I am not good at the whole quote thing. My opinions are in bold

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking
And there was formerly a time when the Gauls excelled the Germans in prowess, and waged war on them offensively..( De Bello Gallico 6.24)

I might can see that that could have happened. I am sure it was the other way around too. I doubt the Germanic tribes took it sitting down.


Originally Posted by Originally Posted by Frostwulf
1)…Romans>Germans>Celts <~~~
2)…The Germans outclassed the Celts..regardless of the territory.
3)…The Celts were not as good as the Romans nor the Germans.
4)…I believe the German warrior to be superior.
5)…The Germans should be superior to them (Gauls).
6)… If there was any weakening to the Celts during Caesar's time it was because of the Germans

The 1), 2), etc... that you see above are my inserts btw.
1) Depends on time period. Up until the Celtic Civil war, I would put the Celts on par with the Romans. They both defeated and won battle against each other. I should make a tally sheet do see what the ratio was..
2) I doubt that. Again, depends on time frame we are talking about.
3) See #2
4) & 5) I respect your opinion
6) Thats not what I have gleaned in my various readings. This Civil war was between two side of the Celts and their allies adn mercenaries. The Germans were a hired "side show," though they turned out to be decisive I am sure in some battles, they could not have been the only factor. If that was so, and the Gauls were such easy pickings, why didn't we have a Germanic invasion (Like we found with the Anglo-Saxons heading to Britain in the 5-6 centuries A.D. after the Romans left) finding itself doing the same in Gaul?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Erroneous would be claiming that Caesar's quote …was about a supposed "Devastating Celtic War" as opposed to what it really was, a 10 year war with the Germans. What about the duel with Virdomarus? How about the Celts defeating the Germans for centuries? These are erroneous statements.

This is impossible. If the Celts were constantly fighting Germans, there'd be massive loss of life on both sides. The Germans were hardy, no doubt, but their native lands could not hold the population that Gaul could. So take warrior after warrior, kill them in battles, and its should be obvious that a fertile rolling flatlands of Gaul, full of Celtic farmsteads and crops, could hold and sustain more warriors and people that dark, swampy, shady forest population centers that were prevalent (though perhaps not dominant) in Germany.

That being said, its way more likely that the Civil War would have cost the Celts on both sides (Aedui and Arverni) all their manpower, while one side would have to get a relatively ample supply of warriors from a land that had warriors and lands that were not ravaged and depleted by war (the Germans).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
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.

I agree.


You are claiming the Gallic warriors were weak (not experienced etc.) because they were devastated from a "Civil War" and are therefore not of the same caliber of the Celts of the 3rd century BC and before.
Quote:
“Throughout the Gallic campaigns German warriors consistently defeated their Gallic counterparts, each success adding to their fierce reputation”. Goldsworthy “Caesar” -Pg.274


I would claim the same thing too when you look at the situation. Yes, experienced bands of German Warriors, that had no Civil War ravaging their homelands for decades, would defeat unexperienced, war weary men whose civilization was being torn apart by two opposing side as well as being invaded by the mighty Romans.

You must admit, the Celts fought to the bitter end bravely. They took on Caesars Veteran Legions (routing them at times), the Germans (who were ready, fresh troops from a non civil war affected society), themselves, *and still* managed to offer determined resistance to the Roman Legions and German troops for 7 years (58-51 B.C.E.) in addition to the Civil War which depleted their war machine for decades.

Though I might get flamed hard, and I might veer off in highly debatable issues here, but when I think about it, it seems throughout ancient history when the Germans came on the scene, they never really faced whole, powerful, equal empires that could field warriors on an even platform. I feel they are vastly overrated. They went against and warred versus land and peoples that were long past their prime. Western Rome was declining fast, in fighting, political turmoil, the lack of a strong emperor central figure, etc...had taken its toll for generations, and when the Germans came knocking, their was not a substantial military response tho their advance. In Britain, the Romano-British had all their Legions whisked away, left to fend for themselves versus warrior hordes descending from Scotland (Picts), Ireland, and German Saxons and Angles.

Germans never had to face such odds until WW2