small clan/tribe structure was as aware as they got concerning language/race, so "Germani" can certainly be treated as geographical and contextual.

To get into the nitty gritty of it they are all just Indo Europeans anyway who became distinct through isolation for a bit, the culture lines would have blurred, but I still think that the Germans most likely became quite distinct in their Scandinavian homeland before invading south.

Another interesting thing to keep in mind is that the Caledonians were considered to be of Germanic descent due to their reddish hair, which the romans for whatever reason associated with the Germans, which sort of clashes with the view of them being very blonde in general.

Within relation to Genetics theres actually a fairly high possibility that red hair evolved in isolation in the British isles because its quite a distinct trait here genetically speaking so as to what was going on in ancient times in terms of populatiom movements, who knows.

I assume that the Germans came from territories that from prehistoric times had a high percentage of blondes because of sexual selection, but that not all of these men would have been blonde, and quite possibly just light brown like many other European peoples, and that a distinct blondness found among the Belgae could indeed indicate some Germanic descent, but I doubt all of them would have been Blonde, and culturally speaking they were just Celts still.

That website btw mentions that one of the few pieces of evidence for Germanic ancestry among Belgae is a description of being "tall" and "blonde"- who does that describe? All Indo-Europeans (especially Celts too). Slavs, Celts, and Germans are all especially mentioned early as "tall" and "ruddy" besides rampant "blonde" and "Red" hair references- like China describing the Yueh-Chi.

There were also brunettes in the tarim basin and brunettes depicted alongside redheads and blondes, whatever the Indo Europeans originally looked like who knows, they probably would have been a mixed bag (in terms of hair and eye color) like many other peoples of Europe. Blondism undoubtably a much earlier evolution.

Also, the main argument is analysis of skull types which doesn't prove anything. There were native peoples throughout Europe before the Indo-European invasion, probably quite a few. I have read some of those kind of early archaeology books which fall into "race-theory" a little too much and I really doubt any legitimate scientist pursues that kind of theory anymore, I would hope not.

It's not so much a silly theory, well, depending on what these anthropologists define as a race, but in general the Idea that the Aryans were an extremely distinct race is most likely or perhaps totally incorrect, they would have just been White Caucasians like the rest of the peoples of Europe who were also of Cro-Magnon descent. As for the hair and eye color, like I said, this was really already determined by evolution in prehistoric times, well before the Proto-Indo-Europeans showed up, and is most likely a result of the iceage, population bottlenecks and founder effects, not to mention sexual selection and a healthy bit of isolation, but this is essentially why distinct characteristics come into being in the first place.

The idea however in older times that one of the possible reasons for a lot of upper class folk in ancient times being blonde being relative to the aesthetics of the Indo-Europeans isn't however such a silly idea though, it's just an idea that is sort of being more explained by evolutionary developments that occured well before them.

As for skull shape, outside of more broad racial categories, I don't really put much faith in the effectiveness of say, Alpinoid, Brunn or Nordic, because of the high degrees of mixing that have occurd amongst European folk. The Proto Indo Europeans most likely had a certain cranial style, back for the same way people have them today, but this would have been more distinct than Blonde hair, and really, by the time the Celts, Germans and Romans were on the scene, whatever these guys originally looked like was pretty much lost.

It is true that certain linguistic family/cultures have similar morphology like Siberian/steppe people being short and African people being tall (but not always) similar to skin tone and Vitamin D both being adaptation to weather and sun, but that is hardly proven and mostly opinion and common sense (people still don't believe in evolution!), so skulls of people who are assuredly mixed prove nothing. It can't even be proven that the Battle-Axe culture or the Przeworsk culture are any specific race/language family and we know quite a bit about them.

Oh race undoubtably exists, it just doesn't fit neatly into the worlds linguistic maps, Pre Indo Europeans and Indo Europeans were both the same race and came from the same Cro-Magnon root, despite having different languages, but it really comes down to the definition of race, but it's typically only worthwhile when you look at it in terms of distinction, there wouldn't for example be much practical purpose in calling a family of three generations a race.

Although it may sound like I'm being argumentative for fun (well it is fun- probably because I'm not writing a bunch of citations ) but I want to mention that I truly believe that the Germanic tribes were mixing early on along the Rhineland, but they didn't identify themselves separate from those Celtic tribes which took credit for the people. It is the same case with the Slavs who certainly weren't spontaneously generated... in fact, I doubt any Indo-Europeans traveled over the steppe (yes I believe they came from the steppe- for the same reason, if they came from Turkey why did they leave and come back? that's dumb) and went through nicer southern land then went north away from good land far into hostile/cold wasteland then decided to go back to the nice land... don't think so... somehow I think they spread out slowly, slowly forming, slowly migrating... so I'm sure Balts and Thracians, some West Slavs too might be mixed among the Belgae. A melting pot that later uses certain languages that we call them by but certainly were not 100% anything.

Essentially it's because of the domestication of the horse that it could allow bands of young men and probably women to basically move around more effectivly than any other groups in known history, so the expansion of these people was most likely in all directions, though undoubtably some movements were peaceful, others undoubtably were aggressive, mounted combat and chariot warfare changed the world.

I suppose the situation with the Belgae was just that they resembled German people to an exten and that Germans like lots of people back in those times of much less mobile populations, had quite distinct features. I suppose you could compare it to Modern Iranians where you have many that look like people typically found in Saudi Arabia yet some that look like they could be from Poland or France.

In ancient times when you have a typically brunette people living in one area and then close to the Rhine, near the lands of the lighter haired people, when you see a group of mixed folk with lighter hair you can sort of just assume that at some point mixing had occurred.

I think EB has depicted both the Germans and Celts quite well in terms of phenotype.

[Watchman]

I would say that if the Celtic people banded together they would have beaten Caesar because of shear numbers, not from martial prowess. The Celts were formidable but they were not as good as the Romans nor the Germans. I dont believe the Celtic units are very accurate, they are to powerful when compared to the Romans and Germans. Look at my posts dated 5/26/07 and 5/29/07. I go through these questions.

Nonsense. The Romans always made a point of having at least roughly equal numbers of serious combatants to fight the Celts, and in spite of the fact virtually every free man among the Germans was a reasonably well trained and experienced (if not equipped) warrior (which was not the case in the Celtic society, as their warring was primarily up to the warrior class) it took them centuries to start seriously encroaching on Celtic territory.

Hardly a testament to some full-spectrum "weakness" on the part of the Celts, that.

The Celtic warrior class weren't part-time tribal farmer-soldiers like the rank-and-file Germans or reservists like the early Roman soldiery. They were a specialist social segment that spent the better part of its time preparing for and engaging in more-or-less organized warfare as their primary occupation; leaving aside the potential long-term problems of that sort of setup, it has a tendency to produce quite formidable fighters.

[Frostwulf]

Don't mean to be rude, but of course Celtic tribes proudly mentioned they were of "German" descent- it's just another Celtic tribe, admittingly mixed with Germanics though... Caesar invented what we think of as "Germans" for propoganda purposes to justify his "peace-keeping" and future Roman interests/defense. "German" really only means "Celts on the other side of the Rhine." One of the reasons Germany is a BS country-name is the fact that no German calls themselves that, they call themselves "Deutsch, ja?" The Oxford English Dictionary even states that the Germani are of Celtic origin. The Teutons are widely believed to be of Celtic origin as well, despite modern connotations of Deutsch-ness. My point being that they weren't refering to being Deutsch, but bad-ass Rhine Celts versus less bad-ass Gaul hinterland Celts, like the Belgae, another Celtic tribe, with mixed elements maybe, but certainly not dominated by the Deutsch. The small clan/tribe structure was as aware as they got concerning language/race, so "Germani" can certainly be treated as geographical and contextual.

I didnt take any of this as being rude, merely a discussion. We may disagree on things but no condescending attitude, rude remarks or character attacks have been made so no problems.

Herwig Wolfram "The Roman Empire and its Germanic Peoples"-"Tacitus closes the second chapter with the interesting comment that the Germanic name was a relatively recent additional name that had developed from the specific name for a single tribe. He relates that the Tungri were the first to cross the Rhine on their push westward and were subsequently called Germani by the Gauls. The victories of the Tungri imparted such prestige to this name that it was also adopted by other tribes as a generic name.
Debates concerning the Germanic identity of the Germanic tribes who lived east of the Rhine fill entire libraries, and a good deal of nonscholarly interests have kept the controversy alive. In actual fact, however, the few sentences in Tacitus offer a quite credible and convincing account of what happened. Successful conquerors, whether they already spoke Germanic or not, crossed the Rhine and were called Germani by the Gauls. The name was used first by outsiders, and it remained so even after the Romans had taken it over from the Gauls. However, and here I correct Tacitus, it did not establish itself as the name of all Germanic tribes, just as French Allemands did not become the self-chosen name of the Germans." pg.4

That website btw mentions that one of the few pieces of evidence for Germanic ancestry among Belgae is a description of being "tall" and "blonde"- who does that describe? All Indo-Europeans (especially Celts too). Slavs, Celts, and Germans are all especially mentioned early as "tall" and "ruddy" besides rampant "blonde" and "Red" hair references- like China describing the Yueh-Chi. Also, the main argument is analysis of skull types which doesn't prove anything. There were native peoples throughout Europe before the Indo-European invasion, probably quite a few. I have read some of those kind of early archaeology books which fall into "race-theory" a little too much and I really doubt any legitimate scientist pursues that kind of theory anymore, I would hope not. It is true that certain linguistic family/cultures have similar morphology like Siberian/steppe people being short and African people being tall (but not always) similar to skin tone and Vitamin D both being adaptation to weather and sun, but that is hardly proven and mostly opinion and common sense (people still don't believe in evolution!), so skulls of people who are assuredly mixed prove nothing. It can't even be proven that the Battle-Axe culture or the Przeworsk culture are any specific race/language family and we know quite a bit about them.

I think the Tall and blond thing is just a general description of the Belgae, not any kind of evidence. As far as the skulls are concerned I do believe this may be making a comeback. They use it in forensics allot to identify what a person would have looked like. They can tell the race of people by the bone structure just as they did the Kennewick Man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man
I don't know if there is much difference in the cephalic index between Celts and Germans, or even if they are going by the index.

Although it may sound like I'm being argumentative for fun (well it is fun- probably because I'm not writing a bunch of citations ) but I want to mention that I truly believe that the Germanic tribes were mixing early on along the Rhineland, but they didn't identify themselves separate from those Celtic tribes which took credit for the people. It is the same case with the Slavs who certainly weren't spontaneously generated... in fact, I doubt any Indo-Europeans traveled over the steppe (yes I believe they came from the steppe- for the same reason, if they came from Turkey why did they leave and come back? that's dumb) and went through nicer southern land then went north away from good land far into hostile/cold wasteland then decided to go back to the nice land... don't think so... somehow I think they spread out slowly, slowly forming, slowly migrating... so I'm sure Balts and Thracians, some West Slavs too might be mixed among the Belgae. A melting pot that later uses certain languages that we call them by but certainly were not 100% anything.

The mixing part I agree with (my knowledge is very little on this subject), but with a different language and customs that may be where the "Germani" came from.

Nonsense. The Romans always made a point of having at least roughly equal numbers of serious combatants to fight the Celts, and in spite of the fact virtually every free man among the Germans was a reasonably well trained and experienced (if not equipped) warrior (which was not the case in the Celtic society, as their warring was primarily up to the warrior class) it took them centuries to start seriously encroaching on Celtic territory.

Roughly equal numbers is simply not true, the Romans may have exaggerated and inflated enemy numbers but it depended on the battle. There were times when the Romans out numbered the Celts but in general the Celts outnumbered the Romans, especially during Caesars campaign. If your talking about Romans encroaching I have explained this in the 5/29/07 thread. As far as the Germans, wouldn't it be a slow migration period of building up a populace?

The Celtic warrior class weren't part-time tribal farmer-soldiers like the rank-and-file Germans or reservists like the early Roman soldiery. They were a specialist social segment that spent the better part of its time preparing for and engaging in more-or-less organized warfare as their primary occupation; leaving aside the potential long-term problems of that sort of setup, it has a tendency to produce quite formidable fighters.

Yes the Celtic warrior class like the German elites did the raiding,training and participated in warfare. Yes the Celts did have formidable fighters, the problem is they lost the majority of the time. The Romans fought as a unit, not as a bunch of individuals. The Celts like the Germans usually did a fast charge and if the Romans didn't buckle they would start to sustain heavy damage.

[Watchman]

Roughly equal numbers is simply not true, the Romans may have exaggerated and inflated enemy numbers but it depended on the battle. There were times when the Romans out numbered the Celts but in general the Celts outnumbered the Romans, especially during Caesars campaign. If your talking about Romans encroaching I have explained this in the 5/29/07 thread. As far as the Germans, wouldn't it be a slow migration period of building up a populace?

Notice I said serious combatants. The tribal levies that formed the bulk of Vercingetorix's forces weren't that by a long shot, doubly so compared to the professional post-Marian legionaries. I'm pretty sure the pre-Marian reservist armies insisted on reasonably equal numbers of "effectives", although the fact the Roman soldiery were on the average better armoured ought to have made up for some disparity in numbers (though everyone always liked to have an edge in numbers if possible, natch).

If by "5/29/07" you mean this post (and if not, please be more specific and better yet link), no, it does not really answer much anything about the marked sluggishness in Roman advance into Gaul. Sure, they subdued the Cisalpine Gauls relatively early on (not all that surprising given that by the end of the Punic Wars they could draw on the resources of entire Italy and beyond against pretty much just the Po river valley - it would be rather strange indeed if the more realistic among the Gauls there had not seen the writing on the wall and bowed before the inevitable) and more or less took over the Mediterranean coastal regions, but AFAIK Caesar was the first to succesfully (or even at all) invade the interior beyond that - and that involved making use of treaties, alliances etc. the Romans had made with local Gallic potentates.

In other words, the Romans only invaded when they judged the time was ripe and there was a real opportunity of success, not earlier (that Caesar's operation may well have snowballed far past its original goals is irrelevant here). The same was undoubtly the case with the Germans beyond the northern borders of Celtic territory; given the amount of raiding and mercenary work they did, they would certainly have been able to tell if and when the strenght of the Gauls was ebbing and they could start mounting more ambitious raids (accelerating the collapse and enlarging the powerbase of the warlords in charge), culminating with a full-scale invasion to seize the richer lands. And conversely the increase of wealth of the border tribes and confederations near the Celtic borderland would naturally begin attracting unwelcome attention from the tribes further away... I'm willing to bet the pattern was virtually the same as would continue all the way until the Migrations and the collapse of the Roman frontier.

Yes the Celtic warrior class like the German elites did the raiding,training and participated in warfare.

The difference, though, is that the by far wealthier Celtic society could afford a by far larger class of specialized warriors...

Yes the Celts did have formidable fighters, the problem is they lost the majority of the time.

What ? Since when - Caesar perhaps ?

The Romans fought as a unit, not as a bunch of individuals.

Right, big news. So did the Celts by what I hear, although their tradition was a wee bit different from the rather hoplite-style one the Romans adhered to. Pursuit of personal martial glory and formation combat aren't exactly inherently incompatible after all.

The Celts like the Germans usually did a fast charge and if the Romans didn't buckle they would start to sustain heavy damage.

Uh... that wouldn't happen to have anything to do with the little detail that Roman infantry doctrine was, since the adoption of the triplex acies, specifically designed to win the battle through attrition ? What with the system of rotating fresh reserves to the frontline and all that ? Neither the Celts nor the Germans were the tunnel-visioned tactical idiots popular commonplace thinks, but neither did they have any real counter for that clever trick unless they were able to demolish the front lines fast enough (which happened too, far as I know; the Romans were anything but invincible after all, many of their wars being won through sheer bloody-minded stubbornness and willingess to keep throwing armies into the grinder longer than the other party could sustain).

[blitzkrieg80]

Nice quote, I love Herwig Wolfram

Yeah, I think I misread/overreacted concerning the "tall" and "blonde"- it was only description... I just am sensitive to stereotypes of Germans being the only tall and blonde IndoEuropeans so I tend to want to tell everybody how it is... Like Aryan = Iran, so neoNazis are quite ignorant in their purism- I love the universalism of IndoEuropean... The universalism of Semitic languages and others are quite interesting as well, especially when Arabs hate Jews and it's called Antisemitism self-hate is a funny thing.