Celtic overpowered!

[Geoffrey S]

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 ).

What indications do you have that Germanic warfare was that stagnant? To me that sounds like equating the Marian legions to the legions of 270 bc.

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.

And they are also primarily concerned with the culture of the Celts with only a very loose frame of history outside the well-documented parts with contacts with Mediterranean civilizations.

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".

Took them an awful long time to achieve that, then, certainly since the Celts were migrating all over the place in the meantime, leaving the homelands less densely populated.

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

Not in every battle, but in battles that the (later!) Romans decided to include in their histories, sometimes little more than overblown skirmishes at that.

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.

It was rich and prosperous, I'll agree completely, but that says nothing about the population or the state of the available troops. If anything, the wealth of the region can be taken to mean less people to divide the available means over, much like the plague in Europe for a time increased the fortunes of those that survived.

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.

Urbanization is an interesting possibility that needs to be considered. But was it necessarily a good thing, like you suggest? I recall that deathrates in cities prior to modern sanitation was significantly higher that in the countryside; it's a delicate balance between population growth and decline, and quite conceivably the latte was the case. But I'll admit it's a good point that needs more thought.

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 did not say they were the best in the world; quite the opposite, I argued that by the time of Celtic decline their troops were somewhat worse and available in far smaller numbers (particularly professionals) than before, certainly in comparison to their enemies.

Again, the Germans began pushing into Celtic territory the same time the Celts were doing their expansion.

And again, you don't see a possible connection between these two expansions?

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?

Not that that counts for much, if they're constantly being lost in skirmishes with neighbouring Celts and don't accrue much experience in battle, also gradually eroding the amount of professionals that can be fielded. And they're a small elite regardless, what about the levies that are being expended against each other and also gain very little in the way of actual battle experience?

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?

They'd get beaten. While I disagree they were consistently beaten by pre-Marian troops, and I'd say they weren't consistently beaten by Marian troops (though more regularly), I'll agree the Celtic levies and small amounts of relatively inexperienced professionals were outclassed by the professional Roman legions.

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?

1. Replied, sure, but that doesn't mean a consensus was reached or that I agree with the reply.

2. It is a bit lacking since it's not what my studies are focused on now. But that does not mean I can't pick out what I perceive to be flawed arguments and question their reasoning.

3. And I realise their limitations.

4. Right, I see this really needs clearing up. I don't believe the Celts were the toughest bastards around. My opinion on this matter is that there is no indication of innate Germanic toughness or skill that allowed them to eventually beat the Celts, that yes, they were in general more skilled warriors and more numerous (a key point) by the time Caesar describes Gaul but that there is no indication that this state of affairs can be directly linked to the Germanics needing to be stronger than Celts or that Celts should be comparatively weaker than other factions at the start of EBs timeframe.

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

No problem.