Celtic overpowered!

[Thaatu]

I won't comment on anyone, when they can't defend themselves, so that eats up most of my comments. I do have a few though.

Ross Cowan-“For the Glory of Rome”-“Vercingetorix now launched one of the greatest cavalry attacks in history on Caesar’s marching army. Some 15,000 mounted warriors in three divisions bore down upon it, but Caesar was not daunted. In the early stages of the campaign he had recruited large numbers of German mercenary cavalry, of whom the Gauls had an almost irrational fear. Vercingetorix’s final hammer blow made hardly a dent as caesar formed the legions into a hollow square (agmen quadratum) with the baggage in the centre, then let loose the Germans who routed the Gallic cavalry. Thus Caesar’s retreat halted abruptly. His army turned about and eagerly pursued Vercengetorix.” pg. 192-193

Remember to keep a critical mind in your investigation. "...One of the greatest cavalry attacks in history...", "...but Caesar was not daunted.", "...of whom the Gauls had an almost irrational fear." and "Vercingetorix’s final hammer blow made hardly a dent..." make the author sound like he believes every last detail that Caesar gives in his accounts. Not too scientific. I've read the first four "books" of Gallic Wars, and although the big picture is probably true, the details don't sound too realistic. You should remember that when quoting numbers from Caesar.

On that note, I too don't agree with the term "devastating civil war", but the term itself is of no importance. The argument on Psycho's part is simply that the two strongest Celtic tribes in the region lost a part of their warrior elite prior to Caesar's invasion, thus forcing the tribes to pit levies against their foes. Anyway this is not presented in EB, and Roman troops after Marian reforms beat the hell out of all but the highest level Celtic units, so I don't see a problem relating to game mechanics.

[Frostwulf]

btw I don't believe Psycho made his post up. To the man's defence, if we scroll back some pages he did claim he hated citing stuff and if we look more closely to his posts he didn't start citing until recently.

You of course are welcome to your opinion. To assume he is telling the truth because he claims he hated citing stuff though? Now I certainly don't expect anyone to believe me, that is why I use citations. In this particular case I put down not only the e-mail I received saying:

Iam afraid no book or article with title "Indo-European history" or "La
Tene Gaul" were
published by Karlova Univerzita. Maybe its not correct citation but I
didn't find anything with
this title.

I also put the e-mail address of the person in charge of cataloging and if anyone would know, she would. I put down the e-mail address so anyone can check for themselves.

Not to mention look at his misquotes, are you going to tell me you think that many misquotes are accidental? Especially since said quotes when skewed in the manner he put them would support his argument. If you look at the last one with Goldsworthy, it goes against his claim when quoted accurately.

If the Gallic tribes were not weakened... Then why in the hell would they need to call on the Suebi and the Romans to fight for them??????

As you have said other peoples have used mercenaries as did Caesar. As you know there were plenty of Romans to fill in the ranks, so why did they use Celts,Numidians,Germans etc.? I have read from a few authors that they think the Gauls had used German mercenaries before, and Gallic alliances are constantly shifting. I have pointed out that the Po Valley Celts called upon the Gaesatae of 30,000 men, so this might not be so unusual. Also during this time the Belgic tribes used Germanic mercenaries.
I have no citations to rely on, only my supposition. I think there was a stalemate between two powerful Gallic "states" and the Sequani sought to break this stalemate and brought in more troops. The Germani probably had a reputation of being really tough, so who better to bring in then the Germani.

"Larger or smaller groups of Germans often entered the country, invited or uninvited, to make conquests or merely to take booty. Yet such incursions seldom affected large areas of Gaul. "

I won't comment on anyone, when they can't defend themselves, so that eats up most of my comments. I do have a few though.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=110
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=111
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=112
and this one:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=125
or you could just read pages 4 and 5 of this thread to get the picture.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=97437

Remember to keep a critical mind in your investigation. "...One of the greatest cavalry attacks in history...", "...but Caesar was not daunted.", "...of whom the Gauls had an almost irrational fear." and "Vercingetorix’s final hammer blow made hardly a dent..." make the author sound like he believes every last detail that Caesar gives in his accounts. Not too scientific. I've read the first four "books" of Gallic Wars, and although the big picture is probably true, the details don't sound too realistic. You should remember that when quoting numbers from Caesar.

Cowan makes statements of exaggerated numbers, but the amount in the cavalry of Vercengetorix is still a large amount and that is why he calls it "One of the greatest cavalry attacks in history".

The argument on Psycho's part is simply that the two strongest Celtic tribes in the region lost a part of their warrior elite prior to Caesar's invasion, thus forcing the tribes to pit levies against their foes.

Thats not what he is claiming, he is saying the warrior class was all but wiped out.

They had squandered these troops in bitter civil war so much to the point that not one of the Aedui council remained alive. The devastation of this war cannot be understated. It was unprecedented / appears more extensive and vicious that any internal Celtic conflict prior.

Not one of the Aedui council remained alive? Funny there was some there to attack the Suebi and to go before Caesar. Can't be understated, squandered these troops etc. etc.

Where is the proof of what Psycho has said? He says things but doesnt back them up, why is that? He certainly had plenty of time, I had asked him numerous times. Where is any evidence at all? Not one person has submitted anything to support the view of the warrior class being wiped out.

On the other hand I have shown multiple historians/archaeologists saying the same things about how battles were done prior to the intervention of the Romans. How do you explain the large amount of cavalry as I have shown in other places to be mounted nobles. What about the 60,000 picked men and other type warriors mentioned by Caesar? You don't have "Celtic Gaul was generally a prosperous and peaceful region" if most of the "Warrior class" was destroyed.

Anyway this is not presented in EB, and Roman troops after Marian reforms beat the hell out of all but the highest level Celtic units, so I don't see a problem relating to game mechanics.

This hasn't been my experience but I don't want to deal with that till my next and final summery post which will deal with the historical units-Gaesatae,Soldurii and etc.

[NeoSpartan]

......As you have said other peoples have used mercenaries as did Caesar. As you know there were plenty of Romans to fill in the ranks, so why did they use Celts,Numidians,Germans etc.? I have read from a few authors that they think the Gauls had used German mercenaries before, and Gallic alliances are constantly shifting. I have pointed out that the Po Valley Celts called upon the Gaesatae of 30,000 men, so this might not be so unusual. Also during this time the Belgic tribes used Germanic mercenaries.
....

nonononononononono....close... but not there... maybe I need to clarify myself some more:

I am not talking about the sovereign hiring large numbers of mercenaries and leading them to battle like Hannibal did.

I am talking about the sovereign calling on a large number of foreign troops, which are led by a foreigner. And that foreign leader and his troops are not under control of the sovereign.

To use the Po Valley Celts as an example:
-The Po Valley Celts hired/called on the Gaesatae (btw that organization was no longer in existence by the time Ceasar and Arventicus showed up ) because they could not take on the Romans themselves. But still, the Po Valley Celts had a good deal of control or say on the movements, and battle position of the Gaesatae. HOWEVER, in the case of Caesar, he was not working in close conjunction, or under the direction of any Gallic tribe. There was no telling him where to move his troops inside Gaul, let alone telling him where to put his troops in battle. Same issue with the Suebi king.

[Gaius Valerius]

their weren't many 'real' german tribes at the time of caesar. that is, from a linguistic point of view. the rhine wasn't a linguistic/cultural border till the time of august. its hard to make a distinction in 'civilisations' when no written evidence (from themselves) is present. archeologically speaking we find the same items east/west of the rhine.

archeologist tend to make a difference between celtic speaking 'germans' at the time of caesar and german speaking 'germans' at the time of caesar. a migration took place between these 2 rulers. caesar spoke of germans only to justify he didn't march east of the rhine (he was there to conquer gaul, since they kicked his ass east of the rhine they weren't germans , smart dude he was )

[Moros]

Hi Gaius, Great to see other Belgians over here.
Are you studying History or Archeology?

[Gaius Valerius]

Hi Gaius, Great to see other Belgians over here.
Are you studying History or Archeology?

History in Ghent, though the knowledge is based on pre & proto-geschiedenis, which is from the department of archeology

[Moros]

History in Ghent, though the knowledge is based on pre & proto-geschiedenis, which is from the department of archeology

Ah, too bad. I was hoping you studied in Leuven. (like me)
Doing history myself, first year though.