Celtic overpowered!

[PSYCHO V]

As they say “a man convinced against their will is of the same opinion still”

Frosty, your flogging a dead horse my friend. Using the same quotes over and over again, ignoring evidence and your own errors and in some cases responding to my comments with text that is completely irrelevant.

I don’t have the time to give this the response it deserves. So in short:

Meaning you have no proof as it has "yet to be studied".

Did you miss the relevant quotes I provided or are you deliberately ignoring them?

The information I had was true, but it was out of context, therefore it was not erroneous.

Still trying to wriggle out of that one huh? I note the convenient switch from discussing your claim / position to that of the information. The validity of information was never part of the discussion. You made a claim that was wrong, for some reason you just can’t acknowledge it.

Ah yes the refuge of the losing argument- "you must be a Nazi"

So you’re ignoring the several quotes I’ve posted on the origins of your 'innately superior German' theory. Frosty, you can’t blame me for the fact that you’re espousing the same rationale / hypothesis as the Romanticists, German Nationalists and yes, the Nazis.

As with most things you seem to have problems understanding what was written.

It wasn't random data and it is logical to assume that the Germans fought roughly in the same way as they had before.

So you’re basically saying that you believe the Germanics were so stupid, that they were unable to effect one change within their socio-cultural communities over several hundred years?

You probably should start up a new thread if you want to write fiction about “Invincible Germanic Neanderthals” as this isn't really relevant to the topic here, "Celtic overpowered".

I said that Ariovistus had 6,000 horse, 6,000 footmen and 16,000 light troops. I have said that multiple times.

And the error repeated ..."mulitple times". The problem is that you’re claiming that the Romans had a significant numerical advantage, which is bolox

It’s also worth mentioning that the Helvetii charged a force ten times their size (400/4000) whilst the Germans only three times their size (1,600/5000)… so again, are the Gauls innately superior? …of course not!

1600 is an assumption as there is nothing really said except that there was 800 cavlary.

800 cavalry, 1600 troops… or does this need to be spelt out as well?

Even if I were to consider it as evidence I would have to disagree with Dr. James and go with … Goldsworthy

So much for defending this “excellent information by a well known and highly thought of Archaeologist”.

He does have excellent information and is highly regarded. If what you say he said is true about the Germans I would disagree with him

..(*sigh*)

Again this is not evidence, if I were to contact Dr.James and he said that nothing of the sort happened, what does that prove? You will still claim it did happen and my claim would be that it didn't.

And if you did and he repeated his comment you’d still dismiss it as indicated several times now. Truth is, you’ve been posting James’ comments all over the community in support of your hypothesis, citing his credentials and as soon someone else comes along with another quote that explicitly denies your hypothesis, you suddenly dismiss him.

Powell states that he believed the Romans were the weaker party for far longer, that “the Romans finally managed to turned the tide of Gaulish supremacy from the victory at the battle of Telamon (225 BC)”

This statement of his is obviously wrong.

Of course!

So we go from:

The Gauls had been defeating the Germans for centuries prior the beginning of the 1st C BC.

to

I repeat, you’re NOT talking about the same peoples. You may as well start making claims about the Germans vs the forces of the United States of America.

What exactly don't you understand here? You’ve confused yourself again by trying to view everything through the narrow minded paradigm of the “Timeless Celt”. I’ll say it again, you can’t ignore chronology and regional variation.

Three battles in fact. Catugnatos and his Allobroges defeated a Roman army led by Manlius Lentius at the Battle of Valence and then again at the Battle of the Isere, in which “His (Lentius’) army would have been wiped out but for a sudden storm which arose and hindred the attack”. Lentius fled and was able to apparently re-equipped his army with astonishing speed, drawing from the considerable reserves used to garrison various departments. The Allobroges were finally crushed between Lentius’ army and another huge force commanded by the Governor of Gallia Narbonesis, Gaius pomptinus. The Gauls / Allobroges, not able to make good the loss of their warrior elite surrendered.

Were not the Allobroges part of the Arverni/Sequani alliance? If so then how is it they were able to resist the Romans at all if the supposed "Devastating Civil War" happened.

(*sigh*)
I'm afraid in desperation you have again shot yourself in the foot. Giving further public evidence that you appear to lack a basic understanding of the period of history under discussion.

No! The Allobroges hadn’t been part of the alliance since the battle of Vindalium (121 BC), the battle that facilitated the onset of the war in question.

Hmm I mention what Dr.James says and you go from:

"We also know commercial production of many goods and trade all but ceased and large portions of the population starved or suffered from malnutrition."

to this:

"Yes!!.. Gaul was extremely prosperous (both fiscally and population wise), this is one of the main reasons why Caesar was so keen to pillage / conquer it! He did after all have huge personal debts".

Then this:

"This is born out in the material record with significant deposits of fragmentary war material, remains and most significantly thick ash levels around major sites dating to the period…"

To this:

"Archaeology only shows a burning / pillaging of minor settlements of no major value."

Nice try…context my friend. Yes, the later is regarding your quotes “during Caesar’s time”, the ones previous, to the conflicts prior. You do understand that the Arverni and Aedui fought prior to the period of Caesar’s campaign do you not? ..and you do understand that the aforementioned fought two major wars?

From this:

The devastation of this war cannot be understated. It was unprecedented / appears more extensive and vicious that any internal Celtic conflict prior.

To this:

Gaul was extremely prosperous because the Gauls did NOT engage in total war."

…and your point?

Further, the material record bears this out. The huge increase in the trade of slaves happens to coincide with the huge increase in the trade of wine.

Quote:
They (Gauls) are extremely partial to wine and glut themselves with the unmixed wine brought in by merchants. Their desire makes them guzzle it and when they get drunk, they either fall into a stupor or become manic. For this reason many Italian merchants, with their usual love for money, regard the Celtic passion for wine as a source of treasure. They transport the wine by boat on the navigable rivers and by cart … and get an incredibly good price for it; for one amphora of wine they get a slave. (Hist 5.26 Diodorus Siculus)

We have deposits of tens of thousands of distinctive Amphora of Dressel Type 1A & 1B dating to this period. Huge dumps like that found in Saone, Cabillonum (Chalon) testify to the significant increase in importation. Thus even in a war that would almost annihilate the warrior class, the precious wine was prized.

Well what do you know, “Whilst it is always necessary to treat texts of this kind with caution” doesn't help your argument, good thing you didn't put it in!

… well what do you know .. more desperation!

Neither helps nor hinders my friend. Frosty, unlike others about the place, I’ve got better things to do than type up text that is irrelevant to the point being discussed. Whether the Romans got 1 slave, 2 or 10 for each amphora is a mute point. The point was that the market was significant enough to warrant special mention. Are you going to dismiss the tangible evidence as well?

For starters, Caesar’s cavalry were also betrayed, by Ariovistus and his overtures of peace. Secondly, the mighty ‘800’ (even if Caesar is to believe on the numbers) ambushed the Gauls, experienced or not. Ceasar’s veteran legions ran at Gergovia, should we start claiming that Vercingetrix’s Gauls were all innately superior?

You should read and try to understand what Caesar has written. Fist (sic) off the "800" had nothing to do with Ariovistus, they were from the Usipetes and Tencteri. The Usipetes and Tencteri did not ambush the Gauls.

Please revisit the text and note how the Usipetes and Tencteri were seeking peace when they unexpectedly attacked.
You’re right however about Ariovistus, he wasn’t involved, my error …irrelevant point conceded.


Frosty, please re-read over some of my previous comments. Not only is your hypothesis of a innately superior Germanic volk critically flawed, but the very means / analytical method employed to support such a ridiculous notion is as well.

If you wish to persist in this thinking / the belief in the existence of an innately superior Germanic volk, all I can do is encourage you to continue your study and hope you'll have a change of mind.

I no longer have the time to due justice to this dicsussion and therefore will not be able to continue. I thank you for your input and time, apologise for any offence I may caused, my frustration, etc (it's all banter) and wish you well in the future.


Regards