Celtic overpowered!

[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decent arguments backed up with sources (suspect they may or may not be) throughout most of this tread, and if you have rescinded this comment then please ignore the fact that I find said comment to be absurd.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.

[Beefy187]

Im soo gonna embrass my self

In terms of strategy I read somewhere that Germans used more of an guerilla tactic. Like raids and ambush. Where Gauls fought field battles like the Romans.

I think Caesar mentioned that Celts were superior to Germans until they started making cities and farm and stuff. They became more rich which made them more weak. While Germans rarely stayed in one place because they preffred hunting and raiding.

Sorry if this has been said before. I didnt have time to read the entire thread.

[Megas Methuselah]

Sorry if this has been said before. I didnt have time to read the entire thread.

Who does?

[NeoSpartan]

Who does?

I did!!!!

Over a period of mothts that is

[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

[blitzkrieg80]

the wedge formation CAN be adapted to RTW: in fact it doesn't make sense for a single unit to do a wedge formation, because it should be more tactical in manner, similar to legions:

Saxo Grammaticus describes the svínfylkir "wedge formation" in his History of the Danes, which shows a good map of where Dugunthiz stood on the social/ battlefield importance scale... these scans are from the English Warrior by Pollington and Saxo Grammaticus by David & Fisher: WARNING MASSIVE FILE... some nice text on the right too


The Germany Army composition should consist of 2 main lines (even in ambush) with the Youth (skirmishers) along the front and the Veteran spearmen behind them, flanked with Support and/or Levy troops. The King/General is directly in the middle of the battle line as a 3rd grouping unto themselves, flanked by personal followers/bodyguard, in front of them is a special elite/vanguard 2nd and 1st line middle force who are even with the rest in ambush but will eventually form the point of a wedge formation.

(facing upwards toward the enemy)
1st line:
.........................Club Infantry | Skirmishers| Skirmishers | Chatti Club Infantry | Skirmishers | Skirmishers | Club Infantry

2nd line:

Levy Spear | Levy Spear | Spearmen | Spearmen | Chatti Spearmen | Chatti Spearmen | Spearmen | Spearmen | Levy Spear | Levy Spear

3rd line:
...........................................................Heavy Infantry | (Bodyguard) | Heavy Infantry

KEY:
Germanic Skirmishers: Jugunthiz
Chatti Club Infantry: Jugunthiz Hattisku
Germanic Club Infantry: Slaganz
Germanic Spearmen: Dugunthiz
Chatti Spearmen: Dugunthiz Hattisku
Germanic Levy Spearmen: Gaizōz Aljē
Germanic Heavy Infantry: Thegnōz Drugulē
Germanic Bodyguard Infantry: Herthaganautōz


*Some of this has been copy and pasted from other commentary by me, so when I mention the Dugunthiz it might seem weird and this composition isn't a FOR SURE ALWAYS kind of thing, it's an example, so you can substitute similar units easily: in fact, the scan graphic has the real sketch/reference information we have on such, so you can determine your own wedge formation

[Power2the1]

the wedge formation CAN be adapted to RTW: in fact it doesn't make sense for a single unit to do a wedge formation, because it should be more tactical in manner, similar to legions:

Saxo Grammaticus describes the svínfylkir "wedge formation" in his History of the Danes, which shows a good map of where Dugunthiz stood on the social/ battlefield importance scale... these scans are from the English Warrior by Pollington and Saxo Grammaticus by David & Fisher: WARNING MASSIVE FILE... some nice text on the right too


The Germany Army composition should consist of 2 main lines (even in ambush) with the Youth (skirmishers) along the front and the Veteran spearmen behind them, flanked with Support and/or Levy troops. The King/General is directly in the middle of the battle line as a 3rd grouping unto themselves, flanked by personal followers/bodyguard, in front of them is a special elite/vanguard 2nd and 1st line middle force who are even with the rest in ambush but will eventually form the point of a wedge formation.

(facing upwards toward the enemy)
1st line:
.........................Club Infantry | Skirmishers| Skirmishers | Chatti Club Infantry | Skirmishers | Skirmishers | Club Infantry

2nd line:

Levy Spear | Levy Spear | Spearmen | Spearmen | Chatti Spearmen | Chatti Spearmen | Spearmen | Spearmen | Levy Spear | Levy Spear

3rd line:
...........................................................Heavy Infantry | (Bodyguard) | Heavy Infantry

KEY:
Germanic Skirmishers: Jugunthiz
Chatti Club Infantry: Jugunthiz Hattisku
Germanic Club Infantry: Slaganz
Germanic Spearmen: Dugunthiz
Chatti Spearmen: Dugunthiz Hattisku
Germanic Levy Spearmen: Gaizōz Aljē
Germanic Heavy Infantry: Thegnōz Drugulē
Germanic Bodyguard Infantry: Herthaganautōz


*Some of this has been copy and pasted from other commentary by me, so when I mention the Dugunthiz it might seem weird and this composition isn't a FOR SURE ALWAYS kind of thing, it's an example, so you can substitute similar units easily: in fact, the scan graphic has the real sketch/reference information we have on such, so you can determine your own wedge formation

Are you saying that the wedge formation can be made as a formation in game? I was thinking it could not for infantry, but only for cavalry units. Not sure though. I know that units can position themselves and arrange themselves into wedge formation if thats what you were refering to :-)

Speaking of which, in the wedge diagram you posted above, do you know where (if any) Germanic skirmisher or heavy cavalry units be positioned? Were they on the far left/right flanks, or were they used as strictly skirmishers that would engage only at the beginning of battle to soften them up, and then again when the enemy was routing by riding the enemy down with their swift light horses?

[blitzkrieg80]

the "Youth" who made up the front line would usually be considered skirmishers, which they are in EB, as well as on the colored configuration I show.

Cavalry is a very good question because there isn't much info on that, but I would believe they'd be kept as reserves, similar to how Caesar used them, but depending on the role, since the Ridoharjoz might be considered skirmishers and screen at the front. Also I doubt they'd be positioned on wings as Romans, I'm thinking you got the idea with softening up at the beginning then in reserve.

Yes, i meant using an overall army formation and not a unit ability.