Celtic overpowered!

[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.

[Frostwulf]

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...?

Could it be that they were land hungry and once they kicked out the Celts they settled the land? As more tribes started growing they kept displacing the Celts? Rankin thinks the Celtic hill forts may have held them for awhile. The Helvetii were forced out of their territory by the Germans in the 1st century BC. The Germans did take their land:

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.

H.D. Rankin "Celts and the Classical World"-"We begin to learn of significantly insistent Germanic penetration into Celtic Lands in the first Century BC. The Celtic Helvetii moved out of western Switzerland in 58BC: their migration was caused by Germanic pressure." pg.20

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 ?

I'm sure they tried, they just failed is all. If you have information contrary to this please post it.

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...

I have the list of the battles posted here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=144
The Celts held out so long because the Romans were busy conquering central and southern Italy.

H.D. Rankin “Celts and the Classical World”-“The First Punic War had prevented the Romans from dealing finally with the Celtic menace. It was after this war that the Celts made their concerted attack of 225BC: it may have been intended as a pre-emptive attack by the Celts but it was much too late for this purpose. Then came Hannibal’s invasion of Italy, which prevented the Romans from bringing the Celtic question to a conclusion for a number of years.” pg113

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.

For the Germans that is just speculation on my part as to why they stopped when they did. For the Romans they were conquering central and southern Italy first. The Romans were interrupted from dealing with the Celts as Rankin and others say. Again I answer that in the above link.
So I have Rankin,Dyson,Connoly,James and etc. for credibility, what do you have?

*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.

I agree that the Gauls would be outfitted better then the Germans for the most part. Prior to Caesar we don't really have any written records of battles between the Germans and the Gauls. All we know prior to Caesar is that the Germans were encroaching on the Celtic territory's. From Caesar's writings during his time we know that the Germans were martially superior to the Celts.

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.

Of course I am, I am also a Roman apologist, and maybe in time I'll be a Graecophile.
I agree with you about the game engine and its confines.

[PSYCHO V]

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

Thanks mate

No need for apologies… 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..

Cheers.

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."

I “forgot” nothing. What do you suppose was the cause of these mass movements of Gallic warriors! Even your beloved Livy states that these groups had come into being due to internal pressures and turmoil. Was the battle of Admagetobriga a response to Rome?

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.

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.

Actually, by this juncture he is talking about the generic development of the various power blocks / proto-states, etc… and no, they are not two separate issues. One’s prosperity / power depended on the number of clients / retainers / forces.

..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"-"…cavalry totally replace the war-chariots ..blah blah blah." pg.110

Stephen Allen-"Lords of Battle, the World of the Celtic Warrior"-"The nature of Celtic warfare changed … to large conflicts between tribal confederations …A major consequence was the increasing importance of cavalry …blah blah blah." pg.83

Stephen Allen-"Lords of Battle, the World of the Celtic Warrior"-" By this period, the elite Gallic warriors who provided the urban aristocracies with their armed retainers were almost entirely cavalry…blah blah blah" pg.132

I know you like to post alot of quotes but I fail to see what has this has got to do with the price of tea in China?

…Romans>Germans>Celts
…The Germans outclassed the Celts..regardless of the territory.
…The Celts were not as good as the Romans nor the Germans.
…I believe the German warrior to be superior.
…The Germans should be superior to them (Gauls).

I don't think it was the infighting but the external force that may have brought them (Gauls) low…. If there was any weakening to the Celts during Caesar's time it was because of the Germans which Caesar himself alludes to..

I'm afraid I'm going to have to quote your own words back to you.

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.

Goldsworthy “Caesar” -“ Throughout the Gallic campaigns German warriors consistently defeated their Gallic counterparts, each success adding to their fierce reputation… The tactics and the quality of the Germanic warriors usually gave them the edge over the Gaulish cavalry”

As I mentioned previously, repetition does not a good argument make when one ignores context. Context ! Ie “Throughout the Gallic campaigns”

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.

Really? I don’t see anyone else claiming the Germans to be innately superior throughout several hundred years of history.

Some are saying that the "Civil War" with the Sequani, Arverni vs. the Aedui (there were others involved) in 70-60 BC was devastating and nearly brought all these tribes to ruin. I am disagreeing with this on the basis of the findings of Simon James and the writing of A. Goldsworthy.

So at the end of the day, all you have is a quote about how the Gauls didn’t wage total war (James) and how the German units fought well in the 1st C BC (Goldsworthy)…just before they (Gauls) were overrun. Hardly a convincing argument there my friend

As I have said ad naseum, there were several factors that lead to the Gallic demise not one issue only. You have to look at the big picture, remember my analogy of the White Elephant? Internal martial and political weakness, fiscal prosperity, centralisation of governance, external military and socio-economic pressure, both internal and external population pressures, etc etc all contributed. Like the fall of most states / empires, one would be naïve to just to consider the most obvious. Did the western Roman empire fall because they could not stop the Germanic Master Race in 410 AD, no. Just like the Gauls, there were years of decline / political instability, civil war, etc etc that contributed.

Anyone who aims to understand the human past - must seek out the remaining driftwood of earlier times, traces surviving in the present: old documents, objects, monuments, etc. They must then use these, applying their knowledge of how the world works, to construct histories. (Simon James, University of Leicester, UK, 10 September 2005)

You will also have to remember the Romans were defeating the Gauls well before the supposed "Devastating Civil War".

And the Transalpine Gauls were defeating the Romans as well (before the civil war)..even as late as 63 BC. Your point?

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.

Oh here we go again! The perceptual short cut.


my2bob

[PSYCHO V]

Gday again Frosty. You have posted quite a few comments which I would like to address but don’t think I’ll have time to do so now. This for starters...

The Eubrones (sic) were a Germanic speaking people, and they were part of the Belgae.

Well they may have been bi-lingual and spoken German (we don’t know) but they definitely had Celtic customs, culture and tongue. Further, the Eburones (‘yew people’) were not Belgae but rather (along with the Treveri, Levaci, Condrusi, Caeroesi, Paemani, Segni and Ceutrones), remnants of the Moselle Celts.

“Other tribes who appear to have descended from these Moselle Celts, who had occupied that entire region in the early La Tene period, were the Eburones, a small but hardy group in the forest of the Ardennes….” (The Celts a History, The Destruction of Gaul, pg 149 – Daithi O’Hogain)

Caesar said that the Eburones, Condrusi, Caerosi and Paemani were Germanic.

No, Caesar said that the aforementioned were “known as German tribes”. Known to whom? The ‘Marne’ tribes of central Gaul from which Caesar was getting his information. Why?, because the Marne Celts regarded the Moselle Celts, who happen to have had a thriving culture on the Rhine,.. as easterners / ‘Germans’ (1st C BC). Not too dissimilar to how the Allies of WWI / WWII referred to Germans as Huns.

For the Belgae about the only thing we know of them is they intermingled early on with the Celts in now northern France.

Not true, we know a little more than that.

The Belgae (‘furious ones’), like all Celts, had originally come from Germany. More specifically, they appear to have originated between the Tauber and Main rivers. These were an adventurous people who had their origins in the warrior cults of central Germany that thrived with the collapse of the old Celtic Halstatt chiefdoms. Some Belgae nobility may have even been descendants of the old Halstatt regimes. Some scholars claim they were related to the Volcae.

We also know about many aspects of their material culture. We know of their distinctive art, type and quality of arms, antiquated (by ‘Marne’ standards) ceramics and methods of manufacture, antiquated smithing techniques and treatment of the dead, etc etc.

And whilst you may believe the Belgae to be Germanic because their martial prowess fits in with this ‘master race’ hypothesis, facts say otherwise. Of course, if you dig around long enough you will be able to find some great quotes to support this very old myth.

Belgae history (like all Celtic history) has been written and re-written over centuries, swayed by the tumult of ethno-political events, movements and agendas,... only recently being clawed back from obscurity. They have suffered from agenda based revisionism since the first accounts of their existence were recorded.

This revisionism, was given new impetus in the ‘new dawning’ of European national identity.

When the last Breton army was defeated in 1488 by the French, the Bretons were forced to sign the Treaty of Union between Brittany and France. Frenchman Jean le Fevre was sponsored by his King to write ‘Les Fleurs et Antiquitez des Gaules, ou il est traits des Anciens Philosophes Gaulois applelez Druides’ (1532) in which he stated “we are all Celts now”, claiming that the Germanic Franks and Celto-Belgae Bretons were all of the one Celtic stock.

Elias Schedius claimed that Belgae and Germans were the same people and that the Druids were the ancestors of all German peoples (1648, De Dis Germanis).

By the mid 1700s the French were again having problems with the Bretons. French centralist policies were encroaching on Brittany’s autonomous status, guaranteed under the Acts of Union and several Breton leaders had been executed for attempting to reassert Breton independence. Simon Pelloutiers was sponsored by his King to write another work, claiming that “the religion of the Germanic Franks and the Celtic Belgae was one and the same thing” (1740, Histoire des Gaulois).

Not surprising that the Nazis drew heavily on such texts to support their ethnic theories on the Aryan race. The myth lives on!

William H. Maehl-"Germany in Western Civilization pg.7"-"On the eve of the mastery of Germany, ..blah blah blah …. 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…

Even if one ignored how dated this work is, doesn’t this strike you as a little odd? Do you think Maehl is being completely dispassionate and objectivity considering his ‘measured’ choice of words.

I could make a considerable list of the authors who don't mention the supposed "Devastating Civil War".

We’ll if you keep quoting stuff as dated as this, I wouldn’t be surprised.

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

As I have said earlier I'm neither an apologist nor of Germanic or Roman ancestry. Just in case the subject comes up… Just because I disagree with you is no reason for you to allege such things.

Ooo k…? The above comment has nothing to with the aforementioned. The comment was made because it exhibits the same perceptual shortcut. You like things simple and generic, I have just offered assistance by providing an appropriate nomenclature for your hypothesis.

…Romans>Germans>Celts
…The Germans outclassed the Celts..regardless of the territory.
…The Celts were not as good as the Romans nor the Germans.
…I believe the German warrior to be superior.
…The Germans should be superior to them (Gauls).

I notice a propensity to dismiss my comments and religiously quote / defer to that which is published / mentioned by others….. so it seems I’m going to have to do a little quoting myself… and I hate having to type stuff out.

“It is not surprising that they (Gauls) are still being reinvented at this time because, in our sad and sorry contemporary world, people still want a quick fix because people, in the quest for truth and meaning in life, which seems the perennial human drive, prefer simple answers. It is easier to accept the cosy pictures than ponder the uncomfortable realities…” - (Dr Peter Berresford Ellis)

Again, seeing as you like quotes I happened to be speaking with Dr James on Tuesday and mentioned our debate. In response to the your supposition that the Germans were superior to the Gauls he stated, and I quote:

“The Germans were not superior, then or more recently. Though they clearly were tough soldiers..” – (Dr Simon James PhD BSc FSA, Tuesday 11th September 2007, University of Leicester, UK)

Do you know of any reputed author, paper, or anything on this subject? .

Did I happen to mention how much I hate retyping stuff…

“Transalpine Gaul was suddenly seized with social and political turmoil. Following the Roman defeat of the Arverni in 121 BC, most of the inhabitants of region were plunged into a devastating civil war. The Aedui with their clients challenged the weakened Arverni and her allies in order to reassert prior claims of leadership and regain control of the lucrative trade routes that ran through the Rhone river valley.
Over the course of this protracted conflict, both sides became exhausted. In 71 BC, the Arverni and their allies the Sequani, sought desperate new measures to bring a favourably end to the conflict. They hired Germanic mercenaries from various tribes across the Rhine.
The leader of this mercenary body, the Seubi king Ariovistus, quickly noted the weakened military condition of the Gauls and immediately began exerting his own power, first amongst his ‘hosts’ the Sequani and then to the surrounding tribes. Towns were seized, hostages taken and considerable re-enforcements acquired from across the Rhine. The Aedui attempted to mobilise a Gallic resistance to this German incursion but support was limited. The united Gallic militia proved to be no match for Ariovistus’ mercenaries and the Gauls were slaughtered in 61 BC at a battle near Admagetobriga,” – (‘Indo-European History’, ‘La Tene Gaul’, XVI, 5.63, Univerzita Karlova v Praze)

When it comes to the Germans what else can you do? You only have information from certain time periods... 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!

The difference between ancient Rome and modern Italy is vast.

You didn’t answer my question. As I said, if you had “no understanding of ancient Rome”, you wouldn’t know that now would you? The only difference here is that you regard some data expedient to substantiate your hypothesis of the Germanic Master Race… whilst other data is not.

It would be hard to compare Germans and Gauls prior to Ariovistus because of the lack of information…

Apparently not.

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.

Again I believe you need to look at the big picture for fear of missing the wood through the trees. Your ignoring context by focusing on the Germans devoid of eternal factors. Strength is only regarded as such through the paradigm of relativity.

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?

Yes during Caesar’s time. Again strength is relative.

The point I was making (which I have made all along), is that the Germans didn’t suddenly wake up one morning in 70 BC as this elite unstoppable force you claim is inferred by Caesar in the 1st C BC. You can’t extrapolate the relative strength of the Germans during Caesar’s War to those several hundred years prior. The Gauls were comparatively weaker in the 1st C BC… as you have cited and every scholar noted. Ask yourself why?

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. Your theory doesn't work because your time frame is off.

(*sigh*) .. Frosty, you aren’t even talking about the same people!!

Ignoring the fact that most of the inhabitants of northern Europe were not Celtic at all but rather remnants of the Urnfield and some cases Germanic peoples (most of which had long freed themselves from their Halstatt overlords). They didn’t have an ancient cookie cutting to pop out some sort of generic Celt.

It’s extremely naïve to compare the Germano-Celtic remnants of these northern Halstatt chiefdoms to the advanced powerful La Tene ‘D’ states of Gaul.

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?

The problem is that your method of analysis appears to be completely dependant on the type of data, or should I say the interpretation one wishes to gain from the said data.

For the few examples given us of German troops during the 1st C BC (during Caesar’s war of conquest), you are quite happy play up, even make erroneous claims from events that (as you have even admitted) should never be used as supposed evidence. Eg. The Menapii.

On the other hand, when I post equivalent information about the Gauls (merely to prove how preposterous it is to extrapolate isolated events devoid of context), you appear quite comfortable dismissing them.

Eg.

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.

Caesars 4,000 were ambushed over extended ..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.
The Helvettii I already explained it, they were surprised and spread out.

Are you just making stuff up now? How did you get the “over extended, rolled off the field, spread out” bit?

Adrian Goldsworth-"Caesar:Life of a Colossus"-"….the allied cavalry were ambushed and beaten by a force of Helvetion (sic) cavalry a fraction of their size." pg.215

Regarding the ambush comment, Goldsworthy has made an assumption here. There is no evidence to that effect. Caesar only states that the Helvetii engaged them on “unfavourable ground”. Some scholars believe Caesar is just excusing his defeat as he did with Gergovia and the slaughter of several thousand Romans by the puny Eburones. We will never know for sure.

If you want to adopt Goldsworthy’s rationale then one would have acknowledge the same likelihood with your beloved 800 super Germans.

Caesar states; “Our men (Gallo-Romans) who thought themselves safe from attack because the enemy’s (German) envoys had only just left Caesar and had asked for a truce that day”.

The Germans attacked whilst seeking peace! If you’re happy to accept “unfavourable ground” as evidence of an ambush then surely you would accept the surprise attack of the Germans as an ambush as well!?

As for the other accounts of Germanic cavalry in De Bello Gallico, there is nothing to suggest that they were anything other than an effective / experienced force of mercenaries. An elite force bought at a price that fought a weakened Gallic aristocracy long reduced by civil war.

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. This many troops were not there at Magetobriga, though there may have been more then the 15,000 I said.

And how, prey tell, do you know that?

Why not suggest that 4,000 Romano-Gauls that fought ‘The mighty (German) 800’ were all kids from the local pony club?

You love to repeatedly cite the example of the 800 but what about the others instances I have cited about the Gauls. Couldn’t we just as likely draw all sorts of strange conclusions / make all sorts of grandiose claims?

Remember that 430,000 of these “superior” Germans (Usipetes and Tenctheri, to which the mighty 800 belonged) ran like girls when faced with 8 Roman legions.

“The Germans threw down their weapons, deserted their standards and rushed out of their camp. When they reached the confluence of the Moselle and the Rhine, they realized that they could flee no farther. A large number were killed, and the rest plunged into the water and perished, overcome by the force of the current in their terror-stricken and exhausted state. The Romans returned to camp without a single fatal casualty, and with only a very few wounded, although a grim struggle had been anticipated against an enemy 430,000 strong.” – (De Bello Gallico; IV.XXIV.V)

Yet we have several accounts on much smaller numbers of Gauls at least putting up a fight. The 92,000 Helvetii attacking 6 legions up hill and retiring in good order. Vercingetrix’s 80,000 Gauls being surprised by an assault of 10 legions and winning..etc etc Should we now assume that the Gauls were the master race / innately superior!? ..Of course not!

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). .

..Yes they were there. The lands they settled could have been fine with them. .

Of course. How heavenly pleasant ……. / convenient.

It was Ariovistus who after being invited to Gaul realized that is was good land and didn't want to leave..

You don’t seriously think that the Germans were ignorant / didn't have an appreciation of what Gaul was like prior to 71 BC ....do you!?

The Germans had had extensive contact with the Gauls for centuries. The Seubi had long been heavily influenced by the Gauls. Ariovistus spoke Gallic fluently and even had a Gallic aspect to his name .. ario-vid-s (‘he who forsees’). Many scholars even believe that he had significant contingents of Gauls amongst his mercenary force.

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

But if this was the only determiner for Germanic success in 70-65BC, why didn’t the Germans overrun Gaul in 500BC etc?

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.

Ah..of course! Silly me … they were dancing the "slow version" of the Volkerwanderung!

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.

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.

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".

Wow!... It never ceases to amaze me how some will only see what they want to see.

Why the bloody hell would Caesar try to calm his troops by telling them “Don’t worry about how the Germans fight! The Germans only managed to slaughter the Gauls because they slaughtered them previously”!?

It doesn’t make sense! You have to be having a lend ...surely?

The comment only makes sense when one acknowledges the context, that the Gauls had been slaughtering each other and were “exhausted by a long war”. The Civil war that you now partly deny

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.

He said it may have led to an increase, not- this may have led to the increase in the scale of warfare.

Oh please…semantics! Is that the best you can do?

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."

Ignored? What are you talking about? This is exactly what I have been saying all along!

The Gauls didn’t engage in total war! They fought until one side had wiped out the others forces / retainers or had gained a significant advantage in such, hostages exchanged and homage paid. The problem for the Gauls was that the Civil war in question was a wide reaching conflict of large evenly balanced forces, so what followed was an attrition of the aforementioned retainers / warrior elite until the balance started to shift and the Sequani took over the leadership of the Southern alliance. The Germans were brought in, at great shame to the Sequani, to even up the numbers. The Aedui confederacy, now bereft of fighters themselves, appealed to Rome.

The 400 were the Helvetii (who authors say were under pressure from Germans to leave) defeated Caesars Gallic cavalry.
The Helvetii moved due to German pressure?

“The Helvetii ..are almost in daily conflict with the Germans, either repulsing them or themselves invading Germany….
Orgetrix… organised a conspiracy of nobleman, and persuaded his countrymen to emigrate enmass, telling that they ..could very easily conquer the whole country (Gaul). They listened the more readily to his proposal because their territory is completely hemmed in by natural barriers, etc etc…. These obstacles restricted their movement and made it more difficult to attack their neighbours… they greatly resented constraint. Considering their military prestige, and reputation for bravery, they felt that their territory …” – (De Bello GallicoI.1&2)

Caesar-"Gallic war"-XL – “In short, that these (Germans) 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”

Doesn’t sound like they were fleeing in panic to me.

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

Well that may be your deduction but those with a little more objectivity may disagree.

The vulnerability doesn't mention the "Devastating Civil War"! Why, because its and exaggerated event.

Hmm.. “exaggerated”? .. so you're acknowledging it now?


my2bob

[NeoSpartan]

....
The Gauls didn’t engage in total war! They fought until one side had wiped out the others forces / retainers or had gained a significant advantage in such, hostages exchanged and homage paid. The problem for the Gauls was that the Civil war in question was a wide reaching conflict of large evenly balanced forces, so what followed was an attrition of the aforementioned retainers / warrior elite until the balance started to shift and the Sequani took over the leadership of the Southern alliance. The Germans were brought in, at great shame to the Sequani, to even up the numbers. The Aedui confederacy, now bereft of fighters themselves, appealed to Rome.

....

Guys I vote this thread to be stickied!

I FINALY understand wtf happened in that time period.

[blitzkrieg80]

hey everybody, suppose away and join in on the 0 evidence gang-bang! oh yeah!

(where's my evidence that you have no evidence?...err umm- good point!)

[Watchman]

Yeah, logic is overrated anyway.