Celtic overpowered!

[Moros]

good luck in Leuven, but i've always been hooked on Ghent, and as i'm from west-vlaanderen, its also a lot closer. though the depart of letteren & wijsbegeerte is a nice building (sweet big libraries). couldn't find the entrance though the first time i came there

Got quite a bit of people who first go to the KULAK and then come over here, believe me. I've been surrounded at times by people from West-Vlaanderen, pretty confusing if you live in Limburg. lol :p

Also some notes on topic. Belgae, or better the tribes that lived in Nowadays Belgium, Nothern France, and parts of Netherlands and Germany (this side of the Rhine) indeed have 'Germanic' influence. But Archeology and names seem to suggest a celtic language. Also culturally they seem to have more in common with Celts from Gaul. Ofcourse it didn't just change across the Rhine. Every Tribe had it's own recipy. Take the Nervii for example, a Belgae tribe at "Celtic side" of the Rhine, not to close even. Seemed to have a verry high Germanic influence, and seemed to claim to be originating from Germany and being proud of it. But if you' go more towards the Rhine you could stumble upon a tribe looking more Celtic than them, or you could stumble upon a verry German like tribe (Atuatuci, Eburoni for example). It think you can't draw a line really.

Also isn't the suffix Rix, instead of Ix. IIRC Rix was the word for King in Celtic. (originating from the same word as Rex, or lating for King)

[blitzkrieg80]

Yes, Gaul rix / L rex comes from the Indo-European word for "right" *reģ (literally and figuratively- thus the relationship of this leadership position to the users of the term is slightly elucidated), "to straighten" or "set right", some think it's related to justice as in right or wrong.

[Gaius Valerius]

It think you can't draw a line really.

Also isn't the suffix Rix, instead of Ix. IIRC Rix was the word for King in Celtic. (originating from the same word as Rex, or lating for King)

-true
-my bad


and indeed, the linguistic differences between flemish ppl are quite big. even in ghent - which is relatively close - they wouldn't understand me in plain west-vlaams, while for those from antwerp they're like what? what? waa wès daaa nau? i also think i wouldn't understand real limburgs that easily. my grandma is from bocholt but she's been living here for almost all her life and her language is funniest of all. not west vlaams, not limburgs... hmmm... westburgs

[Frostwulf]

Some reply to Ranika's post about the "What if" scenario:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=519
On Vercingetorix:

He was seen as a tyrant, because he wanted to set himself up as king of Gaul. This didn't fly with the substantial number of tribes who wanted the magistrates back (the government which the Aedui inherited, the original government of Gaul). Some provided (substantially reduced) support to Vercingetorix, others withdrew their support entirely. He's not really much of a hero. He was, from the view of numerous other Gauls, self-serving, and not worth supporting (essentially considering 'What's the difference between a Gallic tyrant and a Roman tyrant?'; so little that there's no reason to fight for either).

Yet he was able to get "Supposedly with more than 200,000 warriors from at least 40 Celtic tribes". Atlas of the Celts pg.85

John King-"Kingdom of the Celts-"Vercingetorix must have had some very impressive personal qualities to have persuaded the tribal elders that he deserved the kingship." pg.123

John King-"Kingdom of the Celts-"Vercingetorix received a previously unknown level of confidence and support: he was elected King of Gaul, and very quickly secured the allegiance not only of his own powerful tribe, the Arverni, but also of the Senones, Parisii, Cadurci, Turoni, Aulerci, Lemovices, Andes, Pictones, Santoni and Aquitani. To the best of our knowledge, no Gaulish king had ever been afforded that title or honour." pg. 123-123

He wasn't a hero but he was able to convince tribes to:

Goldsworthy-"Caesar Life of a Colossus"-"The Biruriges set fire to twenty of the main settlements in response to this order. Vercingetorix argued that terrible though this was, the alternative was death for the warriors and enslavement for their families. His strategy was considerably more sophisticated Than that employed by Caesar's earlier opponents, and Vercingetorix must clearly have possessed considerable charisma and force of personality to persuade his followers the necessity of such uncompromising measures. It was remarkable just how much the tribes were willing to sacrifice, but unsurprising that they occasionally balked at the prospect." pg.324

There is this though:

Goldsworthy-"Caesar Life of a Colossus"-"For a while there was dissension in the Gaulish army, some even claiming that Vercingetorix was in league with the Romans and wished to be made king of all Gaul with Caesar's aid. It is more than likely that the two men had met, and fairly probable that Vercingetorix had even received some favors from Caesar during his cultivation of the Arvernian aristocracy. eventually he calmed them, bringing out captive Roman slaves and claiming that they were legionaries. The men had been coached to tell a plaintive story of the hardships and shortages in the Roman camp. Having convinced the men of the wisdom of his plan, he and the other chieftains selected 10,000 warriors and sent them to reinforce Avaricum." pg.325-326

Atlas of the Celtic World-" Even the greatest of Celtic war leaders, Vercingetorix, could not mobilize all the Gauls against Caesar's legions."pg. 27

Granted the above is of no real relevance.

For the "Devastating Civil War" part:

Now, if we say no civil war, this assumes a few things. One, Ambicatus's kingdom of Gaul never collapsed. This means, probably, the Germanic invasions were repelled, and the Belgae probably more handily defeated (this matter was largely handled by the Carnutes). Two, there's been no crisis in this time that caused the little kings to lose faith in the magistrates. The Vergobret and the Gallic 'senate' are still in control of all of Gaul. We'll also assume that, for whatever reason, they've remained in more or less the same borders, though in reality the magistrates probably would have been accepting submission from numerous more tribes, and probably would've expanded more in Italy and conquered or otherwise subverted the central European Bononae (northern Boii) and maybe some Germans. However, for safety's sake, we'll just say they control a portion of northern modern Italy, modern France, a chunk of southeast Britain (where the Casse start in EB; they were effectively Gauls in most respects, and it had been part of the old kingdom), and pockets in northern Iberia.

There is this about Ambicatus and his time period:

Peter Ellis-"The Celtic Empire"-"I have chosen the title The Celtic Empire for this history perhaps somewhat mischievously. Any resemblance to empires as we know them, such as the Roman empire or more recent examples, is in fact spurious. There emerges no known sustained series of Celtic emperors having supreme and extensive political dominion over numerous subject peoples." pg.1

Atlas of the Celts-"During the Early La Tene period, some of these Celtic elites consolidated into larger tribal groupings that became associated with a geographical area, the Boii in Bohemia, for example. In 400 BC, these 'tribes' were the largest ethnic units to which any of the Celtic-speaking inhabitants of Europe would have admitted belonging; and the vast majority would have had no greater sense of belonging than to their own dispersed village." pg. 53

Early La Tene A-B1, 475-350BC.

Dr. Barry Raftery; Dr.Jane McIntosh, Clint Twist
*Atlas of the Celts-"Warfare between Celts-to restore hurt pride, score points off neighbours or just for sheer entertainment-may well have developed into fairly ritualized affairs intended to minimise casualties among the elite. The concept of 'national' warfare would have been entirely alien to Celts at the end of the 5th century BC. Such concepts could only arise when the elites came into military conflict with a significant other (as opposed to peoples less well organised then themselves), in the form of highly disciplined Mediterranean armies." pg.53

B.Cunliffe-"The Ancient Celts"-"Standing back from the evidence, briefly summarized here, we can see that during the course of the fifth century there arose two zones of power and innovation: a Marne-Moselle zone in the west with trading links to the Po Valley via the central Alpine passes and the Golasecca culture, and a Bohemian zone in the east with separate links to the Adriatic via the eastern Alpine routes and the Venetic culture. Both zones, and their constituent regions, had already begun to develop a significant foci of power towards the end of the Late Hallstatt phase, but what stands out a s particularly dramatic is that most of the core of the west Hallstatt elite zone, so dominant in the late sixth and early fifty centuries, was now a cultural backwater. In other words, as the centre decayed, its northern periphery flourished-in much the same way as a mushroom ring grows.
To offer explanations for the phenomenon is not easy. On the one hand, it could be argued that readjustments in trading pressures from the Mediteranean states caused social dislocation north of the Alps upsetting the delicate balance of the prestige goods economy. Perhaps the interests of the Greek cities of the Golfe du Lion turned more to the west as the lucrative Iberian market developed leaving the northern markets open to exclusive Etruscan manipulation. It could also be that internal social dynamics in Transalpine Europe were the prime cause. The peripheral zone , so long producing the supplies of raw materials such as furs, amber, iron, gold, and slaves for the core, may have developed a penchant for southern luxuries. Given the warrior nature of peripheral society, reflecting no doubt the practice of raiding, then aggressive moves against the west Hallstatt core may have destabilized and destroyed the old system. Perhaps it was a combination of all these factors which brought abut the dramatic changes of the fifth century. At any event, by about 400 BC the scene was set for a new act in the story of Europe-the Celtic migrations."pg.66-67

He mentions the raiding, but why doesn't he mention that the destruction was cause by a massive "Devastating Civil War"?

B.Cunliffe-"The Ancient Celts"-The most convincing evidence for an exodus of population comes from the Marne region. A study of the rich burial data shows that during the fifth century a large stable population occupied the region, its elite buried in state with their two-wheeled vehicles and wine-drinking equipment. But some time about 400 BC the population suddenly declines. Thereafter, only one major focus developed, in the Reims area, while much of the rest of the Champagne region appears to have been deserted. Taken at face value, the evidence strongly suggests that a very high proportion of the populations must have moved out, leaving only one lineage to maintain a single power centre. Much of the same kind of evidence can be seen in the Rhineland. Although there was a marked degree of continuity between the distribution and range of burials from the fifth to the fourth centuries, a sharp reduction in the actual number of burials is recorded, particularly of warrior burials normally accompanied by swords." pg. 74-75

If there is such a "Devastating Civil War" how is it that there is such a large population that is leaving? Why if there was such a "Devastating Civil War" is there a sharp reduction in warrior burials?

There is more of this kind of stuff but I believe that should be sufficient. Just like I showed during the 2nd-1st centuries BC, the same is said of the 5th-4th centuries BC. There was no "Devastating Civil War" that wiped out the warrior class, there was raiding and some battles and that was about it. Again this probably ranks on the severity scale around a 3 or less.
For the 2nd-1st century BC "Devastating Civil War":
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=502

Ranika(seems like a descent guy) had no evidence other then his say so. Now can anyone at all provide any evidence supporting the "Devastating Civil War"?

[Redmeth]

The people who write the books are people who examine evidence and draw their own conclusions. It's not like their word is gospel. Granted they are very well informed much more than most (any?) of us here but they're still people living in this century it's not like they had the inside story interviewing Vercingetorix or Caesar.

Caesar work cannot be taken word for word, he praises some criticizes some etc. So when you look at evidence you might get an idea someone else might get another idea, it's human nature. I for one believe that there was something more going on in Gaul than Caesar has written but exactly what we'll never know. Quoting passages from authors will not prove your point beyond doubt. And the other way around if I were to quote an author that says "there are indications of a devastating civil war" you'd just quote back and say that the other one has no evidence. It's a vicious circle.

I am in no way saying that all the works you cited are doubtful (I've just read Cunliffe's book The Ancient Celts excellent btw) but all the works published don't usually go into great detail it would probably be overwhelming to be honest and they tend to stay on the safe side of things not theorizing too much.

So please we get it you don't agree with the Civil War Theory there was only raiding etc everyone gets it... How do you like 1.0, have you played with the Sweboz/Aedui/Arvernii a campaign, are you enjoying the game?

EDIT: BTW you quote Ranika's What If post by telling him there was no Gallic Empire, it's a what if scenario... And the part about raiding you quote is from the period before 400 BC (before the migrations) quite a way off from the period under discussion...

[The Wandering Scholar]

Every book is made to sell, bottom line. Therefore books can not be completely reliable or considered such. Well, that is what Critical Thinking does to you.

[paullus]

He mentions the raiding, but why doesn't he mention that the destruction was cause by a massive "Devastating Civil War"?

Quote:
B.Cunliffe-"The Ancient Celts"-The most convincing evidence for an exodus of population comes from the Marne region. A study of the rich burial data shows that during the fifth century a large stable population occupied the region, its elite buried in state with their two-wheeled vehicles and wine-drinking equipment. But some time about 400 BC the population suddenly declines. Thereafter, only one major focus developed, in the Reims area, while much of the rest of the Champagne region appears to have been deserted. Taken at face value, the evidence strongly suggests that a very high proportion of the populations must have moved out, leaving only one lineage to maintain a single power centre. Much of the same kind of evidence can be seen in the Rhineland. Although there was a marked degree of continuity between the distribution and range of burials from the fifth to the fourth centuries, a sharp reduction in the actual number of burials is recorded, particularly of warrior burials normally accompanied by swords." pg. 74-75

If there is such a "Devastating Civil War" how is it that there is such a large population that is leaving? Why if there was such a "Devastating Civil War" is there a sharp reduction in warrior burials?

I'm not sure this quotation actually supports your argument. Population displacement is a common result of either major economic disruption or major conflict. How exactly do you see populations dispersal and displacement as refuting a civil war? Similarly, decreased numbers of warrior burials would also fit with the idea of a civil war. For the 5th-4th century, burying a warrior with his arms, a chariot, and various expensive goods was indicative of wealth and status. In the event of pervasive warfare, retention of weapons likely outweighed the ritual significance of warrior burials, and in the case of population dispersal and large battle casualties, we might expect fewer burials, especially fewer warrior burials, which we indeed find.

[Frostwulf]

And the other way around if I were to quote an author that says "there are indications of a devastating civil war" you'd just quote back and say that the other one has no evidence. It's a vicious circle.I for one believe that there was something more going on in Gaul than Caesar has written but exactly what we'll never know.

What do you base this on? From some guys on this forum? One guy who couldn't backup his statements so he had to distort citations and make one up? I'm truly curious what your basing this on.

And the other way around if I were to quote an author that says "there are indications of a devastating civil war" you'd just quote back and say that the other one has no evidence. It's a vicious circle.

This is the major problem, not one historian/archaeologist has said anything to support this.

"The Dacians could have held back the Celts early on, they were really powerful and tough. They had such a fine technology that they made these incredibly sharp swords. Just as the Celts started to enter the lands of the Dacians, things went wrong. A huge earthquake hit as the Dacians were heading to meet the Celts, sadly most of their warriors fell on their sharp swords and were either impaled or cut so badly they bled to death. The remaining warriors were so grief stricken they destroyed all the super sharp Dacian swords and vowed never to make them again."

Now I could use your same argument to back up this ridiculous story I made up. But for game purposes we have to go with what is most likely the situation. To date I have seen nothing from any credible source that backs up the 2 "Devastating Civil Wars", on the contrary there is only evidence to dismiss it.

EDIT: BTW you quote Ranika's What If post by telling him there was no Gallic Empire, it's a what if scenario... And the part about raiding you quote is from the period before 400 BC (before the migrations) quite a way off from the period under discussion...

The reason for this statement is that Psycho V made a comment that there had been 2 "Devastating Civil Wars", so when Ranika made this comment:

Now, if we say no civil war, this assumes a few things. One, Ambicatus's kingdom of Gaul never collapsed.

I assumed that the first "Devastating Civil War" happened sometime after his death. But you are correct that this first one has no bearing on EB.

Every book is made to sell, bottom line. Therefore books can not be completely reliable or considered such. Well, that is what Critical Thinking does to you.

I agree with this, but everyone has to trust something. Was there really a people called Celts? If there was how did you find out about them? Most likely the book that was made to sell. I guess we have to read a bunch and come to our own conclusions.

[Frostwulf]

I'm not sure this quotation actually supports your argument. Population displacement is a common result of either major economic disruption or major conflict. How exactly do you see populations dispersal and displacement as refuting a civil war? Similarly, decreased numbers of warrior burials would also fit with the idea of a civil war. For the 5th-4th century, burying a warrior with his arms, a chariot, and various expensive goods was indicative of wealth and status. In the event of pervasive warfare, retention of weapons likely outweighed the ritual significance of warrior burials, and in the case of population dispersal and large battle casualties, we might expect fewer burials, especially fewer warrior burials, which we indeed find.

Sorry about missing your post Paullus, I didn't check things after I posted as I had been up 20+ hours before posting.
I think this will answer what your saying:

B.Cunliffe-"The Ancient Celts"-" In such a situation, the problem of a growing population could be dealt with in several ways. At its simplest, a small entourage under a leader could move out from the homeland, to find a new ecological niche to occupy. A process such as this would have led to the establishment of enclaves of elite warriors, distant from the homeland, who might at least for a generation or two, have retained their identity in an archaelogically-visible form. It is possible that the clusters of Early La Tene vehicle burials along the Lower Seine, in the Ardennes and the Haine, and even the group who emerged in Yorkshire, may have owed their origin to this kind of small-scale warrior exodus.
At the other end of the scale, larger bands of roaming warriors having no particular territorial base may have come together under one or more charismatic leader. It is quite possible that the Gaesatae-warriors who, according to Polybius, were 'available for hire' and were decked out in 'a variety of armour' and were to be found 'about the Alps and on the Rhone'-were itinerant fighters of this kind. Growing population and rigid social constraints in the homelands could well have swelled their numbers. In such a turbulent and unstable situation, it would need only the decision on the part of one leader to take his entourage to the rich pickings of the south for the news to spread and others to follow, swelling the numbers to a migration and creating a momentum of Celtic populations into the Po Valley: it might also be expected to have left traces in the home territories." pg. 74

Most authors(including the classical ones)say(speculate) the reason for the migrations was because of overpopulation. You also have to remember Cunliffe said this:"during the fifth century a large stable population occupied the region". Large and stable populations don't speak well of "Devastating Civil Wars" or any wars for that matter.

[Frostwulf]

@Gertrude I never considered myself to have a holier then thou attitude. What I do consider is that no one else including members from the EB team seems to provide any evidence to counter what I have provided.
If you have read most of my posts you will see that I have on more then one occasion praised the EB team as I feel that they have done an excellent job. I do disagree with their rendering of the Celtic elite and have debated the subject with others.
If you bothered to even read the last 2 pages you would see why I have revisited this thread. If you would have tried to read this thread you would have noted not only am I using authors mentioned by the EB team member(Psycho V) you would have noticed that more authors and different quotes were used.

And you still haven't answered the following question : In your opinion are Gallic factions overpowered in EB ? If so why are they beaten by the Romans in 90% of the campaigns ?

Again if you would have read this thread you would realize that this mod is about historical accuracy in its units, which for the Celtic elites I believe is wrong.