Celtic overpowered!

[blitzkrieg80]

Glewas, the only error in that logic is to expect that scientists have been interested enough to find those archaeological samples so one could come to such a conclusion, when in fact there are entire gaps in time and findings simply because of disinterest, besides overpopulation and other factors, so one would be hard-pressed to prove such... but I think it would be cool if that was achievable... it could be that I do not have access to the 'latest findings' yet unpublished, but for the most part we are lucky to have scraps at the table, which is usually before (la tene and period closely following) and after (migration age)

[Frostwulf]

Wasn't one of the Gauls' prime trade commodities with the Romans slaves, though ? And you usually don't sell your own subjects as such in any great numbers, and obviously those of neighbours tend not come willingly...

Simon James-"The World of the Celts"-"Slavery existed, although on a smaller scale than in the Classical world; slaves may have been most important as export commodities." pg. 53

I believe most slaves were acquired while raiding and the battles, but it doesn't seem to be in large numbers.

Also, if the Helveti were to be genuinely pushed away from their lands by the encroaching Germans, one has trouble imagining they could actually afford to prepare for their migration as thoroughly as they did (as opposed to, you know, barely escaping with their lives). Moreover one would expect them to have been seriously militarily weakened by the Germanic raids and victories; yet they were apparently a formidable enough force that the potentates of Gaul proper did not apparently even try to check them by their own force of arms (which begs the question if they didn't have an acute shortage of that, doubly so if one were to follow the Helvetii-chased-away-by-Germans hypothesis), instead calling on their Roman contacts to defend them.

Erebus answers your question of the Gaul proper situation.

For your point about the Helveti - Caesar states that the Helveti wage constant war against the Germans, either repelling them from their own territories, or invading German lands. Caesar also say because of this they had the most valour of Gallic tribes. Orgetorix proposed that the Helvetti, whoes lands were confined to the mountains, move into the territory of the Aedui - to do this he married his daughter off to Dumnorix - a noble of the Aedui. He also made an alliance with the Sequani noble Casticus so he could pass through their lands. Unfortunately Orgetorix never fulfilled his ambition as he was killed, whilst Dumnorix was driven out by his brother Divitiacus, who had the backing of the Romans. I don't think Caesar mentions that the Helveti's migration was because of germanic raiding, but he does mention that they wanted better land. This is all from Caesar's Gallic Commentaries - the first few pages.

As a Celtophile I am going to be a bit biased even though I try not to be, but I'll take Caesar's pep talk for fact. Which leads me to agree with Watchman that the Helvetii left their lands not because they were forced by the Germans, but because there were better lands to be had and the "unsuccessful" German raids were becoming too annoying to bother with anymore. It's not like the Helvetii could cross the Rhine and defeat all the Germanic tribes - maybe one or two or possibly 10 but more would eventually take their place. There are many times playing as the Aedui that I flirt with the idea of abandoning Mediolanum to postpone the inevitable war with Rome, who, no matter how many times I defeat them in battle, just will not stop attacking...

What you guys are saying makes sense.

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-" in such circumstances their range of movement was less extensive, and their chance of waging war on their neighbors were less easy; and on this account they were greatly distressed, for they were men that longed for war."
If they left their homeland for lack of raiding what about what he says about going into the German lands and subduing them there? The Germans would have had cattle and other items that were "raid worthy". I'm sure it wouldn't have been up to the level of loot that Gaul could produce.

That the Helvetians originally lived in southern Germany is confirmed by the Alexandrian geographer Claudius Ptolemaios (ca. 90-168 AD), who tells us of an Ελουητίον έρημος (i.e. “Helvetic deserted lands”) north of the Rhine.[7] Tacitus knows that the Helvetians once settled in the area between Rhine, Main and the Hercynian forest.[8] The abandonment of this northern territory is now usually placed in the late 2nd c. BC, around the time of the first Germanic incursions into the Roman world, when the Tigurini and Toygenoi/Toutonoi are mentioned as participants in the great raids.

We all know the Helvetii burnt their homes and everything they couldn't take with them before leaving their land (for whatever reason), and that they were defeated in battle by Caesar and forced to return home...

I have also wondered this. I don't know what the reason these authors have said they were pressured to leave their home by the Germans. I should be receiving a new book soon that may cover the subject.

Frostwulf - for questions about German and Celtic ethnicity I found "Beyond Celts, Germans and Scythians" by Peter Wells useful. He just puts forward the case that not all what ancient Greek and Romans put forward about the northern barbarians is correct.

I have seen his book but have not read it of as yet. I hope to get to it before the years end. Thanks for the information.

When Caesar mentions the Helvetii successfully defending their lands against the Germans and even defeating them in their own (German) lands, he is doing so when giving his troops a pep talk, (see my post above). Frostwulf has replied that he takes what Caesar said as basically a motivational speech - just some "lies" made up to keep the Roman troops from worrying about facing the Germans.

Basically Helvetii beat Germans, Romans beat Helvetii, ergo Romans will beat Germans.

I find it odd that anyone would use lies to motivate and boost morale, but it isn't out of the question so Frostwulf can interpret the passage as he may.

Glewas I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I don't think Caesar was lying at all, but I do think he was omitting things. I even put down that I didn't think Caesar knew that the Germans pressured the Helvetii. You have to take into account he did omit the defeats of the Romans and for good reason.
For the Aedui weakling thing Rome didn't exactly have fond references to the Gauls, thinking them fickle and other such things. But we do know that the "weaklings" would have involved the elite of the Gauls at the time.
Glewas what part of my analysis did you disagree with and why?

[Watchman]

Simon James-"The World of the Celts"-"Slavery existed, although on a smaller scale than in the Classical world; slaves may have been most important as export commodities." pg. 53

I believe most slaves were acquired while raiding and the battles, but it doesn't seem to be in large numbers.

Given the first paragraph and the fact the Mediterranean region could always use more slaves, I'd actually be rather curious to hear where you drew that last conclusion from. Especially given the Celts' fondness of almost institutionalized raiding and fighting.

One thing I've been wondering about is the fact the Helveti ended up ravaging Aedui territory, and the latter asked the Romans to do something about the buggers. Now unless I've entirely misunderstood something the Aedui weren't exactly the smallest tribe around, so why is it one gets the impression they didn't do anything about their unwanted guests themselves ?

[Erebus26]

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-" in such circumstances their range of movement was less extensive, and their chance of waging war on their neighbors were less easy; and on this account they were greatly distressed, for they were men that longed for war."
If they left their homeland for lack of raiding what about what he says about going into the German lands and subduing them there? The Germans would have had cattle and other items that were "raid worthy". I'm sure it wouldn't have been up to the level of loot that Gaul could produce.

What I can't understand is why they(the Helveti) would they burn their oppida and other settlements. Was this a normal thing for Gallic tribes to do in times of war or migration? Or was it simply because they were afraid of invading tribes from the north taking over their settlements? Anybody have any theories?

Frostwulf - I found that wiki article you quoted about abandoned Helvetic lands north of the rhine very interesting. Especially the quotes from Tacitus and Claudius Ptolemaios. In fact Claudius seems to be writing about a recent event, or maybe I'm merely taking the quote out of context. There was a tribe called the Vindelici who were very powerful on the German side of the Rhine during the last centuries BC, but were finally subjugated by Tiberius in 15BC. I think they are also mentioned briefly by Caesar but I'm afraid I can't get a quote at this time.

[Fionnlagh]

What I can't understand is why they(the Helveti) would they burn their oppida and other settlements. Was this a normal thing for Gallic tribes to do in times of war or migration? Or was it simply because they were afraid of invading tribes from the north taking over their settlements? Anybody have any theories?

I think it had something to do with not giving the impression they were running away or retreating.

[Frostwulf]

Given the first paragraph and the fact the Mediterranean region could always use more slaves, I'd actually be rather curious to hear where you drew that last conclusion from. Especially given the Celts' fondness of almost institutionalized raiding and fighting.

The reason is because it was still a relatively peaceful area. The raids consisted of small groups of men, and the battles would have been few. With the raids and few battles there would not have been many slaves taken, but enough for trade to happen, I believe from what James was saying it was on a smaller scale.

One thing I've been wondering about is the fact the Helveti ended up ravaging Aedui territory, and the latter asked the Romans to do something about the buggers. Now unless I've entirely misunderstood something the Aedui weren't exactly the smallest tribe around, so why is it one gets the impression they didn't do anything about their unwanted guests themselves ?

The Sequani didn't stop the Helvetii because they were on good terms with them. The Germans had wiped out most of the nobles and cavalry of the Aedui but still later they were able to bring 10,000 men to aid Caesar.

What I can't understand is why they(the Helveti) would they burn their oppida and other settlements. Was this a normal thing for Gallic tribes to do in times of war or migration? Or was it simply because they were afraid of invading tribes from the north taking over their settlements? Anybody have any theories?

I believe Caesar said they burned down their oppida so they wouldn't be tempted to return.

Frostwulf - I found that wiki article you quoted about abandoned Helvetic lands north of the rhine very interesting. Especially the quotes from Tacitus and Claudius Ptolemaios. In fact Claudius seems to be writing about a recent event, or maybe I'm merely taking the quote out of context. There was a tribe called the Vindelici who were very powerful on the German side of the Rhine during the last centuries BC, but were finally subjugated by Tiberius in 15BC. I think they are also mentioned briefly by Caesar but I'm afraid I can't get a quote at this time.

It has piqued my curiosity as well, I hope to have a chance to check into it.

I have diverted the Gaesatae back to this thread:

That was actually the expected result whenever unarmoured close-order infantry had to suffer the attentions of skirmishers without a skirmish screen of their own to dissipate the effect. Skirmishers rarely did much damage to each other (since they could dodge most of the javelins), but if unopposed could severely hurt close-order troops (who couldn't, and AFAIK even light javelins can pierce shields worrisomely easily).

And I seem to recall an entire Spartan mora - the premier fighting force of Greece - wiped out by lightly armed peltasts, so there's really no point in saying a unit is weak because it fell victim to skirmishing tactics.

At Telemon the Gaesatae that did reach the Romans were dispatched quite easily, which is to be expected considering the situation. If you consider how they did at Clastidium and Mediolanum it was fairly poor.

You do realize that our Gaesatae are merely the elite part of the entire Gaesatae force, right?

I didn't see this in Plutarch,Polybius,nor Livy. If it were the elite of the Gaesatae why were they not differentiated by name. Irregardless of this, were did they stand out in any of the battles? Where is any evidence what so ever that shows the Gaesatae being anything but average at best?What it comes down to is the Gaesatae statistics are ridiculous based upon their performance of the battles they were in.

[Glewas]

Glewas I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I don't think Caesar was lying at all, but I do think he was omitting things. I even put down that I didn't think Caesar knew that the Germans pressured the Helvetii. You have to take into account he did omit the defeats of the Romans and for good reason.

For the Aedui weakling thing Rome didn't exactly have fond references to the Gauls, thinking them fickle and other such things. But we do know that the "weaklings" would have involved the elite of the Gauls at the time.

Glewas what part of my analysis did you disagree with and why?

Maybe not lie, but you do admit that he omits certain things, stretches the truth, etc.

My problem with your analysis/argument for this whole thread is that you rely a lot on the words of Caesar. Correct me if I am wrong but De Bello Gallico is not an unbiased work, recording the culture and times of the Romans, Celts, and Germans from ca. 60 BCE. on...

Now I may be generalizing, but did not Caesar recorded the events to publish in Rome so that everyone could read/hear how great a man he was, that, not only was he a great politician, and a great man from a respected and wealthy family, but also an accomplished general in battle? Hell, the whole Gallic war was just to refill his coffers after spending so much of his family's wealth as he climbed the political ladder and give him loyal veteran troops to allow him to compete with Pompey.

With all that taken into account why should anyone consider what Caesar said as 100% fact? He paints the Gauls in one stroke as crude backward savages, another as noble warrior barbarians, and another as weak saps (Aedui). The first shows Romans that his slaughter of the Gauls is justified as they are uncivilized and a threat to the Roman way, the second to show that the slaughter is not easy - that every battle is a "heroic victory," and the third to convince the anti-Caesars in Rome that this "war" was to protect Rome's allies against the hostile tribes of Gaul.

There is no real reason why Caesar had to report any truths when he could stretch them to fit his agenda... This doesn't mean that everything is fictionalized, but one should be a bit skeptical, but that is just my observation.

Now you do cite James and Goldsworthy as other sources, but I would be surprised if they didn't use Caesar as a source. Considering Goldsworthy's book is called "Caesar: Life as a Colossus" I would really be surprised if that was the case... but I doubt it. (No I haven't read Goldsworthy, but I am aware that the two authors probably have hundreds of sources for their books - that doesn't mean that every source is used equally or to the same amount).

Two more quick points:

If I remember correctly, you mentioned that, as you are “proving” that the Germans are superior to Gauls/Celts during Caesar's time, that 200 years prior (back to EB’s start time) they should still be superior.

You have made decent arguments backed up with sources (suspect they may or may not be) throughout most of this tread, and if you have rescinded this comment then please ignore the fact that I find said comment to be absurd. In EB’s time period the Romans alone have three different reforms, Celts two, and even the Sweboz will hopefully get one. Are you really trying to tell me that the Germanic armies were static for over 200 years? They didn’t grow in power or even lessen? If what you think is true then you really need to give a damn good reason why they didn’t invade Gaul en masse anytime during EB’s time period.

Of course if am not remembering correctly, and you didn’t make such a statement then I apologize.

Finally... as much energy as you have put into this threat and the thread for the Sweboz, for which I am impressed and commend you... I don’t really see many picking up your side of the argument. There are probably good reasons for this, mainly people not posting their own ideas. But come on... 11, going on 12 pages of pretty much the same thing, although a damn good read for those who care.

You and Psycho, (to give the Celts a single head of their own - not trying to dismiss the other posters), have made your points and neither seem to be willing to budge. I understand the lack of “sources” that the Celtic side has for their argument can be frustrating, but as mentioned above, just because you have them (or not), doesn’t mean you are right (or wrong). Do remember Psycho was the Faction coordinator for the Gauls at one time so I do hope he knows what he is talking about, sources or no.

But then again... you might be totally correct in your arguments and the EB members don’t want to admit a-historicity of the Gallic faction and are conspiring against you.... but they wouldn’t do that would they?

[IrishArmenian]

Yeah, and their defeating Milan only proves it more!
(I couldn't resist!)
However, this could definitley be handeled in EB2 much more appropriately, as the Celtic factions could just have very low loyalty and the kings could have very low authority.

[Frostwulf]

Glewas I agree with what you said in your post up until what I have for the quotes I will address below. Most authors if not all use Caesar as there would be a large gap in knowledge without his writings. As with most writers of Caesars time and before(after) they are subject to cultural prejudices and ignorance of certain things. Archeology alone will not illuminate history, the ancient writer helps to fill in allot of the gaps.

If I remember correctly, you mentioned that, as you are “proving” that the Germans are superior to Gauls/Celts during Caesar's time, that 200 years prior (back to EB’s start time) they should still be superior.

You have made decent arguments backed up with sources (suspect they may or may not be) throughout most of this tread, and if you have rescinded this comment then please ignore the fact that I find said comment to be absurd. In EB’s time period the Romans alone have three different reforms, Celts two, and even the Sweboz will hopefully get one. Are you really trying to tell me that the Germanic armies were static for over 200 years? They didn’t grow in power or even lessen? If what you think is true then you really need to give a damn good reason why they didn’t invade Gaul en masse anytime during EB’s time period.

Of course if am not remembering correctly, and you didn’t make such a statement then I apologize.

As far as the Germans being superior to the Celts prior to the TCA the only thing that could be said is that the Germans reversed the Celtic expansion. As for the TCA the Germans could be said to be superior based on the defeats of the type of Roman armies they defeated, who had previously defeated Celtic armies which outnumbered the Romans. Then of course we have Caesars time frame.
What do you consider static combat? The arms and armour of the Germans didn't change much during these times. The tactics used? The shield wall was used from before Caesars time for at least a 1,000 years later where the Anglo-Saxon's fought the Normans at the Battle of Hastings. Perhaps your referring to battle formations? If you look at the way the troops of Ariovistus were lined up, they are very similar to those used by the Franks,Lombards and etc. several hundred years later.

As far as why they didn't invade Gaul, they did:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=243
Also there is what Drinkwater says in this post:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=273

Finally... as much energy as you have put into this threat and the thread for the Sweboz, for which I am impressed and commend you... I don’t really see many picking up your side of the argument. There are probably good reasons for this, mainly people not posting their own ideas. But come on... 11, going on 12 pages of pretty much the same thing, although a damn good read for those who care.

I appreciate you saying that Glewas. But as far as not many picking up my side of the argument I find interesting. So far the other side of the argument has no evidence to back up its claims. My view is backed up with evidence and yet I'm a Roman apologist and "severely biased in favour of the Germans".

[Watchman]

Uhh... Frosty, not to be rude but thus far your 'evidence' has consisted of some rather selective and tendentious interpretation of what (rather little) is actually known; such as the mistake of assuming strategic success necessitated superior troop calibre...

[Erebus26]

Glewas I agree with what you said in your post up until what I have for the quotes I will address below. Most authors if not all use Caesar as there would be a large gap in knowledge without his writings. As with most writers of Caesars time and before(after) they are subject to cultural prejudices and ignorance of certain things. Archeology alone will not illuminate history, the ancient writer helps to fill in allot of the gaps.



As far as the Germans being superior to the Celts prior to the TCA the only thing that could be said is that the Germans reversed the Celtic expansion. As for the TCA the Germans could be said to be superior based on the defeats of the type of Roman armies they defeated, who had previously defeated Celtic armies which outnumbered the Romans. Then of course we have Caesars time frame.
What do you consider static combat? The arms and armour of the Germans didn't change much during these times. The tactics used? The shield wall was used from before Caesars time for at least a 1,000 years later where the Anglo-Saxon's fought the Normans at the Battle of Hastings. Perhaps your referring to battle formations? If you look at the way the troops of Ariovistus were lined up, they are very similar to those used by the Franks,Lombards and etc. several hundred years later.

As far as why they didn't invade Gaul, they did:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=243
Also there is what Drinkwater says in this post:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=273

I appreciate you saying that Glewas. But as far as not many picking up my side of the argument I find interesting. So far the other side of the argument has no evidence to back up its claims. My view is backed up with evidence and yet I'm a Roman apologist and "severely biased in favour of the Germans".

Totally agree with you frosty, although I'm still inclined to say that the TCA had a mixture of both 'Germanic' and 'Celtic' within their ranks.
As for the ethnicity - how can you define 'Celtic' and Germanic' as these were general names given to the occupants of Gaul and Germania by Roman and Greek historians and writers. The peoples belonging to Gaul and Germania at that time would have thought themselves as belonging to a tribe, and probably didn't have a kind of national identity. The Aedui and Sequani would have been most likely scared of invading Suebi rather than invading Germans. I would be interested to hear your views on this frosty.

I don't there was much difference in tactics either between 'Celts' and 'Germans'. After all the Helveti also used 'shield wall' tactics when fighting Caesar's legions. I think one major difference between the Suebi and their allies and the rest was the fact that they used a combination of cavalry and light infantry in battle. Caesar was obviously suitably impressed to include them in his own ranks at the time of Vercingtorix's revolt.

[Frostwulf]

Uhh... Frosty, not to be rude but thus far your 'evidence' has consisted of some rather selective and tendentious interpretation of what (rather little) is actually known; such as the mistake of assuming strategic success necessitated superior troop calibre...

I don't take it as rude. As for being selective I would have to disagree with you as I have tried to find differing views from the authors I have read. Allot of the authors I quote from came from Pyscho V. Tendentious would apply to all here, not just I. As far as: "such as the mistake of assuming strategic success necessitated superior troop calibre..."

The less dense is a possibility for the Germans replacing them, or it could be that the Germans had more people or it could just come down to the martial prowess of the Germans.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=312

Totally agree with you frosty, although I'm still inclined to say that the TCA had a mixture of both 'Germanic' and 'Celtic' within their ranks.

I agree with you on this, though at the beginning I think the majority would have been Germanic.

As for the ethnicity - how can you define 'Celtic' and Germanic' as these were general names given to the occupants of Gaul and Germania by Roman and Greek historians and writers. The peoples belonging to Gaul and Germania at that time would have thought themselves as belonging to a tribe, and probably didn't have a kind of national identity. The Aedui and Sequani would have been most likely scared of invading Suebi rather than invading Germans. I would be interested to hear your views on this frosty.

I believe this is born out in the ancient writers. The Germani from what I read always said they were Suebi,Chatti,Batavi or whatever. The only exception to this is when they were in Roman service where they may refer to themselves as Germani. As far as the Celts are concerned I'm not sure. They did use the term Germani when describing the Suebi(according to Caesar) so they may have linked those who spoke German to all be Germani.

I don't there was much difference in tactics either between 'Celts' and 'Germans'. After all the Helveti also used 'shield wall' tactics when fighting Caesar's legions. I think one major difference between the Suebi and their allies and the rest was the fact that they used a combination of cavalry and light infantry in battle. Caesar was obviously suitably impressed to include them in his own ranks at the time of Vercingtorix's revolt.

There may have been minor variances but for the most part I agree with you that they would have been very similar.

[Power2the1]

Totally agree with you frosty, although I'm still inclined to say that the TCA had a mixture of both 'Germanic' and 'Celtic' within their ranks.
As for the ethnicity - how can you define 'Celtic' and Germanic' as these were general names given to the occupants of Gaul and Germania by Roman and Greek historians and writers. The peoples belonging to Gaul and Germania at that time would have thought themselves as belonging to a tribe, and probably didn't have a kind of national identity. The Aedui and Sequani would have been most likely scared of invading Suebi rather than invading Germans. I would be interested to hear your views on this frosty.

I don't there was much difference in tactics either between 'Celts' and 'Germans'. After all the Helveti also used 'shield wall' tactics when fighting Caesar's legions. I think one major difference between the Suebi and their allies and the rest was the fact that they used a combination of cavalry and light infantry in battle. Caesar was obviously suitably impressed to include them in his own ranks at the time of Vercingtorix's revolt.

I agree. Regarding battle tactics of boths races here, I can think of a couple differences in battle protocol. Granted, I have not read as much as other historians on this board, so anyone feel free to post where I might be wrong :-)

Celts used "music" to a great effect. I have not heard how the carnyx sounded, but its rather scary if you imagine a Celtic army sounding on them as they begin a battle! I have not read much of the Germans battling with horns blaring, creating the dreadful din (not that they did not, however, I've just not read about evidence of them using horns to the extent of the Celtic armies.)

Germanic tactics, I would assume, relied more on the powerful charge. As we all know, one popular tactic was charging in wedge formation, crashing into their enemies front lines, attempting to break them quickly (like most "barbarian tribes). Its ashame the the wedge cannot be adapted to Germans in game.

Chariot ambushes, with riders throwing spears was mentioned being used heavily by the Briton Celts, the Germans most successful use of ambush in Teutoberg Wald, and the Gaulish use of skirmish and hit and run tactics provides for plenty to keep a "civilized" commander on his toes.

I read somewhere that Celtic oppida were designed in a way that slingers/archers could have an optimal line of fire. Anyone know how accurate this is?

Too bad none of them learned to adopt a more thorough battle plan on the whole. I often ask myself why didn't the barbarians over hundred's of years learn a more complex form of battle. Maybe the standard "charge and hope they break" worked just enough to keep in forefront in their minds