Celtic overpowered!

[SaFe]

It has nothing to do with unit size, I usually play large, but have also played on normal, it's not that much difference.
The Sweboz have the advantage of being surrounded by rebel provinces and can expand in all directions without much resistance, the Romans have a lot of money because they have rich provinces in Italy and expand around the mediterranean which means a lot of money through sea trade. The gauls are busy fighting each other plus the Romans and the Sweboz and do expand rather slowly. So they can't make that much money.

Then the EB-team should do something about the rebels surrounding the Sweboz or the money of the Romans and still give realistic stats.
Just because of gameplay reasons the stats shouldn't be tweaked!

[burn_again]

Well, I don't have the impression that there are any stats tweaked. I had no problems fighting the Gauls as Sweboz or Romans and the AI doesn't seem to have any problems either (I suppose because of economic reasons).
I would like to see the AI-Sweboz and AI-Romans expand a bit slower, but I don't think there's very much that can be done about it in RTW. A faction that starts expanding 100 years after the start date is doomed, I see that with the Getai very often. Scripted Eleutheroi armies like the one in Numantia could be an idea perhaps.

[Frostwulf]

Disappointed? .. I’m sorry if you have taken that personally, that wasn’t my intent. I’ve intended to address your position, not your person. I have no personal beef with you .. quite the contrary.
I’m also sorry that I haven’t had the time (or desire) to return and make amends / respond.
Having to deal with recent death and mayhem in RL, hasn’t left me the time or patience to deal with this in a manner I would have preferred…again sorry.

Np at all. I also figured you would be busy for all the work you have been doing, even though we may disagree I am thankful for all the time you guys put into this mod. I'm also sorry to hear of your RL situations.

Frosty, whilst no one would argue that both the Germans and Romans enjoyed a noticeable advantage over the Gauls of the 1st C BC, we do differ when one tries to claim that that aforementioned difference is an innate superiority in isolation of any regard for geo-political changes and circumstances that occurred over several centuries.

If you wouldn't mind elaborating on this, I'm not sure what your getting at.

I believe you’re confusing citation / source with context. Citing author, title and page number doesn’t prevent one from still taking things out of context, misinterpreting or misunderstanding the content if one suffers from a preconceived perceptual paradigm, which may or may not be the case here.

This is not the case, the citations are relevant and in context. I put them there so people can check them out and see for themselves.

Here-in lies the problem. This is extremely simplistic and ignores significant variations, changes and situational circumstances over almost Six Hundred Years of history, what Psychiatrists call the perceptual shortcut. One can’t take a few select pieces of data in isolation and draw an informed conclusion.

Of course this is simplistic, these are generalities. As far as EB it is difficult to include the Germans prior to 200BC. When it comes to the Germans what else can you do? You only have information from certain time periods and until the time of Caesar we have very little knowledge of their tactics and numbers. You take the information you have and apply it the best you can. How would the German fare against the earlier Celts, quite well I believe, as I do not believe in the devastating "Civil War" theory.

I do hope this is due to the aforementioned unconscious condition and not a conscious out flow of some ethno-cultural pride issue?
Throughout this debate you have endeavoured to increase your knowledge but appear to have only used data that supports your hypothesis. Data either carefully selected or taken out of context.

Nope I'm neither of German(Germanic) nor Italian ancestry. I'm not taking things out of context but I think you should read the books I have listed. I have listed the books and the authors and I know that other people have read these books and have not challenged me. There are a few who already said they read Goldsworthy's "Caesar:Life of a Colossus" and none have said anything to the contrary. In case you haven't noticed most of the authors I'm using are the ones you put down as your resources.

This has apparently become your mantra, having posted it several times in several threads. True, we would all be inclined to agree with Adrian on this account. But should we ignore several hundred years of events / changes and extrapolate events in the mid 1st C BC to those in the early 3rd C BC? Note that Adrian states “Throughout the Gallic campaigns”. It appears you have little problem with this, (nor using Tacitus’ accounts 150 years post Gallic subjugation). Are you seriously happy to assume Gallic / Celtic society was stagnant / unchanging over several hundred years of history?

What changes the exaggerated devastating "Civil War"? As far as “Throughout the Gallic campaigns” he says this because of his subject. Do you think the Germans had problems with the Celts later on? If your talking about before this we only have the instances of the Belgae, Bastarnae and TCA. For the Belgae about the only thing we know of them is they intermingled early on with the Celts in now northern France. The Bastarnae we know a little about their beginnings. They were known to have had a reputation as excellent warriors and Appian called them "the bravest nation of all". The TCA we know about their arms and armor and how they fought the Romans. As far as their conflicts with the Gauls we only know that they were deflected by the Boii and the Scordisci but we don't know if they were trying to attack a oppida(doubtful) or up a hill (like the Teutons when fighting Marius) or the numbers of the Boii or Scordisci. We know the situations when they fought the Romans but not when the TCA went into Spain for a couple of years or when they were in Gaul for awhile. It would be hard to compare Germans and Gauls prior to Ariovistus because of the lack of information, you would have to do it by proxy. The Romans beat the Gauls pre-Marius, the Germans beat the Romans, the Romans under Marius beat the Germans. Yes this is simplistic but it could be done that way by comparing the different units of the time.

You have continually cited (ad naseum) this example from Caesar’s De Bello Gallico as evidence of the German’s superiority. It’s interesting to note that you have failed to take account of a similar / more impressive event of 400 hundred Gallic cavalry routing a larger contingent (4,000) of the same Roman (Gallic) cavalry (De Bello Gallico; I.XVI.VI). This Gallic cavalry being better than the other Gallic cavalry, why? …funnily enough the victorious 400 Gauls came from a nation that managed to avoid involvement in the great Gallic civil war.

So my assumption I made in the "Sweboz underpowered" thread is correct. The 400 were the Helvetii(who authors say were under pressure from Germans to leave) defeated Caesars Gallic cavalry. First off Caesars cavalry had to be warriors of age, are you suggesting they forgot how to fight? The cavalry were the elites, these guys would have been trained well as Kruta says https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=219 .
Caesars 4,000 were ambushed over extended(Sidnell) and were rolled off the field. If you read the situations with the Germans this is not the case, the Germans fought pitched battles and won.
Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-" The convoys of the Helvetii moved onwards, and Caesar followed them, sending his 4,000 cavalry out in advance. Amongst them was a sizeable force of Aedui led by Dumnorix, the same chieftain who had allied with Orgetorix and then aided the Helvetii. Advancing too carelessly, the allied cavalry were ambushed and beaten by a force of Helvetion cavalry a fraction of their size." pg.215

The point here is not some innate genetic supremacy of a Germanic master race but rather the disparity in quality of a seasoned, veteran force of warrior elite to what amounts to the mobilised noblesse oblige and conscripts of a citizen militia. The later having recently survived the most devastating civil war in Celtic History. A war you apparently choose to deny / ignore / play down.

When Caesar met the 800 and others his cavalry had been with him nearly 3 years and fought many battles, thats plenty of time to be veterans. The Gauls went about their business as usual raiding and etc. getting more battle experience. Again the "Civil war" is exaggerated.

As far as citing Michael P. Speidel – “Riding for Caesar”, pg.12 and his account of “huge, unbelievably bold and expert fighters ..astonishing men making such a huge difference, etc”, I’m afraid he’s getting a little carried away in his dramatisation, an overt attempt to lay a foundation for his whole subsequent work / subject matter, ie Elite Germans in Roman employ. Drama sells.

I agree and not to mention that he is German writing on a German subject. That being said he knows his material and his saying of expert fighters are readily agreed upon by other authors and the Celts themselves.There was a reason they used Germans for their elite corps, its because they were the best at the time. If you read Speidel's books you will see that he is not of the mold of Ellis,he is much more even handed and does well to provide source information.
William H. Mael-"Germany in Western Civilization"-"What earned the admiration of the Romans was the raw fighting quality of the German". pg.11
I'm sure your aware of what the Gauls said to Caesar of Ariovistus and his Germans.

A rather gross misrepresentation I’m afraid.
Ariovistus did not “dominate several Gallic factions” with just 15,000 men. The 15k were the first contingent to cross the Rhine and provide support to the Sequani. Ariovistus had not acquired hegemony over these central Gallic factions until he was reinforced by some 105,000 Seubi, Marcommanni, Vangiones, Triboci, Eudusii, Nemetes and 24,000 Harudes and then defeated what must have then been a pitiful force of Gauls at the Battle of Magetobriga. This purported 120,000 - 144,000 army of Ariovistus would have vastly outnumbered anything the Aedui confederacy could have fielded at the time, little loan what the beleaguered Sequani were capable of.

I believe your misunderstanding the numbers mentioned. The 120,000 Germans encompasses tribal peoples, not just warriors.
Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"About 15,000 of them crossed the Rhine in the first instance; then, when those fierce barbarians had got a liking for the farmlands, the civilization,and the wealth of the Gauls, more were brought over, and at the present time there are about 120,000 of them in Gaul." I:31
These people were brought over gradually not all at once.
John Warry puts the Germans at 6,000 horse, 6,000 footmen and 16,000 light infantry. These are the troops that fought against Caesars troops.This many troops were not there at Magetobriga, though there may have been more then the 15,000 I said.
I can't find my other resources but Mommsen(not sure about his sources) claims that the Suebi waited in the woods till some of the Gallic tribes (Aedui,Sequani etc.) dispersed then Ariovistus offered battle to the remaining Gauls. Even though the Germans were outnumbered they still won destroying the nobility of the Aedui in the process. I'm very hesitant to use Mommsen as he has had some credibility problems, but this particular statement I have seen something similar by modern scholars.
"Unknown site of a military engagement fought in 61 BCE between the Gallic tribes of the Aedui, Averni and Sequani on one side and the Germanic Suebi, under their King Ariovistus. The Suebi had moved into the region of Gaul comprising modern Alsace and had emerged as a powerful rival to the Gauls on the Rhine. Hoping to evict the unwelcome Germans, the local peoples, headed by the Aedui, confronted Ariovistus in the field. The resulting battle was a display of the martial superiority of the Suebi, for the tribes were crushed. Ariovistus established his rule over much of eastern Gaul. By 58 BCE, Rome was willing to listen to the pleas of the Gallic chieftains, and war erupted once again."
Citation Information:
Text Citation: Bunson, Matthew. "Magetobriga." Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 1994. Facts On File, Inc. Ancient History & Culture.

What you also failed to note is that this force of 120,000 - 144,000 veteran Germans were defeated by 6 Roman Legions whilst 80,000 Gallic levys ("beggars and outcasts" - Caesar) defeated 10 Roman Legions. Do you see anyone making ridiculous claims about the superiority of Gallic arms, no!

If your referring to Ariovistus's 120,000 then I just finished explaining it. I dont know which battle your talking about for the 80,000 Gauls and 10 legions, please elaborate on this.

Far from some demonstration of supreme martial prowess, the only thing worthy of note here is the “stamina of their shaggy little mounts” and the German’s eye for opportunity.

I’m surprised you have cited this obscure reference in defence of your hypothesis that all Germans were superior to all Gauls regardless of period or location. If one didn’t know better, one could be inclined to believe that such a move was born more out of desperation to substantiate a pre-conceived idea rather than a seeking a conclusion from objective analysis.

…already addressed your example of 800 cavalry.

Well I'm tired of trying to find where that quote I made is. I thought it was to show another aspect of the German cavalry such as their swimming and in this case the endurance. If I did use it as a show of martial prowess then that was unfair of me.

I'm skipping the comments on the supposedly devastating "Civil War to keep it grouped together.

Here-in lies a problem. It appears one is far too ready to make suppositions on what one thinks / wishes to be true, rather than what actually is.

I clearly state that this is supposition, but you are guilty of this.

I don’t understand…then what is the problem? You state this then deny it?

At some time in the past prior to the Belgae arrival the Gauls might have had more martial prowess, after this time frame the Germans were.
Again you are ignoring key points here. Firstly, the Germans (TCA) didn’t enter Gaul in 120 BC, it was some years later.

I didnt say the TCA entered Gaul at 120BC. I was emplying that they started their movements around that time frame.

The very notion that the Belgae (‘furious ones’) were Germanic so that their feats can be explained away / so they can fit into a preconceived paradigm… is ridiculous. They were not “Celticized”, they were Celtic.. long before their move west. The evidence for this is compelling and I haven’t the time to detail it all here. Suffice to say, if the Belgae were “Celticized” on their arrival as you suggest, then their resulting culture would have been a reflection of those they usurped. This was just not the case.

There are plenty of authors who do say the Belgae were of Germanic origins. I have already stated my opinions on this post.https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=143

Seriously, what have you based this on? Again, the Gauls had been defeating the Germans for centuries prior the beginning of the 1st C BC. Is was only relatively late in the period where the balance of power had shifted.

Im basing this on mostly Goldsworthy and others, what are you basing your claim that the Gauls had been defeating the Germans for centuries on?

Again you have missed the wood through the trees. The very reason why Caesar found that “his troops” / Gallic cavalry was “as good as theirs (Belgae)” is because Caesar happen to have at this juncture significant contingents of Remi in his employ.. the finest Celtic (Belgae) cavalry to ever have existed.

Exactly my point! How could you miss it? The 800 German cavalry defeated/chased off 5,000 of these troops! This is why that at the minimum the German cavalry should be stronger then the Remi Mairepos. Not to mention its Caesar who praises the German cavalry, not the Remi nor any other Gauls. As far as the Gauls Caesar faced they may not have been as good as the Remi, but they gave them a hard time in battle. That is of course till Caesar threw in his Germans.https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=223

Now for the Civil war:

Again, if you are so happy citing Caesar, why ignore his statement regarding the aforementioned battle. “If anyone is alarmed by the fact that the Germans have defeated the Gauls (Battle of Magetobriga) and put them to flight, he should inquire into the circumstance of that defeat. He will find that it happened at a time when the Gauls were exhausted by a long war” (De Bello Gallico; I.XL.XIII). The Civil War you deny / dismiss.

It could be because Caesar was referring to the battles with the Germans. For some reason I cant find that quote, is it in the 1st chapter? It sounds like when he would be addressing his troops and this quote isn't there.

Another favourite. This again is a case where it’s important to have a holistic understanding of the history in question.

Yes!!.. Gaul was extremely prosperous (both fiscally and population wise), this is one of the main reasons why Caesar was so keen to pillage / conquer it! He did after all have huge personal debts.

Gaul was extremely prosperous because the Gauls did NOT engage in total war. The very work you are so eager to cite (ie James …as does every other scholar) states this and I’m surprised you appear to ignore this significant fact and appear to prefer to project a 21st C Ad paradigm when rationalising data. The major trade centres remained untouched. The very war was over this wealth / trade / money / power. Archaeology only shows a burning / pillaging of minor settlements of no major value.

The devastation spoken of was to the Gallic armies, the warrior elite, the professional soldiery. This is what Caesar was referring to (De Bello Gallico; I.XL.XIII) when he stated that the Gauls were “exhausted by a long war”. He (Caesar) also mentions several times throughout his commentary how the Gauls were forced to mobilised their militia (farmers, craftsman, etc) and train them to fight. Why was this necessary in a warrior culture? … because the majority of the warrior elite were dead. The Great War spoken of by James (amongst others) had temporarily drained the coffers and the Gauls of trained fighters BUT all the major infrastructure remained intact. Caesar was an opportunist taking advantage of a wealthy but weaken proto-state.

Did you miss the part when James said "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" You are taking James out of context, not I. What about this part "Caesar says that the Druids were involved in disputes and in the decision to wage war, providing some evidence for the existence of limiting social mechanisms". Are you going to tell me these social mechanisms were only for land and property and not for the nobility and warriors? I hardly think so, but more on this later.

Ok, for starters… I’m sorry but you’re wrong about the Belgae. Most of the Belgae were drawn into the Civil War. They just didn’t suffer nearly as much as their southern cousins.

I have to say I’m surprised by this claim. You wouldn’t have made it if you had done a little checking … I believe even James acknowledges this!
Secondly, the Germans did fight “stronger” Celts, those that had defeated them for several centuries prior the 1st C BC / Great Civil War and even during the 1st C BC (eg Nervii, etc).

James mentions the Bellovaci, but were there others? As far as the Germans being defeated for several centuries, there was raiding going on but to my knowledge there was no real major incursions(other then the Germanic Belgae). There were certainly raids and the Belgae had dealings with them but I would like to see some citations on the Germans being defeated by the Gauls. The Nervii did claim to help defeat the TCA if I remember correctly, but they also say, and proudly so that they were of German decent. What ancient writers tell these stories? Where did you get this information about the Celts defeating the Germans for several centuries prior?

Caesar does nothing of the sort! Quite the contrary in fact (see my previous quote). And regarding this hypothesis that the Germans “brought them (Gauls) low” / brought “both the Aedui and Arverni (and supporters) down”, out of curiosity, how do explain away all the evidence to the contrary? Explain the events, contemporary accounts, material data and the works of notable experts in the field. Do you seriously believe that belying the Germanic failure to make any advance against Celtic Gaul until the mid 1st BC that the Germans must have suddenly spontaneously appeared out of nowhere or was it that they just didn’t eat their spinach prior the mid 1st C BC?

What evidence, you put down one quote from Caesar and then you say all this evidence. You don't put anything down. Sorry I'm not going to simply believe what you say because you say so. How about this for a similar situation https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=218

Finally and most significantly, you’ve ignored the fact that the very Civil war in question began in 121 BC after the Arverni hegemony over Gaul was critically weakened by the defeat of King Bituitis and his Arverni alliance at the Battle of Vindalium by the Consular armies of Cnaeus Domitius and Quintus Fabius Maximus. It was this blow that struck the death knell to Gallic liberty. From the ensuing civil war, the Germans and Romans pounced.The Germans prior the 2nd C BC were generally beholden to the Celts.
[/quote]

D.H. Green “Language and History in the early Germanic World”-“Although the earlier view that the Celts established a political hegemony over Germanic tribes may no longer be acceptable, the cultural flow, as revealed by archaeological finds, is clearly from the Celtic south to the German north." Blitz I believe you have this book or read it, is this quote out of context?

Finally and most significantly, you’ve ignored the fact that the very Civil war in question began in 121 BC after the Arverni hegemony over Gaul was critically weakened by the defeat of King Bituitis and his Arverni alliance at the Battle of Vindalium by the Consular armies of Cnaeus Domitius and Quintus Fabius Maximus. It was this blow that struck the death knell to Gallic liberty. From the ensuing civil war, the Germans and Romans pounced.

I thought the Aedui were the most powerful Gauls during this time. If I'm not mistaken the Sequani became the prominent partner in the Sequani/Arverni alliance because of this situation. So how did the Aedui get hurt by the Arverni getting defeated by the Romans?

Again, you are ignoring that fact that Gallic society was dynamic rather than static. Huge socio-political changes occurred in the several centuries we are discussing here. You wouldn’t judge 2nd C BC Imperial Rome by the standards of the 4th C BC Roman Republic, so why do it for the Gauls.
The reason for the severity of the last great civil war was due to the evolution of Gallic society. The population was booming and there were no more frontiers that could be easily exploited. Power was becoming more centralised, clientages more extensive. Wealth / largess, rather than martial feats in raiding had become the main source of social prestige and advancement in Gallic society since the major campaigns / migrations of the 5th to 3rd C BC (eg. The account of Lovernios “The Fox”). Production and trade was so lucrative that raiding well-prepared neighbours was of limited value. One’s prestige, power (retainers) depended more on what you could pay rather than what you could provide through petty thievery. So when you suddenly have huge political instability, large numbers of restless youth, constrained avenues for advancement and huge sums of money involved, the scene was set for the tragedy that unfolded.

Yea southern Gaul was changing but it doesn't mean that it went to such a devastating "Civil War". The young men would still go mercenary and the raiding may not be as good but there was the heroism of martial valour to proclaim as well. I have read multiple books and as of yet I cannot find one that concurs with you.What citations, proof can you claim?

I have these:

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
Martial valour still counted for something.

Psyco if you have some author that talks about this subject of the "Civil War", please let me know. I have no problem being wrong, its just I havent been finding information in your favor, only against it.

[SaFe]

Great work Frostwulf, i really find it frustrating that you were not here in the beginning of EB during the time i was FC(and nearly got lynched for supporting the idea of superior germanic cavalry and the question of the Belgae tribes).
Great work supporting your points with actual trustworthy authors and writers.

Although even 15000 suebi warriors as gallic mercenaires is questionable.

[Frostwulf]

Thank you for the kind words Safe, I do appreciate them. I was reviewing my reply and noticed that I didn't put Psycho V's quotation marks correctly, they don,t have the box around some of them like they should. I am unsure about going back and editing them as it seems that some may think it for dubious reasons. Was my reply adequate or should I clean it up and put the box's around Psycho V's quotes?

[blitzkrieg80]

Why not name the Helveti as Germanic while you're at it? They came from similar areas which felt pressure from Germanic migration... Why not attribute Przeworsk to Germanics as well for that matter, despite clear differences in culture.

SaFe, reading your post, it is not clear at all what you're suggesting concerning Rebels. "Something should be done" doesn't mean much by itself.

[burn_again]

I think SaFe means making the rebel garnisons a bit stronger, because he replied to my post where I said that the AI-Sweboz often expand a bit fast.

[Frostwulf]

Why not name the Helveti as Germanic while you're at it? They came from similar areas which felt pressure from Germanic migration... Why not attribute Przeworsk to Germanics as well for that matter, despite clear differences in culture.

Blitz I'm not sure if this was directed at me, but regardless I will try to answer this.

As far as the Helvetii is concerned no one to my knowledge has ever claimed them to be Germanic(I know your not insinuating this). They are clearly Celtic in archeology, culturaly and in philology as attested by the ancient writers(Caesar,etc.)

As far as the Belgae the Remi and a few others would not be included as being formerly Germanic, or have a Germanic base. The Eubrones were a Germanic speaking people, and they were part of the Belgae. The Nervii and Treveri claimed to be of Germanic ancestry and Caesar said that the Eburones, Condrusi, Caerosi and Paemani were Germanic.
Here is a link to statements I have made previously on this subject:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=143

As far as the Przeworsk I have to plead mostly ignorant. I was thinking they were proto-slav or Balts.

Regardless of whether the Belgae were of Germanic ancestry or not, as far as EB is concerned is really of no consequence as this would most likely have been before 250 BC. By Caesars time most of them were speaking Celtic and had allot of the Celtic culture.

Blitz if you have information contrary to or supporting what I have posted, please post it, as I'm curious about this subject.

[PSYCHO V]

Frostwulf, i really find it frustrating that you were not here in the beginning of EB during the time i was FC(and nearly got lynched for supporting the idea of superior germanic cavalry and the question of the Belgae tribes)..

Lol … what!? I can’t remember anyone challenging you on your depiction (as in EB) of German cavalry. You trying to distance yourself and play the martyr now?

Frosty: I haven't much time to address this in detail, so apologies

Of course this is simplistic, these are generalities.

Needless to say, important details are lost / overlooked with simplistic generalities.

As far as EB it is difficult to include the Germans prior to 200BC. When it comes to the Germans what else can you do? You only have information from certain time periods and until the time of Caesar we have very little knowledge of their tactics and numbers. You take the information you have and apply it the best you can.

So if we didn’t have any understanding of ancient Rome you would be happy to directly extrapolate knowledge of modern day Italy? Look at the big picture! Again I ask you, if there were no other contributing events (eg recent Gallic weakness) why was it that it took the Germans until the mid 1st C BC to infiltrated Gaul proper? Did they suddenly eat their spinach!?

What are you basing your claim that the Gauls had been defeating the Germans for centuries on?

One, because we know they (Germans) were there but made no attempt on Gaul, a rich and prosperous area. Two, archeology shows very little in the way of Gallic arms and armour have been found across the Rhine. What does exist tends to be dated (Halstatt 'D' / La Tene 'A') equipment use by the Celtic inhabitants who had been ruling over the local Indo-Europeans (urnfield, Germanics, etc). Three, the Gauls acted as a wall from which Germanic population pressures washed against ..even up ‘til Caesar’s time (eg. The Usipetes and Tenctheri fleeing the Seubi).

How would the German fare against the earlier Celts, quite well I believe

True… a belief.

I do not believe in the devastating "Civil War" theory.

I know because it runs counter to your hypothesis of the German Master Race.

I'm not taking things out of context

The Menapii claim wasn’t out of context? You jump on / continually cite a few select pieces of data without acknowledging the context to support this claim that all Germans throughout all of ancient history were a superior master race ..yet cite context / dismiss similar examples involving the Gauls

If I did use it as a show of martial prowess then that was unfair of me.

Thanks

I think you should read the books I have listed. I have listed the books and the authors and I know that other people have read these books and have not challenged me.

Your not serious? Do you think I’m shooting blind here?

Did you miss the part when James said "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"

No. Firstly, Jame’s comment (‘Exploring the World of the Celts’ pg 74.) about “warfare was on a small scale” is true if one takes it as a generic comment applicable to all Celts across all time periods (eg. Germany, Ireland, Britain and early Gaul) but it is not applicable to Gaul in our period. Again if you have taken note of all the data and not just select bits you would have noted that he states the escalation / “increase in the scale of warfare” due to the growing states. This was the point which I made and you denied concerning the devastation wrought the Great Gallic Civil War.. which you continue to deny. See also Jame’s comments about the changes in Gallic society and the centralization of power.

Secondly, Jame’s comment “that the vast armies commanded by Vercingetorix and others were assemble only as a response to the great threat from Rome. In fact, Rome changed the very rules of Celtic warfare, bringing large armies into an area”.. I have to say is ridiculous. Did Rome have anything to do with the large forces involved in Spain, Greece or Anatolia hundreds of years prior Vercingetrix? Was the Gallic victories and sacking of Etruscan and Roman cities a response to Rome…no, it was a Gallic initiative. Gallic states had long used large forces before any Roman influence. James even acknowledges that Rome and Greece had no influence in the development of these large Gallic states (pg 120) and the associated employment of force, so he appears to contradict himself when suggesting that large Celtic forces were a response to Rome.

The said work, should be recognized for what it is, a nice overview (albeit simplistic) with pretty pictures. It's a colourful picture book.

You are taking James out of context, not I.

Is that so?

What about this part "Caesar says that the Druids were involved in disputes and in the decision to wage war, providing some evidence for the existence of limiting social mechanisms".

Yes, I never said there weren’t some limiting factors, but the Druids weren’t what you were suggesting. Further, it is worth noting that the Druids didn’t hold much sway with the Arverni alliance, their (Druids) success was in part, keeping the Aedui confederacy together.

Again, if you are so happy citing Caesar, why ignore his statement regarding the aforementioned battle. “If anyone is alarmed by the fact that the Germans have defeated the Gauls (Battle of Magetobriga) and put them to flight, he should inquire into the circumstance of that defeat. He will find that it happened at a time when the Gauls were exhausted by a long war” (De Bello Gallico; I.XL.XIII). The Civil War you deny / dismiss.

It could be because Caesar was referring to the battles with the Germans. For some reason I cant find that quote, is it in the 1st chapter? It sounds like when he would be addressing his troops and this quote isn't there.

No he is referring to the Gauls fighting the Seubi. If you had read all of De Bello Gallico, you couldn’t have missed it. Again, you can’t just take quotes that you like and ignore those you don’t. Its bad enough to claim some scholarship as definitive truth, much worse to only use select pieces of any said work.

Finally and most significantly, you’ve ignored the fact that the very Civil war in question began in 121 BC after the Arverni hegemony over Gaul was critically weakened by the defeat of King Bituitis and his Arverni alliance at the Battle of Vindalium by the Consular armies of Cnaeus Domitius and Quintus Fabius Maximus. It was this blow that struck the death knell to Gallic liberty. From the ensuing civil war, the Germans and Romans pounced.

I thought the Aedui were the most powerful Gauls during this time. If I'm not mistaken the Sequani became the prominent partner in the Sequani/Arverni alliance because of this situation. So how did the Aedui get hurt by the Arverni getting defeated by the Romans?

Sorry, you need to be a little clearer, what are you getting at?

The Aedui and their confederacy had been defeated in the previous war. The confederacy had disintegrated and Aedui made clients of the Arverni. In the ensuing turmoil of the Arverni defeat at Vindalium, the Aedui and their former allies took up arms and rebelled. This was the genesis for the Great civil war. With the Arverni too weak, the Sequani temporarily took over the leadership of the alliance, as the Carnutes had done for the Aedui against the Belgae generations before.

Yea southern Gaul was changing but it doesn't mean that it went to such a devastating "Civil War". The young men would still go mercenary and the raiding may not be as good but there was the heroism of martial valour to proclaim as well.

For starters, the changes were happening throughout Gaul and not just the south …and if indeed there were all these Gauls frequently raiding (which wasn’t the case) wouldn’t there be many experienced warriors as you suggest. Then why was it necessary for the Gauls (with the exception of the Belgae) to have to arm and train their armies anew on the arrival of Caesar? They were a mobilized militia because the warrior caste was all but wiped out previously, in the war you deny happened.

I have read multiple books and as of yet I cannot find one that concurs with you. What citations, proof can you claim?

Maybe start by reading through the works cited, James, Caesar, etc. If you want a really brief overview of Gallic history I’d suggest Daithi O’Hain / University of Dublin, Kuta, etc. Don’t have my resources at hand.

I'm ..sorry to hear of your RL situations.

Yer, lost our daughter.

[Anastasios Helios]

I do think they are...those naked Galatians are my nightmare...and I hear talk about a "Kataphraktoi Keltioi" on this forum all the time. *cringes in fear*

[Frostwulf]

First off the important things:
Psycho I pray for your grief to subside, happiness to renew and fond memories to remain.

For the other things:

Frosty: I haven't much time to address this in detail, so apologies

No need for apologies. I run into the same problems and sometimes it will take me a few days to complete one post. Sometimes it will take multiple days to weeks to get back to a reply. Work and RL seem to get in the way

So if we didn’t have any understanding of ancient Rome you would be happy to directly extrapolate knowledge of modern day Italy? Look at the big picture! Again I ask you, if there were no other contributing events (eg recent Gallic weakness) why was it that it took the Germans until the mid 1st C BC to infiltrated Gaul proper? Did they suddenly eat their spinach!?

The difference between ancient Rome and modern Italy is vast. What real differences would their have been between the Germanics of 300BC and 100BC? The Germanics of 100BC would have the advantage of better arms and armor because of increased trade/war with the Celts/Romans. The advanced armor would for the most part only belong to the elites, not the majority of the warriors.

According to William Maehl there was a increase of population and the tribes needed land which became intense in 500 BC.

William H. Maehl-"Germany in Western Civilization"-"Failure to drain bogs and marshy soil only made the situation of the Germans worse. Henceforth the Celts were subjected to steady pressure.
On the eve of the mastery of Germany, the Germans comprised three main groupings: northern,eastern, and western. From the first were to spring the Norse, Danes and Swedes. from the eastern tribes, who had taken up abandoned lands from the middle Oder to the Vistula, were to emerge such great protonations as the East and West Goths, Vandals Burgundians and Langobards(Lombards). The western Germans, who were to furnish the shock troops in the first skirmishes with Rome, comprised the Ingaevoni of Jutland, Schleswig-Holstein, and Hanover, the Herminoni of north-central Germany, and the Istvaenoi, who inhabited the Rhine Valley and were geographically closest to the civilized peoples and included Chatti, Bructi, Chattuari, Batavians, Teutons, Marsi, Cimbrians, and Chauki.
All efforts to block the German advance availed nothing. At some time in the course of the third century B.C. the backbone of the Celtic resistance was broken, and this people for the most part evacuated central and western Germany, fleeing to the east, south, and west. Many Celts, of course, were captured and enslaved or even remained behind as allies or free subjects of the Germans. The vacated areas were filled by Quadi, Marcommani, Suebi, and other western Germans. As the second century BC dawned, Germany was under the domination of one race at last. However, that race could no longer claim to be pure, for the conquest of middle Europe had involved racial admixture with the conquered." pg.7

J.B. Bury-"The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians"-" In the second millennium BC the homes of the Germanic peoples were in southern Scandinavia, in Denmark, and in the adjacent lands between the Elbe and the Oder. East of them beyond the Oder were Baltic or Lettic peoples, who are now represented by Lithuanians and Letts. The lands west of the Elbe, to the Rhine were occupied by Celts.
After 1000BC a double movement of expansion began. The Germans between the Oder and the Elbe pressed westward, displacing the Celts. The boundary between the Celts and Germans advanced to the west, and by about 200BC it had been pushed forward to the Rhine, and southward to the Main. Throughout this period the Germans had been also pressing up the Elbe. Soon after 100BC southern Germany had been occupied, and they were attempting to flood Gaul. This inundation was stemmed by Julius Caesar." pg.5

H.D. Rankin-"Celts and the Classical World"-"By the end of the sixth century BC, the Germans had expanded into Belgium and the southern part of Holland. They occupied both banks of the lower Rhine, and they reached as far south as the Ardennes.
Across Europe the long line of Celtic hill-forts may be said to have restrained German expansion for centuries, though, as we have said, there was considerable intermingling. Certain tribes of Gaul, such as the Aedui, boasted of Germanic descent. The Belgae also were a mixture of German and Celt. There is no reason to suppose that it was specifically German pressure that detonated the great Celtic invasions of Italy and Bohemia at the end of the fifth century BC. There is no evidence that the line of Celtic fortifications did not hold good at that time. On the other hand, Celtic pressure seems to have caused Eastern Germanic tribes, such as the Bastarnae, to move eastwards." pg.18-19

It seems that the Germans did push into Celtic areas starting around 500BC, they were in control of Belgium, both banks of the Rhine and down to the Ardennes by 200BC as said by these 3 authors. Before 500 BC there probably wasn't much contact between the Germans and Celts, but Ill have to do more research on this.
It could be that the movements of the Germanic peoples was a slow process. The TCA went on their trek looking for land because their homeland was flooded. They made it into Gaul, maybe they needed a reason to leave the lands they had occupied.

From this it seems that is was the Germans who were the ones who had been defeating the Celts for centuries.

One, because we know they (Germans) were there but made no attempt on Gaul, a rich and prosperous area. Two, archeology shows very little in the way of Gallic arms and armour have been found across the Rhine. What does exist tends to be dated (Halstatt 'D' / La Tene 'A') equipment use by the Celtic inhabitants who had been ruling over the local Indo-Europeans (urnfield, Germanics, etc). Three, the Gauls acted as a wall from which Germanic population pressures washed against ..even up ‘til Caesar’s time (eg. The Usipetes and Tenctheri fleeing the Seubi).

They did cross and move into Belgium around 200BC, so yes they were there. The lands they settled could have been fine with them. It was Ariovistus who after being invited to Gaul realized that is was good land and didn't want to leave. The reason the Usipetes and the Tencteri crossed the Rhine was because of the Suebi's push for land. The Usipetes and Tencteri defeated the Menapii and took their land. Why didn't the Usipetes and the Tencteri raid the land earlier if there was such a devastating "Civil War"? It seems to me to be a minor Volkerwanderung with the Germanic tribes slowly moving forward.

I know because it runs counter to your hypothesis of the German Master Race.

First when writing of the Romans you say "Your starting to sound like a Roman apologist". Now when talking of the Germans defeating the Celts you say "I do hope this is due to the aforementioned unconscious condition and not a conscious out flow of some ethno-cultural pride issue?" I suppose that if I wrote of the Greek success against the Celts I would be a Graecophile. As I have said earlier I'm neither an apologist nor of Germanic or Roman ancestry. Just in case the subject comes up, I'm not of Greek ancestry either. I have also said the Romans defeated the Germans consistently. Just because I disagree with you is no reason for you to allege such things.

The Menapii claim wasn’t out of context? You jump on / continually cite a few select pieces of data without acknowledging the context to support this claim that all Germans throughout all of ancient history were a superior master race ..yet cite context / dismiss similar examples involving the Gauls

I already answered this in my post before this one. Again the Sugambri, the Usipetes/Tenceri cavalry and Caesar's German mercenary cavalry they are in context. You harp on this one but ignore the others, what Gallic ones are you referring to me dismissing? If your writing about the Helvettii I already explained it, similar to the Menapii situation. It wasn't brought up before because the subject was on German cavalry vs Celtic cavalry. I understand what your getting at saying that Caesars cavalry was weak, but they were not. As I said in the earlier post, they were surprised and spread out. Also Caesars cavalry had 3yrs to become seasoned when they came across the 800 Germans.

No. Firstly, Jame’s comment (‘Exploring the World of the Celts’ pg 74.) about “warfare was on a small scale” is true if one takes it as a generic comment applicable to all Celts across all time periods (eg. Germany, Ireland, Britain and early Gaul) but it is not applicable to Gaul in our period. Again if you have taken note of all the data and not just select bits you would have noted that he states the escalation / “increase in the scale of warfare” due to the growing states. This was the point which I made and you denied concerning the devastation wrought the Great Gallic Civil War.. which you continue to deny. See also Jame’s comments about the changes in Gallic society and the centralization of power.

"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."

He said it may have led to an increase, not- this may have led to the increase in the scale of warfare. Even if there was an increase in the level of warfare, it wasn't to the exaggerated levels you claim. You also ignored Goldworthy "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."
Not the horrendous destruction you claim, but the reduction of the enemy through a moral defeat rather then his destruction.

Secondly, Jame’s comment “that the vast armies commanded by Vercingetorix and others were assemble only as a response to the great threat from Rome. In fact, Rome changed the very rules of Celtic warfare, bringing large armies into an area”.. I have to say is ridiculous. Did Rome have anything to do with the large forces involved in Spain, Greece or Anatolia hundreds of years prior Vercingetrix? Was the Gallic victories and sacking of Etruscan and Roman cities a response to Rome…no, it was a Gallic initiative. Gallic states had long used large forces before any Roman influence.

You forgot to put in this part "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." For Greece wasn't Brennus and his group the only non-tribal group to go into Greece? The ones that went into Spain and Anatolia werent they tribes?

James even acknowledges that Rome and Greece had no influence in the development of these large Gallic states (pg 120) and the associated employment of force, so he appears to contradict himself when suggesting that large Celtic forces were a response to Rome.

Simon James-"The Celts and the Classical World"-"Does this suggest, then, that all the changes taking place in Gallic society in the last centuries BC were the result simply of exposure to the 'civilized' Graeco-Roman cultures to the south?
Not necessarily. Powerful states like the Arverni and Aedui existed before the Roman conquest of the Rhone Valley in the second century BC, as did the earliest oppida in Gaul, while towns were growing in areas like southern Germany and Bohemia which show no signs of Classical contact at the time." Thus the changes responsible for the appearance of urban states were probably triggered by a variety of local stimuli, including population growth, innovations in farming, subtle ecological changes and other factors such as the increasing threat from the Germans."
The Graeco-Roman cultures nevertheless acted as a catalyst for change."pg120-121
James is talking about the urbanization of Gaul, he says nothing here about the "associated employment of force" here. Your throwing them together when they are two separate issues in separate chapters.

Simon James-"The Celts and the Classical World"-"Secondly, Rome became increasingly aware of Gauls growing wealth and vulnerability (following the development of centralized institutions and fixed centers of power). Gaul had become ripe for conquest-not because it was markedly less 'civilized' than Rome, but because it was rich, complex, and already sufficiently similar to the Classical world to be absorbable. Celtic heartland was diverted on to a different, albeit parallel, track: that of Classical urban civilization." pg.121
The vulnerability doesn't mention the "Devastating Civil War"! Why, because its and exaggerated event.

The said work, should be recognized for what it is, a nice overview (albeit simplistic) with pretty pictures. It's a colourful picture book.

Yes it is and more. It does have excellent information by a well known and highly thought of Archaeologist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
You are taking James out of context, not I.

Is that so?

Yes it is so, as shown above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Again, if you are so happy citing Caesar, why ignore his statement regarding the aforementioned battle. “If anyone is alarmed by the fact that the Germans have defeated the Gauls (Battle of Magetobriga) and put them to flight, he should inquire into the circumstance of that defeat. He will find that it happened at a time when the Gauls were exhausted by a long war” (De Bello Gallico; I.XL.XIII). The Civil War you deny / dismiss.

It could be because Caesar was referring to the battles with the Germans. For some reason I cant find that quote, is it in the 1st chapter? It sounds like when he would be addressing his troops and this quote isn't there.

No he is referring to the Gauls fighting the Seubi. If you had read all of De Bello Gallico, you couldn’t have missed it. Again, you can’t just take quotes that you like and ignore those you don’t. Its bad enough to claim some scholarship as definitive truth, much worse to only use select pieces of any said work.

Ok so I was right this is when he is addressing his troops.

Caesar-"Gallic war"-XL.--When Caesar observed these things, having called a council, and summoned to it the centurions of all the companies, he severely reprimanded them, "particularly for supposing that it belonged to them to inquire or conjecture, either in what direction they were marching, or with what object. That Ariovistus, during his [Caesar's] consulship, had most anxiously sought after the friendship of the Roman people; why should any one judge that he would so rashly depart from his duty? He for his part was persuaded that, when his demands were known and the fairness of the terms considered, he would reject neither his nor the Roman people's favour. But even if, driven on by rage and madness, he should make war upon them, what after all were they afraid of?--or why should they despair either of their own valour or of his zeal? Of that enemy a trial had been made within our fathers' recollection, when, on the defeat of the Cimbri and Teutones by Caius Marius, the army was regarded as having deserved no less praise than their commander himself. It had been made lately, too, in Italy; during the rebellion of the slaves, whom, however, the experience and training which they had received from us, assisted in some respect. From which a judgment might be formed of the advantages which resolution carries with it,--inasmuch as those whom for some time they had groundlessly dreaded when unarmed, they had afterwards vanquished, when well armed and flushed with success. In short, that these were the same men whom the Helvetii, in frequent encounters, not only in their own territories, but also in theirs [the German], have generally vanquished, and yet cannot have been a match for our army. If the unsuccessful battle and flight of the Gauls disquieted any, these, if they made inquiries, might discover that, when the Gauls had been tired out by the long duration of the war, Ariovistus, after he had many months kept himself in his camp and in the marshes, and had given no opportunity for an engagement, fell suddenly upon them, by this time despairing of a battle and scattered in all directions, and was victorious more through stratagem and cunning than valour. But though there had been room for such stratagem against savage and unskilled men, not even [Ariovistus] himself expected that thereby our armies could be entrapped. That those who ascribed their fear to a pretence about the [deficiency of] supplies and the narrowness of the roads, acted presumptuously, as they seemed either to distrust their general's discharge of his duty, or to dictate to him."XL

This is out of context. This has nothing to do with the "Gallic Civil War", its all about the Gauls being exhausted by the fight with the Germans. So yes I do deny and dismiss the supposed "Devastating Civil War".

For starters, the changes were happening throughout Gaul and not just the south …and if indeed there were all these Gauls frequently raiding (which wasn’t the case) wouldn’t there be many experienced warriors as you suggest. Then why was it necessary for the Gauls (with the exception of the Belgae) to have to arm and train their armies anew on the arrival of Caesar? They were a mobilized militia because the warrior caste was all but wiped out previously, in the war you deny happened.

Venceslas Kruta-"The Celts"-"Recruited from the ranks of the warrior nobility, from about 250BCE onwards the cavalry totally replace the war-chariots that had previously constituted the war-chariots that had previously constituted the shock troops of Celtic armies. They became the elite permanent corps of the city-states, formes and maintained by the aristocrats who governed them. The cavalry's essential role in battle is especially well illustrated in Julius Caesar's Gallic wars." pg.110

Stephen Allen-"Lords of Battle, the World of the Celtic Warrior"-"The nature of Celtic warfare changed from small-scale feuding between family groups and neighboring communities to large conflicts between tribal confederations and the life and death struggle against Roman domination. The Celtic urban centers were ruled by the most powerful clans, which constantly sought to increase their power and territory. A major consequence was the increasing importance of cavalry as the preferred tactical arm of the Celtic noble elite, who were now comparable to the equites, the 'knighly' class of the Roman Republic." pg.83

Stephen Allen-"Lords of Battle, the World of the Celtic Warrior"-"The change in emphasis from skirmishing with javelins to shock tactics using a spear and long sword can be detected in Caesar's description of the cavalry engagements during his campaigns in Gaul. By this period, the elite Gallic warriors who provided the urban aristocracies with their armed retainers were almost entirely cavalry, armed with spear and long slashing sword, protected by an iron helmet and mailshirt, and mounted on a larger horse capable of bearing the weight of the rider and his equipment. To the Romans, they were the equivalent of their own 'knightly' class, the equites." pg.132

The elites became cavalry. The only ones who can claim to be wiped out is the Aedui and that was due to Ariovistus and his Suebi.

Maybe start by reading through the works cited, James, Caesar, etc. If you want a really brief overview of Gallic history I’d suggest Daithi O’Hain / University of Dublin, Kuta, etc. Don’t have my resources at hand.

Are you meaning Dáithí Ó Hógáin and Venceslas Kruta?
This is one of those start on friday, then come back monday to finish type posts.

[Geoffrey S]

Frostwulf, I thoroughly respect the effort you've put into your research, must have been a lot of reading! But I must say that you have yet to convince me of your view that German cavalry was significantly better than that of Gaul, since the evidence you present seems to be mainly isolated incidents (late on in history) and ignores things that don't fit into your theory, ie. the internal conflicts and the fact that Gaul was doing just fine against the Germans (a very broad term I may add) until after said conflicts.

[Frostwulf]

Frostwulf, I thoroughly respect the effort you've put into your research, must have been a lot of reading! But I must say that you have yet to convince me of your view that German cavalry was significantly better than that of Gaul, since the evidence you present seems to be mainly isolated incidents (late on in history)

I appreciate the reply. If your saying that "isolated incidents" is Caesar's conflict in Gaul thats fine. There were 4 battles in which Caesar's mercenaries "won the day", The 800 German cavalry routing Caesars 5,000 Gallic cavalry which included the Remi Mairepos and the Sugambri's cavalry destroying the Roman cohorts.
Goldsworthy “Caesar” -“The tactics and the quality of the Germanic warriors usually gave them the edge over the Gaulish cavalry”. Pg 229

Goldsworthy “Caesar” -Throughout the Gallic campaigns German warriors consistently defeated their Gallic counterparts, each success adding to their fierce reputation. Pg.274

Its not just me claiming this.I will repeat myself and say yes Goldsworthy is saying in the Gallic campaigns, but thats because his subject was Caesar and his time frame. We don't know what the circumstances were when the TCA went on their trek except for their encounters with the Romans. Using generalities the Romans of this time beat the Gauls in the 120's and were in turn defeated by the TCA.

and ignores things that don't fit into your theory, ie. the internal conflicts and the fact that Gaul was doing just fine against the Germans (a very broad term I may add) until after said conflicts

Geoffrey I hope you will respond to this. But how have I been ignoring the internal conflicts? The Celts as the Germans have had many internal conflicts, hence the reason for the Germanic Usipetes and Tencteri crossing over because the Germanic Suebi pushed them out. I just don't buy into the "Devastating Civil War" theory. I haven't read all of Cuniffe's books but the ones I did read says nothing on this, nor does ANY of the authors with the exception of James and Goldsworthy and they say things that would contradict the "Devastating Civil War" theory. Perhaps you didn't get a chance to read the post I made above this one, but the Celts were being pushed back before 400BC. Is that what you would consider doing fine?

[Urnamma]

Wait till you guys see the new and improved Germanics ;) We redid virtually every unit based on myself and Paullus researching everything from the ground up. All based on archaeology, and raw data, to cut out any confusion. I'm sure the Germanic enthusiasts will be happy with them :-)

[blitzkrieg80]

except the flying werwulf, that's all handsome_viking

[the_handsome_viking]

I love my Werwolves =).

[Geoffrey S]

If your saying that "isolated incidents" is Caesar's conflict in Gaul thats fine. There were 4 battles in which Caesar's mercenaries "won the day", The 800 German cavalry routing Caesars 5,000 Gallic cavalry which included the Remi Mairepos and the Sugambri's cavalry destroying the Roman cohorts.
Goldsworthy “Caesar” -“The tactics and the quality of the Germanic warriors usually gave them the edge over the Gaulish cavalry”. Pg 229

Goldsworthy “Caesar” -Throughout the Gallic campaigns German warriors consistently defeated their Gallic counterparts, each success adding to their fierce reputation. Pg.274

Its not just me claiming this.I will repeat myself and say yes Goldsworthy is saying in the Gallic campaigns, but thats because his subject was Caesar and his time frame. We don't know what the circumstances were when the TCA went on their trek except for their encounters with the Romans. Using generalities the Romans of this time beat the Gauls in the 120's and were in turn defeated by the TCA.

It's exactly these kind of generalities I object to. Not only is Caesar not a reliable source for details, and a latecomer in the region at that, but the fact that the examples you cite relate to an entirely different period and situation in Gaul. By now, it has become clear that these examples you use of actualy battle prowess of Germanics come largely from literature based on Caesar, and what annoys me is that that make for extremely circular reading. What I mean to say is, there is far more to study of this region and period than secondary literature based on Roman texts or books on the subject: far more and infinitely more up-to-date information is found in scientific journals. I'll admit that makes for tough research, certainly if you haven't made it your primary occupation, but that's the way things are and why people need to be trained for years in researching these ancient cultures.

Notwithstanding, I recognise the efforts you've made in finding and reading literature and salute them. It's just that they're definitely not quite enough in this kind of a debate on finer details.

Geoffrey I hope you will respond to this. But how have I been ignoring the internal conflicts? The Celts as the Germans have had many internal conflicts, hence the reason for the Germanic Usipetes and Tencteri crossing over because the Germanic Suebi pushed them out. I just don't buy into the "Devastating Civil War" theory. I haven't read all of Cuniffe's books but the ones I did read says nothing on this, nor does ANY of the authors with the exception of James and Goldsworthy and they say things that would contradict the "Devastating Civil War" theory.

And there lies the rub. Cunliffe, a great master of Celtic history though he is, has also not publicised a book on the subject for some time now, and those he has around 2000 are large, general works. Research has moved on since then and even major books miss out on the most recent articles published in scientific journals. Much research is still ongoing, and I'd wager that a large amount of information on the devastation of the civil war is relatively recent. Perhaps 'ignore' was too laden a word, but I do think you're underestimating the importance of internal conflicts and I think that that is caused by the limitations of the literature you have access to.

Somehow, Gaul went from a large and relatively united area that had existed as a distinct cultural area for some time with skilled troops matching the best the rest of the world could offer (and that sent them to the rest of the world!), to an area routinely invaded by outsiders with only levies to oppose them. That rather highlites the devastating effects of civil war in my opinion.

Perhaps you didn't get a chance to read the post I made above this one, but the Celts were being pushed back before 400BC. Is that what you would consider doing fine?

Considering they were only pushed back, yes, I'd say they were doing fine if you consider the size of Gaul by the time Caesar got busy.

[Frostwulf]

It's exactly these kind of generalities I object to.

What generalities? These are actual battles that show the effectiveness of the Germanic horsemen of the time. These are specific events that show their abilities in combat.

Not only is Caesar not a reliable source for details, and a latecomer in the region at that,

Caesar may be prone to exaggerations and bias but he is the best authority of the time. The authors I quote from don't just use Caesar, these are well known and respected authors. They get their information from multiple sources.

but the fact that the examples you cite relate to an entirely different period and situation in Gaul.

I'm assuming your referring to the supposed Gallic "Devastating Civil War"

What I mean to say is, there is far more to study of this region and period than secondary literature based on Roman texts or books on the subject: far more and infinitely more up-to-date information is found in scientific journals. I'll admit that makes for tough research, certainly if you haven't made it your primary occupation, but that's the way things are and why people need to be trained for years in researching these ancient cultures.

I'm not just quoting Caesar. I'm quoting the exact type of people who's primary occupation is archeology,history, philology and etc, the type of people who do use those research tools. What more "up-to date" information are you referring to?

Notwithstanding, I recognise the efforts you've made in finding and reading literature and salute them. It's just that they're definitely not quite enough in this kind of a debate on finer details

I thank you for your words on my efforts. But again I highly doubt there is anyone on this forum who ranks up there with Rankin, Kruta, James,Goldworthy,Sidnell etc. Do you know of anyone on this forum who does have information that these authors wouldn't? These guys are amongst the best in their fields.

And there lies the rub. Cunliffe, a great master of Celtic history though he is, has also not publicised a book on the subject for some time now, and those he has around 2000 are large, general works. Research has moved on since then and even major books miss out on the most recent articles published in scientific journals. Much research is still ongoing, and I'd wager that a large amount of information on the devastation of the civil war is relatively recent. Perhaps 'ignore' was too laden a word, but I do think you're underestimating the importance of internal conflicts and I think that that is caused by the limitations of the literature you have access to.

Some of the authors such as Goldsworthy's "Caesar Life of a Colossus" came out in 2006, and I could make a considerable list of the authors who don't mention the supposed "Devastating Civil War".
But now comes the question, I have posted what 2 authors have said that support what I'm saying. The only citation I have seen that was supposed to support the "Devastating Civil War" was a misunderstanding of what Caesar said.
Surely if there is proof of the supposed "Devastating Civil War" where is it? Do you know of any reputed author, paper, or anything on this subject? If you mention the book,paper or whatever research I will be more then happy to read it.

Somehow, Gaul went from a large and relatively united area that had existed as a distinct cultural area for some time with skilled troops matching the best the rest of the world could offer (and that sent them to the rest of the world!),

The Celts were being defeated most of the time by a pre-Marius conscript army. The Romans were generally outnumbered and won the majority of the battles.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=144

As for the Germans these events happened prior to the supposed "Devastating Civil War"

William H. Maehl-"Germany in Western Civilization"All efforts to block the German advance availed nothing. At some time in the course of the third century B.C. the backbone of the Celtic resistance was broken, and this people for the most part evacuated central and western Germany, fleeing to the east, south, and west. Many Celts, of course, were captured and enslaved or even remained behind as allies or free subjects of the Germans." pg.7

J.B. Bury-"The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians"-" After 1000BC a double movement of expansion began. The Germans between the Oder and the Elbe pressed westward, displacing the Celts. The boundary between the Celts and Germans advanced to the west, and by about 200BC it had been pushed forward to the Rhine, and southward to the Main. Throughout this period the Germans had been also pressing up the Elbe. Soon after 100BC southern Germany had been occupied, and they were attempting to flood Gaul. This inundation was stemmed by Julius Caesar." pg.5

to an area routinely invaded by outsiders with only levies to oppose them. That rather highlites the devastating effects of civil war in my opinion.Somehow, Gaul went from a large and relatively united area that had existed as a distinct cultural area for some time with skilled troops matching the best the rest of the world could offer (and that sent them to the rest of the world!), to an area routinely invaded by outsiders with only levies to oppose them. That rather highlites the devastating effects of civil war in my opinion.

Stephen Allen-"Lords of Battle, the World of the Celtic Warrior"-"The change in emphasis from skirmishing with javelins to shock tactics using a spear and long sword can be detected in Caesar's description of the cavalry engagements during his campaigns in Gaul. By this period, the elite Gallic warriors who provided the urban aristocracies with their armed retainers were almost entirely cavalry, armed with spear and long slashing sword, protected by an iron helmet and mailshirt, and mounted on a larger horse capable of bearing the weight of the rider and his equipment. To the Romans, they were the equivalent of their own 'knightly' class, the equites." pg.132

The elites during this time were the cavalry and there were plenty of them. I go into more detail in this post.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=281

Perhaps I am wrong but it seems to me that you haven't been reading the discourse between Psyco V and myself. I would suggest starting with post 265 on page nine and going from there.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...t=83475&page=9

[Geoffrey S]

What generalities? These are actual battles that show the effectiveness of the Germanic horsemen of the time. These are specific events that show their abilities in combat.

Precisely: they are specific events, from which generalities about German cavalry prowess is drawn.

I'm assuming your referring to the supposed Gallic "Devastating Civil War"

I'm referring to the use of information from Caesar to support claims about 270 bc.

I'm not just quoting Caesar. I'm quoting the exact type of people who's primary occupation is archeology,history, philology and etc, the type of people who do use those research tools. What more "up-to date" information are you referring to?

As far as I can tell the sources you use are books, which by their nature generalise and condense. They're summaries and overviews, with different aims to articles which expand on more detailed issues. They tend to focus on events and histories, based mainly on original texts such as Caesar, or on presenting an overview of Celtic culture through archeology, such as Barry Cunliffe's The Ancient Celts. Blank spots in our knowledge such as what exactly the history of Gaul was like outside of contact with classical cultures like Rome and the Greeks are very rarely addressed in literature, with the occasional exception such as in Holt's Thundering Zeus illuminating the darker corners of Greek-Bactrian history. That's why information about Gaul for the majority of EBs timescale is hard to come by (and why it's so disputed, as this topic illustrates!).

But now comes the question, I have posted what 2 authors have said that support what I'm saying. The only citation I have seen that was supposed to support the "Devastating Civil War" was a misunderstanding of what Caesar said.
Surely if there is proof of the supposed "Devastating Civil War" where is it? Do you know of any reputed author, paper, or anything on this subject? If you mention the book,paper or whatever research I will be more then happy to read it.

It's a blank spot open to speculation. Whereas you take the side that the Germans became stronger and/or more skilled than the Celts based on numbers in various battles and individual details of battle skills late in the period of EB, I take the side that the Celts became weaker based on the information that a once large area that was predominately Celtic shrank considerably after a period of relative peace under larger confederacies was replaced by what was essentially a civil war with every smaller group for itself.

The Celts weren't incapable of fielding well-armed and skilled professional soldiers, but somehow the amounts had greatly decreased by the time Caesar entered the picture. Certainly for some time they had become less able to launch the expansions which so troubled the Romans and Greeks, which indicates a drop in the population growth which made such largescale expeditions possible. I argue that this drop in population growth indicates the severity of the conflict within Gaul and that this hampered the ability to field professional and experienced troops. Certainly the population was growing a lot prior to Celtic migrations; these migrations alleviated the population pressure somewhat, but probably caused population density to lower too much. In that regard Gaul was recovering later in its independant history, but not at a rate as high as the Germanic population boom.

The Celts were being defeated most of the time by a pre-Marius conscript army. The Romans were generally outnumbered and won the majority of the battles.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=144

I'll repeat the arguments that were probably made in that topic and believe are still relevant: the account of these battles is from a Roman perspective and frequently biased in their favour, and the long period in which these events took place illustrate the challenge the Celts were to the Romans despite the amount of large victories Roman historians make claim to.

As for the Germans these events happened prior to the supposed "Devastating Civil War"

William H. Maehl-"Germany in Western Civilization"All efforts to block the German advance availed nothing. At some time in the course of the third century B.C. the backbone of the Celtic resistance was broken, and this people for the most part evacuated central and western Germany, fleeing to the east, south, and west. Many Celts, of course, were captured and enslaved or even remained behind as allies or free subjects of the Germans." pg.7

J.B. Bury-"The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians"-" After 1000BC a double movement of expansion began. The Germans between the Oder and the Elbe pressed westward, displacing the Celts. The boundary between the Celts and Germans advanced to the west, and by about 200BC it had been pushed forward to the Rhine, and southward to the Main. Throughout this period the Germans had been also pressing up the Elbe. Soon after 100BC southern Germany had been occupied, and they were attempting to flood Gaul. This inundation was stemmed by Julius Caesar." pg.5

You're arguing that the Germans should be made stronger, statwise, than Celts. These quotes however, rather than implying that the Germans were expanding at the cost of the Celts in outlying territories due to martial skills or better tactics, imply that their advantage was numerical: they were going through a large population growth similar to what gave Celts an advantage in their expansion to such areas as Asia Minor. What exactly do these quotes add to support your claims?

I would say that these quotes do however hint at the important part: Gaul had a lower population density than at the time of Celtic migrations and was only recovering slowly (hinting at plenty of warfare and/or problems with agriculture), what was left was instable and frequented by war, whilst the Germanic population was increasing at a high rate. Ultimately these factors combined to create a weak celtic position, not some superiority of Germanic troops, and certainly not something that should be reflected right at the start of EB when there is still time to recover.

Stephen Allen-"Lords of Battle, the World of the Celtic Warrior"-"The change in emphasis from skirmishing with javelins to shock tactics using a spear and long sword can be detected in Caesar's description of the cavalry engagements during his campaigns in Gaul. By this period, the elite Gallic warriors who provided the urban aristocracies with their armed retainers were almost entirely cavalry, armed with spear and long slashing sword, protected by an iron helmet and mailshirt, and mounted on a larger horse capable of bearing the weight of the rider and his equipment. To the Romans, they were the equivalent of their own 'knightly' class, the equites." pg.132

The elites during this time were the cavalry and there were plenty of them.

Again, a misinterpretation of a quote in my opinion. This is referring clearly to elites of society, the rich who afford a mount and quality equipment, something distinct from professional soldiers with good training (and possibly, though not necessarily with good equipment) which were sorely lacking in the first century BC. The quote literally calls them a 'knightly' class, and it does not equate to professionals.

Practically every society has a societal elite that can afford better equipment than the masses due to their relative wealth and as long as wealth doesn't flow outward too much (out of Gaul, that is) this wealthy group will remain, but this says nothing about the standard of training or skills as warriors. That despite their (supposed) large numbers and good equipment they failed in against such enemies as Caesar says something about their experience. It doesn't take skill or professionalism to inherit armour and wealth from a dead father and charge into battle at Alesia.

Perhaps I am wrong but it seems to me that you haven't been reading the discourse between Psyco V and myself. I would suggest starting with post 265 on page nine and going from there.

Don't worry, I have read the discourse and have found it extremely informative and interesting. Interesting enough in fact, to wish to add my own contributions!

[blitzkrieg80]

It seems to me that source-wise we have no variety by circumstance and as such, Frostwulf's position is entirely justified (obviously not without much effort) and he indeed uses the primary and secondary sources available, further proving legitimacy to his effort.

On the other hand, no evidence has been provided for a counterargument, the simple logic of "the Celts didn't get invaded earlier, so they must have been strong" is really all that is being said and has ABSOLUTELY 0% evidence to it.

The bottom line is put up or shut up as the phrase goes, if there is evidence to counter Frostwulf's theory, then provide the citation... I do not have such, so I remain quiet, in fact I can only agree with the overwhelming evidence whether it is actually out of context or not- IT'S EVIDENCE! As Frostwulf mentioned, if we're not using those scholarly and scientific resources that define the academic field in relation to this subject matter, what the hell else we talking about? Just because history went a certain way that does not provide any semblence of a legitimate argument.

So here is the challenge people, where is your evidence that the Germans were weak? Archaeological record? ha! We know they used clubs to great effect as seen on Trajan's column and accounts of their use in service of Rome. One could say the material culture of hill-forts show a continuation of Celtic culture but really that only means they weren't changed and has no bearing on the argument of success in battle outside of the hillfort. I'm sure the fortified cities in Pannonia would look the same despite dominance of the environs by roaming Huns. So where is this specific reference to Germans being inferior? is it scholarly? cite it! simply because of the Celts' technology? the Romans were inferior in that sense and borrowed from Celts and Iberians, but that does not reinforce any argument to their lack in success or quality.

it seems to me, with "master race" bs being thrown all around, some people are Celto-centric whether because of ethnic bias or basic adoration of such a great culture, but that again is 0% evidence toward anything... instead of telling Frostwulf to get lost and read more when obviously he has read more than the people who AREN'T citing, maybe you guys should pull out a book for a change and use some evidence. commentary in an effort to devalue evidence isn't evidence either.

[Geoffrey S]

My, aren't we angry? Last I checked I haven't ever stated that the Germanics were weak, nor do I believe they were; only that there is no indication that they were significantly stronger or more skilled at arms as Frostwulf suggests. And since that is his suggestion, I feel perfectly entitled to give my reasons for not agreeing with his use of the sources and in my opinion have done so in a civil way.

[Watchman]

When a powerful realm starts losing territory to a bunch of barbarians across the border they clearly have not had excessive trouble fending off previously, it tends to nigh invariably speak of two things (usually combined) - first, the realm being invaded has begun losing whatever edge it originally had that allowed it to hold off the barbarians; second, the invading barbarians have been learning their lessons and are now tougher nuts than they used to be, or perhaps just more numerous and motivated to spill over the border for some reason.

The Late Roman period is rife with this sort of stuff, as is the history of China and the horse nomads beyond its borders.

Almost invariably a central component of this decline is serious internal trouble; for one reason or another the institutions of the "victim" realm have become weak, often accompanied by severe internal strife the invaders can exploit (if only in the form of there being less troops available to oppose them due to the domestic strife; defections often also feature heavily in such developements, assorted minor bosses and commanders seeing the writing on the wall and jumping ship to survive or just fill their pockets).

I've yet to see any convincing argument as to why this was not the case also in Gaul when the Germans and Romans started making succesful overtures in the 1st century BC - on the contrary, the references Caesar AFAIK makes to civil strife there and the employement of both German and Roman armies in the Gauls' domestic power struggles suggest as much. The collapse of many a realm has begun just from the ill-advised invitation of foreign armies into the land for some purpose (which usually tends to have something to do with the local lords' own military resources for some reason being insufficient for their needs)

Plus, as I seem to recall having pointed out a long time ago (how long has this debate been going on anyway...?), far as I can tell in EB the stats of the German tribal levies more or less match those of many of the Gallic professional troops, the only real advantage of the latter being the heavy armour of their better late-period troops.
Which is downright generous if you ask me.

[Geoffrey S]

I've yet to see any convincing argument as to why this was not the case also in Gaul when the Germans and Romans started making succesful overtures in the 1st century BC - on the contrary, the references Caesar AFAIK makes to civil strife there and the employement of both German and Roman armies in the Gauls' domestic power struggles suggest as much. The collapse of many a realm has begun just from the ill-advised invitation of foreign armies into the land for some purpose (which usually tends to have something to do with the local lords' own military resources for some reason being insufficient for their needs)

Which is also an interesting point, as it indicates that there was enough money to go around to gain support of outside groups but a lack of own professionals; which would also be a possible explanation for the well-equiped but underperforming Gauls in Caesars wars.

[Watchman]

One of the main attractors of mercenaries in general, in the case they did not "simply" supply a competence you were for one reason or another short of in your domestically available troops (eg. Cretans in Greek armies), was that they were available on comparatively short notice if you were short of competent soldiers soldiers. It should be noted they might actually be recruitable relatively cheaply - many were paid with little more than promises and looting rights, but then many were also content enough with such arrangements. One fairly popular form of payment in some times and places was the prospect of allowing the mercenaries to settle on the lands wrested from your enemy - William the Conqueror paid many of his soldiers in this fashion - which also has the advantage they have a real motivation to fight to the best of their ability to win it.

'Course, the blighters might turn out to be rather costly later if they developed funny ideas... To paraphrase a merchant prince from one Pratchett book, "the trouble with mercenaries is you often find yourself paying them more to stop fighting."

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

The only truly overpowered faction in the game are the Romani, and that's because they did really kick ass during the EB timespan.

[Frostwulf]

Precisely: they are specific events, from which generalities about German cavalry prowess is drawn.

I'm referring to the use of information from Caesar to support claims about 270 bc.

The German cavalry of Caesar's time were superior to that of the Gauls as shown by the events of this time. What reason would there be to assume that these same German units would have changed from earlier times? They would have had the same equipment, so what would have changed? I'm not referring to the armored cavalry of Ariovistus's or the TCA. I'm writing about Caesars mercenaries and the other German cavalry(Sugambri, Usipetes/Tenceri ).

As far as the Gauls are concerned you have to believe in the supposed "Devastating Civil War" theory and say they are weaker. I will get to the Gallic cavalry later and show why this won't stand.

As far as I can tell the sources you use are books, which by their nature generalise and condense. They're summaries and overviews, with different aims to articles which expand on more detailed issues. They tend to focus on events and histories, based mainly on original texts such as Caesar, or on presenting an overview of Celtic culture through archeology, such as Barry Cunliffe's The Ancient Celts. Blank spots in our knowledge such as what exactly the history of Gaul was like outside of contact with classical cultures like Rome and the Greeks are very rarely addressed in literature, with the occasional exception such as in Holt's Thundering Zeus illuminating the darker corners of Greek-Bactrian history. That's why information about Gaul for the majority of EBs timescale is hard to come by (and why it's so disputed, as this topic illustrates!).

The books that I have been referring to use both historical records from different ancient authors as well as archeology. Again the authors I have been reciting are amongst the best in the field.

It's a blank spot open to speculation. Whereas you take the side that the Germans became stronger and/or more skilled than the Celts based on numbers in various battles and individual details of battle skills late in the period of EB, I take the side that the Celts became weaker based on the information that a once large area that was predominately Celtic shrank considerably after a period of relative peace under larger confederacies was replaced by what was essentially a civil war with every smaller group for itself.

Yes but some speculation is better then others based upon reading and research. The supposed "Devastating Civil War" started in the 120's BC, so how is it that the Germans were already pushing the Celts back 500-400BC? The Celts started expanding south during that time period, so how are they weaker? The Celts sacked Rome around 390 BC, yet up north they were being pushed back. By 200BC the Germans were to the Rhine, thats nearly 80yrs before the supposed "Devastating Civil War". Your theory doesn't work because your time frame is off. You will also have to remember the Romans were defeating the Gauls well before the supposed "Devastating Civil War"

The Celts weren't incapable of fielding well-armed and skilled professional soldiers, but somehow the amounts had greatly decreased by the time Caesar entered the picture. Certainly for some time they had become less able to launch the expansions which so troubled the Romans and Greeks, which indicates a drop in the population growth which made such largescale expeditions possible. I argue that this drop in population growth indicates the severity of the conflict within Gaul and that this hampered the ability to field professional and experienced troops. Certainly the population was growing a lot prior to Celtic migrations; these migrations alleviated the population pressure somewhat, but probably caused population density to lower too much. In that regard Gaul was recovering later in its independant history, but not at a rate as high as the Germanic population boom.

Simon James "The World of the Celts"-" 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
A rich and prosperous land, not the lack of population your suggesting. Caesar undoubtedly exaggerated the numbers of the Gauls he came against, but if you look at how many people that were in the cities of the time they certainly didn't have a population problem. Your claim that the population must have been lower because the lack of migrations, I simply counter with what really happened-Urbanization. I will deal again with the warrior situation later.

I'll repeat the arguments that were probably made in that topic and believe are still relevant: the account of these battles is from a Roman perspective and frequently biased in their favour, and the long period in which these events took place illustrate the challenge the Celts were to the Romans despite the amount of large victories Roman historians make claim to.

So the lying Romans only told the truth when they outnumbered the Celts or when they lost I suppose. The Romans probably did exaggerate some of the numbers and circumstances, but what else are we to go on? I will go with what the authors I read go with, an educated guess.

You're arguing that the Germans should be made stronger, statwise, than Celts. These quotes however, rather than implying that the Germans were expanding at the cost of the Celts in outlying territories due to martial skills or better tactics, imply that their advantage was numerical: they were going through a large population growth similar to what gave Celts an advantage in their expansion to such areas as Asia Minor. What exactly do these quotes add to support your claims?

If you will go back and read these posts you will see this was in response to Psyco V claiming the Celts had been defeating the Germans for centuries. You said they matched the best in the world, yet were not able to stop the Germans. The Romans were able to stop enemies that had more troops then they, if the Celts were there equal why couldn't they?

I would say that these quotes do however hint at the important part: Gaul had a lower population density than at the time of Celtic migrations and was only recovering slowly (hinting at plenty of warfare and/or problems with agriculture), what was left was instable and frequented by war, whilst the Germanic population was increasing at a high rate. Ultimately these factors combined to create a weak celtic position, not some superiority of Germanic troops, and certainly not something that should be reflected right at the start of EB when there is still time to recover.

Again, the Germans began pushing into Celtic territory the same time the Celts were doing their expansion.
H.D. Rankin-"Celts and the Classical World"-"By the end of the sixth century BC, the Germans had expanded into Belgium and the southern part of Holland. They occupied both banks of the lower Rhine, and they reached as far south as the Ardennes.

Again, a misinterpretation of a quote in my opinion. This is referring clearly to elites of society, the rich who afford a mount and quality equipment, something distinct from professional soldiers with good training (and possibly, though not necessarily with good equipment) which were sorely lacking in the first century BC. The quote literally calls them a 'knightly' class, and it does not equate to professionals.

Did you not read were it says the "elite Gallic warriors"? Did you not read the quotes that I posted from Kruta that talks about their training?

Practically every society has a societal elite that can afford better equipment than the masses due to their relative wealth and as long as wealth doesn't flow outward too much (out of Gaul, that is) this wealthy group will remain, but this says nothing about the standard of training or skills as warriors. That despite their (supposed) large numbers and good equipment they failed in against such enemies as Caesar says something about their experience. It doesn't take skill or professionalism to inherit armour and wealth from a dead father and charge into battle at Alesia.

As I have said earlier the Romans were already beating the Celts with pre-Marian troops. What did you think was going to happen with post-Marian troops?

Don't worry, I have read the discourse and have found it extremely informative and interesting. Interesting enough in fact, to wish to add my own contributions!

I'm glad you do contribute, I think it helps in the understanding of things. But I do have some criticisms.
1. I don't believe you read the thread very well as I have had to repeat things I have replied to Psycho V about.
2. I think your history in this area is lacking a bit. When I first started posting on this thread, I had to re-read and firm up and expand my education on this subject. I would suggest you do the same thing.
3.Where did you get your education on this subject? Most likely from the things you say generalize and condense and etc.
4. What makes you think that the Celts were so tough? Could it be from the lying Romans? Isn't it the lying Romans and the untruthful Greeks where we get the majority of our information of the battles from?

Watchman I haven't seen you post for awhile, welcome back if you have been absent for awhile. Of course I see we will disagree again

Almost invariably a central component of this decline is serious internal trouble; for one reason or another the institutions of the "victim" realm have become weak, often accompanied by severe internal strife the invaders can exploit (if only in the form of there being less troops available to oppose them due to the domestic strife; defections often also feature heavily in such developements, assorted minor bosses and commanders seeing the writing on the wall and jumping ship to survive or just fill their pockets).

I've yet to see any convincing argument as to why this was not the case also in Gaul when the Germans and Romans started making succesful overtures in the 1st century BC - on the contrary, the references Caesar AFAIK makes to civil strife there and the employement of both German and Roman armies in the Gauls' domestic power struggles suggest as much. The collapse of many a realm has begun just from the ill-advised invitation of foreign armies into the land for some purpose (which usually tends to have something to do with the local lords' own military resources for some reason being insufficient for their needs)

As I have pointed out earlier the Germans were already invading Celtic areas around 400-500 BC, several centuries prior to the supposed "Devastating Civil War". Again the Romans defeated the Celts the majority of the times all prior to the supposed "Devastating Civil War".

What comments exactly does Caesar say to make you think this civil strife was so devastating?
What of the employment of the Romans of Gauls,Germans,Numidians and others in their civil wars, does this suggest the same thing? Were the Romans weak for using mercenaries?

Plus, as I seem to recall having pointed out a long time ago (how long has this debate been going on anyway...?), far as I can tell in EB the stats of the German tribal levies more or less match those of many of the Gallic professional troops, the only real advantage of the latter being the heavy armour of their better late-period troops.

What of the cavalry and the elites? I still think the Germanic levies should be as good as the Gallic professional troops.

It seems to me that source-wise we have no variety by circumstance and as such, Frostwulf's position is entirely justified (obviously not without much effort) and he indeed uses the primary and secondary sources available, further proving legitimacy to his effort.

On the other hand, no evidence has been provided for a counterargument, the simple logic of "the Celts didn't get invaded earlier, so they must have been strong" is really all that is being said and has ABSOLUTELY 0% evidence to it.

I agree, and I appreciate you writing on this.

The bottom line is put up or shut up as the phrase goes, if there is evidence to counter Frostwulf's theory, then provide the citation... I do not have such, so I remain quiet, in fact I can only agree with the overwhelming evidence whether it is actually out of context or not- IT'S EVIDENCE! As Frostwulf mentioned, if we're not using those scholarly and scientific resources that define the academic field in relation to this subject matter, what the hell else we talking about? Just because history went a certain way that does not provide any semblence of a legitimate argument.

I will say I used one quote where the Menapii were defeated but it was due to a surprise attack. Other then that I'm still waiting for anyone to challenge the other quotes legitimately.

So here is the challenge people, where is your evidence that the Germans were weak? Archaeological record? ha! We know they used clubs to great effect as seen on Trajan's column and accounts of their use in service of Rome. One could say the material culture of hill-forts show a continuation of Celtic culture but really that only means they weren't changed and has no bearing on the argument of success in battle outside of the hillfort. I'm sure the fortified cities in Pannonia would look the same despite dominance of the environs by roaming Huns. So where is this specific reference to Germans being inferior? is it scholarly? cite it! simply because of the Celts' technology? the Romans were inferior in that sense and borrowed from Celts and Iberians, but that does not reinforce any argument to their lack in success or quality.

it seems to me, with "master race" bs being thrown all around, some people are Celto-centric whether because of ethnic bias or basic adoration of such a great culture, but that again is 0% evidence toward anything... instead of telling Frostwulf to get lost and read more when obviously he has read more than the people who AREN'T citing, maybe you guys should pull out a book for a change and use some evidence. commentary in an effort to devalue evidence isn't evidence either.

I would like to see people either supporting or disagreeing with evidence instead of supposition. Also the term I come across for Celto-centric people is Celtophile.

[Frostwulf]

The only truly overpowered faction in the game are the Romani, and that's because they did really kick ass during the EB timespan.

Sorry I just can't let this one go!

Lol I have to agree 100% with this

[blitzkrieg80]

if my tone was interpreted as angry it wasn't meant to be... my fellow EB members can vouch that I'm just a "loud" ass

Geoffrey, you have been civil, so I am sorry if I came off as targeting you inappropriately or in particular, which was not my intent

[Watchman]

As I have pointed out earlier the Germans were already invading Celtic areas around 400-500 BC, several centuries prior to the supposed "Devastating Civil War". Again the Romans defeated the Celts the majority of the times all prior to the supposed "Devastating Civil War".

Right. Must've been awfully half-assed about following up their victories then, given how bloody large territories the Celts in general and Gauls in particular still controlled in the 1st century BC. And were able to spare the manpower for some pretty big campaigns - indeed, at least one full-scale migration as well - on the side.

Are we to believe these mighty all-conquering warriors who scattered Celtic warbands like sticks into the wind before them lacked the inclination to take their lands too or something ? Perhaps they thought it unsporting...?

Or that the Celts sat on their thumbs for four hundred years getting beat up by their neighbours and never once tried to come up with ways to turn the tables ?

And if the Roman record of fighting the Celts even pre Caesar etc. really was that one-sided, one really has to wonder at the Celtic enthusiasm to try major raids against them over the centuries... Are we to believe the Celtic warrior class had a collective pathological death wish, marching to supposed certain doom like that ?
Nevermind now the fact Cisalpine Gaul did hold out for a fairly long time against the increasingly overwhelming might of Rome. Given the Roman flair for ruthless opportunism one really has to wonder why they didn't just walk in and grind the nasty trouser-wearing buggers under their sandals the second they could spare an army from fighting the Carthaginians and Hellenics, if they now were so militarily superior...

You line of reasoning lacks credibility I'm afraid. If both the Germans and the Romans had held such a clear advantage over the Celts in battle already so early on, independent of any domestic trouble the latter might have developed, then why the Hell did it take them so bloody long to conclusively overrun them ? Answer that.

What of the cavalry and the elites?

*shrug* The Gauls were richer and better metalworkers so logic dictates their top guys had better war gear. As these also were the creme de creme of their warrior class (given the logic of their "promotion" system) they should obviously be pretty hardcore. The German top dudes might have enough accumulated experience to make up the difference, but I find the prospect somewhat difficult to accept - we're talking highly trained crack veterans on both camps here; all other things being equal the advantage in a straight slugging match then per definition goes to the guys with the better war gear.

As for cavalry, the Germans currently lack anything directly comparable to the Brihentin so that part is moot. IIRC the Ridonharjoz, like still altogether too many overhand-spear cav, have some statting issues but at least going by the basic statline they should have an upper hand against the Leuce Epos so I don't really see a problem.

I still think the Germanic levies should be as good as the Gallic professional troops.

And *I* still think you're severely biased in favour of the Germans. Personally I find the parity to be somewhat generous, but I guess it's the only way to simulate, within the confines of the game engine, the way well-practised militia troops can match professionals by means of well-thought tactics, teamwork and group cohesion.

[Glewas]

...Ariovistus, after he had many months kept himself in his camp and in the marshes, and had given no opportunity for an engagement, fell suddenly upon them, by this time despairing of a battle and scattered in all directions, and was victorious more through stratagem and cunning than valour. But though there had been room for such stratagem against savage and unskilled men, not even [Ariovistus] himself expected that thereby our armies could be entrapped.

I came upon this part of Caesar's Gallic Wars the other day and I wondered how you (Frostwulf) take the about part the men being unskilled. In reading the translation you quote, I at first took it to mean the Gauls were generally "bad," for lack of a better word, it terms of warfare. Possibly in comparison to German warriors, or maybe even to Roman soldiers, as it is part of a speech Caesar's gives to his men as you stated above. If such was true then it would back up your claim that the Germans were better warriors than the Celts.

However, the reason I bring this up is that my translation, by S. A. Hanford (I know not whether this a "good" or "bad" translation), is slightly different than above. Where the Gauls are referred to as "savage and unskilled" in your trans. Hanford describes them as being "inexperienced natives." This made be think differently of the meaning of "unskilled." To find out more info I went to Perseus to check out the Latin text and the word used by Caesar is imperitos which is translated as both unskiled and inexperienced, along with unfamiliar and ignorant.

Now here's the question... why would Caesar describe these Celtic combatants, who come from what is generally accepted as a "warrior culture" in which glory and valor in battle is highly regarded, as such? Could it be that the Celts were fielding young men who had yet seen battle or at least seen very little? If so... then why? Maybe that devestaing civil war that you claim wasn't such a big deal really was?